Topic: henchmen, hirelings, followers...

[Arioch]

Yet I refer to the original Dungeon Masters Guide from 1e, sorry for the confusion.  It is the only DnD book I wish I still had (and can see myself purchasing if one happens upon me via random book encounter roll).

WotC just reprinted ad&d 1st edition, if you're interested.

I played a little 3, 3.5, and 4. 4 was so bad we switched to World of Darkness instead. It looked shiny and new for some members of our group at first, and it did some things well (e.g. it really succeeded in terms of clarity in my opinion), but it didn't take long before no one in the group could tolerate it at all. The first player to try it (in someone else's campaign), who had pitched it, was also the first person to bail out and didn't come back until we changed systems.

4th edition is the only d&d I can stand beside the old basic, probably because is so different from any other edition. I really like the "boardgaminess" of combat (tactical movement, powers, etc...) and the fact that it's stupid easy to DM. Really, it cuts prep time to almost nothing.

[Arioch]

Back on topic, I looked up the morale rules in war law, but they're indeed too complex for my tastes. I've decided to use the old ad&d rules, slightly modified to better fit RM, if someone is interested, I might turn my notes about it into a small article and send it to the GC.

[markc]

 On thing I did in the past was to have the players create 2 PC's about a month apart. One was combat oriented and the second more support oriented. I made sure to have a mix in both groups so one round of PC gen did not contain all of one type. This worked well and the PC's had a back up in case things went bad for them. It also provided for some of the extra bodies they needed for a spaceship in SM:P.
MDC

[mtpnj]

Rolemaster put out a book which had all the main classes, for that expansion, written up with stats, spells and magic items at several different levels.  Was called Heroes and Rogues #1420.  1991 publish date.

[JimiSue]

I fully stat any NPCs that will be around for a while, and usually let the players control them, provided they aren't having them do things that they wouldn't normally do. For ujust a hireling I would probably just give them a stat block, selecting a couple of skill highlights reflecting what the PCs are hiring for.

And off topic In my D&D set I have the red basic, blue expert, greenish companion, black masters and gold immortal sets. And a full set of 1st ed AD&D, a good portion of the non-setting 2nd ed, most of the non-setting 3rd/3.5, and none of the 4th. I did a demo game for 4th at a convention, and after 45 minutes I had to get up and walk away it was so bad. And I wasn't the first player to do so.

Pathfinder as mentioned above is 3.5 mended. I'm not overly enamoured of the way they keep on loading specific special abilities with new effects (e.g. the paladin's lay on hands getting additional effects so one LoH application might heal damage, cure disease, remove fatigue, remove paralysis... etc with no way to just select one ability), but a lot of the rule tweaks make a lot of sense and are very playable. I particularly like the fighter bonuses for weapons and armour, and also the wizard school bonus abilities (e.g. an evocation specialist can shoot an energy missile that does somthing like 1d6+ half level daamge) & the option to have a bonded item rather than a familiar.

My favourite mechanism from all the D&D series though is second edition character kits - lots of interesting new templates to play, completely opened out the game from it's linear character pathways. Unfortunately they went back to the linear for v.3

[Arioch]

Rolemaster put out a book which had all the main classes, for that expansion, written up with stats, spells and magic items at several different levels.  Was called Heroes and Rogues #1420.  1991 publish date.

Good to know, it might be worth giving it a look, NPCs from SW (or even MERP) modules tend to be relatively high in level or have very peculiar items with them. A bunch of low level NPCs ready to go are always handy 

[yammahoper]

My only requirement/demand for NPC's is they be made with the same rules as PC's.  SW and MERP NPC's, especially the powerful ones, were not.  Many were designed by Terry, and Terry sees no reason to not just write down what he thinks/wants them to have.  I dislike this because it typically either over powers or under powers and rarely results in a number resembling the reality players live in under the game mechnics and rules.

Rule zero is great, but if the GM is enforcing a rule players must follow, he should too.

[intothatdarkness]

My only requirement/demand for NPC's is they be made with the same rules as PC's.  SW and MERP NPC's, especially the powerful ones, were not.  Many were designed by Terry, and Terry sees no reason to not just write down what he thinks/wants them to have.  I dislike this because it typically either over powers or under powers and rarely results in a number resembling the reality players live in under the game mechnics and rules.

Rule zero is great, but if the GM is enforcing a rule players must follow, he should too.

I always rolled up and developed my NPCs (the more specific/special ones, anyhow) EXACTLY like I would a PC.

[yammahoper]

I'm not saying I never used or invented a talent or optional rule for a NPC: odd that most are villians the players are set on killing rather than learning from 

One such NPC I used the option of a 5.4.3.2.1 skill rank bonus.  They never had to fight that guardian, but I might have suspected they would attack him anyway.  Ah, watching the spell users drag off the warriors (no one could teleport due to the Guardian using a nice Arcane list to increase gravity in the area so everyone was to heavy to use transport magic.).

RM, goodtimes.

[Arioch]

My only requirement/demand for NPC's is they be made with the same rules as PC's.

I totally agree.
(Well, except for monsters. Monsters should never follow the same rules as PCs imho, but that's another story)

[GrumpyOldFart]

My only requirement/demand for NPC's is they be made with the same rules as PC's.

I totally agree.
(Well, except for monsters. Monsters should never follow the same rules as PCs imho, but that's another story)

Then what to do with things that fall into both categories, like Orcs? "Monsters" that are also a character race?

[Arioch]

Then what to do with things that fall into both categories, like Orcs? "Monsters" that are also a character race?

Good Point.
But, to put it simple, if a race is available as a character race, then it isn't a monster, and I'd build NPCs from that race using character generation rules.
Imho, monsters should be scary, strange and mysterious. If something is well-known or commonplace, then it's not a monster. If orcs are available as a PC race, then that orc you just killed is not a monster, it's a person (like trolls in my current campaign  ). A savage brute maybe, but not a monster.
Or, if wyverns are so common that you can go and buy one as a riding steed, then wyverns are not monsters but just animals.
(OTOH, if you played a pseudo-historic campaign set in the ancient Rome, things like elephants, lions or crocodiles could be treated as monsters and be given "magical" abilities, like a fear-inducing roar...).

[intothatdarkness]

Then what to do with things that fall into both categories, like Orcs? "Monsters" that are also a character race?

I didn't have Orcs as a player race in my word, but they did exist as nation-states. In that case, when they appeared, I developed them in the same way I did other NPCs (a set of generic types and then more detailed ones developed in a similar way to PCs).