# Minions are alien visitors from another kind of game



## Irda Ranger (May 11, 2008)

In the context of D&D I don't like the Minion rules, and I'm trying to work through why they bother me and why "fixing" them really isn't possible for my purposes.  I hope you'll bear with me, as this is about game design and starts with first principles.  

DISCLAIMER: There's not supposed to be any badwrongfun here, just game theory.  The only intentional opinion in the post is clearly labeled as such below.

*******

First Principle: As you level up, you get better.  This is true in every game that recognizes character advancement (whether as class & level or a more skill-focused system).  How your advancement is recognized depends on the game.

In 4E you get better at hurting enemies in two different ways AND you get better at avoiding death in two different ways.  Both your binary threshold effects (BAB and Defense) and your analog ablative effects (HP and dmg) go up with level.  BAB and HP go up according to a flat formula based on your class.  AC and Dmg going up is a bit differently; they're a mix of class advancement and assumptions about the equipment you acquire as you adventure.  But they all move up.  You get better at hitting AND hurting.  You get better at avoiding hits AND taking them.  It's a four-factor system (4FS).

This 4FS applies to all classes, and the get better more or less in step.  The different roles make different trade-offs as to AC vs. dmg, HP vs. dmg, etc., but they're all supposed to be "balanced."  Playtesting often reveals slight imbalances in the system that require tweaking, but the basic assumption is not challenged.

D&D's standard 4FS also applies to all non-Minion monsters.  There's a general in-step advancement in BAB, HP, Defense and Dmg.  Generally speaking, 15th level monsters are better than 3rd level monsters in all four factors.  Different monster types (Brute, Leader, etc) make different trade-offs (just like PC classes do), but there's an upward sloping trend.

There's a different two-factor style of game though which may be described as "gritty."  (2FS-Gr)  Your BAB and Defense may go up, but you HP never do (or only goes up a very small amount).  The game can often come close to "All Save or Die, All the Time", but Dmg output can also be reigned in to make it more a "three strikes and you're out" type game.  Combat can be very "swingy", because only a few bad rolls in a row can kill you.  D&D 4E is never like this, and prior editions weren't once you get past 3rd level, but some people try to turn D&D into a game like this by using rule options like "Wound points" or "Critical hits do 1[W] Con damage."  I'm sure there will be way to do this in 4E if you wanted to.

In a 2FS-Gr game combat looks like this:
Initiative: miss - miss - miss - miss - dead.

From a 4E normal monster or PC's point of view, that's really different from 4E RAW combat, where you can engage ablative defense (i.e., lose HP) every round for round after round, but between second winds and healing words you keep on going.  Unless of course, you're a Minion.  Minions don't have HP and it doesn't matter how much damage you do, only if you hit.

Minions are 2FS-gritty monsters living in a 4FS-heroic game.  They ignore half the game's variables.  IMO, this is bad.  Choosing gritty or heroic fantasy are equally valid choices, but once you've made that choice I don't think mixing them together works.  It just doesn't feel right to me (clearly a subjective judgment, but there it is) and I don't think it will "work" in the long run because too many of the game's constituent parts depend on all four factors being there, and Minions break all those rules.  You basically need a "special case" rule for half the rules in the game that says "unless the target is a Minion, in which case X happens instead."  That adds a lot of complication and requires a lot of weird requirements for little gain.

*********

I do want to emphasize I mean no ill will to mearls et al because of this attempt.  We all know why we have Minions in 4E: good intentions.  The 4E devs wanted to allow a "horde of mooks" to be a thematic choice available to DMs and a reasonable challange for PC's (sounds nice, right?).  But the 4FS D&D uses has to advance all four factors more or less in step to avoid really wonky combat (either riskless mow-down, swingy die-toss or interminable miss-fest, depending on how the variables work out).  

The only way out of this trap that allows for mook-hordes to actually pose a threat to PCs (with their level X binary threshold defense) is to remove HP and dmg from the equation for half the combatants.  It's a "fix", but it's ugly and is causing a lot of people on these boards some mental trauma - including me.

So that's why I think I will not be using Minion rules.  Luckily for me they're not integral to the system, and I think they'll be easy to ignore.

*********

The astute reader will realize that there's a second 2FS out there, one where your ablative defense and offense (HP and [W]) scale with level according to a formula, but your binary threshold defense and offense (AC and BAB) never go up past 1st level.  In this system a 1st level opponent can "hit" a 20th level opponent as easily as a 1st level opponent, but he only does 1st level dmg vs his opponents 20th level HP.  The 20th level opponent's counter-attack will do 20[W] damage though, probably killing level-1 dude in one blow.  This system plays a lot like D&D as long as you're fighting opponents more or less your level, but anyone more than X levels beneath you is a Minion, and you're a Minion to anyone more than X levels above you.  I am open to suggests as to what to call this system.


----------



## Kraydak (May 11, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> ...
> So that's why I think I will not be using Minion rules.  Luckily for me they're not integral to the system, and I think they'll be easy to ignore.
> ...




The above is true if and only if minions are not used in modules.

<-also unhappy with minions, for a variety of reasons including the above


----------



## LFK (May 11, 2008)

Actually they're using three of the factors: their BAB, Defenses, and Damage output all scale, only their hit points don't.

They could have written the HP calculation for Minions to be equal to the assumed base damage for PCs of a given level for an at-will attack and achieved the same effect, but at the cost of introducing a weird formula into the mix. The other option is to keep things simple and give Minions 1/4 the HP of a monster of given level, but this potentially negates the benefits of minions (for a DM) in that you're conceivably tracking a dozen monsters with 1-2 remaining hit points after a low-roll AoE attack.


Maybe it's just that I grocked the purpose of minions pretty quickly, but the mental gymnastics seem to be entirely self-inflicted and I feel as though they presume these minions are just wandering around out there _somewhere_, and any moment the PCs will stumble on some level 27 minion and get a lucky 20 and rack up thousands of unintended XP.

While I understand the concepts of the hypothetical scenarios presented in the other threads I fail to see practical application, so to me the worry looks a lot like a discussion about how much faster you'd be able to swallow if you drank motor oil.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 11, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> The above is true if and only if minions are not used in modules.



1. I don't buy modules, but admittedly that's only helpful to me, maybe not you.
2. It shouldn't be too hard (in theory) to swap in 1 Level X Monters for every 2 Level X Minions.


----------



## LFK (May 11, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> 2. It shouldn't be too hard (in theory) to swap in 1 Level X Monters for every 2 Level X Minions.



4:1 ratio. 4 minions = 1 Regular.


----------



## AllisterH (May 11, 2008)

It's 4 Level X minions for 1 Level X "standard" monster, but yeah, it's pretty easy to "get rid" of minions in a module.

This is the first time I heard the argument that mooks/minions be equated with GRITTY. The minion concept comes straight out of cinematic stories (superheroes, Indiana Jones, Hong Kong action flicks..)


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> 2. It shouldn't be too hard (in theory) to swap in 1 Level X Monters for every 2 Level X Minions.



*Nods* I like Minions. But yeah it won't be hard for those that don't to take Minions out and swap in a ordinary-monster that fits the XP gap.


----------



## Lackhand (May 11, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> The above is true if and only if minions are not used in modules.
> 
> <-also unhappy with minions, for a variety of reasons including the above



Welcome to house ruling. 

Irda: I think you have an excellent handle on the game-and-statistic-aspects of this issue. I'm not sure that I understand why you're worried about the melding of the gritty (they don't feel that gritty to me, but whatever!) and the superheroic; can you elaborate on that?

Would seeing it in play help? Is this a deep-seated belief or a momentary reaction?


I myself have a soft spot for mooks, coming straight out of Mutants and Masterminds, where Hero Points separate mook from nonmook rather explicitly.


----------



## NewfieDave (May 11, 2008)

That's a valid mechanical argument, but I love the flavor of minions so much that they are one of the things I'm most looking forward to using as a DM. The whole point of minions is to let the PCs squish them, so the lack of HP progression doesn't bother me. I want them to die in one hit, which makes HP kind of redundant. It will be interesting to see the final rules for minions once the books are out.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 11, 2008)

Minions are awesome.  They provide a challenge for players and add a cinematic feel that the DM doesn't really have to track hit points for, which would be cumbersome in large battles.  I've used this style of monster in many campaigns and it's a lot of fun for the players, even if they don't make "sense" mathematically.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 11, 2008)

LFK said:
			
		

> Actually they're using three of the factors: their BAB, Defenses, and Damage output all scale, only their hit points don't.



Of course they do.  If they didn't they wouldn't pose a threat to the PCs.




			
				LFK said:
			
		

> They could have written the HP calculation for Minions to be equal to the assumed base damage for PCs of a given level for an at-will attack and achieved the same effect, but at the cost of introducing a weird formula into the mix. The other option is to keep things simple and give Minions 1/4 the HP of a monster of given level, but this potentially negates the benefits of minions (for a DM) in that you're conceivably tracking a dozen monsters with 1-2 remaining hit points after a low-roll AoE attack.



You mean just like they double HP for Elites and double again (or is it 5x?) for Solos?  Yes, I know.  HP is the easiest tool available to the 4E devs to create these kinds of monsters.  I get that.





			
				LFK said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just that I grocked the purpose of minions pretty quickly,



Don't be too quick to pat yourself on the back there.  I grok it just fine; I don't _like _it.

As for the rest of your post I'm afraid I don't know what you're getting at, so I don't have a reply.  Care to put that another way?


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 11, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> This is the first time I heard the argument that mooks/minions be equated with GRITTY. The minion concept comes straight out of cinematic stories (superheroes, Indiana Jones, Hong Kong action flicks..)



It's all a question of point of view: gritty for _who_?  Combat vs. PCs is pretty darn gritty for the Minion.


----------



## Ipissimus (May 11, 2008)

Minions have their uses, even in a gritty campaign. On one side, sure, you can use them to make the players feel all bad-ass. On the other side, you can also use them to show how bad-ass the villain is.

Take this hypothetical situation. Cries of 'THE KING HAS BEEN ASSASSINATED' lure the PCs into a room along with 10-20 guardsmen. BBEG is standing over the King's corpse covered in blood. The PCs and guardsmen face off against him alone... and in the first round he kills off all the guardsmen. Watch PCs crap their pants.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 11, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Minions have their uses, even in a gritty campaign. On one side, sure, you can use them to make the players feel all bad-ass. On the other side, you can also use them to show how bad-ass the villain is.
> 
> Take this hypothetical situation. Cries of 'THE KING HAS BEEN ASSASSINATED' lure the PCs into a room along with 10-20 guardsmen. BBEG is standing over the King's corpse covered in blood. The PCs and guardsmen face off against him alone... and in the first round he kills off all the guardsmen. Watch PCs crap their pants.



It's a great example how to effectively use minions to set the scene.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 11, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> Irda: I think you have an excellent handle on the game-and-statistic-aspects of this issue. I'm not sure that I understand why you're worried about the melding of the gritty (they don't feel that gritty to me, but whatever!) and the superheroic; can you elaborate on that?



I don't like the melding of 4FS and 2FS.  They're entirely different types of games which have entirely different rules to support them.  Take the example of a Ranger power that does Dex on a Miss.  That power really reads "You do Dex on a Miss, unless your opponent is a Minion, in which case you do no damage."  You need a special case exception to every rule in D&D that involves HP (which, in D&D, is a whole lot of rules).  This probably increase the number of rules you have to know by 30% or more - just to cover the special case of "unless the target is a Minion."

So, there's two things I don't like about that:
1. It's more work.  I don't want to do more work unless there's a good enough reason. "Good enough" is obviously subjective and you may feel it is. At the moment, I don't.

2. There's a rule-symmetry problem that's bothering me, and this thread is part of my exercise to nail it down.  I need things to "make sense" within the context of the game.  It doesn't "make sense" for a normal human to fight a Dragon with a sword, but within the D&D context of heroic fantasy it "makes sense" (to me, at least).  I've played Classic, AD&D, AD&D 2nd, 3E and 3.5E, and everything has always had HP.  I don't have an emotional attachment to the concept (I've played other games without them), but now we have a single system where some creatures have HP and some don't.  It bothers me that such a fundamental concept doesn't apply to everyone.  It's like saying they don't have an AC.

I'm going to sleep on this (it's 1:15 AM here).  Maybe I'll be more cogent tomorrow.




> Would seeing it in play help? Is this a deep-seated belief or a momentary reaction?



Can't say yet, obviously.  I'll let you know in four months.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 11, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Take this hypothetical situation. Cries of 'THE KING HAS BEEN ASSASSINATED' lure the PCs into a room along with 10-20 guardsmen. BBEG is standing over the King's corpse covered in blood. The PCs and guardsmen face off against him alone... and in the first round he kills off all the guardsmen. Watch PCs crap their pants.



Those aren't Minions - they're plot elements.  Minions roll dice.  Would you roll any dice for the guards in this scene? I wouldn't.


----------



## AZRogue (May 11, 2008)

The minion doesn't have to be believable to the DM, only to the PCs. Since they aren't looking "under the hood" they have no idea that some of the monsters they're facing will die with one blow.

Haven't you ever, as a DM, adjusted your monsters' hitpoints on the fly, after an encounter started to go bad due to bad luck or whatever on the PCs' part? This is the same sort of thing, only before hand. 

Hell, for my epic boss monsters I would not even give them hit points. I would let the PCs hit him until it FELT about right, according to the flow of the encounter, and then let the next blow drop him. Best BBEG fights ever. The anti-minion. Just don't tell my players. They need their illusions.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 11, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I don't like the melding of 4FS and 2FS.  They're entirely different types of games which have entirely different rules to support them.  Take the example of a Ranger power that does Dex on a Miss.  That power really reads "You do Dex on a Miss, unless your opponent is a Minion, in which case you do no damage."  You need a special case exception to every rule in D&D that involves HP (which, in D&D, is a whole lot of rules).  This probably increase the number of rules you have to know by 30% or more - just to cover the special case of "unless the target is a Minion."



I disagree.  The minion's hp in the statblock is all you need to reference.


----------



## Boarstorm (May 11, 2008)

It's not a lot of new rules, it's one rule -- Minions take no damage on a miss.




			
				Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> You need a special case exception to every rule in D&D that




Yeah, it's almost like it's an exception-based rules system, huh?  

Personally, I think a lot of the problems you're having is based on the system using different building blocks for monsters and PCs.  Now there are arguments for and against both points of view, and once I would have agreed, but Charles Ryan (I believe) wrote a rather persuasive blog on the subject and I have to say -- I'm convinced.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 11, 2008)

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> Personally, I think a lot of the problems you're having is based on the system using different building blocks for monsters and PCs.  Now there are arguments for and against both points of view, and once I would have agreed, but Charles Ryan (I believe) wrote a rather persuasive blog on the subject and I have to say -- I'm convinced.



I have to say, having done both... I prefer exception based monster creation.  It's a lot more interesting for me as a DM, easier to create monsters that fit the encounter/theme I'm trying to get across to the players, and keeps the players on their toes since they can't do any nasty meta-gaming to defeat the creatures easily based on name or appearance alone.


----------



## JMCampbell82 (May 11, 2008)

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> Personally, I think a lot of the problems you're having is based on the system using different building blocks for monsters and PCs.  Now there are arguments for and against both points of view, and once I would have agreed, but Charles Ryan (I believe) wrote a rather persuasive blog on the subject and I have to say -- I'm convinced.





got a link? I love a good persuasive blog entry.


----------



## Korgoth (May 11, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Hell, for my epic boss monsters I would not even give them hit points. I would let the PCs hit him until it FELT about right, according to the flow of the encounter, and then let the next blow drop him. Best BBEG fights ever. The anti-minion. Just don't tell my players. They need their illusions.




If I were a player and a DM did that to me, I'd be furious.  I would consider that as being treated with contempt and having my time stolen.


----------



## Andor (May 11, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> The minion doesn't have to be believable to the DM, only to the PCs. Since they aren't looking "under the hood" they have no idea that some of the monsters they're facing will die with one blow.




They don't? After killing 400 minions over 15 levels of advancment they haven't noticed that some orcs can be killed with a well throw pat of butter and others can nap under a pile driver without risk? 

They haven't noticed that as they learned to swing harder they got tougher, but that somehow these orcs broke the advancement rules that have applied to every person _or monster_ (since a named monster by definition is not a mook) they have ever spoken too? 

If the minion rules are intended to be cinematic backdrop to allow the GM to show vast armies fighting and dieing in the background, then they don't need rules in the first place. Set dressing is set dressing, whether it's a dramatic sunset over an ancient ziggurat or a horde of screaming orcs that get killed by the sun gleaming off Sir Loin O'beefs flawless grin.

If they are intended to be beings that actually exist in the same physical reality as the PCs then how can the PCs fail to notice that 4 out of 5 monsters are made out of angry soap bubbles and every 5th monster has actual meat on his bones?

This, by the way, is *NOT* a simulation issue. It's an immersion issue.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> If I were a player and a DM did that to me, I'd be furious.  I would consider that as being treated with contempt and having my time stolen.



Regardless of whether you enjoyed the game or not?


----------



## Boarstorm (May 11, 2008)

JMCampbell82 said:
			
		

> got a link? I love a good persuasive blog entry.




Gleemax. 

I'll try to find it, but with the gimped search function, I can't guarantee results.  Will edit this post if I get lucky.

Edit: 2 things --

1) I was not able to locate the blog mentioned.
2) I believe I was mistaken earlier, and the author was actually Rodney Thompson.  Mea culpa.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> They don't? After killing 400 minions over 15 levels of advancment they haven't noticed that some orcs can be killed with a well throw pat of butter and others can nap under a pile driver without risk?



Well from a in-game perspective the Minion is the unlucky one that slipped on mud and was impaled by the PC, while the Monster is the one that manages to block a blow with their shield, or roll in time to only get cut along the arm.

From out-of-game, the Players will only know which is a Minion when they go down and if you as a DM has created a fairly good narrative to the combat, it doesn't break immersion.


----------



## Korgoth (May 11, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Regardless of whether you enjoyed the game or not?




Yes.

Scenario: You play a game with a friend.  You have fun while playing.  You win the game.  Then you find out that your friend was cheating in order to let you win.  You're not miffed?  I would be.  The other person is essentially treating you like a child _and_ asserting complete control over the game (which was being played under false pretenses) by deciding the outcome unilaterally.

You might as well ask if I would be happy being railroaded.  No I would not.


----------



## The Dude (May 11, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> So, there's two things I don't like about that:
> 1. It's more work.  I don't want to do more work unless there's a good enough reason. "Good enough" is obviously subjective and you may feel it is. At the moment, I don't.



I do not think this is true.  The only person tracking NPC hit points is the DM.  When the PC calls out the damage on a miss, the DM says "OK", goes to do the HP subtraction, realizes the NPC is a minion, and moves on.  This rule would only involve more work if the PCs were tracking the damage applied to the minion, because then the PC would be forced to remember the unwritten exception to his/her damage-on-a-miss powers.



> 2. There's a rule-symmetry problem that's bothering me, and this thread is part of my exercise to nail it down.  I need things to "make sense" within the context of the game.  It doesn't "make sense" for a normal human to fight a Dragon with a sword, but within the D&D context of heroic fantasy it "makes sense" (to me, at least).  I've played Classic, AD&D, AD&D 2nd, 3E and 3.5E, and everything has always had HP.  I don't have an emotional attachment to the concept (I've played other games without them), but now we have a single system where some creatures have HP and some don't.  It bothers me that such a fundamental concept doesn't apply to everyone.  It's like saying they don't have an AC.



That is a legitimate concern.  It is one thing to say that the rules governing NPCs are different than those governing PCs.  When one of those differences is as fundamental as having level-dependent HP, its like saying the laws of physics do not apply to some folks.  We are all accustomed to the rules being descriptive of the world, so it is hard to imagine creatures wandering around with only one hit point when fully healed.  However, 4e is moving to rules that are descriptive of an object's relationship to the PCs.  Making the transition to that view of the rules can be pretty difficult when one of the steps of that transition involves minions having 1 HP.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 11, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> If I were a player and a DM did that to me, I'd be furious.  I would consider that as being treated with contempt and having my time stolen.



Haha, that's ridiculous.  You would never know.  Unless you cheat and peek at the DM's notes or the DM is an idiot and tells you.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 11, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> You might as well ask if I would be happy being railroaded. No I would not.




Me neither. The idea of "Enemies fall when it _feels right_" is way too painfully narrative for me. I don't feel like I'm playing a game anymore, I feel like I'm just here to amuse the DM until he gets bored.

Minions don't really do that for me as badly, because I can accept "one hit would've killed them anyway." They *almost* do that by not dying on a miss, but with the "no one dies on a miss" house rule, it feels more "fair."


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 11, 2008)

*Shrugs shoulders* I guess myself and my players play a different style of D&D. We play to be characters in a story, yes the players can dictate to the characters things that influence and change the story but it is still a story. 

That doesn't mean though it is railroaded. The players explore, do lots of side-quests, etc. But that is simply part of the story as well, so Minions are quite effective as narrative/plot devices in the main storyline and side-quests.

They are especially nice when you do Episodic-Gaming like we do, where say... 2-3 Sessions is a Episode, so I as a DM want a moment where the players take on mobs of monsters, then I use Minions in that part of the Episode. As such each Episode has a rising, climax and closing action and Minions can play a roll in any of them.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Me neither. The idea of "Enemies fall when it _feels right_" is way too painfully narrative for me. I don't feel like I'm playing a game anymore, I feel like I'm just here to amuse the DM until he gets bored.



Unless the DM specifically tells you they're doing this with solo/epic encounters, you'd never know.  If you're meta-gaming because  the dm is using stock encounters/monsters out of the book, it's your own damn fault for cheating in the first place.



> Minions don't really do that for me as badly, because I can accept "one hit would've killed them anyway." They *almost* do that by not dying on a miss, but with the "no one dies on a miss" house rule, it feels more "fair."



If the dm described the minion as bruised, wounded, bleeding, burned, battered, staggered, etc would that help?


----------



## AllisterH (May 11, 2008)

Er, of course the DM lets you win....It's ridiculously easy for the DMs to beat the players by the rules as they were. Simply send a higher level monster.

I like both the minion and the Solo concept as they both facilitate what I think is D&D's strength. To make an enjoyable experience for the players. I would say a larger majority of D&D players are interested in modelling things they see on screen and in books and both the Solo and Minion allow the DM to do this.

Without the minion concept, we have the pre-4E situation where even though both Conan and LotR have great "heroes vs the minion scenes", D&D could never model it. I always considered that a fallure of the D&D rules in that it couldn't even depict a common trope found in its varied source material.

Similarly, the concept of the Solo (which admittedly fewer people gripe about) is a textbook example of how you CAN'T treat the world the same as the game as they don't mesh well at all.


----------



## Pale Jackal (May 11, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well from a in-game perspective the Minion is the unlucky one that slipped on mud and was impaled by the PC, while the Monster is the one that manages to block a blow with their shield, or roll in time to only get cut along the arm.
> 
> From out-of-game, the Players will only know which is a Minion when they go down and if you as a DM has created a fairly good narrative to the combat, it doesn't break immersion.




Alternately, some orcs are easier to kill than others.  I don't see how that breaks suspension of disbelief for anyone, really.

Would you describe a 1 HP fighter in 1st edition as dying from a dagger prick?  You could, but that would be really, really dumb, IMO.  No, the 1 HP fighter got his throat slit, or was stabbed in the heart.  Take your pick of dagger induced mortal wounds.

Thus, a 1 HP minion does not die from a dagger prick.  He's simply easier to mortally wound than his more combat adept fellows.  I'm so glad 4E has embraced abstract HP... no, abstract HP isn't flawless, but it's better than "10 HP is a mortal wound.  Your 10th level fighter can take approximately 7-10 mortal wounds."


----------



## reanjr (May 11, 2008)

I think giving them 1 HP is the same as giving as 1-4 HP, but without the book keeping.  There were always creatures in 3e that had so few HP, it wasn't worth keeping track of.  Many a time, the players' damage dealers couldn't even hit the guys without killing them due to bonuses.  Even when it was possible, it was very unlikely.

The 1 HP thing is a different on paper but I think it will amount to business as usual in play.  Only without book keeping.


----------



## Korgoth (May 11, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> Haha, that's ridiculous.  You would never know.  Unless you cheat and peek at the DM's notes or the DM is an idiot and tells you.




If I get cheated and don't know it, I still got cheated.  There's this whole concept called "integrity" that comes into play.

And suppose I just ask the DM point blank: "Hey DM, were we just your dancing monkeys back there or did we beat that Dire Stoat fair-and-square?"  It's a legitimate question.  So, supposing that the DM did just monkey-dance us, what will the DM answer?  He will either lie (is it worth risking Hell for a stupid game?), tell the truth (then I have my tirade) or evade (which is merely the spineless version of telling the truth, same result).


----------



## pemerton (May 11, 2008)

The Dude said:
			
		

> We are all accustomed to the rules being descriptive of the world



Who's this "we"?


----------



## hong (May 11, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> If I get cheated and don't know it, I still got cheated.  There's this whole concept called "integrity" that comes into play.
> 
> And suppose I just ask the DM point blank: "Hey DM, were we just your dancing monkeys back there or did we beat that Dire Stoat fair-and-square?"  It's a legitimate question.  So, supposing that the DM did just monkey-dance us, what will the DM answer?  He will either lie (is it worth risking Hell for a stupid game?), tell the truth (then I have my tirade) or evade (which is merely the spineless version of telling the truth, same result).




If it ever gets to the point where you are asking the DM did he fudge, then the DM's fudging has failed.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 11, 2008)

> Unless the DM specifically tells you they're doing this with solo/epic encounters, you'd never know. If you're meta-gaming because the dm is using stock encounters/monsters out of the book, it's your own damn fault for cheating in the first place.




For me and the DMs I play under, keeping secrets isn't a high priority, because it's not a lot of fun for us. I mean, I suppose a DM could keep it from me and giggle about it behind everyone's back, but, for the most part, the DMs I've had have been more keen on saying stuff like "Don't bother telling me the damage on these guys." 

We're not very adversarial, and we're not very invested in secrets that aren't directly relevant to the game.



> If the dm described the minion as bruised, wounded, bleeding, burned, battered, staggered, etc would that help?




Why would it?

It doesn't annoy me that the DM doesn't waste his breath describing what happened.

It bothers me that _nothing actually happened_. 

Listening to the DM go on for 30 seconds about how "he goes 'ouch'" doesn't mean I've actually _accomplished_ anything. 

And if I've blown my daily or my per-encounter on this guy? Only to have to do absolutely nothing?

Yeah, I'm not really satisfied by DM verbosity.


----------



## The Dude (May 11, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> They don't? After killing 400 minions over 15 levels of advancment they haven't noticed that some orcs can be killed with a well throw pat of butter and others can nap under a pile driver without risk?



In all likelihood, the first time PCs encounter that monster, it was not a minion.  The PCs probably will not face the minion-version until they advance high enough that one-hit-kills seem reasonable.

Even if the PCs do meet minion-versions of that monster early on, the PCs will probably never know that the monster had only 1 HP unless they chronically roll crap damage (possible) or the DM doesn't bother to let them roll and announce damage before declaring the monster dead (which foolishly disrupts player immersion).  The player could make a good guess based on their knowledge of minion rules, but it is still only a guess without the above.


> If they are intended to be beings that actually exist in the same physical reality as the PCs then how can the PCs fail to notice that 4 out of 5 monsters are made out of angry soap bubbles and every 5th monster has actual meat on his bones?
> 
> This, by the way, is *NOT* a simulation issue. It's an immersion issue.



I don't think the minions are intended to exist independently of the PCs.  A monster is appropriate for normal use when the PCs are at one level, but the minion "template" (I don't know if that is the terminology that 4e is using) is better when the PCs reach a higher level.  Minions don't "exist" until the DM feels that minions of that level need to exist for the PCs.

For example, a party of first-level PCs could face a group of 6th level minions.  With only one hit point and the slower rate of increase in AC/Defs, the party could win.  However, the NPC's AC/Defs-BAB-DmgOutput relative to the PCs would create a virtual save-or-die situation- it would be a race to see who struck who first.  Despite the 1 HP rule, a party of 6th level minions is NOT an appropriate challenge for a 1st level party.  6th level minions are better for parties of 6th level or higher (depending on how tough the monster is supposed to be without the template- some monsters normally have more HP than others); while the PCs are lower in level, they should never face the minion-version of that monster (unless the DM thinks of a reason why it would be ok).  The monsters do not have the minion template until the PCs reach a level high enough that a horde of easily-killed monsters of that type is a good idea.  You might say that the minion template is PC dependent, not world dependent.

Don't get me wrong; I do worry about this set of rules.  I don't think anything in-game is going to tell the PCs "hey, these are minions; they only have 1 HP" and break the immersion.  However, my players' awareness of the minion rule may cause a break in immersion and that does worry me.  Hopefully, it won't be a problem.  If it ends up a problem, I will come up with a houserule that handles the problem.


----------



## Mal Malenkirk (May 11, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Minions are 2FS-gritty monsters living in a 4FS-heroic game.  They ignore half the game's variables.  IMO, this is bad.  Choosing gritty or heroic fantasy are equally valid choices, but once you've made that choice I don't think mixing them together works.




I have to disagree here; Minions aren't gritty.  Your theorization is interesting but fallacious in its insistance that monsters need to follow the same rules of advancement for the gritty/heroic status to be maintained.

Gritty _only_ involves the PC.  For a game to be gritty, the PCs needs to face death in no more than a handful of attacks.  Shadowrun, for example, is fairly gritty.  

If the PCs are as tough as D&D 4e PCs are, gritty flies of the window no matter whether they only face equally tough monsters or hordes of minions.  

In 3e, several monsters die in one hit.  And commoners, who are 98% of the population, are all killed in one blow.  It doesn't make the game gritty in the least.

On the contrary, minions are pure creation of the heroic style of gameplay.  Every single game featuring minions rules I can think of is in the heroic genre.  Fengshui and Mutant&Mastermind, for example.  On the other hand there is no minions in Shadowrun or Riddle of Steel, nor any gritty game I can think of.  Closest I can think of is WoD, but then this game isn't nearly as gritty as it pretends to be.


----------



## hong (May 11, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Listening to the DM go on for 30 seconds about how "he goes 'ouch'" doesn't mean I've actually _accomplished_ anything.
> 
> And if I've blown my daily or my per-encounter on this guy? Only to have to do absolutely nothing?
> 
> Yeah, I'm not really satisfied by DM verbosity.




If I've used my daily or per-encounter on someone, then yes, I expect the DM to narrate it appropriately. This can be either to invoke an "oh yeah" response if it worked, or an "oh " response if it failed. A significant resource use deserves a significant in-game description.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 11, 2008)

The Dude said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong; I do worry about this set of rules.  I don't think anything in-game is going to tell the PCs "hey, these are minions; they only have 1 HP" and break the immersion.  However, my players' awareness of the minion rule may cause a break in immersion and that does worry me.  Hopefully, it won't be a problem.  If it ends up a problem, I will come up with a houserule that handles the problem.



I think you'll find that it's not a problem.  I've run games where the players knew about minion style rules beforehand or learned of it afterwards and they both really liked it.  It adds a lot of excitement to big combats without bogging down the game to the speed of a snail.


----------



## I'm A Banana (May 11, 2008)

> A significant resource use deserves a significant in-game description.




It also deserves significant in-game _effect_.

Otherwise, we've got a lot of binary back into combat.

For something so trivial to be immune to the effect is kind of mind-badgering.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 11, 2008)

I enjoy a narrativist game, so the bad guys should die when it makes for the best story. The characters aren't aware that they get stronger by killing things; nor that they have more magic 'hit points' that slough off when people stab them. Rather, they know that they've figured out how to survive by the skin of their teeth, and they've learned new skills through practice and study.

It's just part of the cinematic genre that some people get in the heroes' way for a few seconds before being dispatched, and these folks might pose some minor threat. You've got to have disposable mooks in order to have hit points, because hit points allow you to have the fights with the important guy last long enough to be interesting.

And with the right players, meaning the ones I like best, I'm totally comfortable giving the bad guy extra HP so he gets a chance to do some cool stuff too. Otherwise the fight with him isn't memorable, and I've wasted the players' time with a pointless villain.

For me the point of getting together with my friends for this game is to tell collaborative stories that are worth remembering. While occasionally one-shotting a bad-ass is memorable, generally a little finagling the rules can help make for better stories.


----------



## brassbaboon (May 11, 2008)

I've only just begun reading about "minions" and like a lot of the other 4e rules, I don't like them because they seem to be an arbitrary means for the game designers to solve a problem the easiest way possible. They want a particular effect in the game (large attack by a horde of easily dispatched creatures) and they've manipulated the rules arbitrarily to allow the effect to happen.

Since I pretty much roll my own campaigns from scratch, I doubt I will ever use minions. If I want a mob of low-level goblins to engage the party so the ogre mage can get a few spells off, then I'll send a mob of low-level goblins. I don't need to manufacture some bizarre shadow-orc that is actually even easier to kill than a goblin. As far as keeping track of the damage that is done to the goblins by AoE spells or other things, hey, you'd be surprised how easy it is to develop some quick and dirty average effect responses and just plow through the encounter.

I've done this in 3.5e and in older versions for years. When the rules say the party doesn't get any XP for fighting the low-level horde, I just make up my own XP based on how hard the party had to fight to get through them. I am the DM after all.


----------



## Ipissimus (May 11, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Those aren't Minions - they're plot elements.  Minions roll dice.  Would you roll any dice for the guards in this scene? I wouldn't.




-sighs- Start the combat with the BBEG, Guardsmen and PCs in the fight. Roll the dice for the BBEG, (probably a solo) and use the Guardsmen as redshirts. Severely maul any PC that gets in the way.

SHOW don't tell. More impact on the players. If you've ever played Baldur's Gate, think Gorion vs Serevok... or any number of the villains in in that series. Or the dude from the second game that nuked an endless supply of teleporting wizards after crushing an invasion of Rogues almost single handed.


----------



## Ltheb Silverfrond (May 11, 2008)

It appears to me that the whole 'immune to misses' thing is to prevent players from metagaming. I haven't seen a power (yet) that, on a miss, would kill even a first level character every time. By the time the players are fighting, say, orc minions, they will not be powerful enough to one-shot normal orcs on misses. So, If you attack and miss and I say the undamaged orc Dies, you question why it had 1-8 hp, when his skirmisher friend had like 50.
Yes, this does sort of rob players of the effects of their powers, (especially daily powers) but it's a tradeoff between metagaming and fairness. Players already seem to get so many advantages in 4E that cutting the monsters a little slack here and there doesn't seem (to me) too out of line.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 11, 2008)

People rarely if ever notice the nameless red shirts that get in their way between them and the BBEG.  It's not because they're a part of the cinematic feel.  It's because they're _filler_.


----------



## Imaro (May 11, 2008)

One problem I forsee having with minions is the fact that a player can easily burn a daily or encounter power on a minion.  Now some will say in reality a character wouldn't be able to tell a minion from a regular monster type, but then alot of per-day and per-encounter abilities should, in reality, be attemptable and even successful by a trained character more than once per day or encounter.  

Anyway I just see this as leading to unexpected TPK's or even back to 15min adventuring days through what is essentially an unidentifiable wildcard that causes PC's to waste more powerful abilities, especially when mixed with non-minions.  Add in the fact that the damage from a miss can't kill a minion and there's a very real chance PC's can accidentally mistake a minion for a more powerful creature.  I guess I would feel better about this if it was in some way a strategy or tactics based problem...but it's really just a a guessing game unless players memorize the MM.


----------



## Xyl (May 11, 2008)

Minions don't have hit points. They have spares.

In other words, the "dead in one hit" effect doesn't matter for minions because you fight them in groups - getting lucky against a few doesn't end the fight. Instead of grinding down a monster's HP, you grind down the number of monsters.


----------



## Hambot (May 11, 2008)

Meh.  I can see myself rolling a d10 whenever a minion gets hit, and if they get a 0 they survive.  Just so its not impossibly easy to know who are minions and who aren't, and there's an element of uncertainty and risk, which should be what an angry mob of monsters should be all about.

And if a minion survives twice like this?  I'll stat him up on the fly - he's the 1 in a 100 exception to the rule, the monster equivalent of a PC and he needs a chance to survive so he might escape, or upgrade to a chieftan or something.

Or just have a couple of look alike minions whose hitpoints you DO keep track of, who have way more hit points than normal monsters of that level to better represent the most die, some live nature of war.

Considering how many people die in the first 5 minutes of every land war ever, I have absolutely no problem with the minion rules.  The only reason the PC's don't have to put up with these odds is that nobody wants to roll play the Fortesque who gets shot through the eye on the first charge.


----------



## SaffroN (May 11, 2008)

I don't really get what the big deal is here...

Basicly there are two options for 'mook's:
- Low hp
- variable damage
OR
- One hit kill 
- static damage

I am glad that the designers chose to go with the latter, it is just far easier to run minions that way. There is no need to get into the math of it...


----------



## LFK (May 11, 2008)

Xyl said:
			
		

> Minions don't have hit points. They have spares.
> 
> In other words, the "dead in one hit" effect doesn't matter for minions because you fight them in groups - getting lucky against a few doesn't end the fight. Instead of grinding down a monster's HP, you grind down the number of monsters.



And in this regard I will take minion rules over 3e's mob rules _any_ day of the year.



			
				Brassbaboon said:
			
		

> I've only just begun reading about "minions" and like a lot of the other 4e rules, I don't like them because they seem to be an arbitrary means for the game designers to solve a problem the easiest way possible. They want a particular effect in the game (large attack by a horde of easily dispatched creatures) and they've manipulated the rules arbitrarily to allow the effect to happen.



 I don't at all see what's arbitrary about it. Your "low level goblins" example only works if the PCs are a high enough level that they can one-shot low level goblins and at that point your low level goblins become worse than filler: useless. They can't hit the PCs or be missed by the PCs. Unless, of course, you up their stats, but not their HP. At that point it's welcome to the dark side, you've re-created a minion.

There's nothing at all arbitrary about it, it's entirely intentional and deliberate and well thought out.


----------



## AllisterH (May 11, 2008)

Imaro said:
			
		

> One problem I forsee having with minions is the fact that a player can easily burn a daily or encounter power on a minion.  Now some will say in reality a character wouldn't be able to tell a minion from a regular monster type, but then alot of per-day and per-encounter abilities should, in reality, be attemptable and even successful by a trained character more than once per day or encounter.
> 
> Anyway I just see this as leading to unexpected TPK's or even back to 15min adventuring days through what is essentially an unidentifiable wildcard that causes PC's to waste more powerful abilities, especially when mixed with non-minions.  Add in the fact that the damage from a miss can't kill a minion and there's a very real chance PC's can accidentally mistake a minion for a more powerful creature.  I guess I would feel better about this if it was in some way a strategy or tactics based problem...but it's really just a a guessing game unless players memorize the MM.




You know, tactically, this should tell players "open with your at-will attack first". Hell the system itself kind of plays to that strength.

Generally, The best option at the beginning of combat is to open with an at-will. Many of the monsters have a "bloodied" threshold where they change in some fashion. Either get weaker or become more vicious like the gnolls we've seen.

Given that encounter and even daily powers won't one shot many monsters of the same level, it makes tactical sense to use your at-wills to take the monster down to the bloodied limit and THEN open up the can of buttwhop with the big guns (encounter/daily).


----------



## Xyl (May 11, 2008)

brassbaboon said:
			
		

> I've only just begun reading about "minions" and like a lot of the other 4e rules, I don't like them because they seem to be an arbitrary means for the game designers to solve a problem the easiest way possible.



"The simplest answer is usually the correct answer." 
                                               --Occam's Razor


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 11, 2008)

Xyl said:
			
		

> "The simplest answer is usually the correct answer."
> --Occam's Razor




Took the words right out of my head.


----------



## ShockMeSane (May 11, 2008)

I'm not really sure what the big issue here is. You shouldn't let your players know they are fighting minions. You should describe a missed encounter/daily with on-miss damage as "scorching/injuring/whatever" on the minion, so as to not obviously give away their minion status. Hey, you should probably even pretend to roll dice for minion damage and then pretend you are the worlds fastest mathematician.

Minions are not a special subset of the race in question that dies whenever a strong gust of wind hits them. Others have described this well enough. They are the orcs who are destined to not block your successful attack. As D&D's HP system has never, ever modeled wounding in any kind of Core way, the difference between 300 and 0 hps is and always has been only a lot of dodging, getting scrapped, and losing your will to fight on. Minions are in fact, a tool so that you can create a suitably heroic encounter for your heroes IF YOU SO DESIRE.

Minions are not designed as a special kind of pitiful version of that race that is somehow very adept at striking, damaging, and dodging, but still dies to a peasants attack. As a RESPONSIBLE DM you need to decide when minions are appropriate to the scenario YOU WANT TO CREATE.

I realize some people will never get past the bag-o-rats syndrome. This seems impossible to me in reality, as anything other than a way over the top example to try and prove a point on the internet rather than anything a sane DM would allow at his gaming table. But hey, you may play with a whole bevy of insane people and over at the asylum throwing the spirit of the rules to the wind and arguing over ridiculous rules minutae that is clearly against anything the game designers could have possibly had in mind may be the order of the day.

There is nothing forcing a single person here to make use of minions. Hey, even if you like buying adventure modules because you are too busy/lazy (I can relate to the former some games) to do your own, you can swap out 4 minions for a like-leveled foe.

Even if it is an addition that you simply cannot wrap your mind around, for whatever reasons I'm sure are completely legitimate to your enjoyment of the game, there is absolutely nothing that makes you use minions. Even if you want to use non-minion Orcs at level 1, we have the rules available to scale them down to your desire.

It is simply an addition to the game, and one that no specific DM must ever take part of. In fact, it is so easy to remove from your adventure/campaign/module altogether that the anger I've seen towards it seems beyond nitpicky.

There are a lot of legitimate concerns people might have about 4E, things that a DM or players can't easily handle without some serious work and discussion. This is not one of them.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 11, 2008)

1st: nice reasoning irda

2nd: I would add that also their attribute modifiers seem to follow a very strange rule, their damage too...

3rd: I still think minions are necessary for 4e to work. It may be an ugly fix, but in play it worked fine so far.

What i would have liked is a minion template, which increases the Level of a monster by 8 and makes appropriate changes...


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 11, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> 2nd: I would add that also their attribute modifiers seem to follow a very strange rule, their damage too...



Minions are treated as if they were three or four levels lower than their actual level.  This affects the Lvl / 2 modifier that all creatures have to attacks and skills.



> 3rd: I still think minions are necessary for 4e to work. It may be an ugly fix, but in play it worked fine so far.



It's hardly necessary for 4e to work.  It's an elegant solution to the problem of creating cinematic combat scenes, allowing PC's to look like badasses, and still allow certain foes to be dangerous in numbers.



> What i would have liked is a minion template, which increases the Level of a monster by 8 and makes appropriate changes...



Eh? Minion usually means something weaker than the normal creature they serve.  Why would adding a minion template make them jump up eight levels?


----------



## Pickles JG (May 11, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> 1st: nice reasoning irda
> What i would have liked is a minion template, which increases the Level of a monster by 8 and makes appropriate changes...




Increase attacks & all defences by 8. Lose all abilities except basic attack (& any racial abilities that make sense). Take the maximum damage inflicted as the fixed damage now inflicted. Done. (But why bother?)

They did recommend against moving things by more than 4 levels, I do not think this applies to minions, who lack special attacks.


----------



## The_Fan (May 11, 2008)

Maybe it's just me, but I LIKE the cinematic style, and I like the minion rules. In my playtest, after cleaving through hordes of kobolds, one of my players hit one that didn't get one-shotted. His response was to shout "AHA! A worthy opponent!"

THAT is the reason for minions.

They actually can HELP immersion in practice. The players feel a sense of power as they cleave through them, but that gets old after a while. When one stands out from the crowd and takes it like a man, they focus in on him, recognizing that he is a worthy adversary. How many times do fantasy heroes do the same thing?


----------



## ShockMeSane (May 11, 2008)

Pickles JG said:
			
		

> Increase attacks & all defences by 8. Lose all abilities except basic attack (& any racial abilities that make sense). Take the maximum damage inflicted as the fixed damage now inflicted. Done. (But why bother?)
> 
> They did reccomend against moving things by more than 4 levels, I do not think this applies to minions, who lack special attacks.




I'm not sure why you'd do this. It would make Kobold Minions level 9, and before that, they would be hellaciously hard to hit and would barely miss. The idea behind minion design is that they are appropriate for the level you encounter them, not that you miss them 70% of the time... that's just boring.

I'm sure there will be plenty of minions (or design your own based on stats available for an appropriate level minion) to deal with at level appropriate ranges. I sure as heck don't want my PC's killing a cavern full of non-minion kobolds at level 1 and then have to deal with them as a credible threat nearly an entire tier of adventuring later. The minions we have seen generally mesh with the level range of the monsters in their category. Going up 8 levels just seems needlessly... erm... wrong.


----------



## ozprince (May 11, 2008)

I think minions single HP is a great idea for that story/cinematic feel.

Is not a new thing though. In the rpg Bushido they had this idea of single hit point extras, and Bushido came out 28 years ago on 1980.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 11, 2008)

Irda:  Would minions having 1/4 the hp of a monster their level be much better?

If no, then it seems to me that you really have hit your reasons for disliking minions in the OP.  I think minions were supposed to represent enemies that break the 4-Factor lockstep.  Why?  Mowing down mooks of greatly lower level who pose no credible threat is boring to many.  Mowing down mooks of credible threat with really low hp is more fun in my mind.  I can see where you are coming from thpugh and I think they are alien visitors.  I just think they are friendly aliens.  Do you have an issue with double and quadruple hp elites and solos?

If yes, than the real issue is the shortcut and the patch.
Minions represent a shortcut.  They represent Creatures that could withstand multiple hits from  the lesser unavoidable ablative-defense damage, but cannot take a single avoidable hit on a consistent basis.  I just don't have the math to back this up.


----------



## N0Man (May 11, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Take the example of a Ranger power that does Dex on a Miss.  That power really reads "You do Dex on a Miss, unless your opponent is a Minion, in which case you do no damage."  You need a special case exception to every rule in D&D that involves HP (which, in D&D, is a whole lot of rules).  This probably increase the number of rules you have to know by 30% or more - just to cover the special case of "unless the target is a Minion."




I think Minions are a great addition, but here's the thing... if you are a DM, you decide what the encounters are.  If you want no Minions, then don't use Minions.  Easy.

However, I don't understand the above statement.  That's not a bunch of special cases added, it's "misses don't cause damage to minions".  The Player doesn't even need to know the rule.  He looks at *his* character sheet, rolls, and says, "I miss, but I still do X damage".  The DM knows it's a minion (or sees on the character sheet), ah, Minions don't take damage from misses," at which time the DM either can tell him it's a Minion and doesn't take damage, or he can even choose to describe the blow as striking but ineffectual.

Now the spellcaster comes along, casts an AOE spell that does half damage on a miss, tells the GM they missed but dealt Y damage, and the DM again sees it's a minion and realizes it does no damage, because misses don't deal it damage.  Still, 1 rule that applies.

It's pretty simple, in my opinion.  As a DM, you don't even have to bog the players down with the mechanics or even let them know it's a minion.  Pretend to make a tally of the damage, and describe it as a minor wound and move on.

In reality, it's just one tool in the toolbox that 4E gives you, and if you don't like the tool, leave it in the toolbox.  It's definitely not required to use it if you create your own encounters.  Personally I plan to use the whole range from Minion to Elite.   I love the system.  It makes it more flexible, and can make combat more vibrant and exciting.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (May 11, 2008)

I'm against the minions, personally.  As I said before, a whole crowd of one-hit-kills isn't cinematic or awesome, it's filler.  Most of my players would be bored rotten if they had to run through a crowd of red shirts.

Personally, I find epic and exciting battles aren't when the players have to kill a whole lot of enemies.  I find things to be MUCH more awesome when there's only a few enemies, but all of them radically different and powerful.


----------



## Fifth Element (May 11, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I'm against the minions, personally.  As I said before, a whole crowd of one-hit-kills isn't cinematic or awesome, it's filler.  Most of my players would be bored rotten if they had to run through a crowd of red shirts.
> 
> Personally, I find epic and exciting battles aren't when the players have to kill a whole lot of enemies.  I find things to be MUCH more awesome when there's only a few enemies, but all of them radically different and powerful.



That's fine, but realize that minions give DMs options. If you don't want to use them, fine. But many DMs will want to use them. Used in moderation, I think they're going to be great for my games, enabling certain cinematic situations that previous editions could not handle easily.

So with minions in the game, the DMs who like them can use them, while the DMs who don't can ignore them. But they provide an important option that really wasn't there before.

I have never used psionics in my campaigns - I have a dislike for psionics in a fantasy world. This does not mean that I don't think D&D should have psionics rules, or that I complain that D&D has psionics. I don't like them, so I don't use them.


----------



## Pale Jackal (May 11, 2008)

The_Fan said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just me, but I LIKE the cinematic style, and I like the minion rules. In my playtest, after cleaving through hordes of kobolds, one of my players hit one that didn't get one-shotted. His response was to shout "AHA! A worthy opponent!"
> 
> THAT is the reason for minions.




That's pretty awesome.



> I'm against the minions, personally. As I said before, a whole crowd of one-hit-kills isn't cinematic or awesome, it's filler. Most of my players would be bored rotten if they had to run through a crowd of red shirts.




Are they still bored if they are in real danger of being killed by these red shirts?  I should hope not.

That's one thing I like about minions, they're low HP creatures with high (relatively-speaking) damage.  One less thing I have to hand-wave, and I think it's good 4E has 'officialized' the concept.

It also helps (officially) keep monsters the same species.  I know another poster mentioned an ogre mage and goblins... ignoring the fact that goblins do diddly for damage, I'm not a fan of "monster of the week" type play.  I appreciate anything that decreases the incidence of Displacer Beasts hanging out with the Dog-That-Shoot-Bees-From-His-Mouth.  (I'm sure 4E will still have a lot of that, especially since monsters have unique abilities... but oh well.   )


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 11, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Most of my players would be bored rotten if they had to run through a crowd of red shirts.




Some players are bored if they CAN'T do that.  Your position seems to me less of a problem with minionism but rather seeing the need for it.


----------



## N0Man (May 11, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I'm against the minions, personally.  As I said before, a whole crowd of one-hit-kills isn't cinematic or awesome, it's filler.




Not cinematic?  I have to strongly disagree there.  Heroic action in movies constantly has a hero that just mows the grunts, meets the occasional tougher foe, and then has prolonged battles with a boss of some sort or another.

It happens in your cop or street vigilante movie where you have thugs who get knocked out in one punch, and then the hereo moves onto prolonged fight with a kingpin or his body guard.

It happens in the sci-fi films where a hero blasts down troopers or dispatches them in a single slash of a lightsaber, and makes his way to a confrontation with an evil jedi.

It happens in fantasy films, where your dwarf, human, and elven heroes are killing off dozens of orc foes, often in one well placed blow per orc, and then being confronted with a cave troll.

If 4E's system doesn't feel cinematic to you, I wonder what kind of cinema you've seen.

It's clearly WotC's intention to make the game feel heroic from the start.  Minions aren't simply creatures with only 1 HP, but the grunts who are lesser in will, constitution, morale, and endurance compared to the heroes, and who will be dispatched in a single solid strike by the Heroes.  "1 HP; a missed attack never damages a Minion" is just a simple easy to follow mechanic to represent that.

And again, if you don't like it, don't use it.


----------



## ozprince (May 11, 2008)

Minions do make the Dragon breath weapon mighty fine.


----------



## quindia (May 11, 2008)

I love the image of swordsmen tearing through waves of soldiers to get to the main bad guys. My problem with the no damage on a miss comes with spells. Many spells cause half damage and minor effects even on a miss. I think if minions are immune to these, I will either ignore the rule or avoid using minions in my games.


----------



## N0Man (May 11, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> Personally, I find epic and exciting battles aren't when the players have to kill a whole lot of enemies.  I find things to be MUCH more awesome when there's only a few enemies, but all of them radically different and powerful.




Well that's your preference, and you're entitled to it.  What I find interesting is variety, and players not always knowing what to expect or how things are going to work until they are in the battle.

I want my encounters to run the entire range.  I want to do encounters of all the following:

* Big Bad Evil Guy as a Solo encounter
* Elites with various mixes of normal and minion henchman.
* Groups of Normals maybe mixed with minions.
* Some normals and a few minions... then time delayed a few more minions... and a few more...  How many of these guys are there!?
* A group of 20 or so Minions flooding at the party at once.

Minions just give more options.

However, I'm not really sure what the point of debating this is though.  It's a matter of preference, and if you don't like them I don't think that anything we say is going to make you suddenly like them.  People have their minds made up one way or another.  And if you don't like them, you can run your own games without them.

Or if you simply object to certain types of creatures being used as Minions (such as Orcs or something), then only use Minions sparingly, such as when being swarmed by weak and fragile skeletons or something.


----------



## hong (May 11, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> I'm against the minions, personally.  As I said before, a whole crowd of one-hit-kills isn't cinematic or awesome, it's filler.  Most of my players would be bored rotten if they had to run through a crowd of red shirts.
> 
> Personally, I find epic and exciting battles aren't when the players have to kill a whole lot of enemies.  I find things to be MUCH more awesome when there's only a few enemies, but all of them radically different and powerful.



 The Inverse Ninja Law requires both ends of the spectrum for proper functioning. The huge mobs of incompetent foes throw the singular, lethal BBEGs into sharp relief.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 11, 2008)

quindia said:
			
		

> I love the image of swordsmen tearing through waves of soldiers to get to the main bad guys. My problem with the no damage on a miss comes with spells. Many spells cause half damage and minor effects even on a miss. I think if minions are immune to these, I will either ignore the rule or avoid using minions in my games.



And what happens when you screw up and put a really high level minion in a group for npc's to fight for whatever reason and the pc's kill it with a "miss"?  BUKU XP!  I prefer to keep the no death on a miss.  Just describe them as singed, beat up, bruised, worn down, etc.


----------



## N0Man (May 11, 2008)

quindia said:
			
		

> I love the image of swordsmen tearing through waves of soldiers to get to the main bad guys. My problem with the no damage on a miss comes with spells. Many spells cause half damage and minor effects even on a miss. I think if minions are immune to these, I will either ignore the rule or avoid using minions in my games.




True, but many special melee attacks cause damage on misses too.  I don't think you should describe the spell as doing nothing, just not enough.  Just like in the melee example.

This will even allow for the occassional super-minion, who takes half damage and reduced damage repeatedly from attack after attack that misses.  Some people might be bothered by that, but I think that's fantastic.  A minion who has been repeatedly scorched, grazed, nicked, splashed, but still hasn't received that one single solid blow to take him down.  A hero among minions!


----------



## N0Man (May 11, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> And what happens when you screw up and put a really high level minion in a group for npc's to fight for whatever reason and the pc's kill it with a "miss"?  BUKU XP!  I prefer to keep the no death on a miss.  Just describe them as singed, beat up, bruised, worn down, etc.




This isn't a real concern anyway.  If you screwed up and put in a high level minion, it would have to be absurdly high for the xp value to matter much.

A level 13 Minion has the same XP as a level 1 Elite.  Even a level 18 Minion still has the XP value equal to a standard Level 1 encounter's budget.

Besides, if you are putting Minions that are 15 or 20 levels higher than the players, it's not the game system that is at fault.

I don't think that the reasoning behind this was to prevent high level minions to be taken out, but rather just to make sure that a spell or ability wasn't a guranteed one-shot kill on anything, even a minion.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (May 11, 2008)

Ipissimus said:
			
		

> Minions have their uses, even in a gritty campaign. On one side, sure, you can use them to make the players feel all bad-ass. On the other side, you can also use them to show how bad-ass the villain is.




This, I believe, is the heart of why minions exist.  This is why they are made of win and awesome.

Minions work great in Feng Shui, Exalted and Scion.  Which just happen to be three of my favorite games to play.  Coincidence?  I think NOT.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 11, 2008)

Minions die in one hit not because they are weak but because it is simply their time to go.  If they are lucky enough to have survived an attack then obviously it isn't their time just then.  However, with that said, it doesnt make sense if a noticeably week monster, that is one of very low level, can survive a high level attack that would normally kill it on a miss if it didnt follow the rules of minions.

So on the subject of a kill on a miss, IMO if a miss would normally NOT kill a monster of equal level then it should NOT kill a minion of that same level.  However if a miss WOULD kill a monster of equal level then the miss SHOULD kill the minion.


----------



## quindia (May 11, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> And what happens when you screw up and put a really high level minion in a group for npc's to fight for whatever reason and the pc's kill it with a "miss"?  BUKU XP!  I prefer to keep the no death on a miss.  Just describe them as singed, beat up, bruised, worn down, etc.




If I screw up as the DM, then they deserve the XP. I beat it out of them in the next session. I don't think I would accidentally include a level 18 minion in a 2nd level adventure anyway. As someone else pointed out the XP is not that out of balance even then.

We only have a couple of spells to go by at the moment, so it's hard to see what may cause problems. What about a Wall of Fire? There's no roll to hit to throw up such a spell. If the party wizard throws up a Wall of Fire to seal off a flank, can minions charge gleefully through it?


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 11, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> [DISCLAIMER: There's not supposed to be any badwrongfun here, just game theory.  The only intentional opinion in the post is clearly labeled as such below.
> 
> . . .
> 
> Minions are 2FS-gritty monsters living in a 4FS-heroic game.  They ignore half the game's variables.  IMO, this is bad.  Choosing gritty or heroic fantasy are equally valid choices, but once you've made that choice I don't think mixing them together works.  It just doesn't feel right to me (clearly a subjective judgment, but there it is) and I don't think it will "work" in the long run because too many of the game's constituent parts depend on all four factors being there, and Minions break all those rules.  You basically need a "special case" rule for half the rules in the game that says "unless the target is a Minion, in which case X happens instead."  That adds a lot of complication and requires a lot of weird requirements for little gain.



To me, this is exactly the wrong way to think about game theory. That is, one should not identify systems that have traditionally been used to implement certain types of game experience and then limit all implementations of that game experience to those identified systems.

Part of the heroic fantasy genre are events wherein the heroes deal a single fatal blow on their enemies. This is something that D&D has been very bad at implementing. Minion rules allow a system to include this element.


----------



## Imban (May 11, 2008)

quindia said:
			
		

> We only have a couple of spells to go by at the moment, so it's hard to see what may cause problems. What about a Wall of Fire? There's no roll to hit to throw up such a spell. If the party wizard throws up a Wall of Fire to seal off a flank, can minions charge gleefully through it?




One of the Ranger paragon paths also inflicts automatic damage to every adjacent enemy at the end of each of their turns, with no dice roll involved. I seem to recall Wall of Fire being in the Paragon tier as well, so I will, in adherence to my "assume 4e designers are not monkeys until proven otherwise" policy, assume that either Paragon-tier minions are written differently or there is some method I haven't thought of for making unavoidable damage effects neither hilariously overpowered nor hilariously useless against minions.

(Cleave inflicts technically-unrolled damage as well, but there's a roll and hit involved, so that's less problematic.)


----------



## Lackhand (May 11, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> One of the Ranger paragon paths also inflicts automatic damage to every adjacent enemy at the end of each of their turns, with no dice roll involved. I seem to recall Wall of Fire being in the Paragon tier as well, so I will, in adherence to my "assume 4e designers are not monkeys until proven otherwise" policy, assume that either Paragon-tier minions are written differently or there is some method I haven't thought of for making unavoidable damage effects neither hilariously overpowered nor hilariously useless against minions.
> 
> (Cleave inflicts technically-unrolled damage as well, but there's a roll and hit involved, so that's less problematic.)



I enjoy your policy 

I'm not convinced that that specific ranger ability would enmonkey the designers, though -- I'm perfectly okay with the ranger under its influence being a mook-free-zone.


----------



## Thaniel (May 11, 2008)

Edit: what I said was meaningless. Nothing to see here


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 12, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Irda:  Would minions having 1/4 the hp of a monster their level be much better?
> 
> If no, then it seems to me that you really have hit your reasons for disliking minions in the OP.  I think minions were supposed to represent enemies that break the 4-Factor lockstep.



I know! Thank you for reading my OP closely!  




			
				Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Mowing down mooks of greatly lower level who pose no credible threat is boring to many.  Mowing down mooks of credible threat with really low hp is more fun in my mind.



Yeah, I get that. I know why we have Minions: a high level PC has an AC that's too high for a "normal" 1st level opponent to hit.  The threshold defense (AC) is so high that your ablative defenses (HP) are never in any danger.  There's no risk, and it becomes boring.

What bothers me is that you could achieve the same effect as Minion rules by taking any X level opponent and giving them a +Y to BAB and AC and a +dZ to dmg.  You're increasing everything except the HP.

This is an admission that X level opponents simply aren't a viable opponent once you're level Y.  _And *that's * entirely driven by the arms race between AC and BAB._  If you simply turned those variables into constants you wouldn't need this kludge.






			
				Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Do you have an issue with double and quadruple hp elites and solos?
> 
> If yes, than the real issue is the shortcut and the patch. Minions represent a shortcut.  They represent Creatures that could withstand multiple hits from  the lesser unavoidable ablative-defense damage, but cannot take a single avoidable hit on a consistent basis.



Ha ha!  The first half of your post was so cogent I didn't even finish reading it before I started to reply.      It looks like we're really on the same wavelength, and THANK YOU for helping me realize what the problem was.  It's the shortcut in the game design I don't like.  There was a more elegant fix, but they didn't want to eat that sacred cow I guess.  So instead we have this mathmatical ugliness.  It offends me, aesthetically, like a BMW with a plywood trunk.




			
				Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> I just don't have the math to back this up.



No worries.  The math backs you up.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 12, 2008)

Hi all!  I'm glad this thread has gotten some good discussion going.  Just a few points from my point of view:

1. 
I like to spin a good yarn as DM or PC, but I don't bend the rules to make the story end the way I want it to.  Part of the challenge and fun for me is getting the results I want within the rule system as presented.  If I can just break the rules (e.g., by saying "This guy will always die on the frst hit") whenever I feel like it then I feel cheated, much as Korgoth does.  I don't want to fight Minion enemies any more than I want to bowl with gutter bumbers.  

So, what I'm getting at is, all the arguments about "It's their time to die" or any other argumebnt where desired story result trumps rules results simply doesn't fly with me.  As long as you and your group are OK with it I obviously have no objections, but I wouldn't be OK with it.


2. 
Cleaving your way through hoards of mooks can be pretty awesome, but there's a better way to do it.  You can guess what it is by reading my post to Charwoman Gene above.  Perhaps more on that later once I have the DMG.


----------



## ruleslawyer (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Yeah, I get that. I know why we have Minions: a high level PC has an AC that's too high for a "normal" 1st level opponent to hit.  The threshold defense (AC) is so high that your ablative defenses (HP) are never in any danger.  There's no risk, and it becomes boring.
> 
> What bothers me is that you could achieve the same effect as Minion rules by taking any X level opponent and giving them a +Y to BAB and AC and a +dZ to dmg.  You're increasing everything except the HP.



Except that this *is* how the minion rules work; it's not "the same effect." If they die in one hit, Occam's razor suggests that it's better to simply say they die in one hit.


> This is an admission that X level opponents simply aren't a viable opponent once you're level Y.  _And *that's * entirely driven by the arms race between AC and BAB._  If you simply turned those variables into constants you wouldn't need this kludge.



You lost me here. I thought that the entire point of the minion rules was to have viable opponents that nonetheless don't stick around long enough to turn combat into an endless grind. That seems pretty simple to me.

Really, we're talking a very elemental calculus here: As creature level goes up, hp, AC, BAB, etc increase accordingly as adjusted by role. Minions merely don't increase hp accordingly. How "alien" is this, really?


----------



## Kraydak (May 13, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Except that this *is* how the minion rules work; it's not "the same effect." If they die in one hit, Occam's razor suggests that it's better to simply say they die in one hit.
> You lost me here. I thought that the entire point of the minion rules was to have viable opponents that nonetheless don't stick around long enough to turn combat into an endless grind. That seems pretty simple to me.
> 
> Really, we're talking a very elemental calculus here: As creature level goes up, hp, AC, BAB, etc increase accordingly as adjusted by role. Minions merely don't increase hp accordingly. How "alien" is this, really?




Minions cause problems when you try to mesh them with other rule sub-systems.  Have a player who wants to make a character who always manages to do *something* even if he rolls badly (and we know those players), and so chooses abilities with damage on miss?  Rule sub-system mismatch.  It isn't as big an abomination as the DMG2 mobs rules shafting Fighters who took cleave/whirlwind attack explicitly to attack mobs, but it is annoying.

Have a nice rule set keying off of the "bloodied" status (a la Orc Berserker guy)?  As has been noted about that monster explicitly, sucks to be facing minions.

I would write more, but I have to do.  So: minions don't mesh well with, well, the rest of 4e rules.  It *will* matter at times, and it *will* be annoying.


----------



## ruleslawyer (May 13, 2008)

I'm not worried about interaction with "bloodied"-trigger abilities. To be clear: If something can be dropped in one hit, then it shouldn't matter if you can use your bloodied-trigger abilities on it. Some creatures don't need to be significant enough to use cool powers on. Is finger of death for mooks in 3e?

The interaction with auras and the like is a problem, I'll grant, although we haven't seen the full picture. Cleave certainly suffices to drop a minion as written. "X damage on a miss" abilities *may* be important enough to matter, but I'd like to see how they play before I come to judgment. The fact is that I wouldn't be TOO bothered if minions were unaffected by "x damage on a miss" attacks, because in effect, those attacks would be designed for an effect that isn't really about minions, any more than an attack that has an additional effect on a *hit* would matter for minions.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> What bothers me is that you could achieve the same effect as Minion rules by taking any X level opponent and giving them a +Y to BAB and AC and a +dZ to dmg.  You're increasing everything except the HP.
> 
> This is an admission that X level opponents simply aren't a viable opponent once you're level Y.  _And *that's * entirely driven by the arms race between AC and BAB._  If you simply turned those variables into constants you wouldn't need this kludge.
> 
> ...




I don't really understand the significance of this analysis.  And I suspect it really isn't significant for most people.

In particular because I think that aesthetically I prefer a plywood trunk to a BMW.

Would you mind providing further explication on what you do or do not find beautiful in the math?  Even by your 2FS vs 4FS criteria the minion system seems to me to be fairly elegant.


----------



## Mistwell (May 13, 2008)

Minions are not creatures.  They are traps and environmental challenges.  Viewed that way, I think some objections will be less persuasive.


----------



## Vaeron (May 13, 2008)

Minions exist to provide bonuses to other monsters, some extreme.  This is countered by their being eliminated quite easily.  Most people who post about minions, in a negative way, don't understand the point or mechanics of minions.  They believe they're there to provide a fake sense of grand adventure by having the PCs wipe out mobs of minions.  This may indeed be how some DMs initially use minions.

In way of an illustration, a Kobold skirmisher gets +1 to hit an enemy for every kobold adjacent to that enemy.  If he has combat advantage (which he would with the enemy flanked like this) he does an additional 1d6 damage.  In short, a kobold skirmisher would have +8 to hit a PC engaging 6 kobold minions and do +1d6 damage. This is significant, and dangerous to a 1st level PC!

The upside?  Minions are easily killed.  In RP terms what they do is try to expose PCs to another monsters attacks through their manuevering, or give damage bonuses based on the number of them by spreading a PCs defenses too thin, or any of the other different powers we've seen in minion statblocks.

So when I see people say that minions exist just to make PCs feel powerful, my jaw nearly drops.  They dramatically increase the threat to PCs, when combined with non-minion monsters (or sometimes even with other minions).  Kobold minions in particular act to "buff" the kobold skirmisher in the example I gave above.

I'm not sure where some of the confusion over their role comes from, but removing them from the game greatly (not just a little, but greatly) decreases the power of non-minion creatures who gain bonuses from having minions present.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 13, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I'm not worried about interaction with "bloodied"-trigger abilities.



Why aren't you worried about bloodied abilities?  We don't know yet if that's even a choice as a PC build, but if it is, wouldn't that be like the 4E version of Sneak Attack, where so many opponents are immune to it?  It's the same argument for "miss" damage that you reserve judgment on.




			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> To be clear: If something can be dropped in one hit, then it shouldn't matter if you can use your bloodied-trigger abilities on it.



Assuming you roll average or better damage.  What if you roll a 1?  Can't Minions get lucky?  I guess not.

(Of course, as you know, I should be quite happy to have opponents that die regardless of damage rolled - no one rolls like 1's like I do)




			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Some creatures don't need to be significant enough to use cool powers on ... The fact is that I wouldn't be TOO bothered if minions were unaffected by "x damage on a miss" attacks, because in effect, those attacks would be designed for an effect that isn't really about minions, any more than an attack that has an additional effect on a *hit* would matter for minions.



There's a horse/cart problem here, don't you think?  Can't monsters be a diamond in the rough too?  When a player is trying to guess the nature of his opponents, should "What would my DM do here?" be part of the analysis, or should it be limited to "What makes sense in this situation, given what I know of the world?"


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 13, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Minions are not creatures.  They are traps and environmental challenges.  Viewed that way, I think some objections will be less persuasive.



Let me know when I can defeat them by beating a DC 23 Thievery check.

EDIT: I take it back. As ruleslawyer points out, this is essentially how it works (as I pointed out in the OP!,  I just didn't make the connection then).

However, even if the rules treat them like a trap or environmental challenge, I'm pretty sure that I don't like such treatment at this time.


----------



## pawsplay (May 13, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Minions are not creatures.  They are traps and environmental challenges.  Viewed that way, I think some objections will be less persuasive.




Then why give them hit points at all? "Defeat kobold minion: DC 5"


----------



## ruleslawyer (May 13, 2008)

Actually, pawsplay: That's pretty close to how it works.  They don't really have hit points. The "DC" is the attack roll needed, which as you know, works the same way as a skill check in d20 anyway (roll d20 + mod to beat DC/AC, with AC being the "DC" you need to overcome to hit your opponent).

And IR: Minions don't "get lucky" for the same reason that terrain features and obstacles don't "get lucky"; because they're not important to get lucky. Point out one dude in the Crazy Eighty-Eights battle in _Kill Bill_ who gets lucky, other than Gogo, their leader-dude, or Lucy Liu's character. 

And I highly doubt that being "immune" to miss damage is anything like being immune to sneak attack. Sneak attack is a core ability of certain classes in 3e; I find it highly unlikely that dealing desultory damage on a miss is going to be a core ability of any class in 4e.


----------



## AZRogue (May 13, 2008)

One thing that I think 4E does, and does very well from what we've seen, is worry about what the RESULTS are on the players' side of the table WITHOUT worrying so much about how those results are reached. Which is great, since I've never had a player go through my notes after a game. They only remember what they did and how they did it and the memories they take away from the game. 

I think this is a design goal and I fully support it. Instead of worrying that the internal parts match perfectly the focus is on making the results at the table important. It doesn't break down unless players are rolling their dice on the DM's side of the screen. The methods aren't the same and the mechanics have been reworked in areas with the goal of making it come together at the table.

It's a different approach, though, and I think that's bothering some people. Everyone has a different style when it comes to DMing and some of those styles evolved in very different ways. In previous editions, for instance, it was the norm for me (and those I've watched DM that are far better than I) to discover over time those rules that could be dropped by the wayside because they were pointless. You see what result the rules are trying to achieve and you just make that result happen. For instance I used to know that a tough enemy should roughly hit the highest AC in the party 50% of the time so I would subtract 10 from the highest AC and make that the enemy's BAB with no concern for hit dice, feats, or ability score. I did it with THAC0 and I did it when I ran 3E. It saves time and enriches play. It looks like 4E has a lot of that done for me and it seems like the designers play a similar style.


----------



## pawsplay (May 13, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> And I highly doubt that being "immune" to miss damage is anything like being immune to sneak attack. Sneak attack is a core ability of certain classes in 3e; I find it highly unlikely that dealing desultory damage on a miss is going to be a core ability of any class in 4e.




It still jukes balance in favor of one class in favor of another. And I thought controllers with firebusts would actually be good at destroying hordes of minions. Instead, the opposite.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> It still jukes balance in favor of one class in favor of another. And I thought controllers with firebusts would actually be good at destroying hordes of minions. Instead, the opposite.



You can't really say it is the opposite, since the same rules apply for other classes. It is still preferable for a controller to wipe out minions, since just because the miss-effect doesn't work doesn't mean that the ordinary attack will just miss every time. 

You'll still get fireballs wiping out 10 minions at a time, there will be just that burnt, crisp minion left alive amongst his fellow minion's corpses.


----------



## AZRogue (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> It still jukes balance in favor of one class in favor of another. And I thought controllers with firebusts would actually be good at destroying hordes of minions. Instead, the opposite.




In regards to Minions dying from "misses" from fireballs, I agree that there can be a disconnect in certain situations. I think, however, that the situation will reveal what the outcome should be. The context of the encounter will tell me whether I want those Minions to appear badly burned from a missed fireball--but still standing--or whether I want them to fry because they were meant to drop like flies anyway. The context will tell me whether I want to follow the RAW or step away slightly and let damage in any form be enough to kill them.


----------



## hong (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> It still jukes balance in favor of one class in favor of another. And I thought controllers with firebusts would actually be good at destroying hordes of minions. Instead, the opposite.



 They will still be good at destroying hordes of minions. Instead of killing 100% of the guys in the AoE, they might only kill 75%.


----------



## PeterWeller (May 13, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> One thing that I think 4E does, and does very well from what we've seen, is worry about what the RESULTS are on the players' side of the table WITHOUT worrying so much about how those results are reached. Which is great, since I've never had a player go through my notes after a game. They only remember what they did and how they did it and the memories they take away from the game.
> 
> I think this is a design goal and I fully support it. Instead of worrying that the internal parts match perfectly the focus is on making the results at the table important. It doesn't break down unless players are rolling their dice on the DM's side of the screen. The methods aren't the same and the mechanics have been reworked in areas with the goal of making it come together at the table.
> 
> It's a different approach, though, and I think that's bothering some people. Everyone has a different style when it comes to DMing and some of those styles evolved in very different ways. In previous editions, for instance, it was the norm for me (and those I've watched DM that are far better than I) to discover over time those rules that could be dropped by the wayside because they were pointless. You see what result the rules are trying to achieve and you just make that result happen. For instance I used to know that a tough enemy should roughly hit the highest AC in the party 50% of the time so I would subtract 10 from the highest AC and make that the enemy's BAB with no concern for hit dice, feats, or ability score. I did it with THAC0 and I did it when I ran 3E. It saves time and enriches play. It looks like 4E has a lot of that done for me and it seems like the designers play a similar style.




I couldn't agree more.  I take short cuts with monster design constantly, and I'm glad to see that many of these short cuts are now part of RAW. 



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It bothers me that nothing actually happened.




I couldn't disagree more.  If the DM says something happened, something did, in fact, happen.  Whether or not any actual numbers change doesn't matter in the least.


----------



## ruleslawyer (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> It still jukes balance in favor of one class in favor of another. And I thought controllers with firebusts would actually be good at destroying hordes of minions. Instead, the opposite.



A fireburst is still an attack, with a lot more rolls and probably a lot less wasted damage than a single massive strike per the 3[W]+x single-target smites we've seen from the fighter and paladin. So I don't see any "juking" of balance.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (May 13, 2008)

Out of curiosity, where is all the info on minions?  I missed it somehow.

While I'm here, two nitpicks of almost no importance:

Shadowrun effectively had minions.  NPCs were given Professional Ratings, and a PR of 1 meant the NPC would surrender after taking one hit in combat.  I'm not sure if the newer editions of the game have the same or a similar rule ... I haven't played in years, and the rules tend to blur together for me now.

There was one lucky member of the Crazy 88s ... the young dude who lived -- fully membered! -- to run home to mama.  I doubt he took any PC class levels after that, though.


----------



## hong (May 13, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, where is all the info on minions?  I missed it somehow.




Orc minions are in the May preview on WotC's site.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4pr/20080509a
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/MonsterManual_orcs.zip

They have 1 hp, but with the special rule that they don't take damage from missed attacks.



> There was one lucky member of the Crazy 88s ... the young dude who lived -- fully membered! -- to run home to mama.  I doubt he took any PC class levels after that, though.




I wouldn't say he was fully membered. The scene where he gets his member* cut to pieces by Uma Thurman was HILARIOUS.

* Yes, it LOOKS like a katana, but we all know what it REALLY is.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Can't Minions get lucky?  I guess not.



Again, this is a symptom of totally missing the point.

Minions are an aid to constructing the narrative flow of the combats in a game. If you want an opponent to be lucky, then you make them an actual creature. If you want them to be unlucky, then you make then a minion.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 13, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> Again, this is a symptom of totally missing the point.



Likewise.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (May 13, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> It still jukes balance in favor of one class in favor of another. And I thought controllers with firebusts would actually be good at destroying hordes of minions. Instead, the opposite.




Remember Controllers roll damage once and roll attacks for each affected individual.  

So a controller is still great at controlling minions since he effectively gets an incredibly high number of attacks.

What he isn't is an instant win by virtue of doing some damage on a miss.


----------



## Mallus (May 13, 2008)

Am I missing something, or isn't the use of minions entirely optional? A DM _could_ use Minion Orcs... or choose to use a few 3HD Orc Pimp Daddies --or whatever they'll be called in the MM-- with full stats and abilities (like the Orcish Pimp Slap, I would imagine).

Minions rules are just a method of streamlining combats with and/or including opponents that don't pose a significant threat to the PC's, right? A DM could ignore them entirely (like I do with gnomes...).


----------



## Wolfspider (May 13, 2008)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Am I missing something, or isn't the use of minions entirely optional?




If you want to look at it that way, EVERY rule in the game is optional.  

I still think it's valid to discuss the effects of a particular rule, its strengths and weaknesses and ramifications.


----------



## Mallus (May 13, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> If you want to look at it that way, EVERY rule in the game is optional.



Sometimes that's a helpful place to start from...   



> I still think it's valid to discuss the effects of a particular rule, its strengths and weaknesses and ramifications.



Sure, and I think it's valid to point out that the rules often provide multiple methods for doing things, as is the case here. Minions aren't aren't a mission critical part of the system. More traditional alternatives, in the form of tougher, low-level monsters still exist. This provides an important context for the discussion.

To my mind, there are no ramifications of the minion rules, unless you indulge in the batty overthink that hong's always going on about.


----------



## Rex Blunder (May 13, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> If you want to look at it that way, EVERY rule in the game is optional.




Minions are barely even a rule, though. They're a monster manual entry.

Rules are "there's rule 0 i guess" sorta-optional. If you change a rule, you'll have to explain it to the players.

Monsters are actually optional. The DM has to specifically choose to use them. Omitting to use minions, or carrion crawlers, or flumphs, or whatever else, is noncontroversial, and I've done it with at least 50% of the previous monster manuals.



> I still think it's valid to discuss the effects of a particular rule, its strengths and weaknesses and ramifications.




A bad rule is one that provides a worse playing experience for the players. I think very few players are going to find their experience hurt by the fact that they killed some creatures in one shot. Things being killed in one shot is perfectly consistent with both literature and the real world. 

For the DM, an orc minion and an orc warrior are creatures of fundamentally different types.

For the player, (assuming the orcs look the same) they're both Schroedinger's Orc, existing in the state of "minion" and "nonminion" until their status is determined by observation (here, as in all good science, observation is done with a giant axe or an explosion).

If you didn't have minions, then with the 4e HP model, you would very rarely kill an appropriate-level creature in one hit, and that would, in my mind, start to damage "verisimilitude" and start to make combat feel samey. I have simulationist tendencies, and leaning towards frequent use of minions.


----------



## Dausuul (May 13, 2008)

The way I see it, minions don't actually have 1 hp.  Minions have X hp, where X is the average damage per attack of a PC at the appropriate level.  This is then simplified to 1 hp to make life easier for the DM.


----------



## Xardinhul (May 13, 2008)

You know, one of the reasons I like the Minion rules as I've seen them so far is because I feel it better simulates some of the fantasy source material that I've been influenced by.  There often seems to be a scenario in the "young farm boy gets thrust into the role of a hero" trope where that young farm boy picks up a sword to help defend his loved ones from some terrible monster and kills it, against what seems like all odds, often in one blow.

The Wheel of Time, for example, has the protagonist Rand picking up his father's sword and managing to use it to kill a trolloc.  Trollocs are no laughing matter - they can be about the business of slaughtering professional armies and have been a deadly threat to the border kingdoms for centuries.  Yet this hero still managed to kill one at essentially "1st level".

If minions where nothing but essentially "animated scenary" that had no real chance to do damage and no real effect on any particular encounter other than to be killed horribly, I think I might be more inclined to agree that that approach is a little too Exalted for D&D - but the fact remains that a minion can actually scale up nicely to be a threat that cant be safely ignored, even if they can be more easily dealt with than the main antagonist creature(s) in the encounter.  And I like that a lot.

Edited: for clarity.


----------



## med stud (May 13, 2008)

I did a test combat with the KotS-characters leveled to level three versus a bunch of orcs. The dwarf ran up to a bunch of drudges, expecting to cleave them to pieces. He had some bad luck with the attack rolls and missed two times in a row. The drudges knocked him to the ground, despite him using a healing surge. Minions are a credible threat.

It takes some time getting used to the concept (particularily the text "HP: 1" glaring up at you) but after getting used to it they add a new dimension to combats. At least in the tests I have ran.

EDIT: Also, if you look at HPs as the number of successful attacks needed to take someone down, you see that the difference between a HP 1 minion and a HP 30 human guard is that the minion takes, for example, one magic missile to take down while the human guard needs to be hit with at average four magic missiles. This means that the guard isn't 30 times more resilient vs magic missiles, it's more like 3-4 times more resilient. The difference isn't that huge.


----------



## AllisterH (May 13, 2008)

Now here's a question then.

Should D&D have minions? If you look at the source material for D&D, (Conan, LotR), they definitely use minions but as pointed out, that's because the character in question has DM fiat backing him.

Should then D&D be able to model the world of Cimmeria or Middle-Earth (there's no such thing as an orc minion to average joe blow) or the activities of the main characters such as Conan and Aragorn (to Aragorn, orcs WERE minions)?


----------



## Xardinhul (May 13, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Should then D&D be able to model the world of Cimmeria or Middle-Earth (there's no such thing as an orc minion to average joe blow) or the activities of the main characters such as Conan and Aragorn (to Aragorn, orcs WERE minions)?




In my opinion, it models both.  A sufficiently high level minion is too strong for the average joe blow - An Orc Minion 6, for example, probably has enough AC to shield it from the febble attacks of the majority of the ill-equipped farm folk that litter the country side.  Against a young Aragorn though, it is little else than a minor threat.  But it remains a threat - he cant just turn his back on it and ignore it, because hitting it with every swing isnt assured, and it still has the chance to wallop him once or twice before it falls, especially if there are more than one of them.


----------



## Kraydak (May 13, 2008)

More minion silliness: temporary hp.

Temporary hp on minions poses no mechanical difficulty.  Either there is a rule we haven't seen that bans temp. hp. (TH) for minions (quite possible), or there isn't one.  The lack of mechanical difficulty doesn't imply a lack of conceptual problems.

If there is a rule of no TH for minions, then warlords go home crying.  Inspiring massed troops (minions) to fight on (TH) becomes impossible.  More generally, we have seen abilities that grant TH starting at lvl 1.  Having abilities that don't work on a class of people due to mechanical mis-matches is not pretty, and will be annoying if you are the person who can't protect the person you want to.

If TH are allowed on minions, then as soon as people start giving minions TH the advantage of 1-hit 1-kill vanishes.  If you were saying "low hp can be approximated as 1 hp" your explanation breaks down.  If minions really had 4 hp but you were approximating them as 1, then with 3 TH do they have 4 or 7?  Why, with TH, do minions not take damage on misses: if you give minions enough TH (absurdly many in general), they will be *tougher* than non-minions.

Temporary hitpoints are another mechanic (along with bloodied and damage-on-misses) that minions do not interface well with.


----------



## AllisterH (May 13, 2008)

Then don't use minions Kraydak.

Minions are one of the things that are FULLY under the control of the DM (Besides, even if there was no minion concept, how the hell would you use a standard creature in the scenario below?)


----------



## Ulthwithian (May 13, 2008)

Well, the math regarding AoE attacks vs. minions is breathtakingly elegant, IMO.  The math, quite simply, is:

percentage chance to hit ~= percentage of minions targeted that are killed

I think the point above about minions being a different type of ablation needs to be be reiterated.  Also, the math regarding 'taking 4 MMs to take down a level 1 mob vs. taking 1 MM to take down a level 1 minion' is very relevant.  Is it not a 4:1 Minion:Mob ratio?

I will be looking at the Orc Mobs and develop a model for discussing the actual difference between using 1 mob and 4 minions in this post later.  One point that is brutally clear from even a cursory inspection is that 4 minions that have a chance to hit within about 10% of the mob they stem from should do quite a bit more damage against single-target strikes.  But I will develop the model and then return to discuss.

Edit:  All right, I did a 'quick-and-dirty' analysis on Kathra vs. Orcs.  Some data:

Kathra average at-will damage vs. Orc Raider: 5.475 (please note, that this is per _swing_, not per _hit_.
Expected number of swings to kill Orc Raider: 8.4016 (hp/avg. dmg. per swing)
Kathra hit chance vs. Orc Drudge: 0.55
Expected number of swings to kill Orc Drudge: 1.818

Orc Raider average damage vs. Kathra: 5.35 (again, per swing and not per hit)
Time alive vs. Kathra: 8.4016 swings
Damage dealt in time alive: 44.95 damage

Orc Drudge average damage vs. Kathra: 2.75


4 Orc Drudge Time alive vs. Kathra (that is, time until 4 Orc Drudges are not alive vs. Kathra): 1.818 rounds
Damage dealt in time alive: 20 (2.75*4*1.818)

3 Orc Drudge Time alive vs. Kathra: 1.818 rounds
Damage dealt in time alive: 15

2 Orc Drudge Time alive vs. Kathra: 1.818 rounds
Damage dealt in time alive: 10

1 Orc Drudge Time alive vs. Kathra: 1.818 rounds
Damage dealt in time alive: 5

Sum of damage: 50

Analysis:

Considering the one-level difference between the Drudge and the Raider, it seems like a balance point assumed would be that one mob and 4 equal-level minions (in the same basic role) should do equivalent damage while alive.  Note, though, that the minions survive for less time.  Thus, minions are an option to 'front-load' damage.

This is of course completely neglecting the tactical situation, which is actually advantageous to the Minions.  If all four Minions are attacking Kathra, Combat Advantage should be granted which is not detailed in the above stats.  That can be considered an offsetting advantage against the disadvantage Minions face against AoE attacks.

I can do a more rigorous model on request.  If not, I will now focus my attention on Skamos vs. these same Orcs.


----------



## Kraydak (May 13, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Then don't use minions Kraydak.
> 
> Minions are one of the things that are FULLY under the control of the DM (Besides, even if there was no minion concept, how the hell would you use a standard creature in the scenario below?)




Minions are a core concept, and as such, will show up in modules.
Minions are a core concept, and as such, will be used in other mechanics (Monster Summoning, for example, is an obvious place to use minions).

Because minions are core, excising them will be hard.  If you gave them a low number of hp and said that any *hit* could kill a minion if the attacker so desired, they would work a lot better.  Any extra mechanical difficulty *only shows up* when some participant wants it to (someone who has damage-on-miss abilities wants it to kick in.  someone who has an activate-on-bloodied abilities and who chooses to pull his punches to allow it to activate... wants it to activate, people want to take prisoners etc...).  Win-win.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 13, 2008)

Xardinhul said:
			
		

> A sufficiently high level minion is too strong for the average joe blow - An Orc Minion 6, for example, probably has enough AC to shield it from the febble attacks of the majority of the ill-equipped farm folk that litter the country side.



Actually it's this very glass-ninja aspect of the monster which is part of my problem with the concept.  A natural 20 will always kill it.  So you can have 21st level Demon Minions fall to a rank of 0th level human archers (assuming the Demons aren't protected from the arrows by a Wall of Wind or some similar reason).  Was Smaug a Minion?

It's been my contention that Minions are "out of step" with the rest of the game.  Within the context of the game only: what the heck are they?  Try to answer that question without using the words "narrative" or "story" or "player's having fun."  Those are important considerations under certain circumstances, but it is my contention that games should serve those needs without compromising the elegance of their internal structure and consistency.* The answer should be solely from the perspective of an agent (whether PC or monster, it doesn't matter) within the system.  It should address why they have the same BAB, AC and dmg as similarly leveled monsters, but die in one hit rather than 3-5.  

*If you consider yourself a "practical" person who does not enjoy fine-tuning designs and systems for the sake of the process (rather than the result) this challenge probably isn't for you.




			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> Now here's a question then.
> 
> Should D&D have minions?



IMO, yes.  My concerns are related to the implementation.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 13, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Minions are a core concept, and as such, will show up in modules.
> Minions are a core concept, and as such, will be used in other mechanics (Monster Summoning, for example, is an obvious place to use minions).



The module point has been addressed (and ably, I believe) but the Summoning point is a valid concern.  If a Summoning spell results in "1 Level X Minion" there's no good way to swap that out for any other result.




			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> If you gave them a low number of hp and said that any *hit* could kill a minion if the attacker so desired, they would work a lot better.



I disagree that it would work better, but I'm curious why you think Monster Summoning is a problem if the Minion issue is so easily resolved.  Doesn't this very statement contradict your earlier statement that excising Minions would be "very hard"?  Why not just give them HP equal to their level and be done with it?  Now they're bloodied at 1/2 level and a Miss can hurt them (maybe kill them).


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> The answer should be solely from the perspective of an agent (whether PC or monster, it doesn't matter) within the system.



There aren't any agents in the system. There are agents in a fantasy world that the system is meant to simulate to a certain degree of accuracy.


----------



## Scribble (May 13, 2008)

Would people have had less of an issue with this minion thing if the "no damage unless direct" thing had been listed as a "power" and not just next to the hitpoints range?

What's the difference between this, and say the ability to heal up damage with a sucessful hit?

Perhaps it would be easier just to think of this ability as an auto second wind that only happens and automatically happens when they take secondary damage?

In game it could be explained as the minion being such a brainwashed loyal fanatic of the cause that they struggle on and ignore damage that should have harmed them. 

"My life for you!!!!!"

I think it's really just the difference between ways of thinking about damage and what HP is.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (May 13, 2008)

Xyl said:
			
		

> "The simplest answer is usually the correct answer."
> --Occam's Razor



Except when the simplest answer isn't actually Occam's Razor:



> One should not increase, *beyond what is necessary*, the number of entities required to explain anything




Much like Emerson saying "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", the interpretation often doesn't mean what one would like it to mean.

In this case, Irda Ranger has the minimum necessary entities to explain the objection to minions.  Fewer than that, and you aren't talking about the same thing anymore.


----------



## Kraydak (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> The module point has been addressed (and ably, I believe) but the Summoning point is a valid concern.  If a Summoning spell results in "1 Level X Minion" there's no good way to swap that out for any other result.




I clearly disagree with you about the amount of work it will take to erase minions from modules.  No worries, the matter will become clearer once we have the full MM. 



> I disagree that it would work better...



Why wouldn't it work better?  You have the full ease of 1-hit 1-kill with the added advantage of being able to use a more complete description if anyone at the table wants to.  If you want mooks, you have mooks.  If you want low (but non-unity) hp, you have that.  Win-win.



> ... but I'm curious why you think Monster Summoning is a problem if the Minion issue is so easily resolved.  Doesn't this very statement contradict your earlier statement that excising Minions would be "very hard"?  Why not just give them HP equal to their level and be done with it?  Now they're bloodied at 1/2 level and a Miss can hurt them (maybe kill them).




My problem with minions is that they don't mesh well with the rest of DnD's rules.  The above change makes them fit in at little/no cost.  Remove the problem, and I'm happy.

I would alter my suggestion to: on a hit against a minion, a character may (and generally will) choose to inflict the listed damage+minion's base hp.  This change keeps you from auto-1 hitting minions that gained temporary hp/temporary DR etc...  If someone gives them such a buff, *that* person is choosing to nix the minion-rules on the defensive side, in the same way that someone who wants a bloodied foe/living prisoner is choosing the nix the minion rules on the offensive side.

Book-keeping simplifications are good if everyone is on the same page.  Minion rules should be altered to allow them being dropped if everyone *isn't* on the same page.  Doing so requires meshing minions in with the rest of the ruleset.

I would suggest minion hp=normal striker/4ish, in keeping with their xp value.


----------



## Rex Blunder (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Within the context of the game only: what the heck are they? Try to answer that question without using the words "narrative" or "story" or "player's having fun."




What'sthe capital of Belgium? Try to answer without saying "Brussels", "the place where sprouts come from" or "more than one brussel".

Minions are not an in-game concept. Hit points are not an in-game concept either, so it's not surprising that there's no in-game concept for people with one of them.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Actually it's this very glass-ninja aspect of the monster which is part of my problem with the concept.  A natural 20 will always kill it.  So you can have 21st level Demon Minions fall to a rank of 0th level human archers (assuming the Demons aren't protected from the arrows by a Wall of Wind or some similar reason).  Was Smaug a Minion?
> 
> It's been my contention that Minions are "out of step" with the rest of the game.  Within the context of the game only: what the heck are they?  Try to answer that question without using the words "narrative" or "story" or "player's having fun."  Those are important considerations under certain circumstances, but it is my contention that games should serve those needs without compromising the elegance of their internal structure and consistency.* The answer should be solely from the perspective of an agent (whether PC or monster, it doesn't matter) within the system.  It should address why they have the same BAB, AC and dmg as similarly leveled monsters, but die in one hit rather than 3-5.




Okay, I've been following this thread without comment for pages.

Irda Ranger, basically, you're claiming that your concerns about minions are solely related to the game rules discrepancy between how the game treats minions. Moreover, you wrote a very impressive treatise with scientific sounding terms like "game theory" "Four-factor system" and "two-factor sytem" (and even some impenetrable jargon like 4FS and 2FS) to prove your point.

However, the simple fact is that your fundamental point is incorrect. A minion is NOT, as you claim, a "2FS creature in a 4FS game." It's just an easily killable 4FS creature. That's it. Full stop.

What they actually represent _in game_ are obstacle opponents. With a single success (hit), they are removed from the game. Morover, they exist to provide tactical options for the DM and more variety in combat scenarios. Like Solo and Elite monsters, Minions allow you to substantically vary the tactical situation faced by the players. Because they have comparable attack bonuses and decent defense scores, they actually pose a substantial threat to characters of their level. As far as damage, it seems their damage levels have been decreased so as to make four of them _on average_ about as dangerous as the single creature they're replacing.

They're at the opposite end of the scale from the solo monster. A dragon (or other solo monster) has _4 times the hit points_ of a standard monster (or more) and can make multiple attacks in a single round, allowing it to actually fill the combat role of a number of monsters. Thus, it can actually pose a reasonable challenge to an adventuring group _all by itself_. Each of its attacks is about as damaging (again, on average) as any other creature of its level. Because of its higher hit point total, it also must be hit about 4 times as many times as a standard creature before it goes down.

At the other end of the spectrum is the minion. By contrast to the dragon, a minion has not _4 times the hit points_ but, effectively, the opposite. If it were replacing creatures on a 4-to-1 basis, you might expect it to have one-quarter as many hit points. It should also do comparably less damage, since, if it has an equal chance to hit, our PC is going to be subject to 4 times as many blows. If we can normalize how many rounds a minion will last, we can calibrate its damage based on the assumption that half the minions will be present throughout the fight (all of them at the beginning, dropping at a constant rate to 0 at the end).

Looking at the Orc excerpt, we can directly compare the 4 Orc Berserker (Level 4 Brute - 175 xp) with the Orc Drudge (Level 4 Minion - 44 XP). They have comparable attack and defense scores, but the minion does about half as much damage (5 hp vs. an avg of 11.5). The Berserker has, effectively, 82 hp (counting its 16 hp heal ability). If we assume our PCs have comparable to-hit bonuses as our orcs (+8, which seems reasonable), they will hit on a roll of 9 or better (60% of the time). Given slightly better average damage, they'll polish off a berserker in 6 hits (about 10 rounds). That's also about how long it would take them to finish off the minions, _assuming they must only hit each one once._

By varying the strength of the creatures we can use in a combat, we have created enough variety that allows us to provide an encounter for the group with anywhere from 1 creature in it to 16. Clearly, from a game theory standpoint, minions fit in D&D just fine.

That's all game theory - simply put, minions allow one to create more tactically interesting encounters. Yes, that's often described as being more "fun" because isn't "fun" the point of playing a game? But it's not about "fun" so much as it's about providing interesting tactical situations.

Like the different pieces in chess have different capabilities, the designers are creating a D&D game where different creatures have different uses in the game environment. That tactical variety should make for a more interesting (i.e. "better") game.

Now, if you want to argue from a "gameworld verisimilitude standpoint" that minions are "unrealistic," you actually may have a point. In the "world simulation" aspect of D&D, minions are all about narrative flexibility. That has nothing to do with their role in the game system, however. Conflating the two is where people run into roadblocks and start having to do mental gymnastics. That's because they're, as hong would put it, "thinking too hard about fantasy."

From a gamist standpoint, minions (like Elites and Solos) exist to provide tactical options to the DM.

From a narrative standpoint, minions fill a crucial role - that of the opponent that you can not totally ignore, but that is only a serious threat in great numbers. This is the role filled by Stormtroopers in _Star Wars_, ninjas in many modern adventure stories, and the monstrous hordes of the dark one in so many fantasy stories (orcs in _The Lord of the Rings_, trollocs in _The Wheel of Time_ and so forth...).

You don't have to like them, but IMO, they certainly fit, both from a narrative and gamist standpoint.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 13, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> I clearly disagree with you about the amount of work it will take to erase minions from modules.



You don't have to erase them; just give them Striker/4 HP, or whatever algoritmn you settle on.  Isn't that the fix for you?  If so, why are Minions in a module (or a Summoning Spell) a problem?




			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't it work better?



You still have the more basic problem of explaining what the heck a Minion _IS _ within the context of the game.  Why does he have Xth level BAB, AC and Dmg but only 1st level HP?  How does a creature arrive at such an unbalanced state?  It's a highly unstable configuration, not unlike being attacked by a highly poisonous soap bubble.

Similar to the question of a tree falling in the woods, what is a Minion when there aren't any PC's around?  Does he exist, or is he merely the quantum possibilty of an particular kind of encounter that only materializes when a PC walks into the room?  I don't like the second possibility.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 13, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> What'sthe capital of Belgium? Try to answer without saying "Brussels", "the place where sprouts come from" or "more than one brussel".
> 
> Minions are not an in-game concept. Hit points are not an in-game concept either, so it's not surprising that there's no in-game concept for people with one of them.



That post is pure gold.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> You still have the more basic problem of explaining what the heck a Minion _IS _ within the context of the game.  Why does he have Xth level BAB, AC and Dmg but only 1st level HP?  How does a creature arrive at such an unbalanced state?  It's a highly unstable configuration, not unlike being attacked by a highly poisonous soap bubble.



I guarantee that any heavy weight boxer can be killed by one blow of a sword. _Organisms_ are, in many, many ways, soap bubbles.


> Similar to the question of a tree falling in the woods, what is a Minion when there aren't any PC's around?  Does he exist, or is he merely the quantum possibilty of an particular kind of encounter that only materializes when a PC walks into the room?  I don't like the second possibility.



Minions, like _every_ element of the game, exist for the sole purpose of interacting with the PCs. If something doesn't interact with the PCs, it doesn't exist, statistics or no statistics. GMs do not (or rather, _should not_) simply sit around running sub-games where NPCs fight NPCs without any interaction with PCs. At some point, everything a NPC does must have something to do with the experience of the PCs or the experience of the players or else there is no point to that NPC action.

Any being in the game is only a minion for the purposes of a combat that the PCs are involved in. Whether or not a NPC is a minion depends on the role that the DM intends for that NPC.

If you don't like it, don't use minions. You seem to prefer a game where certain facets of  the rules system matters more than whatever that rules system might be for, and that's OK.


----------



## Boarstorm (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Similar to the question of a tree falling in the woods, what is a Minion when there aren't any PC's around?  Does he exist, or is he merely the quantum possibilty of an particular kind of encounter that only materializes when a PC walks into the room?  I don't like the second possibility.




Um.  NOTHING exists when the PCs aren't around.


----------



## Lacyon (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> You still have the more basic problem of explaining what the heck a Minion _IS _ within the context of the game.  Why does he have Xth level BAB, AC and Dmg but only 1st level HP?  How does a creature arrive at such an unbalanced state?




How does a creature reach a _balanced_ state? How do Elites and Solos get into their _unbalanced_ state? Why is it natural to assume that creatures get better at _everything_ simultaneously and proportionally?

The unreality of the system is the class- and level-based assumptions that creatures normally end up balanced, not the alternative.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> You still have the more basic problem of explaining what the heck a Minion _IS _ within the context of the game.  Why does he have Xth level BAB, AC and Dmg but only 1st level HP?  How does a creature arrive at such an unbalanced state?  It's a highly unstable configuration, not unlike being attacked by a highly poisonous soap bubble.



In-game a Minion is a ordinary monster who slipped in the mud, tripped over a log, was blinded by smoke, was slow to react, blinded by the sun, etc. In such by doing so he was killed off in one blow that normally he could have easily had stopped or deflected or rolled out of the way.


> Similar to the question of a tree falling in the woods, what is a Minion when there aren't any PC's around?  Does he exist, or is he merely the quantum possibilty of an particular kind of encounter that only materializes when a PC walks into the room?  I don't like the second possibility.



A Minion when the PCs are not around is simply a ordinary being like anyone else. He doesn't gain any Minion status till the point in-game where his situation entails that he dies in a single hit.

To make an example, two identical monsters jump off a cliff towards a river. One monster lands in the river and the impact shatters a leg, the other monster now designated a minion miscalculates his jump and lands on a pile of rocks becoming nothing more then a smear.


----------



## Scribble (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Similar to the question of a tree falling in the woods, what is a Minion when there aren't any PC's around?  Does he exist, or is he merely the quantum possibilty of an particular kind of encounter that only materializes when a PC walks into the room?  I don't like the second possibility.




Sure he exists... as an unused stat block on page x of the monster manual. other then that...


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 13, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Irda Ranger, basically, you're claiming that your concerns about minions are solely related to the game rules discrepancy between how the game treats minions.



Yes. They're aberrant. 




			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> you wrote a very impressive treatise with scientific sounding terms like "game theory" "Four-factor system" and "two-factor sytem" (and even some impenetrable jargon like 4FS and 2FS) to prove your point.



I hope the use of the word "impressive" wasn't sarcasm.   I only used (or invented) "jargon" because I lacked commonly used terms that captured the ideas I was trying to convey.  Normally I'm a fan of Churchill's Dictum, broadly speaking.




			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> However, the simple fact is that your fundamental point is incorrect. A minion is NOT, as you claim, a "2FS creature in a 4FS game." It's just an easily killable 4FS creature. That's it. Full stop.



Wrong.  Full stop.  Minions (effectively) have null HP and take null damage.  They only register a hit or a miss.  The threshold factors are retained but the ablative factors are entirely lost on it.  Ergo, there are only two factors.


Which brings us too: 


			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> They're at the opposite end of the scale from the solo monster.



Solo Monsters obey all the rules of a 4FS.  Minions do not.  That is a difference in kind, not degree.  The scale for 4FS opponents is Normal --> Elite --> Solo.  Minions aren't on it.




			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> However what they actually represent in game are obstacle opponents ...
> they exist to provide tactical options and more variety in combat scenarios ...
> Simply put, minions allow one to create more tactically interesting encounters ...
> minions are all about narrative flexibility ...
> ...



I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but I think I've made clear that I don't find these to be satisfying answers.  For my mind, there needs to be more than that.  The parts should compliment the whole, and the whole should achieve the desired ends without ugly kludges.  We get by with "good enough" design all the time, but why not try to puzzle it out and perhaps find a more elegant solution?  Hence, the thread.  


Luckily JohnSnow I've always found you to be a close reader and fair poster, and you don't disappoint once more.


			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Now, if you're going to argue from a "gameworld verisimilitude standpoint" that minions are "unfair," you actually have a point.



...and we arrive at our destination.  This was my point.  Or, a part of it, at any rate.





			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Yes, that's often described as being more "fun" because isn't "fun" the point of playing a game?



Of course, but why settle for _only _ fun?  Aesthetics matter too.

FWIW, I have also found this discussion to be fun.  I hope a few others have as well.  And if by means of this thread a more elegant solution is found for "the Stormtrooper problem", and the fun of the system is either maintained (or even improved!), wouldn't that be nice?


----------



## Scribble (May 13, 2008)

Minionness is sort of like a modified barbarian rage power...

They ignore potentially life threatening damage (or gain an instant heal effect) because they believe their cause is so correct that the gods, the universe, fate, or uncle steve, would not allow them to die... One solid hit, hwoever, creates an internal minion mental paradox which makes them realize they aren't immune to damage. They die.


----------



## Wormwood (May 13, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> Minions, like _every_ element of the game, exist for the sole purpose of interacting with the PCs.



I never _really _ enjoyed DMing until I realized this simple truth.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 13, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> If you don't like it, don't use minions.



Just to state once more (and for the last time), I *like * Minions as a concept; I just don't like the implementation.  

For the rest of your points, see my response to John Snow.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 13, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> A Minion when the PCs are not around is simply a ordinary being like anyone else. He doesn't gain any Minion status till the point in-game where his situation entails that he dies in a single hit.



So, in other words, a Minion is a Striker where the DM has decided ahead of time to reduce the range of possible outcomes of combat?  Isn't that taking something away from the player?   I think Korgoth made this point back on page 3 or 4.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Of course, but why settle for _only _ fun?  Aesthetics matter too.



For whom? The players aren't going to see these aesthetics - they're killing the minions, whether they have 0 hp or a handful of hp, like hp equal to their level (which would make them 4FS creatures again) - the small difference is in most cases not really visible to them.

Only behind the screen you're confronted with it over and over again. So the aesthetic benefit is mainly for the DM. That's similar to the PC-NPC symmetry issues many have.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> So, in other words, a Minion is a Striker where the DM has decided ahead of time to reduce the range of possible outcomes of combat?  Isn't that taking something away from the player?   I think Korgoth made this point back on page 3 or 4.



I don't think it does, since minions aren't supposed to be used as simply another monster, that goes through ordinary combat. They are a very specific and very precise point in a game, prior to that point a minion simply doesn't exist.

So it doesn't really reduce outcomes or takes anything away from the players when what it is fulfilling is what it was put their for, for that precise moment in time.

Thus why there is this narrative and DM designated control over when a monster becomes a minion.

To use the example of the river jump. My players have jumped in the river, the monsters jump after them. I as the DM decides to showcase how treacherous that jump was, designate 2 of the monsters as minions for this instance and bam! they land on rocks, get impaled on a uprooted tree, etc.


----------



## Boarstorm (May 13, 2008)

Here's a question for ya, Irda Ranger, in all seriousness:

What, exactly, do you find inelegant in the implementation of minions?

I ask because I'm coming at this conversation from the opposite side -- I find their implementation to be pretty much spot-on.

WotC needed something easily disposable (for the reasons Jon Snow mentioned) but that remained a credible threat throughout a PCs's career.  The simplest way of doing this is to give them a binary state -- alive or dead.  Now, all this has been pointed out before, but I want to add something new:

Temporary Hit Points, miss damage -- the reason these things don't apply to minions is because they circumvent the entire reason for minions to exist in the first place.  Making a level appropriate minion either harder to kill or easier to kill defeats the purpose for minions to exist.  If they go down too easy, they aren't a credible threat.  If they're too hard to take down, they ... well, they no longer serve their goal.

So, WotC gave us these minion rules (an admitted exception to the 4FS design you noted), and all they have to do is add two "sub-"rules to fix the problem, instead of making us do any clunky mathematics (div 4 HPs, for instance) or memorize a whole subset of rules.

Minions provide tactical variety with an absolute minimum of rules memorization.

They are... simple.

What could be more elegant?


----------



## Shadeydm (May 13, 2008)

So are minions immune to AoE spells and abilities?

If they are not then. It's not elegant or tactically challenging all the minion rule will do is ensure that during any encounter that players suspect contains minions, it guarantees that those who have PCs with effective area attack abilities will spam them until the groups true enemies (non minions) are revealed. Wow thats exciting, and that or something very similar will be the default approach.


----------



## Rex Blunder (May 13, 2008)

True, but tactics never sound very exciting when stripped down to the essentials. "We'll just always focus fire on the strongest living opponent." "We'll just run up to everyone and do full attacks." "I'll cast all my save or dies on the BBEG until he dies." Sure, none of this sounds very exciting, but 3e still manages to be tactically interesting.


----------



## Kraydak (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> You don't have to erase them; just give them Striker/4 HP, or whatever algoritmn you settle on.  Isn't that the fix for you?  If so, why are Minions in a module (or a Summoning Spell) a problem?




I think it is a fix for you, too.  It makes the rules non-aberrant for minions, if you want them as such.



> You still have the more basic problem of explaining what the heck a Minion _IS _ within the context of the game.  Why does he have Xth level BAB, AC and Dmg but only 1st level HP?  How does a creature arrive at such an unbalanced state?  It's a highly unstable configuration, not unlike being attacked by a highly poisonous soap bubble.
> 
> Similar to the question of a tree falling in the woods, what is a Minion when there aren't any PC's around?  Does he exist, or is he merely the quantum possibilty of an particular kind of encounter that only materializes when a PC walks into the room?  I don't like the second possibility.




The minion would be someone with striker/4 hp when PCs aren't around.  When PCs are around, and the DM is lazy/overwhelmed, and there isn't any need to get more precise, you approximate striker/4 hp=1 hit.  When it is important, you don't.

Note that striker/4 hp lets a minion take a hit from a comparable level standard monster and live.  It gives him a the ability to be alive at negatives and everything else needed to survive.

*Without* minions having a non-unity default hp total, you run into problems.  If you give them a non-unity hp total that is approximately 1 hit, then, they will expect to survive that 1 hit (even if the opponent rolls well) if they get medical attention.  Remember, the monsters-die-at-0 is, also, a bookkeeping simplification.

While we could argue over the striker/4 number, I really don't see how my suggestion doesn't solve your issue.  I also have a hard time understanding what the potential downsides are in general, and therefore why WotC didn't adopt similar mechanics.  Thoughts?


----------



## Kraydak (May 13, 2008)

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> Here's a question for ya, Irda Ranger, in all seriousness:
> 
> What, exactly, do you find inelegant in the implementation of minions?
> 
> ...




Making minion rules that allowed you to move outside of the minion rules if you had cause to.  People will run into situations modelled very poorly by minion rules.  By making minions 1hp/immune to misses rather than some hp/extra damage on hit, you keep yourself from being able to treat them as non-mooks when (not if) the situation comes up.


----------



## Boarstorm (May 13, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Making minion rules that allowed you to move outside of the minion rules if you had cause to.  People will run into situations modelled very poorly by minion rules.  By making minions 1hp/immune to misses rather than some hp/extra damage on hit, you keep yourself from being able to treat them as non-mooks when (not if) the situation comes up.




The simplicity of the system is that when you need "to move outside of the minion rules", you use a non-minion.

Edit: If I'm missing the point of your post, Kraydak, please posit an example for me, so I can better wrap my mind around such a situation.


----------



## Scribble (May 13, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Making minion rules that allowed you to move outside of the minion rules if you had cause to.  People will run into situations modelled very poorly by minion rules.  By making minions 1hp/immune to misses rather than some hp/extra damage on hit, you keep yourself from being able to treat them as non-mooks when (not if) the situation comes up.




Such as?


----------



## Mort_Q (May 13, 2008)

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> The simplicity of the system is that when you need "to move outside of the minion rules", you use a non-minion.




This seems the easiest.


----------



## Kraydak (May 13, 2008)

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> The simplicity of the system is that when you need "to move outside of the minion rules", you use a non-minion.
> 
> Edit: If I'm missing the point of your post, Kraydak, please posit an example for me, so I can better wrap my mind around such a situation.




I have a character who is built around beating people up, and then sucking their life force out (e.g. Orc Bloodrager).  I want my foe to be bloodyable, even to the point of killing them more slowly.  Minions under current rules=no go.  Minions under mine=fine.

The above goes for all character builds which conflict with minion rules, including people who do damage on misses, who can give temporary hp, who can heal, who want to take prisoners, things like that.

Further, if a minion's miniature is already on the board, it is too late to change him if the players decide they don't want to treat him like a mook.  Under my suggested rules, you can swap seamlessly.

If you don't allow minions, then you need to rewrite modules.  You will (probably) have to drop entire rule sets (in time, you will certainly have to drop entire rule set).  Summoning is almost guaranteed to run off of minions, because most of the problems with MS power levels are due to it being hard to find high AC/BAB, low hp/damage creatures.

So, you gain flexibility, and lose... nothing?  Nothing that I can see at least.  Even if *you* would gain no advantage from it, can you see that others would, and you would lose nothing?  If not, I am curious as to why not.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 13, 2008)

Kraydek is ably answering for me in this context (excep the 1/4 Striker stuff).

Well, off to ICLE.  I guarantee anyone reading this will have more fun than I during the next four hours, barring force majeur events or dentistry without the benefit of anesthesia.


----------



## Boarstorm (May 13, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> I have a character who is built around beating people up, and then sucking their life force out (e.g. Orc Bloodrager).  I want my foe to be bloodyable, even to the point of killing them more slowly.  Minions under current rules=no go.  Minions under mine=fine.
> 
> The above goes for all character builds which conflict with minion rules, including people who do damage on misses, who can give temporary hp, who can heal, who want to take prisoners, things like that.




As I pointed out earlier, minions aren't MEANT to receive temporary hit points, healing, etc.  That is, in effect, why they are minions.  While your rules could circumvent some of these things and allow these situations, it also circumvents the whole point of having minions in the first place.



> Further, if a minion's miniature is already on the board, it is too late to change him if the players decide they don't want to treat him like a mook.  Under my suggested rules, you can swap seamlessly.




Err.. why not?  That orc minion on the board just do something really cool and you want him to stick around for a little while?  Turn him into a warrior on the fly.  Why should he look different?



> If you don't allow minions, then you need to rewrite modules.  You will (probably) have to drop entire rule sets (in time, you will certainly have to drop entire rule set).  Summoning is almost guaranteed to run off of minions, because most of the problems with MS power levels are due to it being hard to find high AC/BAB, low hp/damage creatures.





I think summoning utilizing minions is far less likely than you believe, and I would say that the problems with MS power levels are more due to turn economy than AC/BAB.



> So, you gain flexibility, and lose... nothing?  Nothing that I can see at least.  Even if *you* would gain no advantage from it, can you see that others would, and you would lose nothing?  If not, I am curious as to why not.




You are, of course, free to do whatever you want at your table -- I'm certainly not arguing that!  But as for applying your ideas to the system as a whole, I think it both unnecessary and counterproductive.


----------



## Scribble (May 13, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> I have a character who is built around beating people up, and then sucking their life force out (e.g. Orc Bloodrager).  I want my foe to be bloodyable, even to the point of killing them more slowly.  Minions under current rules=no go.  Minions under mine=fine.




The issue is that I would guess that your bloodrager character would, even under your system, be better off finding another opponent as you'll most likely kill it before it gets bloodied anyway.



> The above goes for all character builds which conflict with minion rules, including people who do damage on misses, who can give temporary hp, who can heal, who want to take prisoners, things like that.




Again the issue being... ok so you missed and should have done damamge anyway... Assume you only did half of it's HP in damage. If the chances are so low that you will miss on your next attack that the half damamge you did wouldn't add anything to the situation (except to make the foe extra dead?) why make the DM do the extra tracking? 

I think that minions will prove to be a case of, it looks wonky on paper, but once we actually start playing will prove to be just an easier form of doing it by tracking HP and accounting for average damage and such...



> Further, if a minion's miniature is already on the board, it is too late to change him if the players decide they don't want to treat him like a mook.  Under my suggested rules, you can swap seamlessly.




Why are the players deciding this? If the DM decides he wants to treat the minion as a bloodrager say... just change the stats you're using and pretend like you just never had him use his powers for some reason?


----------



## Kraydak (May 13, 2008)

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> As I pointed out earlier, minions aren't MEANT to receive temporary hit points, healing, etc.  That is, in effect, why they are minions.  While your rules could circumvent some of these things and allow these situations, it also circumvents the whole point of having minions in the first place.




*If* someone wants to use these abilities on a "minion", *then* they don't want to treat that NPC under full mook rules.  Clearly, many people are bothered by minion rules.  A obvious solution is to include mook rules and non-mook rules.  It turns out that this can be done at no cost.



> Err.. why not?  That orc minion on the board just do something really cool and you want him to stick around for a little while?  Turn him into a warrior on the fly.  Why should he look different?




Because it takes extra time to readjust his stats?  Because players *do* notice if monsters get changed on the fly and many players *get pissed* when it happens?  Because there is a good chance that the monster you are morphing him into has different gear than he started with, you already described him and people have already taken actions based on the previous description?  Please.



> I think summoning utilizing minions is far less likely than you believe, and I would say that the problems with MS power levels are more due to turn economy than AC/BAB.




The whole "turn economy" thing was blown completely out of proportion.  The issue isn't the raw number of turns, but rather the number of turns X the value of each.  If you have relevant AC/BAB means competitive HP/Damage then monster summoning brings in a PC equivalent creature, which in turn does mess of the turn economy.  Minion-like rules allows for relevant AC/BAB without messing up the turn economy.  Hence my prediction.



> You are, of course, free to do whatever you want at your table -- I'm certainly not arguing that!  But as for applying your ideas to the system as a whole, I think it both unnecessary and counterproductive.




Unnecessary for you.  This thread and other say that I am not alone in having issues with minions.  *If* you have an argument for it being counterproductive, I am actively interested.  If not, I have to consider your argument a badwrongfun one because you would then be arguing against something that would fix things for some people without breaking it for others.


----------



## Scribble (May 13, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> *If* someone wants to use these abilities on a "minion", *then* they don't want to treat that NPC under full mook rules.  Clearly, many people are bothered by minion rules.  A obvious solution is to include mook rules and non-mook rules.  It turns out that this can be done at no cost.




But I think in the end this will just be a case of simplifying the math.

You COULD do the math and find a ratio where minions have more then 1 HP, and take damage from misses... But my guess is if you keep them the same power level, and account for average damage and AC and stuff... you'll end up writing a lot of numbers but still essentially tracking dead or not dead.


----------



## MarkB (May 13, 2008)

Xardinhul said:
			
		

> You know, one of the reasons I like the Minion rules as I've seen them so far is because I feel it better simulates some of the fantasy source material that I've been influenced by.  There often seems to be a scenario in the "young farm boy gets thrust into the role of a hero" trope where that young farm boy picks up a sword to help defend his loved ones from some terrible monster and kills it, against what seems like all odds, often in one blow.



I agree. And one place I'm going to have fun using minions as solo monsters is as perimeter guards of camps or buildings that the PCs wish to sneak into.

Finally, I can use fully-RAW D&D to simulate the sort of cinematic covert-infiltration where the protagonists manage to sneak in by creeping up behind the guards and stabbing them, or taking them out with a lucky arrow shot - and yet, those self-same guards will have PC-level-appropriate perception and defense scores, and will pose a credible threat to them if the alarm is raised.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Actually it's this very glass-ninja aspect of the monster which is part of my problem with the concept.  A natural 20 will always kill it.  So you can have 21st level Demon Minions fall to a rank of 0th level human archers



Well, I'm not sure yet if I've already fully wrapped my head around the minion concept but I think this is a situation that will (or should) never happen.

Several posters in this thread have already mentioned what I consider the key-point about minions: They're only minions to the pcs.

I'd go one step further and say: Minions are only minions to pcs with a level at least equal to the minions'.

While in theory a first level party encountering a single 18th level minion could be considered a balanced encounter (if you're only looking at the xp values) it's a pretty bad idea to do this. It's not the role minions are designed to fill. I don't think it makes sense to have the pcs encounter 18th level minions until they are actually level 18 or higher.

If a 21st level party should ever be accompanied by a rank of 0th level human archers (assuming such a thing even exists in 4E...) I don't think they should be able to have any (mechanical) effect on a 21st level demon minion. To them it's an almost invulnerable solo threat. They'll pepper it with arrows (which will mostly simply bounce off its skin) and maybe inflict some superficial wounds until one of the pcs comes along to slay it with a single hit.

If it makes for better storytelling the DM can choose to narrate the battle in a way that the archers actually had an important part in weakening the demon so the pcs could kill it more easily. I.e. the presence of the archers is the explanation why this demon is a minion for the pcs!

I'm pretty sure it won't be difficult to ignore the presence of minions in 4E if you don't like the concept. I think they present an elegant solution, though. They allow for adding variety to tactical situations without adding to bookkeeping.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 13, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Wrong.  Full stop.  Minions (effectively) have null HP and take null damage.  They only register a hit or a miss.  The threshold factors are retained but the ablative factors are entirely lost on it.  Ergo, there are only two factors.




Ah, I misunderstood which two-factors you felt remained in play. Partially, I think that's because minion damage escalates alongside their ability to hit and avoid being hit. The only thing that does not escalate is their ability to take damage. In essence, minions are creatures that don't obey the ablative nature of hit points.



			
				Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Solo Monsters obey all the rules of a 4FS.  Minions do not.  That is a difference in kind, not degree.  The scale for 4FS opponents is Normal --> Elite --> Solo.  Minions aren't on it.




I see. So you would have been totally happy with a "minion template" that you could apply to a given creature. Such a template would, say, cut said creature's hit points to 1/4 of normal, halve the damage (and normalize the result to a constant number).

As I pointed out with the orc examples, with the exception of the hit point situation, this is, effectively, all a minion _is_.




			
				Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but I think I've made clear that I don't find these to be satisfying answers.  For my mind, there needs to be more than that.  The parts should compliment the whole, and the whole should achieve the desired ends without ugly kludges.  We get by with "good enough" design all the time, but why not try to puzzle it out and perhaps find a more elegant solution?  Hence, the thread.




Ah. But see, here's the thing. I already know what the more elegant solution is.* The problem with it is that it introduces ugly kludges that hurt the game's ability to properly model other areas.  




			
				Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Luckily JohnSnow I've always found you to be a close reader and fair poster, and you don't disappoint once more.
> 
> ...and we arrive at our destination.  This was my point.  Or, a part of it, at any rate.




So your point is that minions are created by altering the rules. Okay. I assume the second part is that there is a more elegant solution to characters that provide a reasonable threat but can still be taken out in one hit. You're right. But it involves changing the hit point system.




			
				Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Of course, but why settle for _only _ fun?  Aesthetics matter too.
> 
> FWIW, I have also found this discussion to be fun.  I hope a few others have as well.  And if by means of this thread a more elegant solution is found for "the Stormtrooper problem", and the fun of the system is either maintained (or even improved!), wouldn't that be nice?




The more "elegant" solution to the "stormtrooper problem" has already been done. You get it by replacing the hit point system with another system for tracking damage, such as the one from _Mutants & Masterminds_. Then minions are creatures which automatically fail their damage save.

That's because the aesthetic gap here is one that not everyone sees. Again, you seem bothered by the game's interpretation of how "hit points" _work._ Characterizing them as "an abstract measure of one's ability to avoid taking serious injury" seems to bother you, and many others, who still seem insistent on the fact that metagame constructs like hit points must be observable to a character in the game world. The contention is that Bob can tell or observe the hit point damage a particular type of attack does. This is, again, predicated on the notion that "hit points" are quantifiable _in the game world,_ as opposed to _in the game._

Let me explain again. Most of the time, in hand-to-hand combat, the result is death or serious injury, and there's no way to predict who will win. The master swordsman is just as dead when an apprentice stabs him in the lung as when his fellow master does it. The former is less likely to happen, but it *can* happen.

There are games that model this well. _Riddle of Steel_ is one. _Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay_ is another. Heck, _Shadowrun_ isn't too bad at it, nor is 1st-level in Third Edition D&D. The problem is that, like the real world, systems like this are very hard on characters (read: lethal). They tend to die - unless they get lucky. Moreover, these systems are fairly bad at making characters who are tough enough to face monsters like dragons, giants, beholders and the like, _and still have a decent chance of survival_.

Hit points are a way of systematizing the "luck" or "good fortune" of characters in the game world. As such, they aren't "quantifiable" or "measurable" by people in the game world any more than "lucky" or "fortunate" is to us.

That minion who died from one sword blow - well, that was tough luck. The hero who's been through several dozen battles and is unscathed - he must enjoy the favor of the gods. Or he has some greater destiny. He most certainly does not let people shoot him full of arrows as a parlor trick.

Some people have a problem with this discrepancy between PC and "supporting character" being directly hard-coded into the rules. To them, the D&D rules represent some kind of alt-universe physics. They NEED this to be the case. If you are one of them, sorry, but I really don't think Fourth Edition is the game for you. 



*As I've alluded to since, the "elegant solution" is to ditch the hit point system entirely. Many of the current game "fixes" people are complaining about are bandaids to make the hit point system _work_ properly in the context of the game. The routine argument is, "if the hit point system necessitates so many bandaids, why preserve it at all?"

Easy. Any time your results depend on the result of a die roll, you introduce variability. If the variability is a binary condition (on/off), you create the possibility of a series of results that go nowhere. By contrast, ablative values produce _more predictable results_ than binary conditions. Over time, your ablative values *will* drop, and the potentially swingy results of one die roll matter less. With a hit point system, you're able to predict, with reasonable accuracy, the mean number of rounds someone will last in combat. By contrast, binary conditions (like M&M's toughness saves) can leave someone dead in a few rounds or uninjured after 20+. They introduce a swinginess to the game that makes it mathematically hard to predict. And games that are mathematically hard to predict are hard to design for, except in a handwavey kind of way.

Sure, over time, everything will average out. But you can get some pretty swingy results in the timeframe of a typical game.

So instead, D&D opts to keep the predictable hit point system, and introduces the Minion rules, and others, as exceptions that offer new in-game options. Assuming you adhere to the "narrative" interpretation of hit points, the rules don't impact on SoD.

I should point out that by "narrative," I don't mean "the DM lays out a story and the PCs walk through it." I mean, instead, that the rules of the game create situations similar to heroic narratives - with the rules intentionally biased in favor of the PCs so that they might fulfill the role of the protagonists, but without pre-determining what the results will be. Thus, we can still have a "game" where no one knows how it will turn out, but we can be pretty sure we won't lose half the party in the first scene. Similarly, the various NPCs (including monsters) in the "narrative" fill different roles, and as such, are governed by different rules. Sometimes, you want an NPC to last, but other times, you just want to threaten the characters with a whole squad of stormtroopers that poses a risk - but could possibly be wiped out.


----------



## Ulthwithian (May 14, 2008)

To borrow a phrase from failure analysis (and engineering in general), hit points and other ablative effects fail gracefully (at least mechanically), while binary effects fail catastrophically.

In general, minions are a superset of exception-based design, in some ways.  That seems to be the issue.  I don't detect any inherent issues in the OP about exception-based design in general, but surely 'minion' is simply an exception 'set' rather than an individual exception?  Note that in 4E's exception-based design, the exceptions are very rarely individual.  All Orcs have a similar theme running through their abilities, as do Kobolds, Gnolls, and (presumably) Goblins.  Minions are on a different axis from the above exception-based 'classes', but certainly the same logic applies?

If you find the solution inelegant, that is your decision, but others (including myself) find the implementation of minions quite elegant.

As far as Kraydak's concern about replacing minions in products, I believe the math analysis I did on page 9 is fairly telling; 4 minions do about the same damage as one mob.  Replace on an as-needed basis.  Note that you definitely weaken AoE powers (and by extension, Controllers) when you do so.  What is ironic is that if your party contains no Wizard, you can punish them by sending waves of minions at them.  XP for XP, minions do damage faster to opponents than 'normal' mobs, apparently.


----------



## Jim Williams (May 14, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> You still have the more basic problem of explaining what the heck a Minion _IS _ within the context of the game.  Why does he have Xth level BAB, AC and Dmg but only 1st level HP?  How does a creature arrive at such an unbalanced state?  It's a highly unstable configuration, not unlike being attacked by a highly poisonous soap bubble.
> 
> Similar to the question of a tree falling in the woods, what is a Minion when there aren't any PC's around?  Does he exist, or is he merely the quantum possibilty of an particular kind of encounter that only materializes when a PC walks into the room?  I don't like the second possibility.




To state the monster/NPC *arrives* at an unbalanced state implies a journey.  Most NPCs do not evolve.  They merely exist in statis until the PCs come on stage.  Even the recurring villain grows only when he shares the stage with the PCs.  After his great escape (again!) he is placed back in the DM folder and perhaps leveled up or modified as needed for his next encounter with the PCs.

I think viewing the pool of NPCs as some sort of ant-farm that one manages when the group isn't at the table is creates an awful lot of work for minimal in-game gain.  If one has the free time and desire, there should still be plenty of other NPCs in the stable that can be advanced off-camera as desired.

I am curious, though why the shrink-wrapped monster is disagreeable with you Irda.  I look forward to hearing your opinion.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 14, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> That's because the aesthetic gap here is one that not everyone sees.



You've been reading this thread too, eh? 




			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Again, you seem bothered by the game's interpretation of how "hit points" _work._ Characterizing them as "an abstract measure of one's ability to avoid taking serious injury" seems to bother you, and many others, who still seem insistent on the fact that metagame constructs like hit points must be observable to a character in the game world.



Not at all!  Actually, my only problem with them right now is that they're called _Hit_ Points. I think they should be called Awesome Points or perhaps Badass Tokens, as that would be more accurate.  Moreover, I plan on explaining to my PCs next month that "bloodied" can also be understood as "first blood" - that's what duels are fought to.  Until you lose half your Mojo Markers you don't even have a bloody nose or scraped knee.




			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> As I've alluded to since, the "elegant solution" is to ditch the hit point system entirely.



_Ho ho, John Snow, watch where you go!_ You're in the strawberry patch now!

Actually, that is just one of two possible elegant solutions!  And your solutions is, as you so adroitly describe (and I admitted right in the OP!) results in a very swingy, "gritty" game (my jargon was "2FS-Gr").  Although I do like the occasional Riddle of Steel, my favorite player (and wife) is not a fan.  I have no intention of running a gritty campaign at this time.  

As for what that second (non-gritty) solution is, why don't you go re-read the last paragraph of the OP and think on it.  I enjoy our discussions and would appreciate any fresh insight you can bring to the table (which I might spoil if I spell it out for you).

But once you've thought about that, don't you think this allows for "effective Minions" for narrativist and gamist purposes without doing harm to world-sim or the aesthetics of the system?




			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I should point out that by "narrative," I don't mean "the DM lays out a story and the PCs walk through it." I mean, instead, that the rules of the game create situations similar to heroic narratives - with the rules intentionally biased in favor of the PCs so that they might fulfill the role of the protagonists, but without pre-determining what the results will be. Thus, we can still have a "game" where no one knows how it will turn out, but we can be pretty sure we won't lose half the party in the first scene.



I swear to God as my witness that this is exactly the end which I wish to achieve, so now that we're on the same team: got any ideas about elegant solution #2? 

Uthwithian and all others should also feel free to explore this little avenue.  I can tell who's been thinking hard about the arguments, but no one has quite cleared the lid of the box yet.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 14, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> So are minions immune to AoE spells and abilities?
> 
> If they are not then. It's not elegant or tactically challenging all the minion rule will do is ensure that during any encounter that players suspect contains minions, it guarantees that those who have PCs with effective area attack abilities will spam them until the groups true enemies (non minions) are revealed. Wow thats exciting, and that or something very similar will be the default approach.



Well, duh.

This should really be the approach all the time. If you have an attack that can be lethal to a group of enemies and the enemies are set out in a way that you can use the attack, then _use the attack_.

Minions are there so that these area attacks (and other attacks) remain lethal attacks. A few opponents are wily, or lucky enough, that they can avoid the expected lethality of an attack. This is just what happens in the standard fantasy novel or action movie.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (May 14, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Not at all!  Actually, my only problem with them right now is that they're called _Hit_ Points. I think they should be called Awesome Points or perhaps Badass Tokens, as that would be more accurate.  Moreover, I plan on explaining to my PCs next month that "bloodied" can also be understood as "first blood" - that's what duels are fought to.  Until you lose half your Mojo Markers you don't even have a bloody nose or scraped knee.



How many times does it have to be said on these boards that a character can be seriously injured and yet have full hit points?


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 14, 2008)

Jim Williams said:
			
		

> I am curious, though why the shrink-wrapped monster is disagreeable with you Irda.  I look forward to hearing your opinion.



Because this is D&D not Diablo II.  For me, as the DM, the campaign world is a living, breathing, organic whole.  There is nothing shrink-wrapped about it, but rather it stretches far to the east and west, and further into ancient epochs and distant futures than even I am really aware of.  As I mentioned it another thread, it's an immersion thing, and if I feel like I'm a cheap movie set I can't really enjoy myself.  I'd rather "waste my time" on some other game, like basketball.

But for that to work there needs to be a set of assumptions that the world works by, one that is points of view independent.  "Narrativist" explanations and other justifications that depend on a PC being in the room to observe events simply don't hold up to this kind of scrutiny, they collapse like an empty tent once this single justification is removed.  Moreover, they don't explain all other similar phenomena in the campaign world's "universe", and therefore fail.  

It's "the real Occam's Razor" at work, to hearken to an earlier post in the thread.




			
				Jim Williams said:
			
		

> I think viewing the pool of NPCs as some sort of ant-farm that one manages when the group isn't at the table is creates an awful lot of work for minimal in-game gain.



Well, I don't "manage" it so much as I try to understand it (I'm not a details man like Ed Greenwood).  Once I do that stuff just flows naturally.  And it's not work; this is my hobby as much as running adventures is.  I realize that many (most?) DMs put in the minimum amount of prep time possible before running an adventure, but this is what I think about when I'm on the bus and don't have anything to read, or while I'm waiting for the elevator.  Not watching much TV or following sports in the least frees up a lot of mental cycles.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 14, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> How many times does it have to be said on these boards that a character can be seriously injured and yet have full hit points?



I think most would agree I'm a regular here, and I have never heard this contention before.

Since there is NO mechanism in 4E that I'm aware of to model long-term injuries, I'd be interested in hearing how this is supposed to work.  I can have multiple gaping wounds and a broken leg but be at full HP and have no penalties?

EDIT: I take it back. I don't want to derail my one thread. Got a link?


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 14, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> How many times does it have to be said on these boards that a character can be seriously injured and yet have full hit points?



Yet cure light wounds, healing surges, and potions all talk about healing wounds as well.  You think someone is going to waste a potion because the dm says they're "injured" at full hp?


----------



## AZRogue (May 14, 2008)

Due to concerns raised in this thread I created an entire Orc tribe the other night consisting only of minions. I checked back on them this evening and, when I opened my notebook, I found them all still alive. Further studies will be needed, of course, but this initial test bodes well.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 14, 2008)

AZRogue said:
			
		

> Due to concerns raised in this thread I created an entire Orc tribe the other night consisting only of minions. I checked back on them this evening and, when I opened my notebook, I found them all still alive. Further studies will be needed, of course, but this initial test bodes well.



Your sarcasm is noted. Thank you for your contribution.


----------



## AZRogue (May 14, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Your sarcasm is noted. Thank you for your contribution.




Yeah, but I didn't mean any harm.  I just read the pages that were added since I last posted this morning (3 of them!) and can't think of anything to say that hasn't been said several times by many people. Unable to make a point that I think will push the conversation forward I revert to making myself laugh.


----------



## AZRogue (May 14, 2008)

Let me make a serious post to atone for my earlier attempt at humor:


I think this whole argument concerning minions boils down to how certain people look at the rules. Some people look at the rules and are only concerned with the game that will result from them. Others look for the rules to have a certain structure all their own and are put off by that structure being manipulated. Here's a quote from Mearls to illustrate:



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> The most eye opening thing about the entire 4e process was how many people are what I call ideologues when it comes to D&D. The end result - whether the game is fun, interesting, and enjoyable - plays a distant second in their minds to the structure of the rules. The process, be it multiclassing, monster hit dice, or whatever, is more important than the end result of that process.




4E is making a conscious effort to be very good at the table and isn't concerned about the structure of the rules used to get there. Whether this approach appeals or not, I leave to you. I think some people who look at a game's structure before looking at how a game plays will prefer to stay with 3E or Pathfinder. I'm not sure there's a possible reconciliation other than the gameplay being so fun that they are able to look past their dislike for how the rules are structured.


----------



## hong (May 14, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Because this is D&D not Diablo II.  For me, as the DM, the campaign world is a living, breathing, organic whole.  There is nothing shrink-wrapped about it, but rather it stretches far to the east and west, and further into ancient epochs and distant futures than even I am really aware of.  As I mentioned it another thread, it's an immersion thing, and if I feel like I'm a cheap movie set I can't really enjoy myself.




So make it an expensive movie set.


----------



## small pumpkin man (May 14, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> I think most would agree I'm a regular here, and I have never heard this contention before.
> 
> Since there is NO mechanism in 4E that I'm aware of to model long-term injuries, I'd be interested in hearing how this is supposed to work.  I can have multiple gaping wounds and a broken leg but be at full HP and have no penalties?
> 
> EDIT: I take it back. I don't want to derail my one thread. Got a link?



http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4089289&postcount=5
http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4155299&postcount=103
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=4099433&postcount=37
http://www.enworld.org/archive/index.php/t-221339.html(search for "full hp")



			
				AZRogue said:
			
		

> I think this whole argument concerning minions boils down to how certain people look at the rules. Some people look at the rules and are only concerned with the game that will result from them. Others look for the rules to have a certain structure all their own and are put off by that structure being manipulated. Here's a quote from Mearls to illustrate:





			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by Mearls
> The most eye opening thing about the entire 4e process was how many people are what I call ideologues when it comes to D&D. The end result - whether the game is fun, interesting, and enjoyable - plays a distant second in their minds to the structure of the rules. The process, be it multiclassing, monster hit dice, or whatever, is more important than the end result of that process.





			
				AZRogue said:
			
		

> 4E is making a conscious effort to be very good at the table and isn't concerned about the structure of the rules used to get there. Whether this approach appeals or not, I leave to you. I think some people who look at a game's structure before looking at how a game plays will prefer to stay with 3E or Pathfinder. I'm not sure there's a possible reconciliation other than the gameplay being so fun that they are able to look past their dislike for how the rules are structured.



The problem I personally have with the current set up is that Cleave autokills an extra minion on a hit, whereas Reaping Strike doesn't do anything to them on a miss.

Now, if I run a game for my wargaming housemates you're right, they may or may not ever notice that this is how the game works, but my regular players will notice this because half of them are GMs, and I will notice this when I'm playing, maybe not every time minions come up, but because we know it works that, it will get noticed, and people will get annoyed, and put off, and pulled out of the game.

Maybe I'm being irrational, maybe the ability to never have to track minion hp is worth it, (well, okay, yes, it's definately worth some kind of break in consistancy) but I'm not impressed.


----------



## pawsplay (May 14, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> What'sthe capital of Belgium? Try to answer without saying "Brussels", "the place where sprouts come from" or "more than one brussel".
> 
> Minions are not an in-game concept. Hit points are not an in-game concept either, so it's not surprising that there's no in-game concept for people with one of them.




Therefore they don't exist? I can certainly describe what hit points are in-game. People certainly do have an in-game concept of "I'm alive," "I'm wounded and/or worn out," and "I'm dead." Minions who go splat do weird things to the narrative, if they go splat at inappropriate times in inappropriate ways.

What if I cast dominate and cause a housecat to kill an orc minion?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 14, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Therefore they don't exist? I can certainly describe what hit points are in-game. People certainly do have an in-game concept of "I'm alive," "I'm wounded and/or worn out," and "I'm dead." Minions who go splat do weird things to the narrative, if they go splat at inappropriate times in inappropriate ways.



I don't think it necessarily follows that having 1 hitpoint is ANY different than having 200 hitpoints in terms of how hurt, you are.  That's the point.  Someone at 1 hitpoint MIGHT be hurt, they might be worn out, but they might be just as fit and healthy as they were at full hitpoints.  That's the point of being abstract.  ALL of your hitpoints could just be luck.  How do you measure in game how much luck someone has.  There would be no word for it.


			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> What if I cast dominate and cause a housecat to kill an orc minion?



This is sort of a rules question, so I can't really answer other than to say "What do you think would happen if a housecat attacked a big, strong, trained Orc?"

That's right.  One doesn't need rules to know the Orc isn't afraid of it and wouldn't be hurt by it.

All I can say about this is that one of the things I've seen the designers post about again and again and the philosophy that is supposed to go with 4e is that the game has now been designed to take advantage of the fact that there is a living, breathing, and thinking person running the game.  It was said that the rules of 3e were designed assuming that you would follow to the letter and they should cover all circumstances so the DM would never have to think about what SHOULD happen, just what WOULD happen using the rules.

And rather than do that again, the 4e rules are designed to cover their most common use: a party of adventurers fighting monsters.  For corner cases, it is expected the DM would be around to make a decision as to what happens.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 14, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Now, if I run a game for my wargaming housemates you're right, they may or may not ever notice that this is how the game works, but my regular players will notice this because half of them are GMs, and I will notice this when I'm playing, maybe not every time minions come up, but because we know it works that, it will get noticed



You would make a fine wagons in Sendaria.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 14, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> So make it an expensive movie set.



That's usually the best I can do.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 14, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> Therefore they don't exist? I can certainly describe what hit points are in-game. People certainly do have an in-game concept of "I'm alive," "I'm wounded and/or worn out," and "I'm dead." Minions who go splat do weird things to the narrative, if they go splat at inappropriate times in inappropriate ways.
> 
> What if I cast dominate and cause a housecat to kill an orc minion?




Actually I think you just made a very good point.  Minions do not exist.  In game a 4th level minion cannot be distinguished by himself, or any other in game entity as being different from any other 4th level mob.

He is only ever a minion after he is hit, and only out of game.  In game you can make up whatever fluff you want as to why he died so fast.

So its not that he is killed in one hit because he is a minion, its that he is killed in one hit, therefor he is a minion.  Its effect -> cause instead of cause -> effect.


----------



## AZRogue (May 14, 2008)

Regarding Irda Ranger's concern: yes, I think minions are aliens from a different system, but ONLY if you hold that the rules need symmetry. A minion's hit points don't scale with his BAB, AC, and damage. 

The disagreement is that I don't believe symmetry or structure-aesthetics are valuable as a design goal. I would much rather have things work during play. I'm not sure whether it's possible to mollify someone searching for symmetry or aesthetics in the rules of 4th Edition; I'm not sure 4E will make any attempt to do so. 

The question then becomes whether the game will be fun enough to enjoy in spite of this. I, personally, am really hoping the game is easy and fun enough that many will be able to look past the structural aspects they don't like.


----------



## Jim Williams (May 14, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> For me, as the DM, the campaign world is a living, breathing, organic whole.  There is nothing shrink-wrapped about it, but rather it stretches far to the east and west, and further into ancient epochs and distant futures than even I am really aware of.




So, it is not enough to write out an in depth history, regional culture, or character backstory.  Rather, you feel the rules need to support the narrative you've laid out?  Put another way, it is disconcerting to have an NPC history that is not supported by the rules?



> Well, I don't "manage" it so much as I try to understand it (I'm not a details man like Ed Greenwood).  Once I do that stuff just flows naturally.  And it's not work; this is my hobby as much as running adventures is.  I realize that many (most?) DMs put in the minimum amount of prep time possible before running an adventure, but this is what I think about when I'm on the bus and don't have anything to read, or while I'm waiting for the elevator.  Not watching much TV or following sports in the least frees up a lot of mental cycles.




By manage I meant simulate mechanically - even in the abstract.

The vibe I get from your reply is that you value time spent on the really creative stuff.  I certainly don't mean to imply there is no gain from developing the story of the campaign.  Quite the contrary!  But the minion has no backstory.  Do the mechanics under which he lives and dies (which really only come into play when the PCs step into the room) reallly need to jibe with the rest of the universe?

If so, I can understand why the minion rules as they are might rub you the wrong way.  They work for me and my play-style.  Ultimately, we all want to have personally rewarding experience when we play this game, so I hope you find a way to reconcile your minions.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 14, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> What if I cast dominate and cause a housecat to kill an orc minion?



The cat leaps onto the orcs head, clawing and scratching at the creatures eyes. The orc stumbles backwards and cracks his skull open on a rock.


----------



## pawsplay (May 14, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> The cat leaps onto the orcs head, clawing and scratching at the creatures eyes. The orc stumbles backwards and cracks his skull open on a rock.




"Man! That keeps happening. What are the odds?"


----------



## pawsplay (May 14, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> This is sort of a rules question, so I can't really answer other than to say "What do you think would happen if a housecat attacked a big, strong, trained Orc?"
> 
> That's right.  One doesn't need rules to know the Orc isn't afraid of it and wouldn't be hurt by it.
> 
> All I can say about this is that one of the things I've seen the designers post about again and again and the philosophy that is supposed to go with 4e is that the game has now been designed to take advantage of the fact that there is a living, breathing, and thinking person running the game.




"What do you think would happen if a housecat attacked a big, strong trained Orc?" has as much relevance as "What do you think would happen if a halfling attacked a big, nasty dragon?" Either the rules can resolve a very simple combat involve two relatively common creatures, or it can't. It's fine that the GM can narrate the situation however he likes, but it doesn't speak well for the game itself. 

What if instead of  a housecat, we use a a goblin slave?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 14, 2008)

Goblin Slave = Sneaking up behind Orc and slitting its throat.

All these to rely on the fact that the DM first has to designate that Orc a Minion, so he is designating he will die in one "hit", as such the manner is just a means to an end. The Orc can just as easily not be a minion, since he isn't designated to die in one "hit".

To use the housecat example again, a person in normal life they may trip on their cat at the top of the stairs and roll down it. They get back up, bruised but fine they weren't designated a Minion. The person snaps their neck, they were designated a Minion.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 14, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> "What do you think would happen if a housecat attacked a big, strong trained Orc?" has as much relevance as "What do you think would happen if a halfling attacked a big, nasty dragon?" Either the rules can resolve a very simple combat involve two relatively common creatures, or it can't. It's fine that the GM can narrate the situation however he likes, but it doesn't speak well for the game itself.
> 
> What if instead of  a housecat, we use a a goblin slave?



Does it involve the players?  If they are involved in the battle and they are somehow using the goblin slave to attack the Orc somehow then I'd make an attack roll using the goblin slave's stats and see if I hit the Orc.  If I did, then I'd have the Orc die.  The PC who used his ability to control the goblin slave should get full benefit from the ability.  Or if they just convinced the goblin to join them, then he's officially one of the heroes for now and gets all their benefits.

If the battle doesn't involve the PCs then I don't need rules.  Rules are only there to resolve conflicts between the players and the DM.  So, if the reason I need to know who wins the battle is because I know there is going to be a slave revolt and the goblin slaves are going to rise up against their orc oppressors then the way I'd resolve it is simple:  I'd think, "What happens to the storyline if the uprising works?  The Orcs are no longer a threat to the town and the players no longer have a threat to deal with....I don't want that to happen.  The goblins lose."


----------



## Shadeydm (May 14, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> Well, duh.
> 
> This should really be the approach all the time. If you have an attack that can be lethal to a group of enemies and the enemies are set out in a way that you can use the attack, then _use the attack_.
> 
> Minions are there so that these area attacks (and other attacks) remain lethal attacks. A few opponents are wily, or lucky enough, that they can avoid the expected lethality of an attack. This is just what happens in the standard fantasy novel or action movie.




I think you left out the part about how this makes it elegant or tactically challenging snark not withstanding.


----------



## Shadeydm (May 14, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> "Man! That keeps happening. What are the odds?"



Yes, this just oozes elegance...


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 14, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I think you left out the part about how this makes it elegant or tactically challenging snark not withstanding.



Here's the reason it is elegant and tactically challenging:

I have 4 Minions, a Brute, a Stalker, a Skirmisher and a Controller as my encounter.

The Minions and the Brute are up front.  The Skirmisher hangs slightly behind them and the Controller and Stalker being him.  The Controller takes advantage of some cover in order to avoid ranged attacks.  So does the Stalker who hides and waits for someone to try to get into melee with the Controller.

The Minions attempt to move to flanking positions to give Combat Advantage to the Brute and/or each other and/or the Skirmisher.  Meanwhile, they block as many squares as they can in the room/hallway to prevent the PCs from just moving past them and into melee with the Controller.  The Controller uses his powers on anyone who attempts to get past them.

The minions cover for each other as they drop, moving to the locations to best block the path.  They need to be taken out 1 or two at a time by the Fighter in the party.  Either that or the Wizard could use AoEs in order to beat them.  However, not all of them will die in any one attack since some of the attack rolls will miss.  Each hit, however, just drops one of them off the board immediately without needing to keep track of their hitpoints.  Which is good, cause you are already remembering which powers the Controller has used already, the location of his zone power, which PC marked the Brute this round, and the location of the Stalker who you haven't put on the board yet since no one has seen him.


----------



## Shadeydm (May 14, 2008)

I'm not really seeing how one hp minions added anything to this fight sorry.


----------



## Aria Silverhands (May 14, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I'm not really seeing how one hp minions added anything to this fight sorry.



If the minions weren't there... it would have been 1 orc instead of 4 orc minions.  Minions are simply there to provide numbers on the battlefield without adding to the craptastic bookeeping crap dm's have to go through.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 14, 2008)

Aria Silverhands said:
			
		

> If the minions weren't there... it would have been 1 orc instead of 4 orc minions.  Minions are simply there to provide numbers on the battlefield without adding to the craptastic bookeeping crap dm's have to go through.



Precisely.  If you have a 4 square wide hallway/room, you need 4 creatures to completely block it.  They can even somewhat stop people from walking past them in a 8-10 square wide hallway/room because people have to provoke OAs from moving past them.  Most people won't.

One enemy in either of those situations can't stand in any place that will allow him to prevent the movement of the PCs past him.


----------



## Steely Dan (May 14, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I'm not really seeing how one hp minions added anything to this fight sorry.




Don't be sorry, I'm sure you'll get it of you think about it, tactically.


----------



## Aenghus (May 14, 2008)

There have been "minions" in the previous editions of D&D. In 1st and 2nd ed adventure modules there were often hordes of low HD humanoids  in encounters, hanging around essentially as flavour. Both stats and combat options were limited, battlemaps often weren't used, and the game was able to cope with the numbers, more or less.

While AC and damage didn't ramp up as quickly as in 3e, nethertheless the average PC party would become immune to 1 HD orcs and their ilk fairly quickly (barring wussier magic-users who could keel over if coughed on even at appreciable levels). Typically they would die to fireballs or other area damage (whether they saved or not) or make the melee types "waste" a single attack to kill each one. Hell, area damage was good in 1e and 2e because of the wussy creatures that would die in droves to such attacks, which gave a psychological payoff to the player of the wizard even if the creatures were mostly harmless.

3e massively increased the amount of stats for monsters, and upped both hp and damage. This increased the DM workload, and significantly decreased the number of monsters a DM could efficiently run in the average encounter. Also, the spread of AC and damage over levels increased as well, so that monsters became obsolete quicker. Lower numbers of encounters with a smaller number of tougher creatures became the order of the day, and the disposable hordes all but disappeared. The general increase in HP without a corresponding increase in spell direct damage made blasting a lot less appealing.

The problem with minions in D&D so far is they were generally lower level monsters that weren't a direct threat to the PCs. For the DM it could feel it was wasted time running them, rolling buckets of dice in the hope of a 20, and them dying automatically to any area damage.

To me it looks like the 4e designers came up with some desired characteristics for 4e minions to make them easy to run for the average campaign - low book-keeping overhead, represent a small but credible threat to the PCs, easy to kill but not too easy.

So orc minions have appropriate AC, attack values and (fixed) damage for their level, but 1 hp so they are killed by any successful PC attack. However, they are immune to auto damage, again to make them a small but credible threat. Otherwise PCs would just focus on the non-minions and use autohit and splash damage on the minions - cleave etc.

Their availability makes it possible to raise the average number of opponents in an encounter without overwhelming the DM. It also makes area damage once again useful - while it won't autokill minions, it's still the most efficient way of dealing with them. Dealing with minions is what the controller is best at and what makes him look good. The other classes with single-target effects then won't waste their better attacks on mere minions.

The existence of minions may changes 4e tactics from previous editions. Novaing the best powers first in encounters, often practical in 3e, may be wasted on minions in 4e encounters, leading to problems when subsequent waves of reinforcements with the true opposition arrive. With the  increased HP buffer, it may be better tactics to use at-will or encounter powers initially, resorting to dailys only when you know they are worthwhile.

And again, the minion rules are another step in separating PCs from NPCs/monsters rules-wise. The exact same monster may have different stats when encountered at different levels. The tough orc representing a significant challenge to the PCs when encountered first, may be represented as a mere minion in an encounter a few levels later.


----------



## D.Shaffer (May 14, 2008)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> So are minions immune to AoE spells and abilities?



AoE spells still involve rolling to hit.  From what we know, you make a seperate to hit roll vs everyone in the area, then apply the results.  So no, they're not immune to AoE spells and abilities.


----------



## Rex Blunder (May 14, 2008)

I'll grant you that a 1st edition housecat could kill any number of 4e minions. In an early Dragon magazine, there was a story about a cat who stalked and killed a party of 6 0-level carpenters armed with hammers.

I've always disliked things that do small amounts of HP damage, but that seem like they couldn't kill you without you suffering some embarrassing mishap.

The first time I remember encountering it was in the Basic Expert set. There was some spiky cave floor that you walked over that did 1-2 points of damage. Sure, that's fine if you're reasonably healthy, but if you're at 1 hit point, it's hard to explain how you die from cutting your foot. (Sure: you trip and impale your brain. But it's ridiculous.)

Same thing with housecats. In 1e, cats did like 1-3/1-3/1-4 or something damage. In 3e, they do 1/1/1 damage. Either way, it was possible for a housecat to kill a wounded 10th level fighter, or an unlucky commoner. 

A cat bite draws blood. But it is very, very unlikely to kill you. So it shouldn't do damage.

So here's my suggestion for the cat stat-block for 4e. I hope the WOTC designers think the same way I do:

A CAT DOES NO DAMAGE.


----------



## LostSoul (May 14, 2008)

Or don't give the cat has a stat block.  It's best treated as a piece of equipment.


----------



## hong (May 14, 2008)

But if the cat is equipment, then it can be used as an improvised weapon....


----------



## LostSoul (May 14, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> But if the cat is equipment, then it can be used as an improvised weapon....




All these problems go away when you stop thinking so hard about... cats.


----------



## Shadeydm (May 14, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> All these problems go away when you stop thinking so hard about... cats.



It is unlawful to use Hongisms on Hong!!


----------



## Lacyon (May 14, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> But if the cat is equipment, then it can be used as an improvised weapon....




You say that like it's a negative thing


----------



## Ginnel (May 14, 2008)

*Meow*

Hence the phrase

DM: The cunning goblin disarms you of your weapon sending it skittering across the floor

Player: I pick up my cat and swing it at the enemy

DM: er what you can't do that

Player: yes I can you said it had no stats and was like a piece of equipment

DM: well there isn't enough room to swing a cat in here......

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Someone on the internet is wrong!


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 14, 2008)

Ginnel said:
			
		

> Player: I pick up my cat and swing it at the enemy



Sunder!

Sunder!

Sunder-Cats, _Hoooooo_!


----------



## Storm-Bringer (May 14, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Goblin Slave = Sneaking up behind Orc and slitting its throat.



So, Saruman was a minion?


----------



## Storm-Bringer (May 14, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Precisely.  If you have a 4 square wide hallway/room, you need 4 creatures to completely block it.  They can even somewhat stop people from walking past them in a 8-10 square wide hallway/room because people have to provoke OAs from moving past them.  Most people won't.
> 
> One enemy in either of those situations can't stand in any place that will allow him to prevent the movement of the PCs past him.



Neither can the four, if the PCs move diagonally.


----------



## Rex Blunder (May 14, 2008)

> So, Saruman was a minion?




Turns out Hit Points don't adequately describe reality or literature! WHO KNEW????


----------



## Rex Blunder (May 14, 2008)

> Neither can the four, if the PCs move diagonally.




Diagonally through a solid wall.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (May 14, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> Turns out Hit Points don't adequately describe reality or literature! WHO KNEW????



I think I have been making that argument for a while.


----------



## Clavis (May 14, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> But if the cat is equipment, then it can be used as an improvised weapon....




Sure. Use a cone of cold on it, freeze it solid, and swing away.
If you've ever seen what a frozen turkey can do in terms of damaging someone, you know a frozen cat would at least be equal to a club.


----------



## Clavis (May 14, 2008)

Personally, I think 1st edition got the whole minion/mook thing right. Fighters could attack monsters with 1hd or less as many times as the Fighter's level. It perfectly simulated literary/cinematic fights against mooks, gave the fighter an interesting ability that no other class had, and was simple to implement. High level fighters showed their heroism in the ability to single handedly take on squads of soldiers.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 14, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> So, Saruman was a minion?



Actually yeah, I as a DM could very well declare Saruman a Minion for the context of that incidence.


----------



## AZRogue (May 14, 2008)

Clavis said:
			
		

> Personally, I think 1st edition got the whole minion/mook thing right. Fighters could attack monsters with 1hd or less as many times as the Fighter's level. It perfectly simulated literary/cinematic fights against mooks, gave the fighter an interesting ability that no other class had, and was simple to implement. High level fighters showed their heroism in the ability to single handedly take on squads of soldiers.




It was a good rule, but the problem was those 1HD creatures posed no threat to the fighter. With the new Minion rules, you get the fragile monsters of the 1E rule plus the added benefit that they can hit and actually hurt their targets. 

If you get surrounded by minions things can go bad very quickly.


----------



## theNater (May 15, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Actually it's this very glass-ninja aspect of the monster which is part of my problem with the concept.  A natural 20 will always kill it.  So you can have 21st level Demon Minions fall to a rank of 0th level human archers (assuming the Demons aren't protected from the arrows by a Wall of Wind or some similar reason).  Was Smaug a Minion?
> 
> It's been my contention that Minions are "out of step" with the rest of the game.  Within the context of the game only: what the heck are they?  Try to answer that question without using the words "narrative" or "story" or "player's having fun."  Those are important considerations under certain circumstances, but it is my contention that games should serve those needs without compromising the elegance of their internal structure and consistency.* The answer should be solely from the perspective of an agent (whether PC or monster, it doesn't matter) within the system.  It should address why they have the same BAB, AC and dmg as similarly leveled monsters, but die in one hit rather than 3-5.




I've got a theory on what the minion is in the context of the game:

The minion is a _normal person._ 

The PCs and the monsters with more than one hit point are the abberations.  They are the favored by destiny, who are lucky enough that blows never seem to fully land on them, and tough enough to keep fighting while wounded to the point that cause most creatures to lose conciousness.  Minions are not so favored, so a well-placed sword thrust finds its mark and causes death in moments.

When the mighty demons(mostly 21st level minion demons) charge a wall manned by hundreds of human archers(first level minions themselves), some of them will be felled by arrows before they reach the walls.  This is as it should be.  However, the demons will lose fewer minions to the arrows than the orcs, who lose fewer minions than the kobolds.  This is also as it should be.  Of course, the demonic battle leaders(the various non-minions) will be practically unwounded by those arrows, while the orcish leaders may find themselves mildly to moderately injured, and several of the kobold leaders will never reach the walls.  This all fits in a reasonable way into the "army charges the archers" scenario.

As for how the orc minions got to be so dangerous despite being so fragile, I have 3 theories to cover that.

Theory 1:  Orcs are that dangerous by default.  Just as a dragon needs only limited practice to strike accurately with it's claws, orcs are innately skilled with battleaxes.  The orcish warriors are a stronger subspecies of orc, which is why they fight as level 9 creatures while the weaker drudge subspecies fight as level 4 creatures.  Under this theory, asking how an orc warrior got to be level 9 is like asking how a hill giant got to be level 13; he hasn't been out adventuring since he was a level 1 giant, being level 13 is the natural state for an adult hill giant.  The orc warrior got to be level 9 by being born an orc warrior and growing to adulthood.

Theory 2:  Orc minions gain levels just like everybody else.  They got to be the level they are by participating in fights and living(and being on the winning side).  Say, for example, that large monsters occasionally raid orc communities.  The orcish strategy is to have all of the minions charge in waves(after all, only so many minions can engage an enemy at a time) while the skirmishers pelt it with axes.  Sufficient numbers will see the orcs victorious, though likely at great cost.  However, some of the minions are bound to survive due to the occasional poor attack roll on the part of the attacking creature.  Any surviving first level minions get some experience for the combat, and if this happens often enough a few of them will level up.  If the higher level orcs get a position in the later waves(as a reward for their veteran status), this increases their chances considerably in later battles, and those few who get consistently lucky will eventually hit 4th, at which point they are awarded the title of drudge, and permitted to join the raiding parties that the outside world sees.

Theory 3:  Orcs are all prenatally enchanted with by an eye of Grummsh or other orcish caster.  This enchantment imbues them with a degree of strength and ferocity unseen in other races, and even orc children are immensely dangerous because of this.  Note that this theory can explain the presence of orcish minions even in an otherwise minionless world, as the reduced durability can be a side-effect of the enchantment, with frequency based on how common minions should be.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (May 15, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Neither can the four, if the PCs move diagonally.



Plus, they still provoke Opportunity Attacks from 2 different minions by moving between them.  And minions aren't like low level monsters in 3.5, they have bonuses to hit that can in fact hit you and do some real damage.  Might be best to just stop in front of them and finish off the minions this round and next and then move past then in a couple of rounds.


----------



## SSquirrel (May 15, 2008)

N0Man said:
			
		

> * A group of 20 or so Minions flooding at the party at once.




Of course, we have to be careful and not metagame too badly at the table.  "Hmm, we have 20 orcs running right for us and we're all only 2nd level.  AOE Encounter ability, all hits.  2 left....MINIONS!  I KNEW IT!"


----------



## AZRogue (May 15, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Of course, we have to be careful and not metagame too badly at the table.  "Hmm, we have 20 orcs running right for us and we're all only 2nd level.  AOE Encounter ability, all hits.  2 left....MINIONS!  I KNEW IT!"




That's very true. I imagine that I'll only be using minions during those encounters where I want, tactically, a few numbers on the monsters' side. Maybe a bit more with creatures I consider "swarmers" like kobolds, zombies, and goblins. Hell, the normal ratio of monsters to PCs is still large enough to satisfy for most situations.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 15, 2008)

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Of course, we have to be careful and not metagame too badly at the table.  "Hmm, we have 20 orcs running right for us and we're all only 2nd level.  AOE Encounter ability, all hits.  2 left....MINIONS!  I KNEW IT!"




Which is why there shouldnt ever be just minions.

If 20 guys come at you and 18 dies from your AOE then its obvious.  But if 16 guys come at you and only 10 die you are still going to have a problem on your hands.



> Level 21 Encounter (XP 19,750)
> 
> * 1 war devil (level 22 brute)
> * 1 ice devil (level 20 soldier)
> ...




http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080414a


----------

