Hello to everyone! I am a long time GM and player from 1st and 2nd edition of WFRP and have now followed the development and bought most of the stuff for the new edition. For the most part I love the new system (which does not make me love the previous editions any less, mind you) as it has many cool mechanics and I generally like the "lightness" of the system.

One thing that bothers me though, is the rule for using the henchmen. If I use them in my games, players will start slaughtering enemies by dozens and I fear that it will somehow diminish the "gritty and perilous" feeling of the setting. So I ask you who have GMd and played this game more (my opportunities with this editions have been scarce at best so far), what is your take on the concept? In the previous editions being outnumbered meant almost automatically that without very clever thinking the PCs were screwed. With the henchmen I fear that players will learn to trust their fighting abilities a bit too much. Has this happened to you / has the use of the henchmen made the game more like epic fantasy? I do not want to outright discard the henchmen without trying to use them but I'm eager to hear about your experiences.

Other thing about the weaker enemies is that sometimes I may want to use them and other times not. This seems to form an odd paradox in the world: how can it be explainen that these particular goblins are easy to slay (henchmen) vs. those in the next adventure (normal) are much more dangerous? Do I need to keep certain races as henchmen only as to not anger my players or cause a TPK because of the sudden change? Has someone found out a way to handle this?

Thorfred said:

Just to address your later issue (explaining how/why henchmen are easier to slay than normals) this is true for humans too. People come in varying skills and abilities. Not all humans are professional boxers, mixed-martial artists, etc. Some are weak, some are out of shape, etc. Just like in real life, members of a given species will run the gamut from weak to strong, incapable to extremely capable.

I kinda worked around the henchmen theme, but still use some mechanics.

I like you do not like the thing about suddenly reducing orcs/beastmen/bandits to trash mobs. If a monster/human is not good at fighting, I reduce his stats, I don't suddenly make him made of paper. But I also say, that if several monsters/humans who are not good at fighting (like Ungors, goblins etc...) gang up on an opponent, I will only let 1-2 actually hit the opponent, the rest adds one Fortune dice. This symbolizes that it's actually very hard to be several hitting one opponent, without obstructing each others effort, so instead the extra fortune dice added symbolizes the extra preasure they add to the fight.

You will of course have to reduce the amount of mobs in some encounters, from the pre made scenarios.

I think, and can't really be persuaded otherwise, that "henchmen" moved Warhammer from gritty/rough/lowlife heroes, to epic heroes.

It does of course add to the amount of dice you need to throw, but the mobs I would normally call "henchmen" I only let use standard attacks, well most of them anyway I also think my players will appreciate the fight being hard, as usual, then fast and easy suddenly.

Nice to hear about other's opinions.

@hedgewizard: I agree with you that some of people would be easier to beat than the others, but somehow this seems to take it too far. I do not mind it otherwise, but I fear that it does not encourage clever thinking if PCs come to rely on the fact that they can kill one or even more enemies in a single round. I do not even mind that it mechanically happens in one round, because I understand that one basic attack is not a single swing.

@Spivo: Those are some nice ides you have there. So you use the teamwork rules for the henchmen... Nice idea. It does decrease the lethality a fair notch, if you skip for example an attack or two every round. I can understand that as you said that this is only done in the case of not-so-skilled enemies. How has it worked out (I'd like to hear a little more details)? And by the way, do you give one fortune for those extra men in addition to the situational modifier of outnumbering the opponent or are they mutually exclusive?

What about you others? What have your gaming groups thought about henchmen and have they become reckless because of them? I can easily come up with reasons for not using that particular rule, but can someone give me reasons to use it? Either your own opinions or experiences from the game table would be appreciated, because I'd like to see the other side of the coin so to speak.

Although I have not played 2nd or 1st edition, I too dislike the henchmen rule. I was consious of the lethality of WFRP setting [that is why I bought it in the first place] and henchmen kinda destroy that feel. Also, henchmen rule, give the PCs the false assumption that, say beastmen, are easy to kill.

I do not use henchmen. If I play a ready-made adventure, instead of henchmen I use normal creatures (in fewer numbers, so the challenge of the encounter is roughly the same). Or if the point is for the PC to specifically face a low-strenght horde, I lower the stats or health or 'pre-occupy' a few of the enemies with NPC fights.

@plutonick: That sounds to be in line with the previous editions. Though I admit that the last 2ed:s were concentrated to give PCs mostly crap stats in the beginning, even the improvement did not make the idea of fighting outnembered any wiser. This editions seems to be giving more chance for success (which is a good thing IMO), but I still want it to stay bloody and fatal.

Thorfred said:

It works well, but we've only played 3 sessions so far so fights take a little longer, due to us all still looking at action cards etc...

I did though do one thing, copied from the pre-made scenarios, for every opponent, I've set up which skills they'll use in which order. Thus I rarely have to think about what to do.

About fortune dice added, example: 4 low life goblins trying to beat down Sebastian the roadwarden. I deem the goblins incompetent idiots, so I only let one of them attack. The last three assists only, but they also use the maneuver "assist". That's a total of +6 fortune dice to the goblin.

While this seems like a lot, we're talking about 1 man against 4 goblins, it should be bloody hard! I do though use the "henchmen can't get criticals" rule, and when they hit -1 wounds, they die, so the weaker monsters die fairly fast. I don't use "outnumbering " rule, you have to "assist" to get "outnumbering" bonuses. Again this is due to the fact, that two people fighting 1 person, who are NOT working together, will actually not have a much easier time killing him (apart from hitting twice as often), because most of the time they'll get in each other's way.

Finally, 4 persons is the max amount to gang up on 1 person. Players may use furniture, walls, higher ground etc... to lessen the amount who can gang up.

To sum up, my players "like" this. They retain a sense of danger in the world, and think twice/trice about attacking/standing ground against opponents who outnumber them.

Couple of things to consider.

When an NPC is reduced to zero wounds it is defeated. Defeated does not automatically mean killed. With henchmen I sometimes rule than attacks merely wound an opponent so he runs off, or even merely the sight of one of his friends dying convinced some of them to flee. This is especially appropriate with low morale enemies like goblins or ungors.

Second, while the henchmen rules make them easier to kill, they also can attack with very large dicepools, making it easier for them to overcome the PCs defences and get high results on their attacks. Groups of henchmen can seriously harm your PCs, making them quite nervous.

I have really mixed feelings on Henchmen.

Henchmen work fine in some games. Warhammer isn't one of them, IMO.

I have used them. And they do work. And as Macd points out they can be a real threat.

My own feeling is "cinematic combat" and Warhammer are not words that belong together. But then, one of the things that was a selling point for me back in the days of 1e, was a review (in Dragon magazine iirc) that said "If you are looking for a game where you will be slaughtering hordes of monster, this isn't the game for you" or something very close to that any way...

So, yeah, it seems at odds with the setting.

It is an optional rule, in the end.

For now i've ran only few session, but from what i've experienced so far i will greatly use henchmen...i dont know why using them should make the game less gritty?? even few wounds and a nasty critical is enough to hinder badly a pc's life: are u using the other rules of this edition? the ones that state u have to pass an hard (3 challenge dice!) just to find a barber surgeon or an healing drought?? and also if they succed, players have no garantees to recover fast from a 3 or 4 severity critical!

In contrast, using the henchmen really speed up the game, making combat less boring and, as far u dish out some special attack from them, is good enough to make my players sweats and fears for they lives...after all, that is where the excitement comes from...what's the point to kill one pc every couple of session??!

Ghiacciolo said:

I think the point of the thread, was not if henchmen were a danger to the players, but if using henchmen would make players view the monsters less dangerous.

And 3 standard ungors are more dangerous than 3 henchmen ungors. Then you can use 6 ungor henchmen to make them as dangerous, but this is the whole point the poster was making, or asking.

I also don't buy the point one were making, that some monsters/npc's are not good at fighting. We're dealing with players who can start as commoner career. Are they surposed to be able to tackle 2 ungors?

My experience has been it really does not speed it up that much. It simply changes the "demographics" of the fight.

Fighting three mooks with four wounds each, or one with 12 wounds ? Six to one half dozen the to the other.

Ultimately I think it's a matter of personal taste/style. Do the players like big fights? use them.

Me? My players told me they would really rather not use them.

Spivo said:

Of course standard monster are more dangerous than henchmen...that's the way the henchmen was made for: provide a lighter challenge and GM management to scratch the players before the big boss fight! So why one should have to use them in good number to make them equal to standard monster?! is a complete wast of time, IMO, unless u want to make the fight more epic-style.

And of course players are surposed to tackle 2 ungors, because as it was always been in WFRPG, players start as commonner, but vagaries of fate put them in situation where they are surposed to be the HEROES of the story (since they had fate points in early ed. and now the have fortune points) wich separate them from the common folk. Also killing 2 ungors hardly would be the major focus of the adventure, so the less time u take to get rid of them, the more the players will focus on important aspects of the story.

So i cannot see how using henchmen rules could make feeling the players god-like, unless u screw bad and say...u build the tension up to the big-boss-fight and then u bring in a bunch of wargor henchmen. But i would call this a gm fault instead of a rules fault.

Also mechanically the lack of wounds for henchmen is just half the of the medal: once they use an action like "savage strike" they are as good as a standard gor. Even a standard wargor could end be just an annoyance for the players if it end at zero initiative, and the magus roast it whit a fireball, the scout pierce it's eye whit a sniper shot, and the slayer charge in whit a troll-feller strike, putting it down even before it have a chance to react. also this could be anti climatic and lend them to believe that old world isnt a dangerous place at all! Instead...using the henchmen rules to support the wargor with cannon-fodder could easly prevent this!!

Ghiacciolo said:

I think using henchmen makes the fights epic, not the other way around. Epic is a herioc deed worth writting down. Killing 5 standard ungors and 1 wargor, will not be put down in any books. But killing henchmen suddenly adds to the numbers, which makes it more interesting as a heroic deed worth writing about. It's in the numbers really.

But it's down to the players, and playstyle really. My players prefer fewer fights, but which all being deadly and at the same time not implausible. I as a storyteller/GM also want my players to work for it. If they "want" to assault 10 goblins, no bloody way I'm gonna give them 5 wounds and make them crippling poor at fighting, they will HAVE to fight the 10 goblins, and suffer the wounds they should.

hehe, the henchmen theme reminds me of them Hong Kong kung-fu movies, where the hero would beat up a bar with 20 bad guys

I don't use Henchmen very often but I do to give a bit of epic without increasing the game difficulty too much. Most of the Time, it was during endgame for climatic battles. Moreover You can make your big bad guy more valuable when there are henchmen. Players feel the crowdy battle with henchmen more than a battle where there are 5 real NPC to fight and where GM describe they are in a big battle (including misfortune dices or other battle rules).

For example, in a 3 players campaign conclusion, there was this gigantic battle involving Karak Azgaraz' Dwarves against a Waagh! lead by a shaman goblin sitting on a domestic troll. I created squad with : 3 ordinary orc henchmen + a real NPC orc leading them (a good idea).

Wow! A lot of responses while I was away. Nice the hear people's experiences about henchmen. I realized that one place where the henchmen are very usable is a situation where the PCs will have no chance to beat all the enemies. For example if the group has to defend a gate for a certain time against a big horde. Then it is suitably epic to slay scores of monsters, because it won't actually make things any easier. Though one could argue that there is no point in slaying even one of the monsters if it will not solve anything.

I used to think that henchmen would detract from the excitement but then during a re read of the rule book I realised that henchman are not just throw away axe fodder!

This is largely due to one simple rule! The minimum wound rule. An attack will always deal a minimum of 1 damage regardless of the opponents soak and toughness.

Suddenly the mob of henchman become more dangerous, sure 1 henchman will always lose on his own but 3 or 4? your talking about potentially 3 or 4 damage a turn! And while there are henchman you may be able to make them use their important action cards, so by the time they get round to the core mobs the action cards may already be on recharge!

I tend to have henchman tie up our groups ironbreaker as his soak and toughness are way above normal, so the only way to make him feel threatened is to mob him with henchmen.

remember the minimum wound rule!

Thorfred said:

Exactly. The first time I used the henchman rule is in TGS, with the fight against the beastmen. Of course that fight is designed to "showcase" those rules. As I said before, I have no problem w/mook/henchmen in some games (like, 7th sea for example ). But for warhammer I am a bit sketchy about it.

When I read through it, I was faced with a couple of choices. I could run it as written, or I could rework it. Using 'normal' beastmen, but cutting back the numbers, to to avoid putting the PC's in a situation they had no hope of surviving.

While it is not normally my 'style' to throw dozens of enemies at the party, I decided to go with it as written. It worked. The PC's took a brutal beating. At one point it looked like I was going to have a TPK on my hands. I think numbers of beastmen helped set up and carry through the dire nature of the situation fairly effectively. More so then if I had cut back on the numbers

In fact as I was putting figures out for the fight, one player looked at the horde of minis and asked "Just how are we suppose to live through this?' At that point, I told them that even though we agreed not to use the henchmen rules, the encounter was set up for it, so we were going to "test" it out. I did so, for 2 reasons. 1-to let the players know I wasn't just killing them out of hand, and 2-so there would be no confusiion in the future, when the same sort of enemy proved to be a lot tougher.

So, like I said-the rules work, they are great if you want "epic" fights however I didn't feel it "sped" the combat up much. That said, the henchmen are are not something I intend to make regular use of. I prefer smaller, shorter combat scenes.

Tomorrow we are playing through the Gardens of Morr, and i have yet to decide if i will be using "full strength" zombies or not.

I haven't yet used henchmen (again, on the "it doesn't feel right" angle), though I have represented a few larger fights through narrative and the combat tracker, where the PCs fought individual NPCs in the middle of a larger brawl (where their wins helped sway the overall fight).

I could see using henchmen in very limited scenarios, but only when I know the characters have a healthy respect for what they're fighting (or I'm running snotlings or giant rats or the like). I'd use them very little, though, and would generally prefer to have each fight or combatant to be significant.

I think they are a great option and if used properly, they keep the excitement flowing. For example, the party is in a sea-side bar and having an altercation with a drunken ship's captain. The captain is sitting at a table with 6 of his crew with him. When violence ensues, the sailors all jump to their captain's aid! And they basicaly turn into a full NPC (Captain) and 2 groups of 3 Henchmen (the 6 crew).

This keeps the game moving faster (the GM only has to worry about 3 'combatants' not 7) and it 'feels' right because your average ship's crewman is just not up to the snuff of a full fledged warrior/soldier. In numbers, they can be effective and that's what henchmen represent to me...opponents who need to gang up to be a threat.

Also note that during the encounter at the bar, the players dont know that those men are 'henchmen' so it's not like it influences their decision whether or not to fight. But even there the GM can use Observation or whatnot for the characters to determine that those sailors arent necessarily well-armed or dont look especially proficient.

Overall, I really like the option presented. And really it's just that...another tool the GM can use to flesh out encounters.

No offence, but I really don't understand the idea people have of it making fights go smoother. It makes the fight easier for the players, which I think is un-necesary.

Using the logic of henchmen people use, would they field 3 deamon princes of Khorne and 1 greater deamon, and then make the princes henchmen??? Because there's really no difference from that and to use 1 wargor and 3 ungor henchmen.

Henchmen enables the players to kill more (with same effort), which makes the story more epic. If people want epic, then it's a good thing to use them, I for one have no desire to make it more epic. But don't kid yourself that using henchmen somehow makes your fights go smoother, it lets your players kill more simple as that. If they wanted henchmen to be a way to make fights go smoother, they'd not have tampered with their wounds, nor let wounds be transferable, they'd just have let them only hit once and then surport each other.

If you think a npc is not a good fighter, change the stats, don't suddenly make him into a "rat swarm".

Well I think in some ways, you're missing the point of Henchmen. I seriously doubt anyone would encourage turning 3 daemons into henchmen just to make things go smoother. That's not the point at all IMO. To me, they are great when you want to convey a sense of numbers without the need to track a larger number of combatants...it's that simple.

In the example I used above, sure the GM could say that the Captain was simply traveling with two if his crew and then adjusted things and kept the combat the same difficulty etc. Mechanically, it would make little difference. But to me, it's more immersive when there are occasionally larger number of participants, even if all of them aren't up to the 'standards' of the usual monster/NPC stat line.

Another example would be the PCs confronting a ruffian gang. To make the feeling of 'gang', there might be a dozen or so actual thugs. But if it comes to blows, 9 of them might end up being 3 groups of three henchmen, 2 are slightly more skilled and use the regular NPC stats for a brigand-type and one might be the gang leader with a better set of stats. From a 'theatrical' perspective, the party is still fighting against a 'gang' of dozen men. Mechanically, it's only 6 'units', not 12. I dont necessarily see that it makes things more 'epic' or that they are intended to convey the feeling of 'minions' from D&D4 (which are often added just to make the PCs feel badass and rack up the body count).

In any case, to me it gives an option to not make everything feel so small scale without necessarily over-tipping the balance against the PCs. Of course if you prefer the players to closer in combat 'feel' to your average person, then henchmen arent necessary. In the case of the above encounter, the PCs would quickly be killed by a dozen actual 'full' combatants so your options are to either shrink the size of the gang down (which IMO removes some immersion since a 'gang' of 4-6 doenst feel right) or continue to reduce the stats of each of the combatants until the PCs would be able to stand a chance. The 'henchmen' are simply a numerical alternative to doing either of those IMO.

In the end, if a GM feels that they 'cheapen' things, then by all means, dont use them. But I'm just glad they provided the option because I think it makes a very good respresentation of numbers of inferior combatants.

The concept is a good idea. But it's making your game more "epic" by doing so. If you don't want to track as many combatants, you can let them keep their wounds for instance, or let each of them add 2 whites. That would make them keep their lethality and still easy to manage.

Using the logic, you can have your chars fight 200 orcs, just give them all 1 wound, and only have one attack

Not trying to convert people to not using henchmen, just don't understand why people can't see it makes the game more epic when the chars fight twice the numbers they'd be able to with "standard" rules.

THE SIMPLE SOLUTION or the problem which isn`t a problem

As a GM your most important tool is information, or sharing information in an entertaining way. So information is the keyword here to prevent players from getting the wrong picture.

1) Set any henchmen appart from their stronger brethren. by effective describing the henchmen as inferior in any suitable manner. A dozen or so ungors are driven ahead towards you by a meaner gor. they advance uncertainly, getting in each other way. Behind them stronger ungors wielding spears and crude armour poke the unruly mass of tense ungor s to eager them forward. As they spot the party, the weaker ungors nervously grasps their crude clubs, some breaks formation and charge forward, their eyes wide with fear and anticipation.

2) Henchmen fall by scores because of... give varied reason and explanations why 2 or even 3 henchmen get killed or knocked out in a single attack action. Your arrow hits the lead ungor in the shoulder making him spin arround into another ungor, his club smashing into the jaw, sending fangs and teeth flying. as both falls from the injuries a third ungor charging right behind come crashing down upon them, impaling himself on the spear still cluthced in the claws of the teeth spitting ungor. (okay that was a bit dramatic and cinematic, but again it reflect the low level of combat awarness these ungor have.

3) Henchmen ? what are henchmen? If your done your job right, the players will not (hopefully) resort to metagaming and try to decipher if these beastmen is hencmen or not. following the example above: The Witch-hunter in your party proclaims with clear voice "hell look at them, they might be many but there is uncertainty and fear riding on their backs. its spreading like an infestation. We can take them boys, let`s ride on these foul creatures` backs! End of Rallystep

4) Nothing is certain in warhammer. in the dark of night it can be difficult to see that the masses of hairy beastmen are weaker ungors, disease ridden and bone-thin from starvation. in that case apply appropriate observation skill checks, to spot this obvious weakness.

In other cases such apperant difference might not be noticable at first, this work very well in horror setting, for with instance undead. At first the numbers of skeletons rising all arround you at the cursed cemetery seemed overwhelming, but their bones seems to snap as dry twigs, sending powder anywhere. Whatever necromany made them rise, its weak and bearly holding the skeletons` joints together.

wow that was lenghty even for me. I start sounding like The commoner But remember You as the GM has the power of information

Mal Reynolds said:

That's a good justification