Henchmen and Followers - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 senorpenor42 May 11, 2009 19:11:07	In my brief time in 3.5, I was very attracted to the idea of followers and henchmen. From the high level barbarian with his own tribe to the low level rogue who has their own small thieves guild, I really liked it. My question to you: how would you implement henchmen and followers in 4e, or if not, why?
#2 dark_lambo May 11, 2009 19:40:49	They were deliberately taken out so that any one play will only have one set of actions per round. Summons and companions have been deliberately changed to maintain this time-balance between players.
#3 Herrozerro May 11, 2009 19:51:30	How i would implement them? I have already. they are the guys that stay on the boat or the horses and watch the stuff. Honestly taking unskilled people into combat doesnt seem like a good idea.
#4 Rustmonster May 11, 2009 19:58:20	I would prefer that they be earned. Leading a tribe? You can't just take a feat, add water, and BAM! Instant tribe. You have to show you are worthy. Best their cheif in Mortal Kombat, perform a list of bone-crunching and mind-bending tasks to gain their favour, something actually meaningful and actually related to the tribe. It feels much more rewarding to gain loyal disciples through RP and hard work than taking a feat and having fawning masses spring up from nowhere.
#5 Lesp May 11, 2009 20:03:06	Provided that you don't intend to bring them into combat with you, they can just be part of your character's background. When you're in the area where your tribe lives or your guild operates, you can visit them and get nonmaterial benefits from them, like information. 4e really doesn't want you to be bringing a bunch of characters into battle, because then one player's turn takes forever, plus it messes with the assumed math. If you want to bring ONE friend into battle, I would talk it this way: First, this works best in a smaller party. If your party already has six people, you shouldn't bring a friend. Second, the friend should be controlled by the DM at all times. They may be from your thieves' guild or a member of your tribe, but they're not you. They're a different character. Ideally, they should fill a role that is not flashy but that your group really needs. For example, your barbarian's friend might be a shaman that focuses on support and healing, if your party has no other leader. They should never steal the show. The real PCs should always get to feel like the biggest heroes. I would recommend that they perhaps have no action points, to begin with, and never use a daily power in a way that makes them the one that really did the butt-kicking in the encounter. They shouldn't spend a lot of time on their turns in battle. The DM should be able to play them so their turns go relatively quickly. You shouldn't occupy a ton of table time with conversation between you and your friend. Conversation between a bunch of PCs is more interesting than conversation between one PC and an NPC that he brought along. It's definitely not any player's right to have a friend along in battle. The rules just don't support it. Introducing a character and asking the DM if the character can accompany the party into battle is a very special case, and it's ultimately up the the DM. In short, they should follow the general rules for DMPCs, except that they're thematically related to your character. They're your assistant, but they're not your character.
#6 alitain May 11, 2009 20:32:45	In my brief time in 3.5, I was very attracted to the idea of followers and henchmen. From the high level barbarian with his own tribe to the low level rogue who has their own small thieves guild, I really liked it. My question to you: how would you implement henchmen and followers in 4e, or if not, why? Easy, someone wants a follower, tell them to create a second character. Now they have their character and the follower, and there you go. Yeah I understand 4.0 hates the idea of doing more in a round than basically; Standard, Move, and Minor actions but I think that's a fault. Now I don't have a problem with how summons work, it makes sense but animal companions and familiars are all suppose to be their own beings outside of combat it makes no sense that they can't be in combat. But back to point. I took Leadership in 3.5 and loved it. And in 4.0 a friend played one character for awhile then after a time with the DM's permission we came across his character's sister and he proceeded to play both just fine. There's no reason for the DM to control said henchmen for you, it's part of your character, if you want a sidekick go to town have fun. I think that not everyone can pull it off. It depends if the person can play 2 individual characters. As a DM I wouldn't allow just anyone to have a second character. They'd have to have a good reason and if they couldn't pull it off then I'd take said secondary away. In terms of say a rogue with a small band of thieves what you could do is have the rogue collect a group. Maybe they've heard of him, or as someone said earn the crew through combat or a sideplot for a trickery thieving. But anyway if you have a campaign that has a central city the group goes to a lot or something, you can have the group stay there but every time the party is in the town the rogue can use his crew. Have the crew be 2 levels below like the companion in 3.5 Leadership was. If you don't have a campaign that allows for a sort of "base", then have crew either stay as some said with the horses or in the background during combat so the rogue doesn't have 3-4 characters. Or you can say the rogue's crew travels the countryside on it's own and the rogue leaves clues and tells them where the party is going so they'll meet up in cities and such. Or have them take 1 of the crew as their second in command when they travel to use in combat and all but the rest of the crew they meet up with as mentioned above. Now if the person just wants 1 sidekick I say let them use the character in combat, but if they want a crew then either have them pick 1 of the crew to use in combat, the second in command, as mentioned above. But even I can't agree with a character having a crew of 3 or 4 and using them all in combat, so that has to be limited.
#7 Lesp May 11, 2009 20:48:00	I guess I was trying to be pretty conservative; if the group is okay with someone playing two full characters, more power to them. In a lot of groups, however, I think that that's a dangerous path for the DM to start down, because once one person is playing two characters, there's no great response the DM has when everyone else present wants to start doing it as well. If I were DMing and a player wanted to start controlling two characters, there would be a lot of discussion with the whole group before I gave my okay, and I would reserve the right to reneg at any time. Unless the group is very understanding, one player with two characters feels like something that would put a lot of stress on the group, and unless the group has just a few players, opening the door for people to play a bunch of characters at once feels like just not a road I would want to go down.
#8 dark_lambo May 11, 2009 21:15:46	If they're not involved in combat, then they're kind of like having a pet cat. There doesn't really need to be mechanics for it, unless you're asking about the price to hire Nodwick or something.
#9 wolfbrother79 May 12, 2009 0:00:00	I would usually use them as a role playing device. The tribe would need it's warriors for defense while it's great chief saved the world. perhaps when the great demon army attacks i would use the tribe to fend off the horde while the party formed a strike force to take out the big bad. I would describe the flow of battle based on how well the Pcs did. I may even give them 5 minions the chiefs honor guard for the party to use. The guild would probably give them mostly adventure hooks maybe help in skill challenges maybe a npc or two on big jobs. and a stipend of treasure that came from the treasure parcels. Basicly let the Pc have rp fun with it and situational combat advantage when i prepare for it while not being overpowered.
#10 nightwyrm May 12, 2009 0:24:13	I see no problem with having allied NPCs in combat provided that their presence makes sense from a roleplaying/story perspective, but they would all be DM controlled and not "second class PCs". At best, they'll be lower level support characters, but more often, they'll just be red shirts (yay minion rules) or acts as the Load for the party (escort missions anyone?).
#11 drakewurrum May 12, 2009 1:30:20	In my brief time in 3.5, I was very attracted to the idea of followers and henchmen. From the high level barbarian with his own tribe to the low level rogue who has their own small thieves guild, I really liked it. My question to you: how would you implement henchmen and followers in 4e, or if not, why? A player who controls a mob of minions, but can readily restock on troops when resting. It's really the only balanced way to do it.
#12 pauln6 May 12, 2009 7:11:46	Look to undead servitor for guidance here I think. It can be fun to give the group the challenge of keeping their faitful minion healthy. I've run a couple of adventures where the pcs were escorting refugees out of the Hold of the Sea Princes and the challenge wasn't fighting the monsters, it was keeping the refugees alive. The second time was escorting my character's henchmen, gained under 3.5 Leadership feat, out of the Keep of Adlerweg to the safety of Salinmoor in Keoland. An encounter with Aulicus the dragon led to most of them being killed with a single dose of dragon's breath but it was still fun. The household staff were protrayed as level 1 minions with an encounter power that allowed them to shift out of melee (screaming loudly obviously). The guards were Level 3 minions. You can have fun with them by giving them a few character specific traits (we had an elderly alcoholic gnome henchman trained in History who got a re-roll on History checks to simulate his vast knowledge of trivia) but I don't think they should ever be used as much more than a role playing device who can also carry equipment and treasure. Using them to aid another can help in a tight spot but they usually won't last long if they do. I'd probably allow them to use the character death rules so that at least when they lose their one hp they don't die immediately (heroic tier npcs only have one healing surge though) .
#13 darkerdreams May 26, 2009 2:43:41	I read this thread a while back and it inspired me to sketch out the following. It's heavily cribbed from the rules for beastmaster ranger... There's no playtesting behind this, nothing really aside from some quick comparisons to the wizard summoning and (obviously) the beast companions... just some thoughts. Show Feats (the basis) Heroic Charismatic Leadership Prerequisite; Charisma 13+ Benefit: You may add your Charisma to your level to determine whether you are eligible to take Leadership feats. If this lowers your needed level below 11 it becomes available at Heroic tier, or Paragon if the level is reduced below 21. If you meet the level requirement for your Leadership feat without this as a prerequisite you may use the benefit of your Leadership feat an additional time per encounter. Elite Guard Prerequisite: Any Follower feat, this feat takes up one of your Encounter powers. Benefit: Your followers are hardier than the norm. If a hit against your follower deals less than their level in damage they are merely bloodied. If a miss deals more damage than this value, however, they are also bloodied. A bloodied Follower is slain with any hit that would deal damage or a miss which deals more than their level in damage. If the follower has Damage Resistance from some other effect that is applied before this calculation. Followers of the Heir [Follower] Prerequisite: (paragon) Any Leadership feat, this feat also takes up one of your Daily powers. Benefit: You have a set of 4 mechanically identical Followers, as described below. If your followers are all absent at the beginning of an encounter and will be unable to aid your current actions, either by arriving or by being involved in some other necessary events, you may use the benefit of your Leadership feat an additional time during this encounter. Special: You may take this feat multiple times, requiring an additional Daily power each time it is taken. Sets of followers may be the same or differ from one another, but the members of each set must be mechanically identical. You may treat all identical followers as Loyal Cohort [Cohort] Prerequisite: Any Leadership feat, this feat also takes up one of your Daily powers. Benefit: You may have a Cohort, as described below. If your companion is absent at the beginning of an encounter and is be unable to aid your current actions, either by arriving or by being involved in some other necessary events, you may use the benefit of your Leadership feat an additional time during this encounter. Loyal Followers [Follower] Prerequisite: Any Leadership feat, this feat also takes up one of your Daily powers. Benefit: You may have a set of mechanically identical Followers, as described below. The number of followers you gain is equal to your Charisma bonus. If your followers are all absent at the beginning of an encounter and will be unable to aid your current actions, either by arriving or by being involved in some other necessary events, you may use the benefit of your Leadership feat an additional time during this encounter. Special: You may take this feat multiple times, requiring an additional Daily power each time it is taken. Sets of followers may be the same or differ from one another, but the members of each set must be mechanically identical. You may treat all identical followers as Vanguard Prerequisite: Any Follower feat, this feat takes up one of your Encounter powers. Your party represents the forefront of a larger expeditionary force or is supported by a large pool of additional troops based nearby. Perhaps you are the lord of a local keep which receives reinforcements from the guard or perhaps you are part of an elite forward scouting unit which can call on the messengers which help communicate with your commander to replenish your battered forces. Benefit: Any time you take a short rest you may replace one slain follower for free. For each healing surge you spend you may replace one more slain follower. At the end of an extended rest you begin with your full allotment of followers. These replacement followers do not increase the maximum number of followers you can have at any time, they simply reduce the time needed to replace lost followers.
#14 herbaltea May 26, 2009 6:33:46	without having dissected it thoroughly, I can see no gaping reasons to object DarkerDreams - good work, I will look through it properly when I am not as work and will perhaps implement it into my own campaign. I will keep you updated on how I get along with it when I study it harder
#15 darkerdreams May 26, 2009 6:50:49	without having dissected it thoroughly, I can see no gaping reasons to object DarkerDreams - good work, I will look through it properly when I am not as work and will perhaps implement it into my own campaign. I will keep you updated on how I get along with it when I study it harder Thank you- I look forward to any more comments and you might have. I did find, and fix, a hole I'd forgotten to close- followers don't (automatically) get class features. Cheap exploit for a ton of healing ability or something similar. I've narrowed that. It is still possible, but has to be taken at the cost of other options instead of being present automatically and for free.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

senorpenor42

May 11, 2009 19:11:07

In my brief time in 3.5, I was very attracted to the idea of followers and henchmen. From the high level barbarian with his own tribe to the low level rogue who has their own small thieves guild, I really liked it.

My question to you: how would you implement henchmen and followers in 4e, or if not, why?

dark_lambo

May 11, 2009 19:40:49

They were deliberately taken out so that any one play will only have one set of actions per round. Summons and companions have been deliberately changed to maintain this time-balance between players.

Herrozerro

May 11, 2009 19:51:30

How i would implement them? I have already. they are the guys that stay on the boat or the horses and watch the stuff. Honestly taking unskilled people into combat doesnt seem like a good idea.

Rustmonster

May 11, 2009 19:58:20

I would prefer that they be earned. Leading a tribe? You can't just take a feat, add water, and BAM! Instant tribe. You have to show you are worthy. Best their cheif in Mortal Kombat, perform a list of bone-crunching and mind-bending tasks to gain their favour, something actually meaningful and actually related to the tribe.

It feels much more rewarding to gain loyal disciples through RP and hard work than taking a feat and having fawning masses spring up from nowhere.

Lesp

May 11, 2009 20:03:06

Provided that you don't intend to bring them into combat with you, they can just be part of your character's background. When you're in the area where your tribe lives or your guild operates, you can visit them and get nonmaterial benefits from them, like information.

4e really doesn't want you to be bringing a bunch of characters into battle, because then one player's turn takes forever, plus it messes with the assumed math.

If you want to bring ONE friend into battle, I would talk it this way:
First, this works best in a smaller party. If your party already has six people, you shouldn't bring a friend.
Second, the friend should be controlled by the DM at all times. They may be from your thieves' guild or a member of your tribe, but they're not you. They're a different character.
Ideally, they should fill a role that is not flashy but that your group really needs. For example, your barbarian's friend might be a shaman that focuses on support and healing, if your party has no other leader.
They should never steal the show. The real PCs should always get to feel like the biggest heroes. I would recommend that they perhaps have no action points, to begin with, and never use a daily power in a way that makes them the one that really did the butt-kicking in the encounter.
They shouldn't spend a lot of time on their turns in battle. The DM should be able to play them so their turns go relatively quickly.
You shouldn't occupy a ton of table time with conversation between you and your friend. Conversation between a bunch of PCs is more interesting than conversation between one PC and an NPC that he brought along.
It's definitely not any player's right to have a friend along in battle. The rules just don't support it. Introducing a character and asking the DM if the character can accompany the party into battle is a very special case, and it's ultimately up the the DM.

In short, they should follow the general rules for DMPCs, except that they're thematically related to your character. They're your assistant, but they're not your character.

alitain

May 11, 2009 20:32:45

In my brief time in 3.5, I was very attracted to the idea of followers and henchmen. From the high level barbarian with his own tribe to the low level rogue who has their own small thieves guild, I really liked it.

My question to you: how would you implement henchmen and followers in 4e, or if not, why?

Easy, someone wants a follower, tell them to create a second character. Now they have their character and the follower, and there you go.

Yeah I understand 4.0 hates the idea of doing more in a round than basically; Standard, Move, and Minor actions but I think that's a fault. Now I don't have a problem with how summons work, it makes sense but animal companions and familiars are all suppose to be their own beings outside of combat it makes no sense that they can't be in combat.

But back to point. I took Leadership in 3.5 and loved it. And in 4.0 a friend played one character for awhile then after a time with the DM's permission we came across his character's sister and he proceeded to play both just fine. There's no reason for the DM to control said henchmen for you, it's part of your character, if you want a sidekick go to town have fun.

I think that not everyone can pull it off. It depends if the person can play 2 individual characters. As a DM I wouldn't allow just anyone to have a second character. They'd have to have a good reason and if they couldn't pull it off then I'd take said secondary away.

In terms of say a rogue with a small band of thieves what you could do is have the rogue collect a group. Maybe they've heard of him, or as someone said earn the crew through combat or a sideplot for a trickery thieving. But anyway if you have a campaign that has a central city the group goes to a lot or something, you can have the group stay there but every time the party is in the town the rogue can use his crew. Have the crew be 2 levels below like the companion in 3.5 Leadership was.

If you don't have a campaign that allows for a sort of "base", then have crew either stay as some said with the horses or in the background during combat so the rogue doesn't have 3-4 characters. Or you can say the rogue's crew travels the countryside on it's own and the rogue leaves clues and tells them where the party is going so they'll meet up in cities and such. Or have them take 1 of the crew as their second in command when they travel to use in combat and all but the rest of the crew they meet up with as mentioned above.

Now if the person just wants 1 sidekick I say let them use the character in combat, but if they want a crew then either have them pick 1 of the crew to use in combat, the second in command, as mentioned above. But even I can't agree with a character having a crew of 3 or 4 and using them all in combat, so that has to be limited.

Lesp

May 11, 2009 20:48:00

I guess I was trying to be pretty conservative; if the group is okay with someone playing two full characters, more power to them. In a lot of groups, however, I think that that's a dangerous path for the DM to start down, because once one person is playing two characters, there's no great response the DM has when everyone else present wants to start doing it as well. If I were DMing and a player wanted to start controlling two characters, there would be a lot of discussion with the whole group before I gave my okay, and I would reserve the right to reneg at any time. Unless the group is very understanding, one player with two characters feels like something that would put a lot of stress on the group, and unless the group has just a few players, opening the door for people to play a bunch of characters at once feels like just not a road I would want to go down.

dark_lambo

May 11, 2009 21:15:46

If they're not involved in combat, then they're kind of like having a pet cat. There doesn't really need to be mechanics for it, unless you're asking about the price to hire Nodwick or something.

wolfbrother79

May 12, 2009 0:00:00

I would usually use them as a role playing device. The tribe would need it's warriors for defense while it's great chief saved the world. perhaps when the great demon army attacks i would use the tribe to fend off the horde while the party formed a strike force to take out the big bad. I would describe the flow of battle based on how well the Pcs did. I may even give them 5 minions the chiefs honor guard for the party to use. The guild would probably give them mostly adventure hooks maybe help in skill challenges maybe a npc or two on big jobs. and a stipend of treasure that came from the treasure parcels. Basicly let the Pc have rp fun with it and situational combat advantage when i prepare for it while not being overpowered.

#10

nightwyrm

May 12, 2009 0:24:13

I see no problem with having allied NPCs in combat provided that their presence makes sense from a roleplaying/story perspective, but they would all be DM controlled and not "second class PCs". At best, they'll be lower level support characters, but more often, they'll just be red shirts (yay minion rules) or acts as the Load for the party (escort missions anyone?).

#11

drakewurrum

May 12, 2009 1:30:20

In my brief time in 3.5, I was very attracted to the idea of followers and henchmen. From the high level barbarian with his own tribe to the low level rogue who has their own small thieves guild, I really liked it.

My question to you: how would you implement henchmen and followers in 4e, or if not, why?

A player who controls a mob of minions, but can readily restock on troops when resting. It's really the only balanced way to do it.

#12

pauln6

May 12, 2009 7:11:46

Look to undead servitor for guidance here I think. It can be fun to give the group the challenge of keeping their faitful minion healthy. I've run a couple of adventures where the pcs were escorting refugees out of the Hold of the Sea Princes and the challenge wasn't fighting the monsters, it was keeping the refugees alive.

The second time was escorting my character's henchmen, gained under 3.5 Leadership feat, out of the Keep of Adlerweg to the safety of Salinmoor in Keoland. An encounter with Aulicus the dragon led to most of them being killed with a single dose of dragon's breath but it was still fun.

The household staff were protrayed as level 1 minions with an encounter power that allowed them to shift out of melee (screaming loudly obviously). The guards were Level 3 minions.

You can have fun with them by giving them a few character specific traits (we had an elderly alcoholic gnome henchman trained in History who got a re-roll on History checks to simulate his vast knowledge of trivia) but I don't think they should ever be used as much more than a role playing device who can also carry equipment and treasure. Using them to aid another can help in a tight spot but they usually won't last long if they do.

I'd probably allow them to use the character death rules so that at least when they lose their one hp they don't die immediately (heroic tier npcs only have one healing surge though) .

#13

darkerdreams

May 26, 2009 2:43:41

I read this thread a while back and it inspired me to sketch out the following. It's heavily cribbed from the rules for beastmaster ranger... There's no playtesting behind this, nothing really aside from some quick comparisons to the wizard summoning and (obviously) the beast companions...
just some thoughts.

Show

Feats (the basis)

Heroic

Charismatic Leadership
Prerequisite; Charisma 13+
Benefit: You may add your Charisma to your level to determine whether you are eligible to take Leadership feats. If this lowers your needed level below 11 it becomes available at Heroic tier, or Paragon if the level is reduced below 21.
If you meet the level requirement for your Leadership feat without this as a prerequisite you may use the benefit of your Leadership feat an additional time per encounter.

Elite Guard
Prerequisite: Any Follower feat, this feat takes up one of your Encounter powers.
Benefit: Your followers are hardier than the norm. If a hit against your follower deals less than their level in damage they are merely bloodied. If a miss deals more damage than this value, however, they are also bloodied. A bloodied Follower is slain with any hit that would deal damage or a miss which deals more than their level in damage.
If the follower has Damage Resistance from some other effect that is applied before this calculation.

Followers of the Heir [Follower]
Prerequisite: (paragon) Any Leadership feat, this feat also takes up one of your Daily powers.
Benefit: You have a set of 4 mechanically identical Followers, as described below. If your followers are all absent at the beginning of an encounter and will be unable to aid your current actions, either by arriving or by being involved in some other necessary events, you may use the benefit of your Leadership feat an additional time during this encounter.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times, requiring an additional Daily power each time it is taken. Sets of followers may be the same or differ from one another, but the members of each set must be mechanically identical. You may treat all identical followers as

Loyal Cohort [Cohort]
Prerequisite: Any Leadership feat, this feat also takes up one of your Daily powers.
Benefit: You may have a Cohort, as described below. If your companion is absent at the beginning of an encounter and is be unable to aid your current actions, either by arriving or by being involved in some other necessary events, you may use the benefit of your Leadership feat an additional time during this encounter.

Loyal Followers [Follower]
Prerequisite: Any Leadership feat, this feat also takes up one of your Daily powers.
Benefit: You may have a set of mechanically identical Followers, as described below. The number of followers you gain is equal to your Charisma bonus. If your followers are all absent at the beginning of an encounter and will be unable to aid your current actions, either by arriving or by being involved in some other necessary events, you may use the benefit of your Leadership feat an additional time during this encounter.
Special: You may take this feat multiple times, requiring an additional Daily power each time it is taken. Sets of followers may be the same or differ from one another, but the members of each set must be mechanically identical. You may treat all identical followers as

Vanguard
Prerequisite: Any Follower feat, this feat takes up one of your Encounter powers.
Your party represents the forefront of a larger expeditionary force or is supported by a large pool of additional troops based nearby. Perhaps you are the lord of a local keep which receives reinforcements from the guard or perhaps you are part of an elite forward scouting unit which can call on the messengers which help communicate with your commander to replenish your battered forces.
Benefit: Any time you take a short rest you may replace one slain follower for free. For each healing surge you spend you may replace one more slain follower. At the end of an extended rest you begin with your full allotment of followers. These replacement followers do not increase the maximum number of followers you can have at any time, they simply reduce the time needed to replace lost followers.

#14

herbaltea

May 26, 2009 6:33:46

without having dissected it thoroughly, I can see no gaping reasons to object DarkerDreams - good work, I will look through it properly when I am not as work and will perhaps implement it into my own campaign.

I will keep you updated on how I get along with it when I study it harder

#15

darkerdreams

May 26, 2009 6:50:49

without having dissected it thoroughly, I can see no gaping reasons to object DarkerDreams - good work, I will look through it properly when I am not as work and will perhaps implement it into my own campaign.

I will keep you updated on how I get along with it when I study it harder

Thank you- I look forward to any more comments and you might have.

I did find, and fix, a hole I'd forgotten to close- followers don't (automatically) get class features. Cheap exploit for a ton of healing ability or something similar. I've narrowed that. It is still possible, but has to be taken at the cost of other options instead of being present automatically and for free.