Henchmen/Followers/Hirelings

[lanir]

Not sure it matters but the first time I saw a playable 0 level character was from the 1e cavalier in Unearthed Arcana. That was probably the tip of the iceberg for that idea.

I see followers in 1e & 2e as being an early attempt at modeling an idea. They do it very poorly which is why the rules for them don't make any sense. As far as I can tell they're really only there to model an organization that your PC gets to be in charge of. They didn't want to hand everybody the same group so they altered it based on class. The cleric's followers are paid by the religious order. How do I know that? Because it doesn't mention them starving to death anywhere or being unavailable most of the time because they're out farming or looting the countryside for a meal. The fighter, although he may have to pay for his men, should also have some income from them. If he has a large militant force in an area he should be collecting taxes from it or getting paid by the local rulers to defend their realm.

All of this stuff is a headache and frankly it's an intrusive bit of nonsense in most games I've heard about or played to high enough levels to get followers (3.x/Pathfinder for the latter). In my latest 2e game I used Skills & Powers and had everyone buy something else instead of followers. I prefer to introduce these things organically as part of a story.

[Billy_Buttcheese]

This was such a great topic, I hadda raise dead on it.

For me, a henchmen is always a classed leveled npc that you can hire, or find/make into someone loyal to you.
Hirelings are just paid help and rarely are levelled.
Followers are those who come to you from you fame. However Under the fighter's followers it does in parts say they stay as long as they are paid.. Which makes me wonder are they just slightly higher loyalty hirelings??

This pretty much sums up my interpretation of it. Never looked into the 2nd Ed interpretation.

Hal, keep in mind that these flunkies played a much bigger role in OD&D. Perhaps EGG just felt they were already fleshed out enough for folks that were making the transition from OD&D to AD&D and didn't require much more separate/new coverage/explanation.

Hirelings, like a rental car. Typically fill a specific need on a short term basis.
Henchmen, someone that can become a friend and possibly be mentored to by the hiring PC. Loyal as long as they're paid regularly and never treated as a meat shield.
Followers, attracted to the PC by their name and/or reputation. Loyal as long as their goals remain the same or similar. Sometimes paid for their upkeep.

[garhkal]

Nice minor raise dead..

So would hirelings or henchmen have the 'higher loyalty' base?
What of hirelings and followers?

[Billy_Buttcheese]

Not certain exactly what you're asking here. Obviously henchmen will have a stronger loyalty base provided their needs are being met. Hirelings only loyalty lies with the sack of coins they're going to receive following a successful adventure.

Followers v. henchmen is a bit trickier. Follower loyalty will always be strong as long as their chosen leader continues living the life that brought the followers in the first place but especially if they are not expecting pay. Gold can go a long way in keeping loyalty strong, even among those voluntarily serving.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Billy Buttcheese wrote:

Hal, keep in mind that these flunkies played a much bigger role in OD&D. Perhaps EGG just felt they were already fleshed out enough for folks that were making the transition from OD&D to AD&D and didn't require much more separate/new coverage/explanation.

Even in 1E, I remember there being a much greater emphasis on henchmen. In 2E, it seemed that the parties were mainly PCs. Not as much a presence in 2E it seemed.

[Lyrwik]

Even in 1E, I remember there being a much greater emphasis on henchmen. In 2E, it seemed that the parties were mainly PCs. Not as much a presence in 2E it seemed.

I'd second that. Given I started in the days of 2nd ed, while henchmen were known about, I don't think I ever had one in any games I played in or ran. They never occurred to me to be something which would be 'standard' in a game. They seemed more like something which might come up occasionally, and more-so at higher levels where it would make sense that a henchmen would want to join the character.

[garhkal]

I too, noticed a drop when i switched from 1e to 2e, in the # of players who went with henchmen or even hirelings..

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Since we're all seeing that, I wonder why it is? Perhaps the emphasis on role playing in 2E as opposed to the "testing the player's skills" approach in 1E?

[garhkal]

I think it was more players disliked 'sharing' the loot with npcs/henchmen..

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

That definitely could have played a role. Then again, my 1E players were pretty damned greedy too. Hmmm.