Review - Empire of the Ghouls (5e) - Richard Green, Wolfgang Baur, others

Beoric said:
If it is a loyalty issue, I would have the employer make a charisma-based check. If it is a morale issue, in 5e (which I admittedly don't know that well) I think I would use a wisdom save, because wisdom seems to be a proxy for willpower, i.e. the guts to stand and fight. Or if you don't like that, make some other check, and use wisdom as a bonus or penalty, depending on whether it would be wise or foolish to continue fighting.

I have added "cohesion" to my loyalty/morale tables. Loyalty is owed to the employer, morale is a measure of the will to fight, and cohesion is what the retainers each feels they owe to the others, and determines what happens in the event of a loyalty or morale failure. Do they flee in panic, every man to himself? Or do they ignore orders, but fall back in an orderly fashion while protecting each other? Theoretically cohesion could also affect unit effectiveness during combat, but I haven't really worked on that yet.
Click to expand...
I'm leaning toward base morale being level or hit dice plus CON adjustment. I can't really make sense of using WIS because having higher wisdom will likely make you flee sooner, although it depends what is at stake. It's complicated and situational. CON represents toughness, and level represents power. This also means it doesn't have to be on the stat block because it's a simple calculation.

Base morale = level/HD + CON adjustment. In battle, the creature's morale is again modified by the employer or group leader's CHA. Most monsters don't have a leader, but some do. Roll a d20. Rolling higher than the modified morale score means the creature flees or surrenders. A score of 1 quits at the first sign things are going badly, and a score of 20 never quits.

That covers everything except cohesion, which I've never thought about, although it makes sense. But I want it to be simple. That's what I'm thinking right now anyway.
 
The interesting thing about cohesion is the squad members can be more loyal to each other than to their employer/liege. So on a failed loyalty check they may choose to actively plot against their employer. Which is incentive for said employer to not use them as minesweepers.
 
Beoric said:
You don't think working animals can get better at what they do through training, practice and experience? I'm pretty sure they can, and do.
Click to expand...
I gotta side with Voulging on this one.

I have two sports dogs, bred specifically for dog-sports, trained by professionals for dog-sports, spent their whole lives doing dog-sports... and they still constantly fuck things up and act like silly animals because that's what they are. And these are *dogs*; one of the only animals selectively-bred by humanity since the dawn of time specifically to be trained for specialty jobs. But they will always fuck things up, because they are animals, and their minds do not grow through learning the same way a sentient mind does.

Abhorrent example as it is, a pitbull that does dogfighting it's whole life does not suddenly learn that it could win fights easier if it just start using a gun. It just does what it does, over and over again - snap, bite, tear. Maybe a little faster, a little stronger, but always the same way.
 
DangerousPuhson said:
Abhorrent example as it is, a pitbull that does dogfighting it's whole life does not suddenly learn that it could win fights easier if it just start using a gun.
Click to expand...
I don't even know what you are talking about here. At no point did I say that your warhorse will start using a crossbow or your war dog will start casting spells. I'm saying that with experience they get more hit points, saves, defences depending on edition, and arguably HD/attack bonus (for the dog, anyway) for the same reasons PCs do; they get better at avoiding getting hit, taking the hit when it happens, and (for the dog) fighting.

To be perfectly clear, I'm not talking about training an animal to do something against it's nature, I'm talking about animals, through training or experience, getting better at the things they already evolved or were (successfully) bred to do.

DangerousPuhson said:
I gotta side with Voulging on this one.

I have two sports dogs, bred specifically for dog-sports, trained by professionals for dog-sports, spent their whole lives doing dog-sports... and they still constantly fuck things up and act like silly animals because that's what they are. And these are *dogs*; one of the only animals selectively-bred by humanity since the dawn of time specifically to be trained for specialty jobs. But they will always fuck things up, because they are animals, and their minds do not grow through learning the same way a sentient mind does.

Abhorrent example as it is, a pitbull that does dogfighting it's whole life does not suddenly learn that it could win fights easier if it just start using a gun. It just does what it does, over and over again - snap, bite, tear. Maybe a little faster, a little stronger, but always the same way.
Click to expand...
Dogs are arguably sentient, but probably not sapient.

A friend of mine built his career on re-training horses, including older horses, that had been screwed up in their earlier training, or that had bad habits/behavioural problems. Animals can continue learning.

As for your example, whether this is a useful comparison or not depends on how they are fucking up.

Also, it's a magical elf game, so you can do whatever you want, which makes me curious about why people would be so opposed to making this possible. I'm assuming this applies to PCs only, and that there would be no opposition to a stranger riding into town on a seasoned and ornery warhorse, flanked by a menacing war dog, both of which are tough enough to contribute to a fight the NPC is in.

There is also a practical gaming side to this, which is the way it makes certain game elements obsolete, is a way they would not be IRL. At some point, riding horses would be a gigantic pain in the ass. There will come a level where, anytime you get in a fight, your mount is either killed by an AOE attack or by someone who wants to dismount you. At which point you are walking, and either carrying your tack or leaving it behind.

Which may be fine for a horse you picked up in the last town just to have something to ride, but for, like, Shadowfax, or a paladin's warhorse, or a specially trained horse given to you by the Chief of the Horseclans, or even just an animal that has been around long enough to develop a bit of a personality and get promoted to party member, I don't see why you wouldn't entertain the idea at higher levels just to make travel more practical.
 
If you want to give your animal companion a share of the experience, you're welcome to. But also, you can't chide someone who doesn't want to do that for not doing so, especially since animals don't have classes or levels, and so they have nothing to gain from earning any XP.

Can an animal improve through training? Sure. Not debating that. But if we are looking at a gold-for-XP system then there's a time consideration to be made, and if we are talking combat XP, then they aren't being "trained" at all. At best the owner of the animal can opt to spend some of their loot on animal training fees, and that's only with some kind of Improved Animal Companion homebrew rules. But we were talking XP split among the party, so it wouldn't even apply until after the split has happened.

Does an animal improve based on biting a troll that one time? Probably not. Would a dog learn at a different rate than a bear? Yes. Is a giant snail capable of learning at all? Likely not. Do familiars or Ranger companions count the same as some dog the party buys in town? Who knows. Point is, everything's so muddled that XP for animals becomes a mixed-bag, especially since it isn't RAW to do so.
 
DangerousPuhson said:
If you want to give your animal companion a share of the experience, you're welcome to. But also, you can't chide someone who doesn't want to do that for not doing so, especially since animals don't have classes or levels, and so they have nothing to gain from earning any XP.
Click to expand...
Chide? I was responding to "animal companions that level with you are cozy bullshit." I'm the one being chided, on account of running a system that allows this.

DangerousPuhson said:
Can an animal improve through training? Sure. Not debating that. But if we are looking at a gold-for-XP system then there's a time consideration to be made, and if we are talking combat XP, then they aren't being "trained" at all. At best the owner of the animal can opt to spend some of their loot on animal training fees, and that's only with some kind of Improved Animal Companion homebrew rules. But we were talking XP split among the party, so it wouldn't even apply until after the split has happened.

Does an animal improve based on biting a troll that one time? Probably not. Would a dog learn at a different rate than a bear? Yes. Is a giant snail capable of learning at all? Likely not. Do familiars or Ranger companions count the same as some dog the party buys in town? Who knows
Click to expand...
Yeah, as I mentioned above, I assume you won't be taking your warhorse into the dungeon. And it's fair to say that animals shouldn't get GP=XP or any other goal related experience.

Also, I expressly said training and experience. And if you are running GP=XP (which I thought you didn't do anyway), the measly amount of combat experience may end up not having much on an impact.

So maybe an animal doesn't get better from biting a troll one time. A PC also doesn't get better from striking a troll one time, the experience is negligible. Would an animal get better from frequently fighting trolls, or fighting an assortment of other creatures? I think it would. Would it get to be as good as its master? Whatever the IRL answer to that question, in 4e RAW the animal is never going to be as good as its master.

DangerousPuhson said:
. Point is, everything's so muddled that XP for animals becomes a mixed-bag, especially since it isn't RAW to do so.
Click to expand...
This entire discussion started when I talked about this being RAW in 4e. Which I did in relation to an entirely different topic.
 
Fair enough. I see now that Voulging was slighting your edition's animal rules. If it is indeed codified in 4e (and you'll need to forgive my ignorance of your preferred edition on this one), then Animal Companion XP-share is a rational consideration. Award the horse some XP; you can take the lantern-bearer's share, because he's been slacking.

You are correct that I don't run GP=XP games; I merely brought it up because I'd assumed we were talking about the concept of animal XP-shares on the whole, and not in relation to any particular edition. For that reason, I figured I'd cover both bases in my point.

With that being said, I still maintain that animals shouldn't plausibly improve themselves with more combat experience (only with very specialized training). I guess you could make the case in fantasy elf land they might, but in real life they just don't work like that. If you pit a wolf against a bear and it wins, you don't end up with a stronger wolf; you end up with a half-dead wolf that probably needs to be put down. Obviously these rules don't apply to worlds where broken bones can be mended with magic, but as a generalist take, I think it stands to be a reasonable one.
 
DangerousPuhson said:
With that being said, I still maintain that animals shouldn't plausibly improve themselves with more combat experience (only with very specialized training). I guess you could make the case in fantasy elf land they might, but in real life they just don't work like that. If you pit a wolf against a bear and it wins, you don't end up with a stronger wolf; you end up with a half-dead wolf that probably needs to be put down. Obviously these rules don't apply to worlds where broken bones can be mended with magic, but as a generalist take, I think it stands to be a reasonable one.
Click to expand...
I mean, in "real life" you would never expect a man to get good enough at fighting to kill a dragon (or equivalent, T-rex? It's about the same size) with a sword, but that's the world that the rules create.
 
Ineffective Voulging said:
Nope. Animals are stuck.Your pet bear is going to be useful for a couple of levels play then it will just have to stay home.
Click to expand...

I think what we're REEEEALLY saying here is that animal companions are bullshit, across the board.

If I could count the number of times some asshole in the party, out of ideas and resources, suddenly remembered the pet owl he's been apparently keeping up his ass through the three day overland journey, the room-by-room genocide in the caves, the gauntlet of traps (including a fireball and a gas trap). Or suddenly remembered his pet fucking murder-tiger that somehow got overlooked when the party climbed down a 200' rope ladder to get to the Oubliette of Murky Despair.

I hate animal companions.
 
The1True said:
If I could count the number of times some asshole in the party, out of ideas and resources, suddenly remembered the pet owl he's been apparently keeping up his ass through the three day overland journey, the room-by-room genocide in the caves, the gauntlet of traps (including a fireball and a gas trap). Or suddenly remembered his pet fucking murder-tiger that somehow got overlooked when the party climbed down a 200' rope ladder to get to the Oubliette of Murky Despair.
Click to expand...
I don't let them forget. "Oh, you want to go in through the ceiling? What's your plan for your pet dinosaur?" is literally something I have adjudicated in my game.

The dinosaur jumped down and didn't take too much damage.
 
One of my groups literally collects animals, but always "leaves them in the wagon". They never see combat because it's like cats and pigs and stuff, but they just get the biggest kick from having a bunch of cute fictional animals around (girl players, amirite?). No sweat off my back, except when I have to remember all of them if ever the wagon tips over or what have you.
 
It's probably worth mentioning that in my game the animal companions have tokens, so there is a constant visual reminder of their existence.
 
Beoric said:
It's probably worth mentioning that in my game the animal companions have tokens, so there is a constant visual reminder of their existence.
Click to expand...
That’s the difference and why playing with vtt or minis is helpful. I had a player who was always charming or friending some creature. The creature would get a token and got its own initiative. I don’t remember whether the party got less xp for using it but I don’t think so.
 
Sounds like my experiences playing with kids who grew up on Pokemon or its knockoffs. Every monster is a potential pet.

For that matter, 1e has the charm monster spell. I remember reading a blog post, years ago, which went through a bunch of examples of how charm person was used in what is known of Gygax's game, and came to the conclusion that it was designed to turn enemies into party members. I expect charm monster exists for the same reason.
 
Beoric said:
I expect charm monster exists for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the party poached a bugbear from the Necromancers of Set in "Barrowmaze" that way. They set him up with equipment and kept his hp full, which led to a certain level of loyalty after the spell whore off. He ran afoul of a stone golem and the party actually dragged his corpse back to town and talked the bishop through a series of moral hurdles into raising him for a lot of money. He made it a ways further before finally eating it at the hands of an elder fire elemental. There was much lamentation over the ashes of Gbulg, Last Chief of the Red Fang Bugbears.

He definitely got a full share of XP and was leveled up (Barbarian) at least once. He was no Larry-Sue solving puzzles or performing interactions for the party, but they definitely consulted his Knowledge Dungeoneering for basic Barrowmaze intel and he got thrown into every combat on the front line.

NPC's are easier to keep track of than companions. Sz Sml familiars in particular have a way of fading into the background of peoples' character sheets along with the other Break Glass in Case of Emergency items.

I can't remember if 1e differentiated between henchmen and cohorts the way 3e does. Cohorts get a full share and tend to level up just 2 or 3 levels behind the characters.
 
Now that I think about it, that'd make a pretty good DCC 0-lvl funnel. The players play henchmen through a series of desperate engagements. The lucky ones survive long enough to get names. Or go Paranoia style and make them henchmen for a sadistic antihero who throws them at giant monsters and into death traps. There has to be an opportunity for the smart/lucky to survive, so it's not just pointless misery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top