Good Henchmen are Hard to Find

Apparently my special interest now is writing about the annoying mundanities of AD&D city/town life - taxes, tolls, intentionally misleading encounters, and irritating and expensive NPCs. To this end, I've been reading all about henchmen in the DMG. Boy, it is a lot more difficult to recruit these people than I gave it credit for!

Henchmen are not to be confused with standard hirelings like porters, teamsters, and torchbearers, nor with expert hirelings like mercenaries. Henchmen are character-type NPCs - that is, those with at least (and often only, at least when initially recruited - more on that later) one level in a class who directly strengthen the party by (mostly) loyally serving under the direct supervision of a specific player character.

Not only do they serve as another character-type "body" in the party. They can also strengthen the player character's stronghold, serve as a backup character to adventure when the player character is unable to (including when the player character is dead), and, perhaps most interestingly, be used "as a safety measure against the machinations of rival player characters":

It's no surprise that in modern editions of D&D - where player characters are independently strong, strongholds are non-existent or capriciously handwaved, character death is rare and easily recovered from, and player characters are generally assumed to be working together amicably - henchmen are more or less a thing of the past. But in AD&D, henchmen are explicitly "so useful" and "so devoted" that a player character's Charisma score imposes a limit on the number they can have in service at any given time:

This assertion that henchmen are incredibly useful is important to keep in mind, as it provides justification for just how hard it is to recruit them.

I'll provide a bit of perspective as to where it is I'm coming from. Typically in my games, when the player characters are looking for henchmen, they go to a nearby settlement, spend a week of downtime searching for candidates, I tell them who is available, and they pick who they want. I have a list of available henchmen in each settlement. Simple as that. I never considered that finding and recruiting henchman could be a challenge in and of itself, involving the expenditure of time and money and the use of social acumen. 

Whether it should be such a challenge will depend on the individual DM's taste. Since I am recently enamored with Gygax's assertion that dealing with NPCs "should be expensive and irritating", I am currently of the opinion that jumping through hoops to recruit henchmen is similarly a somewhat charming artifact of Gygaxian design sensibilities. That being said, let's get into the nitty gritty.

To begin with, newly recruited henchmen are typically 1st-level:

Player characters above 6th-level might get a 2nd-level recruit, and characters above 11th-level might get a 3rd-level recruit at best. The parenthetical justification suggests that while player characters seek out henchmen for all of the reasons I've already mentioned, henchmen seek out player characters for protection ("the aegis of a PC") - higher-level character-types need no such protection and so do not seek out such work.

What follows are a few paragraphs about the race of potential henchmen:

The race of the player character somehow affects which henchmen will seek them out. This isn't expanded upon here, but I imagine that the DM is meant to reference the racism table RACIAL PREFERENCES TABLE in the PHB:

For example, dwarf player characters probably won't attract elf or half-orc henchmen and vice versa.

Racial distribution of the recruitment area is up to the DM's discretion. I personally use this bit from APPENDIX C:

I assume that my settlements are largely human. Dwarves, elves, gnomes, and halflings don't have their own "settlements" per se, they have "lairs" (small-scale ethnocentric communities) as determined by stocking the campaign area using the wilderness encounter tables (for example, a few demihuman/humanoid lairs pop up in the second part of my series on using the DMG to stock a sandbox). You can assign your own bespoke racial distributions to each of your settlements as you like, but that sounds to me like more trouble than its worth, so I use this blanket distribution.

Yes, you can racially profile when recruiting henchmen. You can put up posters all over the city that say "HENCHMEN WANTED: Half-Orcs Need Not Apply!":

Very cool!

Now that we've covered the fun issue of race, let's find out how many henchmen are in a given settlement:

In my post on settlements, and again in the first part of my series on stocking a sandbox with the AD&D DMG, without ever reading this section, I suggested that probably 1 in 100 people in a settlement would be character-type NPCs. I was pretty close! I just didn't account for the possibility that non-humans (and non-half-orcs) would be twice as likely to be character-types. Why half-elves are twice as likely as half-orcs to be "suitable for level advancement" is beyond me (it's racism again, I guess).

Of those 1 in 100 humans and half-orcs, one-tenth are recruitable as henchmen (the rest are either higher-level or "already in a situation they are satisfied with" - perhaps already in another character-type's employ or otherwise adventuring on their own). I'm going to assume then that one-tenth of non-human non-half-orcs are also recruitable (so 1 in 500 of the non-human non-half-orc population, compared to 1 in 1,000 of the human and half-orc population).

As an example, let's crunch the numbers for the average city. I'll refer to APPENDIX B's INHABITATION table:

Typically we would roll 1d6 and multiply the result by 10,000. The average of 1d6 is 3.5, so let's say our population is 35,000 (even though you can't actually roll 3.5 on the die, this is a hypothetical exercise). Our racial distribution is:

• 28,000 humans (80%)
• 1,750 dwarves (5%)
• 1,750 elves (5%)
• 700 gnomes (2%)
• 1,750 half-elves (5%)
• 700 halflings (2%)
• 350 half-orcs (1%)

Here's how many character-types there will be:

• 280 humans
• 35 dwarves
• 35 elves
• 14 gnomes
• 35 half-elves
• 14 halflings
• 3 or 4 half-orcs (50/50 chance)

Here's how many recruitable henchmen there will be:

• 28 humans
• 3 or 4 dwarves (50/50 chance)
• 3 or 4 elves (50/50 chance)
• 1 or 2 gnomes (60/40 chance)
• 3 or 4 half-elves (50/50 chance)
• 1 or 2 halflings (60/40 chance)
• At most 1 half-orc (30 or 40% chance)

Since the highest-level a newly-recruited henchmen can be is 3, I would roll d3 to assign a level to each or else divide by 3 and roll for the remainder. For example:

• 15 1st-level (9 humans, 1 dwarf, 1 elf, 1 gnome, 2 half-elves, 1 halfling)
• 14 2nd-level (10 humans, 1 dwarf, 1 elf, 1 half-elf, 1 halfling)
• 14 3rd-level (9 humans, 2 dwarves, 2 elves, 1 half-elf)

This is actually kind of useful. Until the player characters attain 7th-level, in the average city you need only prep 15 character-type NPCs to be potential henchmen. At 7th-level they might attract a 2nd-level henchmen, but even then it's only a 10% chance, so you could prep just one for every nine 1st-levels. At 12th-level you could prep one 2nd-level and one 3rd-level for every two 1st-levels (since the distribution is 25/25/50, respectively). 

Furthermore, if only 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people are recruitable as henchmen (and the 1 in 500 applies only to 20% of the population), the smallest settlement which will definitely be home to recruitable henchmen is a town (the average of which will only have 3 to 5). In smaller settlements, you could determine the number of character types and then dice to determine if any henchmen are available. For example, the average village will have 750 people - that's 6 human or half-orc character-types and 1 or 2 others, so a 60% and 10 or 20% chance of a recruitable henchmen, respectively.

You still might want to find out who the other character-types in the settlement are (I recommend fleshing out the most powerful people in the settlement - those of the highest level in a small settlement and any who might rule strongholds in larger settlements), but this has already greatly reduced the amount of character-types we need to prep in our settlements.

So, math-y diatribe aside, how do you actually recruit these people? Surely you just go to a tavern and they're all hanging out there, waiting for you, right? ...Right?

Wrong! You need to do more math:

If you somehow fail to recruit henchmen (or fail to find the henchmen you want), you have to wait a month before trying the same method again. You can combine methods for a better chance at recruiting, but it has diminishing returns. All of this is expensive. In the example provided, the player character spends 860 gold and attracts 65% of available henchmen.

Let's assume that this is done in our example "average city" with 43 recruitable henchmen levels 1 to 3. If the player character is below 7th-level, let's say they attract 65% of the 15 1st-level henchmen (9 or 10 recruits). If the character is 7th- to 11th-level, they can attract 65% of the 15 1st-level and 14 2nd-level henchmen (18 or 19 recruits, with 1 or 2 - 10% - of those being of 2nd-level). If the character is above 11th-level, they can attract 65% of all 43 available henchmen (27 or 28 recruits, with 6 to 7 each - 25% - of those being of 2nd- and 3rd-level).

Let's say 9 1st-level recruits are attracted by a relatively low-level player character. Using our example demographics from above, let's say 7 are human, 1 is a half-elf, and 1 is a halfling.

Of course, you have to wait around for a few days for all the recruits to show up. If you're a no-show, they leave:

I determined it will take six days for all recruits in our example to show up - one on each day plus three on the second day. That's almost a week where the player character can't get much of anything done because they're just waiting around.

Whatever they do, our example player character had better not ensorcell the recruits or ask them about topics which are not polite conversation (alignment and religion):

I hope our example player character isn't expecting anything fancy like a monk, assassin, druid, or illusionist:

The percentages break down like this:

• 16.67% cleric
• 3.33% druid
• 35.2% fighter
• 4.4% ranger
• 4.4% paladin
• 16.67% magic-user
• 3.33% illusionist
• 12.5% thief
• 2.5% assassin
• 1% monk

Which is only slightly different than the Character Subtable used for dungeon encounters in APPENDIX C:

Clerics, fighters, and magic-users are slightly less common, but everyone else is more common. I appreciate that the two tables are pretty consistent, although I don't really see the need for two in the first place.

I feel similarly about the note on multiclassed henchmen:

The section on Race and Multi-Class in APPENDIX C (scroll up a bit for the screenshot, since I used it earlier) provides a totally different method for determining if a character-type NPC has two or even three professions. Why are there two slightly different methods for generating character-type NPCs on the fly - one for those in dungeons and one for henchmen recruits? I do not know.

Here are the nine recruits who shows up while our example player character is waiting around:

• Day 1: LE human assassin
• Day 2: N human druid, CG human fighter, CE human fighter, CN human illusionist
• Day 3: NE human magic-user
• Day 4: CG half-elf cleric/magic-user
• Day 5: LG halfling fighter
• Day 6: CE human fighter

Our example player character got lucky, managing to attract an assassin, a druid, and and illusionist in addition to the more common types.

Let's say that the player character has advertised, the recruits have arrived, and it's time to make an offer:

You have to offer at least 100 gold per level of the henchman (300 gold max for a 3rd-level henchman) for them to even consider the offer, and that only gets you a 25% chance that the henchman will accept! You can get that all the way up to 55% for 300 gold more. That's right - the best you can do is offer a 400 to 600 gold signing bonus, and the henchman basically flips a coin to decide if they accept or not!

You can increase the henchman's interest by offering magic items:

You also have to provide all of their equipment! Why don't they have equipment? Well, they're wretches. That's part of the reason why they're seeking employment:

Pity the wretched henchmen of the AD&D world!

This section seems to suggest that 3rd-level henchmen (not 2nd-level henchmen) will come with equipment:

This also suggests that player characters can have henchmen (or rather, "associates") of a level higher than 3rd (and even of a level higher than the player characters themselves), but only temporarily in most cases. This seems to be describing the acquisition of henchmen/associates by means other than the standard recruitment process, as the NPC will become a regular (non-temporary) henchmen only if they are three or more levels under the level of the player character, which is a requirement unique to this situation.

Interestingly, this means that, for example, an 11th-level player character could potentially acquire an 8th-level henchmen through this route. I imagine this "exceptional henchmen" rule is used if, for example, the player characters topple a bandit stronghold and wish to recruit the captured character-type bandits to their cause.

Be sure to offer your henchmen housing, food, and clothing! Doing so only adds 5% to their interest level, but if you neglect to offer such support (or simply don't know that you're expected to), the recruit's interest level drops by 25%:

With the bare necessities like the signing bonus, equipment, and other support out of the way, the recruit will want to know what exactly their duties will entail and what their share of treasure will be:

Here I wish there was a little more detail. Is it not assumed that the henchman's position will be subordinate to the player character and that their duties will involve going into dungeons and braving traps and monsters? Is the henchman more or less likely to accept if they're given command of other henchmen? What about if they will be garrisoning a stronghold rather than adventuring? What is the expected share of treasure? What if less or more is offered? With such thorough percentage breakdowns elsewhere in this section, why not here as well?

I have similar thoughts about the provision of equipment. "The prospective henchman must be provided with complete equipment according to his or her class or classes." Will a fighter simply accept leather armor? Will they expect at least chain mail? Will plate armor sweeten the deal? It's easy enough for the DM to simply use their own discretion here, but it is odd that the guidance is less concrete in some areas than others.

The DM should also use the section on NPCs to determine henchmen characteristics. Hopefully the player characters don't try too hard to get to know their henchmen before they're hired, as this would be considered a faux pas:

Whatever the henchman's characteristics and alignment, remember that dealing with them should always be expensive and irritating!

Let's say our example player character is a CG human fighter. They meet with the LE assassin on day one and it's clear that the two don't get along. They wait an additional day and meet with the four recruits who arrive on day two. They get along best with the other CG human fighter, but the druid and illusionist fill roles that aren't already represented in the party at large (and they're harder to find), so the fighter wishes to recruit them.

Finally, with all else being known, the DM tallies up the henchman's interest level, adds the player character's Charisma reaction adjustment, and rolls to determine if the henchman accepts employment:

Let's say money isn't an issue, so the fighter offers the druid and illusionist each 400 gold as a signing bonus. They don't have any magic items to offer, but they're wise enough to offer to pay for food, clothing, and lodgings, making the chance of acceptance 60%. Their Charisma score is 13, which adds 5% for a total of 65%. For whatever reason, the druid balks (I rolled an 81 on d100, so perhaps negotiations over a couple of magic items was the point of contention), but the illusionist accepts. The fighter could stick around to see if more recruits come in, but they're satisfied with the hire and want to get on with adventuring.

But that's not all! Once a henchman is successfully recruited, the player character must keep the henchman. This is where loyalty comes into play:

The henchman's loyalty is tested in certain situations. If they fail their loyalty test, the henchman might co-operate with or surrender to an enemy, testify against their liege (suggesting that yes, the DM should put their player characters on trial for their crimes), steal, desert, refuse orders, or run away:

The loyalty score is 50% plus or minus the player character's Charisma adjustment:

For context, here is the CHARISMA TABLE from the PHB:

The reaction adjustment is used when recruiting henchmen, but the loyalty base is used when determining, well, base loyalty of henchmen. With the fighter's 13 Charisma, the newly-recruited illusionist's loyalty base is a flat 50%.

There are tons of modifiers to a henchman/hireling's loyalty base. Henchman are actually the most loyal of all NPC followers, and even they only have +5% loyalty:

However, henchmen are also treated as having the highest level of training (comparable to officers or major officials), granting another +30%:

The illusionist's loyalty to the fighter is now up to 85%!

The longer a player character knows a henchman (and thus keeps them comfortable, fed, equipped, and of course, alive), the greater their loyalty:

This brings the illusionist's loyalty down to 80%, since they've only just now been recruited.

This is also where shares of treasure come into play:

I assume that an equal share of treasure is "average". Would it be fair for shares of treasure to be weighted based on relative level? That is, would it be acceptable for the 1st-level henchman of a 4th-level player character to receive a 20% share of the character's treasure? I'm not sure. Whatever it is, player characters must also pay their henchmen 100 gold pieces per level per month, as described under PLAYER CHARACTER EXPENSES:

Let's say the fighter is 1st-level and offers the illusionist an equal share of treasure. Loyalty is unchanged.

As the two adventure together, discipline, activity, and general treatment will come into play:

Being cruel and domineering towards your henchmen is actually a bonus - so long as you are present, alive, and conscious!

As the fighter is CG, let's say discipline is lax, but treatment is just, kind, and invariable. The illusionist's loyalty is now 90%.

Racism, of course, must be a factor:

I've determined that the fighter is in a party with three other humans, who are all "preferred" by the human illusionist. I'm not sure how to interpret the bit about adjustments being cumulative. Since both the fighter and their allies are all human, do I add 20% or 35%? It seems a bit much to count both hefty bonuses, so let's just count the 20%. The illusionist's loyalty is up to 110%.

Next we consider alignment:

The fighter is CG, which is -5%, but only one place removed from the illusionist (CN), which has no effect. The fighter's allies are CN, N, and N, which likewise has no effect. The illusionist's loyalty is at 105%. That's really good! It means the illusionist will not betray the fighter...unless the fighter breaks oaths, is reputed to have tortured, killed, or left henchmen to die, or actually tortures or kills them:

This is really interesting to me because it provides a means by which adversarial NPCs can spread rumors about the player characters which actually affect their henchmen's loyalty. On the flip side, the fighter can further improve the illusionist's loyalty by giving them gifts, rescuing them, or raising them from the dead. "Yeah, I know there's that insidious rumor going around that I tortured and killed my last henchman. Here, have some healing potions to make up for it."

Of course, there are situational modifiers to be used in combat as well:

Let's say the party encounters eight orcs on the first level of the dungeon. The fighter has been incapacitated due to damage but is still alive (hors de combat, -15%). The party has four 1st-level henchmen besides the illusionist, and two are dead or incapacitated (-10%). Additionally, one of the 1st-level player character is dead (-9%, counting the two dead henchmen). Six of the orcs are alive (-6%) and two are dead (+2%). The two remaining henchmen are alive and still engaged in combat (+10%). While the fighter is still technically alive and in sight, I'm not sure the 15% bonus would apply. That modifies the illusionist's loyalty by -28%, setting it at 77%. On d100, they roll 27, which keeps them in combat for now.

It wasn't easy, but it seems our fighter found a good henchman after all!

Hopefully in this post I have illustrated a few things. First, good henchmen are hard to find. It is both expensive and time consuming to do so, and they are in relatively short supply in all but the largest settlements. There is no telling who will show up and whether they will accept the player character's offer of employment. Because it is considered bad form to try too hard to get to know your henchmen before you hire them, the actual quality and compatibility of the henchmen is difficult to discern.

Second, good henchmen are hard to keep. Not only do they have to be paid well according to their level, but they must also be given their fare share of treasure, disciplined firmly but fairly, and treated justly, kindly, and invariably. You can improve your henchmen's loyalty by keeping them alive (and raising them from the dead) and by gifting them magic items, or damage it severely by breaking oaths or, well, torturing and killing them. Even then, there are factors that are outside of your control, such as personality, alignment, and uh...what race you are. Your enemies can spread rumors about you which will sully your reputation in your henchmen's eyes.

Of course, even if you do everything right, there is still a chance that your henchmen's loyalty will falter in a life-threatening situation. When your allies are dead and you're surrounded by enemies, even the most loyal henchmen might abandon you to your fate.

All that being considered, is it worth it? Is it fair to describe henchmen as "so useful" and "so devoted" as to require all this effortful recruitment and maintenance? That is for you to decide. Henchmen are a force multiplier. They are, in essence, akin to an additional player character in the party, and player characters are powerful. They become more powerful with the accumulation of levels and magic items. They can command a stronghold in your stead, fill in on adventures when your character is unavailable (or even replace the character if they die), and protect you against the "machinations" of other player characters (who are, of course, your rivals).

While I've demonstrated that henchmen can be disloyal based on a variety of factors, it is important to note that of all the followers you might recruit, henchmen's +35% loyalty base is the highest. While they're loyalty will vary in other ways depending on circumstances, they are otherwise "so devoted" in comparison to the other options available.

Perhaps this loyalty is born out of dependence. Henchmen are, after all, the wretches of the adventuring profession. While 90% of character-types found in settlements are of a higher level or "already in a situation they are satisfied with", henchmen are the bottom 10% who are destitute to the extent that they have no equipment and must seek employment, food, lodging, and protection from those more successful than themselves. It would make sense not to trust such individuals fully, but it also makes sense that they would recognize, when paid and treated well, that they have a good thing going and that they should cling to it with all their might.

Discovering NPC personality traits, bonds, ideals, flaws, and secrets (TBIFS) in D&D 5e

Here's one that came to me when I woke up in the middle of the night and couldn't get back to sleep. 

I've written before about my social interaction rules for 5e. My rules are an adaptation of Courtney Campbell's/Hack & Slash Publishing's On the Non-player Character. Basically, I wanted to create a synthesis of old school D&D's reaction roll-based social interaction mechanics and modern D&D's social skills. 

I somehow managed to create something complex enough to (probably) not be appealing to either old school or modern D&D players, but I like it a lot. It's entirely DM-facing, so I don't have to worry about players shouting "I take the Converse action!" Instead, players describe what their characters do, and I have a big list of "actions" that give me guidelines for adjudicating a very wide variety of approaches to social interaction. I've playtested it, and it works for me.

On the NPC also includes a system for tracking an NPC's bond level. Player characters can form bonds with recurring NPCs. The bond level is a measure of the strength of that bond. An NPC's bond level represents how familiar and friendly they are with the party - how likely they are to grant or refuse a favor, for example. The players can increase their bond level with an NPC by spending downtime with them, converting them to their player character's religion, giving them gifts, romancing them, or just hanging out.

I'm just saying, go read that original post if you haven't, for context.

Now I'm going to talk about NPC personality traits, bonds, ideals, flaws, and secrets (TBIFS). TBIFS were, along with backgrounds as a whole, one of 5e's more ingenious additions to D&D - little short-hands for how a character acts, who or what they're connected to, what they value, how they're deficient, and what they're hiding:

In the 2014 PHB, every player character background came with a handful of tables to randomly determine the character's TBIFS. I recommend using them as a starting point and then customizing them for the specific character. I would use them even in an old school game.

Of course, like many of 5e's better contributions to the game, TBIFS are a thing of the past in the 2024 version of the rules, replaced with one-word descriptors based on ability scores and alignment. Sigh.

But I still use TBIFS in my D&D games (5e or otherwise), and now I always will. I also use them for NPCs (including any intelligent monsters the player characters might talk to).

And so I thought, suddenly, in the middle of a sleepless night, that I should add a downtime activity that allows player characters to learn an NPC's TBIFS!

First, I made a slight change to the rules for calling on an NPC bond:

When a PC attempts to elicit a major favor from an NPC with which they have a bond, the PC makes a Charisma (Intimidation or Persuasion) check against the NPC’s social DC or a Strength (Intimidation) check against the NPC’s morale. The PC’s check has advantage if their request/threat resonates with the NPC’s ideals, bonds, flaws, or secrets.

This could probably be more broadly applied to social interaction in general, but I figure that in most social interaction scenarios, the players are unlikely to know any of this information about the NPC.

Next, I wrote up the rules for the new downtime activity:

Familiarize

The player character spends a week of downtime with the NPC in order to learn more about them. The player decides whether they would like to try to learn one of an NPC’s personality traits, ideals, bonds, flaws, or secrets. 

Personality traits are learned at a rate of one trait per week of downtime spent with the NPC (no check required).

Ideals, bonds, flaws, and secrets are learned by making either a Wisdom (Insight) check (if the player wishes for their character to intuit the information) or a Charisma (Deception or Persuasion) check (if the player wishes for their character to trick the NPC into revealing/convince the NPC to reveal the information).

All checks are made against the NPC’s social DC. If the NPC is proficient in Deception, add their Deception bonus to the DC against Wisdom (Insight) checks. If the NPC is proficient in Insight, add their Insight bonus to the DC against Charisma (Deception) checks.

Successful Insight checks discover the information automatically and without the NPC necessarily knowing that the information has been discovered. Successful Deception or Persuasion checks result in a bond roll, which is modified by the bond level and degree of success or failure of the Charisma check:

Degree of Success/Failure Reaction Modifier
5-9                 +/-1
10-14         +/-2
15-19         +/-3
20                 +/-4

If the modified bond roll is greater than the current bond level, then the player character learns the desired information, and the bond improves by one.

If a Deception check fails, the bond level decreases by 1d4+1 levels, to a minimum of 2.

It's a work in progress (especially the name), but I had to get it out. I'm excited to test it out!

The 2024 Player's Handbook Wants the Player to Know All the DCs For Some Reason

I had a chance to look over the new PHB and wanted to record some of my thoughts about what I found there. This isn't meant to be an exhaustive changelog with minor revisions to individual classes, subclasses, races, feats, spells, and the like - others have already done that. It also isn't a "review", per se - others have done that, too. Rather, I wanted to call attention to a few topics in particular that I thought were noteworthy changes - some good, some bad, some...interesting - that I haven't seen reported on elsewhere.

It's worth noting that some of these items might be elaborated on further in the DMG. These are just my impressions based on what's available so far.

I'm going through these items in order as they appear in the book, so there's no real rhyme or reason as to how this post is organized.

I love this piece by Noor Rahman in the rules glossary. Click to embiggen.

Skills

I want to call attention to the fact that skill proficiencies are still, by default, tied to ability scores. That is, the player makes a Charisma (Performance) check. I mention this because this little blurb is still included on page 14:

Skills with Different Abilities

Each skill proficiency is associated with an ability check. For example, the Intimidation skill is associated with Charisma. In some situations, the DM might allow you to apply your skill proficiency to a different ability check. For example, if a character tries to intimidate someone through a show of physical strength, the DM might ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check rather than a Charisma (Intimidation) check. That character would make a Strength check and add their Proficiency Bonus if they have Intimidation proficiency.

I understand why skills are tied to ability scores by default - players and DMs can both benefit from having some idea of what normally goes with what - but I personally really wish they had done away with the default pairings entirely. 

It is enough to know that a character is proficient in Intimidation - the DM gets to decide if a situation calls for a character's proficiency to be added to a Strength check, a Charisma check, or some other ability check entirely, and leaving it open might entice players to come up with creative ways to advocate for the use of their skills in unusual situations. Maybe that is just too "advanced" for the PHB, and I certainly wouldn't want players arguing that they can use Strength to make a Perception check, because that doesn't make any sense (not that that's stopping the 2024 barbarian).

The "Skills with Different Abilities" rule is one of my favorites in 5e, and I wish it was used more, but players see "Persuasion (Charisma)" on their character sheet and assume that NPCs can be persuaded only by the character's innate ability to influence (Charisma), and not with logical or intuitive arguments (Intelligence and Wisdom, respectively).

Social Interaction

This is one of my favorite topics to discuss. The social interaction "pillar" is often criticized for being too threadbare. Does the 2024 PHB improve it?

The 2014 PHB took a rules-light approach to social interaction, explaining that players could use a "descriptive" or "active" approach - i.e., describing what their character does or says while interacting with an NPC versus speaking in-character and saying exactly what the character says. The DM then uses their knowledge of the NPC's personality to adjudicate the results, sometimes calling for an ability check. The DMG, in turn, has information on NPC's attitudes (friendly, indifferent, or hostile), associated social interaction DCs, and how to actually adjudicate the interaction.

The 2024 PHB now provides an example of social interaction, including examples of both descriptive and active roleplaying. The friendly, indifferent, and hostile attitudes return, and are now included in the PHB's rules glossary. Player characters have advantage on ability checks to influence friendly creatures and disadvantage on ability checks to influence hostile creatures. The DM can now call on player characters to take the Influence action to urge an NPC to do something.

I like that the PHB explicitly states "The DM will typically ask you to take the Influence action", which will hopefully avoid players simply yelling "I take the Influence action!" instead of actually roleplaying the interaction. Hopefully. 

The rules for the Influence action also state that requests that align with the NPC's desires automatically succeed, and those which don't automatically fail. An ability check is only needed if the NPC is "hesitant". Here's the kicker, though:

The GM chooses the check, which has a default DC equal to 15 or the monster's Intelligence score, whichever is higher. On a successful check, the monster does as urged. On a failed check, you must wait 24 hours (or a duration set by the DM) before urging it in the same way again.

First, I can see why the DM chooses which ability check the player makes, but I also think it should be framed more as a discussion. The player should be able to say "I say 'blah blah blah'." If the DM then says "Okay, make a Persuasion check", the player should be able to say "Wait, no. I was trying to threaten them" (or whatever). It also, again, might preclude the player from trying to convince an NPC using a logical or intuitive argument (if the DM habitually falls back on the default Charisma check). Like with any other part of the gameplay loop, the player and DM need to be on the same page about what the player is trying to do and how they're trying to do it. 

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but the codifying of social interaction in this way feels so rigid. It doesn't seem like it's teaching new players how to navigate these situations in a way which ensures that the DM is hearing them and adjudicating their actions appropriately.

Second, what is with those DCs? 15 or the NPC's Intelligence score - no matter the NPC, no matter their personality, no matter the player's approach? The friendly and hostile attitudes already provide advantage or disadvantage on ability checks, so the DCs don't necessarily need to be modified by attitude as they were in 2014, but I'm otherwise a bit baffled by this. 

Less intelligent NPCs are universally easier to Influence, regardless of whether or not the attempt to Influence them has anything to do with how smart they are, and intelligent NPCs are universally harder to Influence, even if a well-reasoned argument might reasonably appeal more to a more intelligent NPC. A more intelligent NPC might be able to see through lies more easily, but if they are in a situation where they are in danger of being harmed or killed, shouldn't an intelligent NPC be able to recognize that, and perhaps be more susceptible to Intimidation?

Shouldn't some NPCs be more susceptible to one approach versus another? A cowardly politician who goes to the theater and regularly engages in intellectual discourse in the king's court would be difficult to deceive, persuade, or impress with a slam poetry performance, but would be easier to intimidate. A king who values emotion over facts and logic would be more susceptible to an impassioned plea than a cold accounting of the facts at hand. Shouldn't player attempts at Deception be opposed by the NPC's Insight? Shouldn't player attempts to Intimidate the NPC be opposed by the NPC's morale?

Admittedly, I'm realizing that my own social interaction procedures use flat DCs based on the NPC's disposition, which don't account for different approaches when attempting to interact with them, but this is as simple as noting the NPC's personality traits, ideals, bonds, flaws, and goals, and modifying the DCs up and down accordingly if necessary. 

The fact that the 2024 PHB's rules don't even allude to these differences between NPCs is what's driving me nuts. It suggests to players that the most optimal form of social interaction is to only ever use whichever skill they have the highest bonus in. That might be the approach most players take anyway, but if players know that different approaches work better or worse with different NPCs, they'll more likely make some attempt to understand what resonates with an NPC before deciding who in the party should speak to them and how. 

As printed in the 2024 PHB, the game is telling the players that all approaches work equally well with a given NPC, so they should just use whichever skill is best for them. It does offer this tidbit:

When interacting with an NPC, pay attention to the DM's portrayal of the NPC's personality. You might be able to learn an NPC's goals and then use that information to influence the NPC.

But this only really applies if the players are able to identify the NPC's goals such that their attempts to Influence the NPC are automatically successful - if they have to roll, it doesn't make any difference.

There's also something to be said about the limitation that a character can only urge an NPC in a given way once per 24 hours. Does that mean a character can only attempt to Influence the NPC with Persuasion once during that time, or will different approaches to persuading the NPC be treated as different urgings? It doesn't read that way. At least the rules are explicit here that the DM can choose a different duration, although I don't know how much good it does.

Hiding

After plenty of complaints of ambiguity about how hiding worked in the 2014 version of the rules, the 2024 PHB offers some clarity and...simplification. From page 368:

With the Hide action, you try to conceal yourself. To do so, you must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity (Stealth) check while you're Heavily Obscured or behind Three-Quarters Cover or Total Cover, and you must be out of any enemy's line of sight; if you can see a creature, you can discern whether it can see you.

On a successful check, you have the Invisible condition. Make note of your check's total, which is the DC for a creature to find you with a Wisdom (Perception) check.\

The condition ends on you immediately after any of the following occurs: you make a sound louder than a whisper, an enemy finds you, you make an attack roll, or you cast a spell with a Verbal component.

First, this clarifies when a character can hide. The 2014 PHB, by comparison, says only "The DM decides when circumstances are appropriate for hiding." This is probably helpful to some people, although as a DM, I've never had a problem making a common-sense ruling as to when a creature can hide. I have heard that there are some DMs who are super stingy about when they allow characters to attempt to hide, so making the conditions player-facing is probably meant to alleviate that particular pain point.

It is weird that successfully hiding gives the creature the Invisible condition, which is not to be confused with being actually invisible in the reality of the fictional world. The capital I Invisible condition doesn't make the creature lower case i invisible, yet in this case, a creature that uses the Search action has to make a Perception check which beats the total of the other creature's Hide action in order to find them. The searcher does not see the hider just by looking at them, even if they are standing out in the open, so...they are invisible, kind of? 

Does Truesight, which allows a creature to see objects and creatures with the Invisible condition, then negate hiding? It shouldn't, because in the fiction, Truesight is the ability to see through illusions, shapechanging, and into the Ethereal Plane - being hidden by non-magical means is none of those things. It's literally giving me a headache to write this out.

Aside from that, the biggest problem I see with this is similar to the main gripe I had with the Influence action. What is with that flat DC? It used to be that Stealth checks were opposed by the monster or NPC's Passive Perception, which made plenty of sense - it represented the creature's ability to passively notice another creature attempting to hide without actively looking for it. Now, so long as the other conditions for hiding are met (and I'm accounting for special senses like Blindsight and Tremorsense here), a creature has the same chance of successfully hiding regardless of the situation or what/who it's hiding from.

A 1st-level rogue, assuming a starting Dexterity of 16 (+3) and expertise (+4) in Stealth (total of +7), has a 65% chance of hiding from anyone and everything. At 7th-level, once the rogue gets Reliable Talent, which gives them a minimum of 10 on the die when they roll any skill check with proficiency, that same rogue can successfully hide 100% of the time.

That's fantastic for the class fantasy of the rogue, and monster and NPC Passive Perception scores in the 2014 rules were such that this was often the case anyway, but it's also extremely simplistic and limiting. Again, aside from monsters and NPCs with the aforementioned special senses, all monsters and NPCs are equally easy to Hide from if the conditions are met.

It should be easier to Hide from a drunken guard than from a paranoid beholder with eyes more or less literally in the back of its head. The beholder can more easily find a hidden creature, I suppose, but it should also be harder to Hide from it in the first place.

Stabilized Player Characters Versus Unconscious Creatures

I'm not going to go off on this one, but I found it weird. In both the 2014 and 2024 rules, when a player character drops to 0 hit points but isn't killed and is then stabilized, they regain 1 hit point and become conscious after 1d4 hours.

In both the 2014 and 2024 rules, a player could choose, when reducing a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, to knock the creature out instead of killing it. Presumably, in the 2014 rules, unconscious monsters and NPCs worked the same as unconscious player characters, regaining 1 hit point after 1d4 hours.

In the 2024 rules, an unconscious monster or NPC is instead reduced to 1 hit point (because at 0 hit points they are dead, unless the DM makes an exception). The monster or NPC then starts a short rest, meaning they always regain consciousness after 1 hour, they get to roll all of their hit dice and heal for that amount, and they get back any abilities that recharge on a short rest.

It has more or less always been true that player characters and monsters and NPCs follow different rules, but in a few instances it really bothers me, and this is another such instance. Not a huge deal, but a weird quirk of the rules I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere.

Languages

I've written about languages before. One of my complaints was that it felt too easy to learn exotic languages, and that they weren't sufficiently differentiated from standard languages. The 2024 rules change languages just a bit. It's weird.

First, in desperation to remove any connection between a character's race/species and their culture, player characters no longer gain languages based on their race. Instead, all characters speak Common and two other standard languages.

The funny thing is, it's not clear how a character learns a rare language (exotic languages are now rare languages). The PHB says: "Some features let a character learn a rare language." For example, druids learn Druidic, rogues learn Thieves' Cant, and rangers learn two languages from their Deft Explorer feature. I don't know that there's any other way to learn these languages.

So, according to the rules, an aasimar can't know Celestial, an elf can't know Sylvan, a drow can't know Undercommon, and a tiefling can't know Abyssal or Infernal. A reasonable DM can obviously make an exception, but I do find it funny.

A piece by Chris Seaman shows how adventurers' equipment evolves with the tiers of play.

Starting Equipment at Higher Levels

Finally, a change I kind of sort of like. The 2024 PHB gives some recommendations for what kind of starting equipment newly made higher-level characters should have - some extra gold and magic items.

If I have a concern about this, it's that if a character with a bunch of magic items and treasure dies, the rest of the party can take their stuff, then a new character enters the game with more magic items and treasure. The more characters die, the more magic items and treasure are added to the party. It doesn't make sense to me that if a character with 20,000 gold and 10 magic items dies, the party salvages their stuff, and then another character with 20,000 gold and 10 magic items joins the party. The party as a whole is now 20,000 gold and 10 magic items richer because they messed up and someone died. 

The way I've handled this in my games is to treat magic items and treasure as belonging to the player, not the character. If a character dies with a bunch of magic items and treasure, that player's new character enters the game with equivalent magic items and treasure. If, however, the other characters loot the dead character and either use or sell their stuff, that stuff no longer belongs to the player whose character died, and their new character enters with fewer items and treasure.

It's a bit meta and not entirely fair to the player with the dead character, but they should have thought about that before they died. And they should convince the other players to give them some of their stuff back so that their new character isn't underpowered (making sure the new character isn't underpowered is in the other players' best interest as well).

Backgrounds

As far as I can tell, the 2024 PHB no longer even suggests that backgrounds are customizable, aside from this:

Each background includes a brief narrative of what your character's past might have been like. Alter the details of this narrative however you like.

The 2014 PHB referred to its backgrounds as "sample backgrounds", and went into detail as to how to customize them or work with the DM to create an entirely new one:

You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coin, you can't also take the equipment package suggested for your class.) Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw.

If you can't find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one.

In my experience, most players do not even try to customize their background, but it happened occasionally when we were playing 5e, and I personally tried to do it with all of my characters. Players new to D&D who start with the 2024 PHB might not even think to ask their DM about the possibility, which is a real shame.

Ability score increases are now tied to backgrounds, which is fine. I personally like my dwarves sturdy and taciturn and my elves lithe and frail, but I get why the culture has moved away from that. 

What's funny is that, beginning a few years ago, Wizards of the Coast did away with specified ability score increases entirely in favor of letting players build the exact characters they wanted, then tied the ability score increases to backgrounds in the 2024 playtest materials, and now...made them specific again? For example, a player who chooses the acolyte background can now only increase some combination of Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma (+2 to one and +1 to another, or +1 to all three).

In the 2014 rules, a player might choose to be a dwarf fighter because that race and class synergize well, then have their pick of interesting backgrounds with which to differentiate that character. Now, a player might choose to be a soldier fighter for the same reason, and it is instead the species which differentiates the character.

It's not necessarily better or worse, it's just...different. The race/species and background have just changed places. (Considering the fantasy bioessentialism of it all, maybe it is slightly better now. I just never particularly cared about that but I understand why some people do.)

Perhaps worst of all is that the 2024 PHB does away with traits, bonds, ideals, flaws, and background features (the latter are more or less replaced by origin feats, which are more mechanically useful but less interesting to me). 

I personally loved the TBIFs and used those suggested by each background to create my own for each character. Instead, the character creation chapter suggests one-word descriptors based on the character's ability scores and alignment, which is...fine. It's just kind of a little bit...boring? Uninspiring?

The background features were never terribly exciting - they mostly amounted to some way for the character to obtain free room and board in a settlement - but I felt that they were interesting little roleplaying tidbits. They invited the player and DM to collaborate on something together - the acolyte's home temple or shrine, the criminal's black market contact, or the entertainer's preferred tavern to perform at. It felt good to be the street urchin who could show the rest of the party a faster way through a busy urban neighborhood, or to be the sage who knew how to use the fantasy Dewey Decimal System.

Tools and Adventuring Gear

Every tool and bit of adventuring gear now has a little description about what a character can use it for. Tools list what items a character can craft with them. A character can use perfume to get advantage on Persuasion checks to Influence Indifferent Humanoids. Cute! But also very specific for some reason.

A character can use alchemist's supplies to identify a substance! Cartographer's tools to make a map! Jeweler's tools to appraise a gem! 

What is with these DCs?!

DC 15 to identify any substance? DC 15 to make a map of any area? DC 15 to appraise any gem? It goes on and on like this! A DC 20 check with a gaming set to "win the game". What game? Who is the character playing against? DC 20 to win any game against anyone?

Admittedly, this isn't the first time these DCs have appeared in a book, at least not with regards to tools. DCs to do a variety of things with tools were first printed in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. But now, they've infected the entire equipment list: DC 10 to apply makeup with a disguise kit (what?), DC 13 to wrap a chain around any creature, DC 10 to tie a knot with a rope. It's enough to make me go completely mad.

Of course the DM is well within their rights to change any of this nonsense. Of course. But the DCs are in the PHB! Why? That's DM-facing information - players literally do not need to know this information, and that goes for social interaction, and hiding, and equipment, and everything else. The section on making ability checks should tell the player how to make an ability check, then say "The DM determines the DC." That's all the player needs to know. The book is actively undermining the DM's ability to adjudicate these situations by implying that there are set-in-stone DCs for any of these things.

All of the tools also have an associated ability score, which mostly seem arbitrary. Painter's supplies require Wisdom, as do all gaming sets (dragonchess doesn't use Intelligence, and playing cards don't use Charisma, so no bluffing). All musical instruments use Charisma (dexterous fingers have nothing to do with playing a string instrument - it's all about convincing people that the performance is good through force of personality).

I've seen a few people praise the new equipment section, so I was especially startled when I read and saw just how bad it actually is.

Spellcasting Services

This is nice - there are suggested prices for NPCs to cast spells for the party. Of course, I'm once again wondering why this is in the PHB, and if it must be in the PHB, why there isn't some disclaimer that the DM can change it or decide that certain services aren't available. Still, it's nice enough, and the prices seem reasonable.

I also find it interesting that the table aligns pretty closely with my own ideas about what services are available in which types of settlements. I've always run it so that Tier 1 NPCs can be found in villages, Tier 2 NPCs in towns, Tier 3 NPCs in cities, and Tier 4 NPCs in metropolises, which is exactly what the table suggests (minus the metropolises).

Where Are the Downtime Rules?

I don't know. They're not in the 2024 PHB (crafting is, but none of the other options). 

The new DMG includes rules for player character bastions, so maybe they're lumped together with downtime rules there. Or maybe they've gotten rid of downtime altogether. I wouldn't be surprised.

That's all I've got for now. I've spent a little bit of time looking at how they changed the classes and spells and whatnot but honestly my eyes just kind of glaze over whenever I try too hard to read that stuff.

I'll probably do another post like this when I can get a look at the DMG. Hopefully it will give me less of a headache and I'll have more positive things to say, but I've already heard some things that make me think I, uh...might not like it. Lol.