PDA

View Full Version : 4e Minions are not 3e Mooks



Pages : [1] 2

wodan46
2008-05-25, 07:43 PM
Some people seem to have the attitude that 4e minions are weak, there to provide dramatic fluff, and think that them having 1 hp is sacrilegious somehow Lets review some key points, true for at least low level combat.

1. 4 minions are worth the same exp as 1 standard monster, and both are supposed to be appropriate for 1 player of the same level to fight.
2. A standard monster is expected to go down after 4 hits or so, while minions go down from 1 hit each.
3. Minions have defenses and attacks on par with the standard monster of the same level. They each deal damage something around 1/3 of what a standard monster would deal.
4. In short, minions are as tough as and deal as much damage as a standard monster typically

However, it extends beyond that. Minions are truely effective only when deployed with regular monsters of appropriate roles. They receive bonuses from leaders, help strikers flank you, and block your path to controllers. By mobbing PCs, they can prevent you from dealing with bigger enemies, and eat away at your health.

In short, 4e Minions are NOT 3e Mooks, who hit only on a 20s, do minimal damage, and require unwanted bookkeeping.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-25, 07:50 PM
Wodan, can I pronounce you Friendly Neighborhood Poster? Your threads always help debunk misconceptions, or provide interesting information. Everyone owes you one, man.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-25, 08:01 PM
I can vouch for minions bringing the pain. When you've got 5 kobold minions on you... flanking... swarm tactics... they hit... frequently....

Stupid DM realizing I was the bigger threat. :smalltongue:

Rutee
2008-05-25, 08:14 PM
Interesting side note. You die at Neg Half, no? that makes it pretty darn unlikely that minions will /kill/ you, just /drop/ you.

Grug
2008-05-25, 08:15 PM
I'm just glad 4e makes it entirely possible to mkae the players fight swarms of enemeis without the exponential power difference.

HEY AZERIAN! We have to talk. send me a PM.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-25, 08:15 PM
You die outright from negative bloodied... if you drop to 0 you still have to make a save every round... if you fail 3... you're dead. And that's not 3 in a row... 3 total.

Minions can kill you, just rare that they will kill you with one shot.

wodan46
2008-05-25, 08:54 PM
I was worried I'd be labeled neighborhood whiner/flamer instead. Just gets tiresome seeing the same incorrect conceptions present in thread after thread.

As for dying from minions, after you are down, they can just keep kicking you until you are dead, assuming that you don't fail 3 saves and die anyway. You won't be able to offer much of a defense, and minions don't roll dice for damage. A medium level 1 character with 16 Con has about 28 hp, and dies at -14. Level 1 kobold minions deal 2 damage. If you get dropped near 4 of them, you will be dead in 2 turns.

xirr2000
2008-05-25, 08:59 PM
Solid post, I really like the new minions. They go down fast but you can't ignore them as they often have abilities that allow them to be very effective when working with each other or when getting bolstered by a non-minion buddy. Every fight I've played in 4E has been challenging, even the so-called "trash fights". You can never get overconfident or say "its just 6 minions, we should focus on the main guy". Imagine, it only took 4 editions to get there :) Don't get me wrong, I lovem all :smallsmile:

Ralfarius
2008-05-25, 09:30 PM
Giving mass combat some tactical validity within the rule set is a big plus, in my opinion. Leaps and bounds better than masses of low-powered enemies being a big hassle with little payout to the point of interesting combat mostly having to consist of one or two powerful foes, and nothing else.

JaxGaret
2008-05-25, 10:08 PM
I have no problem with Minions as a low level concept. They worked great in the quickstart module.

I do have a problem with high-level Minions. They break verisimilitude, badly, IMO. YMMV.

Behold_the_Void
2008-05-25, 10:17 PM
I have no problem with Minions as a low level concept. They worked great in the quickstart module.

I do have a problem with high-level Minions. They break verisimilitude, badly, IMO. YMMV.

Try to think about them as rogue-y types at high levels. They can run in and do some good damage, but a solid hit will take them down, so you can't afford to ignore them.

Morty
2008-05-26, 07:20 AM
Yeah. Are 4ed minions the same as enemies far below party's level in 3ed? Nope. Are they stupid rule based on movie cliches some people will cheerfully ingore as it serves little useful purpose above lowest levels? Yep.

Roderick_BR
2008-05-26, 08:00 AM
Interesting side note. You die at Neg Half, no? that makes it pretty darn unlikely that minions will /kill/ you, just /drop/ you.
And once you are dropped, the main monster can easily kill you. Yeah, minions are not there to kill you, but to distract *and* weaken you while the big guy gets you.

In 3.x, I always saw mooks as a way to "spread the targets" against the players. Instead of two level 1 barbarian orcs, try to make one level 1 barbarian orc and 3 warrior goblins (1/3 CR), with higher than average stats (a simple +2 to Str or Dex makes them dangerous at lower level), good equipments (no need for full plates or MW, just something better than leather and weak weapons), and a better feat selection/tactics. I almost took down high level characters with mooks many times as a DM. And got myself killed more times than I could count when playing (darned kobolds).
Now that they have special powers for minions, things will be more interesting... :smallwink:

Rutee
2008-05-26, 08:14 AM
And once you are dropped, the main monster can easily kill you. Yeah, minions are not there to kill you, but to distract *and* weaken you while the big guy gets you.
Er, yeah, CDG is always an option. What I mean is that it reduces the risk of accidental death in a meaningless fight.

Oslecamo
2008-05-26, 09:24 AM
I have to disagree.

I'll admit that minions weren't exactly premade in 3e, but with a little work you could easily create minions that would allow you to throw several enemies at the party,

Kobolds are an exceletn example of this. Give them weapon finesse(replacing alertness) and they hit just fine both in ranged and melee. The -2 str modifier, combined with weak weapons(dagger, serves both ranged and melee), will mean that they won't be dealing any serious damage so the party isn't threatened. Give them comoner levels and they'll have an average of 1HP. They already have a normal AC of 13(+1 size+1 dex +1 nat), wich means the average melee, wich will have an average of +6 to hit(+4 str+ 1 BAB +1 any other class abili) will hit them regurlarly, but not always. At higher levels, give them better armor, replace the comoner levels with warrior levels(more BAB and still go down with one hit from everybody. If your attacks haven't got a minimum of 4 damage, then you shouldn't be attacking at all). Replace the daggers with light crossbows to start hurting more seriously. Replace weapon finesse with point blanck shot.

And so on. The trick to make minions in 3e is to deoptimize the monsters. A group of warrior kobolds with light crossbows will be a very serious threat to a lv1 party. A group of comoner kobolds with daggers will still be a challenge, but the party should emerge victorious easily. You can even put something like a bard kobold in the middle of that, singing to encourage the other kobolds, giving the party the choice of killing him to make the minions weaker, or a fighter/warblade/crusader/rogue/cleric kobold, taking advantage of his minion allies to flanck, meat shield, group powers, etc.

At higher levels there are several other monsters with relatively low HP but wich can be optimized to hit at a good rate while dealing decent but not deadly damage, so you can throw several of them at the party whitout fear of swarming them but still providing a good challenge.

The only diference in 4e is that the minions come pre packaged for the DM. Well, all monsters come pre packaged anyway.

JaxGaret
2008-05-26, 09:56 AM
Try to think about them as rogue-y types at high levels. They can run in and do some good damage, but a solid hit will take them down, so you can't afford to ignore them.

Except that A) they're not all Rogue-y types, and B) any hit will take them down, not just a solid hit.

Actually, that thought may have given me my first possible houserule for 4e: Minions don't have 1 HP. They have [Level] HP. In other words, a 4th level Minion will have 4 HP. A 10th level Minion will have 10 HP.

Might work.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-26, 09:59 AM
Except that A) they're not all Rogue-y types, and B) any hit will take them down, not just a solid hit.

Actually, that thought may have given me my first possible houserule for 4e: Minions don't have 1 HP. They have [Level] HP. In other words, a 4th level Minion will have 4 HP. A 10th level Minion will have 10 HP.

Might work.

As long as you increase their XP value so that you don't necessarily have as many out on the board... that would work nicely.

MorkaisChosen
2008-05-26, 10:05 AM
1hp is an abstraction. In an ideal world, the players wouldn't know they were minions- the point of the rule is that level-appropriate characters should be able to one-shot them. It does reduce the flexibility in a way, in that you can't use level-inappropriate minions (well, low-level ones aren't too bad, but having minions significantly higher level than the party breaks sanity), but it's a tool. I think the main advantage is book-keeping- you don't have to remember "That Orc has 3HP left" or whatever...

TwystidMynd
2008-05-26, 10:47 AM
I can't remember who, but someone posted in another thread a houserule that I thought would be good, for anyone who has serious issue with the "1-hp" characteristic of 4e Minions...

Give every character a special ability called "Kill Minion" where you treat any minion of your level or lower as having 1 hp, but any minion of higher level has 1/4 hp as a "normal" creature. That way, when a level 1 Fighter hits a level 1 Minion, it dies, but if a Level 1 Fighter rolls a 20 on a level 20 Minion, then he deals an insignificant amount of damage, since the Level 20 Minion likely has somewhere around 30 hp.

Orzel
2008-05-26, 11:19 AM
I once played a game where the DM gave us importance tiers that augmented our HP. Most of the party and the main NPC where Major Characters and got max HP rolls. The BBEG and the Chosen One got double Max HP roll. Named NPC and enemies got 1/2 HP and everyone else got 1 HP "cause they don't matter". All those nameless NPCs killed. Good times.

"Kill it before he gives it a name."

The Solo/Elite/Standard/Minion system work well for storytelling. I could see the same enemy having 2-3 stat blocks depending on who he is with. The rebel is often Lord Buttkicker (solo) with alone and Mr. Bleedy (standard) in a group. So I love minions. Gives the gang of ninja/robots/goblins/gangsters/insert power rangers mob feel.

Yahzi
2008-05-26, 11:53 AM
them having 1 hp is sacrilegious somehow
No, it's just stupid.


3. Minions have defenses and attacks on par with the standard monster of the same level. They each deal damage something around 1/3 of what a standard monster would deal.
How does that work? How do you get a monster that has the same abilities as another monster but just hurts less and dies easier?

I just don't understand the logic for this.

Basically, if you see a huge minotaur in plate armor with a giant flaming axe... he might die in one hit. Or, he might be able to take 4 attacks a round and require a dozen hits to kill. In the good old days you could at least guess at what power level something was. Now it's an invisible mechanic unrelated to the game world.


[In short, 4e Minions are NOT 3e Mooks, who hit only on a 20s, do minimal damage, and require unwanted bookkeeping.
Ya, we know. 3e mooks are a problem. The point is that 4e minions are not the solution. The solution is fixing the RNG.

My players are already at the point where most battles they can only be hit by 20's. And they're 2nd level.



In an ideal world, the players wouldn't know they were minions
Then how do the players judge whether or not they can attack them?

Oh... right. I forgot. In WotC's version of D&D, the players know who to attack and who not to attack because the DM tells them.

In my world, where the players have to make their own decisions, inconsistency in the game-world is crippling to their ability to survive/have fun. But I suppose if you're just designing encounters to be played in strict linear order, exactly as if you were going through the rooms of a dungeon that only has one hallway, then this isn't such a problem.

:smallannoyed:

This explains a lot, I suppose. I never understood those threads about TPKs and how to prevent them. If my players attack the King, they'll die. Quickly. There is no secret contract between me and my players that says I will only provide encounters that challenge them. Ergo, if they do something stupid, their deaths are on their heads. It's up to them to balance risk vs. reward, and choose the destiny they think they're ready to handle.

I know not everybody plays that way, but it I strongly suggest trying it. Giving the players responsibility for their own decisions makes the game a lot more fun.

JaxGaret
2008-05-26, 11:59 AM
As long as you increase their XP value so that you don't necessarily have as many out on the board... that would work nicely.

I'm not sure that I would need to up their XP much, if at all. It would still be pretty much 1 hit = 1 kill, unless the PC is doing pathetic damage to them - and that is exactly what I want to avoid, Minions being taken out by pathetic damage.

Learnedguy
2008-05-26, 12:23 PM
I can't remember who, but someone posted in another thread a houserule that I thought would be good, for anyone who has serious issue with the "1-hp" characteristic of 4e Minions...

Give every character a special ability called "Kill Minion" where you treat any minion of your level or lower as having 1 hp, but any minion of higher level has 1/4 hp as a "normal" creature. That way, when a level 1 Fighter hits a level 1 Minion, it dies, but if a Level 1 Fighter rolls a 20 on a level 20 Minion, then he deals an insignificant amount of damage, since the Level 20 Minion likely has somewhere around 30 hp.

Now this I think, addresses the thing people haven't understood about high level minions.

They are relative to the strength of the PC's. yes, you heard me. They're inversely proportional.

To a level one party, that devil minion ain't a 1 hp monster. It's a ****ing beast with several HD of health and lots of ways to make you suffer and cry for your mommy.
To a level twenty party though, the devil is barely a challenge. Although still dangerous enough to cause some trouble in case they attack en masse.
And then again, to a level thirty party, if the devil were to meet them, he wouldn't even be considered a minion anymore. He has been downgraded to our classical mook (aka might hit you on a cold September evening with a nat 20)

If a level one fighter is fighting against a minion suitable for a level ten party, your DM is doing it wrong.

JaxGaret
2008-05-26, 12:47 PM
Now this I think, addresses the thing people haven't understood about high level minions.

They are relative to the strength of the PC's. yes, you heard me. They're inversely proportional.

To a level one party, that devil minion ain't a 1 hp monster. It's a ****ing beast with several HD of health and lots of ways to make you suffer and cry for your mommy.
To a level twenty party though, the devil is barely a challenge. Although still dangerous enough to cause some trouble in case they attack en masse.
And then again, to a level thirty party, if the devil were to meet them, he wouldn't even be considered a minion anymore. He has been downgraded to our classical mook (aka might hit you on a cold September evening with a nat 20)

If a level one fighter is fighting against a minion suitable for a level ten party, your DM is doing it wrong.

I understand that perfectly well. My issue with it is the fact that a PC can throw a pebble at a high-level Minion, deal them the 1 HP of damage, and take them out of the fight.

Or a mage could cast a wide-area low-damage spell that just takes all the minions out. "Hey Wizzie, time for your At-Will Mook Bomb again, eh?"

Raum
2008-05-26, 01:32 PM
Some people seem to have the attitude that 4e minions are weak, there to provide dramatic fluff, and think that them having 1 hp is sacrilegious somehowI think it simply highlights a weakness of the hit point health system in general. What it's really doing is tacking on a separate subsystem for minion health. Neither system is necessarily bad, both are abstracts after all. But it is an additional subsystem.

Lets review some key points, true for at least low level combat.

1. 4 minions are worth the same exp as 1 standard monster, and both are supposed to be appropriate for 1 player of the same level to fight.
2. A standard monster is expected to go down after 4 hits or so, while minions go down from 1 hit each.
3. Minions have defenses and attacks on par with the standard monster of the same level. They each deal damage something around 1/3 of what a standard monster would deal.
4. In short, minions are as tough as and deal as much damage as a standard monster typicallyWhat is your evidence for #2? I thought 4e hit points were being inflated to extend combat? Even in 3.x I'm not sure four hits per kill is true for similar leveled opponents.
Numbers 3 and 4 seem to contradict each other. Or are you counting a group of four minions as equivalent in damage to one non-minion?


However, it extends beyond that. Minions are truely effective only when deployed with regular monsters of appropriate roles. They receive bonuses from leaders, help strikers flank you, and block your path to controllers. By mobbing PCs, they can prevent you from dealing with bigger enemies, and eat away at your health.This is where I have issues with 4e minions. Why aren't they a valid threat on their own? If their only purpose is to steal actions and health from player characters, how are they adding to the game's fun? They've become nothing more than the worst type of trap...a hit point and action tax.


In short, 4e Minions are NOT 3e Mooks, who hit only on a 20s, do minimal damage, and require unwanted bookkeeping.Make one change and I'd probably agree...they should do full damage. Then they're a threat which must be considered instead of simple obstacles to be bypassed.

Yakk
2008-05-26, 02:10 PM
Except that A) they're not all Rogue-y types, and B) any hit will take them down, not just a solid hit.

Actually, that thought may have given me my first possible houserule for 4e: Minions don't have 1 HP. They have [Level] HP. In other words, a 4th level Minion will have 4 HP. A 10th level Minion will have 10 HP.

Might work.You just added a bunch of bookkeeping. You want to be able to throw a bunch of minions at players without slowing down.

Remember, 4e rounds are supposed to take less time.

Alternative:
Have a collective minion HP pool.
When you damage a minion, you may not do more than MINION LEVEL to this pool.
If the pool has more than MINION LEVEL damage in it after you hit a minion, it dies and takes MINION LEVEL damage with it.

Viola. Now you can face down 10 level 10 minions (half a level 10 encounter for a group of 5 players) without having a huge chart of minion HP to keep track of.

A 3 damage-to-each target fireball hitting all 10 does a total of 30 damage -- killing a total of 3 minions. The remaining ones look damaged, but the total pool still has 70 HP in it.

And a force of variable level minions still works.

(And yes, there is the strange effect that if player 1 hits for half-level damage, then player 2 hits for half-level damage, player 2 gets the kill. If this repeats over many rounds, player 2 keeps on getting the kill... but with damage being reasonably random, this is unlikely to cause any serious problems.)

wodan46
2008-05-26, 03:18 PM
Minions are not an HP tax, any more so than a Dragon is an HP tax.

I just obtained the Keep on Shadowfell (woot). Now, lets compare some stats. Lets compare five Level 1 Kobold Minions, worth 25 XP apiece, to one Level 2 Kobold Dragonshield (Soldier), worth 125 XP. From what I can see, while the 5 minions and the 1 soldier would be more effective together, this is the same as a wizard and a fighter being more effective together, the minions are just another "class" of unit, that has its own vulnerabilities (AOE) and advantages (Flanking). In fact, if anything, the 5 minions are significantly better than the 1 soldier, unless they walk into aforementioned AOE attacks.


--------------------Minion------------------Soldier
HP------------------1----------------------36, 5 resist fire
AC/Fort/Reflex/Will---15/11/13/11-----------18/14/13/13
Attack-------------- +4 vs. AC, 4 damage--- +7 vs. AC, 1d6+4 damage

Minion Abilities
Has 3 javelins for ranged attacks, +4 vs. AC, 4 damage
Shifty(shift 1 square as minor action)

Soldier Abilities
Target is marked by melee attack
Dragonshield Tactics(whenever enemy shifts away or moves adjacent, shift, immediate reaction)
Mob Attack(+1 bonus to attack rolls per kobold ally next to target)
Shifty(shift 1 square as minor action)

Raum
2008-05-26, 03:44 PM
Minions are not an HP tax, any more so than a Dragon is an HP tax.In your initial post you stated:
By mobbing PCs, they can prevent you from dealing with bigger enemies, and eat away at your health.Which is correct? "Eat away at your health" sounds like a hit point tax to me. Worse, it's an action tax.

Which means more to the character - mowing down a mob of unarmed goblins one swing at a time or risking life and limb to hack your way through an army of armed goblins trying to get at your life blood? That's the difference between minions doing less damage than soldiers and minions doing the same amount of damage.

Newtkeeper
2008-05-26, 03:55 PM
Hmm... I really have no problem with the minion concept. Combat in Dnd is so abstract already that abstracting the HP of low-threat beasties seems OK to me. If it troubles you, think of it not as "1 hp" but rather as "few enough HP that he's going down, and I don't want to have to keep tally". Seem good?

Mind, I don't say this as a 4e fanboy (they killed the realms. they killed them.). I just think any 4e bashing should be devoted at targets that deserve it.

EDIT: Raum, no one is denying that minions take down HP and actions. But are they really any worse at that than a bunch of low level goblins in 3e? Their job is essentially to act as extra hit points on foot for whoever's the real threat.

Kyalid
2008-05-26, 04:02 PM
In your initial post you stated:Which is correct? "Eat away at your health" sounds like a hit point tax to me. Worse, it's an action tax.

Which means more to the character - mowing down a mob of unarmed goblins one swing at a time or risking life and limb to hack your way through an army of armed goblins trying to get at your life blood? That's the difference between minions doing less damage than soldiers and minions doing the same amount of damage.

Yeah, there is a difference between using normal soldiers every time and using monions, you're quite right.
If you use a group of minions appropriate to the group, you have an encounter where the PCs will slaughter through them, get some hits which are not enough dmg to drop'em and have a lot of blood on the walls afterwards and every minion is dead. If you now turn these minions into soldiers, you'll have an encounter not appropriate for the group due to having 4times the normal "CR" in monsters.
Thus you scale it down, take one fourth of the goblin army and have an encounter as before, the problem is you don't have the mass of goblins as before.
If you combine them you have it nearly as in the 3rd edition, you have some low-level NPCs, being there to get some hits and die (this time just one hit), and one to five beings being stronger and dealing some damage. The difference is just, that the PCs don't hit minions on everythin but a 1 and minions don't hit on everything but a 20 and are able to deal some damage.

Imho it's something that could work. If it does work, everythin is fine, if it does not work for you, you don't have to use it, you can still put lower-level monsters into your dungeon to serve as meat-shields.

Just another thought: minions are called minions, because they serve someone, thus they don't have as good gear as the BBEG who is being described as big, bad, evil und having better gear and an aura of evil. That is how you could discern minions from normal monsters, they have other gear, are not that impressive, dont look as well built, look around for the leader for orders and other things, it is just a question how you integrate it into your game.

Just my 0.02€

Dan_Hemmens
2008-05-26, 04:08 PM
No, it's just stupid.

It's stupid for a monster to have 1HP? Why, exactly?


How does that work? How do you get a monster that has the same abilities as another monster but just hurts less and dies easier?

How does it work? It works the same way that going out and killing monsters magically teaches you to get better at picking locks and playing the violin. It works the same way it works that being really, really good at playing the violin makes you harder to kill with arrows. It's an abstraction.

If you want a system where the rules represent the actual interaction of metal, flesh, and bone, play Riddle of Steel.


I just don't understand the logic for this.

Basically, if you see a huge minotaur in plate armor with a giant flaming axe... he might die in one hit. Or, he might be able to take 4 attacks a round and require a dozen hits to kill. In the good old days you could at least guess at what power level something was. Now it's an invisible mechanic unrelated to the game world.

As is often the case with 4E skeptics, what you are objecting to here is either (a) the status quo or (b) so obviously stupid that nobody would ever do it, even if it was possible within the rules.

Under the current rules, the minotaur you describe might be an Epic Level Pseudonatural Paragon Minotaur with 25 class levels, or it might be an SRD standard CR4 Minotaur, or it might be a Minotaur Commoner, with a single racial hit die.

A tiny little kobold, similarly, could be something that would die in one blow, or it could be Pun-Pun. A creature's stats stopped being irrevocably linked to its physical appearance *well* before 3rd edition.

So when you say "in the good old days you could guess at what power level something was" what you really mean is "the DM could use his descriptions to give you OOC clues about what power level something was, compared to you". Your description of the minotaur is not a description of a minion-level monster (it's got what appears to be a magic weapon, and wears full plate, and you describe it as "huge". It also appears on its own, which minions won't). The status quo of the game is not changing at all. They're just being more honest about the way things work.


Then how do the players judge whether or not they can attack them?

Oh... right. I forgot. In WotC's version of D&D, the players know who to attack and who not to attack because the DM tells them.

Which is how it has always worked. In fact you pretty much admit this yourself when you say below that "if my players attack the King, they'll die". How are they supposed to know this from IC cues? Is the King a beholder? Is he eleven feet tall with flames coming out of his ears? Does he have a portal to Mount Celestia behind his throne through which Planetars will swarm to defend him? No, the players know that you don't expect them to attack the King, and so they know that you will have pitched the King's guards to be overwhelmingly more powerful than them.


In my world, where the players have to make their own decisions, inconsistency in the game-world is crippling to their ability to survive/have fun. But I suppose if you're just designing encounters to be played in strict linear order, exactly as if you were going through the rooms of a dungeon that only has one hallway, then this isn't such a problem.

:smallannoyed:

This explains a lot, I suppose. I never understood those threads about TPKs and how to prevent them. If my players attack the King, they'll die. Quickly. There is no secret contract between me and my players that says I will only provide encounters that challenge them. Ergo, if they do something stupid, their deaths are on their heads. It's up to them to balance risk vs. reward, and choose the destiny they think they're ready to handle.

And how do they make the decision about what they're ready to "handle"? D&D has, and has always had, invisible mechanics which make it impossible to predict the way something will turn out from purely IC evidence. In D&D as it currently stands it is impossible to tell by looking at anything what its actual game mechanical effect will be. The rules for designing traps, for example, allow the GM to assign them arbitrarily high damage ratings. The rules for NPCs make it possible for any city guardsman to be an HP1 Warrior or a 25th level Fighter with no discernible difference between the two (except of course that a 25th level fighter wouldn't be a regular guardsman, but that's back to the DM "telling you who to fight" again).


I know not everybody plays that way, but it I strongly suggest trying it. Giving the players responsibility for their own decisions makes the game a lot more fun.

That's your experience. In my experience "giving the players responsibility for their own decisions" is often a code for "punishing the players for doing things I don't like or didn't expect".

Yakk
2008-05-26, 04:14 PM
Raum, the problem is you still want the players to have the chance to win.

1/3 damage, 1/4 as hard to kill means you can throw 4 times as many minions as standard monsters at the players.

In 3e, a party of 4 level 10 adventurers should consider 4 CR6 monsters to be a typical challenge, or 16 CR2 monsters.

In 4e, you'd throw 4 level 10 standard monsters or 16 level 10 minions at the party for the same amount of challenge. The difference is the swarm of 16 minions in 4e actually is about as hard as the 4 level 10 monsters.

While in 3e, you have to jump through hoops to make the 16 CR 2 monsters able to stand up to the party. The party probably won't even blink if you don't optimize (ie, make them under-cons).

The minion rules exist in order to make such an fight work mechanically. That's it.

...

And no, you don't run into a level 9 minion as a level 1 party. The level 9 minion is intended as an abstraction of a lower-level monster, rebalanced to work mechanically against a level 9 to 12 party as a minion in a battle.

Less bookkeeping, less "only roll a 20 to hit", probably lower damage per hit, etc -- all to make the minion NPC work better as an element to the story being told at level 10ish.

The 4e rules exist as a means for a DM to tell a story with the PCs set in a D&D world. Their purpose isn't a reality simulator. That 10th level minion might be the same NPC as they fought at level 3 as a level 4 elite monster who managed to get away. Now that they are level 10, he is nothing more than a minion to the enemies they are fighting!

Raum
2008-05-26, 04:16 PM
EDIT: Raum, no one is denying that minions take down HP and actions. But are they really any worse at that than a bunch of low level goblins in 3e? Their job is essentially to act as extra hit points on foot for whoever's the real threat.Perhaps it's a viewpoint gained from other game systems, but I want the minions to be a threat! Not just extras or obstacles.

Yeah, there is a difference between using normal soldiers every time and using monions, you're quite right.I'm not sure I made my point clear. I'm not against minions, I run a Savage Worlds game using them extensively. What I want is for minions to be a threat, to mean something other than using up an action to get rid of them.

In short, I want minions to scare the PCs. That way it's far more scary when they do finally run into something which doesn't succumb to the first damage taken.

wodan46
2008-05-26, 04:26 PM
Raum, did you miss the part where I clearly stated that in 4e, Minions are if anything more deadly than than Standard monsters with the same net Exp?

They are not fodder. The 5 minions I described deal 4 damage an attack, while the Soldier Monster worth the same exp deals about 6.5 damage per attack on average, though he has +7 to AC rather than +4.

When I said that the minions will eat away at your health, I meant like a swarm of starving piranhas, not like irritating fleas.

Yakk
2008-05-26, 04:53 PM
A party of 5 PCs isn't supposed to be up against a single minion. They are supposed to be up against 20 minions of the same level.

20 minions. Each of which has a 50% to 30% chance of hitting a PC on a given swing. Each of which is doing more than just swinging at the PCs, as they have special abilities. Each of which takes about 2 PC-attacks to take out.

At 1.5 PC-attacks per round, that's a 5 round fight, during which the PCs are hit by 6 to 10 minion attacks per round -- 30 to 50 total.

And if you want a hard fight? The PCs in the beta sample adventure where going against something like a level 4 or 5 solo dragon at level 1 or 2.

Repeat the fight with either 40 minions (!), or 20 of level 15 minions, for extra lethality.

That is what minions are designed to do. Be a way to throw a huge number of enemies at the PCs without the game breaking down, and without each NPC being so weak that the PCs can just ignore them.

Raum
2008-05-26, 05:00 PM
Raum, did you miss the part where I clearly stated that in 4e, Minions are if anything more deadly than than Standard monsters with the same net Exp?No, didn't miss it. I don't care if a minion does as much damage as something four levels lower.


They are not fodder. The 5 minions I described deal 4 damage an attack, while the Soldier Monster worth the same exp deals about 6.5 damage per attack on average, though he has +7 to AC rather than +4.They are fodder. That's their purpose. They should be dangerous fodder. As a side note, the average damage of the soldier will be 7.5, almost twice the minion's damage.


When I said that the minions will eat away at your health, I meant like a swarm of starving piranhas, not like irritating fleas.Perhaps, but that doesn't seem to be reflected by the mechanics.

You've shown they're easier to hit (+4 AC vs +7 AC) and deal just over half the damage (4 vs 7.5) of a non-minion. Seem more like irritating obstacles consuming an action than piranhas to me.

To reiterate, I'm not against a minion mechanic. Frankly, I think minion status should be the default with tougher creatures the exception. For that to work, the minions need to be dangerous at the level they're intended for use.

GoC
2008-05-26, 05:02 PM
I understand that perfectly well. My issue with it is the fact that a PC can throw a pebble at a high-level Minion, deal them the 1 HP of damage, and take them out of the fight.

Or a mage could cast a wide-area low-damage spell that just takes all the minions out. "Hey Wizzie, time for your At-Will Mook Bomb again, eh?"

That's why I don't like the idea of 1hp minions.
Area effects massacre them so easily that those four minions shouldn't even be worth xp.

Helgraf
2008-05-26, 05:15 PM
I understand that perfectly well. My issue with it is the fact that a PC can throw a pebble at a high-level Minion, deal them the 1 HP of damage, and take them out of the fight.



Or a mage could cast a wide-area low-damage spell that just takes all the minions out. "Hey Wizzie, time for your At-Will Mook Bomb again, eh?"

Battlefield control includes being able to remove the mooks when needed, yes. And frankly, "Wizzie" can do that just exactly as easily in 3.5, so it's not a real contention.

The Orc Solo that nearly kicked your whole party's ass at level 1 is going to reach a point where it's not a threat to their abilities. A horde of Orc Minions of appropriate level to your party, on the other hand, still will require you to make decisions about how to deal with them, what resources to allocate - and even if you're using at-wills, that still means your regular monster over there isn't taking the damage this round and therefore will persist longer.

Minions in 4th Ed do exactly what they're meant to do. They harry you in groups (minion archers are particularly fun for this) and force you to make hard decisions about whether to focus your efforts on the main villian(s) and endure the damage that the minions will still quite effectively deal out (unlike mooks of 3rd edition), or to remove the minions first so you can focus on the villains later without being harried or taking continual damage.

And it won't always be the same decision due to powers that may make the minions more effective while the leader is around - _or_ vice versa.

The 1 hp thing is like a lot of things in 4th ed. It's designed to minimize the paperwork on creatures you were probably going to kill in one hit regardless. Like many things in 4th ed, it's an abstraction that gives the DM more options. It is far faster to run a huge combat with minions than trying to track the hit points of, say, 25 orcs, individually.

Helgraf
2008-05-26, 05:17 PM
That's why I don't like the idea of 1hp minions.
Area effects massacre them so easily that those four minions shouldn't even be worth xp.

Sure, as long as all your fights with minions occur in situations where they attack you in blocks like you'd see on a miniatures wargaming scenario, ala Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

Nothing about minions says they need to attack in tight, easily fitted under an AoE template, units. Nothing.

Minions work best in big rooms anyway, where, again, they have plenty of room to spread out and engage you in nonsuicidal methods.

Scintillatus
2008-05-26, 05:24 PM
It's been said by developers that Minions are never supposed to work alone - hence the "Minion" tag, instead of "Fodder". In fact, their abilities are supposed to sync up with the other enemy types. Skirmishers use them for flanking. Soldiers use them for battlefield control. Artillery uses them to keep you away.

In essence, a group of Minions aren't meant to eat you up and spit you out, or provide some kind of individual threat by the numbers - they're a tactical threat. Every fireball aimed at the minions instead of the brute is an action you won't get back. Every Action Point you use denies you an additional attack when you really need it. And ignoring them outright costs you healing surges you'll need to fight the Solo encounter later.

The "verismillitude" argument is done to death, and I refuse to perpetuate it.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-26, 05:26 PM
You've shown they're easier to hit (+4 AC vs +7 AC) and deal just over half the damage (4 vs 7.5) of a non-minion. Seem more like irritating obstacles consuming an action than piranhas to me.

To reiterate, I'm not against a minion mechanic. Frankly, I think minion status should be the default with tougher creatures the exception. For that to work, the minions need to be dangerous at the level they're intended for use.

Um, Piranhas aren't really that bad. They just eat the tail end of a fish usually, they leave like 70% of it uneaten. Only in the movies are piranhas that bad.

ahammer
2008-05-26, 05:29 PM
Battlefield control includes being able to remove the mooks when needed, yes. And frankly, "Wizzie" can do that just exactly as easily in 3.5, so it's not a real contention.

wizzie has to hit them in 4e unlike 3.5 no save for 1/2*








*legel note: your experience may very base on spell useage..

Trizap
2008-05-26, 05:49 PM
my Two Cents:

I think that minions having 1 hp is an improvement that won't be widely accepted, but then again even in the good stories, the minions are always killed easily, cause they are minions, who cares about them? waste time fighting and you slow down the plot, unless its an important battle, and think about it: now you can have multiple random encounters in one day, have larger groups of enemies to fight, and theres less chance of your character embarrassingly dying to common cannon fodder, getting killed by a boss or the BBEG is ok; its understandable, but dying to run of the mill thugs is a bit unreal, so I think it will be a not widely accepted improvement.

Newtkeeper
2008-05-26, 05:50 PM
Perhaps it's a viewpoint gained from other game systems, but I want the minions to be a threat! Not just extras or obstacles.


Fair enough. Unfortunately, DnD simulates a very specific kind of fantasy fiction rather than reality. The upside is it (usually) simulates its genre fairly well. The downside is it can be confining.

A word to the wise: If you don't like 4e minions, you have three options:
1) Tolerate them.
2) Play another system (I'd shill for GURPS, but I'm too lazy), or even just 3.x
3) Play 4e, but don't use minions.


Between 2 and 3, I think you should be set. No one's making you play 4e (except circumstances, I suppose- you could get some weird, consumerist group that will only play the most recent version of DnD), and no one (barring the same weird group) is stopping you from using houserules. GM doesn't want to? GM yourself!

(Yes, I know, some will call it a fallacy when I say "You can fix it, so it isn't broken". I hereby create the "Expecting Perfection" fallacy. The rules are a tool-kit, nothing more. If the tools aren't exactly right, but it's ridiculously easy to make them work correctly, I say it works!)

Rutee
2008-05-26, 05:57 PM
Or a mage could cast a wide-area low-damage spell that just takes all the minions out. "Hey Wizzie, time for your At-Will Mook Bomb again, eh?"

Uh, no. Check the rules again?

1: Minions have level appropriate defenses. That means the odds of you hitting all of them with an area of effect skill are pretty low.
2: Minions do not take damage from a miss.

Lord and tailor, I love how people keep saying "AoE = Instagib!" when it's not true. They're /weak/ to AoE, sure, but it's hardly the instant win button people keep claiming it is.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-26, 05:58 PM
Play keep on shadowfell and then come back and say minions aren't a threat.

Crow
2008-05-26, 06:09 PM
Lord and tailor, I love how people keep saying "AoE = Instagib!" when it's not true. They're /weak/ to AoE, sure, but it's hardly the instant win button people keep claiming it is.

No, no, they're confusing it with the current edition. :smallwink:

Next people will complain that it ruins verisimilitude (sp?) that minions can survive AoE attacks on a miss. Never will the thought cross their mind to say the blast scorched them but didn't finish them off or something like that. They get so hung up on the 1hp thing (which is AN ABSTRACTION), that they forget how to be a DM.

UserClone
2008-05-26, 06:11 PM
Um, Piranhas aren't really that bad. They just eat the tail end of a fish usually, they leave like 70% of it uneaten. Only in the movies are piranhas that bad.

You are making this easy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqWzUQ8lp3M)

Edit: Though, to be fair, those piranha are probably Solo encounters compared to those pathetic mice, and the mice are out of their element. Not that this post has nything to do with the topic at hand.:smalltongue:

Eldritch_Ent
2008-05-26, 06:43 PM
Minions not a threat? In DnD, Actions are the most valuable commodity you have. Forget HP, if you're up against 4 minions and a minotaur warrior, and have all 4 members of your party eliminate the minions, Someone's gonna get charged. But if everyone attacks the main guy, the minions might very well do the same. It's pretty much there to make you strategize and use up actions... And HP, yes.

JaxGaret
2008-05-26, 06:56 PM
Uh, no. Check the rules again?

1: Minions have level appropriate defenses. That means the odds of you hitting all of them with an area of effect skill are pretty low.
2: Minions do not take damage from a miss.

Did I say that they wouldn't get their defense rolls? No.

Also, the Minions I'm seeing have defenses a point or three lower than their level-equivalent non-minion buddies.


Lord and tailor, I love how people keep saying "AoE = Instagib!" when it's not true. They're /weak/ to AoE, sure, but it's hardly the instant win button people keep claiming it is.

A failed defense roll on an AoE is an instagib, no matter how much damage the AoE does. It could deal, literally, 1 damage to everyone caught in the blast, and it would kill all the Minions.

WotC is going to have to decide whether or not to give characters "anti-Minion" AoEs (high attack roll - or, even better, no attack roll - low damage, wide area). Whether or not such a thing is allowed will make a big difference, and it's all because of the Minion mechanic.

Grynning
2008-05-26, 07:02 PM
There's been a lot of good points on both sides of this issue so far, but I'd like to point out that Mutants and Masterminds has used the Minion rule for years now and it works fine. Granted, it's a slightly different genre and that system doesn't use HP, but it works almost exactly the same way, any damage to a minion kills or KO's it (depending on the setting). I've come to see minions as basically being part of a bad guy's "gear" in many ways, and in a lot of fiction that's how they're treated. Minions are still very effective in large groups, small groups, for comedy, as non-combat personnel, etc, and work well for representing cinematic fights with easily defeated goons interspersed with tougher fighters.

I'm still not 100% sold on 4th, but I don't see Minions as being a problem. Used sensibly, they are a good addition to the game. And that's how you should think of them - an ADDITION, not a subtraction. Extra little things to make a fight more fun and interesting - not as a replacement for anything else in an appropriate encounter.

wodan46
2008-05-26, 07:14 PM
Raum, a few things.
1. Minions are the same level as a Standard Monster, but come in 4 packs. Where are you getting this 4 levels lower thing from?
2. I've said, repeatedly now, that Minions are dangerous fodder, despite your repeated claims that they are not. Should I make a drawing showing Minions filleting a PC or something?
3. In the example I gave, the Minions have 15 AC, +4 vs. AC to attacks, and deal 4 damage a hit. The Standard Monster worth 5 times the xp had 18 AC, +7 vs. AC to attacks, and deals 7.5 damage per hit. That means that in the combat encounter, 5 minions are capable of much higher damage rates than 1 standard monster.

So how, exactly, did you draw from those statistics that Minions are less dangerous than Standard Monsters? Minions are much more dangerous, in my opinion. In fact, Minions are exclusively going to be the first target in combat, not because they are in the way, but because they are the biggest threat.

Crow
2008-05-26, 07:17 PM
It could deal, literally, 1 damage to everyone caught in the blast, and it would kill all the Minions.

You shouldn't even be *rolling* damage against minions.

EvilElitest
2008-05-26, 07:48 PM
Some people seem to have the attitude that 4e minions are weak, there to provide dramatic fluff, and think that them having 1 hp is sacrilegious somehow

No we generally just think it is stupid, inconsistent, badly thought out, silly, and works with the 4E video game/action video feel that makes the game feel like some crappy movie like 300



Lets review some key points, true for at least low level combat.

1. 4 minions are worth the same exp as 1 standard monster, and both are supposed to be appropriate for 1 player of the same level to fight.
2. A standard monster is expected to go down after 4 hits or so, while minions go down from 1 hit each.
3. Minions have defenses and attacks on par with the standard monster of the same level. They each deal damage something around 1/3 of what a standard monster would deal.
4. In short, minions are as tough as and deal as much damage as a standard monster typically
You missing the point. THe point comes from the actual idea of minion fighting in an of itself is a silly idea, and utterly inconsistent. The idea of minions existing simply to die is one that inspires the feeling found in a video game and simplifies the game into a boring and uninteresting grind like Dynasty warriors



Wodan, can I pronounce you Friendly Neighborhood Poster? Your threads always help debunk misconceptions, or provide interesting information. Everyone owes you one, man.
He didn't debunk anything, as he doesn't even understand the compliant against minions



1hp is an abstraction. In an ideal world, the players wouldn't know they were minions- the point of the rule is that level-appropriate characters should be able to one-shot them. It does reduce the flexibility in a way, in that you can't use level-inappropriate minions (well, low-level ones aren't too bad, but having minions significantly higher level than the party breaks sanity), but it's a tool. I think the main advantage is book-keeping- you don't have to remember "That Orc has 3HP left" or whatever...
1) They would know, because when you hit them, they fall down and die
2) Inconsistent is the biggest problem. in 3E the minions of the BB were simply low level enemies or weak monsters, now they are simply generic fodder



it's stupid for a monster to have 1HP? Why, exactly?
because they are generic uninteresting fodder and that leads to an inconsistent badly thought out world



As is often the case with 4E skeptics, what you are objecting to here is either (a) the status quo or (b) so obviously stupid that nobody would ever do it, even if it was possible within the rules.
No actually, as with most 4E skeptics we are objectivities to rules that make the game play like Dynasty warriors




Under the current rules, the minotaur you describe might be an Epic Level Pseudonatural Paragon Minotaur with 25 class levels, or it might be an SRD standard CR4 Minotaur, or it might be a Minotaur Commoner, with a single racial hit die.

I fail to see why that is a problem



A tiny little kobold, similarly, could be something that would die in one blow, or it could be Pun-Pun. A creature's stats stopped being irrevocably linked to its physical appearance *well* before 3rd edition.
1) However a small kobold would have stats to reflect its status based on the same rules as the PCs. A weak one could be a level 1 warrior, while a strong one could be a level 10 wizard
2) Um, stats do effect its apperence, WFT are you talking about.



So when you say "in the good old days you could guess at what power level something was" what you really mean is "the DM could use his descriptions to give you OOC clues about what power level something was, compared to you". Your description of the minotaur is not a description of a minion-level monster (it's got what appears to be a magic weapon, and wears full plate, and you describe it as "huge". It also appears on its own, which minions won't). The status quo of the game is not changing at all. They're just being more honest about the way things work.
actually he is referring to how one can use knowledge of the consistent stats. For example, i could figure out that the low level kobolds were level 3 rogues, while the one who has a book is a minor wizards with X and Y spells




Which is how it has always worked. In fact you pretty much admit this yourself when you say below that "if my players attack the King, they'll die". How are they supposed to know this from IC cues? Is the King a beholder? Is he eleven feet tall with flames coming out of his ears? Does he have a portal to Mount Celestia behind his throne through which Planetars will swarm to defend him? No, the players know that you don't expect them to attack the King, and so they know that you will have pitched the King's guards to be overwhelmingly more powerful than them.

Its logic. Logically, a king should be employing powerful guards. That is why you don't attack him, not metagaming



The "verismillitude" argument is done to death, and I refuse to perpetuate it.
An argumentative approach also known as the "I refuse to respond to my opponents arguments, because it will let me look bad"


Anyways, in short the complaint generally comes from the stupidity of the very idea of using minions
from
EE

SamTheCleric
2008-05-26, 07:50 PM
Anyways, in short the complaint generally comes from the stupidity of the very idea of using minions
from
EE

So... don't use them? Anywhere you see 4 minions... replace them with 1 regular baddie.

JaxGaret
2008-05-26, 07:57 PM
You shouldn't even be *rolling* damage against minions.

That goes without saying, obviously.

Raum
2008-05-26, 07:57 PM
Raum, a few things.
1. Minions are the same level as a Standard Monster, but come in 4 packs. Where are you getting this 4 levels lower thing from?Ballpark figure. You stated "Minions are if anything more deadly than than Standard monsters with the same net Exp". If a given minion gives z XP, how many levels lower does a non-minion need to be to provide the same amount?

2. I've said, repeatedly now, that Minions are dangerous fodder, despite your repeated claims that they are not. Should I make a drawing showing Minions filleting a PC or something?You've stated it repeatedly. The mechanics you've shown don't back it up. From the kobolds you posted, a minion does half the damage, gets hit (and taken out) easier, and doesn't hit as well as the non-minion.

3. In the example I gave, the Minions have 15 AC, +4 vs. AC to attacks, and deal 4 damage a hit. The Standard Monster worth 5 times the xp had 18 AC, +7 vs. AC to attacks, and deals 7.5 damage per hit. That means that in the combat encounter, 5 minions are capable of much higher damage rates than 1 standard monster.In a battle with a kobold soldier and 5 kobold minions, which do you take out first? Barring AoE tactics you're better off concentrating on the soldier. It hits more often, for more damage, and is tougher. You can clean up the minions at your leisure.


So how, exactly, did you draw from those statistics that Minions are less dangerous than Standard Monsters? Minions are much more dangerous, in my opinion. In fact, Minions are exclusively going to be the first target in combat, not because they are in the way, but because they are the biggest threat.The group of kobold minions you listed are only more dangerous than the soldier if you don't take hit rates into account. Given the soldier's Mob Attack ability and initially higher AB, you're taking far more damage from him than from the minions. Their AB is probably about one third the soldier's AB after the mob attack bonus.

Ideal tactics may even be having the combat types focus on the soldier while your mage drops low level AoEs on everyone to take out the kobold minions. But the individual minions aren't enough of a threat to spend an individual action on while the more dangerous individuals are still up and attacking.
-----
Contrast that with minions whose only difference from a non-minion is health and a small additional hit chance. But damage, AC, and other abilities remain the same. Which minion do you consider a threat?

Douglas
2008-05-26, 08:13 PM
You've stated it repeatedly. The mechanics you've shown don't back it up. From the kobolds you posted, a minion does half the damage, gets hit (and taken out) easier, and doesn't hit as well as the non-minion.
Duh, they're minions. Compared as single monsters, of course they're weak. But a group of 4 or 5 of them is dangerous.

In a battle with a kobold soldier and 5 kobold minions, which do you take out first? Barring AoE tactics you're better off concentrating on the soldier. It hits more often, for more damage, and is tougher. You can clean up the minions at your leisure.
Ok, you hit the soldier. It's still alive. You hit it again. It's still alive. You hit it a third and fourth time and it finally drops. Congratulations, you have taken out the single soldier.

Alternatively, you could hit a minion and drop it instantly, then repeat three times. In the same amount of time you have killed four minions, who collectively have the same or more damage output as the single soldier.

The group of kobold minions you listed are only more dangerous than the soldier if you don't take hit rates into account. Given the soldier's Mob Attack ability and initially higher AB, you're taking far more damage from him than from the minions. Their AB is probably about one third the soldier's AB after the mob attack bonus.
One third the attack bonus != one third the hit rate. What matters is the difference, not the proportion, and how large that difference is compared to the range of numbers on the d20 that generate a hit. Even with hit rates taken into account, a group of minions may have higher damage output than an equivalent single non-minion.

Crow
2008-05-26, 08:16 PM
Actually it would make more sense to take out the minions first, since each swing you make has the possibility of eliminating an attack roll that would have otherwise been rolled against you, whereas attacking the big guy eats up your attacks with no guarantee of dropping him, leaving the enemy with just as many opportunities to hurt you.

The 5 minions have potential damage of about 20 points which they can hit the group with each round. While the big guy has a potential damage of 10.

If it takes 3 hits to down the big guy, no potential damage is reduced until you down the guy. With the minions however, each hit reduces their potential output by 4. Add to this that they are slightly easier to hit, and it is more to your benefit to go after the minions. Look at a party of 4 where you can reduce the enemy's potential damage by 16 in one round by going after the minions first.

I'd say when 2 minions remain, then go after the big guy.

edit: Ninja'd

EvilElitest
2008-05-26, 08:26 PM
So... don't use them? Anywhere you see 4 minions... replace them with 1 regular baddie.

i also don't use the falling rules in 3E, that doesn't make 3E's rules any less bad
from
EE

Rutee
2008-05-26, 08:32 PM
Did I say that they wouldn't get their defense rolls? No.

Also, the Minions I'm seeing have defenses a point or three lower than their level-equivalent non-minion buddies.
The last comparison I saw had Minions with higher defenses. We know that WotC has told us they'll have level appropriate defenses (I expect some variance between any individual minion and any individual monster.. just as I expect some variance between any two individual monsters); You can't say they don't, based on a specific example, when it contradicts the word of the only people who could possibly know for sure.


A failed defense roll on an AoE is an instagib, no matter how much damage the AoE does. It could deal, literally, 1 damage to everyone caught in the blast, and it would kill all the Minions.
Erm, one roll can't kill them all, because the attacker rolls to hit each enemy (Just as every defender made a seperate saving throw, by the rules of 3rd ed).


WotC is going to have to decide whether or not to give characters "anti-Minion" AoEs (high attack roll - or, even better, no attack roll - low damage, wide area). Whether or not such a thing is allowed will make a big difference, and it's all because of the Minion mechanic.

Why would they give out an AoE designed to destroy all minions in an area? That'd be stupid, given that they're moving to remove win buttons in general (Such as Save or X). Notwithstanding that it isn't a weakness that people making the rules have to make a decision on what to include based on those rules. Lord and tailor.

Also: To the people saying Minions aren't dangerous. People have already played KoS, and the report is that they are in fact dangerous. Theorycrafting is helpful when there isn't direct contradiction. Well, I guess you could claim they were doing it wrong.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-26, 08:33 PM
i also don't use the falling rules in 3E, that doesn't make 3E's rules any less bad
from
EE

I'm not arguing if the rule is bad or not... I just think people are blowing this waaaaaay out of proportion.. (or at least going about debating it in all the wrong ways... too hostile!)

wodan46
2008-05-26, 08:33 PM
Ok, ninja'd twice, but still.

Raum, first off, yes Minions are weaker. That is why they are called minions. However, when you encounter them in groups, which is indeed how you will encounter them, they equally strong as a soldier if not more.

Second off, lets say you encounter the aforementioned soldier and the 5 minions, as a hapless single Level 1 hero.

The soldier will take about 6 rounds to down, the minions 4. If you attack the soldier first, you will suffer around 40 attacks from minions, and 6 from the soldier, not to mention the minions will be fueling the mob attack and giving combat advantage. If you attack the minions first, you will suffer about 10 attacks from the minions, and 10 from the soldier. Do I need to explain that suffering 30 additional attacks from minions is worse than 4 more from the soldier?

EvilElitest
2008-05-26, 08:39 PM
I'm not arguing if the rule is bad or not... I just think people are blowing this waaaaaay out of proportion.. (or at least going about debating it in all the wrong ways... too hostile!)

1) I don't think i was actually being particularly hostile in taht response you quoted actually. I"m sorry if i was, but i fail to see how i was
2) the minions thing repersents what is wrong with 4E and how it makes a very good game into a very badly thought out game, It brings about the video game/bad action movie sense rather than an actual intellegent consistent game. The 4E minion rule, and many other 4E rules are simply products of simplifying and dumbing down the game in an attempt to create a misunderstood idea of drama. i'm not against a DM using swarm tactics, just use low level monsters. I"m against inconsistency............and France
from
EE

Crow
2008-05-26, 08:39 PM
Lord and Tailor! (http://www.wolfesaints.com/lord_and_tailor.htm)

Wow EE.

"Bad action movie"? Isn't that a little harsh? I didn't see rules for shooting off a baby's umbilicle cord (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTyumQ87kg) or anything like that.

EvilElitest
2008-05-26, 08:41 PM
Lord and Tailor! (http://www.wolfesaints.com/lord_and_tailor.htm)

what?
from
EE

SamTheCleric
2008-05-26, 08:42 PM
EE, that hostile comment wasn't meant to be directed at you... more at the community as a whole. We all just need to take a deep breath before we post. :smallbiggrin:

wodan46
2008-05-26, 08:42 PM
Minions have defenses as good as their level, and attacks -1 or -2 that. More in depth summary of AC for some enemies below:

Kobold Dragonshields are Level 2 Soldiers, not Level 1, and have very good ACs compared to most enemies of that level area. Kobold Minions(lvl1) have 15 AC and Dragonshields(lvl2) 18 AC, but Skirmishers(Lvl1) have 15 AC, Slingers(lvl1) have 13 AC, and Wyrmpriests(lvl3) have 17 AC, and a Level 3 Elite Brute you encounter ALSO has 18 AC.

EvilElitest
2008-05-26, 08:48 PM
EE, that hostile comment wasn't meant to be directed at you... more at the community as a whole. We all just need to take a deep breath before we post. :smallbiggrin:

Fair enough. I think the hostility is simple to understand. as our poll showed, the pro 4E people is the majority, while the minority are kinda old school idea people. Because of this, while some pro 4E people are actually very civil, there are more radical fanboys than the anti 4E radical hate mongers, so the critics of 4E are like the critics of Eragon before anti shurengal, and are embittered by lack of understanding of their options.
from
EE

JaxGaret
2008-05-26, 08:50 PM
The last comparison I saw had Minions with higher defenses.

Looking through the entire KotS quickstart, on average the Minions had about 1.5 less defense than their equivalent non-minion buddies.


We know that WotC has told us they'll have level appropriate defenses (I expect some variance between any individual minion and any individual monster.. just as I expect some variance between any two individual monsters); You can't say they don't, based on a specific example, when it contradicts the word of the only people who could possibly know for sure.

1) Level-appropriate doesn't mean "exactly the same". Their design mechanic could easily be "Minions should have about 1 or 2 less defense than other monsters of the same level", and they would be appropriately leveled.

2) KotS is all we have to go by so far, so I'm basing my data off of that. There is a good number of encounters and different monsters in there, after all. It's not "a specific example".


Erm, one roll can't kill them all, because the attacker rolls to hit each enemy (Just as every defender made a seperate saving throw, by the rules of 3rd ed).

Entirely correct. Did I ever state otherwise?


Why would they give out an AoE designed to destroy all minions in an area? That'd be stupid, given that they're moving to remove win buttons in general (Such as Save or X). Notwithstanding that it isn't a weakness that people making the rules have to make a decision on what to include based on those rules. Lord and tailor.

The point I was making was that they're going to have to be very careful to design around this, which paints them into a corner with regards to what AoEs (and class/racial etc. features that affect AoEs) they can include, particularly at higher levels, which is where Minions will IMO start to show their mechanical issues.


Also: To the people saying Minions aren't dangerous. People have already played KoS, and the report is that they are in fact dangerous. Theorycrafting is helpful when there isn't direct contradiction. Well, I guess you could claim they were doing it wrong.

I assume that this wasn't directed at me, since I have never stated anything along those lines. At low levels, Minions will work perfectly fine. I have yet to play a high-level 4e game, but it seems to me like problems will crop up with the use of Minions there.

Rutee
2008-05-26, 08:57 PM
Looking through the entire KotS quickstart, on average the Minions had about 1.5 less defense than their equivalent non-minion buddies.
*Points up*


1) Level-appropriate doesn't mean "exactly the same". Their design mechanic could easily be "Minions should have about 1 or 2 less defense than other monsters of the same level", and they would be appropriately leveled.
Perhaps, but that'd be a pretty obtuse phrasing. It could just as easily have meant "It averages out to be about as good as other mobs"


Entirely correct. Did I ever state otherwise?
Yes, as a matter of fact, you did.


A failed defense roll on an AoE is an instagib, no matter how much damage the AoE does. It could deal, literally, 1 damage to everyone caught in the blast, and it would kill all the Minions.

Further, context is relevant; This post was in response to the idea that an AoE would instantly wipe out a minion encounter with any regularity. Which isn't the case.



The point I was making was that they're going to have to be very careful to design around this, which paints them into a corner with regards to what AoEs (and class/racial etc. features that affect AoEs) they can include, particularly at higher levels, which is where Minions will IMO start to show their mechanical issues.
Out of vague curiosity, have you ever played a game with a minion system? 'cause.. to be utterly frank, 4e's system for it is one of the best I've seen, on its face at least. And minions in other systems still find uses at the higher levels.

Jerthanis
2008-05-26, 09:03 PM
You missing the point. THe point comes from the actual idea of minion fighting in an of itself is a silly idea, and utterly inconsistent. The idea of minions existing simply to die is one that inspires the feeling found in a video game and simplifies the game into a boring and uninteresting grind like Dynasty warriors

Minions exist just to die to the exact extent that any other monster exists just to die. That is to say, if the Minions exist just to be hacked apart, it is a failing of the highest magnitude of the DM, not the system which describes how much trouble it is for the PCs to hack them apart. If D&D's monster manual only had creatures with hundreds of HP, it wouldn't affect what way they were used at all in terms of how much character and drama they bring to the story, so why is the reverse automatically true to you?



because they are generic uninteresting fodder and that leads to an inconsistent badly thought out world

I disagree. Minions add color and flavor to battles, providing a contrast to battles against single-tough-monster encounters and to battles against small-groups-of-fairly-strong enemies.

They also allow for plots such as: Opposing an evil warlord in control of an army bent on dominating all in his path, and facing him in his own citadel surrounded by dozens and dozens of his guards. Or, facing a zombie infestation that has gripped an entire city, and where the zombies are swarming the town square, which is the last holdout point of survivors before the PCs arrive. Or perhaps represent the Innkeep who brained an orc with a rolling pin before being murdered when the orcish tribes raid the inn the PCs are staying at. Or represent the Town Guard as they help people evacuate/defend the city from a nightmare beast from beyond the walls of reality, each of which go down with one hit, but who also can be fielded to help the PCs in some way.

These are just some of the few ways to represent minions by the 4th edition D&D rules that (I believe) are interesting plots or story complications, and are aided by minion rules.



Anyways, in short the complaint generally comes from the stupidity of the very idea of using minions
from
EE

Well, I like the idea of using minions. Call me whatever you want, but I'd rather be an idiot who's having fun exploring all aspects of common fantasy tropes to the full extent that the vehicle of RPG storytelling allows than limit myself to what doesn't break "verisimilitude" in the minds of people I don't even know.

Sir_Dr_D
2008-05-26, 09:12 PM
At first level the average fighter with a long sword would do 5 to 12 damage. This would be 8 to 9 on average.

Any creature that is a candidate for being a first level minion, I can't see having much more then 5 hit points. Which means that they would die on one hit anyway.

A creature that is treated as a minion at for a level 3 character I can see having 8 or 9 regular hit points on average. (Any more then that and the creature should not be a minion). All that the minion rule would mean, is in order to speed up combat, we are assuming your weapon always does at least half damage.

And as you level up, your average weapon damage will likely increase faster then previous D&D versions. (do to easier ability score increases, chosen weapon style given more bonus, specific weapon feats, greater powers, etc) Which means as you level up , and face tougher minions, they could always fall into a range where they could reasonably fall to one hit of your weapon using regular rules. In order to speed up combat, and have less dicing, you then go into 'fast combat mode' which involves hit rolls but no damage rolls.

What I have just said I am guessing at. But we do not yet have the exact rules for creating minions. We only have a summary. We don't know what the recommended rules are for picking a monster to be made into a minion. We don't know how we change the monsters stats in order to make it into a minion. People seem to think that the rules would allow for a monster that regularily has 30hp, to die in one hit to a charatacter that only does a max of 12 damage. That does not sound plausible, and I do not think the manual will recommed that. Until we actually get the manual all of this disucssion is pointless. We may find that the minion rules are reasonable.

Mike_G
2008-05-26, 09:29 PM
1)
2) the minions thing repersents what is wrong with 4E and how it makes a very good game into a very badly thought out game,


It's not "badly thought out" no matter how often you repeat that phrase. "Badly thought out" means the designers didn't think about it enough and consider what they were doing. 3e's Polymorph rules were Badly Thought Out. The Katrina Response was Badly Thought Out. Communism was Badly Thought Out. The lifeboat procurement for the Titanic was Badly Thought Out.

The Minion rule is a very carefully thought out solution to the problem of dealing with fighting a large group of lesser bad guys. In 3e, it was hard to have the BBEG's squad of personal bodyguards be a threat that wasn't something the party could ignore without being overly deadly. 3e does single monsters fine, but a dozen monsters far below CR are no threat at all, since they can't hit, can't save, get hit on a 2 and still die from one shot, and a dozen monsters of appropriate CR are too much.

4e Minions are to represent guards who can hit you, can do some damage, are reasonably challenging to hit, but will fall like Stormtroopers when whacked.

Now, you don't like that solution, which is your right, but it isn't "badly thought out."

EvilElitest
2008-05-26, 10:22 PM
Minions exist just to die to the exact extent that any other monster exists just to die. That is to say, if the Minions exist just to be hacked apart, it is a failing of the highest magnitude of the DM, not the system which describes how much trouble it is for the PCs to hack them apart. If D&D's monster manual only had creatures with hundreds of HP, it wouldn't affect what way they were used at all in terms of how much character and drama they bring to the story, so why is the reverse automatically true to you?

Minions are made to die. other monsters in the MM are simply powerful or weak monsters, while minions are actually mechanically bred fodder. The former i can imagine existing logically in the world, while the latter are just a demonstration of PC centric worlds



I disagree. Minions add color and flavor to battles, providing a contrast to battles against single-tough-monster encounters and to battles against small-groups-of-fairly-strong enemies.

No they do not, no more than normal monsters. In fact, they take away from the game, because you lose the feeling of these beings having point other than acting as carbon fodder.


They also allow for plots such as: Opposing an evil warlord in control of an army bent on dominating all in his path, and facing him in his own citadel surrounded by dozens and dozens of his guards. Or, facing a zombie infestation that has gripped an entire city, and where the zombies are swarming the town square, which is the last holdout point of survivors before the PCs arrive. Or perhaps represent the Innkeep who brained an orc with a rolling pin before being murdered when the orcish tribes raid the inn the PCs are staying at. Or represent the Town Guard as they help people evacuate/defend the city from a nightmare beast from beyond the walls of reality, each of which go down with one hit, but who also can be fielded to help the PCs in some way.
I fail to see how any of these couldn't be done with some clever mechanicals and normal monsters.


These are just some of the few ways to represent minions by the 4th edition D&D rules that (I believe) are interesting plots or story complications, and are aided by minion rules.
however non of those demand the minion mechanic on its own, just good stories




Well, I like the idea of using minions. Call me whatever you want, but I'd rather be an idiot who's having fun exploring all aspects of common fantasy tropes to the full extent that the vehicle of RPG storytelling allows than limit myself to what doesn't break "verisimilitude" in the minds of people I don't even know.
4E is shallow and simplistic, and a more consistent and verismiltitle (???) game could handle the "Common fantasy tropes" in a far more logical and mature game then one that handles like a bad action movie



It's not "badly thought out" no matter how often you repeat that phrase. "Badly thought out" means the designers didn't think about it enough and consider what they were doing. 3e's Polymorph rules were Badly Thought Out. The Katrina Response was Badly Thought Out. Communism was Badly Thought Out. The lifeboat procurement for the Titanic was Badly Thought Out.
yes it is in that it is shallow, and goes along with 4E philosophy of dumbing down the game in simplifying the game to the point that it plays like dynasty warriors

4e Minions are to represent guards who can hit you, can do some damage, are reasonably challenging to hit, but will fall like Stormtroopers when whacked.
you could handle warriors without breaking consistency far better, perferable a less simple one
from
EE

GoC
2008-05-26, 10:30 PM
Sure, as long as all your fights with minions occur in situations where they attack you in blocks like you'd see on a miniatures wargaming scenario, ala Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

Nothing about minions says they need to attack in tight, easily fitted under an AoE template, units. Nothing.

Minions work best in big rooms anyway, where, again, they have plenty of room to spread out and engage you in nonsuicidal methods.
There's a third level spell in spell compedium with a 60ft radius AoE. If they've got anything vaguely like that in 4E or widen metamagic then this will become a concern.

EDIT: And you don't get a save.

Crow
2008-05-26, 10:30 PM
EE, show me a build.

I want to see some King's Guards that I can use en masse along with a CR-appropriate enemy (The King) that will give a level 10 party a challenge, without completely destroying them and without being a walkover. Assume Fighter-Cleric-Rogue-Wizard.

You keep saying it can be done with the current system, and it would lend validity to your argument if you would be so kind as to demonstrate. I'm not trying to be snotty, I just want to see how you do it.

edit: Maybe do a level 16 party too?

Rutee
2008-05-26, 10:32 PM
yes it is in that it is shallow, and goes along with 4E philosophy of dumbing down the game in simplifying the game to the point that it plays like dynasty warriors
Oh for the love of god. Let's think carefully about this.

The concept here is that it's for the faceless henchmen of say, the Big Bad.

In 3e, these faceless Henchmen can only be depicted in a way that not only leaves them as OHKO bait; Not only are they OHKO bait, but they're easy to hit, and it also renders them incapable of harming the players. In 4e, the same concept deals may still go down in one hit, but they're harder to hit, /and/ can harm the players?

How, in increasing the tactical viability of the same concept, does 4e "Dumb things down"

God damn the memes on this forum need to stop.

EvilElitest
2008-05-26, 10:39 PM
Oh for the love of god. Let's think carefully about this.

A game that plays like video game and draws inspiration from 300 is actually just as shallow as the orginial sources?


The concept here is that it's for the faceless henchmen of say, the Big Bad.
Call me a humanist, but i tend to never regard anything as faceless, just as weaklings being used in mass


In 3e, these faceless Henchmen can only be depicted in a way that not only leaves them as OHKO bait; Not only are they OHKO bait, but they're easy to hit, and it also renders them incapable of harming the players. In 4e, the same concept deals may still go down in one hit, but they're harder to hit, /and/ can harm the players?
in 3E you have a bunch of low level or weak creatures, in 4E you have a bunch of mechinically altered beings who's sole purpose is to die as fodder


How, in increasing the tactical viability of the same concept, does 4e "Dumb things down"

Yes because it promotes inconsistency, a dynasty warrior style game play (or if you prefer, kill bill or 300, but those are equally shallow) and you wind up with a mass of mechanically bred PC fodder, which is simply a simple and shallow approach. It makes the game a one styled slaughter crawl



God damn the memes on this forum need to stop.

So does the radical favor of supporters
from
EE

Rutee
2008-05-26, 10:55 PM
A game that plays like video game and draws inspiration from 300 is actually just as shallow as the orginial sources?
I said "Let's think carefully," not "Let's repeat a meme and take it as truth."

FYI: LotR uses minions. Aragorn, Gandalf, etc, are in fact attacked and hurt by the faceless Orcs. They're never in danger from any one of them, however, and tend to drop them in a single hit. If you want to say LotR is shallow for using minions.. well sure, you do that. I don't really care that you're intent on being wrong.


Call me a humanist, but i tend to never regard anything as faceless, just as weaklings being used in mass
A humanist? They're not people. They're fictional constructs. Your attitude is a fine thing when used in real life. Humans don't deserve consideration due to appearing like humans; They deserve consideration for thinking like people do (I swear, someone is going to attempt to twist this into something like "Sleeping people don't deserve consideration then?" or something equally ludicrous.). A fictional construct never is a thinking, breathing, living individual. Thinking these fictional beings deserve anywhere near the consideration of a living, breathing thing, let alone a human, is.. saddening, actually.


in 3E you have a bunch of low level or weak creatures, in 4E you have a bunch of mechinically altered beings who's sole purpose is to die as fodder
Do you not understand that they're the same thing, but one is statted in an effective, simple way?


Yes because it promotes inconsistency, a dynasty warrior style game play (or if you prefer, kill bill or 300, but those are equally shallow) and you wind up with a mass of mechanically bred PC fodder, which is simply a simple and shallow approach. It makes the game a one styled slaughter crawl
What inconsistency? People without names, faces, or narrative importance always go down with one solid hit, every time. That's damn consistent. And uh, no. Sorry, wrong. Being able to meaningfully use minions doesn't mean every game is Dynasty Warriors styled. It means that when minions are dramatically appropriate, you can have them. No more, no less.



So does the radical favor of supporters
Memes != Support of a game clearly based on principles that I supported anyway.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-05-26, 11:01 PM
I haven't read every post on this thread, so forgive me for possibly reposting old information, but come on people. I think I saw someone commenting that there should be a rule that when a low level PC encounters a high level Minion, blah blah blah. Why would a low level PC be fighting a high level minion? I think people sometimes forget that the DM is the one spawning the creatures and not themselves. You can't just walk down to the volcano and expect there to be a level 15 minion waiting there to be shot with your arrow because you know that its a high level area thus there MUST be minions there waiting for your future selves. No. The DM has full control over damn near everything, and any DM that would allow his PC's to fight any minions of significant level difference is an idiot. Pure and simple.

Also, why all the minion hate. I really don't understand it AT ALL. People say its dumbing down the game, or some BS like that. Why? Because it allows for less down time? Because it makes the players think of the creatures as nothing more than dangerous fodder? Well, thats what they are and how they should be treated. If you are in an or encampment, fighting a couple of heavily armored and well trained orcs, when one of them releases a couple of shovel wielding koblod slaves, heres what you might think: 3rd edition-"Oh great, useless creatures whose only purpose is to waste time from our game as the DM moves them up to us, only to fail miserably on their attack roll." 4th edition-"Crap, even though these may be nothing more than insignificant creatures, they can actually hit me and we should take them out fast!"

And also, I think EE compared 4th ed. to Dynasty Warriors. /sigh Ok, so "YEAH THIRD ED WOOT! My level 10 figher with a shirt that gives 5 DR and dual wielding house cats is totally PWNING an army of 20,000 level 1 warriors OH YEAH SO REALISTIC AND NOT IN ANYWAY LIKE A HACK AND SLASH!!!" "Ok fourth edition, yeah, totally just like any old hack + slash, sure this army of 20k is cake..... ok wtf DM you cant do that. Seriously, its not physically possible for anyone with such a low level to hit me with a weapon, no matter how sharp and deadly it is!!! It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. What can 4th edition possibly be smoking."

Sorry bout the rant. I think its over now.

EvilElitest
2008-05-26, 11:12 PM
I said "Let's think carefully," not "Let's repeat a meme and take it as truth."

Same can be said for your defense.


FYI: LotR uses minions. Aragorn, Gandalf, etc, are in fact attacked and hurt by the faceless Orcs. They're never in danger from any one of them, however, and tend to drop them in a single hit. If you want to say LotR is shallow for using minions.. well sure, you do that. I don't really care that you're intent on being wrong.
If your looking at the inferior movies yes, but not the case in the books. In Moria, the entire fellowship is serously threatened by 13 normal orcs, Boromir is a legendary hero for bringing down a dozen uruk-hai, (while dying but still) and also you misunderstand the use of shallow. In LotRS they tend to bring down orcs in a single hit (actually not all the time, Grishnak for example) but people on LotRs can go down in one hit on their own, Isildur or Arathrorn

Also as i said before, i'm not again mass of weak enemies, i'm against inconsistency. If the enemies are simply weaker, well fine, but if they have a sole purpose of being fodder, then it is inconsistent and shallow

Also LotR is a book, not a game. D&D is not a storying telling game, in that you simply tell a story and make up the rules as they are suiting the drama. It has always defined its reality through its stats, and when the stats are inconsistent, as in 4E (and 3E) we have a problem


A humanist? They're not people. They're fictional constructs. Your attitude is a fine thing when used in real life. Humans don't deserve consideration due to appearing like humans; They deserve consideration for thinking like people do. A fictional never is a thinking, breathing, living individual. Thinking these fictional beings deserve anywhere near the consideration of a living, breathing thing, let alone a human, is.. saddening, actually.
don't be simplistic. The fact that they are fictional doesn't make a difference to me, the fact remains that the idea of faceless hoards is a dehumanizing one. Atticus is a fictional character, am i not allowed to feel sympathy for him? Or the random persians ni 300, call me weak hearted, but i found the idea of slaughtering hoards of slaves disgusting (in real life of course it is excusable for different reasons) and i known in fictional D&D the creatures have their own personalities. If you want to use your goblin hoards as faceless goons, with weak levels, fine, go ahead, power to you. however they shouldn't be designed as faceless hoards, it is limiting and shallow


Do you not understand that they're the same thing, but one is statted in an effective, simple way?
no they are not the same thing. One is simply a weak low level creature. He could be a miltia guard, he could be a local bandit, he could eventually gain levels and become a more powerful being, but he is still following the same rules

The latter simply exists solely to die as fodder


What inconsistency? People without names, faces, or narrative importance always go down with one solid hit, every time. That's damn consistent. And uh, no. Sorry, wrong.
Well we have half a dozen dudes who can avoid death, take more hits than this website, and have super powers, and we have hoards of dudes who's sole purpose seems to be.......dying as fodder. Inconsistent. Now if they were simply higher level, or better built it would be one thing, but simply handing out powers on the basis of a name is a very shallow design idea. As i said before, it reeks of PC centric worlds, along with inconsistency and bad world design philosophy. You want hoards of foes, go ahead. You want 3E's glaring flaws to be fixed, sure. But we get into an extremly simplistic view of world consistency.


Being able to meaningfully use minions doesn't mean every game is Dynasty Warriors styled. It means that when minions are dramatically appropriate, you can have them. No more, no less.

the whole minion mechanics is designed in a manner like Dynasty Warriors, flashy dudes with names and absurd weapons slaughtering hoards of genetic fodder with no problem. Considering how DW gets dull after three missions i find the idea silly but...



Memes != Support of a game clearly based on principles that I supported anyway.
Aren't we both guilty of that?

Anyways, kudos for actually responding


And also, I think EE compared 4th ed. to Dynasty Warriors. /sigh Ok, so "YEAH THIRD ED WOOT! My level 10 figher with a shirt that gives 5 DR and dual wielding house cats is totally PWNING an army of 20,000 level 1 warriors OH YEAH SO REALISTIC AND NOT IN ANYWAY LIKE A HACK AND SLASH!!!" "Ok fourth edition, yeah, totally just like any old hack + slash, sure this army of 20k is cake..... ok wtf DM you cant do that. Seriously, its not physically possible for anyone with such a low level to hit me with a weapon, no matter how sharp and deadly it is!!! It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. What can 4th edition possibly be smoking."
I can understand you confusion, because apparently you didn't actually read any complaints and are just improvising

1) Who said 3E was perfect? I never did, and i supported way back when 4E was first announced, the arrival of a new edition. I don't like 4E ether. Don't paints things in black and white strokes
2) Also my complaint didn't stem from that

from
EE

Dervag
2008-05-26, 11:18 PM
Minions are made to die. other monsters in the MM are simply powerful or weak monsters, while minions are actually mechanically bred fodder. The former i can imagine existing logically in the world, while the latter are just a demonstration of PC centric worldsNo, minions are not "made to die" anymore than the 'master' monsters they come with are.

You can write encounters where a few goblin minions pop up, fire a volley of arrows, then run away faster than you can follow. If the PCs are quick and lucky they might nail one or two with arrows, but they might not.

Minions are only expected to die in fights where all the monsters are expected to die anyway- where all the monsters stand and fight to the death and there is no question of retreat. In those cases there's no difference between a minion and anyone else- all the monsters are supposed to die because the expectation in game is that the PCs will win, as in some of them will survive and none of their enemies will.

Think about it. Every time you DM with a monster and think "what will my PCs do after killing this," you're doing the same thing you complain 4th Edition is with minions. You're expecting, even planning, for your monster to be killed.


4E is shallow and simplistic, and a more consistent and verismiltitle (???) game could handle the "Common fantasy tropes" in a far more logical and mature game then one that handles like a bad action movieDo you actually have any information on how it handles? Have you ever played it? Have you even read anything about it except the snippets that appear here?

How on earth do you have enough information to be so confident that it is "shallow," "simplistic," and "like a bad action movie" when you haven't even read all the rules yet?


yes it is in that it is shallow...Dude. "Shallow" does not mean the same thing as "poorly thought out." You can't just keep using those two words as interchangeable insults for a game you've never played and remain intellectually honest.

Take. A. Chill. Pill. You hate this game far more than the amount of information you have on it could possibly justify. Unless you're an embittered game designer who's been playtesting this thing for a year and decided they hate it forever and resigned from Wizards rather than have their name on it, you simply do not have the information to be such an authority on it.


A game that plays like video game and draws inspiration from 300 is actually just as shallow as the orginial sources?I think you're getting way too heated up about this. It's causing you to make outright false statements. For starters, I suspect you don't even know how it plays from your own experience, but I could be wrong about that. For a matter of absolute fact, they were working on this game before 300 came out, so they can't have drawn their inspiration from that source.


Call me a humanist, but i tend to never regard anything as faceless, just as weaklings being used in massBut in 3rd Edition, you can't make enemies significantly weaker than the heroes who nonetheless threaten them in groups. There are a lot of very good stories with enemies that the hero could easily beat one on one, but not in large groups.


Like Lord of the Rings. In Lord of the Rings, Boromir kills like twenty orcs, but eventually the orcs kill him. In 3rd Edition, it is very hard to build a fighter capable of reliably killing about 20 orcs before dying without making them almost completely invulnerable to orcs (AC too high to hit).

In 4th Edition, it will be somewhat simpler, because we can rule that the orcs are minions- thus, Boromir will reliably be able to kill one orc with each damaging hit, but if he's surrounded or facing an endless supply of orcs some of them will hit him and he'll eventually die.

In 3rd Edition, there are three kinds of monsters- monsters too big for the party to fight at all, monsters of roughly equal power level to party members, and monsters so weak they can't even harm the party, let alone be a major threat.

The third type is good for nothing but cannon fodder to be "mechanically slaughtered."

In 4th Edition we see a fourth type- monsters that the heroes can kill easily, but that can also hurt the heroes before they die. Even in single combat, a minion has a decent chance of inflicting at least one injury on an enemy PC. They're not likely to get a second shot, though- they're not good enough to threaten PCs that seriously. In a group, on the other hand, they're just as big a danger as a single huge ferocious monster the entire party would have to work hard to take out.

Ozymandias
2008-05-26, 11:18 PM
The way I see it, everything in an RPG is an ad hoc construct, created for a purpose; whether to serve as a Big Bad Evil Guy, foil to a character, whatever. If this purpose is to create a relatively complex character, as a means of enhancing immersion or illuminating contrasts between the characters and the fictional environment, then the DM will adjudicate both a mechanical set of data and an esoteric character concept to correspond to that.

If this purpose, however, is solely to provide a combat challenge to the player characters, the DM will use only the former. Why? Because, objectively speaking, that's the only reason they're there. How does this affect the players? It ... doesn't. They still serve a narrative purpose: to heighten danger and create tension. That's their purpose. They fulfill it. They are not there to be complex, multi-faceted individuals, because otherwise, by definition, they would not be minions. If you want to introduce a unique, distinguished foe, don't use minions. It's that simple.

The distinction between Dungeons and Dragons and Video Games is not in the method of presentation; it never has been. That's why Neverwinter Nights is much closer to Final Fantasy than true DnD. It's the freedom, and creativity, and imagination, of the DMs and the players. The minion rules, which do nothing but introduce a new combat dynamic, in no way diminish that freedom.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-05-26, 11:24 PM
If the enemies are simply weaker, well fine, but if they have a sole purpose of being fodder, then it is inconsistent and shallow

call me weak hearted, but i found the idea of slaughtering hoards of slaves disgusting (in real life of course it is excusable for different reasons) and i known in fictional D&D the creatures have their own personalities. If you want to use your goblin hoards as faceless goons, with weak levels, fine, go ahead, power to you. however they shouldn't be designed as faceless hoards, it is limiting and shallow

No ones stopping you from telling all of your players what each and every minion looks like. Maybe the orc on the left has an interesting scar on his left cheek. Maybe the one on the one on the right is named Krock. Maybe the middle guy is secretly gay and has a crush on Krock. Whatever, I don't really give a damn about the personal lives of 4E orc minion-can-actually-hit-me fodder, or 3E orc sucks-so-hard-I-hate-how-hes-wasting-our-time fodder. And I doubt many players stop to consider such trivial things as "maybe that orc has a sister named suzie", etc. Its kind of implied that the things the PC's are fighting have a life beyond the current encounter.

Jerthanis
2008-05-26, 11:26 PM
Minions are made to die. other monsters in the MM are simply powerful or weak monsters, while minions are actually mechanically bred fodder. The former i can imagine existing logically in the world, while the latter are just a demonstration of PC centric worlds

They're no more a demonstration of PC centric worlds than the HP system itself is. Both are abstractions to assist the speed and quality of gameplay.



No they do not, no more than normal monsters. In fact, they take away from the game, because you lose the feeling of these beings having point other than acting as carbon fodder.

I would suggest this is a failure in your own imagination, or an insistence to not look at the rules as a set of tools, but as a straightjacket.



I fail to see how any of these couldn't be done with some clever mechanicals and normal monsters.
...
however non of those demand the minion mechanic on its own, just good stories


I'm going to second Crow here... where is your 3.5 Zombie Template that can let 50 zombie humans challenge a group of level 6 characters without taking hours and hours above and beyond what it would take in 4th edition with the minion rules? Where is the human guard that can meaningfully contribute to a fight between the level 10 PCs and a CR 10 enemy using dozens of them without insta-killing the party? Also notice I said the Minion rules would aid such plots, not be required for them. The fact that I CAN represent 50 zombies as a credible threat to high level PCs without overwhelming them with a clever redesign of the Zombie template doesn't mean it's a heck of a lot less work for the same ultimate end to use the Minion version of zombies. Less work means more time available to the DM to spend on plots and characters, rather than mechanics.



4E is shallow and simplistic, and a more consistent and verismiltitle (???) game could handle the "Common fantasy tropes" in a far more logical and mature game then one that handles like a bad action movie

What, pray tell, is an example of a good action movie to you? If you give a title I'd be shocked if I find that it is without a single faceless character offed without fanfare or effort. If your response is "I don't like any action movies" then maybe you should consider that perhaps your sensibilities in terms of what is shallow and simplistic are fairly rare, and admit that the inclusion of a system which allows for something which you don't personally like is something that can ultimately benefit the game to those who do, since it's easier to houserule something you don't like out than to homebrew something you wished existed.



yes it is in that it is shallow, and goes along with 4E philosophy of dumbing down the game in simplifying the game to the point that it plays like dynasty warriors

Repeating that it is shallow and plays like Dynasty Warriors doesn't make it true. Unless you've been in the playtest groups or have played the KotS preview extensively I don't know if you're really in the position to make judgments on how it plays in game, and I still fail to see how combat with foes who die in one hit because they have 1 HP is any shallower than combat where foes die in one hit because you do more than their total HP in average damage on each attack AND they can't hurt you back.

FoE
2008-05-26, 11:33 PM
:smallsigh: There's no winning this fight, so both sides might as well stop.

The people who don't like minions like them for reasons that are specific to their playing style: they don't like the idea of NPCs that go down in one shot or they're not into the large-scale battles versus a lot of mooks that have no depth. No amount of berating them is going to change that.

Similarily, those of us who like the minion rules are into the big cinematic fights, agree that the minions are sufficiently dangerous and are glad to get rid of all the bookkeeping that was involved with 3.5 that didn't offer a lot of rewards. No amount of berating is going to change that either.

There's no bridging this gap, since it goes to core of each person's personality. It's like Star Wars fans trying to convince Star Trek fans that their science fiction is better, and vice versa.

Whatever rules each player wants to use will get used in their gaming sessions anyways.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-26, 11:35 PM
Also as i said before, i'm not again mass of weak enemies, i'm against inconsistency. If the enemies are simply weaker, well fine, but if they have a sole purpose of being fodder, then it is inconsistent and shallow
But 4E minions aren't just fodder. They're a real and present threat. They're 1/4 of the threat a "normal" monster is, in fact.


no they are not the same thing. One is simply a weak low level creature. He could be a miltia guard, he could be a local bandit, he could eventually gain levels and become a more powerful being, but he is still following the same rules

The latter simply exists solely to die as fodder
And the orc minion could get his stat block upgraded.



the whole minion mechanics is designed in a manner like Dynasty Warriors, flashy dudes with names and absurd weapons slaughtering hoards of genetic fodder with no problem. Considering how DW gets dull after three missions i find the idea silly but...
How are you STILL missing what you've been repeatedly told? I'll try again.
4E MINIONS ARE DANGEROUS. CHARACTERS CAN NOT IGNORE THEM WITH IMPUNITY AND SLAUGHTER THEM EN MASSE WITHOUT CONCERN.
IT'S LOW-LEVEL 3E MONSTERS THAT PCs BECOME ABLE TO TAKE ON DOZENS OR HUNDREDS AT A TIME AND NOT WORRY.

Basically, 3E is more like Dynasty Warriors than 4E. 4E takes the idea of minions, which already existed and was used and popular, and gives it a good mechanical implementation. Your rants about "consistency"--funny, I can manage to make my world perfectly consistent just fine, with or without a minion mechanic--don't change that.

Learnedguy
2008-05-26, 11:38 PM
I understand that perfectly well. My issue with it is the fact that a PC can throw a pebble at a high-level Minion, deal them the 1 HP of damage, and take them out of the fight.

Yes. But this only means that your PC is so goddamn badass that he can kill a demon by throwing a pebble:smallamused:. (Although personally I would rule that the pebble does non-lethal damage)



Or a mage could cast a wide-area low-damage spell that just takes all the minions out. "Hey Wizzie, time for your At-Will Mook Bomb again, eh?"

Yes. But that's kind of what the wizard is designed for. Bigass area-effects meant to swot out dozens* of enemies with a single fireball. It's part of the controller archetype.

*Okay, it won't be dozens, that was hyperbole

Rutee
2008-05-26, 11:47 PM
Same can be said for your defense.
Sure, if you'd like to have your argument on the same intellectual level as "Nuh uh, you!"



If your looking at the inferior movies yes, but not the case in the books. In Moria, the entire fellowship is serously threatened by 13 normal orcs, Boromir is a legendary hero for bringing down a dozen uruk-hai, (while dying but still) and also you misunderstand the use of shallow. In LotRS they tend to bring down orcs in a single hit (actually not all the time, Grishnak for example) but people on LotRs can go down in one hit on their own, Isildur or Arathrorn
But not Aragorn, or the other heroes. And that's an amusing inconsistency, since the Elf n' Dwarf rack up kill counts in the 20s..


Also as i said before, i'm not again mass of weak enemies, i'm against inconsistency. If the enemies are simply weaker, well fine, but if they have a sole purpose of being fodder, then it is inconsistent and shallow
Okay. Inconsistent. As in, not having consistency.

1. agreeing or accordant; compatible; not self-contradictory: His views and actions are consistent.
2. constantly adhering to the same principles, course, form, etc.: a consistent opponent.
3. holding firmly together; cohering.
4. Archaic. fixed; firm.
Let's look at 1 and 2. We can throw out agreeing/accordant, as it's not relevant. Compatible? It's a bit unwieldy and not quite applicable. Not self-contradictory? An unimportant or relatively weak character is always statted as a minion. That's not terribly contradictory.
2. Constantly adhering to the same principles? See above; The system constantly adheres to this idea this about relatively weak characters being minions (Or at least, seemingly. This may change)
3. Holding Firmly Together. Here is where you may actually have a leg to stand on, and in a sense, it doesn't make sense if you think of things the 3e way, where every bit of levelling up is completely bundled together. However, completing the training to get to level X doesn't necessarily give the minion character the inner fire, or the mettle, to keep going when things get bad. It makes perfect sense to me, to say the least. And I'm fairly well read (Not entirely by choice, admittedly), educated, and not in it for anything related to the 'simple' feel of simply winning a fight.

Shallow. Not having depth. Welp, you support using low levelled enemies in place of minions. You have indicated that you consider this a good solution. How does htis promote depth, compared to saying "They can do damage, but can not take a hit"?


Also LotR is a book, not a game. D&D is not a storying telling game, in that you simply tell a story and make up the rules as they are suiting the drama. It has always defined its reality through its stats, and when the stats are inconsistent, as in 4E (and 3E) we have a problem
Reality isn't defined by stats. Reality is expressed through stats. Your character isn't strong because they have 14 str; They have 14 str because they are strong.

(Actually this is an opinion, but I think we were playing the game where we phrase opinions as absolute facts. Did I score lots of points? I'm sure you did.)

That aside, DnD is a game, you're correct. Always has been.

You know what it's not? A simulator.


don't be simplistic. The fact that they are fictional doesn't make a difference to me, the fact remains that the idea of faceless hoards is a dehumanizing one. Atticus is a fictional character, am i not allowed to feel sympathy for him?
Sure, you can feel sympathy and empathy. That doesn't make them real, nor deserving of the rights to life, liberty, and happiness/booze/sex that any actual human being is. There can be a use to it, on reflection. But that use is effectively personal horror. Given that DnD pretty much never treats its enemies as people, and certainly not to generate that feeling of "Oh my God, what am I doing to these people?" though, it's something of a moot point given the system, isn't it?


If you want to use your goblin hoards as faceless goons, with weak levels, fine, go ahead, power to you. however they shouldn't be designed as faceless hoards, it is limiting and shallow
...They already are. This just goes on to make faceless mooks viable threats beyond first level.


no they are not the same thing. One is simply a weak low level creature. He could be a miltia guard, he could be a local bandit, he could eventually gain levels and become a more powerful being, but he is still following the same rules
No, he isn't following the same rules. He gains XP at your whim, unless you proceed to roll up his every fight, and stat every encounter and ally he's had. If you abstract the point from 1st level (Or first hit dice! Monsters don't come out as fully formed killin machines!) to wherever the NPCs are now, you have in fact, not played them by the same rules. And that's okay, because doing that would be horrendously cumbersome.


Well we have half a dozen dudes who can avoid death, take more hits than this website, and have super powers, and we have hoards of dudes who's sole purpose seems to be.......dying as fodder. Inconsistent. Now if they were simply higher level, or better built it would be one thing, but simply handing out powers on the basis of a name is a very shallow design idea. As i said before, it reeks of PC centric worlds, along with inconsistency and bad world design philosophy. You want hoards of foes, go ahead. You want 3E's glaring flaws to be fixed, sure. But we get into an extremly simplistic view of world consistency.
You keep saying it's inconsistent. I have made a solid case against. You may now proceed to demonstrate the inconsistency, rather then repeating it for the umpteenth time.


the whole minion mechanics is designed in a manner like Dynasty Warriors, flashy dudes with names and absurd weapons slaughtering hoards of genetic fodder with no problem. Considering how DW gets dull after three missions i find the idea silly but...
DW gets dull? That notwithstanding, your comparison is wrong for a simple, demonstrable reason.

Minions aren't intended to be the only enemy you fight.



Aren't we both guilty of that?
I don't use memes. Well, no, I don't use the same type of meme you do. You're using viral, inaccurate portrayals of a system to evoke a cheap feeling of disgust by comparing 4e to something you hope will be despised. I use viral mutations of pop culture to evoke a cheap laugh. Not terribly comparable.


Anyways, kudos for actually responding
Oh this is the last one. My masochism at banging my head on the brick wall that is you is /quite/ satisfied.


Basically, 3E is more like Dynasty Warriors than 4E. 4E takes the idea of minions, which already existed and was used and popular, and gives it a good mechanical implementation. Your rants about "consistency"--funny, I can manage to make my world perfectly consistent just fine, with or without a minion mechanic--don't change that.
It's counter to his point, but Minions in 4e are like Dynasty Warriors. Just, Dynasty Warriors on Hard or Chaos, where you can not play stupid, and have to be vigilant/Have godlike vigilance, lest you be beaten up by faceless mooks.

The_Snark
2008-05-26, 11:47 PM
A game that plays like video game and draws inspiration from 300 is actually just as shallow as the orginial sources?

Actually something struck me about this, namely: 3e actually lends itself much better to modelling Dynasty Warriors or 300 than 4e does, so far as I know.

Let us examine the level 1 warrior, your average generic soldier as laid out in the DMG. Note that this is for trained soldiers; conscripts are even worse, described as typically level 1 commoners! They typically have 4 or 5 hp, and an AC of 15 or so. It may vary a little with species or feats, but as others have pointed out, they're almost always going down in a single hit from any melee-oriented character. Once the characters start getting above 5th level or so, they will generally be hitting with every blow, and killing a soldier.

Moreover, they generally have an attack bonus along the lines of +2 or +3. That's not terribly threatening even at 1st level; middle-level PCs will shrug it off, and mid-to-high level PCs will laugh, secure in the knowledge that only natural 20s will be hitting them.

Now, let's examine a more experienced NPC. We look, once again, at the DMG, this time at the demographics chart. Let's take a large town, those aren't too uncommon. Their highest-level fighter will be, on average, level 7... paging to the sample NPC fighters, we see that they have an average of 64 hp, an AC of 22, and an attack bonus of +11/+6. That's without feats, I might add, and not very well equipped.

Nevertheless, this fairly-average NPC—not that he's average in the setting, but there are likely to be quite a number like him in the setting, probably acting as expensive mercenaries, minor lords, and elite soldiers—demolishes any standard-issue group of soldiers. He kills 1 or 2 per round, maybe more with feats. They need a 20 to hit him. Furthermore, they'd need to hit him maybe... ten times to kill him? Let's go with that.

Should there happen to be a slightly tougher foe with the enemy, like a minotaur or an enemy commander, it is a much better strategy on his part to ignore the soldiers and just hit the tough enemy first. It's actually a threat, dealing consistent and likely higher damage. Killing it first removes that threat, whereas attacking the 3e mooks first will slightly reduce his chances of taking lowish damage.

Compare with the image of mooks as actual threats. If you charge into a group of soldiers to hit their leader on his horse in the middle, ignoring them... you're going to hurt very, very badly. The mooks pose threats—not individually; individually, you're much more skilled than common soldiers, and can take them out quickly enough that they don't stab you first. That doesn't mean they won't kill you if you ignore them. It is a better idea to fight cleverly, removing his defenses on one front and having some of your group engage him while others hold back and take out the soldiers. This, from what I've seen, is 4e's model.

Now... which one of these better models 300, Dynasty Warriors, and bad action flicks?

Helgraf
2008-05-27, 12:58 AM
There's a third level spell in spell compedium with a 60ft radius AoE. If they've got anything vaguely like that in 4E or widen metamagic then this will become a concern.

EDIT: And you don't get a save.

And you're using third edition magic to counter 4th edition mechanics.
That fails. Moreso when using one of WotC's more poorly testeed products - Spell Compendium's track record with making sure all of the spells it recommended were balanced for their level and overall was and is less than stellar. However, that part of my reply opens into a seperate argument entirely, so I'll leave it be at that.

AoE requires you to hit against each target in the AoE. This means no automatic blowing up 8 guys with a single die roll. So far the largest blast effects that do damage have had a 5 square radius. I think some of the buffs had blast 10 for determining AoE.

And they're explicitly removing Save or Die/Save or permasuck.

So on several grounds, your counter is invalidated.

Helgraf
2008-05-27, 01:31 AM
Well EE, you talk a big bit about how minion rules must mean that these creatures are generated strictly as a PC Convienience -In World-.

That, frankly, is crap. The 1 HP thing is, as has been repeated ad nauseum, an abstraction. A simplification for the players and the DM. Not a reflection on some warped and twisted deities deliberately designing life whose sole purpose is to be thrown away on the end of some 'hero's' sword.

Hell, that 1 HP. You grok, I presume, what hit points represent. They're not a tally of how many times you get a sword run through your guts, except perhaps for the hugest creatures. A sword in the heart, single hit will kill pretty much anybody who doesn't have redundant organs or some other handwavium. Hit points are another abstraction entirely. If you want to worry about the difference between nicking wounds/fatiguing wounds and actual life-threatening wounds, then try d20 Modern or Spycraft 2.0 or a system that seperates it into two pools - Vitality and Wounds (or insert your chosen names here) - Wounds, you pretty much universally have a flat number of, and when attacks bite into your wounds (typically through a critical hit in these systems), yes, you get injured and can die very quickly.
Now, bringing that back. HP aren't Wounds, at least not for typical medium-sized humanoids. They're much more like the Vitality half of the prior equation, that abstract combination of willpower, pain tolerance, morale, stubbornness, et cetera that keeps you going.

So, having said that, does that mean the 4th Editiion 1 HP minion must, therefore, be an inveterate coward. No. It's a simple acceptance of the fact that a mob is strong not through the strength of the individual, but through the fact that it is, in fact, a mob. They're all still people, with names, lives, et cetera.

But let's face it. Any one of them is going down with one solid attack. That's as true in 3rd edition and 3.5 as it is here. So, frankly, why bother tracking variable HP for each and every member of the mob. If it's important for you as the GM to have some members of the mob not be dead, but simply casualties, then you decide that's the case. They're still unconscious (barring someone using a healing surge or similiar ability on their behalf). They're still out of the fight, once they're struck.

But the big difference? They're not utterly useless until you land that decisive blow. You get people - yeah, I use that word deliberately - who still contribute meaningfully to the fight as long as they're still standing, and the minion rule whereby a missed attack doesn't do any damage regardless of how it normally would work means you can't autocheese them with blast/AoE effects.

Monsters become minions relative to the forces they fight. Giant minions are only really minions when faced by appropriatly (and almost certainly level 11-20 (paragon tier) heroes or even epic ones - not sure where your typical giants fall in normally) skilled opposition. Placing an earth giant against characters of level 6-7, it would not be represented by a minion. It would, in all likelyhood be either an elite - or more likely at that point, a solo.

Does it really suddenly get less healthy when the opposition fight a bunch of them 10 levels later?

No. It's just the abstraction that represents how far the opposition has come since those first days. Over 10 levels, they have gained greater powers, feats, skills, et cetera, to the point where these monsters are not and should not be a challenge _except_ as a horde. And that is exactly where the minion rules shine. This horde, individually weak _by comparision_, is still capable of wearing down the PCs - and if it eases the conscience any, one can have them split and run after a few or more have fallen at the hands of their clearly superior foes.

Incidentally, the minion rules could probably be fairly easily adapted to handling small army engagements - but that's another aside.

Crow
2008-05-27, 01:37 AM
Remember, going down in one hit doesn't have to mean they die. The minion could get a good flesh wound and decide to say "**** it! I'm just going to stay down." Most people don't fight to the death, and minions are perfect to use as "most people".

Also EE, did you see my earlier challenge? Or did you just ignore it?

Kompera
2008-05-27, 01:51 AM
Minions. So much angst over a simple mechanic designed to speed play by reducing record keeping.


in 3E you have a bunch of low level or weak creatures, in 4E you have a bunch of mechinically altered beings who's sole purpose is to die as fodder
So in 4e Minions have 1HP. So what? In 3.x minions (lower case, no mechanic associated with the word in these editions) are lower level and therefore are mechanically weaker by design in order that they will fall quicker before the blades and spells of the characters. You can even use the same terminology: By adding lower level Orcs to the fight against the Ogre Boss the GM created "mechanically altered beings whose sole purpose was to die as fodder."

Difference? Zero.


I understand that perfectly well. My issue with it is the fact that a PC can throw a pebble at a high-level Minion, deal them the 1 HP of damage, and take them out of the fight.

Or a mage could cast a wide-area low-damage spell that just takes all the minions out. "Hey Wizzie, time for your At-Will Mook Bomb again, eh?"
The same thing happens in 3.x. Except that in 4e it doesn't happen quite the way you describe. Spells I have seen the descriptions of in 4e are not as powerful as those in 3.x, and do not automatically hit or automatically deal damage, and in some cases do not automatically do either.

So either name the "At-Will Mook Bomb" spell you are using to support your point, or admit that you're simply speculating about a hypothetical broken spell which may never exist in 4e.


Looking through the entire KotS quickstart [...]

The point I was making was that they're going to have to be very careful to design around this, which paints them into a corner with regards to what AoEs (and class/racial etc. features that affect AoEs) they can include, particularly at higher levels, which is where Minions will IMO start to show their mechanical issues.
Again, you are speculating well beyond the scope of your knowledge. You have no clue what spells may be coming down the pike. Assuming that there will be one which 'breaks' the Minion mechanic is purely speculative and does not deserve much consideration. The same as your assumption that the Minion rules will break down at higher levels. What experience do you have or references can you cite to support this hypothesis? None. So arguing using wild, unsupported theories is again irrelevant to what is known about 4e at this time.


There's a third level spell in spell compedium with a 60ft radius AoE. If they've got anything vaguely like that in 4E or widen metamagic then this will become a concern.

EDIT: And you don't get a save.
Citing a 3.X spell and assuming that there will be an equivalent 4e spell is speculative and not based in fact. Name a 4e spell which supports this fear of AOE vs. Minions and we can talk more on the subject. But you can not, can you?


WotC is going to have to decide whether or not to give characters "anti-Minion" AoEs (high attack roll - or, even better, no attack roll - low damage, wide area). Whether or not such a thing is allowed will make a big difference, and it's all because of the Minion mechanic.
They have already done so. If I understand the descriptions of 4e combat which I have read, 'auto damage' abilities which players can use against normal opponents do not work against Minions. So the Fighter can't use his "If I miss I still do 3 damage" ability to automatically kill a Minion. He'll have to make a normal attack, hope to hit, and if he does the Minion will die. This is not a bad thing, as I see it.

Really, the GM never has to use the term Minion, and the players will still "catch on" even if they never see a 4e GMs guide and never learn that Minions are one hit kills. If the Fighter wants to use his auto hit swing against a Minion, the GM can just operate as though he used a normal swing, and on a miss, which would ordinarily cause 3 damage, say something like "you scratched him, but he's still standing." This is exactly like the GM who at the start of a fight with a challenging opponent when the Fighter does 10 damage might say "you scratched him, but he's still standing", while at the end of the fight when the final blow for 10 damage kills the foe might say "You drive your sword through him, and he dies."

The same 10 damage is done in both cases, but the difference in the description allows for the abstraction of Hit Points to work within the framework of a dramatic encounter.

So, 1 HP or 100, the abstraction is the same and the play is the same. It's only a failure of imagination or perhaps a too close focus on the mechanics which makes a person fail to appreciate this fact.


================================================



Also: To the people saying Minions aren't dangerous. People have already played KoS, and the report is that they are in fact dangerous. Theorycrafting is helpful when there isn't direct contradiction. Well, I guess you could claim they were doing it wrong.
Ah, Rutee. You don't know how much amusement I got from reading this tight piece of logic from you. I agree with it 100%, of course. But it reminded me of the time you went on for 16 pages about how the Paladin class couldn't possibly work in an adventuring party. After admitting that you'd never played a Paladin and that your groups had never had a Paladin. And all the while refusing to accept the statements from the many people who said that they had played Paladins and that there weren't really any issues with them. You know, the direct contradiction from people with experience against those who are simply theorycrafting.

Theorycrafting is helpful when there isn't direct contradiction.

Well, I guess you could claim that they were doing it wrong. :smallbiggrin:

JaxGaret
2008-05-27, 03:33 AM
Minions. So much angst over a simple mechanic designed to speed play by reducing record keeping.

I wouldn't consider myself angsting over it. I would say it is more like a contemplation on how it affects the game world. It's not something to cry myself to sleep over.

Also, since the bulk of your post here is in response to me, I'll just go ahead and respond to the whole thing.


So in 4e Minions have 1HP. So what? In 3.x minions (lower case, no mechanic associated with the word in these editions) are lower level and therefore are mechanically weaker by design in order that they will fall quicker before the blades and spells of the characters. You can even use the same terminology: By adding lower level Orcs to the fight against the Ogre Boss the GM created "mechanically altered beings whose sole purpose was to die as fodder."

Agreed. I do like the simplicity of the Minion mechanic for combat purposes, and I agree that it works quite well at low levels. I have yet to see how it functions at higher levels, of course, but I can speculate on it. Speculation is not an inherently negative thing (as several posters have claimed in this thread), and can be quite useful, particularly when it is coupled with reasonable extrapolation. Rampant, unfounded speculation, on the other hand, is almost always useless and a drain from real discussion.


Difference? Zero.

There is a small difference, which I have already pointed out.


The same thing happens in 3.x. Except that in 4e it doesn't happen quite the way you describe. Spells I have seen the descriptions of in 4e are not as powerful as those in 3.x, and do not automatically hit or automatically deal damage, and in some cases do not automatically do either.

True enough. We don't have any evidence either way at this point for how higher level spells in 4e will work.


So either name the "At-Will Mook Bomb" spell you are using to support your point, or admit that you're simply speculating about a hypothetical broken spell which may never exist in 4e.

What I was doing was making the point that the entire combat system of 4e will need to be designed with the Minion mechanic in mind. This means that for every spell, feat, class feature, racial feature, magic item, etc. that is created for 4e, the designer must keep in mind that they can't go overboard in making it too easy to kill Minions.

And no, I was not speculating. I imagine that there will be some AoE spell (or possibly other power, but probably a spell) that will be the most effective method in 4e for taking out Minions. It's illogical to assume otherwise - it has to exist.

And I hereby proclaim that said spell will henceforth be called "Mook Bomb" :smallsmile:


Again, you are speculating well beyond the scope of your knowledge. You have no clue what spells may be coming down the pike.

I know that there will be spells, and what a lot of them will do, since much of 4e casting is based off of 3e casting. There will be AoEs. There will be some AoEs that deal less damage + have a higher attack roll. These will be the Minion-killers.


Assuming that there will be one which 'breaks' the Minion mechanic is purely speculative and does not deserve much consideration.

I never said that there will be a spell that breaks the Minion mechanic. Not even close.


The same as your assumption that the Minion rules will break down at higher levels.

I stated that IMO it seems as if the Minion mechanic will break down at higher levels, and I stated my reasons for why I think so.


What experience do you have or references can you cite to support this hypothesis? None. So arguing using wild, unsupported theories is again irrelevant to what is known about 4e at this time.

Again, extrapolation can be used in situations such as these. We are thinking, rational beings; I was not arguing using wild, unsupported theories. Could you please even attempt to debunk my examples, before you handwave them away?


Citing a 3.X spell and assuming that there will be an equivalent 4e spell is speculative and not based in fact. Name a 4e spell which supports this fear of AOE vs. Minions and we can talk more on the subject. But you can not, can you?

No, of course not. Are you going to claim that there won't be AoE spells that are more effective at destroying Minions than other AoE spells? No, you are not, because they will exist.


They have already done so. If I understand the descriptions of 4e combat which I have read, 'auto damage' abilities which players can use against normal opponents do not work against Minions. So the Fighter can't use his "If I miss I still do 3 damage" ability to automatically kill a Minion. He'll have to make a normal attack, hope to hit, and if he does the Minion will die. This is not a bad thing, as I see it.

That is only if the power does damage on a miss, which is irrelevant to my point. We do not know yet if there will be auto-hit spells/powers in 4e that do not require an attack roll. Maybe, maybe not.


Really, the GM never has to use the term Minion, and the players will still "catch on" even if they never see a 4e GMs guide and never learn that Minions are one hit kills. If the Fighter wants to use his auto hit swing against a Minion, the GM can just operate as though he used a normal swing, and on a miss, which would ordinarily cause 3 damage, say something like "you scratched him, but he's still standing." This is exactly like the GM who at the start of a fight with a challenging opponent when the Fighter does 10 damage might say "you scratched him, but he's still standing", while at the end of the fight when the final blow for 10 damage kills the foe might say "You drive your sword through him, and he dies."

Agreed, 100%.


The same 10 damage is done in both cases, but the difference in the description allows for the abstraction of Hit Points to work within the framework of a dramatic encounter.

Not quite. By 4e rules, a Minion that takes damage is destroyed. A non-minion monster that is dropped to negatives is Dying. That is the RAW. It is a houserule to rule that Minions that are damaged are not killed, they are merely 'dropped out of the fight'.

This difference matters a fair bit for RP purposes.


So, 1 HP or 100, the abstraction is the same and the play is the same. It's only a failure of imagination or perhaps a too close focus on the mechanics which makes a person fail to appreciate this fact.

One can use houserules and/or DM fiat to solve any situation, to be sure, and I will be the first one to agree that almost any campaign needs both to run smoothly. But to assume that any two DMs will use the same houserules and/or DM fiat is foolhardy.

And to state that it is "a failure of imagination or too close focus on the mechanics" is getting pretty close to saying "You're not playing [DMing] the right way".

Oslecamo
2008-05-27, 05:28 AM
I can draw an interesting conclusion from the last posts:

4e minions are the only creatures in existence with hearts, since they're the only ones who can die of a single hit from any minimally threatening creature.

This would explain why adventurers have no problem slaughtering everything that stands before them, angels will work for whoever pays them and the villains are so evil. They're all simply heartless.

Rutee
2008-05-27, 07:33 AM
Incidentally, the minion rules could probably be fairly easily adapted to handling small army engagements - but that's another aside.

Hm, do you think so? That'd be pretty handy..

Actually yeah.. give the armies an HP count of the soldier count, then have them deal like, 1d10 + normal damage... It wouldn't be perfect,b ut hey.

Raum
2008-05-27, 07:41 AM
Out of vague curiosity, have you ever played a game with a minion system? 'cause.. to be utterly frank, 4e's system for it is one of the best I've seen, on its face at least. And minions in other systems still find uses at the higher levels.What systems are you comparing? What aspects of 4e's system do you prefer? I ask because 4e's minions seem a haphazardly tacked on subsystem compared to games (such as Savage Worlds) which were built for minions from the beginning.

Rutee
2008-05-27, 07:46 AM
What systems are you comparing? What aspects of 4e's system do you prefer? I ask because 4e's minions seem a haphazardly tacked on subsystem compared to games (such as Savage Worlds) which were built for minions from the beginning.

The two big ones in my eyes are WotG and MnM2e. The former doesn't work minions remotely similarly, but as long as you throw an arbitrarily high number of minions at someone, they can still threaten even an unranked Wulin (Unranked of course, means best, not worst.), by the numbers. And well, it's basically China after the Mongolian invasion. You can throw arbitrarily high numbers of minions out without damaging verisimilitude.

The latter works pretty much exactly like 4e, except there Minions don't necessarily deal less damage (Though since they're usually constructed with fewer points, they often do). They have similar attack and defense bonuses to non-minions, they just don't get the benefit of multiple health levels. As soon as they fail their Invuln. save, they're dust.

Kompera
2008-05-27, 08:16 AM
True enough. We don't have any evidence either way at this point for how higher level spells in 4e will work.
Thanks for that admission.

And no, I was not speculating. I imagine that there will be some AoE spell (or possibly other power, but probably a spell) that will be the most effective method in 4e for taking out Minions. It's illogical to assume otherwise - it has to exist.

And I hereby proclaim that said spell will henceforth be called "Mook Bomb" :smallsmile:
I thanked you too soon. You can't admit that you have no evidence for how unrevealed spells will work, and then state with certainty that a spell with such-and-such a mechanic must exist. Those are mutually exclusive positions.
It does not have to exist, and you have no reason other then your desire to use the hypothetical in an attempt to decry the Minion mechanic for asserting that it must.
I do notice that you left yourself an out, however. By saying that some spell will be the "best" against Minions you skirt the fact that the "best" spell might be far less effective against Minions than would be required to represent your description of a "wide-area low-damage spell that just takes all the minions out."
So yes, logically some spell will be best at delivering AOE damage to Minions or anything else. Spells with the Burst mechanic will probably fill that role. But that's a far cry from assuming that "logically" there will be a spell which will just kill all Minions within its AOE.

I know that there will be spells, and what a lot of them will do, since much of 4e casting is based off of 3e casting.I think I've seen all of the spells which have been released to date. None of them looked anything at all like 3.x casting. Perhaps you looked at them and drew a different conclusion, but I see very large differences in mechanics, even if some of the names are the same.

I never said that there will be a spell that breaks the Minion mechanic. Not even close.Yes, yes you did. It's right above, go take another look at the "Mook Bomb" and how you speculate that it must exist.


Again, extrapolation can be used in situations such as these. We are thinking, rational beings; I was not arguing using wild, unsupported theories. Could you please even attempt to debunk my examples, before you handwave them away?Hand waving has nothing to do with making up stuff out of whole cloth and trying to pass it off as 4e game mechanics. I can't begin to refute your examples, because you haven't given any. Instead, you've made up a bunch of stuff and expected it to be taken seriously. I won't take it seriously, and I won't be drawn into an argument over hypothetical situations of your imagining.


No, of course not. Are you going to claim that there won't be AoE spells that are more effective at destroying Minions than other AoE spells? No, you are not, because they will exist.I won't claim that, because then I'd be as foolish as you, asserting to know what is to come without having seen it yet. But I will claim that your assertion that such a spell will exist is a hypothetical for which you have zero supporting evidence, and as such it doesn't deserve any credence. Nice hedging again on the "more effective", by the way. Are you backpedaling away from your imagined spell which "just takes all the minions out?"


One can use houserules and/or DM fiat to solve any situation, to be sure, and I will be the first one to agree that almost any campaign needs both to run smoothly. But to assume that any two DMs will use the same houserules and/or DM fiat is foolhardy.
Don't even begin to take my description of a GM giving context relevant fluff descriptions to a battle and call it "House rules" or "GM fiat". Descriptive fluff is not rules, does not violate RAW, and it can be added or not and RAW is still maintained. And also don't presume to state my position on anything for me. You are not agreeing with me that almost any campaign needs house rules and/or DM fiat, because I never said that. Don't state it in such a twisted way as to try to make it appear that we're in agreement on a point which was not even under discussion.


And to state that it is "a failure of imagination or too close focus on the mechanics" is getting pretty close to saying "You're not playing [DMing] the right way".I didn't say that. What I've said in a few more words is that you're not debating the right way. You need some basis in logic or reason for your position, or some facts, or some citations. You have none of the above. You attempt to support your position with assumption and assertions that things about which you have absolutely zero information must be a certain way. But they don't. And that invalidates your entire position.

If you want to say that you're just speculating on a possible future, that's fine. Knock yourself out and have fun doing so. But you haven't said that so far. Instead you've made stuff up and said that it must be so, because of one or more of any number of false premises. And that does a disservice to anyone who reads your false premises or who might not feel the way that you do about Minions in 4e.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-27, 08:27 AM
You know what, guys? I spotted the problem.

The anti minion side doesn't like minions because, they ARE, quite frankly, ridiculous. I sincerely hope there are no epic minions, because, quite frankly, Cuchulainn and Gilgamesh NEVER faced an enemy that could give them a semi-important wound but would be still dropped with a single blow. Sure, there might be some justification if all the epic minions have insane defenses, but that is the bit (The one bit, at that), that bothers me about an otherwise seemingly excellent mechanic.

Then, there's the question of battlefield control. Sure, maybe a wizard doesn't have enough AB to hit all of the minions in one blow, but what if you have a multiclassed Fighter/Wizard who CAN? That has me a bit worried, but I'm keeping the hopes up.

Finally, there's the problem of the 1 HP thing itself. Really, I think EVERY side would be really happy if we had some kind of mechanic to outfit minions as standard monsters straight out of the MM/DMG.

Those, I think, are the main complaints about the minion mechanics, of which I'm otherwise very fond of.

Rutee
2008-05-27, 08:33 AM
You know what, guys? I spotted the problem.

The anti minion side doesn't like minions because, they ARE, quite frankly, ridiculous. I sincerely hope there are no epic minions, because, quite frankly, Cuchulainn and Gilgamesh NEVER faced an enemy that could give them a semi-important wound but would be still dropped with a single blow. Sure, there might be some justification if all the epic minions have insane defenses, but that is the bit (The one bit, at that), that bothers me about an otherwise seemingly excellent mechanic.[/quote]
I don't know if I would continue using minions at epic level anyway.


Then, there's the question of battlefield control. Sure, maybe a wizard doesn't have enough AB to hit all of the minions in one blow, but what if you have a multiclassed Fighter/Wizard who CAN? That has me a bit worried, but I'm keeping the hopes up.
You're thinking like it's 3e. Wizards shouldn't have worse to hit then fighters with their spells. If you only have say, a 60% chance to hit, the odds of striking 4/4 minions with a spell are against you.


Finally, there's the problem of the 1 HP thing itself. Really, I think EVERY side would be really happy if we had some kind of mechanic to outfit minions as standard monsters straight out of the MM/DMG.
...? Stat them as normal monsters.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-27, 08:36 AM
I don't know if I would continue using minions at epic level anyway.


You're thinking like it's 3e. Wizards shouldn't have worse to hit then fighters with their spells. If you only have say, a 60% chance to hit, the odds of striking 4/4 minions with a spell are against you.


...? Stat them as normal monsters.

If I remembered, Fighters got bonuses to AB from their class, effectively hitting more. THAT'S why I'm thinking of multiclassers.

And yeah, I COULD, but I'm speculating on the possibility of 4th actually including the mechanic, instead of forcing me to do a case-by-case or to dig very deeply into the system to unearth a possible conversion system.I don't know if I would continue using minions at epic level anyway.


You're thinking like it's 3e. Wizards shouldn't have worse to hit then fighters with their spells. If you only have say, a 60% chance to hit, the odds of striking 4/4 minions with a spell are against you.


...? Stat them as normal monsters.[/QUOTE]

If I remembered, Fighters got bonuses to AB from their class, effectively hitting more. THAT'S why I'm thinking of multiclassers.

And yeah, I COULD, but I'm speculating on the possibility of 4th actually including the mechanic, instead of forcing me to do a case-by-case or to dig very deeply into the system to unearth a possible conversion system.

Morty
2008-05-27, 08:41 AM
And yeah, I COULD, but I'm speculating on the possibility of 4th actually including the mechanic, instead of forcing me to do a case-by-case or to dig very deeply into the system to unearth a possible conversion system.

Why include any special mechanics? 4ed designers are promising that creating monsters from scratch will be easy, and it looks like it'll be true. So if a typical orcish grunt is 9 level Orc Minion, simply make 9 level Orc Soldier and say it's a typical orcish warrior.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-27, 08:44 AM
Why include any special mechanics? 4ed designers are promising that creating monsters from scratch will be easy, and it looks like it'll be true. So if a typical orcish grunt is 9 level Orc Minion, simply make 9 level Orc Soldier and say it's a typical orcish warrior.

...and it's going to be a weak soldier, with less AC, less damage, and I have no idea how much HP I have to give it, not to mention the powers he shouls have. What I want to know is how I can change minions into normal monsters, because I'm a sucker for villain decay.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-05-27, 09:01 AM
No one wants to fight minions in the epic levels??? Umm isn't that when it makes the MOST sense to be 1-hitting stuff?

Rutee
2008-05-27, 09:26 AM
...and it's going to be a weak soldier, with less AC, less damage, and I have no idea how much HP I have to give it, not to mention the powers he shouls have. What I want to know is how I can change minions into normal monsters, because I'm a sucker for villain decay.

Erm. I think you're missing the idea here. If you want the grunt to be a Soldier-class monster, make a soldier-class monster. No special stuff here.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-27, 10:06 AM
No one wants to fight minions in the epic levels??? Umm isn't that when it makes the MOST sense to be 1-hitting stuff?

Yes, if it is no longer a danger for you. Now, show me a minion who will hit most of the time and will do semi respectable damage.

...Yeah, no idea how it's gonna work, right?

Rutee: Y'know what's the funny thing? I don't care about the mechanic I mentioned. I don't give a half penny for it, but I think that, since most of the "Minions are unrealistic!/whatever!" say the problem is the 1 HP, having a mechanic to unminionize them would shut them up nicely.

Me? I'll do as Nirvana said. Come as you are.

nagora
2008-05-27, 10:09 AM
You know what, guys? I spotted the problem.

The anti minion side doesn't like minions because, they ARE, quite frankly, ridiculous.

They have a strong flavour. If you like that flavour, then they're great. If you don't they are terrible. Minions (and mooks) are something that one sees in cinema and superhero comics. They rarely turn up in books and the sort that do were generally handled perfectly well in 1ed by totally different means.

If you want 300 style battles or even Jackson's idea of Middle Earth, then minions are a perfectly good mechanic. If you're looking for something more grounded in "reality" they suck. Pay your money, take your choice.

Rutee
2008-05-27, 10:10 AM
You could try giving them a third of the hit points or so, along with a third of the damage? It'd make them much more dangerous then they are though..

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-27, 10:10 AM
They have a strong flavour. If you like that flavour, then they're great. If you don't they are terrible. Minions (and mooks) are something that one sees in cinema and superhero comics. They rarely turn up in books and the sort that do were generally handled perfectly well in 1ed by totally different means.

If you want 300 style battles or even Jackson's idea of Middle Earth, then minions are a perfectly good mechanic. If you're looking for something more grounded in "reality" they suck. Pay your money, take your choice.

Late to the party and tl;dr, much? :smalltongue:

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-27, 10:12 AM
You could try giving them a third of the hit points or so, along with a third of the damage? It'd make them much more dangerous then they are though..

Gods, no. That'd make them brutal. I distinctly remember the Angel of Vengeance, and even something with a third of the HP would be scary. I don't actually want new mechanics, I want the guys to stop making asinine and repetitive comments and to shut up. :smallwink:

Rutee
2008-05-27, 10:15 AM
Oh, I agree, it'd totally be brutal. But that /does/ seem to be what people are asking for here, no? It makes sense, to an extent, but I don't know how that'd turn out balance wise, for obvious reasons.

nagora
2008-05-27, 10:15 AM
Late to the party and tl;dr, much? :smalltongue:

I just liked the "flavour" metaphor. Strong flavours make strong opinions.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-05-27, 10:22 AM
Oh, I agree, it'd totally be brutal. But that /does/ seem to be what people are asking for here, no? It makes sense, to an extent, but I don't know how that'd turn out balance wise, for obvious reasons.

Y'know, I'm SO going to make a Pun-Pun of Doom to use against anyone who says he or she doesn't like 4th and doesn't provide good ideas for it.

The caption? "Then, sit down, strap in, and start cryin'". If the poster doesn't manage to beat the PPoD, the poster is ignored.

Nagora: Indeed. Mind, I consider minions ridiculous, but that is part of why I like them. I play D&D to be like Gilgamesh or King Arthur, an unmatched weaponmaster/arcanist keeper of grand secrets/Channeller of pure divine energy/Shadow stalking the night, Blade deadlier than a Wife's rant, not to be Joe Ordinary. If I wanted that, I'd play Warhammer.

Thrawn183
2008-05-27, 10:29 AM
I more see it as level 1 fighter throws a pebble hard enough to dent a barn door and it kills the kobold minion in one shot. The level 10 fighter throws a brick hard enough to go through a barn door and a couple bales of hay behind it thereby being able to kill what had been an elite brute many levels earlier in one shot (it now being considered a high level minion).

Really you just have to stop and think about how rediculous high level characters are and how weak low level creatures like kobolds are and the whole minion thing makes complete sense.

Starbuck_II
2008-05-27, 10:41 AM
You know what, guys? I spotted the problem.

The anti minion side doesn't like minions because, they ARE, quite frankly, ridiculous. I sincerely hope there are no epic minions, because, quite frankly, Cuchulainn and Gilgamesh NEVER faced an enemy that could give them a semi-important wound but would be still dropped with a single blow. Sure, there might be some justification if all the epic minions have insane defenses, but that is the bit (The one bit, at that), that bothers me about an otherwise seemingly excellent mechanic.

Yeah, i think you lost that bet. The Minion article already showed epic minions: remember the devil legionaries (the veteran ones I think)?
They do, however, have insane defenses (great AC, Defenses, etc). Their fire resistance isn't stellar though.


Then, there's the question of battlefield control. Sure, maybe a wizard doesn't have enough AB to hit all of the minions in one blow, but what if you have a multiclassed Fighter/Wizard who CAN? That has me a bit worried, but I'm keeping the hopes up.

Finally, there's the problem of the 1 HP thing itself. Really, I think EVERY side would be really happy if we had some kind of mechanic to outfit minions as standard monsters straight out of the MM/DMG.

Those, I think, are the main complaints about the minion mechanics, of which I'm otherwise very fond of.

So far, all the Fighter has on the Wizard is +1 hit bonus at level 1. Everyones BAB progresses by +1 every 2 levels.

nagora
2008-05-27, 10:52 AM
I more see it as level 1 fighter throws a pebble hard enough to dent a barn door and it kills the kobold minion in one shot. The level 10 fighter throws a brick hard enough to go through a barn door and a couple bales of hay behind it thereby being able to kill what had been an elite brute many levels earlier in one shot (it now being considered a high level minion).

Really you just have to stop and think about how rediculous high level characters are and how weak low level creatures like kobolds are and the whole minion thing makes complete sense.

Well, to take the kobold example back to first edition: a 1st level fighter does an average amount of damage which is greater than a tough kobold's maximum hp, so it was "1 hit, 1 kill" unless the kobold gets lucky (if he was really lucky, he'd be somewhere else!). The 10th level fighter probably does more minimum damage than the tough kobold can handle and s/he does it 10 times per round! And, in 1ed normal foot soldiers are only slightly tougher; a 10th level fighter will generally kill as many normal soldiers as s/he can reach in a round. PCs are literally the top 2% of the population; everyone else is level-zero.

So, some minion rules (multiple attacks Vs zero-level opponents) have really always been with us in D&D. The change has been this idea of the "sliding window" which follows the PCs as they get higher and higher level, relegating more and more opponents to the same level of challenge as the kobolds used to be. I don't personally like this, I think it breaks the verisimilitude, but if you want to play Cuchulain then that's exactly what you want!

What I would ask is, are players who want to play a different style, ie without minions, going to be supported by the system and/or the company's product line?

Indon
2008-05-27, 11:06 AM
"Bad action movie"? Isn't that a little harsh? I didn't see rules for shooting off a baby's umbilicle cord (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTyumQ87kg) or anything like that.

If 4'th edition were based off of that incredibly awesome movie, it would be the best tabletop game in existence.


In fact, Minions are exclusively going to be the first target in combat, not because they are in the way, but because they are the biggest threat.

Absolutely false.

When you target a minion first, it's not because they're a big threat, it's because by targeting them, you neutralize the greatest amount of threat for the least amount of effort - because the effort is practically nothing.

They are not threats, but inconveniences in combat. Through clever tactics and good circumstances, however, they can be upgraded.

Here're a couple circumstances in which I would use the minion mechanic:

-A pack of wild animals: Here, I would probably use 1 actual mob (to represent the head of the pack) and all the rest minions. This is an interesting encounter because this pack could hit them almost anytime when they're out in the wilderness, and in fact would probably prefer to wait until they're weak, off-guard, and about to enter an extended rest.

-Pitchfork Mob: Here, the HP abstraction exists not to reflect how weak they are, but how difficult it would be for the PC's to defend themselves bloodlessly. If they attack the mob while they're in their individually combat-ineffective mob-mentality, they'll find some of the individuals in the mob become ready for combat, thus upgrading themselves to actual creatures.

-Non-combatants: This is an extention of the Pitchfork Mob thing. A non-com is someone who might throw a punch or two but ultimately doesn't want to fight. They slightly differ from the standard minion, though: When you deal 1 damage to them, they don't go down (in game: removed from fight), but instead get serious about fighting (in game: upgraded to actual creature). The mechanical advantage is, before the non-com is actually in the fight, I don't have to roll their damage.

-Literal fodder: The BBEG sends expendibles at the PC's to annoy them. This encounter doesn't need to be difficult, but it's best to set up an air of urgency beforehand so that the PC's understand that they're being impeded and time is of the essence.

I think the concept is of use, so long as it's used carefully. Inconsiderate use of minions would pretty much be guaranteed to be uninteresting.

Another thought is, 4'th edition needs an explicit minion mechanic because 3'rd edition had an implicit one. Because in 3'rd edition, power rose exponentially (yes, even with fighters), if you downscaled a mob by a few levels (as in, 2-4) you could easily have a moderately dangerous pack of individually less dangerous creatures on your hands.

But since power scales linearly in 4'th edition, to simply get twice as many mobs, you would have to halve the levels involved. This would introduce serious problems, so we hack minions into the system.

Starsinger
2008-05-27, 12:23 PM
Yes, if it is no longer a danger for you. Now, show me a minion who will hit most of the time and will do semi respectable damage.

I'm picturing like someone manning a ballista. Sure, the real damage is the balista bolt, but all you have to do is drop the squishy manning the war-machine.

elliott20
2008-05-27, 12:44 PM
In the game Spirits of the Century, minions often time don't even have their own stats. Instead, you simply modify the main baddy's stats with minion states. That or you take a bunch of minions and form one large monster with them. The way you successful use minions? instead of using them to chip away at the player, you get them all to give one gigantic assist to their leader/captains and give them more umph to their punch.

Of course, this is easier in that game mostly because the game has very few stats for book keeping, not to mention the game doesn't use maps.

all they really do in that game is just make the baddy that much more dangerous. They themselves, individually, are meaningless and pose no threat.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-27, 01:42 PM
In the game Spirits of the Century, minions often time don't even have their own stats. Instead, you simply modify the main baddy's stats with minion states. That or you take a bunch of minions and form one large monster with them. The way you successful use minions? instead of using them to chip away at the player, you get them all to give one gigantic assist to their leader/captains and give them more umph to their punch.

Of course, this is easier in that game mostly because the game has very few stats for book keeping, not to mention the game doesn't use maps.

all they really do in that game is just make the baddy that much more dangerous. They themselves, individually, are meaningless and pose no threat.

What? No, Spirit of the Century minions *can* attach to bad guys, but they can also work on their own. They have a +X on attack/defense, depending on number and quality of minions.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-05-27, 02:24 PM
The two big ones in my eyes are WotG and MnM2e. The former doesn't work minions remotely similarly, but as long as you throw an arbitrarily high number of minions at someone, they can still threaten even an unranked Wulin (Unranked of course, means best, not worst.), by the numbers. And well, it's basically China after the Mongolian invasion. You can throw arbitrarily high numbers of minions out without damaging verisimilitude.

Don't WotG Minions max out at fairly low dice pools, and aren't they essentially incapable of rolling more than a 29 in most cases (unless they're basically elites)?

Anybody with a decent God Weapon should eat that for breakfast. Then again, I didn't much rate the WotG Minion rules. Greg Stolze's REIGN works really nicely, its minions are simultaneously useful but non-dominating.

Rutee
2008-05-27, 02:59 PM
Don't WotG Minions max out at fairly low dice pools, and aren't they essentially incapable of rolling more than a 29 in most cases (unless they're basically elites)?

Anybody with a decent God Weapon should eat that for breakfast. Then again, I didn't much rate the WotG Minion rules. Greg Stolze's REIGN works really nicely, its minions are simultaneously useful but non-dominating.

I don't recall the exact terms used, but Rabble are capped at Earthly dice sets of 1. The next step up is capped at 2, yes, but the best form of minions (The kind that a Clan warrior would be) can use a dice set of any size, and if I recall correctly, the modified roll (Based on the size of the minion group) isn't affected by the cap anyway.

Of course, a strong warrior with AoE kung Fu can take out a pretty high number of minions, and in fact you may need more peons, in terms of strict minion count, then a DnD character, but it's for different reasons; Namely, the DnD character needs it because there's a flat 5% chance to hit him, and you need to capitalize on that. The WotG minions have significantly better to hit (In sufficient numbers to threaten the Wulin in question), but their HP are determined by their number.

And the WotG minions will take less time and have more capacity for being better. And you could add a leader :P

Dan_Hemmens
2008-05-27, 03:29 PM
I don't recall the exact terms used, but Rabble are capped at Earthly dice sets of 1. The next step up is capped at 2, yes, but the best form of minions (The kind that a Clan warrior would be) can use a dice set of any size, and if I recall correctly, the modified roll (Based on the size of the minion group) isn't affected by the cap anyway.


I'm pretty sure the top level ("Gang" I think) is allowed to use "Divine" rolls, but that still puts it at a cap of 3.

It's also somewhat ambiguous whether you can just keep mounting up an arbitrarily high number of Minions to get an infinite dice pool or not. Plus Minions don't get weapon bonuses, the only modifier added to the roll is based on their leader's Presence (IIRC).

Unless I was doing it totally wrong, which is always possible.

Rutee
2008-05-27, 03:41 PM
I'm pretty sure the top level ("Gang" I think) is allowed to use "Divine" rolls, but that still puts it at a cap of 3.
The rest I'm not so sure on, but this I am. It says "3 or more", rather then capping you at 39 + Strike.


It's also somewhat ambiguous whether you can just keep mounting up an arbitrarily high number of Minions to get an infinite dice pool or not. Plus Minions don't get weapon bonuses, the only modifier added to the roll is based on their leader's Presence (IIRC).
Well, you might have some specifics right, really. It's been a while, and I just can't be bothered to look at the specifics. But I recall looking at them and saying "Welp. This is pretty much how Exalted and other games should have done it."

elliott20
2008-05-27, 04:17 PM
What? No, Spirit of the Century minions *can* attach to bad guys, but they can also work on their own. They have a +X on attack/defense, depending on number and quality of minions.

well, that is true. I just wanted to point out the precedence of using minions as baddy modifiers is all. and it's +1 for every 3 you have the other guy outnumbered.

RukiTanuki
2008-05-27, 05:23 PM
Is this really where we're drawing the line?

People are okay using a system whose core rules enable a person, without using magic, to walk away from 50-foot drops and wading into lava with no effective reduction in any physical or mental capability, but when the ruleset introduces skilled, lethal enemies who nonetheless are removed from combat by successful attacks against their person, things are unrealistic?! Furthermore, these people would prefer using unskilled enemies that literally could not hit the hero if he were standing still? Am I really hearing, "Consistency means that anyone who can hit you can also endure an explosion without dying"?

I'm just going to have to shake my head and walk away from anyone who treats XP, levelling, and the process by which a player or DM creates stats for an individual in the game world as the quantifiable way things work in said game world, and lament when anything doesn't follow that system, even if the result works better at the table.

I've just been flabbergasted in the last few weeks by the amount of "these tropes are godlike, those tropes are ridiculous" going around. I'm glad to see D&D played in so many varied formats, but honestly, the rules support a particular type of play. Not supporting a different type does not make them wrong.

JaxGaret
2008-05-27, 06:02 PM
People are okay using a system whose core rules enable a person, without using magic, to walk away from 50-foot drops and wading into lava with no effective reduction in any physical or mental capability, but when the ruleset introduces skilled, lethal enemies who nonetheless are removed from combat by successful attacks against their person, things are unrealistic?! Furthermore, these people would prefer using unskilled enemies that literally could not hit the hero if he were standing still? Am I really hearing, "Consistency means that anyone who can hit you can also endure an explosion without dying"?

That's not the point, at least to me it isn't. That isn't a good analogy, btw; a better analogy would be that there are enemies who can jump off of vertical 100-foot cliffs and survive just fine, but if they jump off of a 100-foot cliff that's angled 1 degree, they'll probably die.

That's the difference between an Epic Minion laughing at low-level NPCs attacking them, and then getting taken out with one hit by a low-level Summon by the PCs.

And no, of course I don't know conclusively that 4e will include Summoning powers (thanks Kompera, for making me state such things as if they weren't common sense that goes without saying). But is anyone seriously going to bet that it won't?

Summoning is also only one of many ways to demonstrate this.


I'm just going to have to shake my head and walk away from anyone who treats XP, levelling, and the process by which a player or DM creates stats for an individual in the game world as the quantifiable way things work in said game world, and lament when anything doesn't follow that system, even if the result works better at the table.

I've just been flabbergasted in the last few weeks by the amount of "these tropes are godlike, those tropes are ridiculous" going around.

I've certainly said no such thing. IMO Minions work great at low levels, but I speculate that the Minion mechanic will cause issues at higher levels. Again, this is speculation, not fact. I may be wrong, but my assessment of the situation is that I am most likely not wrong.


I'm glad to see D&D played in so many varied formats, but honestly, the rules support a particular type of play. Not supporting a different type does not make them wrong.

Could you elaborate on this?

JaxGaret
2008-05-27, 06:34 PM
Thanks for that admission.

You're welcome.


I thanked you too soon.

But... but you just thanked me like 2 seconds ago...:smallconfused:


You can't admit that you have no evidence for how unrevealed spells will work, and then state with certainty that a spell with such-and-such a mechanic must exist. Those are mutually exclusive positions.

AoEs exist in 4e, yes? Is it reasonable to assume that there won't be ONE AoE power in all of 4e? Yes. From that we can then use common sense to tell us that some of those AoEs will be better at killing Minions than others, by virtue of their mechanical differences. Unless every AoE power in all of 4e is exactly the same, or follows the exact same formula for creation, what I just stated has to be true.

Thus, from that, we can then state that there will be one AoE which will rise above the rest. That AoE will be the best Minion-killer available.

I really don't understand how you purport to refute that logic. Are you really saying that there will either be so few AoEs that they will all be exactly equivalent in Minion-killing power, or that they will all follow the exact same creation formula?


It does not have to exist, and you have no reason other then your desire to use the hypothetical in an attempt to decry the Minion mechanic for asserting that it must.

All I can say to this is lolz. In the future, please try to keep your via-internet psychoanalysis to a minimum.

Also, I have already stated that I like the Minion mechanic, at low levels.


I do notice that you left yourself an out, however. By saying that some spell will be the "best" against Minions you skirt the fact that the "best" spell might be far less effective against Minions than would be required to represent your description of a "wide-area low-damage spell that just takes all the minions out."
So yes, logically some spell will be best at delivering AOE damage to Minions or anything else. Spells with the Burst mechanic will probably fill that role. But that's a far cry from assuming that "logically" there will be a spell which will just kill all Minions within its AOE.

I never said that the Mook Bomb would be a perfect killing spell, did I? No. I simply stated that it would be reasonable for someone in the party to shout out to the party Controller "Hey Wizzie, time for your At-Will Mook Bomb, eh?". You can extrapolate what you want from that, except that since I know you are not a fan of speculation, you won't.... except that you did and continue to read things into what I say that aren't there.


I think I've seen all of the spells which have been released to date. None of them looked anything at all like 3.x casting. Perhaps you looked at them and drew a different conclusion, but I see very large differences in mechanics, even if some of the names are the same.

Mechanically, they may be different, but they're pretty much the same, keeping in mind the radical difference in class design from edition to edition. MM is still a longer-range Force effect that deals light damage. Sleep still puts enemies to sleep at close range. Expeditious Retreat still makes you move more quickly (although it also gives an added benefit of that movement being Shift instead of Move, which is sweet).

Let me just say that there are lots of things that I do like about 4e, but that doesn't mean that I have to like every darn thing. That's just silly.


Yes, yes you did. It's right above, go take another look at the "Mook Bomb" and how you speculate that it must exist.

The way that I define the Mook Bomb, yes, it must exist. However you define it has no bearing on that.


Hand waving has nothing to do with making up stuff out of whole cloth and trying to pass it off as 4e game mechanics. I can't begin to refute your examples, because you haven't given any. Instead, you've made up a bunch of stuff and expected it to be taken seriously. I won't take it seriously, and I won't be drawn into an argument over hypothetical situations of your imagining.

Okay then, so then let's simply wait until 4e is officially released, and then we can have this same conversation all over again, with evidence. Sorry to be looking ahead.


I won't claim that, because then I'd be as foolish as you

Watch your personal attacks. That's not nice.


, asserting to know what is to come without having seen it yet. But I will claim that your assertion that such a spell will exist is a hypothetical for which you have zero supporting evidence, and as such it doesn't deserve any credence. Nice hedging again on the "more effective", by the way. Are you backpedaling away from your imagined spell which "just takes all the minions out?"

What I meant by "just takes all the minions out", and is a reasonable reading of it without being 100% literal, is that it is a spell that is highly effective at killing Minions.

I would never say "there will be a spell that will be an I-win button against Minions", because that's a silly thing to say. I suppose you don't know me from a hole in the wall, but at least give me a little credit.


Don't even begin to take my description of a GM giving context relevant fluff descriptions to a battle and call it "House rules" or "GM fiat". Descriptive fluff is not rules, does not violate RAW, and it can be added or not and RAW is still maintained.

"Destroyed" is fluff description?


And also don't presume to state my position on anything for me. You are not agreeing with me that almost any campaign needs house rules and/or DM fiat, because I never said that. Don't state it in such a twisted way as to try to make it appear that we're in agreement on a point which was not even under discussion.

So you think that DMing and running a campaign doesn't necessitate using houserules and DM fiat, at least occasionally? I'm honestly curious.


I didn't say that. What I've said in a few more words is that you're not debating the right way.

Oh, I'm sorry that I never went to debate club, so I should just shut up now, right?

I'm not just spouting off blubber, you know. I would call my statements reasonable estimations on what will be, not outlandish flim flam like you are claiming.


You need some basis in logic or reason for your position, or some facts, or some citations. You have none of the above. You attempt to support your position with assumption and assertions that things about which you have absolutely zero information must be a certain way. But they don't. And that invalidates your entire position.

Okay then. Sorry for bringing a little common sense to the table.


If you want to say that you're just speculating on a possible future, that's fine. Knock yourself out and have fun doing so. But you haven't said that so far. Instead you've made stuff up and said that it must be so, because of one or more of any number of false premises. And that does a disservice to anyone who reads your false premises or who might not feel the way that you do about Minions in 4e.

Anyone who reads what I write can decide for themselves what to believe. I honestly don't see how what I've stated is as incorrect as what you are claiming. They seem reasonable, logical extrapolations, and I really think that when 4e comes out, we're going to end up having the same conversation again.

Raum
2008-05-27, 06:58 PM
The two big ones in my eyes are WotG and MnM2e. The former doesn't work minions remotely similarly, but as long as you throw an arbitrarily high number of minions at someone, they can still threaten even an unranked Wulin (Unranked of course, means best, not worst.), by the numbers. And well, it's basically China after the Mongolian invasion. You can throw arbitrarily high numbers of minions out without damaging verisimilitude.

The latter works pretty much exactly like 4e, except there Minions don't necessarily deal less damage (Though since they're usually constructed with fewer points, they often do). They have similar attack and defense bonuses to non-minions, they just don't get the benefit of multiple health levels. As soon as they fail their Invuln. save, they're dust.Sounds interesting, though I don't have either rule set. Superficially, it sounds like I might like the M&M version. What are their expectations regarding minions? I.E. Are minions always accompanied by a boss? Is the guy on the corner a minion or a boss? How does a boss differ from a minion of the same type?

It's the answers to those questions which make me wary of 4e's version. Well, those and what I perceive as too low a threat / damage potential. But no need to go down that path again...I'm more interested in why you think you'll like 4e minions. Besides little or no accounting, what do you like?

RukiTanuki
2008-05-27, 07:24 PM
That's not the point, at least to me it isn't. That isn't a good analogy, btw; a better analogy would be that there are enemies who can jump off of vertical 100-foot cliffs and survive just fine, but if they jump off of a 100-foot cliff that's angled 1 degree, they'll probably die.

My thoughts were less on crafting a good analogy, and more on presenting a literal example of something people accept at face value while playing D&D. The crux of most of my frustration is the bizarre and seemingly random selection of things that people protest as being outside their boundaries of disbelief, when I frankly see a lot of bizarre elements to the rules (to say nothing of people's interpretations of them).


That's the difference between an Epic Minion laughing at low-level NPCs attacking them, and then getting taken out with one hit by a low-level Summon by the PCs.

And no, of course I don't know conclusively that 4e will include Summoning powers (thanks Kompera, for making me state such things as if they weren't common sense that goes without saying). But is anyone seriously going to bet that it won't?

Summoning is also only one of many ways to demonstrate this.

I recall the Minion preview explicitly stating not to use Minions if their relative level is grossly out of proportion to the PCs. The intention for Minions (at least per my interpretations of what I've read, and how I intend to use them) is that they are utilized in an encounter combined with someone bigger and badder. They fight until the first legitimate wound drops them; "1hp" just happens to use fifty-one fewer characters than the description which starts this sentence.

If you have one level 26 Minion attacking the village, the problem is not that you've left yourself vulnerable to the mechanical possibility that any attack, no matter how insignificant, might roll a 20 and cause damage. It's that you used a Minion out of context, thus its combat rules (abstracted, as most 4e rules, for ease of play) are no longer appropriate. It would be absurd to treat that character as anything different from the level 20 Elite, or the level 16 Solo creature: a threat orders of magnitude beyond what the village can hope to counter. I don't think anyone would dream of running those creatures any differently; if the issue is with the rules, note that the rules told you not to use Minions where they do not make logical sense. I really feel that it's an overtly literal interpretation of "this character dies when he takes any damage," applied to the daily life of that creature, that leads to a (wholly unnecessary) suspension of disbelief. If you treat him as "When facing opponents of a level close to the number listed at the top of this sheet, he's basically out of the fight after the first serious injury" you'll find it easier to play along.

As for my own conjecture, I suspect Summons might exist, but what you consider a "low-level summon" may not. With even high-level casters having only about ten or a dozen powers at hand, it seems likely that either a Summon power will remain power-appropriate as the player levels, or that he'll trade out less-worthwhile Summons whenever possible. Fourth Edition seems to have gone out of its way to ensure that PCs can always use abilities that make a difference in combat... I would suspect that a class with a Summon would always have a combat-worthy Summon available, which would pose a threat to any level-appropriate enemy (and, as mentioned above, if the enemy isn't level-appropriate, the book/excerpt instructs you to not use Minions).


I've certainly said no such thing. IMO Minions work great at low levels, but I speculate that the Minion mechanic will cause issues at higher levels. Again, this is speculation, not fact. I may be wrong, but my assessment of the situation is that I am most likely not wrong.

I always worry when people make sure I know that they didn't say things I didn't attribute to them. I hope I'm coming across correctly: I'm trying to detect and analyze a trend. Certain phrases and lines of logic start getting repeated, even if their underlying meaning isn't strictly parallel with the literal interpretation of what's actually said.

I'm glad Epic Minions exist for those who still want their top-end PCs to be able to wade through enemies that still pose credible threats. I'm glad that DMs who find Minions disjarring after a certain point can simply stop using them at that point. I'm also glad DMs who don't like minions can avoid them, and at worst, are exactly where they were with 3rd Edition, using low-end enemies instead. :)


Could you elaborate on this?

I can, but probably not in the way you want. I suspect you'd like me to call out what I feel the style of play is, and I hardly feel qualified to write an all-encompassing treatise on the subject. Short summary of what I was trying to say: When you design a game, you place certain things higher in priority than others, and even if your game is good, it will not succeed at goals you sacrificed to achieve other goals in direct conflict. At any rate, it's best taken to another thead.

MartinHarper
2008-05-27, 07:47 PM
We can then state that there will be one AoE which will rise above the rest. That AoE will be the best Minion-killer available.

Different AoEs will target different defence stats, so there will not be a single best Minion-killer available.

JaxGaret
2008-05-27, 08:00 PM
My thoughts were less on crafting a good analogy, and more on presenting a literal example of something people accept at face value while playing D&D. The crux of most of my frustration is the bizarre and seemingly random selection of things that people protest as being outside their boundaries of disbelief, when I frankly see a lot of bizarre elements to the rules (to say nothing of people's interpretations of them).

There are a lot of bizarre elements to the rules, yes. I like to keep them to a minimum, if possible.


I recall the Minion preview explicitly stating not to use Minions if their relative level is grossly out of proportion to the PCs. The intention for Minions (at least per my interpretations of what I've read, and how I intend to use them) is that they are utilized in an encounter combined with someone bigger and badder. They fight until the first legitimate wound drops them; "1hp" just happens to use fifty-one fewer characters than the description which starts this sentence.

Correct.


If you have one level 26 Minion attacking the village, the problem is not that you've left yourself vulnerable to the mechanical possibility that any attack, no matter how insignificant, might roll a 20 and cause damage. It's that you used a Minion out of context, thus its combat rules (abstracted, as most 4e rules, for ease of play) are no longer appropriate. It would be absurd to treat that character as anything different from the level 20 Elite, or the level 16 Solo creature: a threat orders of magnitude beyond what the village can hope to counter. I don't think anyone would dream of running those creatures any differently; if the issue is with the rules, note that the rules told you not to use Minions where they do not make logical sense.

I did not mean that the Minion would be taking on the town all by himself, but that is by no means an impossibility. Here are a couple of scenarios that could lead to that: all of the Minion's buddies die in battle, but he gets away to wreak havoc elsewhere. He's part of an advance team of Minions sent to attack the town, and he simply is the first one to arrive by a fair margin. You can come up with others, I am sure.

My claim was not that high level Minions would always break verisimilitude, in every fight, period; just that IMO high level Minions will lead to the breakdown of verisimilitude much more frequently than is to my liking.


I really feel that it's an overtly literal interpretation of "this character dies when he takes any damage," applied to the daily life of that creature, that leads to a (wholly unnecessary) suspension of disbelief. If you treat him as "When facing opponents of a level close to the number listed at the top of this sheet, he's basically out of the fight after the first serious injury" you'll find it easier to play along.

That's exactly what the rules say, and that's how I'll play them, of course.


As for my own conjecture, I suspect Summons might exist, but what you consider a "low-level summon" may not. With even high-level casters having only about ten or a dozen powers at hand, it seems likely that either a Summon power will remain power-appropriate as the player levels, or that he'll trade out less-worthwhile Summons whenever possible. Fourth Edition seems to have gone out of its way to ensure that PCs can always use abilities that make a difference in combat... I would suspect that a class with a Summon would always have a combat-worthy Summon available, which would pose a threat to any level-appropriate enemy (and, as mentioned above, if the enemy isn't level-appropriate, the book/excerpt instructs you to not use Minions).

True enough, we won't know until it's full released (or spoilered on the 'net :smallbiggrin:).


I always worry when people make sure I know that they didn't say things I didn't attribute to them.

Nah, don't worry about it, it was just me letting Kompera get to me a bit.


I hope I'm coming across correctly: I'm trying to detect and analyze a trend. Certain phrases and lines of logic start getting repeated, even if their underlying meaning isn't strictly parallel with the literal interpretation of what's actually said.

I try my damndest not to simply parrot the going memes, particularly if they're the slightest bit foolish (unless it's strictly for humor's sake). I strive [and don't always succeed, of course] to make my 2cp as original as I can.


I'm glad Epic Minions exist for those who still want their top-end PCs to be able to wade through enemies that still pose credible threats. I'm glad that DMs who find Minions disjarring after a certain point can simply stop using them at that point. I'm also glad DMs who don't like minions can avoid them, and at worst, are exactly where they were with 3rd Edition, using low-end enemies instead. :)

Indeed, DMs can avoid them, but players can't. I don't always DM. And many DMs use prepublished mods, which will be chock full of Minions, making it difficult to avoid their use without extra work.


I can, but probably not in the way you want. I suspect you'd like me to call out what I feel the style of play is, and I hardly feel qualified to write an all-encompassing treatise on the subject. Short summary of what I was trying to say: When you design a game, you place certain things higher in priority than others, and even if your game is good, it will not succeed at goals you sacrificed to achieve other goals in direct conflict. At any rate, it's best taken to another thead.

I was just curious. Another time, perhaps.

RukiTanuki
2008-05-27, 08:38 PM
JaxGaret: I posed that rant elsewhere as "[4e] Game design conceits and conjecture."

P.S. I try to avoid replying to memetic responses, so it stands to reason you're in the clear. :) They've just exasperated me as much as anyone. Tomorrow I'll probably set up an pool among my friends for how long it takes someone to tell a fellow poster that they might as well play Dynasty Warriors or watch 300. :D

Yahzi
2008-05-27, 08:41 PM
It's stupid for a monster to have 1HP? Why, exactly?
Because another monster, that looks exactly like that one, and has exactly the same abilities, has hundreds of hit points.


How does it work? It works the same way that going out and killing monsters magically teaches you to get better at picking locks and playing the violin.
Actually, I have a house-rule that explains that. It's a really simple house rule, and it explains a lot of D&D's idiotic abstractions. I wish they'd just go ahead and make it a real rule; on the other hand, I don't mind having to make up one house rule per game system.


If you want a system where the rules represent the actual interaction of metal, flesh, and bone, play Riddle of Steel.
But I don't want that system. I want to play D&D. I just want my D&D not to make me stupider every time I play it.

Hence my aforementioned house-rule, which consistently and versimilitudely creates the D&D world in a way my players can understand and interact with.


As is often the case with 4E skeptics, what you are objecting to here is either (a) the status quo
True, we skeptics hoped that 4e would improve on the status quo. I guess we were just being silly.


Under the current rules, the minotaur you describe might be an Epic Level Pseudonatural Paragon Minotaur with 25 class levels,
Those would presumabely show up in its equipment, personal bearing, and/or manner of speech.


Minotaur Commoner, with a single racial hit die.
I don't believe such an absurdity exists, and I rolled a nat' 20. So there.


So when you say "in the good old days you could guess at what power level something was" what you really mean is
What I really mean is, in the good old days when giant minotaurs didn't have 1 hp.


No, the players know that you don't expect them to attack the King, and so they know that you will have pitched the King's guards to be overwhelmingly more powerful than them.
First off, I absolutely expect them to attack the King. They're like that. I just expect them to do it when they think they can pull it off, instead of as an act of random stupidity.


And how do they make the decision about what they're ready to "handle"?
I tell 'em what level the King is. (He's 13th, by the way.) Everybody knows what level everybody else is, because they announce it in their titles. They're proud of it.

True, there are people who lie (either up or down) but still, you get a general feel for these things.


The rules for designing traps, for example, allow the GM to assign them arbitrarily high damage ratings.
The fact that the old rules have always allowed DMs to be arbitraryis not a defense of new rules that encourage DMs to be arbitrary.


That's your experience. In my experience "giving the players responsibility for their own decisions" is often a code for "punishing the players for doing things I don't like or didn't expect".
In your experience as a DM or a player? Either way, I'm sorry to hear that. I wish we lived in the same town, and then I could show you what I meant.

Darn but if that doesn't come off the wrong way when you read it quickly. :smallbiggrin:

Reel On, Love
2008-05-27, 08:51 PM
Because another monster, that looks exactly like that one, and has exactly the same abilities, has hundreds of hit points.
So, one monster goes down easily, while a similar but bigger and tougher monster takes longer to kill.
That's... stupid...?

You know, the PCs look a lot like they did at low levels. But they're much, much tougher to kill.


But I don't want that system. I want to play D&D. I just want my D&D not to make me stupider every time I play it.
If you really can't manage to figure out how some enemies having 1 HP can fit into the game just fine, then it might just be too late.


Those would presumabely show up in its equipment, personal bearing, and/or manner of speech.
Why?
(And why doesn't minionhood show up in equipment, personal bearing, and/or manner of speech?)


What I really mean is, in the good old days when giant minotaurs didn't have 1 hp.
HP. IS. ABSTRACT. Why does it matter if a minotaur has 1 HP, 10 HP, or 40 HP, if the PCs are going to blow through it in one solid hit anyway?


I tell 'em what level the King is. (He's 13th, by the way.) Everybody knows what level everybody else is, because they announce it in their titles. They're proud of it.
Characters in your world are aware of game concepts like "levels"? Well, that's new. Also... special.

You think *some enemies dying easily* is stupid... but characters *knowing what level they are*, that's fine?

JaxGaret
2008-05-27, 08:59 PM
Actually, I have a house-rule that explains that. It's a really simple house rule, and it explains a lot of D&D's idiotic abstractions. I wish they'd just go ahead and make it a real rule; on the other hand, I don't mind having to make up one house rule per game system.

...

Hence my aforementioned house-rule, which consistently and versimilitudely creates the D&D world in a way my players can understand and interact with.

Alright, I'll bite. What's the houserule?

Kompera
2008-05-27, 09:03 PM
AoEs exist in 4e, yes? Is it reasonable to assume that there won't be ONE AoE power in all of 4e?We know that AOEs exist in 4e. We don't know that there will exist an AOE which auto-kills all Minions within the AOE. But you know that, or at least you claim to have certain knowledge that this will exist.

I never said that the Mook Bomb would be a perfect killing spell, did I? No.Revisionist history. Here is what you said:

Or a mage could cast a wide-area low-damage spell that just takes all the minions out. "Hey Wizzie, time for your At-Will Mook Bomb again, eh?"
What definition of "just takes all the minions out" doesn't equate to a perfect Minion killing spell? The context of your words leaves little doubt that you are certain that some spell will be published which will allow auto-kills of Minions via AOE. That may well be, but none of the published spells allow for that mechanic.

MM is still a longer-range Force effect that deals light damage. Sleep still puts enemies to sleep at close range.
Magic Missile (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicMissile.htm) in 3.x allows for auto-hits and auto-damage against up to 5 opponents, with the number being dependent upon the level of the caster. Were Minions to be implemented into 3.x, Magic Missile would be a perfect Minion killer.
Magic Missle in 4e may strike one creature, but requires Attack: +4 vs Reflex to hit. It does not scale to additional missiles with the level of the caster. Magic Missile in 4e is a good way to kill a Minion, just as an attack from a melee type is a good way to kill a Minion. But it'll kill one Minion per round, and only if it hits.
Sleep (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm) in 3.x allows for auto hits, with a saving throw to avoid the effect. If the save is failed, Sleep lasts for 1 round/level. Sleep in 4e requires an Attack: +4 vs Will to hit. On a hit or a miss there is an auto-slow effect, which can be saved against. On a Hit there is also the chance that the creature falls asleep, if it fails it's first saving throw. And the Sleep effect may be saved against on every round.
Vastly different mechanics, and mechanics which allow the Minion mechanics to work as intended side by side with the magic mechanics.

The way that I define the Mook Bomb, yes, it must exist.No, the way you speculate about unpublished spells does not mean that your "Mook Bomb" must exist.

Watch your personal attacks. That's not nice.Watch your snipping of a portion of a sentence out of context to try to act wounded. That's not nice.

What I meant by "just takes all the minions out", and is a reasonable reading of it without being 100% literal, is that it is a spell that is highly effective at killing Minions.

I would never say "there will be a spell that will be an I-win button against Minions", because that's a silly thing to say. I suppose you don't know me from a hole in the wall, but at least give me a little credit.
You did say just that, I'm only taking you at tyour word. The credit I give any person I'm having a discussion with is that they will say what they mean, and not try to use revisionist history to change that meaning later.
So I'll ask again: Are you backpedaling away from your imagined spell which "just takes all the minions out?" Do you wish to retract that statement? I can understand if you made a mistake in scope which you'd like to correct.


"Destroyed" is fluff description?I never used that word. I gave a description of an imagined combat, thus:
"This is exactly like the GM who at the start of a fight with a challenging opponent when the Fighter does 10 damage might say "you scratched him, but he's still standing", while at the end of the fight when the final blow for 10 damage kills the foe might say "You drive your sword through him, and he dies." The same 10 damage is done in both cases, but the difference in the description allows for the abstraction of Hit Points to work within the framework of a dramatic encounter." and later expanded with this:
"So, 1 HP or 100, the abstraction is the same and the play is the same. It's only a failure of imagination or perhaps a too close focus on the mechanics which makes a person fail to appreciate this fact."
And you claimed that I was house ruling or using GM fiat. Which I deny. Adding fluff descriptions to help make the abstraction of HP seem more 'real' is not house ruling, it is good GMing. It does not violate RAW in any way.

JaxGaret
2008-05-27, 09:19 PM
We know that AOEs exist in 4e. We don't know that there will exist an AOE which auto-kills all Minions within the AOE. But you know that, or at least you claim to have certain knowledge that this will exist.
Revisionist history. Here is what you said:

What definition of "just takes all the minions out" doesn't equate to a perfect Minion killing spell? The context of your words leaves little doubt that you are certain that some spell will be published which will allow auto-kills of Minions via AOE. That may well be, but none of the published spells allow for that mechanic.

Fine, what I wrote about it "takes all the minions out" was a bit of hyperbole, yes. I apologize for misleading you so strenuously, and I hereby and henceforth alter it to "takes most of the minions out".


Magic Missile (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/magicMissile.htm) in 3.x allows for auto-hits and auto-damage against up to 5 opponents, with the number being dependent upon the level of the caster. Were Minions to be implemented into 3.x, Magic Missile would be a perfect Minion killer.
Magic Missle in 4e may strike one creature, but requires Attack: +4 vs Reflex to hit. It does not scale to additional missiles with the level of the caster. Magic Missile in 4e is a good way to kill a Minion, just as an attack from a melee type is a good way to kill a Minion. But it'll kill one Minion per round, and only if it hits.
Sleep (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm) in 3.x allows for auto hits, with a saving throw to avoid the effect. If the save is failed, Sleep lasts for 1 round/level. Sleep in 4e requires an Attack: +4 vs Will to hit. On a hit or a miss there is an auto-slow effect, which can be saved against. On a Hit there is also the chance that the creature falls asleep, if it fails it's first saving throw. And the Sleep effect may be saved against on every round.
Vastly different mechanics, and mechanics which allow the Minion mechanics to work as intended side by side with the magic mechanics.

Yes, the mechanics are quite different, as I already stated. The spells themselves are similar, however.


No, the way you speculate about unpublished spells does not mean that your "Mook Bomb" must exist.

Alright then, I bet you ten whole internets that Mook Bomb will exist.


Watch your snipping of a portion of a sentence out of context to try to act wounded. That's not nice.

Are you kidding me? You plainly just called me foolish.


You did say just that, I'm only taking you at tyour word. The credit I give any person I'm having a discussion with is that they will say what they mean, and not try to use revisionist history to change that meaning later.
So I'll ask again: Are you backpedaling away from your imagined spell which "just takes all the minions out?" Do you wish to retract that statement? I can understand if you made a mistake in scope which you'd like to correct.

I already did above, but I'll say again that yes, what I meant was not the way that you are interpreting it, and I can see why you would interpret it that way. A mistake in scope is a good way to put it.


I never used that word.

The RAW does. A Minion that takes damage is destroyed.


I gave a description of an imagined combat, thus:
"This is exactly like the GM who at the start of a fight with a challenging opponent when the Fighter does 10 damage might say "you scratched him, but he's still standing", while at the end of the fight when the final blow for 10 damage kills the foe might say "You drive your sword through him, and he dies." The same 10 damage is done in both cases, but the difference in the description allows for the abstraction of Hit Points to work within the framework of a dramatic encounter." and later expanded with this:
"So, 1 HP or 100, the abstraction is the same and the play is the same. It's only a failure of imagination or perhaps a too close focus on the mechanics which makes a person fail to appreciate this fact."
And you claimed that I was house ruling or using GM fiat. Which I deny. Adding fluff descriptions to help make the abstraction of HP seem more 'real' is not house ruling, it is good GMing. It does not violate RAW in any way.

You may have missed my point, I was talking about the fact that any time a DM describes a Minion that takes damage as not being outright killed, then that DM is either using house rule or DM fiat, since the RAW is that Minions who take damage are "destroyed", which seems to me to pretty unequivocally mean that they die. No?

Kompera
2008-05-27, 09:53 PM
You may have missed my point, I was talking about the fact that any time a DM describes a Minion that takes damage as not being outright killed, then that DM is either using house rule or DM fiat, since the RAW is that Minions who take damage are "destroyed", which seems to me to pretty unequivocally mean that they die. No?
I clearly did miss your point. Mostly because I didn't think we were having a conversation about a GM using fiat to have damage to a Minion not killing it as intended.

I said that a GM could use fluff to describe a miss against a Minion as "you scratched him, but he's still standing", but that's not at all the same as using GM fiat to not have a Minion die when it takes damage.

EvilElitest
2008-05-27, 10:59 PM
No, minions are not "made to die" anymore than the 'master' monsters they come with are.

Actually they are. If i have a hoard of say, goblins attacking mid level Pcs, the goblins are basically fodder, but in a logical sense. They are low level warriors, or and weak monsters. The fact that the PCs can wade through them is logical. The Goblins can later become high level (in theory) they posses the feats, the powers, they can use PC powers, ect. In theory, apart from having a weaker class, they still using the same rules, the world is still consistent



Minions are only expected to die in fights where all the monsters are expected to die anyway- where all the monsters stand and fight to the death and there is no question of retreat. In those cases there's no difference between a minion and anyone else- all the monsters are supposed to die because the expectation in game is that the PCs will win, as in some of them will survive and none of their enemies will.

1) The very idea of having creatures who's sole purpose in game is to die is a shallow one. If you want your creatures to fight to the death, fine, but make it logical, don't make their in game purpose that of useless death. I let the PCs choose how the fight goes, not me
2) If you want to design a fight where the monsters will most likely die, fine, but that isn't any reason to make an absurd rule that reduces the game to mindless inconsistency


Think about it. Every time you DM with a monster and think "what will my PCs do after killing this," you're doing the same thing you complain 4th Edition is with minions. You're expecting, even planning, for your monster to be killed.

No i'm not. I am planning for my monster to fight in a logical fashion as benefiting its abilities and powers. I plan myself in case it dies, but i leave the battle for the PCs. It might escape, they might kill it, he might surrender, he might defeat them, they might flee, ect ect ect. D&D isn't a book, part of the fight is that I the DM don't know what is going to happen, just could happen and how the situation works out, not playing out a pre made story, other wise what is the point of the player's free will. IF i wanted a linear story, i'd write one


Do you actually have any information on how it handles? Have you ever played it? Have you even read anything about it except the snippets that appear here?

I've read the article on it, i've read the two advertisement books that support this idea of PC entiltment and a world that literally revolves around the PCs, and i predicted this video game style game 9 months ago. Minions are nothing more than fodder. They exist specifically to die, with one hit. It is simplistic, and it is stream lined into one style of play, one is inconsistent and seems to imitate a game like Final Fantasy, or a movie like Kill BIll


How on earth do you have enough information to be so confident that it is "shallow," "simplistic," and "like a bad action movie" when you haven't even read all the rules yet?
Um, i've read all of the information revealed, and the point of minion rule. The very nature of the minion rule is one that is, as i said before, shallow, simplistic, and follows a formula that can be found in action movies like Kill Bill or 300, where enemies are simply mindless masses with a few bosses, or games like Dynasty warriors. Considering the many others problems with 4E, the game looks and feels like a video game


Dude. "Shallow" does not mean the same thing as "poorly thought out." You can't just keep using those two words as interchangeable insults for a game you've never played and remain intellectually honest.

Actually i think it is shallow as an idea, poorly thought out because of consistently issues.


Take. A. Chill. Pill.
rather insulting there isn't it? Could it be possible i actually have a logical base for my argument


You hate this game far more than the amount of information you have on it could possibly justify.
Why not? You said that nine months ago when i predicted this minion rule would happen and the differences between, and look what happened. I see no reason why my conclusion are wrong, because considering they are flat out supported by all of the evidence at hands, this isn't a question of my claims being wrong, is that if it is right or wrong


Unless you're an embittered game designer who's been playtesting this thing for a year and decided they hate it forever and resigned from Wizards rather than have their name on it, you simply do not have the information to be such an authority on it.

I'm sorry, this is frankly pathetic, and i generally like you. Is it possible for me to just not like the fact that my game is being ruined by becoming a video game/action movie styled game, with all of the shallow problems involved as of such, instead of having some sort of hidden motive


I think you're getting way too heated up about this. It's causing you to make outright false statements. For starters, I suspect you don't even know how it plays from your own experience, but I could be wrong about that.
false statements? This is extremly insulting claim. What false data have I produced. I've read the details of teh rules, and i've draw conclusions based on the data showed


For a matter of absolute fact, they were working on this game before 300 came out, so they can't have drawn their inspiration from that source.

1) I said plays like 300, IE a bunch of super absurd "hero" who slaughter a mass mindless hoard in true minion fashion (through i don't think 4E will have the racial themes)
2) Technically tehy didn't finish producing it until after 300, but i wast talking about play style


But in 3rd Edition, you can't make enemies significantly weaker than the heroes who nonetheless threaten them in groups. There are a lot of very good stories with enemies that the hero could easily beat one on one, but not in large groups.
1) I've never said 3E was perfect, and as i said a while ago, i like the idea of revamping combat actually, i've already said that. I don't like this method for doing it
2) D&D is not a story, but a game
3) more to the point, even in 3E, while the style isn't perfect, just give the PCs a small group of weaker, but still nasty leveled guys (8 level 10 for a party of level 16 for example) or just use powerful creatures


Like Lord of the Rings. In Lord of the Rings, Boromir kills like twenty orcs, but eventually the orcs kill him. In 3rd Edition, it is very hard to build a fighter capable of reliably killing about 20 orcs before dying without making them almost completely invulnerable to orcs (AC too high to hit).
Which makes sense. Remember, Boromir killed them a bit by bit, had some help, but most importantly, he took a lot of hits. He was pierced by a hell of a lot of arrows before finally dying (after his shield and sword were broken. Also more importantly, the idea of one guy having trouble fighting a hoard, well, it makes logical sense. Really it does, because when you fight a hoard of dudes, it is logically going to be harder than fighting a single guy. Its basic logic. Even in movies and books where they do this badly, a single guy slaughtering hoards gets boring quickly. Bororomir would simply take a lot of hits, killing a lower level orc a round, but then running out (maybe avoiding a few hits in the first few rounds thanks to hte shield but still)





In 3rd Edition, there are three kinds of monsters- monsters too big for the party to fight at all, monsters of roughly equal power level to party members, and monsters so weak they can't even harm the party, let alone be a major threat.

The third type is good for nothing but cannon fodder to be "mechanically slaughtered."
The third type was so weak simply because of the lack of level, not because of inherent weakness



In 4th Edition we see a fourth type- monsters that the heroes can kill easily, but that can also hurt the heroes before they die. Even in single combat, a minion has a decent chance of inflicting at least one injury on an enemy PC. They're not likely to get a second shot, though- they're not good enough to threaten PCs that seriously. In a group, on the other hand, they're just as big a danger as a single huge ferocious monster the entire party would have to work hard to take out.
And yet here is a shallow problem, in that having the monster exist solely as an enemy in game is a problem. Monsters in 3E are nasty, and are often used as enemies, not complaint there, but minions exist for the sole purpose of acting as PC enemies. From an in game perspective they have no purpose other than acting as minions, where as in 3E, as broken and badly orgnized as it might be, still maintained the consistent system of weaker enemies being simply lower level/weaker monsters.

In short, minions bring abotu a PC centric in game world, which apart from being a metagaming system, it is a shallow one as well


No ones stopping you from telling all of your players what each and every minion looks like. Maybe the orc on the left has an interesting scar on his left cheek. Maybe the one on the one on the right is named Krock. Maybe the middle guy is secretly gay and has a crush on Krock. Whatever, I don't really give a damn about the personal lives of 4E orc minion-can-actually-hit-me fodder, or 3E orc sucks-so-hard-I-hate-how-hes-wasting-our-time fodder. And I doubt many players stop to consider such trivial things as "maybe that orc has a sister named suzie", etc. Its kind of implied that the things the PC's are fighting have a life beyond the current encounter.
Your missing the point. This isn't about description, or personality details. It is about the world itself. in 3E, the monsters were still just other beings in teh world with class levels, who happened to be weak. THe game was centered about the PCs, but the world was not. in 4E, the very world itself is focus on the how the monsters effect the PCs specifically, which is both metagaming and shallow



They're no more a demonstration of PC centric worlds than the HP system itself is. Both are abstractions to assist the speed and quality of gameplay.

i wouldn't say so. Minions are beings who exist simply to provide a "dramatic" fight for Pcs, while HP is a way for everybody in the world to measure their life power you might say (regardless on what it repersents specifically, it still repersents how much hurt you sustain)



I would suggest this is a failure in your own imagination, or an insistence to not look at the rules as a set of tools, but as a straightjacket.
sign, not this absurd argument again. I want consistent rules to make a believable, logical, consistent world, with logical consistent rules. I find the idea of creatures who are mechanically breed to act as battle fodder shallow and simplistic. THat isn't a lack of imagination, nor a desire of straitjacket, so much as you attempting to discredit my option without actually backing anything up there



I'm going to second Crow here... where is your 3.5 Zombie Template that can let 50 zombie humans challenge a group of level 6 characters without taking hours and hours above and beyond what it would take in 4th edition with the minion rules? Where is the human guard that can meaningfully contribute to a fight between the level 10 PCs and a CR 10 enemy using dozens of them without insta-killing the party? Also notice I said the Minion rules would aid such plots, not be required for them. The fact that I CAN represent 50 zombies as a credible threat to high level PCs without overwhelming them with a clever redesign of the Zombie template doesn't mean it's a heck of a lot less work for the same ultimate end to use the Minion version of zombies. Less work means more time available to the DM to spend on plots and characters, rather than mechanics.
1) I'm kinda confused on what your asking actually
2) It seems you having a confusion on the matter of tactics, because if the Dm is smart and uses them well, even normal low level NPC classed people can challenge PC parties (see tucker's monsters)



What, pray tell, is an example of a good action movie to you? If you give a title I'd be shocked if I find that it is without a single faceless character offed without fanfare or effort.
1)Excalibur, where even the random people are pretty interesting. Or the first matrix, where the world is actually consistent. Gladiator is pretty good, but i find the fight scenes extremly laughable, but with interesting story generally and i like Russel Crow
2) your missing the point. Namly that D&D isn't a movie/book/video game but a table top RPG. A consistent logical world is what i want
3) and even with facless


If your response is "I don't like any action movies" then maybe you should consider that perhaps your sensibilities in terms of what is shallow and simplistic are fairly rare, and admit that the inclusion of a system which allows for something which you don't personally like is something that can ultimately benefit the game to those who do, since it's easier to houserule something you don't like out than to homebrew something you wished existed.
1) Actually i don't generally like action movies, they tend to get boring because they lack depth most of the time (kill bill, 300, 3:10 to yuma, Alexander, Troy ect). Even the good ones like Hero become extremly boring after a the first 3 over the top fight scenes because there isn't any suspense


The people who don't like minions like them for reasons that are specific to their playing style: they don't like the idea of NPCs that go down in one shot or they're not into the large-scale battles versus a lot of mooks that have no depth. No amount of berating them is going to change that.

i don't mind that so much as inconsistent and PC Centric worlds that revolve around half a dozen people



But 4E minions aren't just fodder. They're a real and present threat. They're 1/4 of the threat a "normal" monster is, in fact.
I mean in the existing to be brutally murdered by PCs by mechanical creature actually.


How are you STILL missing what you've been repeatedly told? I'll try again.
4E MINIONS ARE DANGEROUS. CHARACTERS CAN NOT IGNORE THEM WITH IMPUNITY AND SLAUGHTER THEM EN MASSE WITHOUT CONCERN.
IT'S LOW-LEVEL 3E MONSTERS THAT PCs BECOME ABLE TO TAKE ON DOZENS OR HUNDREDS AT A TIME AND NOT WORRY.
Details, i'm talking about the idea of the rule. Nit pick, random people actually can be a threat in Dynsasty Warriors, but regardless. THe point is that it reminds of of DW because in DW the random people aren't so much people as hoards to be slaughtered by your absurdly designed fighter of epic doom (actaully if it wasn't for the grind and the cliches, i wouldn't mind the games) with a few "named" enemies existing as a special set to fight your might Player separate from teh minions



But not Aragorn, or the other heroes. And that's an amusing inconsistency, since the Elf n' Dwarf rack up kill counts in the 20s
1)Aragorn takes on hoards only twice, at Helm' deep and Pelanor fields, the former we don't known his kill count and in the later he came a pretty opportune moment to fight. Also no kill count mentioned
2) Gimli and Legolas kill about 42/41 orcs respectfully, with the aid of a fortress, range, caves, ambushes, heavy fighting and even then they got wounds


Let's look at 1 and 2. We can throw out agreeing/accordant, as it's not relevant. Compatible? It's a bit unwieldy and not quite applicable. Not self-contradictory? An unimportant or relatively weak character is always statted as a minion. That's not terribly contradictory.
1) And here is a problem. In a logical world, the importance of the character shouldn't be deiced in game by their relation to the players but their general effect on teh world around them
2) We have half a dozen dudes who get the classes, the cool powers (that are kinda handed to them but what ever) the abilities, and what not, and the rest of the lot are well.........only as good as dramatics demand. This is extremly inconsistent from a world perspective, doubly so because D&D isn't a drama game. If you want to play a drama game, sure, make your story the way you want, but it shouldn't be the default for D&D, which doesn't have a central story line. In 3E, for all of its many faults, everybody still followed the same rules, just some people were actually weaker


Shallow. Not having depth. Welp, you support using low levelled enemies in place of minions. You have indicated that you consider this a good solution. How does htis promote depth, compared to saying "They can do damage, but can not take a hit"?
shallow in that we have a bunch of guys who's purpose from an in game perspective is acting as fodder for the PCs. I'm not against hoards of weak minions, just against the minion mechanic.



Reality isn't defined by stats. Reality is expressed through stats. Your character isn't strong because they have 14 str; They have 14 str because they are strong.
no, what they can do, how they can do it, and the manner in which they can do its is decided by their 14 str.
Stats are how you effect teh world

A wizard gets his spells by his int, his spell book, and effects the world around him because of it

People with high con can avoid drowning

ect ect ect



(Actually this is an opinion, but I think we were playing the game where we phrase opinions as absolute facts. Did I score lots of points? I'm sure you did.)
Ruttee-3, EE Pii, Manchester-0


That aside, DnD is a game, you're correct. Always has been.

You know what it's not? A simulator.
I fail to see why not actually, bad rules and balence non withstanding. I rather liked the 2E DMG view of it which supports the idea of a logical, and consistent world



Sure, you can feel sympathy and empathy. That doesn't make them real, nor deserving of the rights to life, liberty, and happiness/booze/sex that any actual human being is. There can be a use to it, on reflection. But that use is effectively personal horror. Given that DnD pretty much never treats its enemies as people, and certainly not to generate that feeling of "Oh my God, what am I doing to these people?" though, it's something of a moot point given the system, isn't it?

Well i think both 3E and 4E are guilty of this, but 4E far more so, but i know by reading 2E a big empathsis is put on making them act like real intellegent creatures, rather than just entertainment for the PCs



...They already are. This just goes on to make faceless mooks viable threats beyond first level.
There is a rule saying goblins have to be faceless mooks?



No, he isn't following the same rules. He gains XP at your whim, unless you proceed to roll up his every fight, and stat every encounter and ally he's had. If you abstract the point from 1st level (Or first hit dice! Monsters don't come out as fully formed killin machines!) to wherever the NPCs are now, you have in fact, not played them by the same rules. And that's okay, because doing that would be horrendously cumbersome.

Actually, in theory, if your DM is omnipotent, he would be gaining exp in the normal manner. Because of the fact taht you DM is limited, this isn't the case, but if the NPC in question is somehow enough of the Dm's focus that he should care about his Exp, then gain his level in a logical manner. For example, if the Pc fight a guard one day and he is level 3 fighter, then the next he is a level 8 fighter, it is inconsistent and badly done



You keep saying it's inconsistent. I have made a solid case against. You may now proceed to demonstrate the inconsistency, rather then repeating it for the umpteenth time.
thanks for....not actually countering anything i've written


DW gets dull? That notwithstanding, your comparison is wrong for a simple, demonstrable reason.

Minions aren't intended to be the only enemy you fight.
1) After the first three times you slaughter mass hoard, the appeal isn't interesting. Same way that house of flying daggers got boring after the 5th over the top fight scene
2) actually you have the named dudes in DW, who aren't minions, officers and the like



I don't use memes. Well, no, I don't use the same type of meme you do. You're using viral, inaccurate portrayals of a system to evoke a cheap feeling of disgust by comparing 4e to something you hope will be despised. I use viral mutations of pop culture to evoke a cheap laugh. Not terribly comparable.
Actually your just making the claim of my doing so, and as per normal, are avoid adressing the actual question in any sort of detail but.....



Oh this is the last one. My masochism at banging my head on the brick wall that is you is /quite/ satisfied.
ah the ignoring defense, always proves a point that



That, frankly, is crap. The 1 HP thing is, as has been repeated ad nauseum, an abstraction. A simplification for the players and the DM. Not a reflection on some warped and twisted deities deliberately designing life whose sole purpose is to be thrown away on the end of some 'hero's' sword.
1) 1 HP is that getting one hit regardless of cause, will cause you to die. HP means your guy is hurt, through the specific nature is not detailed, it still means simply getting hit
2) Um, he has one HP, and seems mechanically bred to fight the PC as.....a minion. in 3E if you had a monster, you could use it as a minion but they weren't meant to be like that



Also EE, did you see my earlier challenge? Or did you just ignore it?

eh?



So in 4e Minions have 1HP. So what? In 3.x minions (lower case, no mechanic associated with the word in these editions) are lower level and therefore are mechanically weaker by design in order that they will fall quicker before the blades and spells of the characters. You can even use the same terminology: By adding lower level Orcs to the fight against the Ogre Boss the GM created "mechanically altered beings whose sole purpose was to die as fodder."

Difference? Zero.
The difference is in the fact that low level monsters are simply that, low level monsters who happen to be fighting the PCs, while minions' purpose is tied to the PCs, IE PC Centric world.



Ah, Rutee. You don't know how much amusement I got from reading this tight piece of logic from you. I agree with it 100%, of course. But it reminded me of the time you went on for 16 pages about how the Paladin class couldn't possibly work in an adventuring party. After admitting that you'd never played a Paladin and that your groups had never had a Paladin. And all the while refusing to accept the statements from the many people who said that they had played Paladins and that there weren't really any issues with them. You know, the direct contradiction from people with experience against those who are simply theorycrafting.
Oh i remember that, i have to say, it was, um, a unique experience. But lets not dwell too much on other thread, partly because it is rather nasty, and partly because i reminds me too much of bad times



They have a strong flavour. If you like that flavour, then they're great. If you don't they are terrible. Minions (and mooks) are something that one sees in cinema and superhero comics. They rarely turn up in books and the sort that do were generally handled perfectly well in 1ed by totally different means.
What flavor? Facless mooks? I fail to see the appeal



If you want 300 style battles or even Jackson's idea of Middle Earth, then minions are a perfectly good mechanic. If you're looking for something more grounded in "reality" they suck. Pay your money, take your choice.


I'm not a fan of ether, hence my complaint, through i don't think PJ is awful, i think 300 was simply an awful movie and no game should try to emulate its sheer vileness




A pack of wild animals: Here, I would probably use 1 actual mob (to represent the head of the pack) and all the rest minions. This is an interesting encounter because this pack could hit them almost anytime when they're out in the wilderness, and in fact would probably prefer to wait until they're weak, off-guard, and about to enter an extended rest.
wait, this is interesting, explain this more please


-Pitchfork Mob: Here, the HP abstraction exists not to reflect how weak they are, but how difficult it would be for the PC's to defend themselves bloodlessly. If they attack the mob while they're in their individually combat-ineffective mob-mentality, they'll find some of the individuals in the mob become ready for combat, thus upgrading themselves to actual creatures.



-Non-combatants: This is an extention of the Pitchfork Mob thing. A non-com is someone who might throw a punch or two but ultimately doesn't want to fight. They slightly differ from the standard minion, though: When you deal 1 damage to them, they don't go down (in game: removed from fight), but instead get serious about fighting (in game: upgraded to actual creature). The mechanical advantage is, before the non-com is actually in the fight, I don't have to roll their damage.
So you'd be in "minion mode' then when you actually wanted to fight you'd turn into a real monster



People are okay using a system whose core rules enable a person, without using magic, to walk away from 50-foot drops and wading into lava with no effective reduction in any physical or mental capability, but when the ruleset introduces skilled, lethal enemies who nonetheless are removed from combat by successful attacks against their person, things are unrealistic?! Furthermore, these people would prefer using unskilled enemies that literally could not hit the hero if he were standing still? Am I really hearing, "Consistency means that anyone who can hit you can also endure an explosion without dying"?
you might learn more about "these people" if you know, actually talk to them

This isn't so much a matter of realism in the sense of "I can absorb more hits than a normal human could" so much as realism in the "logical world" sort of sense and inconsistency of the world. If one guy walk into lava and not instantly die, i expect other people could do it as well some how

from
EE

wodan46
2008-05-27, 10:59 PM
Lets stop jabbering and look at some numbers/

Angel of Valor(Level 8 Soldier, worth 350 Exp)
Defensive Stuff: HP 88, AC 24, Fortitude 22, Reflex 20, Will 19
Offensive Stuff: +13 vs. AC, 10.5 damage (average of 1d8+6)

Legion Devil Veteran (Level 16 Minion, worth 350 Exp)
Defensive Stuff: HP 1, AC 34, Fortitude 30, Reflex 29, Will 29*
Offensive Stuff: +21 vs. AC, 7 damage
*This includes the +2 to all defenses given when next to another Legion Devil, which is probable.

If you meet these at Level 8:
Essentially, you have a 50% chance of hitting the Angel and a 5% chance of hitting the Devil. By the time you hit the Devil once, you will have hit the Angel 10 times, which will probably kill it given damage values.

If you meet these at Level 16
The Legion Devil will get hit 50% of the time, and thus die in around 2 attacks. Against the Angel, you will hit every time, and by such a large margin that the attack would believably be a Critical Hits, and the Angel will be utterly unable to hit you except on a 20.

Conclusion: The Level 16 Minion is harder to hit to the same degree that the Level 8 Soldier is harder to kill, making them equal in Exp, but fighting them in the wrong encounter would have huge mechanical problems. Fighting a Minion early would result in an enemy that dies in 1 hit but which is very hard to land while the Minion scores damage on every attack. Fighting the Soldier late would result in a creature that can't land attacks on you at all, but is inexplicably able to survive as well as a creature that can land attacks on you 50-50. In the first case, the Minion would be too tough and not fun to fight. In the second case, the Soldier would be too easy and not fun to fight.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-27, 11:11 PM
Details, i'm talking about the idea of the rule. Nit pick, random people actually can be a threat in Dynsasty Warriors, but regardless. THe point is that it reminds of of DW because in DW the random people aren't so much people as hoards to be slaughtered by your absurdly designed fighter of epic doom (actaully if it wasn't for the grind and the cliches, i wouldn't mind the games) with a few "named" enemies existing as a special set to fight your might Player separate from teh minions


1) "The idea of the rule" matters far less than how it actually works. If a rule makes X and Y happen, the rule encourages and supports X and Y. Therefore, 3E supports Dynasty Warriors (where high-level characters can wade through hordes--seriously, some high-level characters can kill an abritrarily high number of weak enemies) while 4E's minion rules don't.

2) The actual idea of the 4E minion rules is that "minions" might be easy to kill, but they CAN hurt you--a lot. Remember, being a "minion" says almost NOTHING about a creature's personality. Each of those orc minions might have an orc wife and five fat little orc babies. It represents what happens in combat.

You have absolutely NO leg to stand on, here. The hokey "it's dynasty warriors!" line applies perfectly to 3E minions (which are lower-level monsters/NPCs) and not at all to 4E minions.

Ozymandias
2008-05-27, 11:37 PM
I'm fairly sure that EE's argument is that having minions is indicative of inconsistency in the game world (between the PCs and the monsters).

I would argue that he's actually right about that.

The other contingent of his argument is that it's not logical.

About that, he's completely wrong.

It's logical because it enhances the game. It's much more efficient; the DM can ascertain how much depth the situation requires and partition it out; every minion is an ad hoc construct. There's no reason at all to introduce turgid depths of character and complexity that will never amount to anything of consequence in the name of "consistency". There's a lot of cost and no gain to anyone except the DM, who could just do that wholly independent of the rules. You, EE, may not like that you don't intuitively find the disparity between monsters and PCs logical, but it's not being implemented to emulate video games; that's a false correlation. It's being implemented because most people prefer it. You may enjoy sacrificing time twisting the rules to create class-leveled mooks which are, for purposes of the narrative, identical: most people don't.

So yes, it is shallow, in that it is much simpler.

Guess what: to almost everyone, depth isn't always good.

Although drowning does save lives.

Kompera
2008-05-27, 11:52 PM
EvilElitest, you very much need to learn how to attribute quotes. In your last post you quoted at least two people, and possibly many more, and attributed every statement to Dervag.

Your argument seems to boil down to this: You dislike a mechanic which makes mooks/minions(lower case)/thugs/sidekicks die with a single blow.

What you ignore is that all of those types died with a single blow, in almost every case, in prior editions. The 4E Minion mechanic merely makes it easier for the GM to set up battles and run them smoothly without having to worry about rolling HP for 10 level 3 minions (lower case) for a fight involving 5 characters of level 10 vs. a BBEG, a Dragon (trope, not mythical fire breathing reptile) and the aforementioned minions (lower case).
In 3.x, how many of those level 3 minions would survive an attack from the level 10 Fighter? The level 10 Rogue? The level 10 Wizard? In almost all cases they would be one shot kills, or even killed en mass. And yet this fact does not seem to offend you, while the one shot kill Minion (mechanic) in 4e does seem to offend you.

So let me ask this: Aside from your seeming inability to relate the levels of abstraction involved in HP, what harm is done to the game or to game play by removing a lot of extra work and record keeping from both the pre-game labors of the GM and the combat with all the players present? When the result in play is the same, why not eliminate unnecessary work, allowing the GM to devote more time to all of the other time soaks of campaign design and development?

The single most prevalent reason for the end of a RPG campaign in my 20+ years of play has been the GM no longer having the time to devote to the game. Not the players. The GM. Because the vast majority of the work involved in the game is on the GM's shoulders, the players can show up with their characters and play, but the GM needs to have prepared something for each session. And combat is the part of the game, again in my experience over 20+ years of play, which bogs down most often, leaving players bored in between their turns and with the GM frantically trying to keep track of all of the NPC records. So I applaud, loudly and with enthusiasm, any mechanic which removes both pre-game labor and in-game record keeping for the GM. Especially a mechanic which does not change how the game plays in fact, but simply boils down how things worked in prior versions of the game into a more simple and elegant solution.

I can't see any harm in this or any valid difference, at all. But if you see bogeyman which I am missing, I'll wait to hear about them from you.

Breaw
2008-05-28, 12:49 AM
Here is a specific example from a game I played a few nights ago. We head to a town in the south of the province to investigate some attacks that recently occurred to towns bordering the forest. Extra plothooks and details omitted because they don't matter. At an alarm is sounded from the church steeple, something has been spotted coming.

Out of the forest comes 1 large caster spider, 2 largish melee spiders, 6 orcs riding spiders, and 10 small spiders. We are a party of 4 level 5 characters.

I immediately get on a roof (I know, not all that effective) and start shooting the minions. Why? Because they have 4ish hp and I (longbow ranger) will likely be able to take out 2 a round while the 2 fighter types can focus their stronger single attacks on the big guys (no AoE in the party). Is it very likely that the small spiders will hit my allies? No. Is it still better for me to take them out, to reduce the number of rolls and fort saves they need to make? Probably.

I'm not even going to tell you how it turned out, it doesn't matter. Let's look for a moment at what dynamics the fight took and what that meant to us the party.

The small spiders were a smaller threat, but because I was probably the best suited for dealing with them (and I could probably make the biggest impact by doing so), so I went after them. What would have happened if they had 1 hp rather than 4 hp? Well if would have meant that rather than me 1 shotting them 6 times out of 8 I would have 1 shot them every time I connected.

Does me hitting the small spider but only winging it (and therefore shooting it a second time that round) really add to my playing experience? I'd venture to say no.

Would the fight have been more interesting if those little spiders had specific abilities that aided their tougher allies, and were actually able to hit my allies a lot of the time? I think so.

For those of you complaining about the minion system, I do understand your knee jerk reaction. But, they have ONE HP!!! I know, it's weird. But consider it instead as a tool they have developed for DMs. Now when DMs want the fight to include some high power and some low power opponents, they don't need to worry about balancing a bunch of different leveled monsters and worrying that the weaker ones will simply be ignored because they don't have a hope in hell of hitting the PCs. Instead there are SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED lower power monsters that have abilities that compliment the beefier guys and go down easy if the players decide that they are a priority.

Many fights already play out the way they would if minions had 1 HP. My ranger is a bad example, as with no compound bow his minimum damage is typically 2. However, for anyone with decent strength wielding a greatsword, damage typically doesn't need to be rolled for mooks, you're talking about minimum damage of 6 (with 16 str). Does it really matter if the HP is 1 or 4?

Now as far as the 'But that means a luck level 1 can take down a level 20 minion if they roll a 20!!!' you're just being dense. There is no reason whatsoever that that should ever happen. Minions are a tool that is being developed for the DMs convenience. Feel free to not use them, and CERTAINLY feel free not to use them in stupid ways.

If it helps you, make them several levels lower challenge rating than they are listed, or better yet consider that they are always listed as a 'swarm' and can only be found in groups of 5. Sure one of the PCs might get lucky and 1 shot one of them in the first round, but the remaining 4 are likely going to tpk you in the next few rounds.

Minions are already being used in DnD. All that is happening to them is that they are being given a bit more purpose (rather than just being bodies in the way that will never hit you) and their HP is 1, rather than 'might as well be 1'.

Abardam
2008-05-28, 01:42 AM
Actually they are. If i have a hoard of say, goblins attacking mid level Pcs, the goblins are basically fodder, but in a logical sense. They are low level warriors, or and weak monsters. The fact that the PCs can wade through them is logical. The Goblins can later become high level (in theory) they posses the feats, the powers, they can use PC powers, ect. In theory, apart from having a weaker class, they still using the same rules, the world is still consistent Unless there is an explicit rule that says, "Monsters that defeat the PCs get X experience" or something like that, they can't, unless the DM says so. Similarly, nothing is stopping the DM from turning a minion into an NPC with class levels.


1) The very idea of having creatures who's sole purpose in game is to die is a shallow one. If you want your creatures to fight to the death, fine, but make it logical, don't make their in game purpose that of useless death. I let the PCs choose how the fight goes, not meTheir purpose is to provide a challenge for the PCs. Their purpose may be to die, but it is not a useless death. I don't know where you're getting the idea that the PCs can defeat them with zero expenditure of resources. I also don't know where you're getting the idea that minions are mindless lemmings. PCs can interact with minions beyond combat (e.g. diplomacy, leadership, discussing tactics, bluffing them)

Also, what's so inconsistent about monsters dying in one hit? Is it inconsistent that some guys are just tougher than others? Maybe everyone should just have the same hp, then.

Helgraf
2008-05-28, 02:01 AM
That, frankly, is crap. The 1 HP thing is, as has been repeated ad nauseum, an abstraction. A simplification for the players and the DM. Not a reflection on some warped and twisted deities deliberately designing life whose sole purpose is to be thrown away on the end of some 'hero's' sword.
1) 1 HP is that getting one hit regardless of cause, will cause you to die. HP means your guy is hurt, through the specific nature is not detailed, it still means simply getting hit
2) Um, he has one HP, and seems mechanically bred to fight the PC as.....a minion. in 3E if you had a monster, you could use it as a minion but they weren't meant to be like that

Yeah, I notice you quote only one part of what I said and completely ignore the rest of the argument. I've used liberal bolding and underlining since italics don't work in quotes below for emphasis.



Hell, that 1 HP. You grok, I presume, what hit points represent. They're not a tally of how many times you get a sword run through your guts, except perhaps for the hugest creatures. A sword in the heart, single hit will kill pretty much anybody who doesn't have redundant organs or some other handwavium. Hit points are another abstraction entirely. If you want to worry about the difference between nicking wounds/fatiguing wounds and actual life-threatening wounds, then try d20 Modern or Spycraft 2.0 or a system that seperates it into two pools - Vitality and Wounds (or insert your chosen names here) - Wounds, you pretty much universally have a flat number of, and when attacks bite into your wounds (typically through a critical hit in these systems), yes, you get injured and can die very quickly.
Now, bringing that back. HP aren't Wounds, at least not for typical medium-sized humanoids. They're much more like the Vitality half of the prior equation, that abstract combination of willpower, pain tolerance, morale, stubbornness, et cetera that keeps you going.


So, having said that, does that mean the 4th Editiion 1 HP minion must, therefore, be an inveterate coward. No. It's a simple acceptance of the fact that a mob is strong not through the strength of the individual, but through the fact that it is, in fact, a mob. They're all still people, with names, lives, et cetera.

But let's face it. Any one of them is going down with one solid attack. That's as true in 3rd edition and 3.5 as it is here. So, frankly, why bother tracking variable HP for each and every member of the mob. If it's important for you as the GM to have some members of the mob not be dead, but simply casualties, then you decide that's the case. They're still unconscious (barring someone using a healing surge or similiar ability on their behalf). They're still out of the fight, once they're struck.

But the big difference? They're not utterly useless until you land that decisive blow. You get people - yeah, I use that word deliberately - who still contribute meaningfully to the fight as long as they're still standing, and the minion rule whereby a missed attack doesn't do any damage regardless of how it normally would work means you can't autocheese them with blast/AoE effects.

nagora
2008-05-28, 05:08 AM
Does me hitting the small spider but only winging it (and therefore shooting it a second time that round) really add to my playing experience? I'd venture to say no.

This is obviously subjective, but I'd say yes. Any failed attack wastes time and increases your danger of being attacked and poisoned, so it's more exciting; it builds tension.


Would the fight have been more interesting if those little spiders had specific abilities that aided their tougher allies, and were actually able to hit my allies a lot of the time? I think so.

They were aiding their tougher allies. You, for example, were wasting arrows and time on them because you were worried about saving throws if they did hit. The fact that you were doing that shows that they were in fact having an effect on the battle.


For those of you complaining about the minion system, I do understand your knee jerk reaction. But, they have ONE HP!!! I know, it's weird. But consider it instead as a tool they have developed for DMs. Now when DMs want the fight to include some high power and some low power opponents, they don't need to worry about balancing a bunch of different leveled monsters and worrying that the weaker ones will simply be ignored because they don't have a hope in hell of hitting the PCs.

I know I'm coming at this from 1ed, but that's never been an issue for me. Apart from anything else, swarms of opponents can simply overrun you by sheer mass and slit your throat when you're down (in 1ed). Now, that seems to me a more reasonable way of justifying the presense of 40 orcs with a Type VI demon (to pick an example at random:smallwink:) than the very abstract minion rules.

Once place where I have used a sort of minion rule is in really mass combat - with thousands of people and orcs on each side. Damage was then done to units rather than individuals, with the high-level creatures taking only a share of the damage done to their unit. Every time the unit suffered x damage (where x reflected the hit points of an individual) the unit's attacking strength went down until eventually only any high-level leaders remained. That worked in 1ed for me and again seems like a more "realistic" way of doing it.

And by "realistic" I mean "doesn't make the players feel like they're playing a game or using a spreadsheet", not "real world", although that's where the grounding comes from.


Many fights already play out the way they would if minions had 1 HP. My ranger is a bad example, as with no compound bow his minimum damage is typically 2. However, for anyone with decent strength wielding a greatsword, damage typically doesn't need to be rolled for mooks, you're talking about minimum damage of 6 (with 16 str). Does it really matter if the HP is 1 or 4?

No, quite true. The issue for me is the scaling of otherwise perfectly reasonable, tough, opponents to fit that template.

"Yesterday, I was a 45hp monster,
But now the players have leveled up
And I'm standing in the rain with one hit point.
Man, I got me them minion blues."


Minions are already being used in DnD. All that is happening to them is that they are being given a bit more purpose (rather than just being bodies in the way that will never hit you) and their HP is 1, rather than 'might as well be 1'.

I agree on everything in that paragraph, dispite not necessarily agreeing that it's a good idea to extend the concept any further.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-28, 05:11 AM
No, quite true. The issue for me is the scaling of otherwise perfectly reasonable, tough, opponents to fit that template.

Hit points are still an abstraction. The characters doing damage to a "minion" with 1 HP is an abstraction. There is no "scaling" going on in-character. The creature is the same creature; the PCs just cut it down with relative ease.

wodan46
2008-05-28, 08:40 AM
As apparently no one seemed to notice the first time, here I go again:

Angel of Valor(Level 8 Soldier, worth 350 Exp)
Defensive Stuff: HP 88, AC 24, Fortitude 22, Reflex 20, Will 19
Offensive Stuff: +13 vs. AC, 10.5 damage (average of 1d8+6)

Legion Devil Veteran (Level 16 Minion, worth 350 Exp)
Defensive Stuff: HP 1, AC 34, Fortitude 30, Reflex 29, Will 29*
Offensive Stuff: +21 vs. AC, 7 damage
*This includes the +2 to all defenses given when next to another Legion Devil, which is probable.

One can see that encountering the Minion as part of a Level 8 encounter would result in it hitting too often, but probability wise be just as hard to kill as the Soldier. Encountering the Soldier as part of a Level 16 encounter, it would not be able to hit you at all, but take too long to die as you get don't get a damage bonus or critical hit for going way over AC.

In short, for High Level Minions, scoring a hit on them means you've found a hole in their defenses and casually land a critical hit on them.

nagora
2008-05-28, 09:25 AM
{Scrubbed}

Reel On, Love
2008-05-28, 12:47 PM
From the horse's ass mouth:


It's hard to see how changing an opponent's HP to 1 is not describable as scaling it. It's an obvious kludge.

I said that there's no scaling going on *in character*. I'm not sure why you have an issue with out-of-characer scaling, seeing how it can only be a good thing (if Orcs just have 2 HD, say, they stop being relevant when the players have X levels; this way, they don't).

Dan_Hemmens
2008-05-28, 01:16 PM
I said that there's no scaling going on *in character*. I'm not sure why you have an issue with out-of-characer scaling, seeing how it can only be a good thing (if Orcs just have 2 HD, say, they stop being relevant when the players have X levels; this way, they don't).

At the risk of putting words into his mouth I think nagora has a problem with OOC scaling because he views D&D primarily as a simulation of a world operating on consistent, understandable rules. He expects an Orc to be an Orc to be an Orc, unless they have got some specific, IC reason to be different (I'm assuming, for example, that he'd expect an Orc with class levels to have explicitly trained in those classes).

I think, for nagora, part of the challenge (and therefore part of the fun) of D&D is picking *when* you fight particular battles. If you go up against an Ancient Red Dragon at level 5 you *expect* to get toasted, but the *reward* for that is that if by some miracle you win you get to be the guys who totally killed an Ancient Red Dragon at level 5.

Scaling, even OOC scaling, is anathema to this playstyle. If you know that Kalazor the Dread Lich King could equally well be statted up as Level 30 or level 3, you aren't going to feel half so scared when you go up against him, or be half so thrilled when you finally beat the guy. To him, I think, it's tantamount to cheating. It literally makes the game not worth playing.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-28, 01:29 PM
At the risk of putting words into his mouth I think nagora has a problem with OOC scaling because he views D&D primarily as a simulation of a world operating on consistent, understandable rules.
Well. That's outlandish!


Scaling, even OOC scaling, is anathema to this playstyle. If you know that Kalazor the Dread Lich King could equally well be statted up as Level 30 or level 3, you aren't going to feel half so scared when you go up against him, or be half so thrilled when you finally beat the guy. To him, I think, it's tantamount to cheating. It literally makes the game not worth playing.
I'm not sure how. The Dread Lich King could be statted up to be level 3, but an AD&D DM could make a 3-HD lichesque monster, too. Odds are the Dread Lich King is level 30, or 25, or maybe even 20, and if you go up against him at level 10, 15, whatever, and win you'll probably be pretty thrilled.

MartinHarper
2008-05-28, 01:49 PM
"Yesterday, I was a 45hp monster,
But now the players have leveled up
And I'm standing in the rain with one hit point.
Man, I got me them minion blues."

The Minion Blues

Woke up this mornin', just one hit point to my name.
Woke up this mornin', just one hit point to my name.
I ain't nothing but a Minion, and I got myself to blame.

Yesterday I was a mook, and I loved my five hit dice.
Yesterday I was a mook, yes I loved my five hit dice.
When the PCs tried to kill me, they had to hit me twice.

I lost to the PCs before, now I'm payin' for my crimes.
Yeah, I lost to the PCs before, and I'm payin' for my crimes.
I couldn't hit 'em once at all, tho' I tried a million times.

I'm an evil evil minion, but I'll do my DM good.
I'm an evil evil minion, and DM I'll do you good.
I'll make your fights go smoother, if you use me like you should.

I got no crazy powers, just an at-will melee thwack.
I got no crazy powers, and I love my plain attack.
I'm simple on the battlefield, and a demon in the sack.

Yeah, I used to be a solo, fightin' on my own.
A lonely lonely solo, fightin' on my own.
Now I got me lots o' buddies, and man you'll hear us moan.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-05-28, 01:55 PM
Well. That's outlandish!

Understandable from a semi-IC framework, that is to say, once you get past a certain level of experience you know that you can pretty much always beat an Orc.


I'm not sure how. The Dread Lich King could be statted up to be level 3, but an AD&D DM could make a 3-HD lichesque monster, too. Odds are the Dread Lich King is level 30, or 25, or maybe even 20, and if you go up against him at level 10, 15, whatever, and win you'll probably be pretty thrilled.

But there isn't the *expectation* that the Dread Lich King will be powered up or down to your needs, which is what "scaling" implies and is, I think, what nagora is objecting to.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-28, 02:07 PM
Understandable from a semi-IC framework, that is to say, once you get past a certain level of experience you know that you can pretty much always beat an Orc.
Unless that orc happens to be a better fighter from a tougher, more disciplined tribe. Or just a particularly strong example of his kind. Or imbued with the power of a ritual performed by his tribe's shaman (sure, the orcs' souls are gonna be dragged down to the Hells after they die, but orcs aren't too bright). Or...


But there isn't the *expectation* that the Dread Lich King will be powered up or down to your needs, which is what "scaling" implies and is, I think, what nagora is objecting to.
Shrug. "You go to fight the lich king, he casts a spell, you die" isn't very interesting. Neither is "you casually shrug off his spells and smash his puny skull".

Dan_Hemmens
2008-05-28, 02:20 PM
Unless that orc happens to be a better fighter from a tougher, more disciplined tribe. Or just a particularly strong example of his kind. Or imbued with the power of a ritual performed by his tribe's shaman (sure, the orcs' souls are gonna be dragged down to the Hells after they die, but orcs aren't too bright). Or...

All of which would, I'm sure, be fine, but that's IC scaling not OOC scaling, and at *some* point you're going to turn around and say "hey, how come every orc we meet gets progressively tougher?"


Shrug. "You go to fight the lich king, he casts a spell, you die" isn't very interesting. Neither is "you casually shrug off his spells and smash his puny skull".

But to nagora (I think) "you go to fight the lich king, he casts a spell, you die" *is* interesting, because it tells you how powerful the lich king is, and it's the natural in world consequence of your confronting the Lich King before you're ready.

Indon
2008-05-28, 02:35 PM
Unless that orc happens to be a better fighter from a tougher, more disciplined tribe. Or just a particularly strong example of his kind. Or imbued with the power of a ritual performed by his tribe's shaman (sure, the orcs' souls are gonna be dragged down to the Hells after they die, but orcs aren't too bright). Or...
And all of those reasons, when conveyed, can be very interesting. But it gets pretty ridiculous when every Orc the party starts to encounter happens to be some super-strong Demon orc.


Shrug. "You go to fight the lich king, he casts a spell, you die" isn't very interesting.
But "You go to fight the lich king, he casts a spell incapacitating you with the intent of sacrificing you at his unholy altar. Now you have to escape!" is.


Neither is "you casually shrug off his spells and smash his puny skull".

But "After crushing the Lich, you attract the attention of his diabolical patron, who finally launches his carefully-constructed evil plot to destroy you!" is.

RukiTanuki
2008-05-28, 02:39 PM
I'll throw my hat into the ring (and promptly leave, because I do NOT want to see what certain people are about to do to my hat).

It seems like some people discussing this treat their mechanics and creature statistics as literal interpretations of characteristics of the creature. If the creature doesn't have the capability in the stats, it doesn't have the capability. For them, it makes a difference if a creature has 1hp or 10hp, even if the PCs deliver more than 10 points of damage in a single attack. It still matters to them, because that HP value actually means something to them; it reveals some real tangible quality of the creature, even if HP itself is an abstraction. The creature with 10hp has some real quality in the game world that makes it better than the 1hp creature.

As such, a minion creature, in the mind of one with this kind of thinking, has 1 hp. "1hp" is not an abstraction for "is removed from combat the first time a level-appropriate opponent causes an important injury": it's some real physical quality of the creature. In that regard, said 1hp minion has some physical quality in common with the elderly woman down the street who also has 1hp: in this person's mind, they're equally fragile. They would both die tumbling down the stairs.

More importantly, that physical quality (and all physical qualities, which are either represented in the stats, or don't exist) has been with the creature its entire life. It somehow grew to become a mighty minion while never taking a point of damage. The alternative, within this same viewpoint, is that the creature grew in strength and skill, became powerful, then somehow handcuffed itself and acquired the critical disability of "anything, no matter how insignificant, will kill me."

The discord may be taking place because an individual with this viewpoint would rather extrapolate every aspect of the mechanics into real, tangible qualities in the game world, no matter how much inconsistency that generates due to treating abstracts as literals, rather than use the mechanics as a mere guide to help the DM craft reasonable consequences to the actions the PCs and NPCs take.

That said, I'm not pointing anybody out, though I'm sure I'll see at least one reply from someone defending themself... which is telling, to me at least. I'm just trying to figure out why people can't see this mechanic as anything but a horrendous idea. In particular, the only suggestions I've seen for alternatives are either kludge rules that can't fit in one sentence due to there being too many exceptions (and the whole point was to use a simple rule). I'm starting to suspect that if Wizards hadn't even used "1hp" as shorthand for "is defeated the first time a level-appropriate opponent successfully attacks and damages the minion," we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

As for low-level opponents, wodan46 showed pretty conclusively that low-level enemies cannot effectively fill the combat role that level-appropriate Minions fill, due to the miss-on-a-19 vs. hit-on-a-2 issue. I have to agree with the conclusion that bit of number-crunching assumes: If this (minions) is a problem, but you have no issue with the idea that a fighter can wade through an nigh-infinite number of low-level opponents without taking damage, then something's way out of line.

Rutee
2008-05-28, 02:39 PM
And all of those reasons, when conveyed, can be very interesting. But it gets pretty ridiculous when every Orc the party starts to encounter happens to be some super-strong Demon orc.
Which is why most orcs would be minions, no?



But "You go to fight the lich king, he casts a spell incapacitating you with the intent of sacrificing you at his unholy altar. Now you have to escape!" is.
The Lich crushes you again. You fail.



But "After crushing the Lich, you attract the attention of his diabolical patron, who finally launches his carefully-constructed evil plot to destroy you!" is.
Works with the Lich as an even level opponent. Works /handily/ actually, since the patron is launching a carefully constructed (Read: Long term) plan.

nagora
2008-05-28, 02:41 PM
I hereby declare Dan as my "I'm having diner and watching Ashes to Ashes" spokesman!

All of which would, I'm sure, be fine, but that's IC scaling not OOC scaling, and at *some* point you're going to turn around and say "hey, how come every orc we meet gets progressively tougher?"

But to nagora (I think) "you go to fight the lich king, he casts a spell, you die" *is* interesting, because it tells you how powerful the lich king is, and it's the natural in world consequence of your confronting the Lich King before you're ready.

Yes, spot on. Scaling must have some effect in-game as well as the meta-game effect on the players and I find it hard to imagine how it seems from the characters' point of view. It must be like taking drugs or something. Wow, man, I just had a dream where orcs, like, had hit points or something. Crazy!

As I said in another thread, the minion thing fixes a problem, which is implied in Reel's posts, that in 3ed it's far too easy to become invunerable to things like orc so they no longer matter. I agree that this is a problem, but I think the better solution would be to address that problem directly rather than trying to find ways to work around it.

As to the rest of it: A dragon is a dragon. If I play a character who knows that a dragon lives in the mountains, I want to know that anyone who faces that dragons is toast unless they are a great hero (or party thereof). I don't want to think "Ah, well, perhaps it's a mini dragon with stabilisers that the DM's planted there for me to kick over".

If the gameworld has any depth to it the players will be aware that there are challenges out there that they can't yet match, assuming they want to. Life in such a gameworld is not a case of "you wake up at the mouth of an appropriately scaled challenge; what do you do next?".

If the lich-king can't cast a spell which might kill you, then he's a pretty worthless lich-king and not worthy of a serious hero's attention. If he wants to incapacitate me and sacrifice me to his diabolical lord, even better! Bring it on, you dust sucking bonebag! AAAARRRGH!

nagora
2008-05-28, 02:47 PM
I'll throw my hat into the ring (and promptly leave, because I do NOT want to see what certain people are about to do to my hat).

It seems like some people discussing this treat their mechanics and creature statistics as literal interpretations of characteristics of the creature. If the creature doesn't have the capability in the stats, it doesn't have the capability. For them, it makes a difference if a creature has 1hp or 10hp, even if the PCs deliver more than 10 points of damage in a single attack. It still matters to them, because that HP value actually means something to them; it reveals some real tangible quality of the creature, even if HP itself is an abstraction. The creature with 10hp has some real quality in the game world that makes it better than the 1hp creature.


Yes, because I can lose the ability to deal that damage (through some devious plan of Evil people!) and at that point I find that orcs and old ladies now ARE as fragile as each other, which they didn't used to be.

Indon
2008-05-28, 02:53 PM
Which is why most orcs would be minions, no?
In 4'th edition, yes (along with being lower-level). In 3'rd edition, just being lower-level. Both systems can model orcs in such a way; 4'th edition expects you not to do so by making said orc minions progressively more powerful.


The Lich crushes you again. You fail.
Liches have better things to do than to babysit the dungeon in which they are holding the 5'th level party.

The awesome thing about a sandbox game is that you can construct appropriate-level challenges in part simply by virtue of how effective the party actually is, and that such a style automatically provides a large potential variety in types of challenges. (In fact, this is pretty much how I run my Exalted games)

Can you do the same in 4'th edition? Certainly - by consistently ignoring the principle of calibrating opponents to the PC's level.


Works with the Lich as an even level opponent. Works /handily/ actually, since the patron is launching a carefully constructed (Read: Long term) plan.

Yes, it does. It works at any level at which you are capable of killing a Lich.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-28, 02:54 PM
And all of those reasons, when conveyed, can be very interesting. But it gets pretty ridiculous when every Orc the party starts to encounter happens to be some super-strong Demon orc.
You're right, it does, if the party's just encountering orcs randomly.

But let's say the party lives in a city. They like the city. They're celebrities. They've got food, drink, groupies, and so on. They've got more clout than the legitimate authorities, who are frantically trying to marry their sons and daughters off to'em.
Maybe they got their start by dealing with a small orc tribe that was threatening a trade route. At higher level, they're not going to get called on to do that crap. Nobody's going to interrupt their dicing and wenching for that. They'll send other adventurer types.

It's when a new, powerful orc chief is gathering the strongest orc warriors, cleansing the tribes to make them "pure and strong", etc, and threatening the whole *city*, that the PCs get called out. And these orcs are a lot tougher than the ones they dealt with when they first got together. They're better equipped, better trained, more disciplined, stronger. Some of'em are still easy to dispatch (minions), but you don't want to let'em keep swinging at you. Some of'em are really tough. The chief himself (above-level Elite) puts up one hell of a fight.


Look, you've still got third-level orc stats, in 4E. You can put your 10th-level party up against them and they'll demolish them with nothing but at-wills and a few encounter powers, with wine cups still in hand.
Occasionally, that could be kinda fun.

But most of the time, you just *skip* it. Throw in a line about how the PCs leave a trail of orcish corpses behind them on their way to Big Orc Chief Bob's territory. You don't even need to roll the PCs vs. third-level orcs.


But "You go to fight the lich king, he casts a spell incapacitating you with the intent of sacrificing you at his unholy altar. Now you have to escape!" is.
Oh, no. Not another "party is captured, lol" plot. Do people seriously still enjoy those?


But "After crushing the Lich, you attract the attention of his diabolical patron, who finally launches his carefully-constructed evil plot to destroy you!" is.
This is totally independent of the lich and can be done just as easily even if the lich put up a fight.

Rutee
2008-05-28, 02:57 PM
Liches have better things to do than to babysit the dungeon in which they are holding the 5'th level party.
He's planning to sacrifice you and he can't bother to keep you somewhere near him? And this is with the group that cares about verisimilitude, which presumably means enemies acting their intelligence scores out?


The awesome thing about a sandbox game is that you can construct appropriate-level challenges in part simply by virtue of how effective the party actually is, and that such a style automatically provides a large potential variety in types of challenges. (In fact, this is pretty much how I run my Exalted games)
How do you figure this is somehow more true in sandbox then it is in a cinematic game where enemies /are/ level appropriate?


Yes, it does. It works at any level at which you are capable of killing a Lich.

It works better if you're near it. If you're way above the Lich, the Patron can't be that far ahead of you. A long term plan may take so long that the influence the patron has stops being effective on you.

Indon
2008-05-28, 03:00 PM
You're right, it does, if the party's just encountering orcs randomly.

But let's say the party lives in a city. They like the city. They're celebrities. They've got food, drink, groupies, and so on. They've got more clout than the legitimate authorities, who are frantically trying to marry their sons and daughters off to'em.
Maybe they got their start by dealing with a small orc tribe that was threatening a trade route. At higher level, they're not going to get called on to do that crap. Nobody's going to interrupt their dicing and wenching for that. They'll send other adventurer types.

It's when a new, powerful orc chief is gathering the strongest orc warriors, cleansing the tribes to make them "pure and strong", etc, and threatening the whole *city*, that the PCs get called out. And these orcs are a lot tougher than the ones they dealt with when they first got together. They're better equipped, better trained, more disciplined, stronger. Some of'em are still easy to dispatch (minions), but you don't want to let'em keep swinging at you. Some of'em are really tough. The chief himself (above-level Elite) puts up one hell of a fight.
Isn't this the same procedure I just advocated using in a non-calibrating, sandbox environment?



Oh, no. Not another "party is captured, lol" plot. Do people seriously still enjoy those?
As opposed to, "Oh, a monster. We kill him and take his stuff." This just in: D&D has cliches.


This is totally independent of the lich and can be done just as easily even if the lich put up a fight.

Indeed - meaning that if the lich didn't put up a good fight because the PC's are so much more powerful than liches, who cares?


He's planning to sacrifice you and he can't bother to keep you somewhere near him? And this is with the group that cares about verisimilitude, which presumably means enemies acting their intelligence scores out?
You're level five, with all the demonstrated power of such. He could be plenty intelligent but if his dungeon guards are a match for you (or even stronger than you, necessitating more than a mere breakout for escape), why should he care?


How do you figure this is somehow more true in sandbox then it is in a cinematic game where enemies /are/ level appropriate?

Because in the sandbox, encounters can be dictated by your interaction with enemies which are not level appropriate - when will you encounter these individuals in a cinematic game?


It works better if you're near it. If you're way above the Lich, the Patron can't be that far ahead of you.
Why?

Breaw
2008-05-28, 03:06 PM
As I said in another thread, the minion thing fixes a problem, which is implied in Reel's posts, that in 3ed it's far too easy to become invunerable to things like orc so they no longer matter. I agree that this is a problem, but I think the better solution would be to address that problem directly rather than trying to find ways to work around it.

As to the rest of it: A dragon is a dragon. If I play a character who knows that a dragon lives in the mountains, I want to know that anyone who faces that dragons is toast unless they are a great hero (or party thereof). I don't want to think "Ah, well, perhaps it's a mini dragon with stabilisers that the DM's planted there for me to kick over".

I'm still a bit confused as to why you are discussing such things on the topic of minions. I would be very surprised if there were 'Elder red dragon' minions in 4 ed. TBH if there are then I'm immediately stepping over to your side.

Also, who says that minions are the same as low level normal monsters? As far as I have heard there is no evidence that it is set up as: 'Orc fighter: level 1 monster or level 3 minion. When you are level 5 you certainly can still meet a hoard of level 1 orcs. And you will still be able to 1 shot them (taking out ALL 5 of their HP), and they will still swing and miss indefinitely.

HOWEVER, when you face the level appropriate baddy, he has cronies. These cronies won't be level 1 orcs anymore though. They will be level 5 minions. They will clearly be weaker than their boss, but they will actually be designed to be useful to their leader (not just low level monsters out of place).

This truly is the only difference I'm seeing in 4th ed. Instead of having high level monsters controlling low level monsters (who only last year were leading raiding parties of their own, back when they were level appropriate), they will have cronies that are better suited to aiding them in battle.

Please feel free to go back to the orc town when you are level 5 to beat up on level inappropriate encounters. Not only will the monsters die in 1 hit each, the mooks will as well! In fact come to think of it, a swarm of very low level minions are likely MORE of a challenge than low level monsters, as minions have some protection against guaranteed hit attacks... I digress.

I fully appreciate that if liches are always 2 levels higher than the party this would hurt the game considerably. I also have no idea why you are saying that the presence of minions will ever result in this problem.

Liches will never be minions. His skeletal army will. Dragons will never be minions, the kobolds that worship the dragon will. Not all monsters will become minion quality once you are 4 levels higher than them.

As said in the title of this thread: Minions are not 3e Mooks. They are something difference. Admitedly they fill the same role in creating combat, but they do it in a different way. You can't just say every low level monster becomes a mook, because that is simply not the case.

MartinHarper
2008-05-28, 03:06 PM
At that point I find that orcs and old ladies now ARE as fragile as each other, which they didn't used to be.

The orc has better defences than the old lady.

Indon
2008-05-28, 03:07 PM
The orc has better defences than the old lady.

Not if you pick a fight with her!

Reel On, Love
2008-05-28, 03:07 PM
Isn't this the same procedure I just advocated using in a non-calibrating, sandbox environment?
Funny how that works, isn't it!

I guess that scaling enemies is just a way to have more enemies as viable opponents, rather some kind of drastic departure from Sandbox Land onto the railroad tracks where everything the PCs fight is automatically their exact level for no good reason! Wow!


As opposed to, "Oh, a monster. We kill him and take his stuff." This just in: D&D has cliches.
Yeah, but "the PCs are captured" is one of the worst of the lot. Especially when they escape due to totally negligent captors. Look, if the lich cares enough to not murderize you in the facesicles, he cares enough to keep you nearby for the imminent sacrifice or what-not.


Indeed - meaning that if the lich didn't put up a good fight because the PC's are so much more powerful than liches, who cares?
Presumably, the people who think a climactic showdown with an evil lich is fun. I mean, aren't fun combat encounters part of D&D's appeal?

Rutee
2008-05-28, 03:10 PM
You're level five, with all the demonstrated power of such. He could be plenty intelligent but if his dungeon guards are a match for you (or even stronger than you, necessitating more than a mere breakout for escape), why should he care?
If we're important to his plans, and he can't be ****ed to put up an Arcane Eye or one of the many divination toys in existence, he's stupid. And if they're /stronger/ then you, and you're /naked/, how are you getting out?


Because in the sandbox, encounters can be dictated by your interaction with enemies which are not level appropriate - when will you encounter these individuals in a cinematic game?
I'm confused. You just spent time talking to me about how they'll find level appropriate encounters, now you're saying they won't. Pick one.



Why?
If the level 5 peon was a critical part of his plan..

Indon
2008-05-28, 03:15 PM
Funny how that works, isn't it!

I guess that scaling enemies is just a way to have more enemies as viable opponents, rather some kind of drastic departure from Sandbox Land onto the railroad tracks where everything the PCs fight is automatically their exact level for no good reason! Wow!
Or, it's a way to make enemies into viable opponents when they are not considered viable opponents in Sandbox Land, which rather is a departure, and if you run things well in Sandbox Land, you don't need it.


Yeah, but "the PCs are captured" is one of the worst of the lot.
Or maybe that's just your opinion, and you're trying to justify what was a rather silly comment.


Especially when they escape due to totally negligent captors.
Well, hopefully they can escape due to being more capable than they were thought to be.


Look, if the lich cares enough to not murderize you in the facesicles, he cares enough to keep you nearby for the imminent sacrifice or what-not.
1.The lich incapacitating you probably doesn't take any more effort than killing you. Both require a spell or two and commanding someone to clean up the room. So why does he need to care?

2.Why does the sacrifice need to be imminent?


Presumably, the people who think a climactic showdown with an evil lich is fun. I mean, aren't fun combat encounters part of D&D's appeal?

I imagine those people might enjoy thrashing this lich, after having beaten them up on the way to the level at which they are so much more powerful than liches. It would demonstrate an actual impact to their XP's.


If we're important to his plans, and he can't be ****ed to put up an Arcane Eye or one of the many divination toys in existence, he's stupid. And if they're /stronger/ then you, and you're /naked/, how are you getting out?
See, this is what you want your players thinking: That there's a chance they might actually fail.


I'm confused. You just spent time talking to me about how they'll find level appropriate encounters, now you're saying they won't. Pick one.
They'll find level-appropriate encounters through their actions with non-level appropriate encounters. Absolutely zero contradiction.


The awesome thing about a sandbox game is that you can construct appropriate-level challenges in part simply by virtue of how effective the party actually is, and that such a style automatically provides a large potential variety in types of challenges. (In fact, this is pretty much how I run my Exalted games)


Because in the sandbox, encounters can be dictated by your interaction with enemies which are not level appropriate - when will you encounter these individuals in a cinematic game?
By all means, point out where I made a different point.


If the level 5 peon was a critical part of his plan..

I didn't say, "And the Lich will make the party into a critical part of his plan," I just said he'd sacrifice them.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-28, 03:30 PM
Or, it's a way to make enemies into viable opponents when they are not considered viable opponents in Sandbox Land, which rather is a departure, and if you run things well in Sandbox Land, you don't need it.
"You don't need it"? How, pray tell, do you turn ~level/CR/whatever 2 or 3 orcs into viable opponents for a level 10 party WITHOUT some sort of scaling mechanism? 3E had "slap on some class levels", at least. Without a scaling mechanism, you will never fight a tough orc ever again.
And while, sure, you don't NEED to ever fight an orc again, it both strains verisimilitude (what, there are no orcs who can pose a remote challenge for you? At all) and is unnecessarily limiting. I shouldn't have to stop making plots with orcs (like the above) just becaus the players hit level 8.


Or maybe that's just your opinion, and you're trying to justify what was a rather silly comment.
Maybe it is just my opinion. But don't you think that if every time the party meets a tougher enemy, they get captured and escape, it'll get kinda, well, hokey?


Well, hopefully they can escape due to being more capable than they were thought to be.
Uh-huh. I bet the INT 30 lich tells them his plans, first, because "you're all going to die anyway", too.


1.The lich incapacitating you probably doesn't take any more effort than killing you. Both require a spell or two and commanding someone to clean up the room. So why does he need to care?
Well, because he's evil. He probably wants to kill you.


2.Why does the sacrifice need to be imminent?
It doesn't, I guess. The evil lich, who can grab some people to sacrifice pretty easily, I'd bet, could keep you around, feed you, etc, for months. But if he cares enough to do that, he definitely cares enough to have you watched, I'd think.


I imagine those people might enjoy thrashing this lich, after having beaten them up on the way to the level at which they are so much more powerful than liches. It would demonstrate an actual impact to their XP's.
They're not going to enjoy it if they keep on smashing through everything. The occasional "god, we're badasses!" fight is great. But generally, you want significant opponents like lich-kings and such to be, well, significant.

Indon
2008-05-28, 03:42 PM
"You don't need it"? How, pray tell, do you turn ~level/CR/whatever 2 or 3 orcs into viable opponents for a level 10 party WITHOUT some sort of scaling mechanism? 3E had "slap on some class levels", at least. Without a scaling mechanism, you will never fight a tough orc ever again.
And while, sure, you don't NEED to ever fight an orc again, it both strains verisimilitude (what, there are no orcs who can pose a remote challenge for you? At all) and is unnecessarily limiting. I shouldn't have to stop making plots with orcs (like the above) just becaus the players hit level 8.

Alternately, orcs become more and more like the speedbumps they are on the way to more significant challenges, except for those times when circumstance legitimately makes them challenging. You maintain verisimilitude just fine by saying, "You encounter some orcs along the way. Do you want to bother running the combat?"


Maybe it is just my opinion. But don't you think that if every time the party meets a tougher enemy, they get captured and escape, it'll get kinda, well, hokey?
Yes, if it's the only thing you can think of as DM, rather than just one example, you might have a problem. In that case, it would probably be easier just to calibrate everything to the PC's level so you never have to improvise like that.


Uh-huh. I bet the INT 30 lich tells them his plans, first, because "you're all going to die anyway", too.
Probably not in 4'th edition - after all, PC's haven't demonstrated any stats below 8, so I don't think the lich can get his Wisdom that low.


Well, because he's evil. He probably wants to kill you.
Because being evil automatically makes you want to kill everything, right?


They're not going to enjoy it if they keep on smashing through everything. The occasional "god, we're badasses!" fight is great. But generally, you want significant opponents like lich-kings and such to be, well, significant.

Certainly. I imagine by the time the party is finding lich-kings insignificant, they're probably killing them on their way to fighting Vecna or something - the orcs of level 30 (because there's no way they're fighting orcs at this level, unless they're Avatars of Gruumsh or whatever).

Reel On, Love
2008-05-28, 04:01 PM
Alternately, orcs become more and more like the speedbumps they are on the way to more significant challenges, except for those times when circumstance legitimately makes them challenging. You maintain verisimilitude just fine by saying, "You encounter some orcs along the way. Do you want to bother running the combat?"
And therefore, not having the option to scale the orcs up is somehow better than being able to do in case you want your level 10 party to fight some seriously hardcore orcs.

what



Yes, if it's the only thing you can think of as DM, rather than just one example, you might have a problem. In that case, it would probably be easier just to calibrate everything to the PC's level so you never have to improvise like that.
Look, you're calibrating things you want them to actually *fight* to their level (or somewhat above, or somewhat below) anyway, you're just doing it by finding enemies that are already at that level. Why is having more options for enemies they can fight a bad thing?

"Only thing you can think of"? You're the one who suggested captivity as an alternative to death. If the players keep getting knocked out, captured, etc, they just might decide that they can't really die. The dragon isn't gonna eat'em, it'll leave them be. The lich is gonna capture them if they fail, and they'll escape.
You can only keep that up for so long.


Because being evil automatically makes you want to kill everything, right?
No, but being a lich who had to sprinkle himself with shredded kittens and skewer babies or something to become one and likes sacrificing things to evil gods probably gets at least a little kick out of it. He's certainly not going to hold back without a good reason.



Certainly. I imagine by the time the party is finding lich-kings insignificant, they're probably killing them on their way to fighting Vecna or something - the orcs of level 30 (because there's no way they're fighting orcs at this level, unless they're Avatars of Gruumsh or whatever).
I'd rather keep liches impressive, thanks. Or rather, I'd at least like to have the option.

Indon
2008-05-28, 04:09 PM
And therefore, not having the option to scale the orcs up is somehow better than being able to do in case you want your level 10 party to fight some seriously hardcore orcs.

what


Alternately, orcs become more and more like the speedbumps they are on the way to more significant challenges, except for those times when circumstance legitimately makes them challenging.



Look, you're calibrating things you want them to actually *fight* to their level (or somewhat above, or somewhat below) anyway, you're just doing it by finding enemies that are already at that level. Why is having more options for enemies they can fight a bad thing?

Because if everything normalizes to your PC's, how do they get a sense of growth for their characters? Challenges which once challenged your PC's should be surpassed by those PC's as part of their progression.



"Only thing you can think of"? You're the one who suggested captivity as an alternative to death.


Yes, if it's the only thing you can think of as DM, rather than just one example, you might have a problem. In that case, it would probably be easier just to calibrate everything to the PC's level so you never have to improvise like that.



If the players keep getting knocked out, captured, etc, they just might decide that they can't really die. The dragon isn't gonna eat'em, it'll leave them be. The lich is gonna capture them if they fail, and they'll escape.
You can only keep that up for so long.

That is indeed a good point - there's a careful balance between giving the players a chance and punishing them for foolishness, which is entirely outside the scope of this discussion.


I'd rather keep liches impressive, thanks. Or rather, I'd at least like to have the option.

I'd rather have my PC's become impressive.

Edit: And actually, I still have that option. I even noted him: Vecna.

RukiTanuki
2008-05-28, 04:12 PM
Yes, because I can lose the ability to deal that damage (through some devious plan of Evil people!) and at that point I find that orcs and old ladies now ARE as fragile as each other, which they didn't used to be.

I take it there's an assumption here that 4th will allow negative levels and ability damage the way 3rd did. (What I've read so far indicates that is not the case.)

Really, these are the only examples being presented to me: cases far outside the boundaries, where the rules aren't strictly being followed as written anyway. In this case, assume 4e provides no easy way to reduce the damage of a PC who regularly does an order-of-magnitude more than 1 damage to no more than 1 damage. (As mentioned, this is the default assumption based on WotC statements). If the power of Plot is changing the rules anyway (because the DM has deemed it interesting/fun to do so), is it really a stretch to take the Monster Manual's recommendation at its word and not follow the "Minion 1hp" rule any time the combat's completely out of proportion?

Really, this is putting my point into stronger focus, if anything. I can't treat the NPC as if "1HP" is scrawled on his head for the PCs to see. They only way they know is if they hit him, at which point, he's dead. I continue to treat the Minion rules as an easy shorthand for "someone who's defeated the first time they're successfully attacked by a level-appropriate opponent," and I feel free to ignore that helpful guideline the second the campaign takes a left-turn detour into Crazytown and, in defiance to the way things go during normal play, I find myself with a PC who can actually deal only 1hp damage (which, in this one case, is specifically supposed to represent his inability to do any non-pathetic attack). Mayhaps, this one time, since I've downgraded the PC to "pathetic attacks only", I can say "pathetic attacks are ineffective, just as they've been ineffective for anyone else" and continue play without my head exploding?

Or am I not allowed to queue up an NPC and send him waiting in the wings with his "1hp" poster note, only to realize that Pathetic Attack Boy is on stage, and hastily scribble something else on his poster note instead? Will the PCs see my white-out? Will the stage background fall down because I changed something I hadn't yet used?

From what I've seen, again, "1HP" is shorthand for "is defeated when a level-appropriate opponent successfully attacks." It's shorthand because the rest of the system supports it; barring ultra-low-levels where 1hp attacks are dangerous, no one will ever actually deal only 1HP and thus become disillusioned when it defeats a credible opponent. Every example I've seen, presented in attempt to construct an encounter where dealing 1hp and defeating the opponent is unreasonable, either breaks the MM's "use them level-appropriately" guideline, or places the PCs in some position where they're using something an order of magnitude less effective than their at-will attacks.

Really, far more effort is being spent on trying to shoehorn it into the "unbelievable" box, than would be spent on touching up the paint on whatever aspect of it you find hard to believe. Unless you believe in a level of power where no one falls in one hit, in which case, do not use minions.

Am I missing something here?

Reel On, Love
2008-05-28, 04:18 PM
Because if everything normalizes to your PC's, how do they get a sense of growth for their characters? Challenges which once challenged your PC's should be surpassed by those PC's as part of their progression.
How is having the OPTION to scale enemies to your PCs a bad thing?

It's obvious that *everything ALWAYS* normalizing is a bad thing. That's irrelevant. Nothing about 4E does this. Bad DMs do this, in 4E or 3E or whatever else.


That is indeed a good point - there's a careful balance between giving the players a chance and punishing them for foolishness, which is entirely outside the scope of this discussion.
And you don't need to strike that balance too often if you can tone the level 25 lich down to level 20 for your level 15 party.



I'd rather have my PC's become impressive.
It's not an either-or.


Seriously, you are arguing against the ability to provide a greater variety of challenges to your PCs. That's like arguing that the monster manual should only have half the monsters it does.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-05-28, 04:22 PM
Am I missing something here?

To give the Minion critics their due, there are a couple of things you (and I, I like the new rules too) *might* be missing.

If D&D 4E has spells like 3E, where you get effects which definitely only do a piddling amount of damage (Ray of Frost, Acid Splash etc), or if casters can summon low-level creatures and if there isn't some explicit proviso for this sort of thing, then it can get tricky.

I have no problem with "the paladin drives his blade into the chest of another Legion Devil, and it is banished back to the hells with a hiss of sulphur" but I can see why people would have a problem with (say) "the wizard's housecat familiar bats at the Legion Devil, it haemorrages to death from the scratch on its toe".

wodan46
2008-05-28, 04:34 PM
The housecat would not be able to land a hit unless it rolled a 20, even though at this point it would probably need a 40. You shouldn't have characters engage enemies where they would have to roll a 40 on a 20 sided in order to hit them.

Keep in mind that you generally lose most of the piddly weak powers and replace them with bigger powers. Technically, you don't have to, so at level 30, you can keep ray of frost, and you will be able to kill enemies with it because its BAB is just as good as your meteor swarm. But that's because you're really badass, and the ray of frost hit the legion devil right in the center of the medulla and causes his heart to turn off.

Rutee
2008-05-28, 04:38 PM
I think the biggest problem along the Familiar/etc + Minion line is solved by default. I haven't seen a Celestial Badger conjuration yet (Though I haven't and won't read Wizard for a little while). The only Conjurations I've seen that create damaging creatures create impressive entities (Like Knights suffused with the light of the Astral Realm) and/or nondamaging ones.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-28, 04:40 PM
If D&D 4E has spells like 3E, where you get effects which definitely only do a piddling amount of damage (Ray of Frost, Acid Splash etc), or if casters can summon low-level creatures and if there isn't some explicit proviso for this sort of thing, then it can get tricky.
There are no real summoning powers in the PHB--the cleric has a couple that summon force-beings, kind of like Spiritual Weapon

The lowest-damage powers are the At-Wills, basically. 1[W] is the lowest of those (the ranger's Careful Attack).

nagora
2008-05-28, 05:01 PM
If we're important to his plans, and he can't be ****ed to put up an Arcane Eye or one of the many divination toys in existence, he's stupid. And if they're /stronger/ then you, and you're /naked/, how are you getting out?
That's the challenge!

When I'm DMing I assume that the players will find a way. This is what bothers me about "level appropriate" encounters: In know that my group plays at a very much higher level of skill than many other groups - they've been together for coming on 20 years so they work together naturally. An encounter that would shred one group of 10th level characters may fail to dent them at 5th level.

If it comes to a straight fight, level combined with numbers will generally decide the outcome; a good player will make sure that they avoid straight fights against anything that can wipe them out. They will find another way.

This may involve running away and coming back in a year or two (one game I'm in at the moment is an example, I don't expect to get back to the "bad guy" for a few years of real time, but by Harry, when we do, he'll be bloody sorry he made us grovel at his dandified feet!) or sniping, or spying and infiltration. It's up to the players to find a way.

And it works the other way too: a single succubi can take almost any level party apart in AD&D if the DM is very, very careful and the party is lax.

Where am I going with this post? I've lost track...

Well, Ruki: By losing the ability to deal out damage I was referring to losing my magic sword and girdle of strength. Without them, my 13th level AD&D fighter does the same damage per blow as the average man at arms (12 Str), although he will do it more often, of course. No special rules were involved.

What else?

I assume that sacrifices to dark gods are special events and liches killing people does not count. They need you alive and they might need to sacrifice you at a certain time.

Generally speaking, no DM in any edition should just throw enemies which are totally overwheming at a party. This is a game as well as a role-play and that's not fun.

OTOH, I think the art of exciting combat-based scenarios is based on the "give them the rope" principle. IE, the DM sets things up logically as a death trap, but in layers. A careful party will find a way and will use tactics to beat the scenario. A stupid party will get minced, and tough cookies to them. Trying to aim for some perfect balance where the party nearly loses is patronising, difficult to get right and in the long run, dull. Minions only helps with the second issue.

I suppose that at bottom, I find the idea of minion rules quite patronising and the "level appropriate" guidelines doubly so. I agree that encounter normalisation undermines the sense of achievement for a party.

Not being able to lose means you can't win either.

I'm off to bed.

Rutee
2008-05-28, 05:09 PM
That's the challenge!
If I want to be challenged, I will play a video game. I do not look to these games for anything remotely similar to a gamist obstacle to be beaten. Presumably, sandbox game types also don't do it for this reason, though I may be wrong and conflating this with "Living World" types. Those two may or may not have an actual distinction, since I may or may not have just made that up.

nagora
2008-05-28, 05:16 PM
If I want to be challenged, I will play a video game. I do not look to these games for anything remotely similar to a gamist obstacle to be beaten.
Challenges are not gamist; they're part of real life and, to touch on a touchy subject, playing a character without challenges is not a genuine role but a mockery spun from wish-fulfillment candy-floss.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-28, 05:20 PM
Challenges are not gamist; they're part of real life and, to touch on a touchy subject, playing a character without challenges is not a genuine role but a mockery spun from wish-fulfillment candy-floss.

Here it is again: "if you don't have fun the way I do, you're doing it wrong."

Don't do that.

Rutee
2008-05-28, 05:37 PM
Challenges are not gamist; they're part of real life and, to touch on a touchy subject, playing a character without challenges is not a genuine role but a mockery spun from wish-fulfillment candy-floss.

I give people far too many chances.

Dervag
2008-05-28, 06:20 PM
I give people far too many chances.He takes it too far, but he has a point. I think that point deserves to be removed from the sneer and restated in a better form.

Maybe this is what you were implying, maybe it wasn't, but it's sure what I'm saying:

A good roleplaying game typically requires at least some degree of character growth. There may be people for whom this is not true, and it is probably not fair to be dismissive of them. But in general, character growth is important whether your system has lots of mechanics or not.

Character growth comes about in large part through facing and overcoming challenges. It is possible for those challenges to exist purely in roleplay. But this places heavy demands on the acting skill of the players, and on their ability to place themselves in the character's mind.

Therefore, from a game design perspective it is well if the PCs are occasionally in mechanical danger. As in, if the players make mistakes, or even if they get unlucky while following some reasonable plan, their characters may suffer the consequences of enemy action. This does not require a dungeon crawl game in which the consequence is death. You could equally well have a game built around Victorian period pieces such as Pride and Prejudice in which characters who make mistakes or are the victims of successful hostile actions suffer purely 'social' injuries such as humiliation or the marriage being called off.

For that to be possible, the mechanics of the game must create the possibility of formidable adversaries who have the power to bring harm to the heroes even in mechanical terms. The mechanics are a vital aid to roleplaying for many roleplayers, and a useful one to others, so there's a huge difference between harm that occurs in the mechanics and harm that is only described by the DM.

This is why in 3rd Edition D&D the players are more likely to try to push their characters on through fatigue than to ignore a character's wounds: wounds have mechanical consequences; sleep deprivation does not. Even a good roleplayer is more likely to think "My heroic character will continue in the dungeon even though he hasn't slept in 36 hours!" than "My heroic character will continue even though he's down to half his hit points!"
_________________________________

Thus, one can make a reasonable case that a game is fundamentally flawed if it does not contain mechanisms that can seriously challenge the player characters in the crunch.
_________________________________


The housecat would not be able to land a hit unless it rolled a 20, even though at this point it would probably need a 40. You shouldn't have characters engage enemies where they would have to roll a 40 on a 20 sided in order to hit them.Or, at any rate, for the housecat to slay a legion devil it would have to get stunningly lucky and have enormous advantages, such as magical enhancements.

And you can totally imagine a magically enhanced housecat leaping on the face of a legion devil and clawing away until it collapses to the floor, can't you? It's inconceivable that a normal housecat would be able to do this. But a housecat is not level-appropriate to a legion devil. It should not be able to exploit the "minion rule" unless it is actually a powerful being with the kind of magical advantages that would allow it to, among other things, one-shot a legion devil occasionally.

Rutee
2008-05-28, 06:39 PM
_________________________________

Thus, one can make a reasonable case that a game is fundamentally flawed if it does not contain mechanisms that can seriously challenge the player characters in the crunch.
_________________________________
Sure. Never contested that idea. But the flow of the argument was thus:

The Lich who captured you for sacrifice (Because you attacked someone who wasn't level appropriate, since the game isn't set up in a manner to care, but we don't want to kill you for it) has guards up. The Lich does not have to worry about you escaping (At least not so much as to leave a divination up to watch you, or otherwise even ponder further action to keep restraining you) because he has guards that are better then you. I proceed to ask 'How then, are we to escape, if the guards are stronger, better and smarter then us, and also aren't naked?" To which the response was "That's the challenge!" Well, I don't play these for the sake of a challenge. Certainly, I don't mind them, but (and especially in this sort of situation), one that explicitly calls on what I would consider bad metagaming (Remember, these guards must be better then you for an Int 20 or Int 30 Lich to leave you alone completely; You clearly must play above your int. score, among other things) and is done for hte sole sake of providing a challenge? Well, no, not all that interested.

JaxGaret
2008-05-28, 08:17 PM
Best per-Encounter Minion-Killers [off the Wizard list] from the 4e PHB (including level):

Winter's Wrath (7). Auto-kills Minions who don't have Cold Resistance who start their turn within Burst 2.

Frostburn (13). Auto-kills Minions who don't have Cold and Fire Resistance who start their turn within Burst 2.

Chain Lightning (23). Attack every enemy within 20 squares of you, and also two enemies up to 25 squares.

Storm Cage (11). Auto-kills Minions who don't have Lightning Resistance who start their turn next to or in the cagewall, which is basically like Burst 4 with a 4-square safe box "eye" in the center of the storm. Plus the cage wall itself deals Thunder + Lightning damage to anyone who crosses it and fails their defense roll.

And I proclaim the winner of the Mook Bomb sweepstakes:

Storm Cage!!!

with an Honorable Mention to Frostburn, for having two different damage types.

I'll check the other Power lists later, see if any of the other classes have any good ones. I only really checked the Wizard list.

Rutee
2008-05-28, 08:20 PM
Actually, the best minion killer is in Ranger.

Hail of Arrows Ranger Attack 27
You launch a barrage of arrows that strike all enemies before you.
Encounter ✦ Martial,Weapon
Standard Action Ranged weapon
Target: Each enemy in range
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.

Note the level, however.

JaxGaret
2008-05-28, 08:22 PM
Actually, the best minion killer is in Ranger.

Hail of Arrows Ranger Attack 27
You launch a barrage of arrows that strike all enemies before you.
Encounter ✦ Martial,Weapon
Standard Action Ranged weapon
Target: Each enemy in range
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.

Note the level, however.

That is a good one. I didn't check any of the lists comprehensively except for the Wizard's. Chain Lightning is pretty comparable to Hail of Arrows, but Hail of Arrows is definitely better.

Like you said, it's a 27th level power though. The Wizard has a few solid Heroic and Paragon ones.

Rutee
2008-05-28, 08:23 PM
So it is. How do you figure Storm Cage is better then it at this? (Not that it should be, since one is level 23 and the other is level 11)

EvilElitest
2008-05-28, 08:23 PM
No, minions are not "made to die" anymore than the 'master' monsters they come with are.

Actually they are. If i have a hoard of say, goblins attacking mid level Pcs, the goblins are basically fodder, but in a logical sense. They are low level warriors, or and weak monsters. The fact that the PCs can wade through them is logical. The Goblins can later become high level (in theory) they posses the feats, the powers, they can use PC powers, ect. In theory, apart from having a weaker class, they still using the same rules, the world is still consistent



Minions are only expected to die in fights where all the monsters are expected to die anyway- where all the monsters stand and fight to the death and there is no question of retreat. In those cases there's no difference between a minion and anyone else- all the monsters are supposed to die because the expectation in game is that the PCs will win, as in some of them will survive and none of their enemies will.

1) The very idea of having creatures who's sole purpose in game is to die is a shallow one. If you want your creatures to fight to the death, fine, but make it logical, don't make their in game purpose that of useless death. I let the PCs choose how the fight goes, not me
2) If you want to design a fight where the monsters will most likely die, fine, but that isn't any reason to make an absurd rule that reduces the game to mindless inconsistency


Think about it. Every time you DM with a monster and think "what will my PCs do after killing this," you're doing the same thing you complain 4th Edition is with minions. You're expecting, even planning, for your monster to be killed.

No i'm not. I am planning for my monster to fight in a logical fashion as benefiting its abilities and powers. I plan myself in case it dies, but i leave the battle for the PCs. It might escape, they might kill it, he might surrender, he might defeat them, they might flee, ect ect ect. D&D isn't a book, part of the fight is that I the DM don't know what is going to happen, just could happen and how the situation works out, not playing out a pre made story, other wise what is the point of the player's free will. IF i wanted a linear story, i'd write one


Do you actually have any information on how it handles? Have you ever played it? Have you even read anything about it except the snippets that appear here?

I've read the article on it, i've read the two advertisement books that support this idea of PC entiltment and a world that literally revolves around the PCs, and i predicted this video game style game 9 months ago. Minions are nothing more than fodder. They exist specifically to die, with one hit. It is simplistic, and it is stream lined into one style of play, one is inconsistent and seems to imitate a game like Final Fantasy, or a movie like Kill BIll


How on earth do you have enough information to be so confident that it is "shallow," "simplistic," and "like a bad action movie" when you haven't even read all the rules yet?
Um, i've read all of the information revealed, and the point of minion rule. The very nature of the minion rule is one that is, as i said before, shallow, simplistic, and follows a formula that can be found in action movies like Kill Bill or 300, where enemies are simply mindless masses with a few bosses, or games like Dynasty warriors. Considering the many others problems with 4E, the game looks and feels like a video game


Dude. "Shallow" does not mean the same thing as "poorly thought out." You can't just keep using those two words as interchangeable insults for a game you've never played and remain intellectually honest.

Actually i think it is shallow as an idea, poorly thought out because of consistently issues.


Take. A. Chill. Pill.
rather insulting there isn't it? Could it be possible i actually have a logical base for my argument


You hate this game far more than the amount of information you have on it could possibly justify.
Why not? You said that nine months ago when i predicted this minion rule would happen and the differences between, and look what happened. I see no reason why my conclusion are wrong, because considering they are flat out supported by all of the evidence at hands, this isn't a question of my claims being wrong, is that if it is right or wrong


Unless you're an embittered game designer who's been playtesting this thing for a year and decided they hate it forever and resigned from Wizards rather than have their name on it, you simply do not have the information to be such an authority on it.

I'm sorry, this is frankly pathetic, and i generally like you. Is it possible for me to just not like the fact that my game is being ruined by becoming a video game/action movie styled game, with all of the shallow problems involved as of such, instead of having some sort of hidden motive


I think you're getting way too heated up about this. It's causing you to make outright false statements. For starters, I suspect you don't even know how it plays from your own experience, but I could be wrong about that.
false statements? This is extremly insulting claim. What false data have I produced. I've read the details of teh rules, and i've draw conclusions based on the data showed


For a matter of absolute fact, they were working on this game before 300 came out, so they can't have drawn their inspiration from that source.

1) I said plays like 300, IE a bunch of super absurd "hero" who slaughter a mass mindless hoard in true minion fashion (through i don't think 4E will have the racial themes)
2) Technically tehy didn't finish producing it until after 300, but i wast talking about play style


But in 3rd Edition, you can't make enemies significantly weaker than the heroes who nonetheless threaten them in groups. There are a lot of very good stories with enemies that the hero could easily beat one on one, but not in large groups.
1) I've never said 3E was perfect, and as i said a while ago, i like the idea of revamping combat actually, i've already said that. I don't like this method for doing it
2) D&D is not a story, but a game
3) more to the point, even in 3E, while the style isn't perfect, just give the PCs a small group of weaker, but still nasty leveled guys (8 level 10 for a party of level 16 for example) or just use powerful creatures


Like Lord of the Rings. In Lord of the Rings, Boromir kills like twenty orcs, but eventually the orcs kill him. In 3rd Edition, it is very hard to build a fighter capable of reliably killing about 20 orcs before dying without making them almost completely invulnerable to orcs (AC too high to hit).
Which makes sense. Remember, Boromir killed them a bit by bit, had some help, but most importantly, he took a lot of hits. He was pierced by a hell of a lot of arrows before finally dying (after his shield and sword were broken. Also more importantly, the idea of one guy having trouble fighting a hoard, well, it makes logical sense. Really it does, because when you fight a hoard of dudes, it is logically going to be harder than fighting a single guy. Its basic logic. Even in movies and books where they do this badly, a single guy slaughtering hoards gets boring quickly. Bororomir would simply take a lot of hits, killing a lower level orc a round, but then running out (maybe avoiding a few hits in the first few rounds thanks to hte shield but still)





In 3rd Edition, there are three kinds of monsters- monsters too big for the party to fight at all, monsters of roughly equal power level to party members, and monsters so weak they can't even harm the party, let alone be a major threat.

The third type is good for nothing but cannon fodder to be "mechanically slaughtered."
The third type was so weak simply because of the lack of level, not because of inherent weakness



In 4th Edition we see a fourth type- monsters that the heroes can kill easily, but that can also hurt the heroes before they die. Even in single combat, a minion has a decent chance of inflicting at least one injury on an enemy PC. They're not likely to get a second shot, though- they're not good enough to threaten PCs that seriously. In a group, on the other hand, they're just as big a danger as a single huge ferocious monster the entire party would have to work hard to take out.
And yet here is a shallow problem, in that having the monster exist solely as an enemy in game is a problem. Monsters in 3E are nasty, and are often used as enemies, not complaint there, but minions exist for the sole purpose of acting as PC enemies. From an in game perspective they have no purpose other than acting as minions, where as in 3E, as broken and badly orgnized as it might be, still maintained the consistent system of weaker enemies being simply lower level/weaker monsters.

In short, minions bring abotu a PC centric in game world, which apart from being a metagaming system, it is a shallow one as well


No ones stopping you from telling all of your players what each and every minion looks like. Maybe the orc on the left has an interesting scar on his left cheek. Maybe the one on the one on the right is named Krock. Maybe the middle guy is secretly gay and has a crush on Krock. Whatever, I don't really give a damn about the personal lives of 4E orc minion-can-actually-hit-me fodder, or 3E orc sucks-so-hard-I-hate-how-hes-wasting-our-time fodder. And I doubt many players stop to consider such trivial things as "maybe that orc has a sister named suzie", etc. Its kind of implied that the things the PC's are fighting have a life beyond the current encounter.
Your missing the point. This isn't about description, or personality details. It is about the world itself. in 3E, the monsters were still just other beings in teh world with class levels, who happened to be weak. THe game was centered about the PCs, but the world was not. in 4E, the very world itself is focus on the how the monsters effect the PCs specifically, which is both metagaming and shallow



They're no more a demonstration of PC centric worlds than the HP system itself is. Both are abstractions to assist the speed and quality of gameplay.

i wouldn't say so. Minions are beings who exist simply to provide a "dramatic" fight for Pcs, while HP is a way for everybody in the world to measure their life power you might say (regardless on what it repersents specifically, it still repersents how much hurt you sustain)



I would suggest this is a failure in your own imagination, or an insistence to not look at the rules as a set of tools, but as a straightjacket.
sign, not this absurd argument again. I want consistent rules to make a believable, logical, consistent world, with logical consistent rules. I find the idea of creatures who are mechanically breed to act as battle fodder shallow and simplistic. THat isn't a lack of imagination, nor a desire of straitjacket, so much as you attempting to discredit my option without actually backing anything up there



I'm going to second Crow here... where is your 3.5 Zombie Template that can let 50 zombie humans challenge a group of level 6 characters without taking hours and hours above and beyond what it would take in 4th edition with the minion rules? Where is the human guard that can meaningfully contribute to a fight between the level 10 PCs and a CR 10 enemy using dozens of them without insta-killing the party? Also notice I said the Minion rules would aid such plots, not be required for them. The fact that I CAN represent 50 zombies as a credible threat to high level PCs without overwhelming them with a clever redesign of the Zombie template doesn't mean it's a heck of a lot less work for the same ultimate end to use the Minion version of zombies. Less work means more time available to the DM to spend on plots and characters, rather than mechanics.
1) I'm kinda confused on what your asking actually
2) It seems you having a confusion on the matter of tactics, because if the Dm is smart and uses them well, even normal low level NPC classed people can challenge PC parties (see tucker's monsters)



What, pray tell, is an example of a good action movie to you? If you give a title I'd be shocked if I find that it is without a single faceless character offed without fanfare or effort.
1)Excalibur, where even the random people are pretty interesting. Or the first matrix, where the world is actually consistent. Gladiator is pretty good, but i find the fight scenes extremly laughable, but with interesting story generally and i like Russel Crow
2) your missing the point. Namly that D&D isn't a movie/book/video game but a table top RPG. A consistent logical world is what i want
3) and even with facless


If your response is "I don't like any action movies" then maybe you should consider that perhaps your sensibilities in terms of what is shallow and simplistic are fairly rare, and admit that the inclusion of a system which allows for something which you don't personally like is something that can ultimately benefit the game to those who do, since it's easier to houserule something you don't like out than to homebrew something you wished existed.
1) Actually i don't generally like action movies, they tend to get boring because they lack depth most of the time (kill bill, 300, 3:10 to yuma, Alexander, Troy ect). Even the good ones like Hero become extremly boring after a the first 3 over the top fight scenes because there isn't any suspense


The people who don't like minions like them for reasons that are specific to their playing style: they don't like the idea of NPCs that go down in one shot or they're not into the large-scale battles versus a lot of mooks that have no depth. No amount of berating them is going to change that.

i don't mind that so much as inconsistent and PC Centric worlds that revolve around half a dozen people



But 4E minions aren't just fodder. They're a real and present threat. They're 1/4 of the threat a "normal" monster is, in fact.
I mean in the existing to be brutally murdered by PCs by mechanical creature actually.


How are you STILL missing what you've been repeatedly told? I'll try again.
4E MINIONS ARE DANGEROUS. CHARACTERS CAN NOT IGNORE THEM WITH IMPUNITY AND SLAUGHTER THEM EN MASSE WITHOUT CONCERN.
IT'S LOW-LEVEL 3E MONSTERS THAT PCs BECOME ABLE TO TAKE ON DOZENS OR HUNDREDS AT A TIME AND NOT WORRY.
Details, i'm talking about the idea of the rule. Nit pick, random people actually can be a threat in Dynsasty Warriors, but regardless. THe point is that it reminds of of DW because in DW the random people aren't so much people as hoards to be slaughtered by your absurdly designed fighter of epic doom (actaully if it wasn't for the grind and the cliches, i wouldn't mind the games) with a few "named" enemies existing as a special set to fight your might Player separate from teh minions



But not Aragorn, or the other heroes. And that's an amusing inconsistency, since the Elf n' Dwarf rack up kill counts in the 20s
1)Aragorn takes on hoards only twice, at Helm' deep and Pelanor fields, the former we don't known his kill count and in the later he came a pretty opportune moment to fight. Also no kill count mentioned
2) Gimli and Legolas kill about 42/41 orcs respectfully, with the aid of a fortress, range, caves, ambushes, heavy fighting and even then they got wounds


Let's look at 1 and 2. We can throw out agreeing/accordant, as it's not relevant. Compatible? It's a bit unwieldy and not quite applicable. Not self-contradictory? An unimportant or relatively weak character is always statted as a minion. That's not terribly contradictory.
1) And here is a problem. In a logical world, the importance of the character shouldn't be deiced in game by their relation to the players but their general effect on teh world around them
2) We have half a dozen dudes who get the classes, the cool powers (that are kinda handed to them but what ever) the abilities, and what not, and the rest of the lot are well.........only as good as dramatics demand. This is extremly inconsistent from a world perspective, doubly so because D&D isn't a drama game. If you want to play a drama game, sure, make your story the way you want, but it shouldn't be the default for D&D, which doesn't have a central story line. In 3E, for all of its many faults, everybody still followed the same rules, just some people were actually weaker


Shallow. Not having depth. Welp, you support using low levelled enemies in place of minions. You have indicated that you consider this a good solution. How does htis promote depth, compared to saying "They can do damage, but can not take a hit"?
shallow in that we have a bunch of guys who's purpose from an in game perspective is acting as fodder for the PCs. I'm not against hoards of weak minions, just against the minion mechanic.



Reality isn't defined by stats. Reality is expressed through stats. Your character isn't strong because they have 14 str; They have 14 str because they are strong.
no, what they can do, how they can do it, and the manner in which they can do its is decided by their 14 str.
Stats are how you effect teh world

A wizard gets his spells by his int, his spell book, and effects the world around him because of it

People with high con can avoid drowning

ect ect ect



(Actually this is an opinion, but I think we were playing the game where we phrase opinions as absolute facts. Did I score lots of points? I'm sure you did.)
Ruttee-3, EE Pii, Manchester-0


That aside, DnD is a game, you're correct. Always has been.

You know what it's not? A simulator.
I fail to see why not actually, bad rules and balence non withstanding. I rather liked the 2E DMG view of it which supports the idea of a logical, and consistent world



Sure, you can feel sympathy and empathy. That doesn't make them real, nor deserving of the rights to life, liberty, and happiness/booze/sex that any actual human being is. There can be a use to it, on reflection. But that use is effectively personal horror. Given that DnD pretty much never treats its enemies as people, and certainly not to generate that feeling of "Oh my God, what am I doing to these people?" though, it's something of a moot point given the system, isn't it?

Well i think both 3E and 4E are guilty of this, but 4E far more so, but i know by reading 2E a big empathsis is put on making them act like real intellegent creatures, rather than just entertainment for the PCs



...They already are. This just goes on to make faceless mooks viable threats beyond first level.
There is a rule saying goblins have to be faceless mooks?



No, he isn't following the same rules. He gains XP at your whim, unless you proceed to roll up his every fight, and stat every encounter and ally he's had. If you abstract the point from 1st level (Or first hit dice! Monsters don't come out as fully formed killin machines!) to wherever the NPCs are now, you have in fact, not played them by the same rules. And that's okay, because doing that would be horrendously cumbersome.

Actually, in theory, if your DM is omnipotent, he would be gaining exp in the normal manner. Because of the fact taht you DM is limited, this isn't the case, but if the NPC in question is somehow enough of the Dm's focus that he should care about his Exp, then gain his level in a logical manner. For example, if the Pc fight a guard one day and he is level 3 fighter, then the next he is a level 8 fighter, it is inconsistent and badly done



You keep saying it's inconsistent. I have made a solid case against. You may now proceed to demonstrate the inconsistency, rather then repeating it for the umpteenth time.
thanks for....not actually countering anything i've written


DW gets dull? That notwithstanding, your comparison is wrong for a simple, demonstrable reason.

Minions aren't intended to be the only enemy you fight.
1) After the first three times you slaughter mass hoard, the appeal isn't interesting. Same way that house of flying daggers got boring after the 5th over the top fight scene
2) actually you have the named dudes in DW, who aren't minions, officers and the like



I don't use memes. Well, no, I don't use the same type of meme you do. You're using viral, inaccurate portrayals of a system to evoke a cheap feeling of disgust by comparing 4e to something you hope will be despised. I use viral mutations of pop culture to evoke a cheap laugh. Not terribly comparable.
Actually your just making the claim of my doing so, and as per normal, are avoid adressing the actual question in any sort of detail but.....



Oh this is the last one. My masochism at banging my head on the brick wall that is you is /quite/ satisfied.
ah the ignoring defense, always proves a point that



That, frankly, is crap. The 1 HP thing is, as has been repeated ad nauseum, an abstraction. A simplification for the players and the DM. Not a reflection on some warped and twisted deities deliberately designing life whose sole purpose is to be thrown away on the end of some 'hero's' sword.
1) 1 HP is that getting one hit regardless of cause, will cause you to die. HP means your guy is hurt, through the specific nature is not detailed, it still means simply getting hit
2) Um, he has one HP, and seems mechanically bred to fight the PC as.....a minion. in 3E if you had a monster, you could use it as a minion but they weren't meant to be like that



Also EE, did you see my earlier challenge? Or did you just ignore it?

eh?



So in 4e Minions have 1HP. So what? In 3.x minions (lower case, no mechanic associated with the word in these editions) are lower level and therefore are mechanically weaker by design in order that they will fall quicker before the blades and spells of the characters. You can even use the same terminology: By adding lower level Orcs to the fight against the Ogre Boss the GM created "mechanically altered beings whose sole purpose was to die as fodder."

Difference? Zero.
The difference is in the fact that low level monsters are simply that, low level monsters who happen to be fighting the PCs, while minions' purpose is tied to the PCs, IE PC Centric world.



Ah, Rutee. You don't know how much amusement I got from reading this tight piece of logic from you. I agree with it 100%, of course. But it reminded me of the time you went on for 16 pages about how the Paladin class couldn't possibly work in an adventuring party. After admitting that you'd never played a Paladin and that your groups had never had a Paladin. And all the while refusing to accept the statements from the many people who said that they had played Paladins and that there weren't really any issues with them. You know, the direct contradiction from people with experience against those who are simply theorycrafting.
Oh i remember that, i have to say, it was, um, a unique experience. But lets not dwell too much on other thread, partly because it is rather nasty, and partly because i reminds me too much of bad times



They have a strong flavour. If you like that flavour, then they're great. If you don't they are terrible. Minions (and mooks) are something that one sees in cinema and superhero comics. They rarely turn up in books and the sort that do were generally handled perfectly well in 1ed by totally different means.
What flavor? Facless mooks? I fail to see the appeal



If you want 300 style battles or even Jackson's idea of Middle Earth, then minions are a perfectly good mechanic. If you're looking for something more grounded in "reality" they suck. Pay your money, take your choice.


I'm not a fan of ether, hence my complaint, through i don't think PJ is awful, i think 300 was simply an awful movie and no game should try to emulate its sheer vileness




A pack of wild animals: Here, I would probably use 1 actual mob (to represent the head of the pack) and all the rest minions. This is an interesting encounter because this pack could hit them almost anytime when they're out in the wilderness, and in fact would probably prefer to wait until they're weak, off-guard, and about to enter an extended rest.
wait, this is interesting, explain this more please


-Pitchfork Mob: Here, the HP abstraction exists not to reflect how weak they are, but how difficult it would be for the PC's to defend themselves bloodlessly. If they attack the mob while they're in their individually combat-ineffective mob-mentality, they'll find some of the individuals in the mob become ready for combat, thus upgrading themselves to actual creatures.



-Non-combatants: This is an extention of the Pitchfork Mob thing. A non-com is someone who might throw a punch or two but ultimately doesn't want to fight. They slightly differ from the standard minion, though: When you deal 1 damage to them, they don't go down (in game: removed from fight), but instead get serious about fighting (in game: upgraded to actual creature). The mechanical advantage is, before the non-com is actually in the fight, I don't have to roll their damage.
So you'd be in "minion mode' then when you actually wanted to fight you'd turn into a real monster



People are okay using a system whose core rules enable a person, without using magic, to walk away from 50-foot drops and wading into lava with no effective reduction in any physical or mental capability, but when the ruleset introduces skilled, lethal enemies who nonetheless are removed from combat by successful attacks against their person, things are unrealistic?! Furthermore, these people would prefer using unskilled enemies that literally could not hit the hero if he were standing still? Am I really hearing, "Consistency means that anyone who can hit you can also endure an explosion without dying"?
you might learn more about "these people" if you know, actually talk to them

This isn't so much a matter of realism in the sense of "I can absorb more hits than a normal human could" so much as realism in the "logical world" sort of sense and inconsistency of the world. If one guy walk into lava and not instantly die, i expect other people could do it as well some how

from
EE
edit



I give people far too many chances.
Actually, you tend to use unbacked statements, ignore people, and use your own option as a justification for a point rather than actually bothering to explain it.


On the subject of challenge, waht i liked about 2E and to a far lesser extent, 3E was how the game was actually very nasty to the players. Instead of making these convenient and simple to the point that any moron could be given a baby step solution to every problems, the game was more inclinded to screw you over if you weren't thinking, and the spells had nasty tolls, could back fire, they were harder to use and required the player to be clever. Magic items were cursed a lot more and i liked that. It make the world seem more real, as if it was tough and not some sort of wish furfillement. I like it when the game is tough because when i over come challenges i fill accomplished and challenged rather than bored and disappointed simply because it was handed to me

JaxGaret
2008-05-28, 08:25 PM
So it is. How do you figure Storm Cage is better then it at this? (Not that it should be, since one is level 23 and the other is level 11)

Because you don't have to roll for Storm Cage to kill them, it auto deals damage. And it's a lower-level Power, meaning you didn't use a higher-level Power to kill Minions.

Also, Hail of Arrows won't see action in more than 5-10% of games. Storm Cage and/or Frostburn will be much more common to see.

tyckspoon
2008-05-28, 08:31 PM
Best per-Encounter Minion-Killers [off the Wizard list] from the 4e PHB (including level):

Winter's Wrath (7). Auto-kills Minions who don't have Cold Resistance who start their turn within Burst 2.

Frostburn (13). Auto-kills Minions who don't have Cold and Fire Resistance who start their turn within Burst 2.

Chain Lightning (23). Attack every enemy within 20 squares of you, and also two enemies up to 25 squares.

Storm Cage (11). Auto-kills Minions who don't have Lightning Resistance who start their turn next to or in the cagewall, which is basically like Burst 4 with a 4-square safe box "eye" in the center of the storm.

And I proclaim the winner of the Mook Bomb sweepstakes:

Storm Cage!!!

with an Honorable Mention to Frostburn, for having two different damage types.

I'll check the other Power lists later, see if any of the other classes has any good ones.

Chain Lightning should work, at least. I thought Minions weren't affected by automatic damage, same as they aren't killed by damage on a miss powers? Without having been one of the ones who got an early book set, I would have thought an ideal Mook Bomb would be something with a high inherent to-hit bonus, a large AoE, and a relatively low damage value (would look something like Blast/Burst 3-5, +4 or so to hit, 1 or 2[W] damage.)

JaxGaret
2008-05-28, 08:32 PM
Chain Lightning should work, at least. I thought Minions weren't affected by automatic damage, same as they aren't killed by damage on a miss powers? Without having been one of the ones who got an early book set, I would have thought an ideal Mook Bomb would be something with a high inherent to-hit bonus, a large AoE, and a relatively low damage value (would look something like Blast/Burst 3-5, +4 or so to hit, 1 or 2[W] damage.)

They don't deal damage on a miss... they're auto-dealing damage. No roll, you take damage.

I would have thought the same thing, except that every spell has the same to-hit. You'd have to see the full Power lists to know what I mean.

Rutee
2008-05-28, 08:32 PM
Because you don't have to roll for Storm Cage to kill them, it auto deals damage. And it's a lower-level Power, meaning you didn't use a higher-level Power to kill Minions.

No need to waste it on them.

Unless Wizards are far different from anyone else, the level of the power has nothing to do with it. It makes no difference to you as a player whether you used a level 5 or level 23 power, except the level 23 is just flat out /better/.

Regardless, you autohit an exponentially lower number of targets, whom I believe get a chance to move out of the way, because of how bursts scale. You only hit the area from 4-8. With Chain Lightning, you hit 1-20, which is a MUCH larger area then Storm Cage.

Though this is academic. There is no Storm Cage.

JaxGaret
2008-05-28, 08:36 PM
Unless Wizards are far different from anyone else, the level of the power has nothing to do with it. It makes no difference to you as a player whether you used a level 5 or level 23 power, except the level 23 is just flat out /better/.

Except that if you have a level 11 and a level 17 Power, it's better to auto-kill Minions with the level 11 Power and use the level 17 Power on the bigger bad guys, instead of the other way around.

Remember, not all of your Powers will be at your highest level. If you happen to have one lower-level Power that just happens to be great at rocking Minions' worlds, is that so bad? :smallsmile:


Regardless, you autohit an exponentially lower number of targets, whom I believe get a chance to move out of the way, because of how bursts scale. You only hit the area from 4-8. With Chain Lightning, you hit 1-20, which is a MUCH larger area then Storm Cage.

It auto-deals damage to anyone who *starts* their turn next to the cage wall. If they can't move out of the way *before* their turn (which is certainly possible) or have the appropriate energy resistance, they die.


Though this is academic. There is no Storm Cage.

It's a Spellstorm Mage Paragon Power.

One more thing I actually forgot to mention about it: any enemy who tries to cross the cage wall has to roll defense against Lightning + Thunder damage. Even better.

Rutee
2008-05-28, 08:42 PM
Except that if you have a level 11 and a level 17 Power, it's better to auto-kill Minions with the level 11 Power and use the level 17 Power on the bigger bad guys, instead of the other way around.
Why? Seriously, where are you getting this? You retrain powers. You probably won't continue to have the level 11 power /anyway/.



It auto-deals damage to anyone who *starts* their turn next to the cage wall. If they can't move out of the way *before* their turn (which is certainly possible) or have the appropriate energy resistance, they die.
First, yes, Leader types can move minions. Both allied Leaders and enemy.
Second: It hits a fundamentally smaller area.

Burst 2 is 3x3
Burst 4 is 5x5
Burst 8 is 9x9.

Thunder Cage hits 56 squares.

Chain Lightning hits More then 400 Squares.




It's a Spellstorm Mage Paragon Power.
You can't really compare cherry picking from Paragon Paths (Which is a relevant thing to note), since not every Wizard is going to be a spellstorm mage.

JaxGaret
2008-05-28, 08:48 PM
Why? Seriously, where are you getting this? You retrain powers. You probably won't continue to have the level 11 power /anyway/.

You don't retrain every power at every level. You can only retrain a single feat, Power, or skill per level. And you start Paragon with over 10 Powers, by 19th level you have at least 14 Powers.


First, yes, Leader types can move minions. Both allied Leaders and enemy.

I never said it didn't. In fact, I stated that it was certainly possible.


Second: It hits a fundamentally smaller area.

Burst 2 is 3x3
Burst 4 is 5x5
Burst 8 is 9x9.

Thunder Cage hits 56 squares.

Chain Lightning hits More then 400 Squares.

Indeed, but Chain Lightning requires an attack roll, and the fact that Chain Lightning effects 4x as many squares as Storm Cage doesn't mean that it will hit 4x as many Minions.


You can't really compare cherry picking from Paragon Paths (Which is a relevant thing to note), since not every Wizard is going to be a spellstorm mage.

I wasn't comparing cherry-picking anything. I was proclaiming what the best Minion-killer spell in the PHB is. The two endeavors are unrelated.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-28, 08:51 PM
You don't retrain every power at every level. You can only retrain a single feat, Power, or skill per level. And you start Paragon with over 10 Powers, by 19th level you have at least 14 Powers.


Small note: You also get to replace encounter powers at 13, 17, 23 and 27. You replace daily powers at 15, 19, 25 and 29. These replacements are in addition to the retraining rules.

JaxGaret
2008-05-28, 08:54 PM
Small note: You also get to replace encounter powers at 13, 17, 23 and 27. You replace daily powers at 15, 19, 25 and 29. These replacements are in addition to the retraining rules.

Indeed.

Still, by level 17 it is certainly quite reasonable to still have an 11th level Power (if not more than one), and even at higher levels you can retain that low-level Power, if it is effective at killing Minions, and you face Minions regularly.

Rutee
2008-05-28, 08:55 PM
You don't retrain every power at every level. You can only retrain a single feat, Power, or skill per level. And you start Paragon with over 10 Powers, by 19th level you have at least 14 Powers.
You're retraining a power every level. I think by 23, you'll have dumped a level 11. Especially for a flatly better power version of the same thing. Though to be fair, I don't think you can change Paragon Path powers.




I never said it didn't. In fact, I stated that it was certainly possible.
It remains a weakness/strength (Varied based on your and the enemy party's composition)


Indeed, but Chain Lightning requires an attack roll, and the fact that Chain Lightning effects 4x as many squares as Storm Cage doesn't mean that it will hit 4x as many Minions.
It affects almost 9x as many squares. It doesn't need to hit 9x as many minions; It needs to hit 1.1x more minions to be objectively better then Thunder Cage at minion killing. With an area /9 times as large/, this has a pretty good chance of happening.



I wasn't comparing cherry-picking anything. I was proclaiming what the best Minion-killer spell in the PHB is. The two endeavors are unrelated.

Hail of Arrows. Bows have ranges of 30-40. 900+ squares. You're comparing this to a signifantly smaller area. The fact that Thunder Cage is autohit /does not matter/.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-28, 08:56 PM
Jax, you've been one of the most vocal opponent of 4e... now that you've had a chance to see more of it, has anything changed?

(honestly curious, not trying to start a fight)

JaxGaret
2008-05-28, 08:57 PM
The fact that Thunder Cage is autohit /does not matter/.

How does the auto-hit not matter? If the Minion makes its Defense roll against Hail of Arrows, it survives. There is no defense roll against Storm Cage.

JaxGaret
2008-05-28, 08:58 PM
Jax, you've been one of the most vocal opponent of 4e... now that you've had a chance to see more of it, has anything changed?

(honestly curious, not trying to start a fight)

I'm glad you asked, since I AM NOT AND NEVER WAS A VOCAL OPPONENT OF 4E.

It is simply that you people are so ridiculously pro-4e in your stances that you take any dissent or questioning as anti-4e trolling.

It's honestly been annoying the crap out of me.

Rutee
2008-05-28, 09:00 PM
How does the auto-hit not matter? If the Minion makes its Defense roll against Hail of Arrows, it survives. There is no defense roll against Storm Cage.

Because we're talking about an area potentially more then 20 times larger. How bad do you think to-hit chances are, really?

Further, not only does it hit a significantly larger area, but it's much easier to position minions in such a way as to not be all be hit by a Thunder Cage. Thunder Cage is /not/ a better minion killer. It is, however, a good Minion Controller (Cast in a corridor, even if it doesn't kill as many, it will hamper movement)

JaxGaret
2008-05-28, 09:03 PM
Because we're talking about an area potentially more then 20 times larger.

Like I said, simply because it is 20x as large, does not mean that you will hit 20x as many Minions.


How bad do you think to-hit chances are, really?

It depends. Against Minions that are multiple levels higher than the party (which is who you really want anti-Minion Powers for specifically, btw), could be not so good.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-28, 09:05 PM
I'm glad you asked, since I AM NOT AND NEVER WAS A VOCAL OPPONENT OF 4E.

It is simply that you people are so ridiculously pro-4e in your stances that you take any dissent or questioning as anti-4e trolling.

It's honestly been annoying the crap out of me.

Um... ok... well, sorry if that offended you. You seemed like you were an opponent of 4e to me. I apologize if that was a mistaken perception...

JaxGaret
2008-05-28, 09:06 PM
Um... ok... well, sorry if that offended you.

No sweat. I like posting around here, and I don't like people to just jump in their foxholes and try and blindly defend themselves without really looking at what the other person is saying.


You seemed like you were an opponent of 4e to me. I apologize if that was a mistaken perception...

It was. There are certainly quite a few aspects of 4e that I have problems with, but the same was true of 3.5e. Only time will tell which edition will be better. So far, 4e seems to be a fair bit more out of whack with regards to verisimilitude, but I'll reserve true judgments for when I've got some campaign time under my belt.

Rutee
2008-05-28, 09:09 PM
Like I said, simply because it is 20x as large, does not mean that you will hit 20x as many Minions.
It means you can hit every single minion that is in the area of Thunder Cage, and then some. Again, a Thunder Cage 'only' (heh) affects an area of 56 squares, in a width of 9 squares. If, for instance, the party is surrounded (Or at least, there are minions on all sides, rather then sitting together, waiting to die), Hail of Arrows will have (potentially many) more targets.

Thunder Cage is probably better /at control/, since once you put it down in, say, a corridor, no minion can walk through it. But it is not a better minion killer.



It depends. Against Minions that are multiple levels higher than the party (which is who you really want anti-Minion Powers for specifically, btw), could be not so good.

Nononono, don't try that ****. You declared it the best all around minion killer. You get to defend it as an all around minion killer.

And again, /more then 20 times the area/. If you're going to assume maximum targets, advantageous position, we'll assume maximum targets, but it sure as hell doesn't help you.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-28, 09:10 PM
If you're up against that many minions that EVERY square of chain lightning is occupied... something has gone terribly wrong... :smalltongue:

Rutee
2008-05-28, 09:11 PM
If you're up against that many minions that EVERY square of chain lightning is occupied... something has gone terribly wrong... :smalltongue:

Maybe, but if you're facing minions that were all clumped together whent hey knew a wizard was coming, they were so stupid that it didn't matter.

JaxGaret
2008-05-28, 09:15 PM
It means you can hit every single minion that is in the area of Thunder Cage, and then some. Again, a Thunder Cage 'only' (heh) affects an area of 56 squares, in a width of 9 squares. If, for instance, the party is surrounded (Or at least, there are minions on all sides, rather then sitting together, waiting to die), Hail of Arrows will have (potentially many) more targets.

All of this is 100% true.


Thunder Cage is probably better /at control/, since once you put it down in, say, a corridor, no minion can walk through it.

Storm Cage only auto-kills Minions who start their turn next to it, if they walk through it, they get a defense roll. But yeah, it is useful that way.


Nononono, don't try that ****. You declared it the best all around minion killer. You get to defend it as an all around minion killer.

I suppose so. Minions get "level-appropriate defenses" according to the 4e rules, so they should be just as hard to hit as any monster. Although from the Quickstart rules they seemed to have on average 1 or 2 lower defenses than their equivalent non-Minion buddies.


And again, /more then 20 times the area/. If you're going to assume maximum targets, advantageous position, we'll assume maximum targets, but it sure as hell doesn't help you.

I'm not assuming maximum anything. I'm talking about real in-game conditions. Hail of Arrows will certainly hit more Minions overall, but I would put the number at maybe 3x as many, give or take. You would have to playtest it to really find out.

One thing that I should mention is that Hail of Arrows may be a better overall Minion-killer than Storm Cage, yes, but it is also a 27th level Power, and as such will not be used in nearly as many games as something like Frostburn or Storm Cage.

Plus, I was only looking at Wizard spells at the time.

Rutee
2008-05-28, 09:20 PM
I suppose so. Minions get "level-appropriate defenses" according to the 4e rules, so they should be just as hard to hit as any monster. Although from the Quickstart rules they seemed to have on average 1 or 2 lower defenses than their equivalent non-Minion buddies.
Depends on the minion, but they actually seem to have level appropriate defenses. Full stop, not "For a minion".



Plus, I was only looking at Wizard spells at the time.

Chain Lightning is still better, as it's almost 9 times the area. And Electrical Res 5 doesn't stop it.

Re: Conjurations + Minions, I haven't seen any conjurations in the Wizard group besides Bigby's Grasping Hand, so yeah, no worries about "Celestial Badger is whupping up on the Legion Devil"

JaxGaret
2008-05-28, 09:41 PM
Depends on the minion, but they actually seem to have level appropriate defenses. Full stop, not "For a minion".

I didn't add up every single defense score, but from some rough mental calculations, the Minions had somewhere between 1 and 2 less defenses than their level-equivalent friends.

The MM will provide more info along these lines, I'll check it later.


Chain Lightning is still better, as it's almost 9 times the area. And Electrical Res 5 doesn't stop it.

Except that you still need to get past their Reflex Defense.


Re: Conjurations + Minions, I haven't seen any conjurations in the Wizard group besides Bigby's Grasping Hand, so yeah, no worries about "Celestial Badger is whupping up on the Legion Devil"

Yeah, I haven't seen any Summoning either. Interesting. Perhaps only the to-be-released Druids will have it? We'll have to wait and see.

Does anyone think it would be weird if 4e had no Summoning, at all?

Rutee
2008-05-28, 09:49 PM
Except that you still need to get past their Reflex Defense.
And? An uber high reflex is probably less likely then LIghtning Res 5, which flat out cancels Thunder Cage.



Does anyone think it would be weird if 4e had no Summoning, at all?

Yes and no. I adore pet class types, so it's definitely bad for me. But Weird? Well, not entirely. Summons' big problem is that they grant the most vital of all currency.. actions. It has some summons (Clerics had one that generates 3 Knights that all can take AoOs), but it doesn't seem to have any as we know them.

JaxGaret
2008-05-28, 10:04 PM
And? An uber high reflex is probably less likely then LIghtning Res 5, which flat out cancels Thunder Cage.

Storm Cage auto-deals 10 damage, so they would need Lightning Res 10.

Also, how high of a reflex roll are we talking about? You think they'll have to routinely roll 20s to pass, or closer to 15s?


Yes and no. I adore pet class types, so it's definitely bad for me. But Weird? Well, not entirely. Summons' big problem is that they grant the most vital of all currency.. actions. It has some summons (Clerics had one that generates 3 Knights that all can take AoOs), but it doesn't seem to have any as we know them.

It seems that the Cleric does have multiple Summon-type spells, but they are all Dailies, AFAICT.

Rutee
2008-05-28, 10:13 PM
Storm Cage auto-deals 10 damage, so they would need Lightning Res 10.

Also, how high of a reflex roll are we talking about? You think they'll have to routinely roll 20s to pass, or closer to 15s?
What, assuming maximum targets? Reflex defense would have to be so high that an /int specced character/ needs an 17 to hit slightly more targets. That's pretty damn high, and probably harder to justify then Lightning Res 10. But to be fair, I'm not sure how Res works with minions (Since you could probably roll higher then 10, but..)


It seems that the Cleric does have multiple Summon-type spells, but they are all Dailies, AFAICT.

Yeah, I've noticed that as well. Again, not sure what I think about it. I love pet classes, but I hate pet classes where you act /completely/ through the pet (Since you're not managing 2 entities at this point, you're managing one, it's just not you), and they can be hard to balance (They have a tendency to dominate or suck). So mmm. And given the currency of actions here (unlike in an MMO).. mff.

Jorkens
2008-05-28, 10:27 PM
Because if everything normalizes to your PC's, how do they get a sense of growth for their characters? Challenges which once challenged your PC's should be surpassed by those PC's as part of their progression.
FWIW, I thought in the context of minions that scaling your encounters to normalize them to the PC's didn't mean that if your characters are having challenging fights against half a dozen basic kobold warriors at level one then at level 12 they should be having challenging fights against half a dozen basic kobold warriors that are inexplicably REALLY HARD at level 12. It's that if they're having challenging fights against half a dozen basic kobold warriors at level one then at level 12 they should (or at least could) be having challenging fights against a huge horde of basic kobold warriors under the command of some higher level leaders. Without the minion template this becomes a fight against some higher level leaders and some moving scenery, with it, the kobolds are actually playing a part in the proceedings.

JaxGaret
2008-05-28, 10:32 PM
What, assuming maximum targets?

Why would you assume maximum targets?


But to be fair, I'm not sure how Res works with minions (Since you could probably roll higher then 10, but..)

It's not a roll. It's just 10 damage.


I love pet classes, but I hate pet classes where you act /completely/ through the pet (Since you're not managing 2 entities at this point, you're managing one, it's just not you), and they can be hard to balance (They have a tendency to dominate or suck).

Agreed. The Cleric ones take up your move or minor action, which sucks, but isn't too bad.

Yahzi
2008-05-28, 10:43 PM
I am planning for my monster to fight in a logical fashion as benefiting its abilities and powers.
I do the same. I think it makes for more engaging, compelling world. One that my players can understand and interact with.

EvilElitest
2008-05-28, 10:47 PM
I do the same. I think it makes for more engaging, compelling world. One that my players can understand and interact with.
but Yahzi, i want instant gratification, and a story based off of FF VII with everything in the world revolved around my character
/badly done sarcasm that serves not purpose but to vaugly mock people to disagree with me
Also did you get my PM
from
EE

Rutee
2008-05-28, 11:04 PM
Why would you assume maximum targets?
Same reason we're assuming them clumped together? :P




It's not a roll. It's just 10 damage.
Right, I know how Fields work. I mean attacks with [W] in it.




Agreed. The Cleric ones take up your move or minor action, which sucks, but isn't too bad.

I like how the Cleric ones work, in general, but there aren't enough summons overall. Also, Bigby's Grasping Hands are pretty awesome.

JaxGaret
2008-05-28, 11:06 PM
Same reason we're assuming them clumped together? :P

We're not assuming anything. Combat is too diverse to assume anything, really. I would say that, on average, Chain Lightning will effect 2x to 3x as many Minions as Storm Cage. Sound good to you?


Right, I know how Fields work. I mean attacks with [W] in it.

Maybe I missed something, but what Fields are you referring to?


I like how the Cleric ones work, in general, but there aren't enough summons overall. Also, Bigby's Grasping Hands are pretty awesome.

Agreed. I like spells like that.

Dervag
2008-05-28, 11:52 PM
Actually they are. If i have a hoard of say, goblins attacking mid level Pcs, the goblins are basically fodder, but in a logical sense. They are low level warriors, or and weak monsters. The fact that the PCs can wade through them is logical. The Goblins can later become high level (in theory) they posses the feats, the powers, they can use PC powers, ect. In theory, apart from having a weaker class, they still using the same rules, the world is still consistentMinions don't "exist to die" any more than the low-level goblins do. They exist to fight in groups. It so happens that against opponents considerably tougher than they are, they die easily. So do the goblins. The difference is that the minions stand a chance of inflicting injuries on their elite attackers, while goblins do not. For a goblin to have a high enough AB to menace a powerful fighter he must also have enough hit points to go toe to toe with that fighter for a few rounds. This is because hit points and AC increase at the same time attack power does in 3rd Edition.

In 4th Edition, you have monster


No i'm not. I am planning for my monster to fight in a logical fashion as benefiting its abilities and powers. I plan myself in case it dies, but i leave the battle for the PCs. It might escape, they might kill it, he might surrender, he might defeat them, they might flee, ect ect ect. D&D isn't a book, part of the fight is that I the DM don't know what is going to happen, just could happen and how the situation works out, not playing out a pre made story, other wise what is the point of the player's free will. IF i wanted a linear story, i'd write oneMinions can also fight in a logical fashion using abilities and powers


I've read the article on it, i've read the two advertisement books that support this idea of PC entiltment and a world that literally revolves around the PCs, and i predicted this video game style game 9 months ago. Minions are nothing more than fodder. They exist specifically to die, with one hit. It is simplistic, and it is stream lined into one style of play, one is inconsistent and seems to imitate a game like Final Fantasy, or a movie like Kill BIll You're repeating the same charges over and over.

We all know now that you think that 4th Edition is all about PC entitlement, that minions are created to die, and that it creates a particular play style you despise in which the heroes hack through a huge number of feeble 'mooks' with no hard work or danger involved.

What you have not done is say WHY you think that. You say things like:
the very nature of the minion rule is one that is, as i said before, shallow, simplistic, and follows a formula that can be found in action movies like Kill Bill or 300, where enemies are simply mindless masses with a few bosses, or games like Dynasty warriors. Considering the many others problems with 4E, the game looks and feels like a video gameOver and over and over...

But why do you think so? What is your reasoning? How do you know that encounters with minions always have the look and feel of Kill Bill? How do you know that it doesn't "feel" like the minions are challenging squads of opponents who are individually not that difficult to kill but dangerous in groups, the way that ordinary soldiers often are to heroes in almost all the classic fantasy that has ever existed anywhere?

Stop repeating insults and start proving your claims.

Can you demonstrate this in a way that might actually convince someone other than yourself, without simply saying "minions are shallow" ten times fast?


rather insulting there isn't it? Could it be possible i actually have a logical base for my argument Yes, but you haven't told me what it is yet. You've been repeating the same charges for a long time, and rhetorical excess has led you to make statements that are, by all appearances, factually false.

So stop and demonstrate that your charges are true, calmly and rationally. Show us accounts from people who've played the stuff that's been released, rather than just reading it, saying that it feels like a shallow heroic fantasy of slaughtering armies. Demonstrate that minions are in fact useless in combat and can't do anything but be massacred to prove how badass the heroes are.

Prove what you are saying.


1) I said plays like 300, IE a bunch of super absurd "hero" who slaughter a mass mindless hoard in true minion fashion (through i don't think 4E will have the racial themes)You also said "inspired by" 300. You can't be inspired by something that doesn't exist yet.

Your claim that minions automatically form "mindless hordes," instead of, say, coordinated groups of soldiers that use tactics like those of the Roman legions to bring down tough enemies by ganging up on them is merely unproven. Your claim that the concept was inspired by a movie that wasn't even released until the designers of this game were in the alpha version stages of play testing is almost certainly false.


Also more importantly, the idea of one guy having trouble fighting a hoard, well, it makes logical sense. Really it does, because when you fight a hoard of dudes, it is logically going to be harder than fighting a single guy. Its basic logic.Yes. And minions let you do that. One orc minion is a small threat to your 10th level fighter. Thirty orc minions are a fatal threat, even if you manage to take mosts of them with you.

Whereas in 3rd Edition, a 10th level fighter will have such a high AC that the orcs have effectively no chance of hitting him. The most probable outcome is that the orcs will all be killed or forced to flee, while the fighter has hardly a scratch on him.

The 10th level fighter can use his multiple attacks, Cleave ability, and such to slaughter the orcs easily, exactly like the style of army-killing you despise so much. And if you make the orcs powerful enough that twenty or thirty of them can threaten him, it's hard to avoid making them tough enough that they are challenging individually. At which point twenty or thirty of them will slaughter him easily.

There's a very narrow range of monsters with a CR high enough to be a credible threat to the PCs at all without being high enough that fighting a squad or platoon of them is damned near impossible.

Minions eliminate that problem. They have the powers and abilities of a monster not all that much weaker than the PC, except for a single weakness- their hit point total. Their armor class may make them hard to hit. Their attack powers allow them to hit the hero and do damage. But the hero only needs to get in one good shot to take them down.

That's not the profile of a creature that exists only to die- it's the profile of a creature that exists to fight the hero in groups or gangs. Which minions do.


Your missing the point. This isn't about description, or personality details. It is about the world itself. in 3E, the monsters were still just other beings in teh world with class levels, who happened to be weak. THe game was centered about the PCs, but the world was not. in 4E, the very world itself is focus on the how the monsters effect the PCs specifically, which is both metagaming and shallowNo, in 4E the statistics are about interaction with the PCs. Which is the whole point of having the stats in the first place.

You cannot use the stats of D&D to describe an internally consistent world. There are too many loopholes and exploits. You can only expect the stats to work as long as you assume that there is an underlying world in which the stats really aren't important- in which old people don't get better Spot modifiers with age, in which you can't heal a man bleeding to death by holding his head underwater, in which you cannot kill the average man by flinging an angry housecat at him, and so on.

4th Edition forces you to accept this, but if you didn't accept it before you were in denial.


sign, not this absurd argument again. I want consistent rules to make a believable, logical, consistent world, with logical consistent rules.You will never get them out of Wizards of the Coast or any other mortal agency, I'm afraid.


1) And here is a problem. In a logical world, the importance of the character shouldn't be deiced in game by their relation to the players but their general effect on teh world around themYes. The general effect of big monsters with large HP totals is that they are powerful and fierce individually. The general effect of 'minions' is that they are vastly more effective and reliable in groups. In fights between two groups of equally powerful minions, a lot of them die quickly because their offensive powers are considerably stronger than their defensive powers. This happens between soldiers in real life.

In other words, the minions arguably serve as better models for the soldiers of an army, which are the most realistic things to be found in D&D monster collections.


shallow in that we have a bunch of guys who's purpose from an in game perspective is acting as fodder for the PCs. I'm not against hoards of weak minions, just against the minion mechanic.Their only mechanical difference is having very little staying power compared to their firepower. Remind me again why that's such a disaster compared to giving them very little staying power and very little firepower?


On the subject of challenge, waht i liked about 2E and to a far lesser extent, 3E was how the game was actually very nasty to the players. Instead of making these convenient and simple to the point that any moron could be given a baby step solution to every problems, the game was more inclinded to screw you over if you weren't thinking, and the spells had nasty tolls, could back fire, they were harder to use and required the player to be clever. Magic items were cursed a lot more and i liked that. It make the world seem more real, as if it was tough and not some sort of wish furfillement. I like it when the game is tough because when i over come challenges i fill accomplished and challenged rather than bored and disappointed simply because it was handed to meThere's a very reasonable argument that some of the difficulty you talk about is 'fake difficulty,' exemplified by Nintendo Hard (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NintendoHard).

It isn't always more "realistic" just because the game designers added more arbitrary forms of difficulty and risk.

Lady Tialait
2008-05-29, 12:27 AM
.....oops...I misread the title of this thread as '4e Minions are not 3e Monks'....i think i'll go cry in the corner now...

nagora
2008-05-29, 04:24 AM
Whereas in 3rd Edition, a 10th level fighter will have such a high AC that the orcs have effectively no chance of hitting him. The most probable outcome is that the orcs will all be killed or forced to flee, while the fighter has hardly a scratch on him.
Which is why I think the real problem was that 3ed gave far too many combat advantages away far too quickly. Cutting back on that would have removed the need for minion rules. Since that would have achieved the same goal without increasing the number of rules it seems to me a wiser course, as a general design philosophy. More rules mean more bugs.

Raum
2008-05-29, 05:16 AM
It is simply that you people are so ridiculously pro-4e in your stances that you take any dissent or questioning as anti-4e trolling.
I have to agree with Jax here, there seems to be a reactionary element who consider any questioning of 4e's 'holy tome' to be sacrilege spouted by die hards unwilling to release their grasp on an older rule set. There may even be a few such die hards but responding to every criticism as if it were a deadly attack is ridiculous.

If it's a good system it can withstand some criticism.

Frankly, I've liked several things 4e is trying to accomplish. I even like the presumed intent behind minions. It's minion mechanics I think are poorly implemented. Worse, they seem to have moved the accounting up front rather than removing the accounting altogether.

nagora
2008-05-29, 07:43 AM
There's a very reasonable argument that some of the difficulty you talk about is 'fake difficulty,' exemplified by Nintendo Hard (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NintendoHard).

It isn't always more "realistic" just because the game designers added more arbitrary forms of difficulty and risk.

Nintendo Hard is all about arbitrary danger - why exactly does touching the tin opener before I've found the tuna kill me? Early editions of AD&D generally tried to give a much more "just" level of danger - if you think about what you're doing you should be able to work out that it's dangerous; if you don't then it's your own fault.

Tunnels and Trolls was much more into Nintendo Hard, as was the satirical Paranoia.

Yakk
2008-05-29, 09:29 AM
At first glance, the "does damage at the start of the turn, no defense" seems a bad thing.

Changing it to "does damage at the end of your turn", or allowing a saving throw to avoid it...

Ignoring powers, Storm Fury? Insta-kills every minion within 10 squares when the Spellstorm Mage becomes bloodied.

The Staff of Storms isn't bad either, but is a daily power tied to an item.

Random: interesting change:

A character can wear & gain the benefits of up to two magci rings (one on each hand.)

SamTheCleric
2008-05-29, 09:33 AM
How is that a change? That's how it is now. :smallconfused:

Yakk
2008-05-29, 11:34 AM
In previous preview, at level 11 you could wear one ring, at level 21 two.

SamTheCleric
2008-05-29, 11:36 AM
Ohhh. I didn't know that. :smallbiggrin:

Indon
2008-05-29, 02:25 PM
How is having the OPTION to scale enemies to your PCs a bad thing?

It's obvious that *everything ALWAYS* normalizing is a bad thing. That's irrelevant. Nothing about 4E does this. Bad DMs do this, in 4E or 3E or whatever else.

Well, think of it like this.

You can normalize monsters in a sandbox game, so long as you have a reason. Maybe they're elite troops (a couple NPC or PC levels). Maybe they gained a template from another monster in the area, or that they're working with (Awakened Dire Wolves working with a Druid). Maybe they're an opposing adventurer party (Sky's the limit).

By divorcing power from type, you reduce the ability of the game to facilitate this kind of sandbox normalization, and increase the chances, and by extention the incidence, of your "Bad DM'ing". It's harder to normalize monsters badly in 3'rd edition, while in 4'th edition it's just as easy as normalizing them well (and may, I haven't read the books, give less indication as to what good normalization even is).

Now, I'm not saying that change is all bad - It's awesome for PC's as a replacement for LA/RHD, for instance - but there's your downside right there.


And you don't need to strike that balance too often if you can tone the level 25 lich down to level 20 for your level 15 party.
But then your players will start wondering why they aren't encountering more Liches when they hit level 20.


It's not an either-or.
It is an either-or - just one on a continuum, rather than a switch. The more your PC's meet normalized opponents, the lower the range of powers they experience become, the less of an idea of scale for power they have.


Seriously, you are arguing against the ability to provide a greater variety of challenges to your PCs. That's like arguing that the monster manual should only have half the monsters it does.

Because they're bad challenges. I wouldn't want to double the size of the Monster Manual using entries like the Duckbunny and the Spider Monkey (well, okay, you got me: I would, because they're so incredibly, hilariously awesome).


If I want to be challenged, I will play a video game.

Uh? Challenges exist in every class and category of tabletop gaming. Without challenges, it's basically collaborative storytelling, and you need to ask yourself what you even need a game system for.


Here it is again: "if you don't have fun the way I do, you're doing it wrong."

Don't do that.

Well, in that specific case, if you aren't playing with challenges, you pretty much literally aren't playing. At least, not any game that at all requires a system such as D&D.


It's that if they're having challenging fights against half a dozen basic kobold warriors at level one then at level 12 they should (or at least could) be having challenging fights against a huge horde of basic kobold warriors under the command of some higher level leaders.
A kobold which is challenging to someone just starting his hero career should not be challenging to someone who is a good ways along it. This example is exactly an example of being 'inexplicably really hard'. Somehow, a group of kobolds rather than being adventurer fodder, became adventurer-killers. Why?

nagora
2008-05-29, 02:31 PM
A kobold which is challenging to someone just starting his hero career should not be challenging to someone who is a good ways along it. This example is exactly an example of being 'inexplicably really hard'. Somehow, a group of kobolds rather than being adventurer fodder, became adventurer-killers. Why?

The other obvious in-character question, of course, is "Here, guys, why did we never meet any of these really, really tough kobolds last year?" It's not simply a meta-game problem.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-05-29, 02:31 PM
Somehow, a group of kobolds rather than being adventurer fodder, became adventurer-killers. Why?

Because your still made of flesh, and their weapons are still made of metal.
I always thought it was odd how an orc falchion crit at level one could drop you, but at level 20 the same blow will hardly drop you 1/20th your hit points.

I know its like, the foundation of rpg's to get tougher as you level up. But come on, that orc just slashed open your stomach, and somehow your still up.

nagora
2008-05-29, 02:37 PM
Because your still made of flesh, and their weapons are still made of metal.
I always thought it was odd how an orc falchion crit at level one could drop you, but at level 20 the same blow will hardly drop you 1/20th your hit points.

I know its like, the foundation of rpg's to get tougher as you level up. But come on, that orc just slashed open your stomach, and somehow your still up.

You misunderstand hit points. That orc has probably just missed you with an attack that would have slashed open a 1st level character's stomach. It might have nicked your skin and if the weapon is poisoned you'll need to roll a saving throw to see if it did.

If the weapon is not poisoned then all you can say is that your years of training and experience (and blessings from the gods or whatever) saved you from a fatal blow in some way. You stepped aside, parried, poked him in the eye and distracted him, whatever it was it was something a 1st level character would have been too slow to do.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-29, 02:39 PM
The other obvious in-character question, of course, is "Here, guys, why did we never meet any of these really, really tough kobolds last year?" It's not simply a meta-game problem.

-Because you weren't in the same place last year.
-Because these are the tougher kobolds that *survived* last year.
-Because these kobolds are trained and equipped.
-Because they have a magic item (OH MAN SWEET INSTANT PLOT HOOK THIS QUEST IS GOING TO BE SO INTERESTING).

Myatar_Panwar
2008-05-29, 02:45 PM
Yes, thats the same excuse I tell myself when I feel such doubts as well. But in reality, you could just be laying there on the floor stunned/sleeping/whatever when the orc delivers that same blow, and somehow you still take minimal damage.

Maybe a better example. Late at night, your party rests for the night on a cliff face. Stupidly, you roll off during the night, without any armor or protections, and fall 200ft, without waking. You die. Do this a few years later, and somehow you live?

Rutee
2008-05-29, 02:48 PM
Yeah, I'd say I'd be more surprised if I always fought the exact same Kobolds then less.


Uh? Challenges exist in every class and category of tabletop gaming. Without challenges, it's basically collaborative storytelling, and you need to ask yourself what you even need a game system for.
I'm pretty damn sure I've already said there's a distinct difference between "I seek to be challenged as a player" and "I acknowledge there are challenges here".

nagora
2008-05-29, 02:55 PM
-Because you weren't in the same place last year.
-Because these are the tougher kobolds that *survived* last year.
-Because these kobolds are trained and equipped.
-Because they have a magic item (OH MAN SWEET INSTANT PLOT HOOK THIS QUEST IS GOING TO BE SO INTERESTING).

You like creativity and improvisaton, right? I'm sure you can think of a reason.

Sure, but that's okay once. When do the characters realise that all these tough monsters are following them around.

I mean, if we take the rate of evolution to be such that it's #2 on that list then the commoners should kill all adventurers before they make all the nasties stronger. (Paradox: that would just make the next group of adventurers tougher, which accelerates the evolution of the monsters...! Oh no!).

It's all part of this idea that the entire world exists only for the benefit of some special people called "player characters". I think it just breaks the illusion of playing a real person.

nagora
2008-05-29, 03:02 PM
Yes, thats the same excuse I tell myself when I feel such doubts as well. But in reality, you could just be laying there on the floor stunned/sleeping/whatever when the orc delivers that same blow, and somehow you still take minimal damage.

In 1ed, you might in fact die but they took that out for whiny players.


Maybe a better example. Late at night, your party rests for the night on a cliff face. Stupidly, you roll off during the night, without any armor or protections, and fall 200ft, without waking. You die. Do this a few years later, and somehow you live?

It's a classic crunch example for hit points. There's at least four approaches a DM can take, although two of them require ignoring your requirement that you remained asleep:

1) yes, you're right, that's impossible so you're dead. Happy now?
2) You are the lucky, highly trained person who avoided the orc's fatal blow and you are able to grab ledges, trees, weeds, whatever and effectively bounce your way down the cliff and by a stroke of luck survive.
3) You lose all the indicated hit points but are now hanging by your finger tips at the top of the cliff where youwoke up just in time to grab on. You've expended luck, not suffered physical damage apart from a few scratches and a broken fingernail.
4) The gods have a higher purpose for you and grant you another chance. Don't waste it.

Reel On, Love
2008-05-29, 03:09 PM
Sure, but that's okay once. When do the characters realise that all these tough monsters are following them around.
They don't. See, *adventurers* typically go to the *monsters*. If someone gets Sir Forthright, the Paragon-level Paladin who Shines With Holy Light, to defend them, it's probably something tougher than your garden-variety kobold.
If your characters keep hanging around places where there are only level 1 kobolds, then they can just keep killing them. You don't even need to roll it out, you can handwave the encounters.
And if they stay there some more, they might get kinda bored, combat-wise.


It's all part of this idea that the entire world exists only for the benefit of some special people called "player characters". I think it just breaks the illusion of playing a real person.
It really isn't.

Seriously, you can think of 50 ways to turn "the monsters have a magic item" into a plot hook, but you can't think of 50 ways to justify "these enemies are stronger" or turn it into a plothook?

You know what? That's a good question! Why ARE these kobolds so much tougher? This shouldn't be possible! By god, we need some adventurers who are willing to risk their lives and find out what's going on before we get swarmed by kobolds!

AKA_Bait
2008-05-29, 03:11 PM
1) yes, you're right, that's impossible so you're dead. Happy now?
2) You are the lucky, highly trained person who avoided the orc's fatal blow and you are able to grab ledges, trees, weeds, whatever and effectively bounce your way down the cliff and by a stroke of luck survive.
3) You lose all the indicated hit points but are now hanging by your finger tips at the top of the cliff where youwoke up just in time to grab on. You've expended luck, not suffered physical damage apart from a few scratches and a broken fingernail.
4) The gods have a higher purpose for you and grant you another chance. Don't waste it.

You forgot:

5) At lower levels, the pain of dropping 200ft off the side of a cliff would have incapacitated you. Unable to move, you would bleed to death. However, now that you have been around the block and taken many more wounds, you are capable of pushing through the pain of the fall to get back up and defend yourself.