Friends, Hirelings, and Side-Kicks

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by restlessgriffin

Thanks for the advice. Invisibility is an unknown/not allowed spell for my campaign (only available via rare artifacts and the very rare archmages). Will use the others though.

Fair enough. In that case consider Hide, Hush, and/or Blur as possible replacements.

[restlessgriffin]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Fair enough. In that case consider Hide, Hush, and/or Blur as possible replacements.

Noted! I will consider all of them. Just FYI, other spells not allowed are Flight or anything similar, Gate Magic (also something only available to Archmages and through artifacts) although there will be lots of gates still around, it's just the magic and spells behind them has been lost.

[Dammann]

I usually let my players run NPC sidekick characters in combat, but I play them as NPCs out of combat. You say it is not compatible with your style, which is fair, but it can let players explore different fighting characters with less “all or nothing” to each action.

If I were playing, I’d want to know that a Swashbuckler sidekick is attacking and soaking the opponent’s defenses. I don’t want to hand wave it away; that’s why I brought him! A swashbuckler doesn’t outshine me as barbarian because he is an expert at lots of little hits; he is great at stabbing at the kobolds who might swarm and overwhelm me. I, big barbarian, focus on big strong hits that do like three times the damage. He can screen the minions,I chop off the big-bad guy’s head.

If you want to make it clear that the sidekicks aren’t the heroes, shave some points off of them. Drop an Attribute here, a skill there, and they will seem like the promising interns they are in no time.

[Dammann]

Casters are a great idea; they will have something specific to offer, and you can build them to be able to do their job once you know what spells they need to bring to the battle.

To make them junior varsity, drop Magery or Power Investiture to 1 or 2. Make sure they have enough FP to actually cast the spells they will use. Running out of gas without doing your job is going from supporting character to liability.

[corwyn]

If you're worried about casters outdoing the PC's, you don't need to even shaving points off of them. Non combat skills are helpful to them, and likely don't overlap much. For spells, stay away from combat spells and focus on utility and buffs FOR THE PCs. Haste, Might, Grace, Blur, etc.

[restlessgriffin]

Originally Posted by Dammann

I usually let my players run NPC sidekick characters in combat, but I play them as NPCs out of combat. You say it is not compatible with your style, which is fair, but it can let players explore different fighting characters with less “all or nothing” to each action.

I've stated what works for me. Please move on.

If I were playing, I’d want to know that a Swashbuckler sidekick is attacking and soaking the opponent’s defenses. I don’t want to hand wave it away; that’s why I brought him! A swashbuckler doesn’t outshine me as barbarian because he is an expert at lots of little hits; he is great at stabbing at the kobolds who might swarm and overwhelm me. I, big barbarian, focus on big strong hits that do like three times the damage. He can screen the minions,I chop off the big-bad guy’s head.

As GM I want my players to actually USE Leadership. I want them to make use of Charisma, Teaching, and other skills. As players I expect them to role play their character and be able to ask NPCs for assistance when needed. I expect role playing. Not ROLL playing. What would you do if the Swashbuckler were a PC?

If you want to make it clear that the sidekicks aren’t the heroes, shave some points off of them. Drop an Attribute here, a skill there, and they will seem like the promising interns they are in no time.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by restlessgriffin

As GM I want my players to actually USE Leadership. I want them to make use of Charisma, Teaching, and other skills.

DFRPG might not be the best choice as it strongly downplays social skills and abilities (except in Bards that over dominate the field). It's doable, but I tend to give a few more discretionary points so Players can build for social skills being not just 'useful' but necessary.

And then I make social skills broadly necessary.

What would you do if the Swashbuckler were a PC?

Probably be expecting them to be one-shotting the mooks while the Barbarian laid heavy damage on the main 'tankish' foe? I doubt their play-style changes based on who is in what role (fellow PC or Ally/Hireling).

Oh, you mean "how would you convince them"? You ask, or bark orders, whatever works. What Dammann is aiming at is making sure teh Ally/Henchmen/Hirelings feel like they are worth their resources and optionally ensure they don't outshine a PC by letting the Players control them.

Secondary advantage is that if the hireling fails to do their task, no blame can fall on a GM for it, even if it ends in TPK.

[restlessgriffin]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

DFRPG might not be the best choice as it strongly downplays social skills and abilities (except in Bards that over dominate the field). It's doable, but I tend to give a few more discretionary points so Players can build for social skills being not just 'useful' but necessary.

And then I make social skills broadly necessary.

You do realize Leadership is a REQUIRED skill for Knight and Holy Warrior! So I want the PCs to be able to use the skill they are required to take. I also want them to find it useful. Leadership is of fairly limited use when there are only PCs. It really shines when there are NPCs around to follow orders and benefit from good leadership. Hirelings and soldiers under your command are best, but even a group of townsfolk being attacked by monsters can rally behind a knight that comes in to fight against attacking monsters.

Probably be expecting them to be one-shotting the mooks while the Barbarian laid heavy damage on the main 'tankish' foe? I doubt their play-style changes based on who is in what role (fellow PC or Ally/Hireling).

It comes down to free-will. If it's PCs they can do whatever they want. If you convince them to carryout an attack in a specific fashion fine. But the Leadership skill will have no part to play in that. For NPCs it certainly will UNLESS you just let the players also handle the NPC hirelings, in which case the hirelings are just bit part PCs. In that case, the Leadership skill doesn't matter, the player in control doesn't even need to give commands, orders, or say anything. The NPCs are just automatons who are in perfect lock step with whatever the player wants them to do. That's not the way I want hirelings handled! Hirelings and side-kicks are NPCs with a CAPITAL "N"!

Oh, you mean "how would you convince them"? You ask, or bark orders, whatever works. What Dammann is aiming at is making sure teh Ally/Henchmen/Hirelings feel like they are worth their resources and optionally ensure they don't outshine a PC by letting the Players control them.

Secondary advantage is that if the hireling fails to do their task, no blame can fall on a GM for it, even if it ends in TPK.

I don't worry about blame falling on the GM. I also don't want the NPCs to be mere extensions of the players or tools. I'm already firmly convinced on this area. I don't want or need advice on how to handle control of the NPCs/hirelings, that's a GM job! I'm looking for advice on useful skills, advantages, etc. for the PLAYERs and PCs.

If players have control of NPCs/hirelings, why would they EVER increase Leadership. I want the players to find Leadership to be a useful skill. If they directly have control of hirelings/sidekicks, the usefulness of Leadership is dramatically reduced.

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by restlessgriffin

For NPCs it certainly will UNLESS you just let the players also handle the NPC hirelings, in which case the hirelings are just bit part PCs.

Surprisingly, that doesn't have to be true. Leadership will also be relevant any time a player directs NPCs to do something risky or dangerous. Just because you have players mostly control NPC hirelings doesn't mean the hirelings will always do exactly what the player wants them to; higher Leadership could make it more likely though.

Step 1: the player declares an intention for NPCs. I glare at the peshkali and shout, 'charge!' at my fifteen spearmen.
Step 2: GM may optionally require a Leadership roll with situational penalties.
Step 3a (normally): player resolves NPC actions. Player moves 15 spearmen and makes 15 attack rolls.
Step 3b (on failed Leadership roll): GM resolves NPC actions. 15 spearmen nervously shuffle forward a step and then Wait: Stop-thrust for the peshkali to approach.

This is the normal approach to hireling usage IME, dating back to the 1980's (SSI's Gold Box games like Pool of Radiance).

[restlessgriffin]

Originally Posted by sjmdw45

Surprisingly, that doesn't have to be true. Leadership will also be relevant any time a player directs NPCs to do something risky or dangerous. Just because you have players mostly control NPC hirelings doesn't mean the hirelings will always do exactly what the player wants them to; higher Leadership could make it more likely though.

Step 1: the player declares an intention for NPCs. I glare at the peshkali and shout, 'charge!' at my fifteen spearmen.
Step 2: GM may optionally require a Leadership roll with situational penalties.
Step 3a (normally): player resolves NPC actions. Player moves 15 spearmen and makes 15 attack rolls.
Step 3b (on failed Leadership roll): GM resolves NPC actions. 15 spearmen nervously shuffle forward a step and then Wait: Stop-thrust for the peshkali to approach.

This is the normal approach to hireling usage IME, dating back to the 1980's (SSI's Gold Box games like Pool of Radiance).

And once I again I'll say it. They are NPCs, so they are GM controlled. Video games, especially something that old have ZERO bearing on how I want to run my games.

As for players controlling the hirelings/side-kicks. My only concession on this and this IS a change from my initial stance: On a critical success roll, the player gets to take control of the PC to carry out the commands. The NPC and PC are so in sync of this that then work in unison.

In the above example the PC glares at the peshkali and commands the 15 spearmen, "charge!" Not a lot of direction there, so ...

Knight in command has Leadership 12 (as per Sir Gryffyn (p12 Delvers to Go). He rolls a 9 (which is what I just rolled). Success! So the spearmen all charge the peshkali. None of them have cowardice so they just do what they've been commanded to do an charge forward spears out attacking. The closest ones go straight in. Ones farther away will charge and strike from the second row. Others who can't get an attack in will fan out to the sides. The knight will work his way around to the side or back to make a clean strike if possible.

NOW: Most players I've gamed with would move the spearmen as tactically as possible. The ones closest would attack from front, maybe some from the second rank. The rest would fan out not just to sides but also to the back. Some neatly swinging around to the rear, well out of sword reach and get to the back, even though ordered. Maybe if the spearmen have worked together before and are in an actual unit and aren't green ...


As GM, I want to handle the backstory, motivations, etc. The players control their PC, in this case the Knight. GM controls all the NPCs, unless they roll a Crit Success, in which case I'll let them go to town and gleefully set up the perfect peskali kabob spearmen attack.

Hopefully, the Knight PC learns from the non-crit roll and give some more details. Maybe learning a few of the NPCs names,tactics, etc.

Teams of five boys. Left group flank to left, Middle group charge in from front, right group, flank right. Charge!

Hold those lines, don't let the creature get behind you!