| ||||||
Tactics[]
Most Feral Ghouls should be dispatched from long range before they can do any harm. However, they have a tendency to attack from behind so carrying an assault rifle is a good opportunity because if they get close you simply enter V.A.T.S. and aim for their head (which has a mysterious tendency to come off, probably due to decomposition). Since they run in straight lines they aren't difficult to hit and the assault rifle is a good weapon for riddling them with bullets. Their movement patterns also make them prime targets for mines--they will run right into them if the path over the mine is the quickest way to get to the player. If you have a Laser Rifle or Hunting rifle though, you'll have no trouble. With some basic Small Guns skill you can use a combat shotgun to easily dispatch swarms of feral ghouls, by strafing and shooting you can quite easily kill them without taking much damage. With decent skill, melee weapons are also quite efficient. They are actually quite easy to kill once the player has noticed them, but Feral Ghouls & all their variants have nearly silent footsteps & move at high speed. Once they notice an enemy they will snarl characteristically, but after that they make little noise. Some may make a loud raspy breathing noise as they run towards you, and serves to give away their presence if they run up behind you.
While the above is true for the first three "ranks" of ghouls, (although glowing ones can be a bit tricky for low level characters) the new-in-Broken Steel Ghouls Reavers are a whole different story. They are quite fast and tough, rivaling a deathclaw in durability, and are only a little slower. They also posses a nasty lunge attack similar in form to the Deathclaw and Yao Guai's. Even better, they can throw globs of radioactive goop at you and heal other ghouls like a glowing one. Finally, they are almost always encountered indoors and therefore one usually doesn't much space to run/dodge in. They will spawn in both Broken Steel specific areas and replacing glowing ones in the Wasteland at higher levels (15+).
In combat one can treat them like a durable but somewhat slower deathclaw. This means a Dart gun to slow em' down and a high end weapon to put em' down. A Combat shotgun would probably work, but a Plasma rifle or better would be ideal. Yes "or better" does include the Fat Man. If fact since these guys usually show up surrounded by other, lesser, ghouls pulling out the Fat Man may be a very good idea. If one is of the sneaky type a minefield would also be quite effective.
As if all this isn't enough, at the moment (May 8, 2009) the Ghoul Reavers frequently glitch and become even more difficult to kill. They become very hard to hit and bullets will go straight through they and may hit friendlies. It is possible for you to hit the body part of another character from the body part you targeted on the Reaver that is impossible to hit.
This wiki is not monolithic and represents a variety of views and persons. I have beaten the game several times and now frequently cheat using the PC version on highest difficulty. For me Deathclaws are a bit of a challenge, but the only two that I am apprehensive about are the new mutants and the new ghouls, with the new ghouls in a seperate category. I have hit, squarely hit, a Ghoul Reaver with the Alien Blaster SIX times without bringing it down. Head shots are the most effective, but the nasty sob's vibrate, making these shots very difficult. If you wait until after adding Broken Steel to your game before trying the Dunwich building, you may have an unpleasant surprise.
Encountering Reavers for the first time in Point Lookout was a shock. They hit like Deathclaws with range and have a smaller frame which makes it easy to lose them behind cover or tall grass in their normal environment. I found the best tactic for me was to shoot them with a dart gun first. This cripples one or more of their legs and reduces their speed from ungodly to just normally fast. Then I could backpedal and take pot shots at their head until they died. I did not see any real tactical instruction in the main article, so I'm just going to leave this here as a hint in case it comes in handy for some. (this paragraph is my only contribution, I am not responsible for the previous paragraphs) --DocSilence (talk) 02:23, October 21, 2017 (UTC)
Hollow-point rounds[]
Would fleshy soft targets be ghouls and the ghouls in Vault 34. Yes, Vault 24 ghouls have armor, but it doesen't count for any DT.
Do ghouls need to eat?[]
Do Ghouls (both feral and "normal") need to eat? Take for example the glowing one in National Guard Depot, in the armory. He killed his family 200 years ago, the door is locked and he probably hasn't left since he went feral. The (cut) diary mentions that he left the bunker to gather supplies every now and then. Has he survived on those supplies since he killed his family? Or do ghouls simply not need to eat? I haven't found any information on this subject.. Does anyone know? //E 213.64.66.23 19:08, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
normal ghouls seem to eat like humans do and some ferals have human meat on them showing that maybe they eat the humans they kill and even save some for later but many ferals seem to be trapd somewhere they can not get food for a long time so it is most likely that ferals can and will eat but do not have to. Normals,yes.Ferals,yes. But ferals have built up an adaptation to survive long without food, due to having been descended from sewer and metro ghouls from D.C.
Feral Ghoul Reavers "on fire" or something like that -- Point Lookout[]
Has anyone else seen this? It almost looks like a water ripple effect of black and green 'fire' I'll happily post pics, vid and/or the save file for independent confirmation, though I'm not entirely sure how to up/download a PS3 save file, so any help on that would be appreciated. Thanks.
I have seen this on the PC version. It was in the Hubris Comics Tunnels, in the gas leaks, and may or may not have had something to do with the gas leaks.
I think that shimmer effect is meant to be radiation emanating from the powerful Reavers. --Special:Contributions/AJH 21:23, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
I too have only seen this on Feral Ghoul Reavers, but I'm not sure what causes them to emit the green flames. I say this because at one point I saved my game and encountered one that was "on fire (green)". I attempted to kill it and had to reload my game at the save point. When I encountered the Reaver again, he was not "on fire". The flaming Reavers are encountered in The Capitol Wasteland, as well as Point Lookout. BorisTheSpider 13:42, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
This isn't fire, this is gamma radiation building up in the surface of the ghoul, it builds up and forms a weapon substance for the ghoul called,"radioactive--er...something, look it up. Some Reavers won't have this, due to bugs.
Ghoul Mask[]
Although Roy Phillips warns not to stand too close to any ghouls with the Ghoul Mask on, I haven't had any problems standing or crouching nose-to-nose with even high end ghouls like Stefan and other Glowing Ones, and even Feral Ghoul Reavers. They're just as scary when they are not attacking you.
Also, curiously, Willow, the sentry in front of the Museum of History says Super Mutants don't bother ghouls, but they are not fooled by the mask.BorisTheSpider 13:53, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
This is just dialague, if she came into close contact with a Brute or Master, Overlord, whatever, she'd be killed. And also, she's also lying about the BoS. The Brotherhood do not attack civilians, so they don't kill non-ferals.
- Bullshit. Whatever Willow says is correct. IF the gameplay doesn't reflect this, then Bethesda simply failed to adjust gameplay properly.
Tagaziel (call!) 08:10, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
They talk![]
I just found this out a day ago, I was playing Fallout: New Vegas when I went to the Mesquite Mountains Crater to investigate it, because I previously had 33% Rad Res. So I go to Hell's Motel, and kill, also take every resource there. I come out of there and crossed the bridge, there's the Reaver I killed...and oh $%@#! Another one! Now, my Riot Shotgun jammed, and my other weapons would be no good. So I had no choice but to let Boone Handle it and fall back. I realize I hear a deformed,utterly disgusting gargle-water voice behind me. The Reaver said,"THEN I'LL STOP YOU!!!" I was intrigued that ghouls could talk, due to the fact they're feral. After that I see a Regular ol' Roamer crouched at a campfire, I engaged him, and his voice was a little more of a class C, then A. It went up and threw itself at me, and clawed me. It said,"RUN!AHAHAHH!" The laughter sounded like cold death, almost like dry dust. I just wanted to get this point out because I don't think Fallout 3,2,or 1 Ferals can talk.
- You wanna open up FNVEdit and point me in the direction of the voice files? :3 Nitty Tok. 01:19, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
Theories regarding Feral Ghoul orgins[]
Howdy there folks, seems we have some disagreement regarding theories about origins of feral ghouls. Figured I start off the discussion. One thing I've noticed is that the theory "It is known that normal ghouls can turn feral when exposed to excessive levels of radiation" is not correct. The cited sources either cannot be found (can't find any generic dialogue from ghouls in the The Slog, and the listed page on the Vault Dweller's Survival Guide does not say that the radiation present at Cambridge Crater caused the ghouls there to go feral, merely that they did go feral after hoping to settler there and have a safe haven. Richie9999 (talk) 02:09, June 21, 2018 (UTC)
Dr Banfield[]
Banfield never admits anything about his theory of ferals being based on prejudice. Paladin117 is making hypothetical connection of dialogue of which there is no proof of connection. He also states that ghouls carry diseases. The dialogue he is talking about "Well, umm. I guess I must confess... I've never examined a Ghoul up close... you're right. I shouldn't make assumptions. {self important doctor realizing he was prejudiced}" is actually about them being unhealthy and carrying diseases which he fears might spread to human.
This can be seen from his previous responses - "It's fine now that those Ghouls are taken care of. I've been treating less cases related to frazzled nerves and upset stomachs. {self important doctor showing genuine appreciation}" and "People are happy and healthy for the most part. And those Ghouls make great case studies! Did I mention I'm working on an important dissertation... {self important doctor showing genuine appreciation}". MatthewOne (talk) 02:31, June 21, 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say from what has been quote above, Banfield is prejudiced as the dialogue notes state their is a prejudice present.
- As far as in-game speculation goes, this should be covered for completeness, with acknowledgement that it isn't a confirmed fact. Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 10:46, June 22, 2018 (UTC)
- Banfield is prejudiced and I do agree with it. I did add that. All I am saying is that it shouldn't be taken out of context. Please see DoctorBanfield.txt.
- His statements however were about ghouls spreading diseases to humans as seen from the earlier dialogues mentioned above. Also the courier;s dialogue to get the response is: "Sure they look a little weird, but they're not diseased vermin." It is not about going feral which is a later dialogue. MatthewOne (talk) 10:53, June 22, 2018 (UTC)
- By his own admission, however, his theory is just that, a theory. He has no evidence for his theory, and I question as to whether or not it should even be included. Richie9999 (talk) 21:17, June 22, 2018 (UTC)
- You are misunderstanding me. What I am saying is Paladin117 had added that Banfield "admitted his theory about ferals is based on prejudice". See this edit. The admission was about ghouls carrying communicable diseases, not about becoming feral. I have shown the dialogue above as proof. Also it was the game saying he had prejudice, not him. MatthewOne (talk) 23:13, June 22, 2018 (UTC)
- No, I'm not misundestanding you. I don't see a reason why a theory that has - by the admission of the person behind it - no evidence to back it up, should be included in an article regarding the biology of feral ghouls. Richie9999 (talk) 19:36, June 23, 2018 (UTC)
- I wasn't even talking about the theory. Look at the opening lines of my first comment. I was talking about Paladin117's claim of Banfield admitting the theory of ghouls going feral is due to his prejudice. Banfield never makes such an admission. I am not talking about whether his theory should be included or not. That should be a separate discussion. This is only about Paladin117's edit. MatthewOne (talk) 03:14, June 24, 2018 (UTC)
(←) I looked at what you typed out. The article doesn't get unlocked until consensus is achieved. One way that that may occur is by the agreement that discussing Banfield's theory is irrelevant to the origins of feral ghouls as it lacks in game evidence. There is more than one solution to this problem, and playing "I'm right, you're wrong" isn't the only way to do it. Richie9999 (talk) 06:53, June 24, 2018 (UTC)
- The dispute began over claims of Banfield's admitting his theory was based on prejudice, this is the first revert. It was what the edit war took place over. MatthewOne (talk) 07:32, June 24, 2018 (UTC)
To be honest I'm okay with Banfield and his theory being removed entirely. There's no evidence to back it up. Besides he's a doctor, not a biologist. MatthewOne (talk) 10:58, June 24, 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with Banfield being put into the article because 1) It is (for some reason) a common fan belief that all ghouls eventually turn feral and 2) It shows a different point of view of ghouls in the series. However, if his belief is in the article then it needs to be pointed out that the game purposefully paints his believes as false by pointing that he's never even observed a ghoul before. Paladin117>>iff bored; 22:49, June 26, 2018 (UTC)
- If Banfield's theory stays it's gonna be the only theory on this page regarding the way ghouls go feral, and it needs to be explicitly pointed out that he has no evidence by using his dialogue files. The other theory regarding extreme radiation turning ghouls feral, as mentioned in my post above has no evidence to support it and is going to be removed. Richie9999 (talk) 16:08, July 4, 2018 (UTC)
- So, it's been way too long, anyone have any final ideas on how we want Banfield's theory included, such as specific wording?Richie9999 (talk) 22:12, July 12, 2018 (UTC)
Earliest feral ghouls[]
The notes state that the earliest date given for the appearance of feral ghouls is 2108, mentioned in the journals of Randall Clark. However, Fallout 76 (if it counts as canon) begins in 2102, making that the earliest date known for the appearance of feral ghouls. Near-sighted Jedi (talk) 20:17, November 18, 2018 (UTC)
question[]
should we put a section in for all the notable feral ghouls in the series like we did on the glowing one page Springtrap1128 (talk) 13:28, August 5, 2019 (UTC)