How much is the going rate for mercs? basically one of my players, a bard, wants to hire a merc to be a bodyguard around town (basically he wants him to follow him as long as he can keep paying him.) There is a place in Manifest (I'm using the Ghostwalk setting) that has mercenaries for hire, so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch, I'm just oblivious as to the going rate per day and howthe arrangement would exactly work...sure he'd follow him around, but the merc would have a home in the city, and how much to pay him to LEAVE the city for an unknown duration? (but probably a few days, short of a week)
I'm thinking 1-2 gold per day depending on the level of the mercenary, and I'm thinking of letting him hire a level 2 fighter or barbarian, though the latter is less likely...so yeah 2 gold I'm thinking. Considering how much this bard is making per night, he could afford it.
There's a chart in the PHB for this, in the equipment section i believe. 1-2 GP/day should be fine for in town, add 50% for travel, double if actual danger is involved. Or use the proffession skill as a guide. Figure ranks = (Level + STR) for daily income.
In addition to the listings in the PHB check out:
DMG Ch. 4, pg 105. Hirelings.
I think hirelings are underused in games. They are way more realistic than four people "Rambo-ing" some ancient temple or whatnot.
I might go with a regular warrior, but I was thinking more along the lines of a level 1 or level 2 fighter and charging him the amount I previously stated...
thanks!
Edit: on Second thought, I think he needs a warrior of at most 2nd level and that'll keep him out of too much trouble since he won't be able to take the warrior on adventurers most likely...
I'd say something around 2gp per day, and maybe a more hefty fee (100gp?) either up front, on conclusion, or split would do it, depending on the circumstances. If his duties will be little more than caravan guard, 2gp a day is fine. If he knows his life will be on the line, 100gp base is probably lite, in addition to the 2gp a day. And that's for long-term jobs where the money will accrue over time. Going to hire him out for a dangerous dungeon delve? Try 8 or even 10gp a day. Be realistic about it from the merc's point of view. An easy way to adjudicate prices as was outlined to me by my friend Sexi Golem would be to assume 1sp = 1 U.S. dollar ~1950's. This assumes you are an American and familiar with the value of a dollar around that time. If not... well, don't use that analogy. :)
I'd say something around 2gp per day, and maybe a more hefty fee (100gp?) either up front, on conclusion, or split would do it, depending on the circumstances. If his duties will be little more than caravan guard, 2gp a day is fine. If he knows his life will be on the line, 100gp base is probably lite, in addition to the 2gp a day. And that's for long-term jobs where the money will accrue over time. Going to hire him out for a dangerous dungeon delve? Try 8 or even 10gp a day. Be realistic about it from the merc's point of view. An easy way to adjudicate prices as was outlined to me by my friend Sexi Golem would be to assume 1sp = 1 U.S. dollar ~1950's. This assumes you are an American and familiar with the value of a dollar around that time. If not... well, don't use that analogy. :)
How about like a pound in England in comparison to the American Dollar...about the same, but still things are more expensive- only in reverse so things are cheaper, but you still need 100 sp+ to buy the less mundane items.
At anyrate, your suggestion seems about fitting. And I'll use that as my reference. Now all I have to do is decide what level he'll be. (I could use the cohort/leadership rule and make him 1st vs the bard's 3rd)
The DMG outlines (p106)how high a cohort or follower can be and how many a PC can have. Remember that a PC needs to have the leadership feat and be at least 6th level. The rules are quite good and I agree that cohorts and hirlings are under valued/ used. Something else to think about might be the use of a cohort mount.
Although it hasn't been updated to 3.5 yet Arms and Equipment guide features some material on mercenaries, both standard races and monstrous, as well as mounts for monstrous mercenaries. The cost is not only dependent on level but also, to a point, on equipment. A fighter or warrior with higher quality equipment will need more resources to maintain (or replace) that equipment than ones with lower quality equipment and, all other factors being equal (level, skills, feats) higher quality equipment could allow them to take on tougher challenges. Depends on what you anticipate the mercenaries would be required to do. Just some possibilities
I am a HUGE proponent of hirelings, mercenaries and taking the leadership feat with followers and cohorts.
Here are a few rules of thumb for my games:
DM controls hirelings (mercenaries, specialists, et al.).
Player controls followers/cohorts (since it is a feat - let them have it).
Cohorts can have character classes - I shy away from them taking PrCs though.
Followers and hirelings keep in the NPC classes mostly. Just easier to manage that way.
Hireling cost = 1 silver piece per day per level of hireling (base cost). Danger pay doubles this... danger = a fight of any kind.
So, your war2 bodyguard would get 2 sp per day hanging out with your bard. This will get the bard noticed for having a bodyguard, can order the bodyguard to do *basic duties (under DM discretion of course - diplomacy skill helps) and if a fight breaks out - bard has an extra guy around to do some fighting (danger pay!).
Also, read up in the DMG. Some major differences in cohorts, hirelings and followers.
As far as balance goes, war2 hirelings will die real quick if brought down into a CR 10 dungeon. In a dynamic game world, this evens out when the PCs keep coming back to town and hiring more warriors to replace the lost ones. Sooner or later, hirlings will just not show up to work for them/be hired by the party anymore.
*basic duties = standing guard outside the door while principle rests, go into a room first, report "going ons", etc.
The DMG outlines (p106)how high a cohort or follower can be and how many a PC can have. Remember that a PC needs to have the leadership feat and be at least 6th level. The rules are quite good and I agree that cohorts and hirlings are under valued/ used. Something else to think about might be the use of a cohort mount.
I'm afraid I would have to disagree with the general usability of familiars, critter companions, henchmen, hirelings, mini-onions and cohorts. With the only vaguely acceptable ones (to me as a player) going to druids and paladins, the rest are gold and experience sinks waiting to happen. I'd rather cashier the familiar et al and get a nice general feat at equivelant to what the character could qualify for at 1st level than deal with the hassle of such hindrances.
The primary reason is simple : I can sink the rather valuable 6th level general feat into Leadership and pick up ... a 4th level character with 3,300 g.p.v. of goodies. If the character has a really really high Leadership score at the same point ( theoretically as high as a 14 or more as early as 6th level ), you will garner an additional 5 to as many as 20 1st level NPCs and *perhaps* 1 or 2 2nd level and maybe even a 3rd level follower horde. Which has to be fed and paid out of that character's take from adventuring. So, instead of a close-knit group of friends heroically risking thier kiesters to [ insert suitably heroic deeds here ], a small army comes into being - joy...
No, the perversity of the feat is a simple one. Let us suppose that the a group of 4 PCs all elect to assign a 14 or 15 ability score to Charisma. They work diligently to establish themselves as fair and generous critters in the land. The stick to cohorts and followers of thier alignment but - as an average - wind up with, at 6th level - a Leadership score of (6+2 CHA +1 reputation) 9. This gives each character a 4th level mini-onion / cohort to boss around and take point ... er, a new 4th level friend and sleeping bag warmer. Each character, with a Leadership score of 9, doesn't have any followers in tow. 7th level rolls around and now they, at least, have 5 1st level followers apiece and thier own 5th level mini-onion. Instead of dealing with 4 PCs, the GM instead is faced with 4 7th level characters, 4 5th level characters and at least 20 1st level followers laying siege to his campaign. The bad side : those followers and cohorts are considered, by my understanding, as part of the character's CR and thus are not in game mechanical terms a significant change in the party's fighting power. The good side : one or two well-placed fireballs and the party now needs a couple dozen body bags, more if the saving throws for the cohorts and PCs are bad.
In the utmost extreme example of this, I can see a party deliberately willing to build themselves around rampaging across the land with thier own army at 8th level, be staring at the GM with this (presuming 4 PCs all with identical Leadership scores of {8 + 6 CHA + 4 reputation = ) 18. This suddenly means the party of 4 now has : 4 8th level, 4 6th level, 4 4th level, 4 3rd level, 12 2nd level and 140 1st level followers at thier disposal, numbering 168 warm bodies all told.
In essence, I am not fond of the 3rd / 3rd-and-a-half edition rules regarding mini-onions and followers. They clutter up play, slow down combat and can force a GM to simply vaporize the small army just to keep the game from getting mired in dealing with the actions approaching that large a group. This is not really fair to the player who - upon the loss of anything resembling a large body of followers has no real chance to replenish thier numbers - has essentially wasted that 6th level feat. The PCs and thier familiars and critter companions and special mounts are bad enough.
Summoned animals and monsters can do the same thing, but at least they're not permanent.
I've ruled the followers make their own money using the rules on skills for craft/profession/etcetera. No need for the PC in charge to have to pay them - they are loyal beyond hirelings. No need to supply them with food, shelter and equipment... and no need for the meta-micromanagement headache for DM and players.
Remember, followers are not hirelings.
10 war1 followers won't get vaporized if they are not were vaporizing will happen. Many other uses for 10 war1 (exp1,adt1) followers: guarding the base camp, providing a place for PCs to rest and recuperate, gathering info so PCs can go about PCing, making alchemical items, running supplies between "town" and adventure sight, and hundreds of other things which create a more focused environment for the PCs to thrive in.
Also, if you start rampaging across the land and start losing followers and cohorts, your leadership score goes down and you lose more. Let's not forget any RP issues that come up in some games when "rogue armies" (PCs with cohorts and followers) sprout up in the land. Kings, Queens, barons and so on will have something to say about that and they have better resources sometimes (Gran March and The Theocracy of the Pale in Greyhawk comes to mind).
Meta-wise, this would also change the game to a war game and if that is what the players want to do - let them if you want to as DM.
Wars bring different rewards then dungeon delving. It is also a whole new dynamic to RPing.
I agree in part with both sides. I dislike Leadership in general because, to me, it seems to break the focus of the adventuring. That, and it raises issues of who needs it to do what; does the king need to have Leadership? Well, no.... But does he have followers who are loyal beyond hirelings? Well, yes... but that's different, because he's the king.... My gut says that roleplaying should handle this.
On the other hand, it is nice to have a simple mechanic for figuring out how many people the party can attract due to their fame. It would be hard to accomplish all that by making the party roleplay out interactions with several dozen individuals. That, and yes, the cohorts and followers can actually be used to lend a certain amount of verisimilitude by being tasked to minor things that the party would otherwise have to do but don't want to take the time to consider. Not to mention, as was pointed out above, if one decides to take one's 1st level followers into battle, one is responsible for them. Many players will therefore avoid this, either from an in-character sense of responsibility or due to fear of the repurcussions of their Leadership score.
I also agree that there is a distinction between followers and hirelings. The followers are being led around for more than just the promise of money. They may expect their leader to bring them prosperity, but they probably don't expect regular pay for hanging around him.
In the end, I am left rather conflicted about Leadership.
I didn't quite expect this to become a debate, or rather a bashing of Leadership...as I was really only asking about hirelings or the more specific mercenary/bodyguard- which I got great responses on.
But, since Leadership has been mentioned, I figure I'll weigh in.
I don't like it from a DM vs Player perspective, but if a player had it, I'd let them control the cohort and followers- as my friend would do it- within a restricted area, basically their immediate sphere of influence.
I AM using the Leadership feat as a DM though. I'm using it for my Nobleman Marshal NPC, who has...a rather high Leadership score at Level 10, this is such a potentially bulky proposistion ON TOP OF THE NPC's PERSONALITY that I've outsourced to a guest player, who won't be available until November though, to play the character once things get hectic and the party might need him or their interests intersect or clash...and they might clash. I plan on letting HIM control the Cohort, who would be of about 6th-8th level, and predetermined to be a cleric, and the followers. I figure as a Marshal, he should have a small army at his disposal, and he'll need it, use it and possibly abuse it. As the character is Neutral, we'll see if the players come into conflict or congruence with the Marshal, who is less a servant of the King than a master of his own realm and slave to his obsessions.
Any actual Player Character taking the feat won't get such generous treatment from me, first they have to Roleplay attracting the follower- again as Saern points out, almost negates the usefulness in having the feat though the feat sets upper and lower limits and puts in the leadership score to keep things somewhat balanced...
No, I don't want, or would allow, a small army of PCs and NPCs to roam the countryside, well not anymore than I would now...
I have 8 PCs and right now, 3 NPCs running around with the different groups- the pcs haven't gotten together...basically, without the Leadership feat- my PCs already will be a Small Army...though there's not many frontline fighters in the group, I have a fighter, a barbarian/druid, a monk (Who doesn't yet realize his place in a party, though he's been traveling with npcs so far, but he is a ghost...), a ranger, and two clerics. well one is a fighter/cleric. on top of that I have a Sorcerer and the NPCs are Cleric (he won't be around long), Wizard (on her own mission, but being escorted by a PC) and Ranger/Cleric (he's getting killed, but will come back as a ghost if the PCs don't save him, or his body, actually)
Anyway, if ANY of them took Leadership, it would be ridiculous. I just wouldn't allow it as it wouldn't be practical for any of them.
Of course all this talk about my Ghostwalk campaign reminds me that the session is tomorrow, so I'd better get cracking on what I'll do with my players for 4 hours. (since I'll be short on one player for sure, and I have to get them together...soon.)
I don't HATE Leadership, I like the potential it has, at least for a small party and NPCs, but I see how it could easily get out of hand, at that point you'd have to wrest control of the followers and cohort(s) out of the PCs hands if it is practical and take it from there...for instance, what if the players do something that is contrary to the alignment of their followers/cohort (being that an NPC's alignment might be stricter than the PCs)? What if the PCs want the character to do something suicidal? But then again, what if they just want them to help handle mundane things or just act as an entourage- not even using all of the followers they could have...which is what my NPC Marshal will be doing pretty much.
OH well.
I just don't think it is a popular feat anyway. I'd rather not worry about it, but I think I'll retain control over the bard's bodyguard for the purpose of the hireling.
|
i LOVE the leadership feat as a player, and respect it as a DM.
that is, i will create a character who is a natural leader, who takes charge of the party, and who would command men/women. as such, it is only natural to allocate that 6th lvl feat slot to leadership, and get the game mechanics behind me.
notable uses:
my knight/cleric is a member of the Order of Rekkenmark, which will provide bodyguards and a logistics officer when i hit a threshold of the affiliation score. i took Leadership in order to acquire a more specialized talent, and before the other benefits kick in.
the DM designed and is playing my cohort, and i invested my 9th lvl feat into "improved cohort", thereby increasing his max lvl to mine-1. he's become our primary HP damage dealer, with his many throwing daggers and sneak attack damage.
in the past, my cleric was focused more on creating and maintaining giant insects, and working on an airship. he took leadership so the party would have a cleric who would have healing spells at hand, ready to patch everyone up.
this enabled an amazing RP opportunity when an assassin mistook him for me, slitting his throat and dropping him to near death.
wake up, Cure Critical Wounds before he bled out, and boom instant karmic connection.
in the hands of a bard, this becomes VERY useful, as his music affects all allies who can hear it, and dropping 2-3 feats into leadership, extra followers, and improved cohort means a LOT of arrows sleeting the enemy's way, all at +'s to hit and damage.
and having armies is cool, it lets you take more actions, and that's the true currency of a DnD game.
-the hamster
notable uses:
my knight/cleric is a member of the Order of Rekkenmark, which will provide bodyguards and a logistics officer when i hit a threshold of the affiliation score. i took Leadership in order to acquire a more specialized talent, and before the other benefits kick in.
the DM designed and is playing my cohort, and i invested my 9th lvl feat into "improved cohort", thereby increasing his max lvl to mine-1. he's become our primary HP damage dealer, with his many throwing daggers and sneak attack damage.
in the past, my cleric was focused more on creating and maintaining giant insects, and working on an airship. he took leadership so the party would have a cleric who would have healing spells at hand, ready to patch everyone up.
this enabled an amazing RP opportunity when an assassin mistook him for me, slitting his throat and dropping him to near death.-the hamster
Here is my problem with leadership. Psionichamster has described characters of very close skill levels (only 1 lvl difference), with very consistant roles in the party (and apparently a vital role as the primary hit point dealer). That doesn't sound like a cohort to me, that sounds like a party member. Why would a character remain balanced if they got two be two people at once with complete sets of abilities? That does not equal two feats. And 2 levels is not a world of difference. With a couple of lucky roles a cohort could contribute way more in an adventure than some of the PC's. Why would someone in that possition take half the share of treasure? Because leadership makes him so devoted to his master? That doesn't cut it for me.
If the party wants help or a new set of ablities thats fine. They can either create a new character to join the party and play that as well or hunt around for an NPC to hire on. But the new guy will apply to their xp gain if he helps overcome an obstacle and will have to be properly compensated for his risk. Just like all the other creatures and characters in the campaign react when they aren't generated to appease the leadership feat.
Why can't a cohort get xp on their own? If a rouge cohort spends her week of downtime in a turf war with a rival theives guild why doesn't she level up like a party member?
The mechanics for attracting loyal followers ae already built in to the game in the form of charisma, many charisma based skills,
and if the party wins enough notriety through their deeds it should happen with little extra effort on their part. IT being all of the benifits and drawbacks that come with fame.
Leadership is not neccesary to be a leader and it confuses paid cohorts with steadfast and true allies like party members. Not to mention all of its lame Xp rules that derail the continuity of the rest of the system.