How Much Do Henchmen Cost?

[Scott]

They are an expensive commodity in my campaign. I think I need to rethink my method. I have a bunch of poor PCs and henchmen rolling in gold.

[Rhuvein]

admin said:

They are an expensive commodity in my campaign. I think I need to rethink my method. I have a bunch of poor PCs and henchmen rolling in gold.

Indeed. It seems that henchmen are not very affordable when PCs are starting out. And then when they acquire enough gold they may not wish to hire them (depending on conditions and circumstances).

I like the idea of henchman/hirelings to drain gold from the PCs if they seem to have too much.

In my campaign, my group mostly hires guides and animal keeper types to watch their horses and stuff while dungeon delving.

[Scott]

For years and years, nobody in my group would hire henchmen, except me. Then one of my fighter PCs, with the help of his magic-user henchman attacked and robbed the party he had been adventuring with up to that point. Since then most characters have hired henchman, primarily for additional support against the machinations of rival PCs. Also, once the PCs reach a certain level, I will occasionally randomly determine one of the PCs and give them an adventure hook. I then leave it up to that PC to decide if he wants to try the adventure solo, with his henchmen, or get some other PCs involved. The PCs will often try the adventures solo, or with just henchmen.

[GRWelsh]

I think BtB henchmen cost 100 gp per level per month. And not only that, but BtB it is a "fact" that PC's are "a free-wheeling and high-living lot," and the DM is supposed to automatically deduct 100 gp per level per month of the PC. This always made me wonder about the revenue flow of other people's campaigns, especially EGG's and those in and around Lake Geneva in the 1970's. My guess is that these sorts of rules, as well as training costs, were efforts to drain away some truly excessive wealth that certain PC's had amassed. I think other arrangements with henchmen may work just as well, or better -- like living expenses, smaller monthly salary but a treasure share.

[Scott]

If a henchman died, who would pay for the raise dead? Who pays henchmen training costs?

[GRWelsh]

Good questions. Those are both gray areas. If those kinds of situations aren't discussed before-hand, they could cause some real disagreement.

"You can't charge me for that! I didn't ask to be brought back to life!" Tregillish Mul groaned, when finding out the cost of the raise dead spell would be deducted from his own pay.
"I assumed you would want to be brought back to life," Llewellyn ap-Owen said in a droll voice.
"Yes, but not to come back as an indentured pauper!" Tregillish cried. "You're wealthy as a palatine duke! Why would you treat me this way?"

[Scott]

These are probably the two costs that have been throwing the money situation out of whack with the PCs. They're always just barely managing while their henchmen are acquiring fortunes.

[geneweigel]

Well, this all hails back to the "Flinty Pall" description that I pigeonholed some time ago: as someone who is so much the opposite of the idea of a "Monty Hall DM" (which frankly never existed unless they were a bunch or retards and in that case excessive treasure isn't the problem) that they fear giving the players rewards. These "Flinty Palls" were so embedded in 2e that 3e was a kneejerk reaction to this in many ways and the worst kind of "knee jerk reaction" it was.

My advice?

Throw magic items and treasure everywhere for the bold to take and let the chips fall where they may.

So what if a yahoo piles up treasure? Have the treasure turn into a monster if its so offensive.

Anyway, in regards to hirelings....

You'll find that everything is available in my campaign. I even let them hire healers and barber/surgeons to bring along for the ride instead of overly expensive clerics. Their prices and powers fall in the range of "spells without gods" (read: quasi-science spells comparative to cleric spells of 1st-2nd level [cost: 100-200 gp per "power"]) but they have a higher rate of power recovery and less versatility in selection (ex: no cure blindness, no cure disease, etc.) which is in the realm of the gods.

In regards to general rates per month thats only for city adventure prices (read: Gygax's city to megadungeon formula). When I go out to "the towns" I set it way lower and more versatile (ex: barber-surgeons/man-at-arms who also act as valets, etc.).

But in all honesty, I've never seen anybody pull the shit that I do now but it just seems "right" somehow.

[GRWelsh]

The DM I've been playing with the longest is the Flintiest Pall there ever was. He's a good DM, but our party never has money or down time. He likes to keep us hungry and on the run. It's virtually impossible to do things like hire henchmen, do spell research, or even take a long shit in his campaign.

"My character goes to take a shit."
"Roll for surprise! There's a giant spider in the garderobe."

[Scott]

I don't consider myself a flinty DM, I use the published adventures as guidelines, and the PCs often, especially at low level, are dirt poor if you use the training and monthly expenses rules.

[GRWelsh]

How much gp value do PCs have to acquire per level, for them to be able to afford training and monthly expenses, possibly even have a henchman or two -- and not be dirt poor? Is it a ridiculous amount?

[Scott]

It's 1,500 gp/level/week of training + 100 gp/level/month per PC + 100 gp/level/month for each henchman + costs like identifying items, removing diseases/curses, raising dead, etc.

[geneweigel]

I am not against either (training or general expenses) but at low levels I'd rather put it on a patron (who "sends them on the missions" then pays them feeds them and trains them, etc., etc.) than let a player feel any "money burn" because frankly its a turn off. Theres no way anyone without cash would constantly get embroiled in violence for little or no yield in any world. Right? Why should it universally be that way just because some aggressive players stepped all over some passive DMs back in the beginnings of the game?

The rules for those expenses I look at it as worse case scenario players who "nickel and dime" their fortunes into "fantasy business enterprise". Just crush the shit out of anybody who plays like that! Bring on the expenses and the tax man!

[GRWelsh]

admin said:

I don't consider myself a flinty DM, I use the published adventures as guidelines, and the PCs often, especially at low level, are dirt poor if you use the training and monthly expenses rules.

Just to clarify, Scott (and I think you know), I wasn't talking about you.

Anyway, there's quite a bit of discrepency between the treasure amounts from many of the published adventures and the advice and random dungeon generation tables in the DM's Guide and the Treasure Tables of the Monster Manual. Flinty Pallism might have its roots in the warnings against Monty Haulism in the 1st ed. DMG.

But I agree with Gene. Too many episodes of kobolds with nothing but copper pennies and lint in their pockets -- and other monsters with no treasure at all -- is just annoying.

Episode VII of "Kobold Farmer Saga":

The farmers thank you for saving their livestock from the night-raids of the kobolds. They have no reward to give but their gratitude. Trudging down the road to the next farm, you feel proud to have helped the poor and helpless folk -- even if it means fifty more such episodes to even get close to 2nd level.

[Scott]

Yes, I know.
I like to dish out the loot; I much prefer the REH style adventure where the hero returns to civilization with pouches bursting with loot, and then squandering it, but when you actually figure out what you need to give out just to get by, your treasures end up looking obscene compared to the loot given out in published adventures, low level specifically.

[GRWelsh]

How does that formula work, without the training costs? For spells needed, like identify, remove curse, raise dead, the party can always do a service to the caster to offset the cost at low levels.

[Scott]

The training costs are the real problem at low levels. Take T1 for example. Not too much loot to be found until after Lareth is encountered, which means the party will most likely be 1st level, which also means that if the DM gave the monsters their due, the party would need Rufus and/or Burne eating up 20% and/or a third of the loot taken, so the party might not be able to level after that either, depending on how many members.

[geneweigel]

Of course with the current set of old characters, in place in my campaign, the "tax man" is replaced by the "war man"!



The Conan REH "burn it all on partying" should have a place but if you make it a choice then its goiing to seem like the campaign is filled with a bunch of teetotaling and "nickel and diming" type namby pambies.

That would be an interesting element to add "how you blew it all" on a chart with some choices by the player though. Hmmm...

[Scott]

I have a 9th level cleric that has been wanting to build a stronghold for a while, but, even with the church paying half, he could never afford it.
I'm thinking about importing some Mythus material in this area.

[ghul]

I don't require training until the PCs reach 4th level. The acquisition of 2nd and 3rd level are considered the culmination of their previous training. Once they hit that level 4, however, they must train. I returned to enforcing training about 2 years ago after about 10 years of abandoning it. I love it. When PCs have to exit stage left, the players will take up another character. It also facilitates the passage of time in the campaign, because if half the party is in need of training, they could very well spend a month or 2 not engaged in adventuring. This creates for a panning away of the camera, so to speak in the campaign sense.