# Paper Minions - WT?



## KarinsDad (Jun 3, 2008)

Ok, I get it. Give all minions 1 hit point so that they fall over easy and the rule for handling them is super simple.

But, 1 hit point at all levels???

How do these 25th level Minions even survive? Or is it just hand waving it away? The Minion actually has 200 hit points when fighting each other or fighting other NPCs, they just have 1 hit point when fighting PCs. I'm just having a bit of a mental picture problem with a vicious minion Giant that can lay waste to an entire village stubbing his toe and dying.

I'll probably change this to something like 4 hit points plus 2 hit points per level (or some other similar equation once I analyze the hit points and defenses of monsters), even if it means lowering the number of minion opponents in an average fight by 1 or 2. They will still fall down fairly easily (often with one hit at low levels, a few hits at higher levels), but at least a Ray of Frost that hits will not always be (shy of cold resistance) insta-kill against 25th level creatures.


----------



## Xzylvador (Jun 3, 2008)

The giant attacking and demolishing town, wouldn't be a minion, it'd probably be an elite or soldier. The 20 giants storming you at the command of the giant-king (a brute or elite) as you enter his throne-cave, are minions.


----------



## Harr (Jun 3, 2008)

It's hand-waving it away.

Hp are not literal representations of wounds. The 1 hp of minions is meant to represent that they have no stake in the fight and will fold/fall over/run away/surrender/cry at the slightest hint that it isn't going their way. That's all.

Picture a soldier who's separated from his commander, looks around at the carnage, gets hit with a rock or something and starts bleeding, and goes 'you know what... they ain't payin' me enough for this sh*t.'

A Giant minion isn't a minion unless said Giant has been brought along by a bigger Giant and made to attack a village when it would have rather been sipping from giant coconuts at home. Said Giant will say 'yeah screw this' at the slightest hint of trouble.


----------



## Derren (Jun 3, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Or is it just hand waving it away?




Welcome to 4E.


----------



## Pabloj (Jun 3, 2008)

So are minions a situational thing?

An orc is a normal monster, like a soldier, when the PC´s are lvl 1, and a minion when they reach lvl 5 (or whatever)?


----------



## VannATLC (Jun 3, 2008)

There are a lot of threads covering Minions already.

They work perfectly for what they are supposed to be. Its a metagame construct, for piting minions of an equal level against the pcs, and supplying threat and numbers. They don't need more than 1 hit point. Ever.

If you're uncomfortable with the concept, don't use them.

At the same time, I don't believe there is any reasonable reason to be uncomfortable, yet still expect to enjoy the game 4e is.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 3, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Ok, I get it. Give all minions 1 hit point so that they fall over easy and the rule for handling them is super simple.
> 
> But, 1 hit point at all levels???
> 
> ...




It is a bit of a mental adjustment from 3e, I agree.

But the point of minions is allowing characters to fight multiple monsters at all levels without the game getting bogged down in long, drawn out fights.

Those level 25 minions, as noted, are only relevant to the PC's - as that's the only time their HP are important to anything. Anything that's Off-Camera can be decided by the DM - but when those guys are On-Camera the PC's get to shine and be heroes and kick some ass.

4e really focusses things on the PC's as central to the game. Does it really matter what stats a creature has when it's not in direct relation to the PC's? Surely if a Giant attacked a village you wouldn't roll it out, you'd just adjudicate - but if you want the PC's to turn up and heroically kill it instantly, make it a minion and it just dies. However, until it's dead it's a serious threat to them.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 3, 2008)

Pabloj said:
			
		

> So are minions a situational thing?
> 
> An orc is a normal monster, like a soldier, when the PC´s are lvl 1, and a minion when they reach lvl 5 (or whatever)?



Yes, that's a good way to see it.

There are (as far as I know) no hard rules on when to "switch" from normal monster to Minion, but judging from the Angel excerpt and the Legion Devil excerpt, I'd say the level difference should probably be around 8-12 levels. Using an actual monster of that level would be pretty pointless (hits only on a 20? Is missed only on a 1?) and time-consuming (Still requires hit-point tracking and damage dice rolling), so instead, just use the Minion equivalent. 

Some monsters are "inherently" Minions - like Kobold Minions. Think of these as the 4E equivalent of Commoners of any given race. They can be dangerous, but in the end, they are not really trained for combat and will lack the willpower and training to withstand danger.

Another poster (Lizard) suggested that, if hit points are as abstract in 4E as they seem to be, you could freely decide that dropping some to 0 hit points might just mean he retreats (and won't do anything harmful doing so - so no retreat and inform the guards stuff, but retreat to a nice and safe corner so that he doesn't interfere or interact with anyone).


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jun 3, 2008)

It's hand waved to avoid bookkeeping of the hit points.  What happens when a minion has... say... 30 hp and the player rolls poor on damage and gets a 29?  Then you need to keep track of which member of the mob of minions has 1 hp remaining which defeats the entire purpose of the minion.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 3, 2008)

Pabloj said:
			
		

> So are minions a situational thing?
> 
> An orc is a normal monster, like a soldier, when the PC´s are lvl 1, and a minion when they reach lvl 5 (or whatever)?



Yes.

The theory is that by the time the PCs are of the appropriate level to fight a level 25 minion, the low end damage on their attacks is high enough that it makes sense for the minions to die in one hit.  Giving them 1 hp just makes that happen more efficiently, and avoids bookkeeping.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 3, 2008)

"Minion" is a cinematic game construct.  Lots of games - M&M, Buffy, and so on have "mook rules," and I've long thought D&D needed them.  4e provides them, and they're better than I expected.

There's no such thing as a minion "in the wild."  There are no minion hordes roaming through cities, mingling with their brothers & sisters.

"Minion" describes how a creature operates in combat with the PCs, not anything fundamental about the creature's nature.  That's all it is.  4e is gamist/narrativist - not simulationist, and the rules of the game aren't meant to be interpreted as the rules of the universe.  When the PCs are not fighting minions, their combat stats are unimportant unless you really love running fights on your own that the PCs aren't involved in.

-O


----------



## FunkBGR (Jun 3, 2008)

My answer is Jackie Chan. 

I just searched Youtube for "Jackie Chan fight" and got some results - 

One of which is a fight scene from New Police Story, where some guy is in a toy shop with a gun. The fight is a couple minutes long.

Guy in a toy shop -> Not a minion

I also got a result from Mr. Nice Guy, where three hooligans are trying to do something to a girl. He does some whipping around, and then next thing you know, there's a pained look on two of the hooligans as their arms are twisted. The next couple of moments show them rolling on the ground in pain, while more guys start running up.

Guys rolling on the ground -> Minions

/shrug - that's all they are. Cinematic mechanics at work within the game. By having higher level minions, you have minions that can actually hurt people. 

Jackie Chan gets hurt by minions - just not much. Now, Chuck Norris? He's a different story . . .


----------



## Sagiro (Jun 3, 2008)

Minions can work very well -- I know, because I used them a few years back in my 3E game.   I wanted my party to fight a veritable army of skeletons, so I just upended a full penny jar onto the battle-mat.  Anytime one of them took damage, I removed the penny.  The players got a good scare, the skeletons posed a non-trivial threat, and I didn't have to track hit points for over a hundred monsters, which would have made the encounter impossible.

So count me in as a big fan of the minion system -- it allows for a kind of cinematic encounter that wouldn't be possible otherwise.  And allow me to suggest that if you are troubled by trading away the realistic for the cinematic, perhaps D&D -- in any of its versions -- might not be the best game for you.

-Sagiro


----------



## Blackeagle (Jun 3, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> How do these 25th level Minions even survive? Or is it just hand waving it away? The Minion actually has 200 hit points when fighting each other or fighting other NPCs, they just have 1 hit point when fighting PCs. I'm just having a bit of a mental picture problem with a vicious minion Giant that can lay waste to an entire village stubbing his toe and dying.




How did redshirts in Star Trek survive their lives up until the time when they beam down to the planet?  A minion isn't physically different from other monsters, it's just a description of the monster's role in the fight.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> They will still fall down fairly easily (often with one hit at low levels, a few hits at higher levels), but at least a Ray of Frost that hits will not always be (shy of cold resistance) insta-kill against 25th level creatures.




I don't really see why Ray of Frost killing a high level minion is a problem.  It's not like it's a cantrip like in 3e.  It's a wizard's at-will attack, just like the fighter swinging his sword.  The 25th level fighter can take down a 25th level mook in one swing and the wizard can take down a 25th level mook with one spell.


----------



## Wepwawet (Jun 3, 2008)

Maybe you are forgetting that minions have defenses and attacks adequate to their level. You're not just fighting a creature that's 10 levels lower.


----------



## Andor (Jun 3, 2008)

Sagiro said:
			
		

> So count me in as a big fan of the minion system -- it allows for a kind of cinematic encounter that wouldn't be possible otherwise.  And allow me to suggest that if you are troubled by trading away the realistic for the cinematic, perhaps D&D -- in any of its versions -- might not be the best game for you.
> 
> -Sagiro




That's a false dichotemy though. It's not realistic vs cinematic. It's 'internally consistant' vs 'inconsistant'.

No one has a problem with things like skeleton minions or kobold minions, these are weak monsters and not bothering to track hp breaks no one sense of verisimilitude. 

It's at the higher levels when apparently you have minion dragons and demons and mammoths that it gets absurd. 

The stated purpose of minions is to allow for creatures too weak to stand up to the pcs to still present a credible threat. If I have a 29th level character who is _literally_ a demi-god, then why should a horde of mooks represent a credible threat? You want the cinematic scene? Fine, but leave them as the window dressing the are. Box text works just fine for describing a horde of mooks getting butchered by Gods.

Creatures that can actually threaten the gods should take more than one hit to deal with, or they weren't really a threat.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 3, 2008)

Why though?  Why can't a creature who could possibly hurt you, go down in one shot?

It has absolutely nothing to do with consistency.  It's actually 100% consistent.  When the PC's engage Creature X, under conditions Y, it's a minion and goes down in one hit.  At all other points in time, it's a normal representative of its race.

How is this any less inconsistant than one human having 5 hp's and another having 500?

Box text descriptions are boring.  Why are you wasting time at the table?  If you want to write amateur fanfic and then read it aloud to your friends, do so, but, don't waste gaming time with it.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Jun 3, 2008)

I believe the difficulty in accepting how the Minion mechanics work is two-fold:

1) Players are still under the assumption that HP equals true wounds
2) Players are still under the assumption that Damage equates to giving true wounds

The easiest fix is to not use Minion rules, and handle them as any other MM entry, by assigning HP and bumping up the EXP according to the DMG's outline. The second way would be to teach players as a DM through colorful explanations during combat that the 24HP damage they just did with their Longsword isn't necessarily true wounds. I'd treat true wounds as anything that renders a foe Bloodied or damage during the Bloodied phase. The 24HP damage can be anything from nicking a foe slightly as to hamstring him, hinder him, knocking the wind out of him, reducing their endurance by harrying them or even treating it in the same fashion that heat exhaustion/cold exposure damage is handled in previous editions; i.e., not true cuts, bruises, burns or wounds at all. Merely, the way the body handles exposure, being run down, etc... On the same token, weapons don't necessarily have to inflict bloody wounds everytime you get a strike in.


----------



## Cheesepie (Jun 3, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> That's a false dichotemy though. It's not realistic vs cinematic. It's 'internally consistant' vs 'inconsistant'.
> 
> No one has a problem with things like skeleton minions or kobold minions, these are weak monsters and not bothering to track hp breaks no one sense of verisimilitude.
> 
> ...



Like Hussar said, the beautiful thing with minions is that if you want to just describe them with box text, you're totally welcome to, but if you want to let the players play their own characters instead of you, use minions!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 3, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> That's a false dichotemy though. It's not realistic vs cinematic. It's 'internally consistant' vs 'inconsistant'.



You're misusing the term 'false dichotomy'.


> It's at the higher levels when apparently you have minion dragons and demons and mammoths that it gets absurd.



There are no dragon, demon or mammoth minions in the MM. In fact all dragons are solo monsters.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 3, 2008)

Maybe this will help, if the other explanations don't:

I don't consider Minions as "relative to the PCs", and every time I see words like "narrativist" I want to go all Savonarola and round up every role playing book in existence and BURN them.  So explanations that hinge on making me despise my own hobby are unhelpful to say the least.

What I focus on is the fact that in every edition of D&D it has been possible to have 1 hit point... a first level character or an unclassed "normal man" who rolled poorly could be walking around with 1 hit point.  Does that mean that like 25% of all non-adventurers die if punched in the face?  That would be a pretty lame world.  Rather, it means that when something inflicts 1 hit point of damage it is inflicting a life-threatening wound (a dagger is actually a deadly weapon, after all).

Also keep in mind that the a combat round used to represent 1 minute, so a single hit from a knife or a dagger was probably several stabs... which could amount to only 1 hit point of damage.

Therefore, hit points above 1 represent your ability through skill, luck or fate to avoid a potentially life-threatening injury and turn it into something inconsequential.

Especially in 4E, where "healing" is accomplished by "taking a breather", inconsequential injuries are actually like taking zero damage.  Your hit points are the pool of "Not Be Killed Points" that you spend from to turn a being-killed into a not-being-killed.  Minions, even high level ones, simply don't have any of those points (either because they're losers or because of fate or because they lack some heroic spark).

So the first time you stab a Minion in the heart, he dies from being stabbed in the heart.  The first time you stab a hero/villain in the heart, the blade turned against an armor buckle or deflected off a rib or he turned aside at the last moment or you were blinded by a Valkyrie or he parried.  Combat is still basically abstract (just more positional and using shorter rounds) so the DM still has to narrate exactly what happened.


----------



## Samurai (Jun 3, 2008)

I like the idea of minions, and plan to use them, but they should not be automatically taken down in a single hit IMO.  I think they should be taken down by the first decent hit, not the tiniest nick or scrape.

So I'll be giving Minions a Resilience value.  Think of it as Minion Hardness... it is an amount that is subtracted from all damage a minion takes.  If there is still at least 1 point of damage left after subtracting Resilience, the Minion goes down.  If not, he's still up and has suffered no appreciable damage.  No need to track hps this way, because they still have just 1 HP, but getting to that 1 HP may not be quite so easy.

My formula (which I'll adjust on a case by case basis if needed) is 1/2 Minion's level + Con bonus.  So, for the level 1 Kobold minions, it's 1/2 of 1 (0 because you round down) + their Con bonus (+1), for a total of 1 point.  That means a 2 point hit or better will take them down.

For a 25th level Minion with a +6 Con bonus, (12 + 6 = 18), a hit of 19+ points will take him down while 18 damage or less is shrugged off.


----------



## GWEk (Jun 3, 2008)

I find it interesting (but not surprising) that the game is not even officially released, and there's already a solid line between people who love and hate the idea of minions.

I wasn't lucky enough to get the books early and read the Minions excerpt when it came out a while ago, but I think part of the divide here is that Minions represent something that hasn't really appeared in D&D before (although the ideas of minions or "mooks" have been in many other games).

In traditional D&D, hit points, combat capability, and level all scale up simultaneously. While this often works, it also creates an awkward situation for the GM:

Want to throw a horde of mooks against your PCs? There's a good chance the fight is going to be lopsided because if the mooks are high enough level to challenge the PCs, they also probably come with enough hit points to slow combat down considerably.

The idea behind Minions is to provide opponents who can be a challenge for the PCs without forcing every fight to be a battle of hit point attrition. Books, movies, video games--regardless of what you use for inspiration, there are always scenes of the hero plowing through a horde of lackeys... and sometimes he's unscathed, sometimes he's not. Minions allow for that in a way that nothing else in D&D or d20 does.

Personally, I GM Star Wars, and while the Saga Edition has a decent idea with the non-heroic class, the idea of Minions are much more streamlined, and I'll probably be using them from now on. For a GM/DM who likes to run a cinematic campaign, Minions are a godsend.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 3, 2008)

This is the thread that never ends... it just goes on and on my friend...



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> No one has a problem with things like skeleton minions or kobold minions, these are weak monsters and not bothering to track hp breaks no one sense of verisimilitude.
> 
> It's at the higher levels when apparently you have minion dragons and demons and mammoths that it gets absurd.




So for some reason weak monsters of one type should be able to be a credible threat yet still weak while others shouldn't? 

THAT makes no sense to me. 



> The stated purpose of minions is to allow for creatures too weak to stand up to the pcs to still present a credible threat. If I have a 29th level character who is _literally_ a demi-god, then why should a horde of mooks represent a credible threat?




Light weight boxer vrs Heavyweight boxer. 

Chances are lightweight is going to get off a number of hits against the heavyweight. He might not be as strong, or able to take as much of a beating as the heavyweight, but he's still trained to dish out a good fight.

Heavyweight, however, probably only needs one good punch to take the lightweight out. His strength is just so much greater.

Now, surround the heavyweight with about 4 lightweights. 

Aside from being a fight on HBO I really want to see, it illustrates the minion vrs PC thing to me... 



> You want the cinematic scene? Fine, but leave them as the window dressing the are. Box text works just fine for describing a horde of mooks getting butchered by Gods.




Boring.



> Creatures that can actually threaten the gods should take more than one hit to deal with, or they weren't really a threat.




They're only a threat when you don't deal with them.


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 3, 2008)

Moniker said:
			
		

> I believe the difficulty in accepting how the Minion mechanics work is two-fold:
> 
> 1) Players are still under the assumption that HP equals true wounds
> 2) Players are still under the assumption that Damage equates to giving true wounds




Exactly.  An ogre is big and tough, and can take a lot of physical punishment.  That applies to ogre minions just as much as to regular ogres.

But hit points don't represent raw toughness any more.  The ogre minion simply lacks the wherewithal to defend itself for long.  After a round or two, the fighter puts a sword in its belly, or the wizard melts its face, and it falls over.  _That's_ why it only has one hit point--it's not because it's physically more frail than any other ogre.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 3, 2008)

Samurai said:
			
		

> I like the idea of minions, and plan to use them, but they should not be automatically taken down in a single hit IMO.  I think they should be taken down by the first decent hit, not the tiniest nick or scrape.




I would argue that 1 point of damage _is_ a decent hit.  A nick or scrape does 0 points of damage.


----------



## Lizard (Jun 3, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> You're misusing the term 'false dichotomy'.
> There are no dragon, demon or mammoth minions in the MM. In fact all dragons are solo monsters.




But there are devil minions. This makes your statement a bit disingenuous -- from a "ridiculous or not" perspective, a 21st level devil minion is the same as a 21st level demon, dragon, or mammoth minion. If you can accept high-level devil minions, you can accept the rest; if you can't accept the rest, there's no logical reason to make an exception for devils (and probably other high-powered things; you're apparently supposed to face minions all the way up to level 30, part of the whole 'game experience doesn't change, ever' philosophy of 4e.)

As far as I can tell, there is no game mechanical reason why there can't be demon, dragon, or mammoth minions. If the DM wants the Halls of Tiamat to be guarded by an army of Guardian Dragons (level 30 minions), then, so it will be, and the PCs will cleave through the massive beasts. Everything in 4e obeys the Ninja Rule -- ninja power is divided evenly among all ninja present.

If there's one dragon, it's a solo monster.
If there's five dragons, they're standard monsters.
If there's a dozen dragons, either most of them are minions or your DM is tired of the campaign.


----------



## Henry (Jun 3, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> ...If I have a 29th level character who is _literally_ a demi-god, then why should a horde of mooks represent a credible threat?




Because in adventure books and movies, hordes of mooks DO present credible threats to the heroes. In Star Wars, Stormtroopers can and DO wound the heroes. In Spellfire, the Zhentarim do threaten the heroes with bodily harm, and the only one who is completely unworried about them is Elminster himself. In Jackie Chan movies, there has to be a sense that he's doing great things, and being incredibly skilled and lucky to succeed in beating up the minions. 

So how does one create that sense of threat from the mooks to the Players, instead of just the characters? You use minions who, when in a gang, CAN kick the characters' butts, instead of making their stats so incredibly weak that the players don't even sweat a lucky hit from one of the mooks. 1000 1st level warriors in 3e wouldn't mean a thing to a 20th level PC. Only a percentage could attack at any one time, and of those that hit, only 5% will do any palpable damage at all. On the other hand, just 10 minions can scare the bejeezus out of a couple of  equivalent characters. 10 of those shifty little kobold minion bastards can surround a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd level PC and turn them into hamburger if they get the chance. 

Now, all well and good at low-low level, but what if I want to recreate the feeling at high level? Do I, as a DM, track 10 critters with about 40 or 50 hit points apiece, for multiple rounds, IN ADDITION to the name-level bad guys? (Using a Feng Shui term here.) I could, but I get the same effect if I jsut ramp up their saves and AC, and just say "1 hit takes them down" -- in other words, what 4e has done, and I avoid a lot of bookkeeping just to get the same effect.

Important Question: For those in extreme dislike of minon rules, will there EVER come up a situation where a single high-level minion will  be threatening a village, absent of any PCs or NPCs? 

Now, I CAN see a perfect scenario involving a high level minion threatening NPCs - one which highlights a PCs obvious skill and power over what is perceived to be a greater threat. I'm reminded of an Issue of the old DC Spelljammer comic, where the captain and crew landed on a world for some R&R. The locals were threatened by a mysterious enemy, which turned out to be a huge Red Dragon. One of the crew members was helpless before its power. Then, the captain shows up, gets pissed off with the dragon, and KILLS IT IN ONE SHOT with a finger of death. I loved that scene, because it turned the whole "climactic battle with the bad guy" theme on its head. The dragon turned out to  be a pansy next to the ship's captain.


----------



## phloog (Jun 3, 2008)

Samurai said:
			
		

> I like the idea of minions, and plan to use them, but they should not be automatically taken down in a single hit IMO.  I think they should be taken down by the first decent hit, not the tiniest nick or scrape.
> 
> So I'll be giving Minions a Resilience value.  (((SNIP))).




Which is almost exactly like the True20 minions...they still get a Toughness save, but as soon as they fail a save they are gone.

I like the idea of a rule for minions, but the fact that True20 did it fairly gracefully reinforces that this is yet another enhancement that could have been made to 3.x without requiring a whole new edition ("if I like the girl who cares what you like!?")


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 3, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Important Question: For those in extreme dislike of minon rules, will there EVER come up a situation where a single high-level minion will  be threatening a village, absent of any PCs or NPCs?




Also, in the vein of a follow up:

In, say, 3.x, when a really beefy monster threatens the village, any civilian who stands to fight it is really just throwing his life away, isn't he?  Even if he rolls that 20, he's going to do piddling damage and the monster won't even notice... except maybe to crush him.  Because there's no chance he will significantly hurt it.  So obviously Brave Peasant is a fool for fighting and should just run instead.

From my perspective, 4E mixes it up a little bit.  Maybe that big beefy monster is truly the stuff of legends, and rightfully ignores Brave Peasants.  But maybe it's just a big critter that flourishes because it is hard to get through its hide and because most stuff run from the sight of its terrible maw... but if somebody did stick a spear through its eye it would bite the dust.  It's not a Monster of Legend, it's just a Big Monster.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 3, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Or is it just hand waving it away? The Minion actually has 200 hit points when fighting each other or fighting other NPCs, they just have 1 hit point when fighting PCs.




I think that's the exact way it works.


----------



## Tripgnosis (Jun 3, 2008)

Keep in mind that a missed attack is only a miss as per the rules. Some misses can be described as glancing blows, even small wounds. Just nothing that's gonna add up or effect the battle in any meaningful way. A hit represents a good solid blow. (even though that may be hard to picture if you roll minimum damage) 

Plus, a 10th level minion is simply no match for a 10th level PC, even though they are both 10th level.  So when a minion gets hit with a good solid blow from a PC, he goes down. period. 

HP doesn't just represent how much blood you have left to bleed. It's a combination of morale, and fortitude, and rolling with a hit, and any other factors you can think of that all boil down to how long you can last in a fight. Minions just don't last. 

And stubbing you toe wouldn't deal actual damage.


----------



## el-remmen (Jun 3, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> No one has a problem with things like skeleton minions or kobold minions, these are weak monsters and not bothering to track hp breaks no one sense of verisimilitude.




I'm with Andor on this.

I have no problem with skeleton minions (or the like) because a skeleton can reasonable have 1 hit point (assuming it is 1 hd skeleton) - but I have a harder time wrapping my head around things like "giant minions", unless I happened to be playing Thor or somehing. 

I also take exception to being told that if you want something different maybe you should look for a game other than D&D.  I, and many other people, have played D&D just fine in various incarnations.

Minion rules will certainly be cool for certain kinds of games and it is neat option to have, but I am not quite convinced they are a necessity, or by their very nature make the game better.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 3, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> That's a false dichotemy though. It's not realistic vs cinematic. It's 'internally consistant' vs 'inconsistant'.



It depends on your standards of consistency.

4e takes a different position than 3e did.  3e described everything in the world in absolute terms.  "Simulationist," if you will.  Everything in the game used the same rules, could pick the same feats, and could theoretically have similar powers.

4e describes everything in terms of how they interact with the PCs.  This is less "realistic" but makes the game much easier to run.  A creature's stats don't lay out the sum total of everything it can do; they list what it can do to the PCs in combat.



> The stated purpose of minions is to allow for creatures too weak to stand up to the pcs to still present a credible threat.



Not really.  They're to allow the DM to present characters of any level with a large group of opponents without (a) excessive bookkeeping, or (b) huge game imbalance.



> If I have a 29th level character who is _literally_ a demi-god, then why should a horde of mooks represent a credible threat? You want the cinematic scene? Fine, but leave them as the window dressing the are. Box text works just fine for describing a horde of mooks getting butchered by Gods.



A horde of kobold mooks won't.

A horde of demon mooks?  Sure!



> Creatures that can actually threaten the gods should take more than one hit to deal with, or they weren't really a threat.



You're leaving out the "minor threat" range.  And the "threat only if there's a group of them" range.

-O


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 3, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> It's at the higher levels when apparently you have minion dragons and demons and mammoths that it gets absurd.



I remember arguing about this before.  I made my usual point, about how, from a game design perspective, the test of whether something should be a minion or not was "would it make sense for a character of this level to kill this enemy in one hit?"

Suddenly I was getting mammoth minions thrown in my face.

So I answered that I didn't think there would be mammoth minions, because it doesn't make sense to kill a mammoth in one hit.

I got shouted down on this, and lost the argument because I couldn't prove that there were no mammoth minions.  All I had was my intuition about how the system worked.  I felt like it wasn't exactly a fair defeat, but there wasn't much I could do about it.

But now we have an impartial referee- the monster manual.  Can someone with a monster manual tell us, what's the biggest, toughest minion monster in there, and how does it compare to a mammoth?  Someone was right back in that argument, and someone was wrong.  Now we can know who.  Either my 4e-grokking is much inferior to what I thought, or people were creating a tempest in a teacup.


----------



## Anax (Jun 3, 2008)

The three highest level minions in the MM are:

level 26: Lich Vestige
level 23: Abyssal Ghoul Myrmidon
level 22: Grimlock Follower

Of these, the Lich Vestige and the Abyssal Ghoul Myrmidon are somewhat special.  The Vestige is explicitly described as being dangerous but so weak that it can easily crumble to dust.  The Abyssal Ghoul Myrmidon is dangerous precisely because of something bad that happens when it dies.

The Grimlock Follower, however, is a pretty standard sort of minion, one designed as a mook to pad out the ranks to make for a "big" fight.

As for the credible threat thing: Remember that these things come in groups.  Is a single rat a credible threat to a level 1 character?  What about a swarm of rats?  Same sort of idea, only in swarm case you describe the effects in aggregate (because the constituents are quite small), and in the group of minions case, you distinguish each individual (because it's hard to miss an individual  ogre all up in your grill.)


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> But there are devil minions. This makes your statement a bit disingenuous -- from a "ridiculous or not" perspective, a 21st level devil minion is the same as a 21st level demon, dragon, or mammoth minion. If you can accept high-level devil minions, you can accept the rest; if you can't accept the rest, there's no logical reason to make an exception for devils (and probably other high-powered things; you're apparently supposed to face minions all the way up to level 30, part of the whole 'game experience doesn't change, ever' philosophy of 4e.)



I can see no reason why this should be so, and you do not provide one.

Why is it that a 21st level devil minion is the same as a 21st level mammoth minion?  Mammoths have real world attributes, namely, being big, hairy elephantine beasts that don't immediately die when a human being stabs them with a sword.  That creates the possibility for a mismatch between rules and expectations when a player stabs a mammoth and it instantly dies.  This makes them poor candidates for minion-hood in anything but the most incredibly high powered of games- and I'm not sure that 4e GOES that high.

Devils on the other hand do not have real world attributes.  In game, we know there are some devils which are very dangerous monsters capable of challenging the plans of the gods, and in some cases, fighting the gods themselves.  Why can't there also be devils which are NOT particular tough, and which DO immediately die when an epic level character stabs them with a sword?  There's really no reason why not.

If you ever work out a method of summoning forth a viewing portal into the Realm of Dungeons and Dragons, by all means, report back on the objective nature of a Legion Devil's combat prowess, and compare and contrast it with that of a mammoth.  But until then, there's no reason to assert that a legion devil minion automatically justifies a mammoth minion.


			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell, there is no game mechanical reason why there can't be demon, dragon, or mammoth minions. If the DM wants the Halls of Tiamat to be guarded by an army of Guardian Dragons (level 30 minions), then, so it will be, and the PCs will cleave through the massive beasts.



Is this the real issue?  You want the game to have built in rules that prevent DMs from homebrewing monsters you don't like?  

Yes, a DM could make a dragon, describe it as being the size of a house, give it incredible attack powers, and then assign it one hit point.  Whether that would be a good idea would depend on whether the PCs were at a power level where it would make sense for them to one-shot-kill a firebreathing lizard the size of a house.  If the PCs are indeed at that level (and I'm not sure that 4e goes that high), then that sort of minion is perfectly fine.  If the PCs are not at that level, then a DM who created such a minion would be making a mistake.  

This isn't anything new- in 3e, I could create a monster with 20 levels of barbarian, then describe it as a fluffy bunny that inexplicably murders the whole party.  There is nothing in the rulebook preventing me from making mistakes.


----------



## Tripgnosis (Jun 3, 2008)

any average joe couldn't easily take a mammoth down in one hit, but if mammoth minions are comparable to your PC's level, then your obviously not the average joe. And if you are the average joe and find yourself up against a mammoth minion, it will likly not go down in one hit cuz you won't score that hit. If you do, then you were extremely lucky and somehow managed to slip your average joe shortsword into that sweet spot without first being crushed. Extremely lucky, but feasible. A single hit can kill anything so long as that thing is mortal. You've just gotta adjust your perspective a bit. Just because a thing hasn't been hit yet doesn't mean the next one won't pierce the thing's heart or lop off it's head...


----------



## micr0c0sm (Jun 3, 2008)

There is some ghoul minion i think is in the low 20s. It has an attack with a huge bonus that does about ten damage but also paralysis the PC. I also heard about some creatures exploding to deal necrotic damage, not sure if this was it though. I could see that serving a useful roll to soften up the PCs / slow them down letting the real baddies have that advantage most careful PCs (or not so creative DMs) are used to having. I like minions


----------



## Dausuul (Jun 3, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> But now we have an impartial referee- the monster manual.  Can someone with a monster manual tell us, what's the biggest, toughest minion monster in there, and how does it compare to a mammoth?  Someone was right back in that argument, and someone was wrong.  Now we can know who.  Either my 4e-grokking is much inferior to what I thought, or people were creating a tempest in a teacup.




I assume that by "biggest, toughest," you're referring to physical size and toughness rather than overall power level.

In that case, the biggest, toughest minions look to be the cyclops warrior and the ogre bludgeoneer.  Which are big and tough, to be sure, but not mammoth-level big and tough.  It's not unreasonable to imagine an ogre or a cyclops going down with one well-placed hit from a human warrior.


----------



## hectorse (Jun 3, 2008)

I would use level 30 dragon minions for the big climatic campaign ending encounter that fulfills the character's epic destinies.

No problem there


----------



## Tripgnosis (Jun 3, 2008)

here's an interesting perspective-- an inverse mechanic for minions could have been to give them hit points comparable to PC's of the same level, but make their defenses nil, representing their lack of morale fortitude and bravery and such. this method is more realistic and easier to swallow, but the end result would be pretty much the same, their lifespan in combat would remain unchanged. The downside for this method would be a whole lot of HP tacking for the DM. I like the current mechanics for minions because of its simplicity and ease of use, and like I said teh end result is the same. Keep in mind that this is a game, you've gotta make certain allowances. Sometimes believability or realness is a favorable sacrifice for keeping the mechanics simple and balanced.

PS, I'm not suggesting anyone should adopt that alternative method, I'm citing it as an example of a mechanic that would be needlessly more complex. Like THAC0


----------



## Obryn (Jun 3, 2008)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> I'm with Andor on this.
> 
> I have no problem with skeleton minions (or the like) because a skeleton can reasonable have 1 hit point (assuming it is 1 hd skeleton) - but I have a harder time wrapping my head around things like "giant minions", unless I happened to be playing Thor or somehing.



No, I think you actually understand minions perfectly.

I agree - it's tough to wrap my head around mammoth minions, or for that matter huge minions of any kind.

They're a narrative tool and a game mechanic, and that's it...  If the PCs are at the point in their careers when you could reasonably argue they'd fell mammoths or youngish dragons with one stab of their spear, or one spell from the wizard - go for it.  As you said - if they're "Thor or something."

Kobolds and skeletons make perfect sense for low-level minions.  Other stuff makes sense for high-level minions.

That's why throwing a level 22 minion against a low-level party is almost nonsensical.  If a creature is that powerful, relative to the PCs, it should no longer be treated as a minion.



> I also take exception to being told that if you want something different maybe you should look for a game other than D&D.  I, and many other people, have played D&D just fine in various incarnations.



Oh yeah, absolutely.  I think it's fair to say that people who want the level of detail 3e had will not be as happy with 4e, but people have been houseruling their D&D games since before the white box.  Different games are certainly more suitable to certain styles of play out of the box, but D&D is nothing if not flexible.



> Minion rules will certainly be cool for certain kinds of games and it is neat option to have, but I am not quite convinced they are a necessity, or by their very nature make the game better.



Also agreed.  I think they make a lot of sense when viewed in context, and the slide right into the kind of game I want to run.  But if you as a DM don't like minions, well... don't use them.

-O


----------



## Sagiro (Jun 3, 2008)

Well, a few things:

1. I wasn't attempting to create an all-or-nothing dichotomy between realism and cinema.  But while they're obviously not a zero-sum game, there is often an unavoidable trade-off between the two.  I suppose you could make a game that was both supremely realistic _and_ extremely cinematic, if you were willing to bite off a lot of rules complexity as well.  (Of course, if you have a fantasy system that is realistic, cinematic AND simple, I invite you write it and market it -- I'll be first in line to buy!    )

2. I'm not trying to tell anyone they're "wrong" for playing D&D even if they prefer realism to cinema.  But if someone finds systems like Minions troubling because it strains their sense of believability, it wouldn't surprise me if they're annoyed all the time while playing D&D, because it's filled with abstractions and unrealistic notions that streamline the experience and leave more time for cinema and storytelling.  

el-Remmen, you say "I also take exception to being told that if you want something different maybe you should look for a game other than D&D."  Think about what you just, literally, wrote.  Rephrased, you said:  "If I want something different, I don't want to be told I should look for something different."  Now, I'm guessing that in your case, there are enough things you like about D&D that you're willing to overlook or house-rule the things you don't like.  Heck, that probably describes 95% of the people on this board, myself included.  Nothing wrong with that!  And I'm not suggesting that someone abandon D&D just because they don't like minions -- that's crazy talk.  But the sense I get from KarinsDad, from this post and from others, is that he has enough "realism" issues with 4e that he may have more fun trying a system that values realism more highly than does D&D.  I'm not ascribing any value judgments, believe me.    

3. I agree fully with el-Remmen that the Minion system is easily modularized.  Your 4e game won't suffer noticably if you never use minions, or if you only use minions that _look_ or _feel_ like minions to you.  I find myself in agreement with Cadfan and some others -- some minions would strain both the realism AND the cinematic nature of a scene to the breaking point.  And, I see the MM doesn't seem to have any of those -- there are no Ancient Red Dragon Minions, or Mammoths Minions, etc.   

For me, "paper minions," as a system, has a fun and important place in D&D, and railing against the system because you can't understand how minions survive in the wild while fighting each other is missing the point entirely.


----------



## Henry (Jun 3, 2008)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Minion rules will certainly be cool for certain kinds of games and it is neat option to have, but I am not quite convinced they are a necessity, or by their very nature make the game better.




Oh, absolutely; I imagine the game will function perfectly without them. Just as long as you don't want scads of monsters bearing down on the party as an appropriate challenge, their absence will work as well as not. But if there's ever a scenario where you want a couple dozen monsters as a winnable challenge, the players better wise up quick that fighting's NOT an option, even for critters several levels below 'em.


----------



## Philodendron (Jun 3, 2008)

Harr said:
			
		

> Hp are not literal representations of wounds. The 1 hp of minions is meant to represent that they have no stake in the fight and will fold/fall over/run away/surrender/cry at the slightest hint that it isn't going their way. That's all.
> 
> Picture a soldier who's separated from his commander, looks around at the carnage, gets hit with a rock or something and starts bleeding, and goes 'you know what... they ain't payin' me enough for this sh*t.'
> 
> A Giant minion isn't a minion unless said Giant has been brought along by a bigger Giant and made to attack a village when it would have rather been sipping from giant coconuts at home. Said Giant will say 'yeah screw this' at the slightest hint of trouble.




This!


With a little creativity and remembering that HP are abstract, minions can add to the verisimilitude just as well as take away from it.  It may require a major shift in mind set, but no particular shift in how much sense the game makes.


----------



## AuraSeer (Jun 3, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Yes, a DM could make a dragon, describe it as being the size of a house, give it incredible attack powers, and then assign it one hit point.  Whether that would be a good idea would depend on whether the PCs were at a power level where it would make sense for them to one-shot-kill a firebreathing lizard the size of a house.



Smaug.


----------



## Lacyon (Jun 3, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> This isn't anything new- in 3e, I could create a monster with 20 levels of barbarian, then describe it as a fluffy bunny that inexplicably murders the whole party.  There is nothing in the rulebook preventing me from making *mistakes*.




You misspelled awesome there.


----------



## Lizard (Jun 3, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I can see no reason why this should be so, and you do not provide one.
> 
> Why is it that a 21st level devil minion is the same as a 21st level mammoth minion?  Mammoths have real world attributes, namely, being big, hairy elephantine beasts that don't immediately die when a human being stabs them with a sword.  That creates the possibility for a mismatch between rules and expectations when a player stabs a mammoth and it instantly dies.  This makes them poor candidates for minion-hood in anything but the most incredibly high powered of games- and I'm not sure that 4e GOES that high.




How about ogres, then? They, too, are large, bulky, and shouldn't die when a human stabs them with a sword, but there are ogre minions in the MM.

Cyclops? Giant 1-eyed critter with huge-ass club. Cyclops minions are in the MM.

Source: Friend who DL'ed the books. Who will now be being very snide to me since I'd been lecturing him about it. See what you made me do?



> Devils on the other hand do not have real world attributes.  In game, we know there are some devils which are very dangerous monsters capable of challenging the plans of the gods, and in some cases, fighting the gods themselves.  Why can't there also be devils which are NOT particular tough, and which DO immediately die when an epic level character stabs them with a sword?  There's really no reason why not.




No reason why there can't be magic stabbable mammoths, either, esp since they're not that much more impressive than ogres or cyclops. Minionism isn't about toughness, it's about plot role. A minion is anything the DM wants the PCs to kill in large numbers. It's up to the DM to make it narratively plausible, at least as far his players' tolerances are concerned.

Minions aren't "lower level" versions of monsters. In many cases, they're the same, or higher, level than non-minion versions.



> If you ever work out a method of summoning forth a viewing portal into the Realm of Dungeons and Dragons, by all means, report back on the objective nature of a Legion Devil's combat prowess, and compare and contrast it with that of a mammoth.  But until then, there's no reason to assert that a legion devil minion automatically justifies a mammoth minion.




What, exactly, do you have against the poor mammoth minion, anyway? Why does it bug you so much?



> Is this the real issue?  You want the game to have built in rules that prevent DMs from homebrewing monsters you don't like?




Uhm....huh?

Why do you interpret everything I write as some sort of attack on 4e?

Of course I don't want that. I'm pointing out the fundamental illogic in your mammoth minion hatred.

For some reason, you seem to have decided that the minion rules are great, as long as the minions fit your, personal, subjective, definition of "minionable". Whenever anyone brings up the possibilities of minions you, personally, don't find "believable" (whatever that means in this context) you go off on a wild raving tangent about how, maybe, legion devils (21st level monsters) are trivial to kill, but mammoths (12th level at MOST) MUST NEVER BE MINIONS! NEVER! EVER! The skies shall be AS BLOOD before that can occur!



> Yes, a DM could make a dragon, describe it as being the size of a house, give it incredible attack powers, and then assign it one hit point.  Whether that would be a good idea would depend on whether the PCs were at a power level where it would make sense for them to one-shot-kill a firebreathing lizard the size of a house.  If the PCs are indeed at that level (and I'm not sure that 4e goes that high), then that sort of minion is perfectly fine.  If the PCs are not at that level, then a DM who created such a minion would be making a mistake.




So explain to me why it makes sense to one-shot-kill one type of ogre and not another. They're both the same size. They're both about as hard to hit. They're both about as good at dealing damage. One is statted as a minion so you can plow through hordes of them, one isn't. It's pure narrative convention, and I don't see why you, of all people, are suddenly getting all simulationist and insisting the only things which can be minions are those which the PCs could "kill anyway", and it's just a bookkeeping simplification. It isn't. It's 100% DM narrative fiat, decreeing:"For this fight, you WILL cleave your way through a hundred dragons, because you're JUST THAT UBER. Next fight, one single dragon, visually identical to the 100 you just killed, will wipe the floor with you, because that one's the Boss Monster."



> This isn't anything new- in 3e, I could create a monster with 20 levels of barbarian, then describe it as a fluffy bunny that inexplicably murders the whole party.  There is nothing in the rulebook preventing me from making mistakes.




Why is it a "mistake"? Vorpal bunnies have been a part of D&D lore ever since a certain movie...My recent campaign had an awakened wolf who had 10 ranger levels. No one found that odd.


----------



## grickherder (Jun 3, 2008)

> It's pure narrative convention, and I don't see why you, of all people, are suddenly getting all simulationist and insisting the only things which can be minions are those which the PCs could "kill anyway", and it's just a bookkeeping simplification. It isn't. It's 100% DM narrative fiat, decreeing:"For this fight, you WILL cleave your way through a hundred dragons, because you're JUST THAT UBER. Next fight, one single dragon, visually identical to the 100 you just killed, will wipe the floor with you, because that one's the Boss Monster."




Great post.

One thing that rubbed me the wrong way about 3e/3.5e was how absolutely everything was described and how the rules were sort of a fantasy combat/situation simulator.  I was bored to tears by it.  I went back to playing classic D&D (Labrynth Lord, Basic Fantasy RPG, Rules Cyclopedia) and am now poking my head out to see what's up with the new edition.

And it's a complete shift.  And I really like it.  I am so happy the days of clunky simulationist play are over when it comes to D&D.  Time to break out the ass-kicking game play and over the top stories and stats that represent narrative role rather than physiology/measured ability.

Minions are monsters that don't matter individually as far as the story is concerned and are to be dealt with quickly as far as game play is concerned.  What they are a simulation of, is utterly irrelevant in 4th edition.


----------



## Darkness (Jun 3, 2008)

Obryn said:
			
		

> "Minion" is a cinematic game construct.  Lots of games - M&M, Buffy, and so on have "mook rules," and I've long thought D&D needed them.



 Buffy tends to simplify NPC stats, but this is generally done for every NPC that's not a party member, even important and/or powerful ones. Nor does it make the NPCs easier to kill.

That's not quite the same as mook rules.







			
				Henry said:
			
		

> Now, I CAN see a perfect scenario involving a high level minion threatening NPCs ... the old DC Spelljammer comic, where the captain and crew landed on a world for some R&R. The locals were threatened by a ... huge Red Dragon. One of the crew members was helpless before its power. Then, the captain shows up, gets pissed off with the dragon, and KILLS IT IN ONE SHOT with a finger of death. *I loved that scene, because it turned the whole "climactic battle with the bad guy" theme on its head.*



 (*Emphasis* mine.) Yeah, this kind of thing happens sometimes.


----------



## BryonD (Jun 3, 2008)

Harr said:
			
		

> It's hand-waving it away.
> 
> Hp are not literal representations of wounds. The 1 hp of minions is meant to represent that they have no stake in the fight and will fold/fall over/run away/surrender/cry at the slightest hint that it isn't going their way. That's all.
> 
> ...



If the giant runs away, is the DM responsible for keeping track of the giant?
How do the players know that the giant is "out" of the fight the instant it takes that one point of damage?  What indicator does that one point of damage place on the giant that lets other PCs know that it is just as out of the fight as it would be if it was dead?  If the fighter hits him and he is "out", but the wizard is next to act, what lets the wizard know not to waste an attack following up on the same giant?
Can the giant decide to attack a softer npc target once it gets around the corner?  If no, why not?  If yes, how far must the giant flee before being allowed to attack and why?  If yes, may the PCs elect to go ahead and kill the giant?  (or can they elect to kill the giant simply because for XYZ reason they prefer to make certain ALL the giants are dead?)  If no, why not?  If yes, how is that handled?  Does the giant suddenly promote to a soldier?  I'm certain that having a tough angry PC fully intent on making him dead would quickly put an end to the "no stake in it" condition, so he no longer qualifies as a minion.  It is impossible for a minion to become a "real boy" while he is on stage?  If yes, when can he convert and how do you handle killing him?  If no, then doesn't that make it very possible for the PCs to convert a minion loaded balanced encounter into a no chance in hell TPK on a plate encounter when the minions turn into soldiers?  When  the PCs see a group of 12 giants, how do they know the difference between 12 giants that include 10 minions and can be handled and 12 giant soldiers that will wipe the floor with the PCs while having a snack on the side?
If the 1 hp is effectively morale, then why must each and every minion be damaged?  Is there a mechanic for "morale" damage?  If there are ten minion giants and 9 of them get hit and run away, why does the other stay until he is somehow wounded?


----------



## Lacyon (Jun 3, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> How about ogres, then? They, too, are large, bulky, and shouldn't die when a human stabs them with a sword, but there are ogre minions in the MM.




I'm not sure why you think this. (Of course, I'm not sure why Cadfan thinks mammoths should necessarily not die in one hit, either).

If you pierce an Ogre's vital organs with a weapon, they should die - if not immediately, then eventually. The odd thing about Ogre minions is not that they can die in one hit to their vitals, nor really that Heros can hit them in their vitals quite easily. The odd thing is that Joe Commoner hits them in the vitals on one strike in twenty and never really hits them anywhere else.

Which is only a problem if you let Joe Commoner find out about it.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Minions aren't "lower level" versions of monsters. In many cases, they're the same, or higher, level than non-minion versions.




I think a rectification of names may be in order.

Unlike 3E, wherein "level" was universally equivalent to HD but (at least partially) divorced from CR, level for monsters in 4E seems to be _almost_ (but not quite) purely a descriptor for a monster's combat threat level (i.e., just CR). Moreover, it's not the _sole_ component of a monster's threat level - there's also the "potency" or "size" aspect (Minion/Normal/Elite/Solo).

This means that Minions can definitely be understood as "lower level" in the sense of being far less powerful, while still having a higher "monster level" than their non-minion counterparts - the Orc Warrior's "monster level" is 9, but he's certainly not a bigger threat than the level 8 Orc Chieftain! This is reflected in the fact that his XP value is equal to that of a level 1 normal monster. In fact, I did some back-of-the-envelope math* a while ago that suggested the Orc Warrior is roughly the same challenge for 9th-level PCs as an Orc Berserker scaled back to 1st level (in that his total expected damage over a number of rounds is pretty comparable, and he expects to survive the same number of total attacks on average). This is because, while the first-level orc would do way more damage on a hit, he needs something close to a natural 20 to actually damage PCs 8 levels higher than him. Meanwhile, while the PCs hit him on anything but a 1 and kill him in something like 2 hits on average.

Using a 9th-level minion in place of a 1st-level normal monster in that scenario means that PCs of appropriate level still kill him in about 2 rounds and his damage is amortized alongside his buddies to an average instead of rolling a bunch of dice and hoping for nat-20s before they get meaningful.

*Note, this math was based solely on preview material and not actually seeing the game. It included some assumptions about how fast PC damage/attacks/AC grow that may not hold. I still haven't seen the books to update it.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 3, 2008)

Darkness said:
			
		

> Buffy tends to simplify NPC stats, but this is generally done for every NPC that's not a party member, even important and/or powerful ones. Nor does it make the NPCs easier to kill.
> 
> That's not quite the same as mook rules.



True.

It's still an asymmetric system, though, where the PCs and NPCs operate under somewhat different mechanics.  NPCs are simplified and don't themselves roll dice.

You're right, though, that they aren't necessarily easier to kill.  Sorry for lumping Buffy in there 

-O


----------



## IanB (Jun 3, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> I'm not sure why you think this. (Of course, I'm not sure why Cadfan thinks mammoths should necessarily not die in one hit, either).
> 
> If you pierce an Ogre's vital organs with a weapon, they should die - if not immediately, then eventually. The odd thing about Ogre minions is not that they can die in one hit to their vitals, nor really that Heros can hit them in their vitals quite easily. The odd thing is that Joe Commoner hits them in the vitals on one strike in twenty and never really hits them anywhere else.
> 
> Which is only a problem if you let Joe Commoner find out about it.




Except when Joe Commoner fights the ogre, it isn't a minion - unless for some reason you have Joe Commoner fighting alongside PCs of sufficient power to throw ogres against them as minions. I would suggest just not doing that, or simply ruling that Joe Commoner can't inflict relevant damage to the ogre minion.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 3, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> If you pierce an Ogre's vital organs with a weapon, they should die - if not immediately, then eventually. The odd thing about Ogre minions is not that they can die in one hit to their vitals, nor really that Heros can hit them in their vitals quite easily. The odd thing is that Joe Commoner hits them in the vitals on one strike in twenty and never really hits them anywhere else.
> 
> Which is only a problem if you let Joe Commoner find out about it.




In the interests of stubbornly maintaining my own interpretation... when Joe Commoner misses the Ogre he may still be hitting him.  In fact, it's likely.  How could you actually miss something the size of an ogre with a spear thrust?  It's hard to believe that you would miss very often!  It's just that Ogres are tough (high AC) and most of the time when you stab them you're just hitting its rough and calloused hide.

When Joe Commoner rolls that 20 he has hit the Ogre in the eye or the neck or something like that.  An Ogre Hero would not actually suffer such a blow (he's the Ogre version of Chuck Norris, after all) so his hit points would spend down that blow into being another mere glance (the equivalent of a miss).  But the Minion Ogre has zero Chuckness, so the stab to the eye is actually a stab to the eye, and he drops dead.


----------



## Lacyon (Jun 3, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> Except when Joe Commoner fights the ogre, it isn't a minion - unless for some reason you have Joe Commoner fighting alongside PCs of sufficient power to throw ogres against them as minions. I would suggest just not doing that, or simply ruling that Joe Commoner can't inflict relevant damage to the ogre minion.




These are both ways of preventing Joe Commoner from finding out about the Ogre minion's secret weakness.



			
				Korgoth said:
			
		

> In the interests of stubbornly maintaining my own interpretation... when Joe Commoner misses the Ogre he may still be hitting him.  In fact, it's likely.  How could you actually miss something the size of an ogre with a spear thrust?  It's hard to believe that you would miss very often!  It's just that Ogres are tough (high AC) and most of the time when you stab them you're just hitting its rough and calloused hide.




This is another way of not letting Joe Commoner find out about it.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Jun 3, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Because in adventure books and movies, hordes of mooks DO present credible threats to the heroes. In Star Wars, Stormtroopers can and DO wound the heroes.



No, they don't.  In exactly one movie out of three, at the very end, for dramatic purposes, Leia was shot in the arm.  Other than that, there was absolutely no danger of the stormtroopers landing a shot on the heroes.  _Because they were never a credible threat_.

Which is really the meat of this matter.  Ewoks dropped by the score.  X-wings, Y-wings, TIE fighters...  destroyed all over the place.  Luke's X-Wing?  R2 got shot and rebuilt.  The Millenium Falcon?  Lost their DishTV connection.  And that wasn't even shot, Lando ran into an i-beam.

The heroes in Star Wars (and almost any other example) weren't particularly durable.  They were every bit as flimsy as the bad guys.  What they had in their favour was two-fold:  script immunity, and the bad guys _weren't a credible threat_.  When the extras were shooting at each other, they were fine.  When they were shooting at the heroes, _they were utterly incompetent_.  Han Solo could have walked up to a dozen stormtroopers, and _they all would have missed_.

It has nothing to do with hit points.  It has to do with the minions everyone uses as an example being utterly unable to pose any danger to the protagonists.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 3, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> No, they don't.  In exactly one movie out of three, at the very end, for dramatic purposes, Leia was shot in the arm.  Other than that, there was absolutely no danger of the stormtroopers landing a shot on the heroes.  _Because they were never a credible threat_.
> 
> Which is really the meat of this matter.  Ewoks dropped by the score.  X-wings, Y-wings, TIE fighters...  destroyed all over the place.  Luke's X-Wing?  R2 got shot and rebuilt.  The Millenium Falcon?  Lost their DishTV connection.  And that wasn't even shot, Lando ran into an i-beam.
> 
> ...




That's one interpretation.

How about this one: we have no evidence from the Star Wars movies how many hit points the good guys lost, if any.  Why?  Because hit points are what you spend to make the shot that killed you miss you (or graze you) instead.  So there's no way to tell whether a miss is a Miss or a Hit that did damage... in the end, both look like misses.  Likewise, a scratch to the arm could be a Hit (it would have killed you but you spent it down to something ineffectual) or a Miss (it didn't do significant damage so it doesn't do at least 1 hp).  There's no way to tell because Hit Points, and thus Hits and Misses, are abstract.  The one thing that is not abstract is when you get taken below 1 hit point: then we know that something connected and you're gravely hurt.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jun 3, 2008)

*Dog pile on the guy who doesn't like minions!*

I love the *idea* of minions.  They're a great concept for all the reasons quoted earlier in this thread and others, (epic battles, cinematic feel, not having to track hp, etc.), but I agree with the OP that they have a problem, and it is simply this:  the 1 hit point.

Yeah, hp are abstract.  They've been abstract since 1e or 2e, where the DMG definition of hp, (as posted tby someone in another thread), clearly states that hp rise because *fighting skill* rises, not because higher level beasts and characters develop some sort of hard exoskeleton over time.

However, the abstraction has always had logic and consistency.  Higher level=tougher to kill=more hp.  

The 1 hp rule, on the other hand, works great for kobolds and other low level beasts, but breaks when applied to higher level beasts.  Any high level foe with powerful attacks better have bones made of glass to warrant only 1 hp, as far as I'm concerned.

So my solution?  I posted somewhere around here weeks ago to say I would houserule a certain amount of minimum damage needed to kill a minion, which would raise at the Paragon and Epic levels.  But this thread has made me change my mind.  If minions are only minions in relation to PCs, I say put the power to one-shot the minion in the PCs hands:


Monsters with the "minion" label have normal hp for their respective level, but when a PC, (and ONLY a PC), successfully hits the minion with any damage-dealing attack, the PC does his or her normal damage times 100.​
The multiplier could be x10 for Heroic level, then raise through Paragon and Epic levels as needed.  But whatever the multiplier, (x1000, anyone?), it would fix all the "if a minion trips in the woods, and no one sees it, does it still take 1 hp and die" questions.


MrG


----------



## Vanuslux (Jun 3, 2008)

My only gripe is that minions should have been handled as a template rather than having 16th level monsters that have one hit point in the MM.  Would it really have been so much more difficult to stat everything appropriate to its level then have a single run that says if the characters are fighting a creature five levels below their own then they are treated like minions (one hp, never hurt on a miss, etc).  I mean...I like the idea of there being mook rules in 4E for when heroes fight hordes of things far beneath their level, but I think it's ridiculous not to design every creature without the possibility of it facing off against adventurers equally powerful to it in mind. 

Overall I'm liking 4E, but I think in some cases they try so hard to make things simpler that that they end up making simplicity more complicated than it needs to be.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Jun 3, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> That's one interpretation.
> 
> How about this one: we have no evidence from the Star Wars movies how many hit points the good guys lost, if any.  Why?  Because hit points are what you spend to make the shot that killed you miss you (or graze you) instead.  So there's no way to tell whether a miss is a Miss or a Hit that did damage... in the end, both look like misses.  Likewise, a scratch to the arm could be a Hit (it would have killed you but you spent it down to something ineffectual) or a Miss (it didn't do significant damage so it doesn't do at least 1 hp).  There's no way to tell because Hit Points, and thus Hits and Misses, are abstract.  The one thing that is not abstract is when you get taken below 1 hit point: then we know that something connected and you're gravely hurt.



We know exactly how many hit points they lost.  Zero.  It's a story.  They didn't have hit points to begin with.  They would have been killed by a blaster to the face exactly like any stormtrooper.  But the stormtroopers never hit them.  That is script immunity in action, not hit points.

That is why comparisons to other media are ultimately limiting and self-defeating.  The movie Han Solo didn't have hit points.  Or, he had 35 billion.  It doesn't really matter, because we aren't watching the transcript of George Lucas' game.

So, what we have is the context, and a discussion of the effects a given mechanic has within that context.

For example, in the context of the Ranger Blade Cascade power, if the minions were enough levels lower, the Ranger could wipe out 95% of them, no matter how many there are, because they go down on any amount of damage, and the Ranger can continue attacking until a miss.  I would say minions are not a corner case exploit like PunPun  in that instance.  Once a day, that ranger is a goblin/orc/kobold genocide machine.


----------



## LowSpine (Jun 3, 2008)

I don't know if it has been mentioned, I bet it has, but minions are just the Crazy 88s in Kill Bill. One swipe and they are down - but they just keep coming (and too stupid to think stuff that I'm off).

It is as simple as that.

At level 1 if you are fighting 20, 25 Kobold Minions you  aren't going to want to keep track of all their hps - and that will go for all levels.

The higher level minions survive because they have higher defences.


----------



## el-remmen (Jun 4, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Other than that, there was absolutely no danger of the stormtroopers landing a shot on the heroes.  _Because they were never a credible threat_.
> 
> It has nothing to do with hit points.  It has to do with the minions everyone uses as an example being utterly unable to pose any danger to the protagonists.




If they were no threat, why were they running from them? 

Of course, even if Han and Luke and Leia and Chewy had not run and could not be shot they would have been grabbed and taken to Darth Vader, who perhaps was a threat to them?  

Actually, from your interpretation of events, Darth Vader is only ever really a threat (at least in A New Hope) to Ben Kenobi and some rebel pirates (and perhaps some imperial officers ).


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

I like the design goal of minions. I just do not like some aspects of them caused by the 1 hit point mechanic:

1) Players use the same tactics over and over. For example, do NOT use your Daily Power unless you know your opponent is NOT a minion. Ditto for Encounter Powers unless the PC is in dire straits.

2) Find AoE or other attacks that will wipe out many or all of the Minions quickly, then deal with the big fish. As an example, every PC attacks with a ranged weapon on round one, targeting a different foe. This tactic is good ONLY because of the 4E 1 hit point minion mechanic. In 3E, this tactic would have been terrible to use.

3) Every threatening encounter has to have either a non-minion (or several) in the group, or a boatload of minions. The BBEG cannot just send 3 or 4 minion Giants into the town to deal with the PCs and really challenge them for more than a few rounds (the BBEG not knowing that 3 or 4 minions just make the PCs yawn as designed). They are freaking Giants. 3 or 4 should be more than a one or two round nuisance, regardless of the minion rules governing them. Sure, the PCs can easily handle them, I just find "every foe falls over when touched" way too easily.

And the tactics sound so repetitive. Use the same tactics to defeat easy foes quickly. Even in KotS, it states over and over again that the "Minions should be sent in first". Sure, that might be a valid NPC tactic, but it gets old after a while as a player to see that NPC tactic come at the PCs over and over again. Even if the DM switches it up some, the players will be LOOKING to easy-whittle down the opposition because the game system is designed for it.

I'm not keen on the idea of the players knowing that since foes could be red shirts or not, that they should tactically play the game different and take that into account. Sure, some foes are weaker then others. But, not cardboard. It gives an incentive for the players to find unique ways to do one point or more of damage to many foes.


So, I like the suggestion made earlier in the thread about Minion Damage Resistance. Light hits do not do enough damage. Medium to heavy hits kill minions.

It's a nice compromise between tracking hit points (on the one hand) and super easy kills (on the other). Thanks for that suggestion, I will be using it. I just need to find the sweet spot for it (although the 1/2 level + CON modifier suggestion looks like a good place to start).


----------



## el-remmen (Jun 4, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> That is why comparisons to other media are ultimately limiting and self-defeating.




See this, I completely agree with and say all the time.  I don't play D&D to _emulate _books or movies -  I play to play D&D, and sometimes that is _influenced _by books and movies.

So yeah, minions are another example of that comparing to me too


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad, I think what you're saying is reasonable.  But consider the ranged attack issue: isn't it reasonable to attack your foes at range as they approach?  I see this in shows all the time: the bad guys attack, so the good guy shoots them down.  But one of them can't seem to be hit... he's too good.  So they end up locked in a kung fu fight or something.

Same with Minions... the way I see it, you kind of expect everybody to be a Minion.  If you shoot somebody in the chest with an arrow, you expect him to fall down with a punctured lung or pierced heart.  You shoot down a bunch of orcs (or whatever) and then you fire a perfectly-placed shot at this one... and it somehow doesn't hit where you thought it would.  He jinked to the side lightning-quick, or he slapped the arrow down with his buckler, or it bounced off his big snaggle tooth!  The point is, you know that you've encountered a truly worthy foe.  And thus the epic fight scene commences.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> KarinsDad, I think what you're saying is reasonable.  But consider the ranged attack issue: isn't it reasonable to attack your foes at range as they approach?  I see this in shows all the time: the bad guys attack, so the good guy shoots them down.  But one of them can't seem to be hit... he's too good.  So they end up locked in a kung fu fight or something.
> 
> Same with Minions... the way I see it, you kind of expect everybody to be a Minion.  If you shoot somebody in the chest with an arrow, you expect him to fall down with a punctured lung or pierced heart.  You shoot down a bunch of orcs (or whatever) and then you fire a perfectly-placed shot at this one... and it somehow doesn't hit where you thought it would.  He jinked to the side lightning-quick, or he slapped the arrow down with his buckler, or it bounced off his big snaggle tooth!  The point is, you know that you've encountered a truly worthy foe.  And thus the epic fight scene commences.




The rationale you just presented sounds good on the surface. But, it has holes. For example, it gives metagaming information to the players that they should not have which in turn will result in metagaming tactical decision making. For one thing, each foe that was killed must NOT have been a worthy foe. For another, each foe that was hit and was not killed MUST have been a worthy foe (as you suggest).

However, there are no foes that get hit that are NOT especially worthy foes and if hit, still are able to fight in your example. There are also no foes that are worthy and get hit who are just plain unlucky that day. Worthy foes are always lucky on that first attack. Always (because they have more hit points than a single attack can do in damage).

I do not necessarily want to come up with a rule where the enemy leader dies accidently in round one. That's not my goal (but I could see it as a once in a blue moon goal of a different DM).

But, I do want a rule where the Minion does get hit and does get lucky (or is only slightly wounded). Yes, I know that if the die roll misses, it COULD be explained that way (using the mechanics to explain what happened, most players know that they either missed or didn't roll damage dice or whatever).  But again, that is meta-gaming knowledge.

The players are going to continue to attack a given foe until they either know a) he is a minion because he died on a successful hit or b) he is not a minion because he did not die on a successful hit. And then suddenly, they will pull out the big gun Daily attack because they KNOW the foe is not a minion.

The Minion Damage Reduction rule someone else mentioned alleviates this issue to some extent. The players do not know if it is a Minion or a Leader, they just know they hit and did damage and it did not kill the opponent. No nearly automatic metagaming knowledge given on a successful attack roll.

And yes, criticals would give away meta-gaming information to some extent. For example, a critical on round one that does not kill an opponent would indicate that it is not a minion. However, since criticals are rare, the chance of doing so on a given opponent on the first successful attack is also rare, hence, although a loophole, it's rare enough that it shouldn't make a big difference. Players will still occassionally, pull out the big Encounter Only or Daily Only power on a minion. And, I'll probably think on the critical roll issue some more to find a way to handle it as well.

But with the 1 hit point rule as written, pulling out the Daily or Encounter power against a minion will almost never happen. That's pure metagaming.


----------



## Henry (Jun 4, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> No, they don't.  In exactly one movie out of three, at the very end, for dramatic purposes, Leia was shot in the arm.  Other than that, there was absolutely no danger of the stormtroopers landing a shot on the heroes.  _Because they were never a credible threat_.




If they were never a credible threat, why did Han run from them in the famous "bluff charge" scene? Why were the heroes running from hordes of Stormtroopers invading Hoth? Why were they so utterly defeated on Endor when ambushed, saved only by the little furry plot-devices... err, Ewoks? If the stormtroopers weren't a credible threat, then the heroes themselves didn't know it! And in my opinion, neither should the PCs. But how to simulate that sense of trepidation?

Answer: the players need to feel like the dime-a-dozen minions could be a threat, which leads me back to my point. Minions are a way to involve a lot of foes, but still have them be both credible and possible to defeat. Throw a bunch of 3rd edition 1 HD orcs at the players of the 15th level PCs, and  watch them yawn. Throw a bunch of level 15 minions at them, and watch them have fun mowing through enemies, but still take caution not to take them for granted.

I still am curious why it matters if the minions are "asymmetrical", other than for rules aesthetics. The only people those minions will be fighting will be the PCs. To me, it's like being upset that an emergency spare tire won't last as long on the road as a "real" tire. Both serve a purpose, but are used for different things - and there's no rule against buying a fifth hub for your car and throwing the crappy spare away.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I still am curious why it matters if the minions are "asymmetrical", other than for rules aesthetics. The only people those minions will be fighting will be the PCs. To me, it's like being upset that an emergency spare tire won't last as long on the road as a "real" tire. Both serve a purpose, but are used for different things - and there's no rule against buying a fifth hub for your car and throwing the crappy spare away.




Read my posts on this page. It's about metagaming knowledge and PC tactics, not about the mechanics of running minions. I actually like the concept of minions who fall easy and can be thrown in large groups at PCs, I just don't like the fact that if an opponent does not fall right away, the players know he is not a minion (and other similar issues).

Another potential solution I see is to give minions saving throws. The DM would also have to roll for non-minions. Hmmm. Have to keep thinking about this one.


----------



## ryryguy (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I like the design goal of minions. I just do not like some aspects of them caused by the 1 hit point mechanic:
> 
> 1) Players use the same tactics over and over. For example, do NOT use your Daily Power unless you know your opponent is NOT a minion. Ditto for Encounter Powers unless the PC is in dire straits.




This could get stale... but one of the nicer things about minions is they _are_ still a threat.  So the Daily power may be worth it if the minion is about to nail the helpless wizard, or hit the alarm button.



> 2) Find AoE or other attacks that will wipe out many or all of the Minions quickly, then deal with the big fish. As an example, every PC attacks with a ranged weapon on round one, targeting a different foe. This tactic is good ONLY because of the 4E 1 hit point minion mechanic. In 3E, this tactic would have been terrible to use.




We'll see how this plays out at the table... but I think the interaction between AoE and minions is intentional.  AoE are supposed to wipe out minions by the bucketful - why not?  

(Note also that since there is only a single damage roll for an AoE, if you go with one of these "resilience" house rules being proposed, the AoE will either kill all minions that it hits or do nothing to them all depending on whether damage > resilience.  It's up to you of course, but it might be good to try playing with the minion rules as written for a while before you tinker with them.)



> 3) Every threatening encounter has to have either a non-minion (or several) in the group, or a boatload of minions. The BBEG cannot just send 3 or 4 minion Giants into the town to deal with the PCs and really challenge them for more than a few rounds (the BBEG not knowing that 3 or 4 minions just make the PCs yawn as designed). They are freaking Giants. 3 or 4 should be more than a one or two round nuisance, regardless of the minion rules governing them. Sure, the PCs can easily handle them, I just find "every foe falls over when touched" way too easily.




It seems like you are just saying that if the DM ignores the guidelines for encounter design and designs a poor encounter, it will be a poor encounter.  So don't do that.    The BBEG simply will not send only 3 or 4 minion giants.  He'll send a group that is a level-appropriate encounter for the PC's, which may include minions or not.  If it's all minions, it will be the appropriate number of minions to add up to the appropriate encounter XP, 12 or whatever it is.

If you're running a module or something that includes a roster of the BBEG's forces, and the PC's have wiped them all out except for 4 minions, and the BBEG wants to send them on a raid... just promote them to regular or elite or whatever.  Or add more regulars or elites to make a good encounter.  Think of it like Schrodinger's cat, until you open the box of the encounter, you don't know whether they are minions or not.

----------

I had been thinking about this issue and how it would play out in an online MMP like WoW.  The 1 hp minion mechanic could never work there, because if there is a spot in the world where level 26 1 hp minions spawn, then sure enough, players will bring their 1st level characters there and fight until they get a lucky shot and kill it for level 26 loot and experience.

I'm not suggesting that anyone who has a problem with this is just thinking in MMP terms.  But they do often seem to thinking about it in terms of there being a world "out there" beyond the PC's, a simulation that runs on its own with the same rules for any participants at all times.  Maybe think about it instead as a gigantic "instance" dungeon that is created just for a specific party.  There are no other "participants" besides the PC.  Everything is spawned specifically for them and is tuned to them. 

 (And note "tuned to them" does not necessarily mean they can always win, the odds might be against them, but if so they will be against them by a specific amount.)


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 4, 2008)

KD, I do plan to narrate some misses on Minions as inconsequential wounds.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> But with the 1 hit point rule as written, pulling out the Daily or Encounter power against a minion will almost never happen. That's pure metagaming.




Fair enough.  From my perspective we're at the "a feature not a bug" point.  I wouldn't want my players to waste a precious Daily on a Minion.  From what I've heard from KoTS AARs and from what I can see of the dreaded Needlefang Drake Swarm I'm not going to have any trouble killing off whole parties with 'fair' encounters.  I think PCs will need all the help they can get in 4E!

But you could give an in-game explanation, too.  Those stunts that people pull (Dailies) are heroic moves and taxing magical efforts... they wouldn't go to such lengths (in character) if they didn't have to.  They're pushing themselves to the limit at that point, which is not something they have to do with a run-of-the-mill punk.  Plus, while I wouldn't tell players definitively who is or is not a Minion, I don't mind if they figure it out.  After all, perhaps they sensed that the guy might be competent but lacking that heroic elan that they possess and have faced before.  Maybe you can kind of figure out who is not going to have a saga named after him.


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2008)

Right. Part of the "smart tactics" bit is figuring out what you're facing, and using the appropriate tools for the job. If you figure out that you shouldn't use dailies against this mob because they're easy to defeat otherwise, more power to you.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The rationale you just presented sounds good on the surface. But, it has holes. For example, it gives metagaming information to the players that they should not have which in turn will result in metagaming tactical decision making. For one thing, each foe that was killed must NOT have been a worthy foe. For another, each foe that was hit and was not killed MUST have been a worthy foe (as you suggest).
> 
> However, there are no foes that get hit that are NOT especially worthy foes and if hit, still are able to fight in your example. There are also no foes that are worthy and get hit who are just plain unlucky that day. Worthy foes are always lucky on that first attack. Always (because they have more hit points than a single attack can do in damage).
> 
> ...




A group who uses sensible tactics to determine the true threats in an encounter should be safe from wasting their daily powers on minions.  Frankly, wasting daily powers on a minion seems like it would suck pretty hard (granted, you don't necessarily have to tell them it was a minion but the encounter does suddenly become harder because the character wasted a high damage power on a 1 hp enemy).  

Using minion DR also won't prevent metagaming, just sometimes offset it slightly.  It simply extends the grey area that exists in almost hitting the enemy's defense (I'm assuming you aren't outright telling the players the creature's defense score) to include low damage rolls.  I can't see it changing all that much in truth.


----------



## Lurker37 (Jun 4, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> From my perspective, 4E mixes it up a little bit.  Maybe that big beefy monster is truly the stuff of legends, and rightfully ignores Brave Peasants.  But maybe it's just a big critter that flourishes because it is hard to get through its hide and because most stuff run from the sight of its terrible maw... but if somebody did stick a spear through its eye it would bite the dust.  It's not a Monster of Legend, it's just a Big Monster.




*sigh*

A lot of people seem to be making the same mistake.

Minion is not a creature type. It's mechanic you can use to build a specific type of encounter.

You do not run across minions as single random monsters. 

Minion is a template used in constructing encounters with large numbers of level-appropriate opponents, whom the PCs can drop in one hit each but still need to defend against, thus recreating a common trope of adventure fiction. The minion template achieves this very specific aim neatly.

There are prefabricated minions in the MM to allow novice DMs to quickly and easily build encounters using the minion mechanic. They are not meant to be used outside of any such encounter, and cause much silliness if you try. Unfortunately, because they're in the MM, some DMs seem to be assuming that they can just pluck them out singly and use them outside of such encounters, then complain about the strange results such misuse of the rules creates.

Minions are the bands of bandits that show up by the dozen. The raiding parties of orcs that swarm over villages. The throngs of cultists between the party and the high priests preparing to sacrifice the princess. The platoons of guards blocking the stairway up out of the evil baron's dungeon. They're not the lone guard wandering down the hallway - he's a normal monster (he can't be a minion because he's not in a group).

And if you can't visualise your PCs dropping a monster in one hit, then it probably doesn't make sense to use that monster as minions yet.


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> That's a false dichotemy though. It's not realistic vs cinematic. It's 'internally consistant' vs 'inconsistant'.




4E is perfectly internally consistent. A minion has 1 hp, and it has 1 hp forever more. It is not consistent with the previous D&Dism that level was the only measure of toughness and all high-level creatures had to have lots of hit points. However, since said D&Dism is outside the 4E framework, it does not have to be consistent with it. It is only because you have become so thoroughly inured to this D&Dism that you are unable to comprehend a game that discards it when it becomes a hindrance.



> It's at the higher levels when apparently you have minion dragons and demons and mammoths that it gets absurd.
> 
> The stated purpose of minions is to allow for creatures too weak to stand up to the pcs to still present a credible threat. If I have a 29th level character who is _literally_ a demi-god, then why should a horde of mooks represent a credible threat?




Why not? So they have flamethrowers. That doesn't mean they must have asbestos undies.



> You want the cinematic scene? Fine, but leave them as the window dressing the are. Box text works just fine for describing a horde of mooks getting butchered by Gods.




Box text is boring. Mooks being fun to fight is good.


----------



## Lurker37 (Jun 4, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> No, they don't.  In exactly one movie out of three, at the very end, for dramatic purposes, Leia was shot in the arm.  Other than that, there was absolutely no danger of the stormtroopers landing a shot on the heroes.  _Because they were never a credible threat_.




Leia has a visible wound. She's bloodied (as lost at least half her hitpoints). Sounds like a credible threat to me.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I like the design goal of minions. I just do not like some aspects of them caused by the 1 hit point mechanic:
> 
> 1) Players use the same tactics over and over. For example, do NOT use your Daily Power unless you know your opponent is NOT a minion. Ditto for Encounter Powers unless the PC is in dire straits.



As opposed to previous editions where you save high level spells for the big guns... Oh, wait.


> 2) Find AoE or other attacks that will wipe out many or all of the Minions quickly, then deal with the big fish. As an example, every PC attacks with a ranged weapon on round one, targeting a different foe. This tactic is good ONLY because of the 4E 1 hit point minion mechanic. In 3E, this tactic would have been terrible to use.



In 3E, noone even touched a ranged weapon unless they were the machine-gun archer of the group because they tended to be incredibly ineffective.

The AOE tactic was prevalent in 3E too. Fireball isn't considered a staple of every wizards spellbook because of it's amazing out-of-combat uses, after all.

And it's not like the group declares "we all shoot a different foe" at the beginning of the round - you pick a target on your turn and fire at it. If it dies, obviously other people don't continue shooting it.

You know, just like 3e.


> 3) Every threatening encounter has to have either a non-minion (or several) in the group, or a boatload of minions. The BBEG cannot just send 3 or 4 minion Giants into the town to deal with the PCs and really challenge them for more than a few rounds (the BBEG not knowing that 3 or 4 minions just make the PCs yawn as designed). They are freaking Giants. 3 or 4 should be more than a one or two round nuisance, regardless of the minion rules governing them. Sure, the PCs can easily handle them, I just find "every foe falls over when touched" way too easily.



Surprise surprise. The BBEG can't send a very small group of weakling goons to pose a challenge to the PCs.

The solution, to any BBEG worth his salt, is to NOT SEND SMALL GROUPS OF LOW GRADE SOLDIERS IF YOU EXPECT OPPOSITION. Send a large group, send a leader with them OR send some veteran troops.


> And the tactics sound so repetitive. Use the same tactics to defeat easy foes quickly. Even in KotS, it states over and over again that the "Minions should be sent in first". Sure, that might be a valid NPC tactic, but it gets old after a while as a player to see that NPC tactic come at the PCs over and over again. Even if the DM switches it up some, the players will be LOOKING to easy-whittle down the opposition because the game system is designed for it.



If the PCs are fighting a gang of monsters that they've seen before on an empty plane, the fight will be boring regardless of how quickly the monsters die.

In fact if the encounter is that bad, having the monsters die quicker is a mercy.


> I'm not keen on the idea of the players knowing that since foes could be red shirts or not, that they should tactically play the game different and take that into account. Sure, some foes are weaker then others. But, not cardboard. It gives an incentive for the players to find unique ways to do one point or more of damage to many foes.



The rules structure is really good at preventing this - there's no incentive for a PC to take (or use) a weak AOE when a stronger one is available (until you're distinguishing between encounter and daily powers).


> So, I like the suggestion made earlier in the thread about Minion Damage Resistance. Light hits do not do enough damage. Medium to heavy hits kill minions.
> 
> It's a nice compromise between tracking hit points (on the one hand) and super easy kills (on the other). Thanks for that suggestion, I will be using it. I just need to find the sweet spot for it (although the 1/2 level + CON modifier suggestion looks like a good place to start).



Personally I expect that this change would have the following effects:

It avoids corner cases where a PC decides to abuse the rules to make things seem ridiculous - like trying to find an attack that's only capable of causing a single point of damage.

Powers obviously intended for dealing with minions stop working (cleave, some of the defensive "foes who attack you take X damage" which are intended to make minions look for another target) and the occasional unlucky damage roll (depending on where the threshold is put) will fail to kill a minion (making minions more of a challenge).

Most situations will be exactly the same.

In short - you're changing a fairly complex part of the games interactions in order to avoid a corner case caused by players who are deliberately trying to trash the system.

Personally I don't think it's going to be worth it.


----------



## Blackeagle (Jun 4, 2008)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> My only gripe is that minions should have been handled as a template rather than having 16th level monsters that have one hit point in the MM.




The designers have said one of the emphases in the 4e MM was to make the monsters runnable right out of the book.  The example they used was dragons (creating a full dragon stat block from the 3.x MM was basically an hours worth of work), but I think it applies to minions as well.  They didn't want a DM who needed a squad of minions for a fight to have to go through and fiddle with a template.  Instead you just open the MM to the appropriate page.


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> 
> A lot of people seem to be making the same mistake.
> 
> ...




There is nothing wrong with using minions as single monsters if you want. Just because their intended use is as big mobs, doesn't mean you can't think outside the square. And you know this must be significant, seeing as how normally I go on about how thinking too hard about fantasy is bad.

One possible use for this is as a way to foreshadow future adventures. The PCs meet one tough minion. All their attacks miss against its level-inappropriate defenses. Eventually someone makes a lucky hit, and the thing goes down. This tells them that there's stuff out there that's meaner than what they've seen before.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 4, 2008)

Yes!  What Hong said.


----------



## Andor (Jun 4, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> In the interests of stubbornly maintaining my own interpretation... when Joe Commoner misses the Ogre he may still be hitting him.  In fact, it's likely.  How could you actually miss something the size of an ogre with a spear thrust?  It's hard to believe that you would miss very often!  It's just that Ogres are tough (high AC) and most of the time when you stab them you're just hitting its rough and calloused hide.
> 
> When Joe Commoner rolls that 20 he has hit the Ogre in the eye or the neck or something like that.  An Ogre Hero would not actually suffer such a blow (he's the Ogre version of Chuck Norris, after all) so his hit points would spend down that blow into being another mere glance (the equivalent of a miss).  But the Minion Ogre has zero Chuckness, so the stab to the eye is actually a stab to the eye, and he drops dead.




You know, not being a fan of abstract hitpoints it always drove me nuts in earlier editions when people would insist that a hit might be a miss, despite the fact that the whole basis of the armour system is that most hits fail to do damage and only solid blows even count as a hit, along with all the 'corner' cases.

Now in 4e people are simulateously saying that missing a minion hits it, but hitting another monster misses it. This makes baby Gygax cry.


----------



## Samurai (Jun 4, 2008)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> The rules structure is really good at preventing this - there's no incentive for a PC to take (or use) a weak AOE when a stronger one is available (until you're distinguishing between encounter and daily powers).



Actually there is a very good incentive... if the PCs have been over-run by a horde of meleeing minions, the Wizard has the choice of using a single target or small area spell and only taking out 1 or a few minions, or he could use a large area effect that will harm his companions as well.  Since the feat to exclude allies from area effect spells isn't available until Epic levels now, you have a great deal of incentive to keep a massive burst damage area spell that is strong enough to take out minions (only needs to do 1 HP), and yet as weak as possible so that you don't harm your fellow PCs too much.  In a situation like that, would you rather do 1d6 damage to everything within 5 squares, or 7d6 damage?  I know your allies will be much happier with you if you only cause them 1d6 damage...


----------



## Lizard (Jun 4, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> The heroes in Star Wars (and almost any other example) weren't particularly durable.  They were every bit as flimsy as the bad guys.  What they had in their favour was two-fold:  script immunity, and the bad guys _weren't a credible threat_.  When the extras were shooting at each other, they were fine.  When they were shooting at the heroes, _they were utterly incompetent_.  Han Solo could have walked up to a dozen stormtroopers, and _they all would have missed_.




Ah, but there were treated as a threat. Han ran from them, surrendered to them, etc. They blew 3P0 to pieces. Minions, by being able to damage level-appropriate heroes, can't simply be ignored. They're a speedbump due to their 1 hit point, they can be swept through, but if you ignore them to focus all your damage on the BBEG, they WILL tear you to shreds.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 4, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> You know, not being a fan of abstract hitpoints it always drove me nuts in earlier editions when people would insist that a hit might be a miss, despite the fact that the whole basis of the armour system is that most hits fail to do damage and only solid blows even count as a hit, along with all the 'corner' cases.
> 
> Now in 4e people are simulateously saying that missing a minion hits it, but hitting another monster misses it. This makes baby Gygax cry.



Erm, Gygax himself said that hit points were abstract.

Please turn your AD&D DMG to Page 82, where he talks about how ridiculous it is to assume that a hero can take multiple sword thrusts just because he's a hero, and how hit points also represent endurance, the ability to turn aside blows, and even divine favor.

-O


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 4, 2008)

Minions give the wizard a chance to shine, particularly an all minion encounter cause there'll be so damn many of 'em. AoE frenzy.

Something to consider for DMs who plan not to use them.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> KD, I do plan to narrate some misses on Minions as inconsequential wounds.




Which is a fine narration, but the players know that they missed unless you always have them roll to hit and roll damage and add up their damage on every attack, which tends to defeat the purpose of 4E simplicity.


----------



## Andor (Jun 4, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> This is the thread that never ends... it just goes on and on my friend...




I had that exact thought...


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jun 4, 2008)

Wasnt this argument already resolved a while back?  Its like trying to figure out the D&D economy, but a lot less painful.  In the end you either have to accept it as it is or ignore it all together.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 4, 2008)

The issue of killing mammoths with (unpoisoned) blowgun needles, mentioned in the previous thread, is very unlikely to come up for two reasons:

1) There are no mammoth minions.
2) PCs don't use unpoisoned blowgun needles. They're PCs, they use the biggest, baddest weapons available.

The worst case scenario is a dagger-armed rogue killing a cyclops minion (cyclops are large). This does stretch credibility a bit, but no more than D&D always has imo. In prior editions a cyclops on 1 hit point couldn't have been seriously wounded by the attacks that brought him to 1, as his fighting ability, movement and so forth are completely unimpaired. Thus in D&D, people have always been able to kill a (practically) uninjured mammoth with a dart.

I feel the interpretation of hit points that makes most sense, which I'll still be using in 4e, is that until the killing blow, all wounds are minor - shallow cuts, scrapes, flesh wounds. Their recovery via warlord and second wind is explained as a burst of energy - morale, adrenaline - which negates the effect of the wound, though physically it still exists. During a short rest these wounds are assumed to be bandaged and thus effectively healed.

The two alternative approaches have worse problems in my view. Regarding hit point damage as completely non-physical doesn't explain how poison could work or why bigger weapons do more damage. The second alternative, which sees non-fatal wounds such as a blow which takes a 100hp character to 20hp as still being serious, doesn't explain how the wounded character's fighting capability isn't affected.


----------



## see (Jun 4, 2008)

You know, there's an easy solution to minions.  Don't use them in your game.  They're a tool, and if you don't like 'em, you don't need to bother with them.

If you're dealing with a published adventure, in prep you'll have to substitute one standard monster for every four minions of that level, or use one standard creature four levels lower for every pair of minions.  Say, a Minotaur Warrior for every two Cyclops Guards.  A bit of work, granted.


----------



## Andor (Jun 4, 2008)

Obryn said:
			
		

> Erm, Gygax himself said that hit points were abstract.
> 
> Please turn your AD&D DMG to Page 82, where he talks about how ridiculous it is to assume that a hero can take multiple sword thrusts just because he's a hero, and how hit points also represent endurance, the ability to turn aside blows, and even divine favor.
> 
> -O




*pinches bridge of nose* I know. I read it years ago and thought it silly then.

Again, the whole basis of the AC system is that blows that connect are turned by the armour, or dodged by dex or pushed away by delfection. If it connects then it connects. It draws blood. The poison on the blade, or a dozen other rider effects make this a mandatory aspect of the system.

This is not to say that every sword blow spears through the other guys liver, it could be a scratch, but it did connect.

And again, if you'll read the post you responded too, I'm being driven mad by the idea that the 4e minion rules divorce HP so far from what it conceived of as believeable that some are now argueing *BOTH* that some blows miss _and_ some misses hit. That's how confused matters have become in 4e.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

After some thought on the issues, I came up with the mechanic that I will be using.

I will introduce:

Weak Minions: 1 hit to kill (minions in MM)
Regular Minions: 2 hits to kill
Tough Minions: 3 hits to kill

into my game. I will up the XP for Regular and Strong Minions so that I can still balance an encounter.

This removes much of the meta-gaming player knowledge aspects and the only thing is that I have to keep track of how many times the Regular and Tough Minions get hit. That's less bookkeeping than keeping track if a minion is stunned or dazed or some other condition.

Compared to Marking and Combat Advantage and Bloodied, etc. (or even all of the things I kept track of as DM in 3E), that will be easy to do.

Problem solved sufficiently for me.

Even a critical hit on a Regular or Tough minion will not give the players any metagaming information about the creature.

This also effectively gives me more monsters from the core Monster Manual with very little work on my part. All I have to do is figure out my XP equation and I'm set. But at the moment, x1.5 XP for Regular and x2 for Tough is looking ok when I compare it to the other non-minions in the MM.

My thinking for this amount of XP is that although it takes 3 successful hits to take out a Tough Minion, it only gets 1 attack per round compared to 3 attacks per round for 3 Weak Minions and synergies between 3 Weak Minions. So, it is not worth as much 3 * XP. But on a one on one fight, it will last 3 times as long, so it is worth quite a bit (i.e. 2x XP).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 4, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> And again, if you'll read the post you responded too, I'm being driven mad by the idea that the 4e minion rules divorce HP so far from what it conceived of as believeable that some are now argueing *BOTH* that some blows miss _and_ some misses hit. That's how confused matters have become in 4e.



It wouldn't make baby Gygax cry though. Baby Gygax, who has a surprisingly large vocabulary for his age would just say, "The Dungeons & Dragons game was never conceived of as a simulation. It is a game, not a working model of a fantasy milieu. Now give me back my bottle. Wah! Wah!"


----------



## Obryn (Jun 4, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> And again, if you'll read the post you responded too, I'm being driven mad by the idea that the 4e minion rules divorce HP so far from what it conceived of as believeable that some are now argueing *BOTH* that some blows miss _and_ some misses hit. That's how confused matters have become in 4e.



Naah, it doesn't bother me 

I mean, I've been running HPs as abstract since I read that part of the AD&D DMG over 20 years ago.

Combat in D&D is an abstraction, and it has been forever.  I don't see that this changes it.  Abstract is abstract.

-O


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 4, 2008)

Another big abstraction of D&D combat is that it doesn't account for weapon length or penetration.  Sometimes the abstraction of hit points highlights that other abstraction.

So I have about as easy a time doing 1 hp of damage to a cyclops as I do to a goblin.  This is fine if I am wielding a poleaxe, but with a dagger you have to imagine how I could get a dagger to some place that would actually kill a cyclops.  The femoral artery might be a good start.  Likewise with taking out a mammoth minion with a blowgun (I acknowledge that there are no mammoth minions but I'm not opposed to them in principle).  You pretty much need to get that dart through his eye.  So really it should be a harder shot, but D&D makes it basically as easy to hit a mammoth with a blowgun as with a crossbow.

You could always just impose a -4 "inopportune weapon" penalty and leave it at that.  Or just assume that the guy using the blowgun is able to hit the eye of a mammoth if what he rolls is, in fact, a hit.  Now, if he runs up against Ol' Tusky (a non-Minion mammoth, the Chuck Norris of mammoths) that blowgun is going to start seeming inadequate (Ol' Tusky is reputed to be very good at closing his eyes at the right moment).


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 4, 2008)

I personally LOVE the idea of minions.  Finally there's a way to give the players the thrill of cutting down a ton of mook enemies before reaching the "boss".  Or demonstrate just why the PCs are heroes if they beat down a couple of monsters that are, say, terrorizing a village and killing the town guard left and right.  Classic staple of fantasy and anime (oh noes, the anime!); big bad monster is killing people left and right, and nobody can stop it, then the hero(es) show up and kill the thing in one blow.  Townspeople awed beyond belief at the might of these individuals.

Plus, they provide a great way to showcase a new PC and make them look like a hero.  I've had far too many heroic concepts ruined because the DM would have my new character show up during a combat, and due to some bad rolls I proved to be largely useless, resulting in ridicule from the rest of the group.  No more!  Pit the new PC against a scary-looking minion, and have him one-shot it with one of the cool Encounter powers.  Instant "Woah, this guy is badass!" effect.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Jun 4, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> If they were never a credible threat, why did Han run from them in the famous "bluff charge" scene? Why were the heroes running from hordes of Stormtroopers invading Hoth? Why were they so utterly defeated on Endor when ambushed, saved only by the little furry plot-devices... err, Ewoks? If the stormtroopers weren't a credible threat, then the heroes themselves didn't know it! And in my opinion, neither should the PCs. But how to simulate that sense of trepidation?



I may have mentioned this already, but it was a movie.


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> I may have mentioned this already, but it was a movie.



 This argument of yours, that D&D fails to simulate D&D, it is a bug, not a feature.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Jun 4, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> Leia has a visible wound. She's bloodied (as lost at least half her hitpoints). Sounds like a credible threat to me.



She doesn't have hit points, it's a movie.

Also, it was more than ten years after the first movie.  Getting shot once in ten years of a skirmish war is pretty damn incompetent on the enemy's part.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Jun 4, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> This argument of yours, that D&D fails to simulate D&D, it is a bug, not a feature.



That isn't even remotely my argument.  Perhaps you should brush up on some math, because your statements don't add up.

HAW HAW


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> That isn't even remotely my argument.




You think it is not your argument, because you have not understood it.



> Perhaps you should brush up on some math, because your statements don't add up.
> 
> HAW HAW




Yeesh, amateurs these days.


----------



## Blackeagle (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I will introduce:
> 
> Weak Minions: 1 hit to kill (minions in MM)
> Regular Minions: 2 hits to kill
> Tough Minions: 3 hits to kill




At three hits it seems like you're setting up situations where a minion could be tougher than a regular monster of it's level, particularly at low levels and versus critical hits (especially with high crit weapons or other bonus damage on a crit).  Maybe have a critical count as two hits?


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> *pinches bridge of nose* I know. I read it years ago and thought it silly then.
> 
> Again, the whole basis of the AC system is that blows that connect are turned by the armour, or dodged by dex or pushed away by delfection. If it connects then it connects. It draws blood. The poison on the blade, or a dozen other rider effects make this a mandatory aspect of the system.
> 
> This is not to say that every sword blow spears through the other guys liver, it could be a scratch, but it did connect.




None of which rules out minions. All it takes is one change to your internal model of D&D reality, which appears to be your standard by which everything is judged.

Instead of

IF (atk >= AC) { attack touches target; REQUIRE damage > 0; inflict (damage) }

it becomes

IF (atk >= AC) { attack touches target; REQUIRE damage >= 0; inflict (damage) }


----------



## Lurker37 (Jun 4, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> She doesn't have hit points, it's a movie.
> 
> Also, it was more than ten years after the first movie.  Getting shot once in ten years of a skirmish war is pretty damn incompetent on the enemy's part.




You're using the movie to illustrate a point about how minions should be simulated in the RPG, which is only valid if you apply all the RPG mechanics to said simulation.

Princess Leia has been 'hit' multiple times, eroding her hit points to the point where the next hit actually drops her below half health. She now is bloodied, hence the highly visible wound instead of all the first and second degree burns she took up until now.

So she hasn't been shot only once in her ten-year adventuring career - it 's just the first time she's dropped to half hit points or lower.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Jun 4, 2008)

To me, minions and the 1 hit-point simply means this:

-A minion is the person who gets shot in the head as he peeks his head out in a war film
-the one who gets decapitated in a single blow by the heroes sword
-the one that slips in the mud and gets impaled by a spear
-the one that misjudges his jump and instead of landing in the water lands on the rocks and gets splattered

Basically it is a narrative and story device to showcase such iconic things and simply sometimes to showcase the randomness of combat. Two Orcs may be identical in all manner of speaking, but one is a minion because he is the one that will end up being felled by a single blow.


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Jun 4, 2008)

I think if they'd listed next to the minion type monsters in the MM the regular version of the same monster, and given a rough guideline on when to use the minion version versus the regular version, it'd have cleared up a ton of confusion.  And the rules honestly do already explain that, it's just in the section about creating encounters. 

Most of the sections, for example humanoids, I think do a great job of making it clear "these guys over here, statted as minions, are useful to throw into encounters *as* minions." The legion devils, for example. The idea seems to be that if you were to run into a platoon of legion devils, there's probably a 20 foot tall devil in front who's in charge. If your party's powerful enough to fight the big guy who uses these guys as footsoldiers, they're not powerful enough relative to the PCs to use except as minions. Both mechanically and "in game" wise, these guys are cannon fodder used by tougher enemies. If you want to have your party encounter these guys all alone and at a level where just a couple is a threat, unminionize em. 

Hey, all you have to do to unminionize something is (a) give it normal HP, and (b) treat it as a non-minion when you create the encounter. The fact that minion status matters for encounter balance indicates to me that we're better off taking our cues for how minions are discussed in the encounter creation section than in the flavor from the monster manual.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> At three hits it seems like you're setting up situations where a minion could be tougher than a regular monster of it's level, particularly at low levels and versus critical hits (especially with high crit weapons or other bonus damage on a crit).  Maybe have a critical count as two hits?




I do not think this is true for the Regular Minion I set up, but it could on occasion be true for the Tough Minion. I do not know of any regular monster (i.e. non-minion) that can typically be taken out with a single critical hit (course, I did not look at all of them).

But, I consider that a good thing. The Tough Minion is not tough because he does a lot of damage or anything, he's tough because he can absorb damage.

Sure, using your suggestion would be fine for the Tough Minion where once in a while, he would have the equivalent of more hit points than a regular monster. But it would be overkill for the Regular Minion.

Another thing I noticed is that I have to change the damage for Minions with this system. The game mechanics do not have them rolling dice, but if I did that, it would be a metagaming clue that they are minions to players.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Jun 4, 2008)

Can I just say that though there have been a number of decent minion explanations and clarifications floated in this thread, I for one thought that Korgoth's first post on this issue was really really cool and I'm sad that it didn't get more appreciation.

Thank-you Korgoth, initial anger at narrativism aside, that was an excellent way to read the rules and I'm happy to have seen it.

Also, I'd like to add that I, for one, would like to welcome our new Dragon Minion overlords.


----------



## Vanuslux (Jun 4, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> The designers have said one of the emphases in the 4e MM was to make the monsters runnable right out of the book.  The example they used was dragons (creating a full dragon stat block from the 3.x MM was basically an hours worth of work), but I think it applies to minions as well.  They didn't want a DM who needed a squad of minions for a fight to have to go through and fiddle with a template.  Instead you just open the MM to the appropriate page.




We're not talking about a complex template here...we're talking about saying at a certain level difference a creature would be considered to have 1 hit point and won't take damage on a miss.  I can't imagine anyone needing to think too hard about that no matter what the creature is.  Is there anything else that seperates a minion from a non-minion?

Edit: As an aside, I'm not overly upset about the way they do it...it's really only a trivial inconvenience in the long run...I just wish they'd handled it differently.


----------



## ryryguy (Jun 4, 2008)

It seems like your Tough Minions are no longer minions.  What does it add to an encounter to use them?

If you're so concerned about hiding minions' "minionness" from your players, it seems to me you'd be better off not using them at all.  

But again, why not try them out as written first and see if you actually encounter problems during play?


----------



## Lurker37 (Jun 4, 2008)

The other thing about minions is that they do a fixed amount of damage when they hit, instead of a random amount. This is presumably so having a dozen minions in an encounter doesn't slow down gameplay.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> We're not talking about a complex template here...we're talking about saying at a certain level difference a creature would be considered to have 1 hit point and won't take damage on a miss.  I can't imagine anyone needing to think too hard about that no matter what the creature is.  Is there anything else that seperates a minion from a non-minion?




They do less damage (about 1/3rd die max + Str). They never critical. They often do not have the special abilities that others of their race have (but, sometimes do). They tend to only do melee/range damage.

All in all, they are cardboard cutups that only affect combat through sheer numbers.


----------



## Blackeagle (Jun 4, 2008)

Vanuslux said:
			
		

> We're not talking about a complex template here...we're talking about saying at a certain level difference a creature would be considered to have 1 hit point and won't take damage on a miss.  I can't imagine anyone needing to think too hard about that no matter what the creature is.  Is there anything else that seperates a minion from a non-minion?




Minions do fixed damage.  I think that's the only other hard and fast rule.  They have average AC per level, so if you're minionizing a soldier or other creature with unusually high AC, you'd need to reduce it.  Just going through the ones in KotS there are other abilities characteristics that seem to be common to most (though not all of them).  A lot of them have some sort of mob ability (adjacent creatures of the same type add to attack, damage, or defense).  They tend to have fewer attacks/abilities than non-minion creatures.

You know, just going through KotS, I'm beginning to believe the reason we don't have a minion template is that there isn't one.  The minions seem to be custom built rather than adapted versions of regular monsters.


----------



## grickherder (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The rationale you just presented sounds good on the surface. But, it has holes. For example, it gives metagaming information to the players that they should not have which in turn will result in metagaming tactical decision making.




Why?  Every game has a different metagame.  What constitutes desirable or undesirable metagame information for the players to have varies by each game (and even by different gaming groups).  Just because you didn't want them to know certain metagame information in completely different rules (ie 3.5) doesn't mean it's bad for them to know them in 4th edition.  I for one think the metagame information given by the minion rules is a good thing for the players to have, use, puzzle out and act upon.  Why have presumptions about 4th edition based on what one expects out of 3rd?


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

ryryguy said:
			
		

> It seems like your Tough Minions are no longer minions.  What does it add to an encounter to use them?




What does it add to an encounter to use a Brute?



			
				ryryguy said:
			
		

> If you're so concerned about hiding minions' "minionness" from your players, it seems to me you'd be better off not using them at all.




So, you think that just because I see what I consider an exploitable rule, I should not have the same fun of 10 opponents attacking my PCs that occurs at other tables.

Do you actually have a constructive suggestion?



			
				ryryguy said:
			
		

> But again, why not try them out as written first and see if you actually encounter problems during play?




Because I've been playing DND for over 30 years (and have written a 3rd party rule book) and think I am capable of understanding rules that are exploitable.

1 hit wonders will be exploitable, especially when the synergies of a half dozen splat books hit the market. It really is inevitable.


In fact, minions are already exploitable by the DM. Unlike non-minions, minions take away the advantages that many players have given their PCs with their At Will selections.

For example, Reaping Strike, Tide of Iron, Lance of Faith, and Righteous Brand (and many other powers) lose their non-minion punch when used against minions. In effect, the players of PCs with these abilities are penalized when the DM throws minions at the group.


Cleave, on the other hand, will auto-cleave a minion next to a Fighter since the Fighter did not "miss", killing two minions with a single blow. So, a player of a Fighter might be coerced into taking Cleave, just so that he too does not lose the punch of an At Will ability.

In other words, Cleave becomes a no brainer power once people understand how useful it is against minions. One of the design goals of 4E was to get rid of no brainer abilities.

KotS has 15 encounters out of 23 with minions. WotC is pushing this concept and of course, players are going to be forced to respond.


I predict that future optimal or even just average builds on the Internet (and in games around the world) will always if possible have an anti-minion component which means that other character options will be ignored.

The incentive for that will not happen as much with a house rule like the one I posted.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

grickherder said:
			
		

> What constitutes desirable or undesirable metagame information for the players to have varies by each game (and even by different gaming groups).  Just because you didn't want them to know certain metagame information in completely different rules (ie 3.5) doesn't mean it's bad for them to know them in 4th edition.




Sure it does.

You just said so yourself. It varies by even different groups. For my group, I don't want my group using the same tired old tactics game in and game out because the game system has such an obvious insta-kill hole in it (or rather, the hit opponent was not insta-killed, therefore he is not a minion, hence it's ok to use an encounter or daily power against it. How repetitive and boring zzzzzzzzzzzzz).


----------



## grickherder (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Because I've been playing DND for over 30 years (and have written a 3rd party rule book) and think I am capable of understanding rules that are exploitable.
> 
> 1 hit wonders will be exploitable, especially when the synergies of a half dozen splat books hit the market. It really is inevitable.




First of all, 30 years of D&D experience might only serve to put up preconceptions that impair your ability to see how a new set of rules might operate quite well.  This is evident in your use of "exploitable" as a negative, undesirable adjective.  As well as your categorization of certain information as metagame knowledge you don't want your players to have.

It is supposed to be used in play that way.  Players and the GMs are supposed to use these characteristics and how they interact.  There's not exploitation going on at all because it's not negative.  It's a good thing.  They're simply using it, not exploiting it.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> What does it add to an encounter to use a Brute?
> 
> [....]



The problem I have with your post is that the same could be said if you replace minion with any other form of monster.  Certain attacks are better against certain monsters.  Its sort of a rock-paper-scissors type of deal, and it applies for every class and role, and its one of the features of 4ed.  It adds a nice tactical element to the game that wasn't as apparent before.


----------



## Zogmo (Jun 4, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Welcome to 4E.




Thanks!


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

grickherder said:
			
		

> First of all, 30 years of D&D experience might only serve to put up preconceptions that impair your ability to see how a new set of rules might operate quite well.  This is evident in your use of "exploitable" as a negative, undesirable adjective.  As well as your categorization of certain information as metagame knowledge you don't want your players to have.
> 
> It is supposed to be used in play that way.  Players and the GMs are supposed to use these characteristics and how they interact.  There's not exploitation going on at all because it's not negative.  It's a good thing.  They're simply using it, not exploiting it.




I find the concept that just because someone does not agree with the designer's solution for a given design goal, that they should play another game, or that they don't know what they are talking about, or that they don't understand, or that they have preconceived notions that are wrong, or that their ability to see how new rules work together is impaired, etc. to be offensive.

This fan boy crap of WotC can do no wrong in 4E is getting older than dirt.

This forum is for discussion, not insults. Go insult somebody else.


----------



## Jack Colby (Jun 4, 2008)

All I can say is minions work in play.  I loved the way they worked in the game we ran.  They let the DM make battles interesting, in terms of amount of enemies, and by the time PCs can actually hit high-level minions it will be believable for them to die in one hit.  Look past the one hit point and see the huge barrier that high-level minion AC, etc. poses to low-level PCs.  Minion does not necessarily equal pushover.

The whole system for encounters is just amazing to me.  It all balances out in play, just the way the books say it will.  I'm impressed with what the design team did.


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> In other words, Cleave becomes a no brainer power once people understand how useful it is against minions. One of the design goals of 4E was to get rid of no brainer abilities.




So what if 4E Cleave is designed to kill minions. This is no different to Cleave in 3E. It is only a "no brainer" if the only thing you expect to fight is minions.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> The problem I have with your post is that the same could be said if you replace minion with any other form of monster.  Certain attacks are better against certain monsters.  Its sort of a rock-paper-scissors type of deal, and it applies for every class and role, and its one of the features of 4ed.  It adds a nice tactical element to the game that wasn't as apparent before.




I have no problem with rock paper scissors of monsters. In fact, that stuff is fun for players.

I have a problem with "The DM did not roll dice, or I took the same 4 points of damage that I did last round, so this guy is a minion, or all of the guys with clubs are minions" type stuff.

I have a problem with PC metgaming decisions made off of such obvious clues. Sure, the DM can go out of his way to change this up every once in a while, but he shouldn't have to. The rules should not be this blatant.

I have a problem with "I'm not taking this At Will power because my other At Will power doesn't help against minions, so I cannot afford two such At Will powers, and the new WotC paradigm is to throw minions in most of the encounters".

It's one thing to know that a given opponent is an archer. It's another to know that you never need to blow an Encounter or Daily on this guy because he is made of cardboard.


Bottom line, I think the mechanic sucks as written for a number of reasons. Simplicity Ad Nauseum. It's like playing Tic Tac Toe instead of Chess. Not much of a challenge.


----------



## Zogmo (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This fan boy crap of WotC can do no wrong in 4E is getting older than dirt.
> 
> This forum is for discussion, not insults. Go insult somebody else.




Yes, it is for discussion. Not for insults like your's here.

So, I've been DMing as long as you and I think the minion rules are excellent.  My players are going to love them.  My players will know who the minions are and who aren't because of their characters experience in sizing up bad guys.  They won't be wasting powers and such that they will obviously need to fight the big bad guy being protected by minions.  Minions will delay, confound and preoccupy the characters in whatever way I deem the Big Bad Guy needs to further his agenda, be it escaping or final preparations to a ritual or spell or whatever.  
Minions will be slaughted in en masse and clog route's and tunnels.  Minions with powers will be not ignored since some may be casting spells  to heal the Big Bad Guy or releasing a monster from a hidden wall panel.  My players won't know for sure what the minions will be doing but they will find they shouldn't ignore them if they are smart. But, they will know exactly who the minions are.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I have no problem with rock paper scissors of monsters. In fact, that stuff is fun for players.
> 
> I have a problem with "The DM did not roll dice, or I took the same 4 points of damage that I did last round, so this guy is a minion, or all of the guys with clubs are minions" type stuff.
> 
> I have a problem with PC metgaming decisions made off of such obvious clues. Sure, the DM can go out of his way to change this up every once in a while, but he shouldn't have to. The rules should not be this blatant.




But the same is true for every single other aspect of D&D.  Once the players have enough info, usualy after one round of combat, they know the monsters stats.  They have a general knowledge of its AC after 4-6 attacks against it.  They know its general amount of damage after about two rounds.  They know its tactics by its opening moves.  And anything that doesnt apply to that in general can also apply to minions.  So again, not a minion problem, but a game problem (if you see it as one).



> I have a problem with "I'm not taking this At Will power because my other At Will power doesn't help against minions, so I cannot afford two such At Will powers, and the new WotC paradigm is to throw minions in most of the encounters".




And how is that different then a Wizard choosing to not take only ranged area attacks and choosing to also take close attacks so that he is not vulnerable? 



> It's one thing to know that a given opponent is an archer. It's another to know that you never need to blow an Encounter or Daily on this guy because he is made of cardboard.



Again, I see no difference between this and other situations not involving minions.  



> Bottom line, I think the mechanic sucks as written for a number of reasons. Simplicity Ad Nauseum. It's like playing Tic Tac Toe instead of Chess. Not much of a challenge.




Going by that I am going to guess that you have never played with minions because that is not the impression that I, nor most people have gotten out of them.

True, minions by themselves are not challenging.  However in 3.x if you used a monster with a CR of 4 below the party and sent it up against them all by itself it wasnt very challenging either.  But if you used 4 monsters with a CR of 4 below the party then the EL would be equal to the party.  The same rules apply, except that instead of calculating towards an EL you are calculating either towards an XP total or toward replacing a number of monsters.  The execution is different, the concept is the same, and in the end it all adds up to the same thing.  Trying to make an encounter with more monsters, yet have it equally challenging.  Minions do that unequivocally.


----------



## Blackeagle (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Because I've been playing DND for over 30 years (and have written a 3rd party rule book) and think I am capable of understanding rules that are exploitable.




Tell that to all the experienced players who swore the monk was overpowered when 3e first came out.   




			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I predict that future optimal or even just average builds on the Internet (and in games around the world) will always if possible have an anti-minion component which means that other character options will be ignored.




Oh, everybody will certainly want some anti-minion ability, but unless all your DM ever throws at you are minions, there will be a need for single target damage abilities too.  In fact, given how huge a bag of hit points brutes, elites, and solos have I wouldn't be surprised if those end up influencing builds a lot more than minions.  In the end, I think the trick of character design in 4e is not going to be turning your character into a minion killing machine, or a single target damage monster, it's going to be building a character that works well against a wide variety of threats and with abilities that synergize with the other members of your party.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The incentive for that will not happen as much with a house rule like the one I posted.




Actually, wouldn't the house rule presented just encourage the use of many of these abilities?  Cleave wouldn't autokill one of your upgraded minions, but it would still knock a hit off them, so it's better than the other single-target attacks you mentioned.  Same with low damage AoE spells.  Requiring two hits doesn't change the fact that the amount of damage you do doesn't matter.

You could rule that the damage from stuff like cleave doesn't knock a hit off a minion, of course, but that just creates the opposite incentive, making cleave a lot less useful than Reaping Strike.


----------



## ryryguy (Jun 4, 2008)

Hey KarinsDad, please, I was not trying to attack you at all.  

As for suggesting that you just use a regular monster instead of a tough minion: It just seems that if your Tough minion no longer goes down in one hit, and you have to roll damage for them like a regular monster, you've taken two big steps back towards it being a regular monster.  It seemed your main goal was to hide the "minionness" of  the standard minions which I think you could do equally well with a regular monster.  Thus my inquiry about what the Tough minion adds because I honestly though a regular monster would serve just as well.  No snark intended.

As to my suggestion that you try the minions as written first, I did intend that as a constructive suggestion, not a slam on your experience, rules judgement or understanding.  I just feel that the pieces of a new system should be tested at the table before tweaking, because no matter what your experience and judgement, it's nearly impossible to fully predict how it will turn out until you try it in play.  Even if it does turn out to have the problems you fear, it's likely that your tweaks will be better informed for having some data.

You are of course free to disagree with and ignore this suggestion, but it was sincerely offered.  Also, I mean when we are talking about a piece of a brand new system like in this case - if we're talking about a random feat in a splatbook for a system we've been playing for years, that is a different story. 

The only thing I'd add is that if you're primarily concerned about players exploiting the rule, as your last post seems to suggest, then a pre-emptive change may be more warranted.  Here it's your knowledge of your own players and their particular tendencies that becomes important.  If this is the kind of thing they'd find and take advantage of, then maybe it is better to nip that in the bud.

Anyway, sorry if you were pissed off by my comments as that was not my intent.  I'm not trying to be argumentative.  I'll not bother you further if you think I am not adding to the conversation.

(edit) One other thing after reading some of the further conversation.  There is a disagreement about whether it is desirable to hide the fact that minions are minions, which would impact whether players waste Daily powers on them and so forth.  For now I'm leaning towards thinking it's okay and probably desirable not to hide the minions --though I'm taking my own advice and reserving full judgement until I see how it plays out at the table.  

However, I'm not arguing about that point.  But I think that if you do decide you don't want obvious minions, you may be able to achieve that goal without having to mess directly with the minion rules.  You can largely do it with encounter design.  Don't make minions "the ones with the clubs" - give them all the same weapons, describe them the same way as the regulars, etc.  Don't always send them in first - they could stay hidden and pop out behind the PC's after the standards and elites draw the PC's out of position.  Once in a blue moon the BBEG might even use a minion as a "body double" while he blends in with the "rabble" to get up close and personal with the PC's.  (The BBEG does not have to use "metagame" knowledge for this, it's a classic villain trick for which using a minion for the decoy seems perfect.)


----------



## Zogmo (Jun 4, 2008)

ryryguy said:
			
		

> Anyway, sorry if you were pissed off by my comments as that was not my intent.  I'm not trying to be argumentative.  I'll not bother you further if you think I am not adding to the conversation.




I know your talking to Karinsdad but...

It's always nice to say sorry, but your cool.    
There is nothing wrong/bad in anything you posted.  I read it as you explained and didn't take it as even an ounce of being argumentative.


----------



## ryryguy (Jun 4, 2008)

Thanks Zogmo.

I can sympathize with KD, sometimes if there are a couple of critical comments in a thread like this it starts to seem like everyone is ganging up and attacking...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 4, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> I had that exact thought...



Not the thread, but the topic... Maybe it is the new "Paladin/Alignment" thread for 4E?


----------



## Bigwilly (Jun 4, 2008)

As a DM I am looking forward to NOT having to track the HPs of a bunch of minions. I am also looking forward to said minions beating on the PCs (admittedly for a fixed and relatively limited amount of damage) rather than rolling a bucket of dice and hoping for a 20. And I will smile with glee as my PCs miss said minions with their attacks giving me another round to beat on them. 

As a PC I am looking forward to cleaving through hordes of minions to get to the BBEG and his friends for some heroic smackdown.

If you don't like the idea of minions, you don't have to use them. You can still throw normal/elite/solo monsters at the PCs. But you will have to do a bit more housekeeping and probably won't be able to throw hordes of minions at the PCs without the game slowing to a crawl or ending up in a TPK.


----------



## Brecht (Jun 4, 2008)

Minions vs a player character at low levels.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 4, 2008)

Obryn said:
			
		

> I agree - it's tough to wrap my head around mammoth minions, or for that matter huge minions of any kind.




I'm joking, but do you think that Legolas was shooting an oliphaunt minion in the Return of the King movie


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

Brecht said:
			
		

> Minions vs a player character at low levels.




Well, that is a cinematic fight that at least supports my proposed houserule where minions go often go down in 1 to 3 successful hits, not 1 for every one. Thanks.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

ryryguy said:
			
		

> Hey KarinsDad, please, I was not trying to attack you at all.
> 
> As for suggesting that you just use a regular monster instead of a tough minion: It just seems that if your Tough minion no longer goes down in one hit, and you have to roll damage for them like a regular monster, you've taken two big steps back towards it being a regular monster.  It seemed your main goal was to hide the "minionness" of  the standard minions which I think you could do equally well with a regular monster.  Thus my inquiry about what the Tough minion adds because I honestly though a regular monster would serve just as well.  No snark intended.




Well, thanks for being a straight up guys. I apologize for getting frustrated when the nth person told me to ignore my houserule because the main rule is better. The main rule has definite pros, but I see cons with it, at least for my game, as well.

And for 2 successful attacks out of 3, what you said is correct. In order to hide minionness, the players have to roll the damage dice once for a Regular Minion and twice for a Tough Minion.

But remember, a Tough Minion is worth 2 Weak Minions XP-wise. That means, it will not be used in every minion fight. So although the players have to roll the damage dice against it twice, I do not have 2 Weak Minions to roll to hits (and damage using this) in this system, I only have 1 Tough one (if I balance out the encounter XP-wise). So, sure there are some additional dice rolls, but to me, that's no big deal. And, the players never have to roll dice on the killing blow against Regular and Tough Minions like they often have to do with regular monsters. So, these minions still have some mechanical advantages over regular monsters.

I still gain the advantage of not adding or subtracting hit points with the minions. I still gain the advantage of Weak Minions falling over. The Minions still save dice rolls for the most part overall compared to regular monsters and the minions still allow me to throw 10 monsters at the PCs. So, I still gain some advantages of the core rule.

For a slight cost, I gain many of the advantages of minions, but do not have what I consider some of the larger disadvantages.

Note: I will probably also throw one or two Regular Minions in every 2 or 3 minion battles and a Tough Minion in every 3 to 5 minion battles. It will not be an every minion battle type thing. Just enough to keep the players from absolutely knowing that if a monster can take a single hit, that it is not a minion.


That fact that I now have two more monster Roles to use in my game system is a good thing, not a bad thing. I am not forced to use them in any given encounter. I'll just make sure I use them is some encounters, just like any other monster Role in the MM.

Basically, I view this as an advantage over DMs who limit themselves to the standard minion rules. At least, IMO.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 4, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm joking, but do you think that Legolas was shooting an oliphaunt minion in the Return of the King movie



Ha!

You know, there's something to that.


KarinsDad - I think your 'tough minions' houserule has some promise.  I probably won't use it, but I don't think there's anything inherently broken in it.

-O


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 4, 2008)

The only thing close to an exploit with minions is PCs avoiding the use of encounter or daily powers. Conversely the PCs probably want to use per encounter powers on non-minions right away to get the benefit of ongoing damage and conditions for as long as possible.

The trick for the devious DM here is to vary your monster descriptions so that it isn't immediately obvious which are minions. For example even though the rules say all minions of type X have clubs and leather armour, you can mix things up by giving some spears, flails, maces, scimitars, hide or chain armour and so forth. Of course they still have the exact same stats, but the players aren't to know that.

Or if you really want to confuse the players, give them studded leather, broad swords and fauchard-forks. Hax!


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 4, 2008)

The oliphant wasn't a minion, it was a walking skill challenge.

Challenge: Get to the oliphant's Secret Weak Spot, and shoot it in the brain.  6/4.
Relevant skills: Athletics, Acrobatics, Combat for when you shoot it in the brain.
Unusable skills: Diplomacy.  The raiders cannot be talked into allowing you to shoot their oliphant in the brain.  Consider instead shooting the raiders in the brain.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The only thing close to an exploit with minions is PCs avoiding the use of encounter or daily powers. Conversely the PCs probably want to use per encounter powers on non-minions right away to get the benefit of ongoing damage and conditions for as long as possible.




I can think of other exploits.

The DM throws 10 foes at the PCs. The players pretty much know that some of the foes are minions (either that, or the DM is throwing lower level oppoents at the PCs or is trying for a TPK which typically won't happen in most games).

So, since there are 10 foes, all 5 PCs throw a dagger (or other ranged attack) at 5 different NPCs. 3 hit and 2 of the 3 foes drop. Not only do the players gain the exploit of knowing that the one foe that did not drop is not a minion and can have encounter / daily powers thrown at him (as you state), they have also gotten some fairly cheap XP and changed the odds from 10 to 5, to 8 to 5.

They are using a tactic that they typically would not use if there were 4 foes coming at the PCs during the encounter.

The tactic should work the same regardless of number of foes, but the tactic works better against the larger group not because it is a good tactic in combat, but because the players can exploit the metagaming knowledge that minions exist in the game system and when minions are typically used in the game and how those minions are easily defeated.

Against 4 foes, the players can pretty much be sure that there probably are not any minions in the group, so they exploit that knowledge to use the different superior tactic of concentrating most of their attacks against a single foe (if their goal is to change the odds more into the PCs favor). And even if there were minions in the 4 foe encounter, the first PC who hits kills one, so the other PCs can concentrate on the rest of the foes. No gain, but no loss of using this tactic.


Another exploit. The player of the Fighter knows that Cleave works better when fighting 2 foes in the 10 foe case over the 4 foe case. The Fighter is still fighting 2 foes in both cases and there should be no differences, but the player knows that because of how the game is designed, his Cleave will often be more productive in that encounter type. That's an exploit.


Ditto for area effect attacks that might in the game system, be much more effective against groups of minions than groups without, even though the caster is using it against the same number of foes.


Knowledge is power. In this case, knowing that there are probably minions and knowing which are not minions is a great deal of metagaming power.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 4, 2008)

Obryn said:
			
		

> Kobolds and skeletons make perfect sense for low-level minions.  Other stuff makes sense for high-level minions.
> 
> That's why throwing a level 22 minion against a low-level party is almost nonsensical.  If a creature is that powerful, relative to the PCs, it should no longer be treated as a minion.
> -O




I was just thinking the about the same thing.  Minions seem to be an abbreviation of a game mechanic.  The game has an "expected" amount of damage from an attack made at a given level, and monsters have an "expected" amount of hit points at another given level.  When the chance of an "average" attack takes away all of the "expected" hit points at a given level (attacker) - level (defender) combination, the game dispenses with the detailed mechanics and declares that the attack automatically defeats the defender.

This means that "minion-ness" is definitely a property of a monster only in the context of a given attacker level - defender level combination.  With any other combination, a monster should not be a minion.

This gets us back to the "minions have 1 hp" statement, which I still think is very misleading, since it allows the minion to be used in a context (read, as a foe against level inappropriate attackers), and then a wackiness where a first level character can take out a level 22 minion with a single lucky hit.

Also, that suggests that for an "attack" to take out a minion, the attack must be doing the "average" amount for an attack at the attackers level.  That would preclude cleave from dropping minions.  (Here, the idea of having a minion save against the damage makes sense, and seems to be an effective and accurate mechanic.)

As a test, what is the experience value of a level 22 minion, and how does that compare with the amount of experience needed to level a first level character?  Can you imagine taking you first level character out to the "devil" observatory and taking pot-shots at the level 22 minion devels?  Any lucky hit takes one out and, presto! lots of cheap experience.  I very much don't think that is an intended use of minions and I do think that an attacker level - defender level restriction (even if currently unstated) must be observed.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 4, 2008)

That's only metagaming if you assume that PCs should not be able to look at a foe and visually estimate how tough he is.


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I can think of other exploits.
> 
> The DM throws 10 foes at the PCs. The players pretty much know that some of the foes are minions (either that, or the DM is throwing lower level oppoents at the PCs or is trying for a TPK which typically won't happen in most games).
> 
> So, since there are 10 foes, all 5 PCs throw a dagger (or other ranged attack) at 5 different NPCs. 3 hit and 2 of the 3 foes drop. Not only do the players gain the exploit of knowing that the one foe that did not drop is not a minion and can have encounter / daily powers thrown at him (as you state), they have also gotten some fairly cheap XP and changed the odds from 10 to 5, to 8 to 5.




You have very strange players.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, since there are 10 foes, all 5 PCs throw a dagger (or other ranged attack) at 5 different NPCs. 3 hit and 2 of the 3 foes drop. Not only do the players gain the exploit of knowing that the one foe that did not drop is not a minion and can have encounter / daily powers thrown at him (as you state), they have also gotten some fairly cheap XP and changed the odds from 10 to 5, to 8 to 5.
> 
> They are using a tactic that they typically would not use if there were 4 foes coming at the PCs during the encounter.



While I think your variable-toughness minions have some merit on their own, I really disagree that this is an exploit.

In context, I think it's always been easy for players to tell which opponents are "minions" even back when there weren't any minion rules.  It's just formalized now.  The players use this knowledge in their strategy.  Since lots of their powers are specifically-designed as minion-killers (and killing minions is fun), I don't see a loss.

I mean, when they see "12 goblins, all of whom have spears and leather armor; but one guy has better armor and a longsword," it's kind of self-evident, no matter the system.  I know I never bothered differentiating the nameless hordes from each other.

In rare circumstances when you want to keep them guessing... well, do so or just don't use the minion rules.

-O


----------



## Obryn (Jun 4, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> This means that "minion-ness" is definitely a property of a monster only in the context of a given attacker level - defender level combination.  With any other combination, a monster should not be a minion.



Exactly.



> As a test, what is the experience value of a level 22 minion, and how does that compare with the amount of experience needed to level a first level character?  Can you imagine taking you first level character out to the "devil" observatory and taking pot-shots at the level 22 minion devels?  Any lucky hit takes one out and, presto! lots of cheap experience.  I very much don't think that is an intended use of minions and I do think that an attacker level - defender level restriction (even if currently unstated) must be observed.



Well, I see no circumstances under which I'd ever award XP for random pot-shots at creatures who pose zero threat.

(I give session XP, not monster XP anyways - but even if I were giving monster XP, there's not a chance.)

But, in answer to your question, a level 22 minion is worth a quirky 1,038 xp.

-O


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 4, 2008)

Obryn said:
			
		

> Exactly.
> 
> Well, I see no circumstances under which I'd ever award XP for random pot-shots at creatures who pose zero threat.
> 
> ...




Ya, that is clearly a contrived circumstance.  I was trying to point out the consequences of ignoring the attacker level - minion level restrictions.  Having a level 22 minion attack a town, where the first lucky sling shot takes it out and instantly levels the attacker seems broken.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

Obryn said:
			
		

> While I think your variable-toughness minions have some merit on their own, I really disagree that this is an exploit.
> 
> In context, I think it's always been easy for players to tell which opponents are "minions" even back when there weren't any minion rules.  It's just formalized now.  The players use this knowledge in their strategy.  Since lots of their powers are specifically-designed as minion-killers (and killing minions is fun), I don't see a loss.




Actually, very few powers are specifically minion killers. Most powers are designed to work better against non-minions.

And even though players often knew who the mooks were in earlier versions, there was never a guarantee that a successful melee attack would auto-kill a mook. Mooks were not made of cardboard.


I consider this rule similar to the 3E Take 20 rule or the 3E Auto-Tumble rule (once a PC got to skill total 14) or the 3E/4E Aid Another rule.

I just dislike auto-x rules that automatically work every single time (and yes, I realize that there is a to hit roll, but that's not the point). I think they detract from the challenges and interactions of the game, and spoon feed players and result in forced player behaviors. I think the challenges in the game are more fun and more spontaneous when players do not think any given scenario or situation will automatically be successful. JMO.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I can think of other exploits.
> 
> The DM throws 10 foes at the PCs. The players pretty much know that some of the foes are minions (either that, or the DM is throwing lower level oppoents at the PCs or is trying for a TPK which typically won't happen in most games).
> 
> ...




From a personal perspective, I don't see this being unrealistic.  Back when I studied martial arts, I could size up an opponent pretty quickly, by the time the first few punches were thrown if not before.  You can see it in their eyes, their stance, the way they attack.  It's a necessary skill if you intend to do well when sparring (assuming one hasn't been burdened with an overabundence of natural talent in which case it's simply helpful).    And I'm no adventurer.

That 5 dagger tactic seems to me like it would be sub-par.  In return for a full round of the PCs attacks they dropped 2 minions and did minimal damage to a non-minion?  If I'm running the combat the remaining 8 will take up tactical flanking positions on the PCs (preferrably the less armored ones) and proceed to beat them senseless.  It's almost as good as giving the enemy a surprise round.  

Most characters should be using their at-will abilities on the first round, inflicting a reasonable amount of damage/ debuffs on them while feeling the enemy out.  The defenders should be getting in the grill of the biggest, meanest looking enemy they can see and marking them.  It's the wizard who should be trying to play "guess the minions" so they can burst their bubbles.  I admit that I haven't seen it attempted, but I can't see the 5 dagger opener being especially effective.

Of course the characters won't use it against the group of 4.  One of the assumptions of D&D (even moreso than in the past, it seems, in 4e) is that parties fight monsters that aren't too dangerous or too easy.  If anything, I'd say the metagame assumption is that when the party comes across 20 bandits or a BFD (big frikkin dragon) they initially assume they can win the fight, assuming the DM isn't dropping hints to make them think otherwise.  It's almost silly that, after stopping the BBEG's plans, he doesn't send some uber-monster to destroy the PCs (something 10 levels above them).  But, since it's a game and that wouldn't be fun, we assume that the BBEG is busy with other matters, or mortally incompetent/ arrogant, or what have you.

It's your game and I'm not trying to tell you how to play it.  I'm just somewhat doubtful that your "fix" will remedy the "problem".


----------



## hong (Jun 4, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> Ya, that is clearly a contrived circumstance.  I was trying to point out the consequences of ignoring the attacker level - minion level restrictions.  Having a level 22 minion attack a town, where the first lucky sling shot takes it out and instantly levels the attacker seems broken.



 The DM has full control over when and where minions appear. Quibbling about a level 22 minion attacking a town is like quibbling over 3E letting you build half-fiend vampire beholder barbarians. If you don't like the result when you push the system into a corner, don't push it there.


----------



## Lacyon (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I can think of other exploits.
> 
> The DM throws 10 foes at the PCs. The players pretty much know that some of the foes are minions (either that, or the DM is throwing lower level oppoents at the PCs or is trying for a TPK which typically won't happen in most games).
> 
> So, since there are 10 foes, all 5 PCs throw a dagger (or other ranged attack) at 5 different NPCs. 3 hit and 2 of the 3 foes drop. Not only do the players gain the exploit of knowing that the one foe that did not drop is not a minion and can have encounter / daily powers thrown at him (as you state), they have also gotten some fairly cheap XP and changed the odds from 10 to 5, to 8 to 5.




This is a non-exploit. Compare to Twin Attack, Cleave, or Scorching Burst.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> They are using a tactic that they typically would not use if there were 4 foes coming at the PCs during the encounter.




It is not a bad thing that tactics change when fighting different numbers of enemies. Rather, it is natural.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The tactic should work the same regardless of number of foes, but the tactic works better against the larger group not because it is a good tactic in combat, but because the players can exploit the metagaming knowledge that minions exist in the game system and when minions are typically used in the game and how those minions are easily defeated.




The tactic works against the larger group _less well_ than using the powers the characters have that are specifically designed to be used against multiple foes. It's a non-exploit.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Against 4 foes, the players can pretty much be sure that there probably are not any minions in the group, so they exploit that knowledge to use the different superior tactic of concentrating most of their attacks against a single foe (if their goal is to change the odds more into the PCs favor). And even if there were minions in the 4 foe encounter, the first PC who hits kills one, so the other PCs can concentrate on the rest of the foes. No gain, but no loss of using this tactic.




The PCs are still penalized in the 4-foe encounter if they use a Daily ability without doing a minion-check first.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Another exploit. The player of the Fighter knows that Cleave works better when fighting 2 foes in the 10 foe case over the 4 foe case. The Fighter is still fighting 2 foes in both cases and there should be no differences, but the player knows that because of how the game is designed, his Cleave will often be more productive in that encounter type. That's an exploit.




Another non-exploit. The entire point of Cleave is to mow down minions.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Ditto for area effect attacks that might in the game system, be much more effective against groups of minions than groups without, even though the caster is using it against the same number of foes.




Except that a) the caster is very unlikely to be using it against the same number of foes when twice as many are on the board and b) characters that have a lot AoEs tend to be better off using them over single-target attacks as soon as they can get even 2 guys into range anyway.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Knowledge is power. In this case, knowing that there are probably minions and knowing which are not minions is a great deal of metagaming power.




It's only metagaming if a) you believe characters should be unable to estimate the relative strength of their opponents and b) you always follow the encounter guidelines strictly (never a horde of normal monsters nor a small group of minions).


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Well, that is a cinematic fight that at least supports my proposed houserule where minions go often go down in 1 to 3 successful hits, not 1 for every one. Thanks.



I have to completely disagree.
Those were a bunch of 1 hit minions, that went down as soon as they'd taken a solid blow.
Repeated blows were necessary on four occasions because he didn't (quite) hit their defenses the first time.  But none of those thugs really had anything resembling his ability to take many hits.
They were, however, good enough to hit him and survive a few attacks by him.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

ValhallaGH said:
			
		

> I have to completely disagree.
> Those were a bunch of 1 hit minions, that went down as soon as they'd taken a solid blow.
> Repeated blows were necessary on four occasions because he didn't (quite) hit their defenses the first time.  But none of those thugs really had anything resembling his ability to take many hits.
> They were, however, good enough to hit him and survive a few attacks by him.




You couldn't tell I was being facetious?

It's really silly when people seriously try to compare movies to DND game mechanics in order to support or not support a given set of rules. I LMAO every single time someone does that.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Knowledge is power.



Exactly.



> In this case, knowing that there are probably minions and knowing which are not minions is a great deal of metagaming power.



Knowledge of opponents gained during battle through direct observation and interaction shouldn't be labeled 'metagaming'. Begs the question, 'what's actual gaming then?'

And your example w/the knife-throwers shows how a combat _should_ work. The PC combatants start with the opportunity to use ranged weapons. Great. Take it. It's safer than rushing in, and this being 4e, a dagger can actual _stop_ someone. So the PC's toss daggers --you should think of this as the PC's trying to kill their targets, not test for minionhood-- and the inexperienced attackers fall. Fine. That leaves the veterans who close for melee...

How is this bad, again?  

Observe the enemy, react accordingly. It's practical Sun Tzu, mate. Reading the DM's notes, now _that's_ metagaming.


----------



## BartD (Jun 4, 2008)

*Death save*

Disclamer: I haven't read the whole thread (more like 10 first+last posts) so thin mayalready  have been suggested.

I am not sure I like the "always goes down when hit" thing so I have considered giving minions a "death save" to avoid dying when damaged. On average, that will let minions survive about one hit, but the most important thing is that it will introduce some uncertainty without requiring any bookkeeping. I suppose the XP value should be something like +50% since durability is roughly doubled while offense in unchanged.

Anyway, if "always goes down when hit" turns out to be a problem in my games, this is probably what I will do. It should certainly be a lot simpler than hitpoints.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

BartD said:
			
		

> Disclamer: I haven't read the whole thread (more like 10 first+last posts) so thin mayalready  have been suggested.
> 
> I am not sure I like the "always goes down when hit" thing so I have considered giving minions a "death save" to avoid dying when damaged. On average, that will let minions survive about one hit, but the most important thing is that it will introduce some uncertainty without requiring any bookkeeping. I suppose the XP value should be something like +50% since durability is roughly doubled while offense in unchanged.
> 
> Anyway, if "always goes down when hit" turns out to be a problem in my games, this is probably what I will do. It should certainly be a lot simpler than hitpoints.




I considered this, but the problem I see with it is that if the goal of the DM is to obscure the "players know he's a minion vs. know he's not a minion" line (like it is for me), this forces the DM to roll saves for every monster on every hit, even if he is ignoring the information and even if there are no minions in the group.

If the issue for the DM is just that minions are made out of paper and the DM does not care if the players know whether a given NPC is a minion or not, then this solution would work ok and be fairly quick (although it is possible to make 8 saves in a roll, turning it into Super Minion).


----------



## Samurai (Jun 4, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> From a personal perspective, I don't see this being unrealistic.  Back when I studied martial arts, I could size up an opponent pretty quickly, by the time the first few punches were thrown if not before.  You can see it in their eyes, their stance, the way they attack.  It's a necessary skill if you intend to do well when sparring (assuming one hasn't been burdened with an overabundence of natural talent in which case it's simply helpful).    And I'm no adventurer.
> 
> That 5 dagger tactic seems to me like it would be sub-par.  In return for a full round of the PCs attacks they dropped 2 minions and did minimal damage to a non-minion?  If I'm running the combat the remaining 8 will take up tactical flanking positions on the PCs (preferrably the less armored ones) and proceed to beat them senseless.  It's almost as good as giving the enemy a surprise round.
> 
> ...




As a player of a 3.5 character who has significant AoE powers, playing in a group where everyone else is a melee combatant, I've found that if you don't let loose with your big AoE power in round 1, chances are you're going to be hitting your allies too.  Which means you don't have time to determine who is and isn't a minion, because like you said, on round 2 they are surrounding you.  

Really, from an in-game perspective, if 8 size Large Cyclops are rushing at you, there is about 6 seconds until they get to you and your friends, are you going to fire of a little at will power because as a player you know they must be minions, or are you going to let loose with your Daily power in the only opportunity you'll have without blasting your party as well, hoping to at least scare off the brutes before they pound you to mush?

And, what if you thought they were minions and they weren't?  The GM may have set up a very challenging fight for the party, using the assumption that the big AoE on round 1 would significantly weaken the opponents.  But everyone assumed they were just minions, and so wasted a round just doing at wills!  By the time they realized these were real foes, not minions, it was too late for the big guns because they'd closed to melee range.  If there were some way before Epic levels to exclude allies from AoE, it would be much less of a problem (though you still basically wasted a round of attacks using the popguns instead of the big guns, which means you might as well have given them a full extra round of attacks...)

What this means is that I will not be shocked at all if a significant number of Wizards (and others) use their big Daily powers expecting a tough battle aginst numerous foes, only to have them drop like flies.  And to have other instances where players guess they are minions when they aren't, and waste a round doing at wills and minor attacks instead of pulling out the big gun to soften them up before they get to melee range.


----------



## Korgoth (Jun 4, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Can I just say that though there have been a number of decent minion explanations and clarifications floated in this thread, I for one thought that Korgoth's first post on this issue was really really cool and I'm sad that it didn't get more appreciation.
> 
> Thank-you Korgoth, initial anger at narrativism aside, that was an excellent way to read the rules and I'm happy to have seen it.
> 
> Also, I'd like to add that I, for one, would like to welcome our new Dragon Minion overlords.




Thanks!  I'm glad it helped.

I had the advantage of having started my own Minion MegaThread and giving some serious thought to the ideas therein.  There were a number of interesting posts; Charwoman Gene in particular had a very thought-provoking entry that more or less turned on the lightbulb for me.

Ultimately I think the rule will work out just fine.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> After some thought on the issues, I came up with the mechanic that I will be using.
> 
> I will introduce:
> 
> ...




I was thinking that might not be a bad solution myself. 

One thing about mooks in some other games - they aren't necessarily 1-hittable. In Star Wars d20, they had just wounds, no vitality. That meant they crumpled relatively fast but might be able to take 2-3 hits. In MM, they fall if they fail their damage save (skipping the bruise and stun results), not just if they get hit once. It might be once, or if they're supremely lucky, it might take several hits. In Feng Shui, mooks have to be hit "well enough" as I recall, a fairly easy task but not a given when hitting the mook.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 4, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> The DM has full control over when and where minions appear. Quibbling about a level 22 minion attacking a town is like quibbling over 3E letting you build half-fiend vampire beholder barbarians. If you don't like the result when you push the system into a corner, don't push it there.




Hi,

Not a quibble, just a scenario that would be a problem.

I think we are in agreement that minions should be used within certain guidelines, and that they break down when used outside of those guidelines.  (And that, when used outside of the guidelines, there are undesirable results.)

I created the scenario to illustrate my point, which is that there *are* restrictions (or call them guidelines) on where and how minions should be used.

(I am surprised that the monster manual and dungeon master's guide do not have an explicit guideline, something to the effect: "Minions are tailored to a specific encounter level.  Do not use a minion for an encounter when the average party level is more than X different than the minion level.")


----------



## BartD (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I considered this, but the problem I see with it is that if the goal of the DM is to obscure the "players know he's a minion vs. know he's not a minion" line (like it is for me), this forces the DM to roll saves for every monster on every hit, even if he is ignoring the information and even if there are no minions in the group.
> 
> If the issue for the DM is just that minions are made out of paper and the DM does not care if the players know whether a given NPC is a minion or not, then this solution would work ok and be fairly quick (although it is possible to make 8 saves in a roll, turning it into Super Minion).



Actually, I just thought of a similar but even simpler mechanic that will also solve "players know he's a minion vs. know he's not a minion" line: Even attack rolls kill, odd ones do not. If the players catch on, you switch. Or don't. Or switch next round. Or switch for each attack. Or switch after a hit. Or switch when you feel like it. Or when ...
- Just remember to scribble something as you would do on a regular hit. If your players metagame like that (and you mind their metagaming), you'll have to act exactly as if they hit a non-minion.

Personally, I'm not very concerned with metagaming players (as a 3e5 DM, I make all rolls openly) so I won't have to "switch". Unless I feel like it. Or not.  
[I think it's ok for their characters to discount an enemy who misses on a 19 or be afraid of an enemy who rolls 4d10 for damage even if I only roll a 10.]


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The DM throws 10 foes at the PCs. The players pretty much know that some of the foes are minions (either that, or the DM is throwing lower level oppoents at the PCs or is trying for a TPK which typically won't happen in most games).



Alright...I'm not sure why this is bad.  I, personally, want the players to make tactical decisions based on this sort of information.


			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, since there are 10 foes, all 5 PCs throw a dagger (or other ranged attack) at 5 different NPCs. 3 hit and 2 of the 3 foes drop. Not only do the players gain the exploit of knowing that the one foe that did not drop is not a minion and can have encounter / daily powers thrown at him (as you state), they have also gotten some fairly cheap XP and changed the odds from 10 to 5, to 8 to 5.



Again, this is exactly what the system is designed to do.  Give players who think tactically the ability to gain benefit.  It is also designed to give those with area of effect attacks an advantage over those without them.


			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The tactic should work the same regardless of number of foes, but the tactic works better against the larger group not because it is a good tactic in combat, but because the players can exploit the metagaming knowledge that minions exist in the game system and when minions are typically used in the game and how those minions are easily defeated.



Ok, you lose me here.  This isn't metagaming knowledge.  Most creatures die when you hit them with a dagger.  Most creatures die when they get hit with a fireball.  It should be a default expectation that they will die.  When a creature doesn't die, they are obviously very tough, lucky, skilled, etc.  They are very dangerous and should be treated as such.

The more creatures there are the more efficient using an AoE attack is.  This is true whether they are minions or not.  Yes, it is fairly easy to "game the system" and look at the number of enemies and decide that some of them must be minions according to rules of D&D.

But whether you know there are minions out there or not doesn't matter.


			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Another exploit. The player of the Fighter knows that Cleave works better when fighting 2 foes in the 10 foe case over the 4 foe case. The Fighter is still fighting 2 foes in both cases and there should be no differences, but the player knows that because of how the game is designed, his Cleave will often be more productive in that encounter type. That's an exploit.



That's not an exploit, that's tactics.  An exploit is gaining more advantage than the rules intended you to have.  The rules have been designed from the ground up intending for people to have this knowledge.  Otherwise Cleave would be a very bad power if you had to constantly use it on everyone in the hopes that this time they'd be a minion.


			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Knowledge is power. In this case, knowing that there are probably minions and knowing which are not minions is a great deal of metagaming power.



But it's power they were meant to have.  During my discussions with the R&D team at DDXP, I can tell you that at least a number of them told me that minions should be readily identifiable as minions immediately.  They are the 4 guards dressed exactly alike, carrying the same weapons.  They are non-descript orcs with axes as opposed to the one who is bigger and stronger and wearing different armor.  In the same way that nearly everyone who watched Star Wars knew that the Stormtroopers were the minions, players should know which of the monsters are minions as well.

Minions have a tactical purpose in the game: Delay the PCs and provide a road block to get to the monsters with the real powers in the back.  They provide that benefit whether the players know they are minions or not.  Either way, they have to spend attacks getting rid of them.  If players are smart and use their powers effectively, they might decide to use an AoE as opposed to taking them out individually.

However, daily powers are supposed to make a difference, they aren't supposed to be used on minions accidentally when you didn't know what they were.  It ruins the entire tactical element of the game to have players guessing randomly about what a monster is.


----------



## Benimoto (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I will introduce:
> 
> Weak Minions: 1 hit to kill (minions in MM)
> Regular Minions: 2 hits to kill
> Tough Minions: 3 hits to kill



I'm not a big fan.  Minions work inconsistently with the way HP works in general, but it works when they only take one hit.  When they take multiple hits, you're setting up an entire system parallel but counter to HP.  Minions already destabilize the hit point concept and letting them take more than one hit where hit points aren't tracked is a step too far in my book.

I think if you want a monster to take more than one hit, then using a real monster is the answer.  As others have mentioned, a monster 4 levels lower than the party is worth the same XP as 2 minions, and is usually just as dangerous.  If there's a place in the system for a "tough minion", it's very narrow.

And I agree with the others saying that it's difficult to see how minions work on paper, having only the experiences of previous D&D versions to guide you.  No plan survives contact with the enemy, and I'm guessing that most "metagaming" strategies against minions will fare similarly.  In many of the encounters in Keep on the Shadowfell, the minions quickly engaged and nearly overwhelmed the party in the first few rounds of battle, until the party was able to cut back on their numbers.  Saving powers was not a winning strategy.

With the revised rules for charging in 4e as well as the looser movement costs, monsters can easily reach and attack the PCs as soon as they can act.  In other words, there's no "size-up round".  Instead, some of the PCs are nearly always fighting and being hurt before they even get an action.

To put it another way, in previous editions, PCs typically fought enemies only in numbers less than or equal to their own.  The action economy meant that as soon as the PCs dropped a monster or two, they gained control of the encounter unless they were being disabled at equal rates.  With minions, the equation changes.  Instead, PCs often fight enemy forces over twice their size in number.  The story value of minions is obvious, but the mechanical value to the so-called action economy is only slightly less so.  Anything that means using less minions undermines their entire reason for existing in the first place.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 4, 2008)

Samurai said:
			
		

> As a player of a 3.5 character who has significant AoE powers, playing in a group where everyone else is a melee combatant, I've found that if you don't let loose with your big AoE power in round 1, chances are you're going to be hitting your allies too.  Which means you don't have time to determine who is and isn't a minion, because like you said, on round 2 they are surrounding you.
> 
> Really, from an in-game perspective, if 8 size Large Cyclops are rushing at you, there is about 6 seconds until they get to you and your friends, are you going to fire of a little at will power because as a player you know they must be minions, or are you going to let loose with your Daily power in the only opportunity you'll have without blasting your party as well, hoping to at least scare off the brutes before they pound you to mush?
> 
> ...




Except that, unlike 3.5, 4e characters have significant resources to set the wizard up for the kill, so to speak, such as using forced movement powers.  It's much more of a team effort.

As the wizard in the example, my personal circumstances would determine my likely course of action.  Giants are paragon level monsters, so if my wizard is level 5, I'd likely run.  If my wizard is 15, I'd be tempted to open with an encounter, just in case.  If I'm level 25, an at-will.  It's a matter of relative power.

As a side-note, and I'm not saying you'd do this, but it seems a very newbish mistake to expect the wizard to balance the encounter by opening with his daily.  It's reasonable to expect him to use an area effect in that situation, but not to expect that he'd use his daily because using an at-will AoE is just as legitimate a tactic (feeling the situation out rather than charging forward with blind force).  Just like it would be reasonable to expect the fighter to engage the biggest, toughest looking enemy in melee, but not that he'd use Tide of Iron instead of Reaping Strike.  In that respect, it's not a very good example since you shouldn't see this happening in play.

I don't expect to see many players with good tactical sense opening very often with daily powers, not even wizards.  There are plenty of non-AoE wizards powers to choose from if the party doesn't feel like cooperating as well, so if you never get a chance to use AoEs because of your party don't take AoE daily powers.  Daily powers are for "oh crap!" situations.  If you blow them as the opener in a minor skirmish, you won't have them when you really need them.  Going nova is an acceptable (and extremely effective) tactic in 3.x, but much less so in 4e, since you don't have things like the everpresent rope trick and long range teleportation to ensure that you can rest immediately after.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I can think of other exploits.



Unfocused fire is not an exploit. In fact in D&D it's a bad tactic, if a single one of your opponents isn't a minion. If *all* foes are minions then it's no worse than focused fire because it ends up being identical. But does attacking until your foe goes down, then stopping, really count as a tactic or is it merely sanity?

Focused fire - Good tactic, probably the most basic in the D&D system. Not an exploit.
Cleave/AoE - Their whole purpose is to work better against multiple foes. Minionhood is irrelevant. Again, not an exploit.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

BartD said:
			
		

> Actually, I just thought of a similar but even simpler mechanic that will also solve "players know he's a minion vs. know he's not a minion" line: Even attack rolls kill, odd ones do not. If the players catch on, you switch. Or don't. Or switch next round. Or switch for each attack. Or switch after a hit. Or switch when you feel like it. Or when ...
> - Just remember to scribble something as you would do on a regular hit. If your players metagame like that (and you mind their metagaming), you'll have to act exactly as if they hit a non-minion.




Thanks. I like this suggestion a lot. It's easy to switch if they catch on by rolling a random D6, odd = odd and even = even. And, it makes sense to roll the D6 to make it random at the start of any combat with minions in it (and to use your switch each hit suggestion). Course, this suggestion requires that the DM is able to see the dice at a distance and this is not always feasible. So in those cases, I might roll a quick D6 secretly to determine if it killed or not.

And it's not really that my players metagame so much (although they do take advantage of rules when they can), it's that the rules allow for such metagaming that bugs me.  



			
				BartD said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm not very concerned with metagaming players (as a 3e5 DM, I make all rolls openly) so I won't have to "switch". Unless I feel like it. Or not.
> [I think it's ok for their characters to discount an enemy who misses on a 19 or be afraid of an enemy who rolls 4d10 for damage even if I only roll a 10.]




Precisely. I do the same thing.

I have a few real smart players though that do find game loopholes. As an example, one of my players about 5 years ago moved his Druid away from a Giant, took the AoO and the damage, then moved back and Cured the fallen Cleric because he knew that his odds of curing the Cleric were less than 100% if he either Cast Defensively or cast when taking damage from an AoO, but probably 100% chance of success if he did it the way he did (he also strongly suspected that Giants would not have Combat Reflexes and even if the Giant did, he was full up at the time on hit points and the worse that would happen is that he took some extra damage).

Regardless of some people saying that this was in character decision making, it's really metagaming driven player decision making. The PC would not know that this is a way to make Curing 100% safe, but the player did.


----------



## xjermx (Jun 4, 2008)

If you want to do minions, but want them to be "tougher", but still do not want to have to keep up with paperwork, give them a d20 range that will drop them.  Every time someone hits one of them, roll a d20, if its in x through y range, the minion is done.  Otherwise, its still up.  example: your minions are up on 1-5, so every time one takes a hit, a d20 is rolled.  1-5, the minion is still up and fighting, 6-20, its down.  No bookkeeping.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> To put it another way, in previous editions, PCs typically fought enemies only in numbers less than or equal to their own.  The action economy meant that as soon as the PCs dropped a monster or two, they gained control of the encounter unless they were being disabled at equal rates.  With minions, the equation changes.  Instead, PCs often fight enemy forces over twice their size in number.  The story value of minions is obvious, but the mechanical value to the so-called action economy is only slightly less so.  Anything that means using less minions undermines their entire reason for existing in the first place.




In our games, the PCs were outnumbered by 2 to 1 in at least 25% of all battles (as DM, I must like big battles because I do it quite often, I guess I like the fact that it appears more threatening than it might actually be and it adds an element of serious risk and challenge).

The reason that the PCs often survived is: a) many of the opponents were not spell casters in those situations (just like 4E minions with few or no special powers), b) the PCs had multiple spellcasters to heal, do crowd control, to damage multiple enemies with one attack, etc. (just like 4E), c) the mook types did not have as many magical items to assist (just like 4E), and d) the mook types were often 1 or 2 levels lower than the PCs (the slightly lower levels of 3E was replaced with 1 hit point paper targets in 4E).

We've had battles with as many as 25 or 30 opponents (I think our max was 42 or some such, but such large battles tend to come in waves over several rounds) against 5 or 6 PCs in 3E. We've often had battles where the battle spilled into a different area with more enemies or where nearby enemies were alerted and came to investigate.

All of this worked in 3E. The advantage of the minion rules in 4E is not so much that it allows large battles. Being outnumbered happened in many 3E combats. The advantage of the minion rules is that it's less bookkeeping for the DM and allows for more "same level" opponents. The offense of the mooks increased slightly, but the defense (i.e. hit points, the last bastion of defense in damaging combat) went right out the door.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> We've had battles with as many as 25 or 30 opponents (I think our max was 42 or some such, but such large battles tend to come in waves over several rounds) against 5 or 6 PCs in 3E. We've often had battles where the battle spilled into a different area with more enemies or where nearby enemies were alerted and came to investigate.
> 
> All of this worked in 3E. The advantage of the minion rules in 4E is not so much that it allows large battles. Being outnumbered happened in many 3E combats. The advantage of the minion rules is that it's less bookkeeping for the DM and allows for more "same level" opponents. The offense of the mooks increased slightly, but the defense (i.e. hit points, the last bastion of defense in damaging combat) went right out the door.



You could do the exact same thing with the 4e rules if you want. A 6th level party versus 40 goblin warriors (level 1 skirmishers, not minions) in two waves of 20 would work I think though it would definitely be difficult. 20 level 1s = 2000xp, equivalent to a level 9 challenge. And it would have the added benefit of befuddling your metagaming players who would no doubt expect the horde to be minions.

Minions give you another option, they don't take anything away. Well, except space in the MM.


----------



## Blackeagle (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> In our games, the PCs were outnumbered by 2 to 1 in at least 25% of all battles (as DM, I must like big battles because I do it quite often, I guess I like the fact that it appears more threatening than it might actually be and it adds an element of serious risk and challenge).




I don't think you're alone in that.  In fact, one of things the 4e designers talked about in one of the podcasts was that level appropriate encounters in 3e were pretty boring.  An appropriate 3e encounter was one baddie of about your level, two of your level -2, or four or your level -4, etc.  These encounters weren't that interesting tactically since you either outnumbered your enemies or were significantly more powerful.  None of these were particularly challenging, unless this was the 4th or so encounter of the day and your resources were running low.  This gives you the standard 15 minute adventuring day: three easy encounters and one hard one.

Since level appropriate encounters kind of sucked, what a lot of DMs did was to up the ante.  Going for a single, more powerful creature could be kind of swingy if you get too many levels above the party level, so most DMs incresed the intrest/difficulty by adding more opponents of the character's level or slightly lower.  From your description this seems to be what you were doing.  This produced an encounter with a lot more tactical possibilities and difficult enough to actually challenge the players without being too swingy.  The problem is that since these encounters are well above the standard difficulty level, they eat up most of a party's available resources, turning the 15 minute adventuring day into the 2 minute adventuring day.

So one of the designer's major goals with 4e was to provide interesting, challenging combats with lots of opponents that players could confront several of per day.  A lot of the design features in 4e seem to be related to this: the new encounter design system of course, the way monsters are designed including minions, encounter and at-will powers, the way action points are gained and spent, healing surges and second winds, etc.


----------



## Henry (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> All of this worked in 3E. The advantage of the minion rules in 4E is not so much that it allows large battles. Being outnumbered happened in many 3E combats. The advantage of the minion rules is that it's less bookkeeping for the DM and allows for more "same level" opponents. The offense of the mooks increased slightly, but the defense (i.e. hit points, the last bastion of defense in damaging combat) went right out the door.




To me, it didn't work because of the DM bookeeping; I wound up resolving mooks similarly to the way 4e does now -- one hit kills them. I'm still not seeing a sufficient downside to the minion rules for me not to include them, other than for a mechanically aesthetic reason.


----------



## IanB (Jun 4, 2008)

So, can someone explain to me why it is a bad thing for players to know which ones are the minions?

I think that's the concept I'm just not getting here. The game seems specifically designed to encourage players to use anti-minion abilities against minions, so how is it metagaming when they do?


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jun 4, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> All of this worked in 3E. The advantage of the minion rules in 4E is not so much that it allows large battles. Being outnumbered happened in many 3E combats. The advantage of the minion rules is that it's less bookkeeping for the DM and allows for more "same level" opponents. The offense of the mooks increased slightly, but the defense (i.e. hit points, the last bastion of defense in damaging combat) went right out the door.




But there is still AC.  In 3.x If you wanted to have large battles, as you stated above, they had to be weak.  Minions fix that in that they allow you to have battles against a large amount of foes and have it not be a cake walk.

A standard monster is supposed to go down in 4 hits.  Minions serve the same exact function, except that instead of getting hurt, they die off.  

BTW, personally, I dont mind your idea of harder to kill minions.  I do however think that when you start to get to the 3 hits to kill minion you are essentially talking about a normal monster, albeit one that is of lower level to the party (3 hits as opposed to 4).  What I have been doing in my campaign for when I want minions to last a bit longer is that I am increasing their level, or just using minions with higher levels.  A higher AC means that they are in the combat longer.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jun 4, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> So, can someone explain to me why it is a bad thing for players to know which ones are the minions?
> 
> I think that's the concept I'm just not getting here. The game seems specifically designed to encourage players to use anti-minion abilities against minions, so how is it metagaming when they do?




The same way that its metagaming when you try to figure out a normal monsters stats while you are fighting it.  Everyone does it, and yeah sure you can just say that its your character working it out, etc. but its still pretty metagamie (?).

With regards to minions, there are specific campaign reasons, at least in the campaign that I am working on, where I dont wan the PC to know that the minions are minions.  In the first encounter there are going to be I think 10 monsters, and its going to pretty obvious that most of them are minions.  However later on there is going to be an encounter, and there are a few minions in it, but I dont want to be immediately obvious.  Personally I think I have succeded in hiding the minions because there are less minions then there are other monsters, so there is less of a chance that the PCs will come across a minion, and therefor less chance that they will think any given mob will be a minion, but then again I guess I will have to just wait and see how it works out.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 4, 2008)

IanB said:
			
		

> So, can someone explain to me why it is a bad thing for players to know which ones are the minions?
> 
> I think that's the concept I'm just not getting here. The game seems specifically designed to encourage players to use anti-minion abilities against minions, so how is it metagaming when they do?




I don't know about anybody else, but it potentially redlines my corny meter. I keep having flashes of the Batman TV series, in which the thugs of the main villain were always easily identifiable. They might as well all wear t-shirts saying "Minion #".

In some games and modes of playing, like in Feng Shui, the mook rules make some sense to me. But then the game is consciously about action theater, the more outlandish the better. The game becomes, substantially, describing fanciful action while unleashing the 'carnival of carnage' on the mooks. But not every game is nor should be Feng Shui. Some games should focus less on over-the-top action and more on the world from the PC's point of view, where the metagame differences between minions and named characters/boss monsters/solo monsters should be not so obvious.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 4, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> But not every game is nor should be Feng Shui. Some games should focus less on over-the-top action and more on the world from the PC's point of view, where the metagame differences between minions and named characters/boss monsters/solo monsters should be not so obvious.



D&D's changed a bit, it's more cinematic than it used to be. OD&D->3e = not cinematic at all. Eberron however is explicitly so, modelling itself partly on Indiana Jones, with rules (action points) that are intended to support cinematic action, though whether they do is another matter. The minion rules are the outstanding example of how 4e has become more cinematic, more like Feng Shui.

Yes I know, it's also an mmorpg, anime, ccg, boardgame and Rifts. Yes.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 4, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> D&D's changed a bit, it's more cinematic than it used to be. OD&D->3e = not cinematic at all. Eberron however is explicitly so, modelling itself partly on Indiana Jones, with rules (action points) that are intended to support cinematic action, though whether they do is another matter. The minion rules are the outstanding example of how 4e has become more cinematic, more like Feng Shui.




Agreed.

However, regardless of how the game is played, earlier versions had definitive statements that the players could not just say "I target the leader with Hold Person". The player had to say which NPC he wanted to target.

In 4E, there appears to be this hand waving of "Oh, go ahead, tell the player which NPC is the leader so that he can cast Hold Person on him". It gets back to the player entitlement issue that some people dislike.

Some people consider it cinematic license. Others consider it metagaming.


----------



## Xyl (Jun 4, 2008)

xjermx said:
			
		

> If you want to do minions, but want them to be "tougher", but still do not want to have to keep up with paperwork, give them a d20 range that will drop them.  Every time someone hits one of them, roll a d20, if its in x through y range, the minion is done.  Otherwise, its still up.  example: your minions are up on 1-5, so every time one takes a hit, a d20 is rolled.  1-5, the minion is still up and fighting, 6-20, its down.  No bookkeeping.



It's even simpler to just use the same d20 for the attack roll and the roll to see if they survive. If the roll is 1-8, the minion stays up, if it's 9-20 the minion goes down.

In other words, do it exactly like the RAW.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 5, 2008)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> I'm with Andor on this.
> 
> I have no problem with skeleton minions (or the like) because a skeleton can reasonable have 1 hit point (assuming it is 1 hd skeleton) - but I have a harder time wrapping my head around things like "giant minions", unless I happened to be playing Thor or somehing.



But that's exactly it! At 25th level, you *are* "Thor or something"! You're on the path to being a _deity_ for heaven's sake! A piddly little hill giant is nothing but a speedbump to a demigod. A hill giant king and his elite guard might present a challenge, but the rank and file are going to fall like wheat before the scythe.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jun 5, 2008)

Sorry for repeating myself, but I like the idea of PCs wading through hordes of zombies, or skeletons, or whatever, slaying at will as they fight to save the day.  I don't think minions should be harder to kill--I just think that the power to kill them should be in the PCs hands, and not because an otherwise normal monster has a ludicrously small number of hp.

The "minion" signifier can and should be able to be applied to *any* creature in the game, (yes, dragons--Smaug--and yes, mammoths--LOTR), for story purposes/cinematic feel/etc., and would simply mean that when *only* a PC hits with a damage dealing attack, you apply a huge multiplier to the damage, (x10, 20, 50 or whatever).​
That way, the PCs are none the wiser about what foe is a minion and what foe is not, and DMs get their simple, no-hp-tracking battles.  All the DM has to do is add some flavor to describe the foe's death--"you capitalize on the orc's clumsy attack", or "the goblin slips on a smear of blood as you bring your axe down on its head", or "your arrow slips between the beasts armor-like scales and pierces its foul heart".


MrG


----------



## Lurker37 (Jun 5, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> However, regardless of how the game is played, earlier versions had definitive statements that the players could not just say "I target the leader with Hold Person". The player had to say which NPC he wanted to target.
> 
> ...




Others consider it simple observation.

Player: "Ok, I target the guy with the armoured guard each side of him. The guy shouting out all the orders."

DM: "What? How'd you figure out he was the leader?"

Player: "... You're joking, right?"

The PCs know there are minions because the encounter outnumbers the party.

The PCs can tell who the minions are because the minions are the first troops sent forwards, just like the expendable peasant infantry were the first ones sent forward in many medieval battles.  

If you continue on the theme of minions as expendable troops, minions will most likely have standard-issue equipment, because that's how you equip expendable infantry. It's cheaper, and  helps build a sense of esprit de corps. So there's real life precedent for minions to all look the same.

There's no metagaming.

Furthermore, making minions take more than one hit would mean you had to use less minions. Four minions dying in one hit each replace one standard monster who dies in four hits. If minions take two hits to kill, then two of them replace one standard monster. Three hits, and they might as well be a normal monster.

And the problem with requiring an odd or even roll to kill a minion is that 25% of the time minions will take three or more hits to kill, and it will not be uncommon for minions to require more than four hits, making them *tougher* than a standard monster. That's terrible design, and a possible TPK.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 5, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> Furthermore, making minions take more than one hit would mean you had to use less minions. Four minions dying in one hit each replace one standard monster who dies in four hits. If minions take two hits to kill, then two of them replace one standard monster. Three hits, and they might as well be a normal monster.



Incorrect. Four minions are far more dangerous than one monster that takes 4 hits to kill. The minions get 4 attacks every round. The single mob gets 1 attack every round.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 5, 2008)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Incorrect. Four minions are far more dangerous than one monster that takes 4 hits to kill. The minions get 4 attacks every round. The single mob gets 1 attack every round.




Minions generally deal less damage per hit than a single mob though.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 5, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> Others consider it simple observation.




I have no problem with it if the PCs make the observations. It's when the players make the observations based off of things like NPCs not dying due to a single successful attack or an NPC attacking and doing 6 points of damage without the DM rolling the dice.

This means that the observations is automatically made if the player metagames his PC.



			
				Lurker37 said:
			
		

> Player: "... You're joking, right?"
> 
> The PCs know there are minions because the encounter outnumbers the party.




"... You're joking, right?"

The PCs know nothing of the sort based on enemy numbers alone. The players know this information based on enemy numbers.



			
				Lurker37 said:
			
		

> The PCs can tell who the minions are because the minions are the first troops sent forwards, just like the expendable peasant infantry were the first ones sent forward in many medieval battles.




Why would this be the case every time? A smart leader sometimes sends in all of his troops to wipe out the PCs, he does not automatically allow the weaker ones to die. This weakens his power base.

Everything you wrote here is total conjecture whose sole purpose is to support the rules as written.

Rules metagaming as it were.



			
				Lurker37 said:
			
		

> And the problem with requiring an odd or even roll to kill a minion is that 25% of the time minions will take three or more hits to kill, and it will not be uncommon for minions to require more than four hits, making them *tougher* than a standard monster. That's terrible design, and a possible TPK.




Yup. That's why you make the minions 3 hits max. Give people a little credit. The rule is fine if used properly.

50% die in one hit, 25% die in 2 hits, and 25% die in 3 hits (on average). And, the odds of an earlier round attack killing the minion increases slightly if even numbers are picked since there is a chance that more even rolls will hit a given AC than odd ones. There is never a chance that more odd rolls with hit a given AC.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 5, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> Minions generally deal less damage per hit than a single mob though.




Not 25% of a single mob damage though.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jun 5, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Not 25% of a single mob damage though.




But with minions you have to make 4 attacks.  Its not 25% per hit, but theoretically it should work out that 4 minions do the same amount of damage as a single monsters of comparable level.  Now I say theoretically because I really dont want to do the math, so take it as you will.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jun 5, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> However, regardless of how the game is played, earlier versions had definitive statements that the players could not just say "I target the leader with Hold Person". The player had to say which NPC he wanted to target.
> 
> ...




On what basis do you make this claim?  The rules for identifying monsters in combat havent changed from 3.x.  If you see a big mob giving orders, he is the leader.  If you dont see a big mob giving orders, you dont know who the leader is, or even if there is one at all.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 5, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Well, that is a cinematic fight that at least supports my proposed houserule where minions go often go down in 1 to 3 successful hits, not 1 for every one. Thanks.




Did you watch the same video?

Almost every guy, certainly every guy who gets hit with the hammer, goes down in one hit.  And, every guy that goes down, goes down in one attack sequence.  None of them get up afterwards, except the fat guy at the end - one non-minion maybe?

I think you are fixating too much on the idea that one attack roll must be one and only one attack.  That D&D combat is simulationist.  It's not.  Never has been.  The video shows a perfect example of using minion rules, even if it doesn't line up 100% perfectly with the exact letter of the rules.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 5, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You couldn't tell I was being facetious?
> 
> It's really silly when people seriously try to compare movies to DND game mechanics in order to support or not support a given set of rules. I LMAO every single time someone does that.




Why?  One of the biggest inspiration for D&D games is movies. The further the rules are from allowing me to do that cool thing that I saw in a movie the worse the game is for me.  I'd much rather my game look like Indiana Jones than Civ 4.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> In our games, the PCs were outnumbered by 2 to 1 in at least 25% of all battles (as DM, I must like big battles because I do it quite often, I guess I like the fact that it appears more threatening than it might actually be and it adds an element of serious risk and challenge).
> 
> The reason that the PCs often survived is: a) many of the opponents were not spell casters in those situations (just like 4E minions with few or no special powers), b) the PCs had multiple spellcasters to heal, do crowd control, to damage multiple enemies with one attack, etc. (just like 4E), c) the mook types did not have as many magical items to assist (just like 4E), and d) the mook types were often 1 or 2 levels lower than the PCs (the slightly lower levels of 3E was replaced with 1 hit point paper targets in 4E).
> 
> ...




I've seen this claim a few times and I really have to wonder how you did it.

You say 6 PC's, so for a 2:1 fight, that's 12 critters.  Assume for a second a 10th level party.  We'll go very challenging and create an EL 14 fight.  That means you would have 12 CR 7 creatures.  Note, this is an overpowering fight and I should be killing PC's here.  CR 7 gives us Dire Tigers. 

Ok, a pride of dire tigers decends on the party.  They have an AC of 17 meaning the PC's pretty much never miss, but, 120 hp's each mean that they manage to stand up to 10th level fighter types for a round or two.  Saves range from 13 to 11, meaning the wizard is going to have an absolute field day.  However, at +20 attack, they aren't hitting the armored types at 10th level very often.  A couple of AC buffs and the armor types are giggling all day long.  And this is in an encounter that, by CR, should be overwhelming.  The party should be retreating from this.  However, because the baddies are so much weaker, not only is the party not running, they're pretty much able to ignore the challenge presented.

You say that minions get a "slight" offense bump.  That's simply not true.  They are getting a HUGE offense bump.  And, remember, it's not a 2:1 ratio, it's a FOUR :1 ratio.  That's four actions, as opposed to two.  And actions that have a reasonable chance of hurting the PC's, rather than wasting time at the table.

See, I've run those large combats as well.  And my experience has been the exact opposite of yours.  So, I'm wondering what you're doing that I'm not.  How are your groups acting as a challenge to the party?


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 5, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> But with minions you have to make 4 attacks.  Its not 25% per hit, but theoretically it should work out that 4 minions do the same amount of damage as a single monsters of comparable level.  Now I say theoretically because I really dont want to do the math, so take it as you will.




Actually, minion battles will often result in more damage shy of some special PC ability to take out multiple minions in a single round.

As an example, a first level Goblin Minion has AC 16, +5 to hit, and does 4 points of damage. 4 of them do a lot more damage per round than a first level Goblin Lurker (AC 16, +5 to hit, D6+2 damage) or a first level Goblin Skirmisher (AC 17, +6 to hit, D8+2 damage), even though these are consider equivalent encounters based on XP.

As an example, with a 40% chance to hit for the Minion, they average 1.6 points per round (each, including criticals which do not increase the damage), the Lurker averages 2.325 damage, and the Skirmisher averages 3.1 points of damage.

So if there are 4 minions, they will average 6.4 of damage on the first round (assuming they win initiative) whereas the other two average less damage. In a 1 PC vs. either 4 minions or 1 non-minion, the 4 minions will probably average about 30% to 40% more damage overall. Regardless of how quickly the PC can get rid of a given goblin foe, the damage ratio (this is a ratio, not a total of real damage) would be 6.4 + 4.8 + 3.2 + 1.6 vs. 2.325 + 2.325 + 2.325 + 2.325  or 3.1 + 3.1 + 3.1 + 3.1, or 16 vs. 9.3 vs. 12.4.

This is extremely rough estimating of these ratios with minions falling by the wayside quicker than non-minions, but basically valid (of course the skirmisher will take slightly longer to dispose of). And, there will be a lot of factors here, but the bottom line is that it will often take about the same amount of time to dispose of 4 minions as it does 1 non-minion, but there are typically 2 to 3 times as many overall attacks by the 4 minions for 50% to 65% of the damage of a single non-minion.

The counter for this increase in monster damage by minions over same XP non-minions is to have PCs kill multiple minions with a single power such as the Fighter's Cleave power.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 5, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why?  One of the biggest inspiration for D&D games is movies. The further the rules are from allowing me to do that cool thing that I saw in a movie the worse the game is for me.  I'd much rather my game look like Indiana Jones than Civ 4.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 It's interesting.  I also run lots of large combats in 3.5--this is advantaged by my ability to easily handle large masses of monsters by memory (in this sense, the minions rules wouldn't really help me).  It really can work in 3.5.  It's true that a high-AC character _could_ be ridiculous by level 10, but +20 to hit is usually going to do pretty well (and remember +2 from charge) against most level 10 characters.  

I recently ran a finale at the end of the term for my group of seven gestalt-balanced PCs with an NPC along for the ride (so 8 characters), and ironically, adjusted for being gestalt, etc, they are exactly ECL 10.  They fought 35 powerful beasts, followed quickly by a gargantuan and deadly Shadowtainted Corrupted ooze and then a Mahou Tsukai and his two Oni bodyguards.  

It's true that the 35 beasts were the easiest encounter for them, but that was by design--it was meant to be a welcome party to a very unhospitable environment while still showing the PCs that even though most people would die here almost immediately, the PCs were awesome and could handle it.  The beasts still caused the party significant headache and enough losses of spells and HP to matter, as I expected, and it gave the people with AoE a field day, which was good because I knew they wouldn't have as much use on the other two encounters.  

I had created a slightly more advanced version of the 35 creature ambush that would have been a major setback for the party.  Some of the characters have 24+ in Dex (one has both 24 in Wis and 22 in Dex and adds both to AC), and still no one had better than 28 AC with buffs up.  Dire Tigers are still a threat to some of the party members when they go solo, although these enemies were not Dire Tigers, and I know this, ironically, because there is a party meme forming where a member who is close to leveling up will search out a Dire Tiger and try to solo it (so far, the Wu Jen barely won when his Earth Spirit Familiar dealt the finishing blow, and the Martial Artist and Ninja both had to flee at 1 HP).  They don't weather a full pounce too well.  Make the Dire Tiger Fiendish, and now the Wu Jen can't beat it either (due to Fire Resistance).


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 5, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why?  One of the biggest inspiration for D&D games is movies. The further the rules are from allowing me to do that cool thing that I saw in a movie the worse the game is for me.  I'd much rather my game look like Indiana Jones than Civ 4.




I won't bother to debate this. But, using movies to justify rules is silly because people can rationalize anything. One person can justify that a rule is bad using the same movie that another person uses to justify that the same rule is good.

Rules are good or bad based on what they accomplish with respect to having fun in the game. And the same rule can be good for one game and bad for another.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I've seen this claim a few times and I really have to wonder how you did it.
> 
> ...
> 
> See, I've run those large combats as well.  And my experience has been the exact opposite of yours.  So, I'm wondering what you're doing that I'm not.  How are your groups acting as a challenge to the party?




Since the PCs have spell casters and the enemies do not (or only have one or two), it's not hard. A simple Web spell can delay 5 or 6 or more enemies alone. One action by a PC arcane caster delays the enemies by dozens of actions. Crowd control is highly important in these types of conflicts.

Note: In our games, even the combatant type PCs tend to have at least some capability to cast spells, use psionics, etc. We tend to not have straight Fighters, but Rangers or Paladins or Psychic Warriors, etc. In our current game, we have a Psychic Warrior, a Monk/Sorcerer, a Sorcerer, a Rogue/Cleric, and a Psion. Every single one of them has non-melee capabiliites (which is not always the case, but often). In this case, 3 of the 5 PCs can cure for example and the rest carry around a lot of potions.

The PC melee type can easily be healed by the PC Divine caster who has spontaneous cures and Wands of Curing to back up his spells. The enemy Divine caster (if he exists) typically does not. He often has a few Cure spells, but when he runs out, he runs out.


Sure, if you throw creatures with high DR and/or spell casting (especially arcane spell casting or psionics) and/or special tactics/abilities at the group, you are begging for a TPK.

But, an encounter where the enemies have a lot fewer options than the PCs tends to be a slugfest where the PCs have more ways to go to the well. And, these types of encounters tend to be against humanoid type foes, not foes with "tricks" or "defenses".

The reason that it is challenging is that there is the chance that things can go terribly wrong for the PCs. For example, most of the enemies could make their saves or one PC could get criticaled by multiple foes in the same round, etc.

Also note that this type of thing eats up a lot of party resources, so it tends to be something that can only be handled by the PCs as the first (or possibly second) fight of the day.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> You say that minions get a "slight" offense bump. That's simply not true. They are getting a HUGE offense bump. And, remember, it's not a 2:1 ratio, it's a FOUR :1 ratio. That's four actions, as opposed to two. And actions that have a reasonable chance of hurting the PC's, rather than wasting time at the table.




Oh, I agree with your assessment here. The 4E minion concept results in a lot of damage. The reason the 3E mooks did not have this same level of damage capability is because PCs did not allow it. The arcane casters cast Greater Invisibility and then did stick and move crowd control or crowd damaging tactics. The divine casters buffed up the AC of the entire team. I do not see this level of player created disparity of capability between PCs and NPCs in 4E, so the NPC minions by defintion will be more capable of chewing up the PCs in 4E.

I'm convinced that I will not be able to run 42 NPCs of a few levels lower against the PCs in 4E like I once did in 3E (and remember, I did that particular combat in waves of about 15% of the NPCs per round). PCs in 4E just do not seem to have as many "go to the well charges" as 3E ones (i.e. I consider an At Will power to not be especially "going to the well" in 4E).


----------



## Hussar (Jun 5, 2008)

Hang on.  Maybe I misread you Karin'sDad.  Are you saying that under 3.5, using lots of monsters resulted in very easy combats?

If true, then I agree with you 100%.  I'd actually go a step further and say that under 3.5 rules, using lots of monsters resulted in combats that were not even remotely a challenge.  Which I believe is what Rystil Arden is claiming as well.

So, in other words, using lots of monsters made for boring encounters which were no real threat to the PC's.

Thus we get minion rules where I can use lots of monsters on the table, and still threaten the PC's.  Fantastic.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 5, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Hang on.  Maybe I misread you Karin'sDad.  Are you saying that under 3.5, using lots of monsters resulted in very easy combats?
> 
> If true, then I agree with you 100%.  I'd actually go a step further and say that under 3.5 rules, using lots of monsters resulted in combats that were not even remotely a challenge.  Which I believe is what Rystil Arden is claiming as well.
> 
> ...



 Nope, what I'm saying is that I designed a large encounter to be easy and it worked as I planned.  I made a variant design of a large group that I didn't use but I playtested and it was difficult (it had very minor but significant tweaks, such as Fire Resistance to stop the Wu Jen and Fire Ninja from AoEing quite as much).  And, though easy, the encounter used resources and was fun.

My group may be better than usual for large fights due to a large number of members but low number of casters (unless you count the Ninja with their few Ninjutsu, the only casters are one Wu Jen and one Miko (Shintoish Cleric) out of 8 PCs).


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 5, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Hang on.  Maybe I misread you Karin'sDad.  Are you saying that under 3.5, using lots of monsters resulted in very easy combats?
> 
> If true, then I agree with you 100%.  I'd actually go a step further and say that under 3.5 rules, using lots of monsters resulted in combats that were not even remotely a challenge.  Which I believe is what Rystil Arden is claiming as well.
> 
> ...




I did not consider them easy or non-challenging. I considered them challenging if designed correctly. They might be considered "boring" because the monsters did not do much tricky or special, but not because they did not challenge the PCs.

You'll get this with 4E often as well since the Minions in 4E usually have 0 or 1 special powers. Boring in the sense that they tend to just be melee grunts. Not boring in the sense that it is a challenge to survive and a significant challenge.


I cannot think of a 3E encounter in our group where I outnumbered the PCs by anywhere from 2-5 to 1 where it was not a challenge. I pick grunts to still have a ~20% to 30% (depending on numbers and other abilities) chance to hit the "front line" ACs. I don't pick grunts who need a 20 on the die. I agree, that's boring. I also ignore EL guidelines and such. I eyeball it myself more because ELs often do not take into account DR or special abilities or other mechanics that might just focus on a weakness of my particular group.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jun 5, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I did not consider them easy or non-challenging. I considered them challenging if designed correctly. They might be considered "boring" because the monsters did not do much tricky or special, but not because they did not challenge the PCs.
> 
> You'll get this with 4E often as well since the Minions in 4E usually have 0 or 1 special powers. Boring in the sense that they tend to just be melee grunts. Not boring in the sense that it is a challenge to survive and a significant challenge.
> 
> ...




Then I think you just proved the usefullness of the minion rules.  They make it so you dont have to ignore something that is supposed to be significant when building an encounter (but lets face it, usually came out as a joke).


----------



## VannATLC (Jun 5, 2008)

Show me one of these encounters.

I'm hard pressed to believe you could put together an encounter out numbering the PCs by 5 to 1, with mobs that have a reasonable chance to hit, and normal damage and hitpoints, without killing the PCs. Unless you used no sensible tactics.

So, I want to see it. What were the mobs? What level characters?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 5, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> Show me one of these encounters.
> 
> I'm hard pressed to believe you could put together an encounter out numbering the PCs by 5 to 1, with mobs that have a reasonable chance to hit, and normal damage and hitpoints, without killing the PCs. Unless you used no sensible tactics.
> 
> So, I want to see it. What were the mobs? What level characters?



 My PCs were initially outnumbered 4-to-1 and managed to turn it to more like 3-to-1 as the enemies were closing in on them.  I'm not sure what you consider reasonable damage, but they did pretty good damage.  They hit a little bit less than half, such that if the PC moved about and only suffered one attack per enemy, they were usually taking one hit per round (and sometimes two), and if they stayed put and let the enemy get off full attacks, they would take more, often three times as many (the Water Ninja took fewer hits due to her Dispersion technique giving her a miss chance).  Some of the enemies has minor special abilities that made the fight more interesting but weren't relevant to an analysis.

The Cleric did need to get in there with healing for some of the PCs, one of them had to use a healing sutra, and the Martial Artist had to use much of his daily limit of Ki Healing to recover, but they managed.  The key was teamwork and high damage output.  My group does ridiculous damage if they work hard enough at it.  They aren't particularly durable and have low defenses to speak, but they can sure hit hard.  Also, they came through the gate to the keep with Mage Armour, Greater Magic Weapon, and other such spells active.

If the enemies had somehow emerged from the Ethereal Plane or something such that they started in melee range of the party with 5-to-1 odds, the fight might have gone differently.  But thanks to playtesting, I could tell that it wouldn't go that way (plus, again, my recent fight was 35 enemies vs 8 PCs.  I mean, I've done bigger battles before too, but that was too long ago to comment in detail).

The enemy tactics basically were along the lines of "Fireball hits all of us at a very long range--let's close with them and rip them apart".  It was a good choice (the party had better ranged attacks than the enemies), and I played that tact not-unintelligently, taking advantage of holes in the party's defenses, etc.  The Fire Ninja's technique that raised a brief fiery pyre over squares she tumbled through for a round really helped control their movements as well, as the damage for crossing through + Fireball damage often started to come close to the enemy's HP total.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 5, 2008)

Rystil Arden - in the interests of completeness, could you actually post the actual encounter, not just "enemies" and "PCs"?  I would like to see the actual PC's (class/level/race) and the enemies and the initial encounter outline please.

Right now all I'm seeing is very vague posts about how it works for you and Karin'sDad.  Could you both post actual encounters?


----------



## VannATLC (Jun 5, 2008)

So.. what were the enemies? (Just say if they are earlier in the thread, I don't have the time atm)

But either they NPCs have good reasons for lousy tactics, or simply lousy tactics were involved. 

NB; If the vast majority of resources are used in one encounter, I generally don't consider that actually balanced. The BBEG, maybe..


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 5, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> Then I think you just proved the usefullness of the minion rules.  They make it so you dont have to ignore something that is supposed to be significant when building an encounter (but lets face it, usually came out as a joke).




I think you are confusing the 4E EL rules with the 4E minions rules.

The 4E EL rules are replacing the 3E EL rules. Except for how many XP you get for a minion, the minion rules have nothing to do with the EL rules.

And the EL rules are ok, but they are not perfect. Just using your Minion comment as an example, a same level EL 4E encounter at first level uses 500 XP. This would allow for a 20 Minion fight. Although the rules suggest using different roles, they do not require them.

20 1st level minions will kick the snot out of most 5 member 1st level DND groups (not necessarily kill them, but minimally use up a lot of resources and knock unconscious a high percentage of the party) because on round one alone, the mininons will average about 35 hit points of damage out of the PC's 130 or about 27%. Sure, the PCs will whittle them down, but maybe not as fast as the minions will whittle down the PCs (on average).

Remember, if the PCs do not have anti-minion powers (i.e. ways to damage more than one opponent each per round), the fastest 5 PCs can wipe out 20 minions is 4 rounds. On average, it's probably closer to 7 rounds.

That means that the average minion damage will drop by ~14% per round or 27% on round one, then 23%, then 19%, then 16%, then 13%, then 8%, then 4% (assuming none of the PCs go unconscious and none of the PCs have or can use anti-minion powers). This is over 100% of the PC's hit points and any PC knocked unconscious will not be contributing to the fight unless restored. Sure, the PCs can use Second Winds and other abilities, but using time recovering as opposed to attacking, is giving the plethora of minions more time to take out other PCs.

It would be interesting if someone ran some same level mock combats of all minions versus all PCs. I suspect that the PCs will lose more often than they would win.


----------



## VannATLC (Jun 5, 2008)

I've done that combat, though it was 28 minions and 1 controller vs 8pcs.
The PCs win, and handily.

That's an inbalanced encounter because my party has 2 wizards and a dragonborn, and wiped out half the minions in turn. It did, of course, burn through a few powers, but it was the middle of the encounter run, and only one daily was used.

I'll run through 20 vs the pregens from KOTS. I don't expect it to be much more draining than a standard encounter.

My current party will be facins 10 times their number of minions, as well as several normal creatures, and a solo, this weekend, in an 'encounter' that I expect to span about 12 minutes of actual game time. There are some opportunites for short rests, if they find them.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 5, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> So.. what were the enemies? (Just say if they are earlier in the thread, I don't have the time atm)
> 
> But either they NPCs have good reasons for lousy tactics, or simply lousy tactics were involved.
> 
> NB; If the vast majority of resources are used in one encounter, I generally don't consider that actually balanced. The BBEG, maybe..



 I have...rarely been accused of using lousy tactics.  If anything, my new group (the one in this game) tells me that my tactics are too good.  Also, the PCs used plenty of resources, but they have a ton of them.  They still had resources to blow on the ooze and on the BBEG encounter.  And they needed them all.  When the BBEG fight was done, almost everyone was nearly out of spells, half the party had nealry died, and the Lightning Ninja forced the BBEG to make a choice to hit the rest of the party and not him (even though he was in the BBEG's face) or else miss hitting on the rest of the party, which ultimately turned out to be a lose/lose and ended the BBEG's reign of terror with 2/8 characters conscious.

@Hussar--as I mentioned earlier, the characters are gestalt-balanced.  They're using homebrewed races and classes, which means that I knew posting their race/class make-up won't be terribly useful to you.  Fortunately, as the designer of the classes, I have a very high circumstance bonus to making good challenges for the PCs using them, which could have factored into why I can get the system to work so well.  Anyway, though I warned you won't get much help from this, I will post as requested.

For those who care (and those who follow along with my Gestalt-balanced class thread in the Houserules forum), the characters were--

Asakura Shiawase--Ronin7/MartialArtist1 (the player actually posted a brief summary of Shia on the wiki, so I can give it to you to get a glimpse--note that the Ronin can finesse with Katanas) [SBLOCK=Shia]Strength: 15 Dex: 20 Con: 13 Int: 13 Wis: 24 Charisma: 10

HP: 74/74 Speed: 30ft AC 22/ Touch: 22/FF: 17 Fortitude: 9 Reflex: 13 Will: 13

Base Attack: 8/3 Grapple: 10 Attack: Katana +15 or +10 1d10+5 15-20/x2 2 Katana: +13/+13 1d10+5/1d10+3 15-20/x2//17-20/x2 +8 1d10+5 15-20/x2 Also: First Katana: Frost 1d6 damage, Freezing Burst 1d10 on critical

Skills: (shown here are only ones with mutual bonuses and/or ranks) Ability + Ranks + Bonus = total

Balance: 5 + 0 + 2 = 7 Disable Device: 1 + 4 + 0 = 5 Handle Animal: 0 + 10 + 0 = 10 Hide: 5 + 7 + 0 = 12 Jump: 2 + 8 + 2 = 12 Listen: 7 + 11 + 0 = 18 Move Silently: 5 + 5 + 0 = 10 Open Lock: 5 + 2 + 0 = 7 Perform(Music): 0 + 1 + 0 = 1 Ride: 5 + 5 + 2 = 12 Spot: 7 + 11 + 0 = 18 Swim: 2 + 4 + 0 = 6 Tumble: 5 + 7 + 2 = 14

Exp: 29008 (I think as of the end of the year)

Feats: Improved Feint Exotic Weapon Process Katana Two Weapon Fighting Oversized Two Weapon Fighting Weapon Finesse Weapon Specialization Two Weapon Pounce Improved Critical

Special: Evasion Intuitive Celerity Sneak Attack 4d6 Uncanny Dodge Flurry of Blows Wisdom to AC Unarmed Strike

Language: Common, Larakese, Spirittongue [/SBLOCK]
Ken--Ex-Samurai1/Ronin6 (did lots of fire damage with his Katana and Wakizashi, both Flaming, and those gloves that boost fire damage on melee and ranged attacks)
Masamura Furuta--Wu Jen8 (specialised in Earth and Fire spirit magics)
Kokusha Hirake--MartialArtist8 (fought with a twin Naginata that did Holy and Electric damage)
Kusanagi Kaiko--Miko8 (had a Holy Bow that was also Bane against all the monsters in the encounter)
Nakamura Itaru--Ninja8 (with minor Electric techniques)
Sakamoto Yuka--Ninja7 (with substantial Water techniques)
and Special-Guest-NPC... 
Sakamoto Aiko--Ninja9 (Yuka's sister, substantial Fire techniques)


The enemies were templated (Corrupted and Tainted--since I love Vile Damage and Heroes of Horror Taintrules ) converted Shadowlands Ogres, converted Shadowlands Trolls, a few Corrupted Tainted Dire Animals, a demon that I mimicked using a Corrupted Tainted Abishai, etc.

The templates _really_ help increase the threat of the monster while leaving it squishy enough to go down before everyone dies.  While the Dire Tiger might have an untenable number of HP, these things still only had double digit HP each, but adding so much Vile Damage and Taint per hit made them quite threatening.


----------



## med stud (Jun 5, 2008)

A minion has the potential to go down in more than one attack. I think a fallacy of the anti-minion crowd is that they often assume that one attack roll = one dead minion. If you miss three attacks against a minion and hit the fourth time, it's the same result as attacking and hitting a regular monster four times, thereby downing it. 

The minion rules look hokey on paper but they play out well. Generally, less number of attacks are needed to take out a minion but they don't go down in one attack roll every time.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jun 5, 2008)

SO what happens when an enterprising pc throws caltrops in front of charging minions?  If they choose to run through the caltrops they automatically take one point of damage to their feet and DIE from it?


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Jun 5, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> SO what happens when an enterprising pc throws caltrops in front of charging minions?  If they choose to run through the caltrops they automatically take one point of damage to their feet and DIE from it?



Who says that caltrops do damage?  Maybe they just cause you to be slowed if you run over them, otherwise they are difficult terrain.


----------



## Zurai (Jun 5, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> SO what happens when an enterprising pc throws caltrops in front of charging minions?  If they choose to run through the caltrops they automatically take one point of damage to their feet and DIE from it?



What are caltrops? They don't exist in 4E.


----------



## KarinsDad (Jun 5, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> Show me one of these encounters.
> 
> I'm hard pressed to believe you could put together an encounter out numbering the PCs by 5 to 1, with mobs that have a reasonable chance to hit, and normal damage and hitpoints, without killing the PCs. Unless you used no sensible tactics.
> 
> So, I want to see it. What were the mobs? What level characters?




This was a couple of years ago, so I do not remember all of the details.

24 Ogres, ogres attacked in something like a wave of 6 ogres each round, so yes, it was not until round 4 or so that all of the ogres were there (the ogres were spread out over this complex). And the ogres had to move up to the party, so some threw ranged weapons as they approached and some just ran in.

5 PCs level 7, Wizard, Paladin/Annointed Knight, Favored Soul, Ranger/Fighter, Cleric.

PC AC (for front liners) in mid-20s (I think after Magic Circle of Protection IIRC).

The room was something like 80x80 with multiple entrances. The PCs were eventually able to huddle a bit in a corner and used some pillars for partial cover. I remember Fireball, Web, Black Tentacles, and Summon Monster spells were cast (the Favored Soul was a SM specialist and kept pulling in Hippogriffs).

I suspect that there was also foreshadowing, so the PCs probably had some protective/buff spells up before the fight, but it was too long ago to remember exactly. And I remember that it was such a long encounter that the Paladin even brought her special mount warhorse in to fight (and it got snuffed which ticked her off).

I also remember that many of the Ogres attempted grapples and overruns (in order to break through to the spell casters), and were successful in some cases, but the problem for the Ogres was that the PCs bottled up the area and forced many of the Ogres to rely on ranged attacks. But, that's the point of PC tactics. Take away the advantages of your opponents. In the case of a large mob, make it hard for them to all attack at the same time, or at least with their best attacks.

It's not so much that the Ogres did not use good tactics, it's that the PCs used better ones. Without any spell casters on their side and with lousy ranged attacks, the Ogres could not use their advantage in numbers because the PCs did not just dumbly stand in the middle of the room.


----------



## med stud (Jun 5, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> SO what happens when an enterprising pc throws caltrops in front of charging minions?  If they choose to run through the caltrops they automatically take one point of damage to their feet and DIE from it?



I can see three alternatives:

1) Caltrops use attack rolls (the option I prefer): If they "hit", the minion topples over with bleeding feet, lying there crying and out of the fight.

2) Caltrops don't deal damage (also a reasonable option): The trauma inflicted by a caltrop is not lethal in itself; you could stick caltrops in someones feet until they look like a porcupine and they still wouldn't die from the trauma (infection is another matter, as is long term disability). Therefore, caltrops _slow_ you but they don't do damage. In that case, the minions HP doesn't matter.

3) Caltrops do one point of damage to non-minions, they only _slow_ minions. Ugly solution but still viable.


----------



## Blackeagle (Jun 5, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> 2) Caltrops don't deal damage (also a reasonable option): The trauma inflicted by a caltrop is not lethal in itself; you could stick caltrops in someones feet until they look like a porcupine and they still wouldn't die from the trauma (infection is another matter, as is long term disability). Therefore, caltrops _slow_ you but they don't do damage. In that case, the minions HP doesn't matter.




This seems like the option that's most in the spirit of 4e.  Rather than making caltrops a weapon, they're some sort of hindering terrain.


----------



## gonesailing (Jun 5, 2008)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> @Hussar--as I mentioned earlier, the characters are gestalt-balanced.  They're using homebrewed races and classes, which means that I knew posting their race/class make-up won't be terribly useful to you.  Fortunately, as the designer of the classes, I have a very high circumstance bonus to making good challenges for the PCs using them, which could have factored into why I can get the system to work so well.  Anyway, though I warned you won't get much help from this, I will post as requested.
> 
> For those who care (and those who follow along with my Gestalt-balanced class thread in the Houserules forum), the characters were--




Not to pick a fight...but you are using heavily houseruled and custom races/classes/monsters that you obviously have spent a great deal of time and effort on to compare to the default rules of a system that is new.  I completely understand that you wouldn't want to see that investment lost and would guess that is at least partially the reason for your posts.  (Maybe I'm wrong)

I just don't understand the comparison. 

Not all of us have the time or inclination to run games like yours. Or gaming groups to go along with it.  The minion rules SEEM to do their job of simplifying large combats (for me at least).


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 5, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actually, minion battles will often result in more damage shy of some special PC ability to take out multiple minions in a single round.
> 
> As an example, a first level Goblin Minion has AC 16, +5 to hit, and does 4 points of damage. 4 of them do a lot more damage per round than a first level Goblin Lurker (AC 16, +5 to hit, D6+2 damage) or a first level Goblin Skirmisher (AC 17, +6 to hit, D8+2 damage), even though these are consider equivalent encounters based on XP.
> 
> ...




You're assuming that all of the minions reach the characters.  This isn't necessarily a fair assumption because each player gets to roll an initiative vs one initiative rolled for the minions- the odds favor the PCs, that barring a surprise round at least some of them will get to act first.  If even one minion goes down while the rest are closing in, the damage becomes significantly reduced.

I'm assuming 40% chance to hit for the minions, as you did.

The Goblin Warrior (also level 1) has +1 greater to hit, so his chance to hit in melee is 45%, for 2.925 damage each round.  

6.4 + 4.8 + 3.2 + 1.6= 16 minion dmg
2.925 x 4= 11.7 goblin warrior dmg

Now if they each take a hit while closing:
4.8 + 3.2 + 1.6= 9.6
2.925 x 3= 8.775

And if it's 2 hits:
3.2 + 1.6= 4.8
2.925 x 2= 5.85

If it's 3:
1.6
2.925

Just like people have been saying, minions are most dangerous when you ignore them.  If you can drop even just one or two of them before they close they're approximately the threat of a normal creature.  The warrior, on the other hand, remains a valid threat until you deal at least 29 damage to it.  Moreover, the warrior's damage value is more swingy than the minions (potentially, he can deal 10 points of damage in any round whereas the minions' damage is fixed).  Come to think of it, I also forgot to factor in the fact that the Warrior can crit whereas the minions cannot; since I also failed to factor in the minion advantage in setting up flanking, I'll say it's roughly fair.

Heck, some attacks that can outright kill all 4 minions (like a fireball, although it's statistically unlikely to get all 4) will only deal a reasonable amount of damage to the Warrior.  8.775 vs 0 damage is huge advantage to the Warrior.

Minions have their place, but it seems pretty obvious from the math above that the designers intended them to die early and quickly.  Otherwise they give the enemy a decisive advantage regarding damage output.  However, if just one or two minions die in the initial charge, their damage is right around what a normal enemy would deal.

Minions deal their damage up front, and together deal a lot of it.  From what I'm seeing I'd say that the designers intended a few minions to die in the opening volley.  

No one's say you should pack your minions should-to-shoulder to line up like lambs to the AoE slaughter.  Space them out.  Nonetheless, I would say that early attrition among minions is an intended balancing factor for them.

I think that that's a pretty good reason not to obfuscate your minions from the players too often.


----------



## Harr (Jun 5, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> each player gets to roll an initiative vs one initiative rolled for the minions-




Sorry for the tangent, but could you point to where you're getting that minions only get one initiative roll, I've been trying to find that rule for a while (rolling for each minion is a PitA) and nothing...


----------



## Fanaelialae (Jun 5, 2008)

Harr said:
			
		

> Sorry for the tangent, but could you point to where you're getting that minions only get one initiative roll, I've been trying to find that rule for a while (rolling for each minion is a PitA) and nothing...




It isn't spelled out, but it is what I inferred from pg 17 of the KOTS adventure book, under tactics.  It talks about the initiative of the dragonshields and the slingers in relation to that of the minions.  Hence, I assume that you roll initiative for each distinct group of enemies (this method also makes the most sense to me).  I suppose that there might be other ways of reading it though, and it isn't stated in a way that would make it crystal clear...


----------



## Harr (Jun 5, 2008)

Yeah it's as you say, I just found the exact same rule in the DMG page 38 (I've been focusing on the PHB for now mostly).


----------



## Lizard (Jun 5, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Ok, a pride of dire tigers decends on the party.  They have an AC of 17 meaning the PC's pretty much never miss, but, 120 hp's each mean that they manage to stand up to 10th level fighter types for a round or two.  Saves range from 13 to 11, meaning the wizard is going to have an absolute field day.  However, at +20 attack, they aren't hitting the armored types at 10th level very often.  A couple of AC buffs and the armor types are giggling all day long.  And this is in an encounter that, by CR, should be overwhelming.  The party should be retreating from this.  However, because the baddies are so much weaker, not only is the party not running, they're pretty much able to ignore the challenge presented.




All I can say is, where did you get Monty Haul to DM your games?

Our group of 10th/11th level characters would be slaughtered by those tigers, or at least have a hard time of it. I think the highest AC is about 25-26, and that's on the self-buffing ranger/sorcerer. My blood magus is 16 or so, the warlock/cleric/whatever the hybrid PrC is is maybe 20, the ogre mage is low 20s at best (but he regenerates), and there's someone else playing a celestial something whose AC I don't recall, but it might be mid-20s. Assuming all my spells are up, I will lead with a sudden maximized firebrand, doing 75 damage (assuming no one makes their saves), and then they'll be on us, flanking and probably aiding -- typical GM strategy in mook fights is to have one attack while two aid, giving it a useful +4 to hit, +6 if flanked. Both our "tanks" have low hit points -- I think the OM is still at 4HD despite being 11th level, and the ranger/sorc/abjurant champion is obviously gimped there.

Of course, if I'm smart, I'd hold back my biggest nuke spells, because the DM usually has us on time-sensitive missions where we CAN'T sleep after every fight and so I know I'll need the big boys for later. Wasting my top-end nuke on some minions is just what he wants me to do...so I'd be using, most likely, fiery blast (5d6 fire damage, 5'radius spread) to singe 2 at a time, if they're positioned right, the healer will be flying overhead keeping us alive, and the two melee-ish people will be slowly chopping through those hit points.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 5, 2008)

gonesailing said:
			
		

> Not to pick a fight...but you are using heavily houseruled and custom races/classes/monsters that you obviously have spent a great deal of time and effort on to compare to the default rules of a system that is new.  I completely understand that you wouldn't want to see that investment lost and would guess that is at least partially the reason for your posts.  (Maybe I'm wrong)
> 
> I just don't understand the comparison.
> 
> Not all of us have the time or inclination to run games like yours. Or gaming groups to go along with it.  The minion rules SEEM to do their job of simplifying large combats (for me at least).



 No worries, I don't consider it picking a fight.  It's not that I've homebrewed here.  I've done bigger fights with by-the-books 3.5 characters where they were much more outnumbered.  The only reason you see the extensive homebrew in this example is because that's what my current group at MIT wanted to play, so that's the example I have on hand.  I'm just weird like that--pick one of the things that 4e makes easier for most people, and I'll probably be equal or better at doing it in 3.5.  

In the interest of full disclosure, there is some element involved that 4e said "We're making X easier with minor sacrifices to other aspects" that I already found easy and therefore when I'm the one GMing, I don't appreciate the 'minor' sacrifices for no gain (actually sometimes a loss--they simplify in areas that I am abnormally crazy-good at in exchange for actually making it more complicated in things I am weak at).

But I like 4e a lot because it gets other people to GM, and I like to play too.

However, you didn't see me putting in a bad word about 4e here, do you?  I only even posted in this thread to add in my experience--I'm just saying that you can do a great relatively-large-scale battle in 3.5e with no trouble or hitches at all given enough skill.  And you can.  You can also do it in 4e, and in fact, apparently more people can handle it in 4e than before.  Sweet!  4e is something like the best parts of Harrison Bergeron to me (the idea behind the society in HB, not the execution in the short story)--it definitely hobbles me compared to 3.5 because I am a weird outlier, but it lets people who are untalented or incompetent at a number of GM skills that are honestly hard to be good at still be effective GMs.  And if that's not a good way to bring in more GMs, I don't know what is.  4e had a set of design goals at which they have clearly succeeded.


----------



## gonesailing (Jun 5, 2008)

Ah Ha! I understand.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 5, 2008)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This was a couple of years ago, so I do not remember all of the details.
> 
> 24 Ogres, ogres attacked in something like a wave of 6 ogres each round, so yes, it was not until round 4 or so that all of the ogres were there (the ogres were spread out over this complex). And the ogres had to move up to the party, so some threw ranged weapons as they approached and some just ran in.
> 
> ...



Yeah, this is certainly a reasonable situation.  These monsters are within the reasonable range for an encounter.  6 CR 3 creatures is only EL 8, which is pretty reasonable/easy for a level 7 party.  Because they come in waves, none of them are ranged specialized, there is enough cover, the PCs know good tactics, and they are defensively focused enough in their characters it works.

However, I can say with 100% certainty that there are groups of reasonably created characters who would die big time from this encounter.  I certainly couldn't plan to use this as an encounter without knowing the group I was up against and/or adjusting on the fly to avoid killing some groups.

Some creatures are better suited to this than others as well.  It depends heavily on their stats.  Also, the higher the level, the more out of whack it gets.  If your party was 17th level and you decided to throw 24 Young Adult Red Dragons against them, I imagine the result would be MUCH different.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 5, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Yeah, this is certainly a reasonable situation.  These monsters are within the reasonable range for an encounter.  6 CR 3 creatures is only EL 8, which is pretty reasonable/easy for a level 7 party.  Because they come in waves, none of them are ranged specialized, there is enough cover, the PCs know good tactics, and they are defensively focused enough in their characters it works.
> 
> However, I can say with 100% certainty that there are groups of reasonably created characters who would die big time from this encounter.  I certainly couldn't plan to use this as an encounter without knowing the group I was up against and/or adjusting on the fly to avoid killing some groups.
> 
> Some creatures are better suited to this than others as well.  It depends heavily on their stats.  Also, the higher the level, the more out of whack it gets.  If your party was 17th level and you decided to throw 24 Young Adult Red Dragons against them, I imagine the result would be MUCH different.



 I imagine the 17th level party would clean up, though depending on the location, many of the dragons would probably escape due to high speed.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 5, 2008)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> No worries, I don't consider it picking a fight.  It's not that I've homebrewed here.  I've done bigger fights with by-the-books 3.5 characters where they were much more outnumbered.  The only reason you see the extensive homebrew in this example is because that's what my current group at MIT wanted to play, so that's the example I have on hand.  I'm just weird like that--pick one of the things that 4e makes easier for most people, and I'll probably be equal or better at doing it in 3.5.



That really depends on what you consider rules in 3.5e.

Is it possible to find certain creatures in 3.5 who have the right mix of AC and bonuses to hit in order to use a lot of them without causing too big of a problem?  Yes.  Because AC, to hit bonus, and damage isn't directly tied to CR...you can find some that are in the range you want.  Also, since CR is only a guideline, you could probably even use way lower than usual CR monsters and maximize their hitpoints while giving them better armor in order to create the numbers you want.

Ideally, you want creatures who have low hitpoints so the battle doesn't drag on and on.  You want them to have an AC that can't be hit on a 2 by the fighter(or the other way around, enough hitpoints to survive a couple of hits by the fighter, but low AC to guarantee they are hit).  You want them to have attack bonuses high enough to hit the PCs, but not be overwhelming.  Meanwhile, you want them to have damage high enough that the players think twice about ignoring the monsters, but low enough that when 6 monsters attack the same character with a full attack that it won't kill him in one round.

Sure, all of this might be possible to find.  Although, I think you'd probably have to settle for SOME of it and rely on luck to make sure you didn't have problems with the rest.  And to be fair, if you use a lot of really weak monsters then most of the time the players aren't going to complain, they got to defeat the monsters and they weren't really in any risk of dying except by crits and the like.  However, it takes a lot of searching and know how in order to get the exact kind of monster you want.  And if you are writing a published adventure, it likely won't come out as a "valid" encounter.

It seems like a lot of work and effort to go through when 4e does all the work for you.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jun 5, 2008)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I imagine the 17th level party would clean up, though depending on the location, many of the dragons would probably escape due to high speed.



Really?  It would murder my 15th level party.  200 hitpoints is not too bad if we are only fighting 1 or 2 of them.  Beyond that, only one or two of us is likely to be immune to fire.  Their breath weapons would kill the wizard, barbarian, and fighter within a round or two.  They ONLY have hitpoints as a defense against that.  They have a lot of them...but after so much damage in one round, everyone dies.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 5, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> That really depends on what you consider rules in 3.5e.
> 
> Is it possible to find certain creatures in 3.5 who have the right mix of AC and bonuses to hit in order to use a lot of them without causing too big of a problem?  Yes.  Because AC, to hit bonus, and damage isn't directly tied to CR...you can find some that are in the range you want.  Also, since CR is only a guideline, you could probably even use way lower than usual CR monsters and maximize their hitpoints while giving them better armor in order to create the numbers you want.
> 
> ...



 Oh, writing a published adventure is a whole different story.  Fortunately, I don't do that.  I can create appropriate large-scale battles (or smaller-scale battles or what-have-you) in 3.5 very quickly without any trouble, but I will agree that writing everything down takes a long time, and then it usually won't have the same EL as they would expect in an adventure.  At high enough levels in 3.5, the entire CR system simply wasn't a usable benchmark any more.

This is why 4e is so much easier to use for GMs who can't get a sense of what will be easy or hard for their PCs based on the encounter and not the Challenge Rating numbers.  And for beginner GMs, this is a vast improvement.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 5, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Really?  It would murder my 15th level party.  200 hitpoints is not too bad if we are only fighting 1 or 2 of them.  Beyond that, only one or two of us is likely to be immune to fire.  Their breath weapons would kill the wizard, barbarian, and fighter within a round or two.  They ONLY have hitpoints as a defense against that.  They have a lot of them...but after so much damage in one round, everyone dies.



 For my most-recent party that reached slightly higher level (so I'll delevel them to 17 since I remember what they had back then, though it has been a long while since I played that campaign):

So many things do fire damage that some of my party has some fire resistance (one was an Azer and thus immne).  Some of them have Evasion, and those can make the DC 24 Reflex save in their sleep for no damage.  Are you assuming the dragons win Initiative with their 10 Dex?  As soon as the Cleric goes, he'll Mass Resist Energy the party for 30 Fire Resist all around.  That negates more-or-less all fire damage unless someone is unlucky enough to fail a save (it happens).  The level 17 Wizard probably hasn't prepared Wail of the Banshee, though that would kill more than half of them (assuming they came into range in order to use their breath attacks or melee) if she had.  More typically, she would destroy them with Metamagicked Cones of Cold that they need around a 20 to save against.


----------

