Followers for Upper Level Player Characters

On page 16 of the old Dungeon Masters Guide begins a series of rules for calculating the special followers that player characters collect upon reaching name level.  Because I have a different definition of "follower" [read the wiki page, it's relevant], I call these special followers "Retainers."  And strange as it may seem, I have never adjusted the tables found here for clerics, fighters, rangers, thieves and assassins.  I have used them, though not too often, since I run very long campaigns and once you've gotten to this point with your long-run character, you don't get to roll on these tables again.

Remember as you read this that where the DMG says "followers" in the name-level sense, I will use the word "retainers."

According to the DMG, it is never stated explicitly WHY druids, illusionists, paladins or mages do not get retainers.  On page 32 of the old Players Handbook, there is a section describing the retainers a monk gets upon reaching the 8th level of experience.  There is no explanation for why this section does not appear in the DMG, or for why the retainers gained as described in the DMG needs to be kept "secret" from the players, while those of the monk do not.

The bard has no retainers; the essentially ridiculous rules surrounding the bard (though I saw them played in other campaigns) stipulate that the bard must start as a fighter, leaving that class before the level needed to gain retainers, then become a thief, again leaving that class before the level needed to gain retainers, and THEN become a bard, which is an essentially useless class without any serious special abilities whatsoever.  No mention is made of a bard's "name level" nor of any retainers, except a line that says that bards "are unable to employ henchmen other than druids, fighters or thieves of human, half-eleven [sic], or elven race."  No explanation is given for this particular bit of racism.

Bards obviously deserve to have retainers; no person in a creative industry is ever exempt from taking on students and more than any other group, bards are the most logical class to be in constant contact with OTHER bards.  We have fairs dating back to the 9th century designed specifically so that bards can cluster together with bards.

I am good with druids being isolated characters; except that I fill the druid's roster with a host of "animal friends" that become the druid's retinue.  Paladins deserve the retainers a fighter gets; there's no logic whatsoever for a Paladin to be a "long wolf," since as I pointed out a couple weeks ago, the word means "peer of the realm," which means person of the court, which means lands, castles, the right to collect rents and so on.  How else do we think Paladins pay for their crusading adventures?  Just because Lancelot was broke doesn't mean the other two hundred paladins hanging around Camelot were.

It isn't all about Lancelot.

I'm fine with mages and illusionists getting short shrift.  Both have their heads buried in their laboratories and books, and as scholars neither should know a damned thing about employee management.  But before the reader gets anxious, let me explain that yes, in my game world, a player has to work very, VERY hard to end up without retainers in the long run.

Let's come back around to "followers" as opposed to retainers.  In my game, followers are friends that the players have made through their adventures.  Some are friends right off, others become friends over time.  That is how life works.  My judgment applies in whether or not a follower becomes a friend, based on whether or not I feel the player has treated that NPC fairly, conscientiously, protectively and monetarily.  If the player constantly forgets the individual's name when describing the NPC to me, or forgets to mention said individual when heading off somewhere, or loses parts of the individual's character details, or in any way shows they just don't care about that particular NPC to assure they're safe and considered in day-to-day game matters, then the NPC definitely does not become a follower.

The players often don't notice, but I listen closely every time a player mentions a related NPC, what words the player uses, how long its been since the last time anyone said hello to an NPC they haven't seen in a long time, or visits them, or shares information with them and so on.  I do not tell the players I am listening; and most of the time, I do not point out that the player has just made a serious gaffe of some kind.  I will just now, for the sake of an example: and because just now, there's nothing my online players can do about it.

Recently, the players returned to their new house in Treborg, then headed off to Stavanger, then returned to their house in Treborg, then hurried off back to the dungeon that interests them.  A while ago in the campaign, they hired a farmer/forager/hunter named Valda to look after their house and land while they're out.  And while the players have been diligently feeding Valda out of their stores, because they're required to do so on account of the hireling contract they have, guess how many times any of the players have said anything like, "I say hello to Valda," or "I ask Valda how she's doing?"  Guess how many of them thought to buy something small and useful for Valda from Stavanger while they were there?  Now ... does this make Valda a reliable hireling, or one likely to care as much for her employers as they care for her?

Altogether, I have four levels of friendly characters in my game, apart from the players themselves.  I have hundreds of nasty killer monsters, and of course a lot of humanoids in the civilized areas are dangerous as well, but the players ARE able to create a defensive bulwark of associates, friends and acquaintences, IF they take the time to get to know people and apply themselves to giving as well as constantly showing up to ask questions or buy things.  As another example, some time ago I introduced a girl in Treborg to the party named Monica.  Monica's father is an important person.  Monica spent a little time mooning around after one of the player characters, after helping him recover from damage he'd received many game weeks ago.  Anybody wandering around to say, "Hi Monica" ... ?  You see what I'm saying.

Players aren't required to chat up NPCs.  And a lot of NPCs aren't worth chatting up, what with them being minimally skilled and lacking in resources.  However, there is a tendency, based on the way that D&D has been run for 45 years, to act like lone wolves until the DM gives you retainers that you're allowed to treat like shit.  There is a section in the DMG about loyalty and such, and we will get to that in time, but there isn't a word about that in the "follower section" on pages 16-18.  Basically, you pile enough experience together, you pass a post, and a bunch of dudes show up at your door and say, "Order us around, please."

It's a game and I'm good with that dynamic.  It's only that the retainer thing sort of went away because (a) players didn't know how to handle it; (b) DMs revealingly didn't know how to handle it; and (c) what do we want all these hangers-on for anyway?  "We're LONE WOLVES.  What part of that don't you get?"

Anyway, as I was saying, four levels of friendly character.  I've mentioned three: retainers, followers and hirelings.  The fourth are henchmen.  I've written about these in my game often.  Before continuing on with this thread, let me pause a moment.

It is a cruelty to ask a player to run one character class for ten continuous years of a campaign.  Some like it, but it makes sense that players would want to try other classes out from time to time.  It also makes sense that players would like to try other genders and other races, as well as other combinations of weapons, spells and abilities.  Any good game system must have a means for players to stretch beyond an imposed boundary that limits their experimentation.

We all know that most DMs and groups solve this problem by running campaigns for shorter periods, or no campaigns at all.  Every player gets to try out scores of different characters ... until every character concept is part of a large grey sludge of meaningless nuance.  The problem with this approach is that none of these tried and tested characters ever amount to anything rich and dense as far as character experience or ambition.  Having lots of sexual partners sounds exciting and provocative, but for those who have tried it, only a few years need to pass before realizing that we ... just ... don't ... care about any of these people we're sleeping with.  There isn't time to know them.

Excuse a little life advice, but for those of us in long-term relationships, the old bugaboo about "My gawd, do you want to eat the same flavour of ice cream for the rest of your life" is a bit stupid.  Marriage is about getting to know someone extremely well, but it is also about the two of you getting to know reliable, long-lasting friends, and your children, and their friends, and your children's children, and so on.  Because living a calm, reliable life draws company ... whereas living a frenetic life of chasing other people only breeds drama, resentment, exhaustion and people who don't want to know you much.

Okay, let's set that on a shelf.  The benefit of playing a single character for a long campaign is that you have a lot of memories about that character.  And the benefit of letting the players gain an occasional new player character, a henchman (I still can't get myself around to saying "henchperson," but I'll get there eventually), according to a strict rule, gets around the need to rip down the campaign to give the players a new experience.  Getting to 5th level is a lot easier than getting to name level; and picking a new associate character that is reliably yours, no matter what the DM wants, is an important a step as picking your first character.

Consider:  it takes you 18,000 experience to become a 5th level fighter in the old game.  At that point you get a hench — and because you've already got a fighter, you're free to go for something really different: a mage or a bard, or maybe a thief.  You've got the fighting covered; spells would be nice, or maybe someone to sneak around or a character that knows about plants and animals.  Whatever.  Let's say you take a cleric as your hench.

Your fighter will need 17,000 more experience to be 6th level.  [I know these stats don't mean a fucking thing to you 5e readers, but maybe you could recognize a bit of logic in a structure that actually limited what a player could do until they earned their way].  To reach 4th level, your cleric hench only needs 6,000.  And while that cleric is only going to get half as much experience from treasure as you get, and half as much bonus experience as you get, that character only needs a third as much to go up three levels as you need to go up one.  After awhile, because the cleric hench needs less overall experience than you do, by the time you get up to name level as a fighter, the cleric will be near to reaching name level as a cleric.

That's why it doesn't matter that mages and illusionists don't get retainers.  A mage or an illusionist is bound to take a fighter of some kind upon reaching 5th level, in my game at least.  And that fighter is going to be very nearly 9th about the time the mage and illusionist reach 11th or 10th.  The mage may not get retainers, but the mage's fighter will ... and since the mage and the fighter are both run by the same player, it all works out.

All this way around the barn to get back to this:  the player has the opportunity to get a hench at 5th level and retainers at name level ... but they can obtain hirelings the FIRST DAY of adventuring and they can make friends soon after.  What if the character doesn't want to wait for 5th level or name level?  Should they have to?

I don't think so.  Smart players who are willing to do the work ought to be able to get themselves established in a community long before they get to name level.  A cleric should not have to wait for 9th level to build a church — that argument makes no sense in relation to anything we know about religious organization or missionary work.  There are never enough churches and temples and there are always communities who desperately want one.  Nor should a mage need to wait to build a laboratory, or a thief have to wait to build a gang of thieves.  These measurements established in the old DMG, that players need to wait to gather like friends together, which five-year-olds do without thinking about it, don't wash.  It's called "role-playing," people!  You meet, you share, you show interest, you help them out, they help you out ... hell, Sesame Street taught us this.  "Cooperation!"  A DM should be glad you're not waiting for the so-called "End Game" to build a structure of contacts and associates.

Think about how EASY it is to set up an adventure when the players already have two dozen people whose lives they care about.  Fred — you remember Fred — was walking in the woods yesterday and guess what he saw!  Oh, and Mary wanted a well dug on her property and would you believe it? There was a deep, dark frightening looking hole that appeared when a section of the surface fell in.  Oh, what will we do?  If only we could find some party to investigate that hole, or check out those woods.

But, heck, we can't have that, can we?  I guess it's another game session where we start out at the bar.

I confess.  I've had a damnably hard time selling this idea to players I've had in online campaigns.  Some get it; the present party, Valda and Monica notwithstanding, have done better than everyone else combined.  But there is unquestionably a resistance.  One member of the party has personally met the Crown Prince of Sweden, and gained the prince's respect ... but wants nothing to do with that contact, judging by actions taken.  I've waved other red flags in front of these bulls, but no takers.  This lone wolf thing dies hard.  I'm guessing that mixing in with other people and their problems feels like, oh, responsibility or something.  Or having to put up with the DM's manipulation of the campaign, something that we've all been burned from so hard we dream about fire alarms.

Still, I put the rules in place, I explain the fundamentals and I introduce the NPCs ... and I wait.  I wait to see what the players will do with those toys, if ever they seriously think about picking them up.

Leadership I

Setting war aside, we move onto the next subject in the fighter's repertoire.  For me and for most anyone I've known, there are great problems where it comes to the acquisition and management of non-player characters, both for the player and for the DM.  While the latter has always had to put up with parties that see men-at-arms as little more than cardboard obstacles designed to slow the enemy up for a round or two, players have had to accept an endless parade of conveniently skilled, story-driven hireling backstabbers.  NPCs are foils for both sides.  Where is the trust?

Because even a long term friend and hireling will turncoat on a dime as the DM runs his or her latest Josh Whedon plot line, players on the whole learn to do without them.  Because they're not 'real,' there's nothing to stop us from squeezing out of each NPC all the juice we can get, as far as the DM will allow . . . and since most hireling sacrifices take place underground, far from the eyes of others, it is hard to argue that more can't be obtained with sufficient capital.  It seems the only option the DM has is to have a random hireling bite back . . . but that only results in a total distrust of all hirelings, effectively eliminating the option from the game.

Gygax wasted four pages of the DMG making up interaction rules for henchmen and hirelings - gawd knows if he tried to play those rules himself.  I wasted a couple of months trying to evolve interaction rules for players and everyone else.  Player-NPC interactive mechanics are an unequivocal, unavoidable shit pile.  As I step into it again, the reader can bet I am going to do so carefully.

For a long time, I have been running henchmen as additional, obstensibly fanatic characters whom the players "meet" and then run exactly like typical player characters.  These henchmen appear when the character reaches a certain level, supposedly because the character has gathered a reputation or acted in some way publicly that the henchman has approached, in awe, begging to follow the original player character eternally until death.

Recently, my players have begun hitting name-level, acquiring followers.  These are not henchmen (they have a mind of their own), but they are completely loyal and willing to perform most any action the player asks of them.  During the campaign, the player again runs these people - but I reserve the right to veto any act the player would have them perform.  I hardly ever need to.  Players understand that they're not going to replace these followers easily and for the most part, the followers' entry into combat is more or less designed by the player to keep them alive.

I have a theory that IF the player is allowed to play the NPC (even a hireling or a servant) without the DM interfering, the player is far, far less likely to sacrifice that character - particularly if it is made clear to the player that advancement for the NPC is a possibility.  Even an munchkin gets that a weakling NPC who might someday be a 5th level helper will tend to keep the NPC safe.  I believe that the willingness to sacrifice NPCs willy-nilly begins with the DM insisting on controlling every single action of that character.  By not allowing the player to co-opt the NPC, the DM greatly downgrades the character's worth to the players. Why not burn off those men-at-arms?  We have no power over them anyway.

I challenge any DM reading this to hand over any NPCs running with the party in their present campaign to the party!  Simply give the party all their stats and tell the party, "I'm going to let you manage these guys so that I have more time to run.  Jim, you can run the two bowmen, Janie, go ahead and direct the heavy footman and John, you've got the sapper.  Here are their hit points and stats.  I'll call nix if you have them do anything really stupid but for the most part, they're yours."

I began doing this within a year of running my first games and it has never gone sour.  If the players get too entitled, then I will just have the NPCs fade into the darkness; "You look around and the NPCs have deserted you."  Players are always chattering among themselves anyway, it is easy to argue that for five minutes, no one has so much as mentioned an NPC so it was easy for them to slink away.

I only need to do this, however, with new players fresh to my world, those who have learned bad habits under other DMs.  My players cherish their NPCs because its a harsh, brutal world and they recognize every friend they can get will help keep them alive.  It helps that in eight years of the present campaign (offline), I've never had a hireling or follower go turncoat.  The same is true, I suppose, of the online campaign.  An NPC they meet, who they haven't built an association with, might turn out to be an enemy, but never a friend.  NEVER a friend.

Why ditch that potential story option?  Because it's trite, it's overused, it's arbitrary (oh, so very arbitrary) and it builds bad blood between a DM and a player.  Fuck all that.  There are other plotlines, other stories, other ways to build up tension.  I don't use that cheesy option because I don't need it.

Seriously.  Ditch it.  When your head goes there and you think, "Woah, that will be cool, they'll never see that coming," smack yourself in the face.

Think instead, "Woah, that's me being a fucking turncoat to my players by arbitrarily deciding to be a dick.  Maybe I shouldn't."

Well, that was a digression.  I was talking about henchmen and followers.

Hirelings are people the players buy, who have no particular loyalty to the players' prestige or personas.  Over time, they might develop some.  For my world, I use a very simple system, morale.  The link explains the principle.  On the whole, it lets the players run the hireling and then puts a die roll between having the hireling enter or remain in combat (or any other danger) based upon what sort of experience the hireling has.  Not all hirelings work on a wage principle.  I consider anyone adventuring with the party and getting a share of the treasure to be a hireling (or 'ally').

I keep meaning to write some rules on how much wages/treasure a hireling expects to get but I haven't yet.  Probably have to this winter to support the leadership rules I plan to add to my campaign.

Friends are people who are working with the party but who have not committed themselves to anything.  Friends are not always easy to identify and usually there is a period during which the players aren't sure if such and such is a friend or foe.  Here I can play with loyalties and trust where it comes to interaction, because no agreements have been made, no assurances given.  Any friend might in fact not be a friend, so people freely lie to the party or are believed to have lied because the party knows not to trust anyone who is merely a friend.

Thus, a friend might give the party a gift that turns out to be something else; the party knows this is a possibility because, apart from the gift, there's no proof of any other commitment.  Parties, knowing this (and knowing me), recognize very well that these relationships can go either way.  They are not, therefore, angered or resentful when a 'friend' goes the other way.  Not like they would be if a hireling or a follower did.  There is a line.

Most friends in my world, however, really are friends.  On Saturday, my party met a Wyth; a humanoid creature resembling a razorbacked hog, frightening to look at and blessed with obvious thieving abilities.  These abilities were recognized by the party's 7th level thief (Olie) - so the party was reasonably unsure.  Moreover, the Wyth would not speak, only shake its head or nod.  It ate raw meat from a oiled bag and that seemed disturbing.  Without any sort of surety between them, the Wyth headed off and so did the party.

In a town, the players were told that Wyths are dangerous and that they will follow a party until they can gather together enough of their band to launch an assault.  When the party moved on, descending through a canyon to the plain below, Olie caught glimpses that showed they were being followed.  Olie slipped back, found the Wyth and confronted it, 25 feet apart.  Olie threatened; the Wyth did not speak.  It pulled out a piece of raw meat and offered it to Olie.  Olie refused it.  Olie managed to scare the Wyth away and then returned to the party.

Didn't work.  The Wyth continued to follow.  That night, it approached another player on guard, Maze the cleric, moving to the edge of the firelight.  From that distance, it again offered the meat.  Maze also refused.  When Maze moved to wake up the others in the party, the Wyth disappeared.  The next day, the party descended into the plain and they didn't see the Wyth again.

The worst thing was that the Wyth wouldn't speak; this had the party confused and threatened.  When they reached a city on the plain, they asked again about the Wyth.  Here they were told a different story; that people in the hills don't trust the Wyths but that they're harmless.  And the meat?  Apparently, Wyths won't talk to anyone they haven't shared food with.  It was trying to get the party to eat so they could talk together.

This had a terrific effect on the party, as they realized their distrust had cost them a possible friend.  To this I added by saying, "It had things to tell you."  That went through the party's head like a bomb.  Naturally, they did not see the Wyth again.

Making friends is difficult.

This is where Leadership as a skill comes in.  How to change a stranger to a friend, how to make a friend a hireling (or ally) and how to turn hirelings into followers.  In turn, how to acquire people in a campaign that a player can personally manage or run.  I'll write more on this next.

Friends for the Druid & Ranger

This is a completely different subject from the recent posts, but perhaps some of the readers will be glad I'm not talking about weather.

For years I've played with a rule for 'animal friends' for druids and rangers, something I made reference to in the mass combat posts.  I've finished putting those rules up on the wiki, for anyone interested in reading them there.  I'm going to post the details below, anyway, because it makes a post for today.  I've got to start getting ready for my campaign tonight.

Note this is not a spell.  This is a kind of henchman/follower.  Be sure and check out the tables on the links.


Animal Friends

Druids that reach the 4th level and Rangers of 7th level of experience may, if they wish, call for 'animal friends.' For the purpose of clarification, in this article player characters with animal friends will be referred to as the 'Sire.'

This will be one or two animal creatures that, once called, will attach themselves to the Sire in a manner similar to henchmen. These animals will be wholly loyal and will be 'run' by the player - but they will be subject to morale checks like followers. Moreover, because animal friends are not as intelligent as most henchmen, there are limitations as to what actions they can take.

Intelligence

Animal friends will conform to four levels of intelligence, consistent with their having 1 to 4 intelligence points ('animal' or 'semi-intelligence'). The smarter the animal, the greater the animal's versatility. A complete list of animals and their intelligence can be found below. Note that all animals of any level of intelligence will come when called and show affection to the Sire.

Int 1: Animal Intelligence
These are animals driven by instinctive motivations - mating, rearing of young, finding food to consume and fleeing danger. They will be highly resistant to attacking other creatures unless cornered or protecting their Sire - in this case, the Sire. Because of that, they have a starting morale of 9.

Unless speak with animals is employed, friends of animal intelligence cannot be given complex instructions. They can be told to find food for themselves, to rest or to sleep. If it is an animal that can bear a burden or a rider, it can be told to hold still in order to be loaded or mounted. If the Sire is able to speak with the animal, however, it can be given a direct order (presuming it is something which the animal can do) that it will obey for three melee rounds. Once the three rounds have passed, however, the Sire must spend a full round acquiring its attention in order to give it new instructions. If the animal is beyond 40 feet from the Sire, however, it must be first called for, so that it can return to where it will be close enough to speak.

When not being given orders - and when the Sire is not threatened - an animal friend will tend to remain within 2 full rounds of the Sire (this would be equal to three times its normal movement rate per round, given that during the second round the animal will be moving at double speed). Very large animal friends may prove troublesome if not sent away at times when stealth is desired.

If the Sire's person is attacked (and the animal sees), then the animal will rush in and defend the Sire. In the case of very large animals, the Sire may suffer incidental damage on account of this action. In cases where the Sire is attacked, even if the Sire indicates otherwise there is a high probability that the animal will ignore the Sire (it must make an intelligence check to listen).

Int 2: Training Intelligence
These are animals that can be taught voice and gesture commands, so that directions can be given to the animal without the need for speak with animals. The commands that can be given include the following:

• Attack. The animal can be directed to attack a specific individual until the designated creature is killed, the Sire calls the animal off or a morale check fails.
• Guard. The animal will interpose itself between the Sire and attackers, defending against any attackers for as long as it is able (morale is improved by +1 by this command).
• Fetch. The animal can be told to return a familiar object or person that has been placed or thrown by the Sire.
• Home. The animal can be sent away to a specific location for safety.

Other instructions can be given to the Int 2 animal using speak with animals. Like Int 1 animals, Int 2 animals will seek to remain within 2 rounds and will rush in to defend if the Sire is in danger. To change the orders given to an Int 2 animal (either by voice command or through speak with animals), the animal must be within 40 feet; the time necessary will be less, only 3 action points.

Int 3: Comprehensive Intelligence
These are animals that will be able to understand human speech so that commands may be given without speak with animals. In all ways they will conform to Int 2 animals, except that the voice and gesture commands that may be give are unlimited, and only 2 action points are required to give them instructions.

Int 4: Intuitive Intelligence
These are animals intelligent enough to function as ordinary followers, able to act on their own much of the time without the necessity of being told to change targets, take up a guarding position or fetching things on their own, as well as a variety of other things. On the whole, the player is free to run these animals as though they are possessed of a mind all their own; however, once beyond line-of-sight of the Sire, these animals will seek to complete the task they are given and return as soon as possible.

Calling Animals

Druids may call new animals friends at 4th level and every three rounds thereafter (7th, 10th, 13th, etc). Rangers may begin call new animal friends at 7th and every three rounds thereafter. When determining the animals called, rangers are treated as three levels below their own. A 7th level ranger, therefore, would call animal friends equal to a 4th level druid.

For each calling, the Sire must use the table which corresponds to the environment where the calling is done. If the Sire wishes an animal from another environment, the calling must be suspended until that environment is entered. Animals may not be called from inside urban or heavily cultivated areas, nor from underground.

The following tables outline the animals found in each environment:

• Desert Friends
• Jungle Friends
• Ocean-going Friends
• Savanna Friends
• Steppe Friends
• Tundra Friends
• Woodland Friends

There is no requirement for the character to call animals if they are not wished. As well, if an animal friend is killed, a new animal friend may be called after three months of game time has passed.