>While I realise this is the simple, and probably the intended, way to
>do it, the whole Follower rule section seems to me to be a dreadful
>step backwards, defining a character (even if just a supporting
>character) in just a couple of words. OK, I could use Allies for all
>my old RQ characters as well as horses and the like, but they should
>only have Follower-level ratings. So what's the difference between a
>low-ability ally and a follower? The idea of 'expendable' and
>replaceable followers seems to me very un-Heroic. Surely even the
>most callous and dedicated Hero thinks more of his men than just
>"Damn... lost another two! Oh, well, there's plenty more where they
>came from...", and as such they should have more than just two words
>of description. The rules allow use of keywords, which is a good
>help, but it doesn't work for animals - and there's more to even a
>horse than Strong and Run!
>
>Wulf
You don't have to do it this way. There are four main solutions that I can see:
- Ally. This is for a horse as powerful and independent as a PC
- Follower. An exceptionally obedient loyal horse. Follower abilities IMO
should be limited to special attributes (standard horse abilities I would
give for free but won't normally increase). Special attributes include
warhorse training, manouver in combat, exceptional speed etc. I'd use these
to augment normal horsey abilities or to augment/add AP to character
actions.
- Item/"NPC horse". You get the standard horse abilities from the NB. The
horse might get stolen, wander off or whatever and any HP spent on it can't
be regained. Replacing it may reduce your wealth etc.
- Horse special effect. You use a horse, but assume its effects are
already accounted for in the character (e.g., use riding skill for mounted
combat).
Thom