Henchmen of Henchmen

If a pc has a henchmen who hires his own henchman how does treasure work out? Does the henches hench still get a half share of xp or just a 1/4 share? Same with gold do they get 1/6 a share or 1/12?

IANAA, but the henchman of a henchman earns 1/4 share of XP and 15% of his master’s (the henchman) income.

I am sure this is not correct.
Everyone below the PCs earns a 50% share of XP (Was discussed in a thread about animal followers of henchmen I think) and I doubt anybody would do this kind of dangerous work for a 15% Share of a 15% share! I dont recall any discussion about this though.

No idea what’s supposed to be the technically correct method, but that’s what I do: There are PCs (who get full shares of XP and loot) and henchmen (who get half shares). Doesn’t matter whether you’re the henchman of a PC directly, or the henchman of a henchman of a henchman of… of a PC, you’re a henchman either way and get a half share either way. (And, yeah, I know ACKS says a 15% share, but half share is what I’m used to from way back, so it’s what I use.)

this is also how we’ve done it in our campaign. It makes sense, there’s no reason an equally effective subhenchman should cost substantially less. If you took that method to it’s logical conclusion, it makes sense to try and build the longest subhenchman chain possible since the ones near the bottom are basically free, rather than trying to max out your own direct henchmen before moving on to subhenchmen.

Unless you can find it for me, the only animal followers threads that I have read haven’t discussed henchmen of henchmen. The reason that henchmen of henchmen get 1/4 share XP is that any other way of splitting it causes them to catch up to their master in level and leave. The was originally pointed out here

Why should the henchmen care that his share is 15% of 15% if it’s more than he could make through other means? He still gets his monthly upkeep paid for, everything else is gravy. It’s still pretty difficult to make payroll, as the henchman has to pay for all of his henchmen’s monthly upkeep out of his treasure share.

My old campaign featured a lot of henchmen of henchmen of henchmen. Based on ACKS RAW and a lot of discussion on these forums, I ended up handling it this way:

XP: PCs and independent NPCs get 2 shares of XP. Henchmen (at any level in the hierarchy) get 1 share (fractional shares are dumb; that’s not how a shares system is supposed to work). I set up a spreadsheet to record the following:
XP = total XP for the expedition from all sources.
PC = Number of PCs and independent NPCs taking part in the expedition.
H = Number of henchmen (at any level in the hierarchy) taking part in the expedition.
XP/Share = XP/[(PC*2)+H]

Treasure: Expedition leaders (that is, PCs and independent NPCs) were assumed to traditionally be entitled to 100 shares of the treasure. Henchmen were similarly assumed to be entitled to 15 shares of the treasure in addition to their monthly wage. Wages were paid from the pocket of the PC at the top of the henchman’s chain of command, not from treasure, or the general fund, or from a higher-ranking henchman’s wages or treasure. Henchmen who received less than 15 shares would take a loyalty/morale hit.

Henchmen who themselves had henchmen would take a loyalty/morale hit if they were only getting as many shares as their underlings. So, over time, we would have seen something like henchmen who have henchmen get 20 shares; henchmen who have henchmen who have henchmen get 25 shares; etc. That makes henchmen who have henchmen more expensive, rather than making henchmen of henchmen cheaper.

My tracking spreadsheets included a party roster that listed the number of shares each party member was entitled to. At the end of an expedition, I’d just divide the GP value of the treasure by the total shares for everyone who took part, and then multiply by 100 to get the value of a PC’s shares. Henchmen are assumed to squander whatever they get, so there is no point in calculating how much their shares end up being worth.

A strict reading indicates the 15% of the 15% share is correct for subhenchmen, as theoretically the prime-henchman is the ‘employer’ of the subhenchmen. (pg 50) That should stand to be correct, since as you move into the domain management game those subhenchmen are fully veiled behind your prime henchmen as part of the nebulous ‘vassal realm’ you can then make demands of.

The XP section makes no mention of sub+ henchmen as a different class, just ‘players’ and ‘henchmen’.

If you do the 15% of 15% split, and still give a half-share of XP, you’re essentially power-leveling the sub+ henchmen. As the subhenchmen are one or more levels underneath the prime henchmen, that 50% XP is worth ‘double’ or more as regards to getting through those lower levels.

It’s likely that you’re growing a whole crop of folks who will eventually be either prime henchmen or player characters. I’m wagering that’s part of the intent?

That 15% share is on top of any wages, as well.

From Alex’s post early here: http://www.autarch.co/forum/hireling-15-minimum-0, I modify the formula:

4 adventurers, each with 2 henchmen who have 2 henchmen, go on an adventure. They bring back 10,400gp.

(1x+.15x+(.0225x+.0225x)+.15x+(0.0225x+0.0225x))*4 ==
4x + 1.2x + 0.36x ==
5.56x == 10,400

x == 1870 GP

Each adventurer gets 1870GP.
Each Henchman gets 280 GP.
Each subhench gets 42GP.

That 42GP is anywhere from 4 times as much to half as much as their monthly wage up till level 3, which I’d expect would be treated as quite a windfall.

Splitting out XP, 10,400 GP == 10,400 XP, we can say:

4x + 8(.5)x + 16(.5)x ==
4x + 4x + 8x ==
16x == 10,400

So all hench levels get 325XP.

From Alex’s original post, the PCs are getting 130 less GP, the prime henchmen ~20 less GP.

The XP difference is much more stark; the original gave 1300XP to the PCs, and 625XP to the prime henchmen.

That being said, you’ve doubled your number of available actions on any given combat round, so, the utility of that depends on what the challenge was.

We’ve always played it as a 15% share per henchman, regardless of how far down the chain of command he is. An nth-level dude is an nth-level dude regardless of who he reports to. We think of it like pirate shares; crewmen get 1, PCs get 2.

XP is just a question of the party size you want to eventually end up with. If you award equal half-PC shared to each henchman and hench-of-hench and on down regardless of depth, subhenches will eventually reach the same character level as their employers (generally, except for like a thief employing a spellsword of something), and then quite possibly morale-out. As a result, equal shares of XP tends to limit party size and discourage deep trees. On the flip side, if you want to encourage deep trees and large parties, halve XP for each degree of depth.

Keep in mind that although you have to HIRE a hench that is lower level, only being “More powereful” forces a morale roll. Thus, a 4th level character could hire a 3rd level henchman who could hire a 2nd level henchman, and then that 2nd level henchman could reach 3rd without an issue. Conflict would only arise if, say, the Prime Hench were a spellsword and the Subhench were a thief, so the Subhench would hit 4th before the Prime.

I don’t recall the thread, but I asked this question awhile back, and Alex said that sub henchmen get 15% shares as well (and 1/2 xp). It makes sense to me within the world… the hirelings are hirelings regardless.

Don’t forget that henchmen also take a morale check upon reaching a new level as well… to see if they strike out on their own.

I couldnt find the thread I mentioned… :confused:
But anyway, In a dungeon they all just follow your orders regardless and I dont see how it could make any sense.
Game-wise it prevents players to create a tree of super cheap henchmen and in the world nobody would risk his life if the others (with the same job and risk) get like 6x or even 36x the treasure even if its more then they would earn on a normal way…

Ug. Just one more reason I don’t allow henchmen to hire henchmen. After reading The Grim Fist, I realized what a slope that was and immediately houseruled that option away.