My group encountered a pack of eight goblins last night (the cattle rustlers from the Ackerland farm in TGS) for the first time in WFRP3, and were surprised at how dificult they were to take down - in fact the dwarf was the sole PC to catch up with them and went charging in confidently only to find himself almost 'stick 'em with the pointy end'-ed to death!

There was a comment about the vast difference in challenge level between pretty weak monsters like goblins in WFRP2 and WFRP3, and a player also asked if they could tell the difference visually between 'normal' goblins and henchmen goblins.

So I guess the questions I'm putting out to you fellow GMs are: do you tell your players the difference between normal and henchmen creatures (and how), and what are your thoughts on the huge difference between the two?

For example, the dwarf could have taken down several henchmen goblins with a single blow, but he can't kill one normal goblin with one blow, and there's no allowance for taking out several normal creatures with one blow anyway. So suddenly surrounded by eight goblins all sticking their pointy things at him and he was in serious trouble ...

Thoughts?

The most obvious difference would be that one stand-up would be representing multiple beings, and I'm assuming you would tell the players that, right?

I'm mean in terms of in the game, not in 'reality'. We don't use stand-ups, we use figures (so for henchmen I still have the actual number of monsters/figures). But in terms iof identifying them, they mean can their characters tell the difference.

I would assume the henchmen goblins would seem more cowardly, trying to push the other infront of them, never spending fatigue to get into the fight faster, etc... Think someone with intuition, weapon/balistic skill, or maybe leadership would notice the difference between feeble henchmen, and stronger regular troops.

I would have henchmen groups roll constantly for morale, and have the shaman (or regular troops) constantly shout at them, and then have them attack out of fear from retribution. Also add that when henchmen groups manage to do something succesfully, have them grow suddenly very "brave".

Basically "roleplay" henchmen as the bullys "friends", who hide behind them, and act very brave when the bully is on top of things, but also make them the first to run and hide when their "leader" gets in the slightest trouble.

well...8 goblin seems a bit hard for the "average" 3ed group...they have a pool of 80 wounds and 8 attacks per turn, so no doubt they can cause headhache to your dwarf!!

In general 3ed seems more lethal to me than previous editions, so for encounters where PC are outnumbered 2:1 the henchmen's rules are mandatory...i've found that a 50/50 mix of henchmen and full stats creatures works really well.

For this part of TGS i've used only goblin henchmen, apart for the shaman and his bodyguard: so the players had visual reference for distinguish them from the goblin's mass...they had full armour or magic powers!

In general i tend to always use terms like "mob" associated to henchmen groups, so the players could recognise a bunch of low grade villanies just from how i refer to them.

UniversalHead said:

One of the great things about the henchmen is that they DON'T know. Maybe that dwarf will think twice before rushing in (unless he's a slayer). It goes a long way to make players more scared of combat... they never know precisely how hard the fight is. Especially for new characters I find it important to make them run from or avoid more combats than they win. As they grow more powerful, they will really feel the effect as they become more confident.

This means I do not scale combat much from rank 1 to rank 3+. I don't like the MMO feeling where players stay in the same place relatively speaking. I like to give rank 1 characters a really tough time, but if they survive to rank 3, they will feel like genuine heroes.

You can always allow players to try to use observation/intuition to size up their opponents. But it shouldn't be given. The monsters will have the same issue. They don't know how tough the players are, so it's entirely possible for the players to intimidate their way out of a combat that is too tough for them.

Some times they will know. When that rank 1 group runs into a troll, they will know that they are in trouble. Then again the troll may be wounded... or it may be backed up by a group of green skins using it as a war-troll. If they take their chances with combat, they either reap the rewards or pay the consequences... I like combat to be an uncertain affair.

In 30 years of GMing, I'd say that I've used the same general line for all game systems regarding monster strength:

"You see 8 goblins. 5 appear to be pretty weak, 2 pretty strong, and the one with blood red cloak appears to be bossing the others around."

jh

I do as Emirikol, but I'm sure in game he's a little bit more in tale telling than this d&d style... But hey, after all, isn't he THE Emirikol from classic AD&D ?

When I introduce a standard creature, I describe it as any warhammer NPC : some unique item or gimmick, maybe a name ready... When there are henchmen creature, I insist on the aspect of a team of weak guys coming around, perhaps less confidents or thinner or... you see the point.

Make some creature types such as Goblins always henchmen and some types like Orcs always individual monsters.

Something like this:

Hiding the bushes, you get a good look at the group as they approach. As you suspected, they appear to be Goblins; seven of them. Two of them, a bit larger than the rest, wear crude vests made of bits of bone and shiny scraps of metal, and periodically strike one of the five nearby scrawny Goblins, who cavort and caper while trying to stay out of reach.

Basically physical stature and ornamentation, perhaps equipment such as a fancy blade, an authority over the others, or the like.

If there isn't any way to compare and contrast, then I'd go with an obvious method like simple physical stature or flashy clothing.

I wouldn't suggest making Goblins always henchmen, as it removes a lot of your flexibility. There are always more powerful Goblins and weaker Goblins, the same with Orcs, Trolls, etc.

I've been avoiding henchmen, because I like making Warhammer less heroic ... in the Gathering Storm I converted all henchmen into non henchmen of lesser quantity after the beastman fight.

The difference between the power of henchmen and non-henchmen seems too great for me to justify they are the same creature type. Like you said killing multiple with one blow but others taking multiple blows is not just a slight degree of change on a continuum.

But, of course, this is just how I play it.

I agree, the difference is so great as to be jarring, and once the PCs know (by any of the excellent methods suggested above) it is the main issue when they decide whether to attack directly or not. To me this seems to be an instance where the rules are actually getting in the way of the storytelling somewhat. I like the idea of henchmen; I just don't like the huge difference between normal monsters and henchmen monsters, which seems unjustifiable in 'real world terms'..

I'm running a heroic Middle-earth game using WFR 3rd ed.

The henchmen rules are perfect for portraying Tolkien-style melees. My players plow through tons of goblin henchmen in short order and then knuckle under for the tough "feature creature" fights. Think about the movie portrails of the troll fight in Balin's Tomb or the Fellowship's fight at Amon Hen. With the henchmen rule you definitely get the feeling of wading through mounds of "trash" (Goblins or Uruks) and then squaring off with the really tough monster (Troll or Lurtz).

Of course, not appropriate for all low-power, non-heroic, gritty Warhammer world games...but if you're inclined to running a heroic game, you can't do much better than the henchman rules.

YMMV.

I like Gotrek & Felix. Sometimes it's fun to have those over the top heroic fights where the characters are just on fire.

I don't see the henchmen as just being weak. I see it more as the characters shining, touched by the gods, inspired by extreme heroism... resulting in them mowing down their opponents.

The players will never know when this mystic power comes to them, but when it does they can discover in the first few rounds of combat.

The only thing I don't do is mix the henchmen and regular NPCs up too much. If I were to have 6 henchmen, 4 regular and an elite leader, then the combat would be confusing. So I'll decide on what kind of combat I want it to be and then either let it be just regular + one or two elites, or henchmen and one or two regular.

Gallows said:

Fair enough, but that just isn't my kind of WFRP! To me the game has aways been about gritty and grim - the very opposite of mystic power and shining heroism.

I've been using a high percentage of gobbo henchmen because I have a large group of players and they seem to have a lot of fun wading through a melee slaughtering snotlings while trying to get to the boss-types.

I don't think I'd do henchmen with cultists or other human enemies. In my mind, it lends itself to more to monsters or things that work in packs.

Ok, but how does one distinguish in published adventures?

E.g. the skaven in EoN at the end. invidual clanrats or henchmen, makes a ton of difference.

Henchmen may stay occasionnal weaker adversaries.

I agree : the henchmen mechanics is too obvious and affect the storytelling, the "living" aspect of the characters. It may also be nice against tenth of foes, like the Gotrek and Felix example when you run a large scale battle

Aren't the goblins in the Gathering Storm Night Goblins? If so, it makes sense that they are tougher than your average goblins. I kept them as normal enemies at least.