What seems obvious to me is that AM actually had a salient point, and that people who have a grudge with him seem to be willing to bend over backwards to stick it to him somehow. That, I'm not going to do, I'm sorry. I'm not going to say counterfactual stuff just because people want to stick it to AM.

That's bullshit.

Bimp!
I contend that 10 men are an army! Haven't you fuckers seen the The Expendables?

Here's what happens if you go adventuring with just PCs and no hirelings. You ride out of town and travel three days to the Ruined Keep. You spend a day observing the place and setting up a safe camp area. The next morning you head down into the dungeons. You can't take the horses in and don't want to care all your travel/camping gear so you leave it in your "safe" camp area. No player wants to leave his character behind to guard them, so you all head in.

When you return that evening, you find you camp disturbed by wild animals, your horses upset, hungry, and in need of water. This is the best result. One of more of the horses could have been injured or killed by those wild animals. A band of kobolds or goblins (or even human bandits) might have made off with your horses and gear. Etc.

Having a few hirelings along to guard the camp makes such nasty surprises far less likely -- and they'll probably even have dinner ready when you get bad. They can stand watches so you can get a full night's sleep (assuming no wandering monsters) and be read to go in the morning.

Quote from: Aos;439457I contend that 10 men are an army!

Seems to be a popular position right now!

Quote from: RandallS;439458Here's what happens if you go adventuring with just PCs and hirelings. You ride out of town and travel three days to the Ruined Keep. You spend a day observing the place and setting up a safe camp area. The next morning you head down into the dungeons. You can't take the horses in and don't want to care all your travel/camping gear so you leave it in your "safe" camp area. No player wants to leave his character behind to guard them, so you all head in.

When you return that evening, you find you camp disturbed by wild animals, your horses upset, hungry, and in need of water. This is the best result. One of more of the horses could have been injured or killed by those wild animals. A band of kobolds or goblins (or even human bandits) might have made off with your horses and gear. Etc.

Having a few hirelings along to guard the camp makes such nasty surprises far less likely -- and they'll probably even have dinner ready when you get bad. They can stand watches so you can get a full night's sleep (assuming no wandering monsters) and be read to go in the morning.

That's what I'm talking about. Having a whole bunch of guys travelling with you is not automatically the best thing you can do, strategically speaking. That seems to completely fly over people's heads, somehow. That's what I meant there, answering jibba's question, and there, answering the Pundit (point 3 is relevant to this).

Quote from: Benoist;439451Dude, you're insulting my intelligence when you're saying that I didn't "think this through." I did, and still do.

Now, hirelings in fact do not affect the party's baseline in terms of levels, because just as you noted, they are 0 level characters which are paid wages per month. The scenario of AM is thus perfectly feasible.

Henchmen are a different matter, since they require shares of treasures for themselves, which puts a whole another spin on the question of their use in practice, where many player characters will in fact decide they do not want to share significant amounts of rewards with other characters, unless of course these characters are themselves PCs in other groups or other adventures in the same campaign. Having multiple characters in the same campaign was actually something that you could encounter way more back in the day than you do now with the emphasis on one character from beginning to end of the campaign. Playing multiple characters between DMs, adventures, or even in the same adventure was much more of a possibility back then, and henchmen are part of this picture also in the way they are used, allowing different levels of characters to adventure together, upgrading NPCs to PCs status, branching off to play different levels with different characters in the same campaign, etc.

So it's my turn to return the favor: don't assume I have not thought things through, and still don't. Thank you.

Benny, I apologize for my being a little snippy. I shouldn't make assumptions on whether or not you've given it serious consideration. You obviously have. That said, I disagree with some of your conclusions.

I am merely stating that large groups of henchmen and hirelings are not and were not part of the composition of the "typical" adventuring party. It's obvious when we listen to most first-hand and second-hand accounts of people's games, and it's even more obvious when we read through published adventure modules.

Are henchmen and hirelings part of the core rules of the game? Yes. Are they a secondary, or perhaps tertiary part of the game? Also, yes. This isn't Ars Magica. This is D&D. There are different assumptions in D&D. Not that what you're describing isn't cool; it is cool, but what you describe is uncommon. That's what I'm basically saying here.

Again, apologies for giving you a hard time before, though I hope you can see my position.

Quote from: Benoist;439456What seems obvious to me is that AM actually had a salient point, and that people who have a grudge with him seem to be willing to bend over backwards to stick it to him somehow. That, I'm not going to do, I'm sorry. I'm not going to say counterfactual stuff just because people want to stick it to AM.

That's bullshit.

Spot on, dude, and I with you on this.

How about we stop talking about hirelings and instead talk about the fact that a 1d3 ogre encounter isn't a guaranteed TPK in any event.

An ogre was only a 4 HD monster with AC 5 and a single attack of 1d10.  If I have 8 PCs with no hirelings up against 1 ogre, I'm pretty sure that's a pretty survivable encounter.

The ogre would have an average hp of 29.  At least half the party would be some kind of fighter/paladin/ranger, able to do an average of 5 points each per round.  Plus you probably have at least 3 guys to fill the magic-user / thief / cleric roles.

They should be able to take the ogre out in 1-2 rounds of straight combat.  During which, they might lose one guy.

Granted, if you end up with one high hp ogre or two average ogres, that's going to be a lot tougher and half the party will likely die.  

Now three ogres - or two really tough ones - that is going to take some good planning, quick thinking, and a lot of luck to avoid getting turned into a bunch of smears on the cave walls.

So like I said a while back 3 ogres could easily wipe out a party of 5 5th level PCs in AD&D especially if they were unprepared or just got out of a combat

What's that it wouldn't be an issue because their hirelings would hold them off for a couple of rounds with their bows etc .....

Ben did a lot of digging and found a lot of references to Hirelings however like I explained way back on post 34,009 none of those references put hirelings in the DNA of the game they were always just an option if you wanted them. So AD&D acommodates Hirelings it does not presuppose them.
I tired to explain how I thought hirelings would appear in far more of the rules of the games, spells to affect them, class abilities to increase their morale or give them combat bonuses if they were baked into the DNA. The fact that you can totally remove hirelings, and most people did, with no affect on play compared to say alignment for example woudl give lie to the idea that they are essential.
Mr Lamb has nicely demonstrated through a review of several modules that these do not predispose the ubiquity of hirelings and in fact seem to be set up in opposition to them. They pitch to parties of about 8 not to parties of about 18...  but lets move on....

Quote from: jgants;439468How about we stop talking about hirelings and instead talk about the fact that a 1d3 ogre encounter isn't a guaranteed TPK in any event.

An ogre was only a 4 HD monster with AC 5 and a single attack of 1d10.  If I have 8 PCs with no hirelings up against 1 ogre, I'm pretty sure that's a pretty survivable encounter.

The ogre would have an average hp of 29.  At least half the party would be some kind of fighter/paladin/ranger, able to do an average of 5 points each per round.  Plus you probably have at least 3 guys to fill the magic-user / thief / cleric roles.

They should be able to take the ogre out in 1-2 rounds of straight combat.  During which, they might lose one guy.

Granted, if you end up with one high hp ogre or two average ogres, that's going to be a lot tougher and half the party will likely die.  

Now three ogres - or two really tough ones - that is going to take some good planning, quick thinking, and a lot of luck to avoid getting turned into a bunch of smears on the cave walls.

My pitch was just that I thought a party of 5 5th level PCs that had come out of a fight and that had to face 3 ogres was in touble.

Ogres, in my games certainly use weapons and get Strength bonuses like Giants. The base AD&D rules give them weapon damge +2 I used to give them full 18(00) strength for +3 to hit +6 damage. I think we should use the standard and give them +2 so an ogre sized sword has to be equiv to a 2h so 1d10 +2 damage.
As I outlined in the other thread we are talking about a situation where a relatively easy fight for the PCs is followed up by 3 ogres being attracted by the ruckas. I think the PCs are in trouble.

Quote from: jgants;439468How about we stop talking about hirelings and instead talk about the fact that a 1d3 ogre encounter isn't a guaranteed TPK in any event.

An ogre was only a 4 HD monster with AC 5 and a single attack of 1d10.  If I have 8 PCs with no hirelings up against 1 ogre, I'm pretty sure that's a pretty survivable encounter.

The ogre would have an average hp of 29.  At least half the party would be some kind of fighter/paladin/ranger, able to do an average of 5 points each per round.  Plus you probably have at least 3 guys to fill the magic-user / thief / cleric roles.

They should be able to take the ogre out in 1-2 rounds of straight combat.  During which, they might lose one guy.

Granted, if you end up with one high hp ogre or two average ogres, that's going to be a lot tougher and half the party will likely die.  

Now three ogres - or two really tough ones - that is going to take some good planning, quick thinking, and a lot of luck to avoid getting turned into a bunch of smears on the cave walls.

I completely agree. The FIRST fight of the Ptolus AD&D game was against the equivalent of an Ogre zombie thing and a whole bunch of diseased orcs and goblins. The PCs worked their way through it easily enough, because they were not morons tactically, and because a PC was lucky (Imperator's), which, you know... actually happens in a role playing game.

If you use your resources well, keep your distances, use the dungeon layout to your advantage... you know, actually use your brains in taking those guys out, it's far from being an instant TPK scenario!

Quote from: Benoist;439472I completely agree. The FIRST fight of the Ptolus AD&D game was against the equivalent of an Ogre zombie thing and a whole bunch of diseased orcs and goblins. The PCs worked their way through it easily enough, because they were not morons tactically, and because a PC was lucky (Imperator's), which, you know... actually happens in a role playing game.

If you use your resources well, keep your distances, use the dungeon layout to your advantage... you know, actually use your brains in taking those guys out, it's far from being an instant TPK scenario!

Hey where are those goalposts going

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;439465Are henchmen and hirelings part of the core rules of the game? Yes. Are they a secondary, or perhaps tertiary part of the game? Also, yes. This isn't Ars Magica. This is D&D.

No, I'm sorry, mate. I love you and everything. But what I'm reading is that it is not what you see as being part of D&D, or experienced with the game before, which is fine, but is not what's actually reflected in the game. It's like you're saying Rob Kuntz was playing Ars Magica all this time at Gary's table, and vice versa, for that matter. It's just not correct. It's not how these guys thought about the game, it's not how that was translated into the game, and not how it carried over into AD&D. I don't agree.

Heh, there's 2 guys posting on the account, I think that's what accounts for it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;439473Hey where are those goalposts going

There are two people on the account, at least as near as I can tell.