As discussed in the preceding section regarding CHARACTER ABILITIES,
CHA has a great effect on the number of henchmen a character is
able to attract.

A henchman is a more or less devoted follower of a character. In return for
the use of his or her abilities and talents, the henchman receives support,
lodging, and a share of his or her master’s or mistress‘ earnings -- in the
form of stipends or as a share of treasure taken. Henchmen are always of a
character race and character class, but are never PCs.

The alignment of a henchman should be compatible with that of the player
character whom he or she serves. Difference in alignment will certainly
affect the loyalty of all henchmen, if alignment is radically different.

It will usually be necessary for your character to visit various inns and
drinking establishments in search of henchmen. It is also possible that a
number of notices will have to be posted, perhaps in conjunction with the
employment of a crier to announce the employment offered. The cost of
such is often high - in rounds of drinks, food, tips, gratuities, bribes, fees
and so forth. These costs are in addition to actual sums paid to the
henchman eventually employed. Locating non-human characters such as
dwarves, elves, and the like might be even more protracted, difficult, and
costly than the hiring of human and semi-human henchmen. This depends
on campaign circumstances - such as whether or not non-humans are
common in the area and whether or not non-humans tend to associate
with humans and frequent the inns and taverns.

Once a henchman is brought into your character’s service, it will be
necessary to pay a wage plus support and upkeep. Your referee will
inform you as to such costs. When a henchman accompanies your
character on adventures, he or she must be given a portion of treasure,
both money && magic, just as a player character would. However, the
share can be lesser, for all of the henchman’s expenses are paid for by his
or her master or mistress. Naturally, it is a good idea to give a henchman
as much treasure as possible, for in that way the henchman gains
experience points.

Experience awarded to henchmen is usually much less than that which
would be given to a player character. This is because the henchmen are
acting under the direction of their master or mistress. So you should expect
that your character’s henchmen will get about 50% of the experience
points which their share in the slaying of opponents and garnered treasure
actually totals - possibly even less if your character bore the brunt of the
action and closely directed the henchmen. The loyalty of henchmen is
based on many factors. Charisma of the player character is very important.
Remuneration - support, upkeep, wages, bonuses, and sharing of
treasure - plays a big part also. The involvement of henchmen in
adventuring is important, as are the activities of the character (and what
he requires of the henchmen) during the course of adventuring. For
example:

Assuming the character has above average CHA, he or she could be
somewhat less thon generous in remunerotion and still have henchmen
with about average loyalty. If remuneration or activity were above the
minimum required, loyalty would be correspondingly higher. If both
remuneration and activity were exceptional, the loyalty base of henchmen
would be likewise exceptional. Actions to protect the lives and welfare of
henchmen, or saving the life of or resurrecting henchmen, give loyalty
above average.

Disloyalty will come into play in combat and other stress situations.
Disloyal henchmen will betray or desert their master or mistress.
(See MORALE.)
 

General Note: The acquisition of henchmen and hirelings is
key to long term success for PCs in the ongoing
campaign. They provide a support structure that can help to
minimise the worst misfortunes of defeat and reinforce the
achievements of victory. Henchmen may even become prominent
themselves, perhaps even becoming independent upon
the death or retirement of the PC. However, NPCs
should not be treated lightly nor taken for
granted; they should react in believable ways and pursue their
own ambitions && interests when such seems reasonable. It
is the responsibility of the GM to ensure that they
are portrayed in a manner that keeps the game challenging
for the players. - OSRIC, page 138

richardstincer wrote:
Gary, for ADandD 1st edit., if I want to play a 1st lvl. character who does not have an exceptional amount of starting money and who is not exceptionally proficient in adventuring ability, can I be a participant-player at the gaming table by playing only a henchman of another player? I know that as a henchman, I have an adventurer-class profession, but that doesn't mean I have to be as proficient in adventuring as a PC--is that correct? Your 1978 ADandD PHB has it printed that a player can play a henchman of another player at the gaming table, but it doesn't specify if a player-participant can play only a henchman.

Hi Richard,

You will play a PC that you rolled up even if that character is the henchman of another PC. All thet being a henchman entails is roleplaying, nothing special in regards the type of character, his stats or abilities of the class chosen.

That clear?

Cheers,
Gary

richardstincer wrote:
Yes, and thanks Gary. I have just realized that I can be a PC henchman of another PC and in that way, I am playing only a henchman. There is still one thing that is confusing about henchmen as described in the 1978 PHB and in the 1979 DMG. It is printed that a henchman has a race and a class, but there is no info. about how a henchman was able to acquire 1st lvl. in an adventurer-class profession. The 1979 DMG has it printed that PCs have inherited monies with which to train in the adventurer-class professions, but a henchman has only a small amount of money or no money and the clothes being worn, so how does a henchman have the money to be 1st lvl. in the adventurer-class professions? Also, remember that the 1978 PHB has it printed that a henchman has a race and a class, but a henchman is never a PC. I understand that I can be a PC who is a henchman of another PC.

Even non-henchmen PCs are not wealthy when play begins. what you will assume is that your PC is the henchman of another character because of some quality of the character your PC swears alligence to, ot because of something that your character has in mind, or a past act such as swearing to a noble to serve that PC. As i said, it is all roleplaying.

The henchman character is like aby other in regards to abilities and money with which to buy equipment. He begins as a 1st level with the usual capacities of any PC.

cheers,
Gary

richardstincer wrote:
Now, I think I understand. A henchman has little or no money left and the clothes being worn because the henchman has already spent the inherited money to train in one or more of the adventurer-class professions. That means then, a henchman is actually another PC in the party of adventurers, but a henchman did not inherit a large amount of money like other PCs.

Actually Richard...

The Henchman PC might be wealthy and the one he serves be poor, that assuming the PC who was serving the other character had made some vow or promise to serve.

Once again, the matter is one of story and roleplaying, and it involves no differences in character stats or money;)

Cheers,
Gary

richardstincer wrote:
Gary

I'm not trying to bore you with questions about the henchman as described in the early ADandD 1st edit. books, but there is still the fact that the books say a henchman is not a PC. If I am strictly adhering to the early ADandD 1st edit. books, I can play an NPC by playing a henchman. Now, the question is: The 1978 early ADandD 1st edit. PHB has it printed that a henchman of one PC can be played by another player-participant, so if I am playing a henchman of another player-participant, can I play only the henchman NPC or do I have to play two characters--the henchman NPC and a PC of my own? Please answer and I thank you for all of your previous responses. It is important for me to know the answer because then that means there is a way for a player-participant of early ADandD 1st edit. to play an NPC instead of a PC.

Do stop. I am losing patience 

You asked if you could play a henchman character, and I took the time to respond to a question that is arguably obvious--of course, if your DM allows such a subservient role.

Now you come back with the rules that say henchmen are NPCs.
What a discvery!
Of course, as they are meant to assist PCs in survival in their adventuring, and if you read and follow along, as some millions have managed to do to date, the matter is amply explained.
It is a game, not rocket science, and there are no fixed laws other than those your DM sets down--or you dictate in your game campaign 

Gary
 
 

Barrataria wrote:
Thanks! And never a need to apologize for answering no matter how terse you may be! I've wondered for quite some time about that... 10th isn't so awfully high for druids as to be followed around by 9 nasty underlings, so I guess that particular challenge didn't come up for you as DM.

Sorry to hear about the demise of Curley Greenleaf... I think character sheet loss is the most tragic way for them to go...

BB

High level druids are not much for dungeoneering, eh?

My own PCs and those of a couple of others I DMed for were often followed by a train of henchmen,
typically when the session involved only one or two players and the situation at hand was demanding.

Cheers,
Gary

- Bold Added
 

Bombay wrote:
Col_Pladoh wrote:
As a Player, that is one of the hard things to determine, should I bring my henchmen, or leave them behind.
In a recent adventure I was running my MU/Theif elven character.
Searching out a lost wizards tower to setup operations.
I brought my 5 henchmen along, and ended up getting 3 of them killed.
Had to trade in my sword of Dancing and alot of cash to get them raised.

Music to a GM's ears!

Of course as a player I would do the same, and gain experience for all the loss of goodies.

Cheers,
Gary
 

-- Bold added --> ???
 

Elfdart wrote:
Colonel, I have a few questions about henchmen and hirelings:

1) When you are DMing and a PC with henchmen gets killed or incapacitated, do you let the Player continue as one of the henchmen? In other words, are henchmen potential 2nd and 3rd-string PCs in your games?

2) Did you ever promote men-at-arms to henchman status (rolling stats as though they were a 1st level fighters)? I'm tempted to do this with a man-at-arms who has somehow survived as a member of the party since the beginning (they are all 5th to 7th level now).

3) Did you ever have a problem with some players in a group who insisted on bringing henchmen and others who were dead set against it, on the grounds that they didn't want to share experience points? If so, how did you handle it?
 

Heh...

Yes to all three questions.

In regards to number three, I simply said that the matter was up to the PCs to decide, and the two adversarial parties needed to settle things.
That sometimes resulted in a fight.
Such is the life of an adventurer 

Rob Kuntz's orc, Quij, was an ordinary sort that defeated an ogre in single combat.
When I checked his new HPs adding a second die, they maxed out, so I promoted the NPC to 4th level on the spot.

Cheers,
Gary
 
 

Elfdart wrote:
For me it depends on how many henchmen and hirelings accompany the PCs and whether (in the case of the hirelings) they are hired by the party as a whole or by an individual PC. What I decided to do about #3 was to set aside one full share of XP for all henchmen if they were all working for one PC. He is also expected to pay for their upkeep. However, in that case they answer to him and not the party as a whole.

I give men-at-arms who accompany their masters XPs for the money their employers pay them, as well as for equipment and other expenses the employer pays for. They get two XPs for every gp they earn to reflect not only treasure they've earned, but what they have learned while adventuring. This comes out of the gold and XP of whoever hires them. If the group hires, the group pays. So a light footman (1 gp per day while adventuring) armed with leather, wooden shield, spear, hand axe and dagger (10 gp) will get 80 XPs if he goes on a one month expedition with his boss. A 0-level hireling who earns 500 XPs can become a 1st level NPC.
 

Elfdart,

Quite so. the matter is actually one best left to the DM based on the manner in which he manages the campaign.

Cheerio,
Gary
 
 

garhkal wrote:
I was always under the understanding that henchmen and hirelings count for half value. So the 4 pcs and 4 hirelings would be 6 xp shares.
 

That isn't a rule to fllow.
If you like it, then use it, but I never did, I simply negotiated for hirelings so as to get as much in the way of remuneration as I could for them.
Usually that was more like one share per two men-at-arms or four torch bearers porters.

Cheers,
Gary
 

DMPrata wrote:
While Scott's question was pertaining to 0-level men-at-arms specifically, in the case of henchmen with class levels, the XP is divided evenly among all participants. In your example, the XP for defeating monsters would be divided eight ways. The henchmen then must further divide their shares by two, to reflect the fact that they were only following the PCs' orders. The rest of their "shares" are lost.
 

If the henchmen are ordinary, not classed NPC I never bothered to allot actual XPS to them,
They simply were laid, and the money, plus the appropriate fraction for kills was deducted from the party's total for the adventure before it was shared out however the group had decided to do before the adventure began.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Maraudar wrote:
Col_Pladoh wrote:
If the henchmen are ordinary, not classed NPC I never bothered to allot actual XPS to them, They simply were laid, and the money, plus the appropriate fraction for kills was deducted from the party's total for the adventure before it was shared out however the group had decided to do before the adventure began.

Cheers,
Gary

Wow Col.. I usually just pay my henchman in coins...  I tried I swear I tried but the temptation was just to much.
 

Maraudar
 

Well, now you know why the circle of Eight was so popular with mercenaries and others who wished to enroll in some military organization 

Heh,
Gary
 

As a point of order, who says that PCs need be of heroic stamp? that's a matter for the players to determine, they and none other, most assuredly.
-Gary Gygax
 

Richard wrote:
Gary, for Elfdart's signature quote at the bottom of his posts, you really did write that players can decide how heroic their characters are in the world of ADandD 1st edition? That means I can say to my DM that my PC is fully heroic and fully fearless, and my henchman is fearless by chance and heroic by chance?
 

Saying something is meaningless.
It is how you play the character that matters.
The same is true for all the characters thay you play, henchmen included.
This matter is totally in a player's hands 

Cheers,
Gary
 
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Hadit

Hello Gary!
After reading some of your responses to earlier posts, another question came to mind...
How has the playing and enjoyment of RPGs changed for you since AD&D? I mean, there seems to be an evolution of style in the games you've authored since AD&D (Mythus, LA). The addition of skills, mostly.
For example: You mentioned in an earlier post that you expected AD&D players to bring along a good amount of hirelings and henchmen into the dungeons with them. Is this still a recipe that rings true in LA?
Is LA the natural evolution of AD&D for you, or a whole new agenda all-together?
Thank-you for your time, dear sir!

Duglas
 

Duglas,

That's an excellent question

The newer game systems I designed were meant to offer a somewhat different perspective on the play of the FRPG. I'll move directly to the LA game as it is in print.

LA is a different game that any other I have created. What I was attempting to create with it is the same "spirit and soul" as were found in OA/D&D while having a completely different approach. It is so different that those coming to it with the D&D mindset have trouble getting into it. That is the main reason I used new terminology, hoping thus to facilitate the grasp of the new system by using different names and changint thinking patterns.

In the LA system the beginning character (Avatar) is sufficiently able to operate alone or with a like party and not need to hire anyone. Of course hiring can be done if the Avatar has sufficient funds.

Let me go back a bit to the approach of original D&D players. Most suce initial players came from military miniatures gaming where commanding a force of warriors was the norm. It was a natural thing for a PC group to hire men-at-arms, form a mercenary company and adventure thus. As the background experience of the players became less warame oriented, the focus of play shifter from the compamy to the core party of PCs. this was in a sense an evolution, the realization of the uniqueness of the RPG form apart from the military miniaturtes one. Designing adventure material for a party of PC is certainly easier than doing the same for a party plus mercenary forces. Thus modules assumed the former, and the concept of the adventuring company was further removed from the game.

It seems most players prefer to manage only their own PC/Avatar and work with the player group thus. A couple of years back when I was play-testing a sourcebook for the LA game the group turned down the services of a company of warriors that their prowess had impressed--the team of Avatars had gained considerable Repute. They could have become local lords, ruled lands and estates, etc. Instead they preferred to be an adventuring party of "rootless" sort--over the objections of one younger member, my son Alex. They also avoided political matters.

So in the end the question is more of player preference than of evolution of ideas. Most persons seem to prefer individual action to command of a group of NPCs. When playing the former sort of campaign thinking and action are on the personal and small tactical scale. In the larger-group format, thinking must expand beyond the personal problem and quest into areas that include such things as business, commerce, espionage, finances, intregue, politics, protocol, strategy, etc.

The LA game can handle either approach, but it was created to facilitate the core Avatar group adventure 

Yes, I still prefer the larger approach, but I don't get to play a character often enough to tire of the limited, personal adventure one.

Sorry to run on so!

Gary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexor the Mighty!
Well from reading the info on fighters and such in the 1e PH I think it was assumed that high level Fighter types would have retianers, followers, henchmen, men at arms, etc. So I think that the disconnect is the from gamers that have never played in the old "style" so to speak. I know I've read several oldschool adventures where they note henchmen for pregen NPC characters listed in the module. I think it is assumed that high level characters would have henchmen to command on adventures, and that they would fall in battle often. If you have some 4th level fighters travelling into a tomb with thier 11th level Fighter Lord then there will inevitably be losses among the lackeys.

P.S. I hate the term "intellectually dishonest" just come out and say "Liar".

Quite so...

...especially when the number of actual PCs involved in the adventure is limited and the perils involved are great.

In point of fact, having "flunkies" along in such missions is only common sense. The PCs involved pay for that by gaining fewer XPs in the adventure.

Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patryn of Elvenshae
...

...
 

Everything else I've posted is a reaction to others claiming that NPC, Hireling, etc., deaths aren't important.

...

That you've never heard from me as a player or as a GM.
Hired men-at-arms or like follwers can be relatively inconsequential in loss, but never henchmen or associated NPCs.
To a PC of strong Good alignment, any such loss should be lamentable.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patryn of Elvenshae
...

That sort of opinion strikes me as perfectly fine - and expected! - when coming from an Evil Overlord or Twisted Archmage or Goblinoid Warchief, but a bit incongruous when coming from the guys who are supposed to be the Heroes of the story.

In point of fact, did the "heroic" generals blench when sending troops into battle knowing that losses would be horrendous? Considering recorded history, I think not, and many of those very persons are surely regarded as heroic...

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patryn of Elvenshae
You think not? From personal experience (and, admittedly, a very small sample size), the admirals and generals I've talked to had quite the opposite opinion. Yes, they were willing - and did - order people to their [probable and / or actual] deaths, but they did not do so callously. Their men and women were not "Red Shirts."

Anyway, this is starting to smell like an alignment discussion, so I'll just thank you for the information and bow out until the next topic that catches my eye. Thanks again! <smile>

Callously or not, the cannon fodder was sent into the battle, eh? The scruples of the commanders made no difference to those who died.

The "Great Conquerors" had few if any qualms of the sort you mention.

As a point of order, who says that PCs need be of heroic stamp? that's a matter for the players to determine, they and none other, most assuredly.

Gary

Comments
thanks
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyG
Gary, several of your PCs started out as NPCs/henchmen. How did you handle thr transition? When did Bigby go from being Mordenkainen's henchman/apprentice to a full fledged PC? When a figter character that started out as a henchman became a lord, would he still be considered a henchman, could he attract followers of his own?
Happy Thanksgiving all!
Scott

Actually, when I needed a PC of less potency than one of my main characters, I would have that one's "master" send him out to adventure on his own. As the leige lord of that character never demanded and share of treasure gained by the "apprentice," the relationship became more familial, eventurally that of equals, with the former vassal-type respecting and deferring to his former master in many things.

My DM didn't mind, as that kept the most powerful PCs on the sidelines much of the time.

Cheers,
Gary
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Mouser
Hey Colonel, I have a question regarding henchmen and hirelings in 1e AD&D for you.
A few PC's in my campaign are beginning to hire mercenaries and acquire a henchman or two for accompaniment on adventures.

When do you suggest giving the player the character sheet for the henchment they hire? Right away? After a few adventures when the henchman and the PC have cemented their relationship? Do you give the player an increasing amount of information about the henchman over time after staring out with, for example, only class and level?

I would suggest giving the player immediately upon gaining a henchman a CRS done in bare bones fashion. 
As the PC and henchman adventure together, the DM and the player in conjunction then detail the henchman's personality, motivations, etc.