# Excerpt: Minions. Go forth mine minions! Bring havoc with your 1 hp [merged]



## Rechan (May 19, 2008)

*Excerpt: Go forth mine minions! Bring havoc with your 1 hp*

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080519a


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 19, 2008)

*Excerpt: Minions*

Right then, enough with discussing alignment and evil gods, time to talk about everyone's favourite little rascals (or medium... or large... or huge), MINIONS!

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080519a


----------



## Kaodi (May 19, 2008)

Congratulations, Rechan. You were the first of four people to scoop it almost simultaneously. Now you get a kewpie doll. But first, you have to pay $9.95 in shipping and handling...


----------



## Family (May 19, 2008)

I bet the mod can cut down 3 out of 4 of these threads in a single hit


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 19, 2008)

thats a nice illustration.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (May 19, 2008)

Fun stuff. I have already enjoyed many sessions of sending minions to rough up my player's 4E characters.  They're great.

Reading the stat-blocks it's cool to see exactly how the minion changes as it levels up, however, if they change THAT little, I think I could have come up with those stat blocks on my own given a few guidelines. Of course, now I don't have to, and I can easily spot exactly what the stats of a Legion Devil would be for ANY level at all. 

Fitz


----------



## davethegame (May 19, 2008)

WotC Article said:
			
		

> A cool aspect of the minion idea...




Uh oh! They used the C word!


----------



## Belorin (May 19, 2008)

Excellent excerpt!

Bel


----------



## darkadelphia (May 19, 2008)

As I suspected--it's a plot device and not something a monster "has always been."  I don't know why that was ever an argument


----------



## Rechan (May 19, 2008)

PEOPLE PEOPLE. Respond to the MOST POPULAR thread. Read: The one with the most posts. Read: RECHAN'S THREAD.

 

I wonder what poor sap had to stay in the office and update the site on a sunday evening?


----------



## DandD (May 19, 2008)

The Devil Legion Minion PDF shows an advancement of those little evil rascals. 

At level 6, they're grunts. Five levels later, and they're hellguards. Another five levels, and they become veterans. And with another five levels, they're finally legionnaires, the toughest of all devil legions at level 21 (but still minion-status). 
Also, the rules from the DM-excerpt about how to improve monster stats are applied. Every higher rank of legion devil also gets +5 in AC, Fort, Will and Refl. The attack goes up by 5. The damage on the other hand goes up by 1 point for every new rank. 

I guess minions might always come up in +5-level steps. 

I do wonder however if there might be any other normal legion devil. 

Oh, and food for the alignment threads: The legion devils are listed as only Evil, not Lawful Evil. That's definite proof that Lawful and Neutral Evil don't exist in the books anymore.


----------



## VBMEW-01 (May 19, 2008)

A great change in making them survive a miss.  My sister's used her character's daily on a minion the other day (yeah, I know that one sounds odd but she didn't know it was a minion  ) and when she missed it died.  I guess in retrospect it shouldn't have, but I'm kinda glad it worked out that way because we had a near TPK on our hands there (she had 3 hp and the rest were downed)


----------



## Family (May 19, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I wonder what poor sap had to stay in the office and update the site on a sunday evening?




I did, I had to bypass security and repel from the air ducts but I think it was worth it.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 19, 2008)

I can just imagine a line of Legion Devils marching forward then stopping and teleporting. Each of them teleporting around the party to form a reverse box-formation. Each would be beside another Devil so they would still have the Squad Defense while closing in.


----------



## jeffhartsell (May 19, 2008)

Minions are exactly what we have been trying to model in 3e without much success. Basically giving minimum HP to the grunts but having to give them high HD to make their attacks meaningful. Plus then you have to deal with the feats, powers, etc of leveling them up.

Minions are so much better.   

      Yahtzee!


----------



## Rechan (May 19, 2008)

Family said:
			
		

> I did, I had to bypass security and repel from the air ducts but I think it was worth it.



Fool! You should have pilfered a PHB while you were at it! 

Also. HAVE AT THEE, Fallen Seraph's thread!


----------



## LordArchaon (May 19, 2008)

Excellent yes, but I'm wondering if the wonderful vampire spawn minions with 10 Hp and regeneration were actually reduced to standard 1 hp or kept as wonderful as they were...

EDIT: I think I cracked the "natural AC", they actually have half their level as natural armor bonus to AC. 10+Dex mod(full)+5(plate)+1/2 level = Legion Devil minion's AC. And it's actually rounded up.


----------



## keterys (May 19, 2008)

Seems pretty decent. The higher level ones do slightly less damage than I expected.

It's interesting that it's always Level + 5 attack, Level + 16 AC, Level + 12 Fort, Level +11 Reflex/Will, but we still get different stat blocks for each.

It's also cool that we do get a full range of levels for them to be over. And I'm glad that the legion devil legionaires can stand next to a pit fiend without dying, at least conceptually


----------



## DandD (May 19, 2008)

LordArchaon said:
			
		

> Excellent yes, but I'm wondering if the wonderful vampire spawn minions with 10 Hp and regeneration were actually reduced to standard 1 hp or kept as wonderful as they were...



 They probably got toned down to 1 hp without regenerative powers, I guess. Their stat cards back then were written for older iterations of the 4th edition rules that got changed later in the progress, I guess.


----------



## ShockMeSane (May 19, 2008)

darkadelphia said:
			
		

> As I suspected--it's a plot device and not something a monster "has always been."  I don't know why that was ever an argument




Some people are just born to argue I suppose. I'm glad they put that note in the rules though, as it gives one less meaningless thing to hear people whine about.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 19, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Also. HAVE AT THEE, Fallen Seraph's thread!



Your posts shall never outnumber mine!!! 

In fact, I am so confidant I posted this post just to give you a chance, BUHAHAHA! *coughs, wheeze*


----------



## keterys (May 19, 2008)

The DDM stats have never been all that useful... that's what I've been trying to say  A minion with just enough hits that it'll survive sometimes _and_ a small amount of regeneration? WAY too much overhead.


----------



## jeffhartsell (May 19, 2008)

Sorry Rechan, the other thread ended up with better crunchy replies. This one is flooding with babble. And I'll add to the deluge.


----------



## MerricB (May 19, 2008)

Very nice reasoning as to the why and how of Minions. Definitely one of my favourite parts of 4e.

Cheers!


----------



## Rechan (May 19, 2008)

Very well! Then we shall be the thread of merriment and good spirits! And when the mods merge these threads, we shall be lively! Ho ho!

So. When do we get a henchmen monsters?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 19, 2008)

Anyone else want to give some of them spears? So they get some nasty range attack while still having their nice Squad Defence.

Edit: *Gives Rechan thread peace treaty* We should get henchmen in about 19 days.


----------



## Lurker37 (May 19, 2008)

Based on this excerpt, the vampire spawn must have been an artifact of an older version of the 4E rules. 

Minions no longer have hit points. They die on any hit, no matter how little damage it does, but survive any miss, no matter how much damage a miss still does.


----------



## Crashy75 (May 19, 2008)

VBMEW-01 said:
			
		

> A great change in making them survive a miss.  My sister's used her character's daily on a minion the other day (yeah, I know that one sounds odd but she didn't know it was a minion  ) and when she missed it died.  I guess in retrospect it shouldn't have, but I'm kinda glad it worked out that way because we had a near TPK on our hands there (she had 3 hp and the rest were downed)



That's the reason why I'm iffy on that rule.


----------



## LordArchaon (May 19, 2008)

Hmm I still hope though. It just needs a good level balance as I envision it.

(Look my previous post above for a thought on the AC of the previewed guys)


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 19, 2008)

I am liking the way minions are set up.  A plot device that sucks up PC rounds to be dealt with. If you can hit it with a weapon, it's gone, but it still requires an attack against it.  An attack that the PC wishes was focused on the encounter bosses.

Simple, easy to scale up, and an effective plot device.

Excellent.


----------



## jeffhartsell (May 19, 2008)

A vampire spawn that is not a mook (has regen) is most likely not going to end up as a minion.

Anyway, I am all for the minion RULES! I've been loving the encounter design for 4e. Those orcs were amazing. And these devils are cool minions. Simply, yet effective.


----------



## Andor (May 19, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Seems pretty decent. The higher level ones do slightly less damage than I expected.
> 
> It's interesting that it's always Level + 5 attack, Level + 16 AC, Level + 12 Fort, Level +11 Reflex/Will, but we still get different stat blocks for each.
> 
> It's also cool that we do get a full range of levels for them to be over. And I'm glad that the legion devil legionaires can stand next to a pit fiend without dying, at least conceptually




It's that formulaic? Why didn't they just give one example and list the mods with maybe a little chart to say when the fire resist goes up? It would save a lot of space, and not be an implied insult to the intelligence of DMs everywhere...

Interestingly however this specific minion example does not tell us if there is a minion template, since it implies that all Legion Devils are minions, thus making them the Cobra troopers from hell. So the Mammoth minion is still speculative.


----------



## Xyl (May 19, 2008)

The legion devil stats make it really easy to interpolate a level-appropriate minion for whatever level you want. I like.


----------



## Piratecat (May 19, 2008)

Merged. Keep it on topic, please!


----------



## Rechan (May 19, 2008)

Crashy75 said:
			
		

> That's the reason why I'm iffy on that rule.



I'd rule that a daily power kills a minion, miss or no.


----------



## Kaodi (May 19, 2008)

Rechan wins. Merging has been initiated.


----------



## jeffhartsell (May 19, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'd rule that a daily power kills a minion, miss or no.




That is a tough call. But fair. Maybe depends on the type of daily. A wiff with a fireball daily would be overkill to smoke all of the minions that were missed. But a single target daily that did damage on a miss makes sense.


----------



## AllisterH (May 19, 2008)

I disagree on allowing a Daily to smoke a minion even on a miss.

Minions are one of the reasons (along with the bloodied threshold) I as a DM can use to ensure that players open with their at-wills and use those until they feel they need to use their big guns.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I wonder what poor sap had to stay in the office and update the site on a sunday evening?




Yes, I'm sure that poor cron job is terribly overworked.


----------



## Rechan (May 19, 2008)

jeffhartsell said:
			
		

> That is a tough call. But fair. Maybe depends on the type of daily. A wiff with a fireball daily would be overkill to smoke all of the minions that were missed. But a single target daily that did damage on a miss makes sense.



Hmm.

It may depend on the situation. If a mage fires a fireball into a crowd, then I think it depends on how many he misses. If some non-minions get hit, the missed minions live. If he hits over half, then I say the misses stand up. If he just utterly borks the rolls though...

This is in the realm of 'fudging', to me.  But single-hit dailies, aye.


----------



## Crashy75 (May 19, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'd rule that a daily power kills a minion, miss or no.



I probably will as well.  However, I'll be making it a point to differentiate the minions form the others.  I won't say, "this is a minion", but make it clear who are the movers and shakers.  Minions could easily get mixed with the regulars, however... Yeah, I think I will make dailies kill minions outright (even if fireball is a daily).


----------



## Thasmodious (May 19, 2008)

I like that a miss doesn't damage them.  It's a bookkeeping abstract of the abstract HP system, it works, it makes sense.  In other words, it does damage them, just not in any way that is necessary to write down.  If there are powers (haven't seen any) that still apply negative effects on a miss, like knocking prone or dazing or something, I will still apply those (and I'd assume the rule would be to apply those).  

Minions are one of my favorite things about 4e so far.  I love getting past the 1st level "heroes" fighting 1d3 rats or an orc.  

"You open the door and step inside only to find two dozen kobolds eating dinner in a large mess hall.  One spots you and yells.  All heads turn to you, many are grinning."
"B-b-but we're only 1st level!"

Good times.


----------



## catsclaw227 (May 19, 2008)

Crashy75 said:
			
		

> Rechan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wonder if someone from WOTC will pop in and clarify this topic.  It seems to be relevant to the preview and won't be giving too much away.


----------



## FadedC (May 19, 2008)

So if I understand right a monster can be reasonably "promoted" to a minion when it's no longer threatening to the party, but the DM still wants to use it.

For example when the 3rd level party wanders into the hobgoblin forest, all the hobgoblins are lvl 3 hobgoblin soldiers, archers, warcasters, etc. But if the lvl 11 party goes back there then they are now all just lvl 11(ish) minions, perhaps supported by a few powerful leaders they players were too weak to take on the first time.

So the players still get the feel of being way more powerful then these hobgoblins now without them being completely unable to hurt the party.


----------



## sunbear (May 19, 2008)

I like the minion rules. I have been using similar (often times, house) rules in EVERY game that I have played the last few years.

However...
I really hope the legion demons also have regular, non minion stats. While it wouldn't be much trouble to make the creature yourself it would still be nice.


----------



## Sojorn (May 19, 2008)

Interesting. The Legion Devils are way, WAY stronger than the orc minions. I was puzzling this out when I realized that the unique part about orc minions is they'll probably be lead by an Eye of Gruumsh type. Thus, they charge into combat as fast as possible, get one hit in, then get another hit in when their weak defenses fail them.

The Legion Devils are actually meant to be a wall.



			
				FadedC said:
			
		

> So the players still get the feel of being way more powerful then these hobgoblins now without them being completely unable to hurt the party.



Yes. That the "scaling" use of them. The other is "plot based". Those would be the examples at the very start of the except.


----------



## small pumpkin man (May 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I disagree on allowing a Daily to smoke a minion even on a miss.
> 
> Minions are one of the reasons (along with the bloodied threshold) I as a DM can use to ensure that players open with their at-wills and use those until they feel they need to use their big guns.



That means you're relying on metagame knowledge to regulate player behaviour. Not the best choice.


----------



## ShockMeSane (May 19, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'd rule that a daily power kills a minion, miss or no.




While I totally respect the reason someone might want to houserule this, I have a feeling it would impact the game in some undesirable ways.

1) Increases the relative power of "X damage on a miss" powers compared to 100% wiff-on-a-miss powers. This will lead to players making more obvious Power choices as they level, as minions surviving a miss almost had to be a balancing factor they considered during the design stage.

2) Decrease the relative value of minions for budgeting encounter exp. 4 minions that you hit 50% of the time will on average have 2 surviving an AoE spell. With the houserule, they'd all die all the time. This is going to be extremely problematic on any spell with burst 4+.

So yea, I'm not touching that one, though I am sympathetic when a daily wiffs and fails to kill a single minion. I just think the fix is more problematic than the flaw.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> It's that formulaic? Why didn't they just give one example and list the mods with maybe a little chart to say when the fire resist goes up? It would save a lot of space, and not be an implied insult to the intelligence of DMs everywhere...




Given how much WotC went on about having "ready to play dragons for the first time ever" and the emphasis on reducing DM prep time, I'm guessing that the MM will focus on complete stat blocks for monsters (versus tables or partial stat blocks that require customization to play).


----------



## Sashi (May 19, 2008)

This makes minions almost exactly like Mooks from Feng Shui. If you beat a Feng Shui mook's defenses by 5 or more, they're down for the count. If you don't, they keep coming. No more tracking of mooks is necessary than this. They've basically taken this for D&D and made it the same thing: if you roll an attack and beat a (level appropriate) number, they're dead. If you don't, they keep coming at you. You could basically give them "minion" as their HP and be done with it. No zero HP at all.

On an unrelated note:
How much mileage do you think we can get from this single sentence?


> a typical monster might take four to six basic attacks to knock out



For example, the level 8 angel has 88 HP and his basic attack is a 1d8+4 longsword plus a 1d4+4 dagger, which means that level 8 characters are going to be dealing ~14-22 damage each attack. If you assume that a single PC should be dropped in 6-8 basic attacks (PC's usually win), that means that a typical PC should have 102-136 HP (1d8+6 +1d4+4 * 6-8)

The level 13 giant has 159 HP, which means 13th level PC's should be dealing 26-40 damage. He deals 1d10+5 damage with a greatclub, which amounts to 63-84 HP for the PC's.

So it's interesting that the angel of valor deals far more damage than appears level appropriate, compared to the 5 levels higher giant. Or maybe this is the difference between the Brute and Soldier designations.


----------



## Sir_Darien (May 19, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I wonder if someone from WOTC will pop in and clarify this topic.  It seems to be relevant to the preview and won't be giving too much away.




We know from earlier sources (like the orc preview) that the RAW state that ANY missed attack deals NO damage to a minion and any hit that deals damage kills them. The people you quoted were debating a houserule, as some people think that if a party member uses a daily power that minions should be killed by it if it deals damage on a miss.


----------



## AllisterH (May 19, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> That means you're relying on metagame knowledge to regulate player behaviour. Not the best choice.




How so?

The player doesn't know that the enemy is a minion until they actually HIT the minion. Changing it so that a daily even on a miss takes out a minion kinda tells the players, "those are minions"

By not having the house rule, players don't know what monsters are minions or regular foes and as such, will treat every foe the same and thus should open with an at-will attack.

Remember, the bloody mechanic/threshold that many of the monsters we've seen possess mathematically work better if the PCs attack with at-will, get the monster to bloody then use the big guns rather than the reverse.


----------



## Crashy75 (May 19, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:
			
		

> I wonder if someone from WOTC will pop in and clarify this topic.  It seems to be relevant to the preview and won't be giving too much away.



Yes, that would be nice but I think I know what the answer will be.  But if there are no (non-reliable) dailies that only do damage on a miss, I might be satisfied.  Can't think of any off hand.  I think acid arrow would be useless on a miss IIRC.  Nope, the ongoing damage should kill it the next round at least...


----------



## Rechan (May 19, 2008)

Crashy75 said:
			
		

> I probably will as well.  However, I'll be making it a point to differentiate the minions form the others.  I won't say, "this is a minion", but make it clear who are the movers and shakers.  Minions could easily get mixed with the regulars, however... Yeah, I think I will make dailies kill minions outright (even if fireball is a daily).



As it was said in another thread, describe minions as 'faceless grunts' or don't give them any description. But the movers and shakers (Elites, leaders) should get descriptions that point to them.

However, putting a skirmisher or two within the minions is good business.  This is especially true for zombies, where the PCs are wondering "Which one's the dangerous one? AUH THEY HAVE MY FACE!"

I sure hope there are rules that tell you how to convert regular monsters to minions (Beyond '1 hp kills'm). For instance, there are several monsters with really interesting abilities, but that would be very dangerous as minions (Chillborns for instance; they have an aura of cold, and can immobilize foes).


----------



## Crashy75 (May 19, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> As it was said in another thread, describe minions as 'faceless grunts' or don't give them any description. But the movers and shakers (Elites, leaders) should get descriptions that point to them.
> 
> However, putting a skirmisher or two within the minions is good business.  This is especially true for zombies, where the PCs are wondering "Which one's the dangerous one? AUH THEY HAVE MY FACE!"
> 
> I sure hope there are rules that tell you how to convert regular monsters to minions (Beyond '1 hp kills'm). For instance, there are several monsters with really interesting abilities, but that would be very dangerous as minions (Chillborns for instance; they have an aura of cold, and can immobilize foes).



*gets cold chill*


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 19, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I sure hope there are rules that tell you how to convert regular monsters to minions (Beyond '1 hp kills'm). For instance, there are several monsters with really interesting abilities, but that would be very dangerous as minions (Chillborns for instance; they have an aura of cold, and can immobilize foes).



Hmm... Taking the old zombies surrounding the house, mall, etc. deal and making them Chillborn... Hehehe, I can just imagine the players reaction when the house their in starts to slowly freeze


----------



## shadowguidex (May 19, 2008)

Love minions...love them.  Love.  Minions.

I can just hear Gimli and Legolass now:

17.....18....19...20....21.....


----------



## Rechan (May 19, 2008)

ShockMeSane said:
			
		

> 2) Decrease the relative value of minions for budgeting encounter exp. 4 minions that you hit 50% of the time will on average have 2 surviving an AoE spell. With the houserule, they'd all die all the time. This is going to be extremely problematic on any spell with burst 4+.



I don't forsee lots of parties unloading dailies on minions; the single target dailies that a PC mistakenly aims at a minion, I think, is fair game for a kill-on-miss. Because the PC just unfortunately pegged a minion with their once-a-day shot. So I'm willing to accommodate them there.

On an AoE, I said earlier that it depends on the situation. 1) The makeup of what is hit in the AoE. If there are regular monsters in the target area that get hit, or if there over half of the minions in the area that are hit, I'd say misses don't count. HOWEVER, if it's all minions and the person rolls crap, then I'd give it to them.

Mainly because I don't want to look at the player and say, "Sorry, your one-shot deal just failed miserably on a guy with 1 hp. NEXT!"


----------



## Sojorn (May 19, 2008)

Sashi said:
			
		

> So it's interesting that the angel of valor deals far more damage than appears level appropriate, compared to the 5 levels higher giant. Or maybe this is the difference between the Brute and Soldier designations.



The angel has no ranged attack (although fly might negate this disadvantage). It has to get into melee to start dealing damage at all. The giants can pick a target and unload a bunch of rocks into a single PC and then they still have alot of hit points to be dealt with once you're in melee with them.

Also a level 8 fighter has about 70 HP, a level 13 has about 100.


----------



## Crashy75 (May 19, 2008)

ShockMeSane said:
			
		

> While I totally respect the reason someone might want to houserule this, I have a feeling it would impact the game in some undesirable ways.
> 
> 1) Increases the relative power of "X damage on a miss" powers compared to 100% wiff-on-a-miss powers. This will lead to players making more obvious Power choices as they level, as minions surviving a miss almost had to be a balancing factor they considered during the design stage.
> 
> ...



These are good points.  *sigh* Perhaps there are fixes built into the dailies themselves- if single target dailies do other things on a miss than damage (or are reliable) while mass targeting dailies (such as fireball) could still reliably kill at least some minions, I think I'll be fine.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 19, 2008)

The problem with letting misses kill minions is it makes encounters featuring minions no brainers.  And its not hard to figure out if an encounter has minions.  If you're facing a large group that greatly outnumbers your party, you are, in all likelihood, facing some minions.  Then you just drop what ever AoE daily that does anything on a miss on as large a group as possible and wash part of the battlefield away.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 19, 2008)

IMO if a miss would not normally kill a monster of comparable level it should not kill a minion.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 19, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> The problem with letting misses kill minions is it makes encounters featuring minions no brainers.  And its not hard to figure out if an encounter has minions.  If you're facing a large group that greatly outnumbers your party, you are, in all likelihood, facing some minions.  Then you just drop what ever AoE daily that does anything on a miss on as large a group as possible and wash part of the battlefield away.




And then its like the minions never existed and you might as well have just given the PCs the XP instead of having the wizard waste a power.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

Crashy75 said:
			
		

> Perhaps there are fixes built into the dailies themselves- if single target dailies do other things on a miss than damage (or are reliable) while mass targeting dailies (such as fireball) could still reliably kill at least some minions, I think I'll be fine.




A single target daily is probably going to be a waste against a minion whether it hits or not.  One target dailies are going to be best saved for solos or elites most of the time.  If the DM is describing minions in a way that players confuse them for big baddies then it seems like more of a DM problem (or a stupid player problem) than a minion problem or power problem.


----------



## Crashy75 (May 19, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> The problem with letting misses kill minions is it makes encounters featuring minions no brainers.  And its not hard to figure out if an encounter has minions.  If you're facing a large group that greatly outnumbers your party, you are, in all likelihood, facing some minions.  Then you just drop what ever AoE daily that does anything on a miss on as large a group as possible and wash part of the battlefield away.



It does kinda have a fun cinematic feel to it, though:
"Leave them to me"  *cracks his knuckles*  <BOOM>

"Who's next?"


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 19, 2008)

Crashy75 said:
			
		

> These are good points.  *sigh* Perhaps there are fixes built into the dailies themselves- if single target dailies do other things on a miss than damage (or are reliable) while mass targeting dailies (such as fireball) could still reliably kill at least some minions, I think I'll be fine.




Remember, just because a power misses, it doesnt mean that it cant kill a minion.  There are 3 stages to an attack after the actual attack roll.  Hit, Miss, and Effect.  If the effect part of a power did damage, that is, the part of the power that occurs whether the power hits or misses, I would think that it would kill a minion.


----------



## ncc4781 (May 19, 2008)

If any attack that does damage kills a minion does that mean that a first level pc can kill a level 30 minion on a crit? ( i say on a crit because a level 1 should not be able to hit a level 20 any other way) I am not sure I like that but then as a DM i would never set that kind of situation up. To ez to kill the pc or give them waaaay too much xp.

Having said this, I really like minions and can't wait to throw them a group.


----------



## Sojorn (May 19, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> Remember, just because a power misses, it doesnt mean that it cant kill a minion.  There are 3 stages to an attack after the actual attack roll.  Hit, Miss, and Effect.  If the effect part of a power did damage, that is, the part of the power that occurs whether the power hits or misses, I would think that it would kill a minion.



Indeed. Also remember that there are a fair number of feats and at-will powers that do some tiny amount of damage (usually an ability modifier) on a miss. It is more for these powers and feats than the dailies that minions do not take damage on misses.

If you want to just say "Ok, I don't care if it was a miss, that minion just took 50 damage, he's gone" you're perfectly justified to do so as a DM


----------



## Rechan (May 19, 2008)

ncc4781 said:
			
		

> If any attack that does damage kills a minion does that mean that a first level pc can kill a level 30 minion on a crit? ( i say on a crit because a level 1 should not be able to hit a level 20 any other way) I am not sure I like that but then as a DM i would never set that kind of situation up. To ez to kill the pc or give them waaaay too much xp.
> 
> Having said this, I really like minions and can't wait to throw them a group.



From the article:


> When you use minions, you should use those of a level appropriate to the encounter you’re building. The concept of minions is to provide fun filler for encounters, not to provide a way for a 1st level character to gain 1,000+ XP for defeating a 23rd-level abyssal ghoul minion by rolling a natural 20. Minions are a rules abstraction, and one of the many tools a DM has to build exciting encounters.


----------



## Crashy75 (May 19, 2008)

ncc4781 said:
			
		

> If any attack that does damage kills a minion does that mean that a first level pc can kill a level 30 minion on a crit? ( i say on a crit because a level 1 should not be able to hit a level 20 any other way) I am not sure I like that but then as a DM i would never set that kind of situation up. To ez to kill the pc or give them waaaay too much xp.
> 
> Having said this, I really like minions and can't wait to throw them a group.



This was addressed by the article.  "Minions" are a metagame concept.  There is no such thing as a level 30 minion to 1st level players.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

ncc4781 said:
			
		

> If any attack that does damage kills a minion does that mean that a first level pc can kill a level 30 minion on a crit? ( i say on a crit because a level 1 should not be able to hit a level 20 any other way) I am not sure I like that but then as a DM i would never set that kind of situation up. To ez to kill the pc or give them waaaay too much xp.




Um, they explicitly mention this in the excerpt:



			
				WotC said:
			
		

> When you use minions, you should use those of a level appropriate to the encounter you’re building. The concept of minions is to provide fun filler for encounters, not to provide a way for a 1st level character to gain 1,000+ XP for defeating a 23rd-level abyssal ghoul minion by rolling a natural 20. Minions are a rules abstraction, and one of the many tools a DM has to build exciting encounters.




_Edited to add:_ 
Dang, Ninja'd x2


----------



## AllisterH (May 19, 2008)

Sashi said:
			
		

> On an unrelated note:
> How much mileage do you think we can get from this single sentence?
> 
> For example, the level 8 angel has 88 HP and his basic attack is a 1d8+4 longsword plus a 1d4+4 dagger, which means that level 8 characters are going to be dealing ~14-22 damage each attack. If you assume that a single PC should be dropped in 6-8 basic attacks (PC's usually win), that means that a typical PC should have 102-136 HP (1d8+6 +1d4+4 * 6-8)
> ...




Well, keep in mind, we also know from last week's magic article, what the progression should be for the PC's static bonuses.

At level 8, Kathra (from DDXP) is looking at an attack bonus of +11 (+3 from base STR, +2 from STR increase at lvls 4 & 8, +2 from magic weapon, +4 from half-level increase) with a defence bonus of 25 (19 at level 1, +4 from half-level, +2 from magic armour). Her HP should be around 89 (base of 33 + 7 hp per level)

Meaning the angel hits only on a 12 or higher and does on average per round, 8.5 which means the angel could drop Kathra in 10 rounds

Compare with the Hill Giant
Kathra at level 13, HP 117, AC 28. Hill Giant hits on a 13 or higher and does an average per round of only 4.2 pts per round. Something is really weird about the hill giant unless the effect of Reach and the knockback/prone power is that powerful....


----------



## Crashy75 (May 19, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> ...
> _Edited to add:_
> Dang, Ninja'd x2



Yes, the force is strong with this... Rechan.


----------



## ncc4781 (May 19, 2008)

I realize  that my post was an extreme example but I have read that encounter design is made to be flexible. IF i want a large group of enemies to fight a party but I want it to be a very difficult fight why not use minions a few levels higher?


----------



## Peter LaCara (May 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Well, keep in mind, we also know from last week's magic article, what the progression should be for the PC's static bonuses.
> 
> At level 8, Kathra (from DDXP) is looking at an attack bonus of +11 (+3 from base STR, +2 from STR increase at lvls 4 & 8, +2 from magic weapon, +4 from half-level increase) with a defence bonus of 25 (19 at level 1, +4 from half-level, +2 from magic armour). Her HP should be around 89 (base of 33 + 7 hp per level)
> 
> ...




Also, the Angel of Valor is a Soldier and the Hill Giant is a Brute. Something to keep in mind there.

As for the Legion Devils, assuming they all go on the same initiative, they have some nasty tricks they can pull. Two devils start off adjacent to each other, so they've got their defense bonus. One guy ports to a flanking position around an enemy. They both attack with Combat Advantage. Then the other guy ports adjacent to his buddy, so they're getting the defense bonus again.

Nasty.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 19, 2008)

ncc4781 said:
			
		

> I realize  that my post was an extreme example but I have read that encounter design is made to be flexible. IF i want a large group of enemies to fight a party but I want it to be a very difficult fight why not use minions a few levels higher?



I dont see anything wrong with that as long as its just a few levels.


----------



## hong (May 19, 2008)

ncc4781 said:
			
		

> I realize  that my post was an extreme example but I have read that encounter design is made to be flexible. IF i want a large group of enemies to fight a party but I want it to be a very difficult fight why not use minions a few levels higher?



 If you know what you're doing, why not indeed?


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

ncc4781 said:
			
		

> I realize  that my post was an extreme example but I have read that encounter design is made to be flexible. IF i want a large group of enemies to fight a party but I want it to be a very difficult fight why not use minions a few levels higher?




I'd say within a few levels of the characters is still, "a level appropriate to the encounter".  They talked on the D&D podcast about how many levels you could go above character level and still have a good encounter, so I'm sure it will be in the DMG.  My rule of thumb would probably be that if you would use a regular monster of that level in an encounter, it would be appropriate to use four minions of that level instead.  If the regular monster would walk all over the characters, then using a minion in its place would probably be a bad idea.


----------



## Ravingdork (May 19, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> I can just imagine a line of Legion Devils marching forward then stopping and teleporting. Each of them teleporting around the party to form a reverse box-formation. Each would be beside another Devil so they would still have the Squad Defense while closing in.




And I can just imagine a line of legion devils charging a line of enemies (such as an opposing military force) only to have their first line teleport behind their enemies' line and trap them in a pincer attack.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 19, 2008)

raven_dark64 said:
			
		

> And I can just imagine a line of legion devils charging a line of enemies (such as an opposing military force) only to have their first line teleport behind their enemies' line and trap them in a pincer attack.



Then there just needs to be a Devil with "Wall of Fire" to race down the line of the trapped force and their screwed.


----------



## Crashy75 (May 19, 2008)

ncc4781 said:
			
		

> I realize  that my post was an extreme example but I have read that encounter design is made to be flexible. IF i want a large group of enemies to fight a party but I want it to be a very difficult fight why not use minions a few levels higher?



It should be quite difficult if you just use minions of the same level.  They have a sort of glass sword quality that makes them deadly to pc's.


----------



## Kordeth (May 19, 2008)

ncc4781 said:
			
		

> I realize  that my post was an extreme example but I have read that encounter design is made to be flexible. IF i want a large group of enemies to fight a party but I want it to be a very difficult fight why not use minions a few levels higher?




"A few levels higher" is not "twenty-nine levels higher." All that paragraph is saying is that the minions you use should generally be within the same level range as other monsters the PCs fight--so for first-level PCs, you might build a hard encounter as a level 4 or 5 encounter made up of, say, five level four monsters or fifteen level four minions and a level four leader, for example.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 19, 2008)

Does teleporting provoke an opportunity attack?  If not then a cool tactic that came to mind was a charge and then a teleport in order to attack and then disengage right away.  This causes the PC to either move to engage the target, which if the PC fails to kill could then just teleport away again, or would have have to just ignore it and take the dammage with no retaliation, and leaving the PC open to more hit and run.

Sort of like: charge attack, port away, charge attack, port away, etc. or charge attack, port away, PC engages, attack, port away, PC engages, attack, port away, etc.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> Does teleporting provoke an opportunity attack?  If not then a cool tactic that came to mind was a charge and then a teleport in order to attack and then disengage right away.




Since it's listed alongside speed, my guess is teleporting may take a move action.  In that case it wouldn't be possible to move, attack, and teleport on the same turn.


----------



## small pumpkin man (May 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> How so?



Minions having 1 hp but not taking damage on a miss is a metagame concept designed to simulate them having very low hp with as little effort on the GMs part as possible. If they did just have, say, 15 hp at level 10, throwing a fireball out would kill them even on a miss, if you rely on the difference between these two to change player behavour you are relying on metagame information.


			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> The player doesn't know that the enemy is a minion until they actually HIT the minion. Changing it so that a daily even on a miss takes out a minion kinda tells the players, "those are minions"
> 
> By not having the house rule, players don't know what monsters are minions or regular foes and as such, will treat every foe the same and thus should open with an at-will attack.



If you did have such a rule, players would decide on whether to use a daily or not based on how tough the combat is, not "is it a minion or not".


			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> Remember, the bloody mechanic/threshold that many of the monsters we've seen possess mathematically work better if the PCs attack with at-will, get the monster to bloody then use the big guns rather than the reverse.



The who and the what now? The bloodied mechanic does nothing in and of itself, it's just a descriptor. Yes, there are a lot of abilities which tie into it, but I'd like an explaination of why pinging monsters like that is the best idea.


----------



## Korgoth (May 19, 2008)

A DM's house rules are his own business, but I wouldn't rule that "a Daily that misses can still kill a Minion".  That makes it too easy to get insta-kill "minion snipes" with your dailies.  If you want to kill the minion, you have to hit him one time.  That's easy enough!


----------



## ncc4781 (May 19, 2008)

Crashy75 said:
			
		

> It should be quite difficult if you just use minions of the same level.  They have a sort of glass sword quality that makes them deadly to pc's.




I do agree with that. Hoards of minions could tpk if not done carefully.

I also get the image of a rouge sneaking into a keep and just demolishing all the minions before they even begin to use their glass swords


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 19, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> Since it's listed alongside speed, my guess is teleporting may take a move action.  In that case it wouldn't be possible to move, attack, and teleport on the same turn.




But you could charge.  As I understand it a charge is a move and a basic attack in one standard action with a +1 to hit.  So it would be move, move and attack.

EDIT:  However I did find this in the PrRC



> After a charge you can't take any further actions unless you spend an action point. (Scalegloom Rules Appendix)




So I guess you cant charge then port, but I cant find anything about attacking and then porting away so that should be ok.


----------



## Valamyr (May 19, 2008)

Hmm, nice concept. But, attacks and powers that deal damage to many monsters at once, like i suppose, a basic fireball, will wipe out many or most or all minions from the battlefield in one hit, no?


----------



## tombowings (May 19, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> But you could charge.  As I understand it a charge is a move and a basic attack in one standard action with a +1 to hit.  So it would be move. move and attack.




I think your on to something here.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> But you could charge.  As I understand it a charge is a move and a basic attack in one standard action with a +1 to hit.  So it would be move. move and attack.




You're right that it's a standard action.  However, here's the charge description from the Quick Start Rules.



			
				KotS said:
			
		

> Charge: As a standard action, you can launch yourself forward and make a melee basic attack. Move your speed as part of the charge. At the end of your move, you make a melee basic attack with a +1 bonus to the attack roll. You must move at least 2 squares from your starting position, and you must charge to the nearest unoccupied square from which you can attack the enemy. Charging provokes attacks of opportunity. *After a charge, you can't take any further actions unless you spend an action point* (see below).




I think the bolded portion precludes the tactic you proposed.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 19, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> You're right that it's a standard action.  However, here's the charge description from the Quick Start Rules.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the bolded portion precludes the tactic you proposed.





Yup, I just saw that too (see: edit above).


----------



## Kunimatyu (May 19, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> Then you just drop what ever AoE daily that does anything on a miss on as large a group as possible and wash part of the battlefield away.




Minions don't take damage from misses, though large area-effect spells are still a good idea.


----------



## MerricB (May 19, 2008)

Valamyr said:
			
		

> Hmm, nice concept. But, attacks and powers that deal damage to many monsters at once, like i suppose, a basic fireball, will wipe out many or most or all minions from the battlefield in one hit, no?




It's not quite one hit. You roll an attack roll against every creature in the Area of Effect of the fireball, so you could well kill all the minions if you roll well enough.

More likely, you'll kill around 50-70% of them (which is still good going!) Meanwhile, your cleaving Fighter pal will be taking down two per successful attack.

Cheers!


----------



## Foundry of Decay (May 19, 2008)

I have *such* evil plans for minions in the upcoming games I'll be running.  I won't say what they are here (one player might be watching) but I'm really looking forward to it.

And I had planned to use the 'minions have just enough hp to die in one swing/spell' rule anyway to explain away any 'but.. how could they have survived so long with just 1hp' argument.  They don't have one hp!  They have.. um.. how much did Dugan do in damage? eight!  Eight hit points was just enough to kill it.  Bwa!  Bwa I say!


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

MerricB said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, your cleaving Fighter pal will be taking down two per successful attack.




Minions certainly make the at-will cleave a very good power.


----------



## frankthedm (May 19, 2008)

Minions, the rule that lets you use your DDM commons. All of them.







			
				Korgoth said:
			
		

> A DM's house rules are his own business, but I wouldn't rule that "a Daily that misses can still kill a Minion".  That makes it too easy to get insta-kill "minion snipes" with your dailies.  If you want to kill the minion, you have to hit him one time.  That's easy enough!



Indeed. Minion's 1 hp is an abstraction. SO much so calling it a hit point was actually a BAD idea.


----------



## JesterOC (May 19, 2008)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Mainly because I don't want to look at the player and say, "Sorry, your one-shot deal just failed miserably on a guy with 1 hp. NEXT!"




The key is don't tell them they only have one hp.  Since they really don't just have 1 hp, what they really have is just enough hit points to get killed on a solid hit.  Perhaps I would houserule that the minor would die if it was hit with 2 spells that do half damage on a miss as that would fill the critiria.  Think of it this way, all hits on a minon do 1 hp of damage.  If they miss they do 1/2 hit points damage, so a second hit miss or hit would do it in.

This is such a rare case, I think it would need ANY special tracking.

JesterOC


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Minions, the rule that lets you use your DDM commons. All of them.Indeed. Minion's 1 hp is an abstraction. SO much so calling it a hit point was actually a BAD idea.




As I understand it, originally minions had no hit points, they just said they died on any successful attack.  People objected, saying that meant minions could never be killed by damage that wasn't an attack (falling damage, environmental effects, etc.).  So they gave it a hit point . . .

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## ncc4781 (May 19, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Minions, the rule that lets you use your DDM commons. All of them.Indeed. Minion's 1 hp is an abstraction. SO much so calling it a hit point was actually a BAD idea.




that makes a lot of sense. Minions should not have hit points at all. Once you make that leap all of the other problems of logic just fall into place.


----------



## Leatherhead (May 19, 2008)

It is probably too early to ask this, but summoning powers that summon minions for PCs:

Good idea or bad idea?


----------



## JesterOC (May 19, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> Minions certainly make the at-will cleave a very good power.




Yes much better than the two weapon fighting feat! If I recall correctly, the feat just adds damage to a single attack.

JesterOC


----------



## Dausuul (May 19, 2008)

Well, I love the minion concept, and have done ever since I first learned of it.  No complaints on that score.

I did, however, feel that the legion devils were... too much the same.  I don't think the same monster should span the whole level range from mid-Heroic to low-Epic, without at least a general explanation for what the difference is between a Grunt and a Legionnaire.  It has a bit of the treadmill feel--that sense that when you're level 1, the city guards are all 1st-level warriors, but when you're level 20, suddenly they've all turned into 18th-level fighters.

Oh well, maybe there's more about legion devils in the Monster Manual.


----------



## keterys (May 19, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> SO much so calling it a hit point was actually a BAD idea.




Oh, I dunno - they mostly only die on _hits_, and one of them at that. It may be the most appropriate use of the term ever.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 19, 2008)

Leatherhead said:
			
		

> It is probably too early to ask this, but summoning powers that summon minions for PCs:
> 
> Good idea or bad idea?




As long as its minions and not just a single minion.  They would actually come in pretty handy either distracting a ranged monster for a couple of rounds, or using them in melee to provide combat advantage for the front line fighters.


----------



## ncc4781 (May 19, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> As I understand it, originally minions had no hit points, they just said they died on any successful attack.  People objected, saying that meant minions could never be killed by damage that wasn't an attack (falling damage, environmental effects, etc.).  So they gave it a hit point . . .
> 
> Damned if you do, damned if you don't.




Thats  very loaded logic. (not referring to you personally, just the argument) One could conversely that that the ground you fall on is attacking you. It just always wins


----------



## Hawke (May 19, 2008)

Yeah, Cleave+Minions makes me think of a character shouting "I am Cleave McCleaverson, Minion Killer Extraordinaire!" before rushing into a crowd and laying some serious waste. 

Also, we shouldn't be asking whether the player knows if that goblin is a minion or not. The goblin should be asking himself whether or not it is a minion! Or maybe I'll have my first group roll up characters and then have them enter combat for the first time only to find out they were only minions. Maybe I'll even hint, "the enemy wizard attacks, but misses." "Damn, that power does half damage on a miss...how much do we take" "...no... you don't take any..."


----------



## ncc4781 (May 19, 2008)

Hawke said:
			
		

> ...Also, we shouldn't be asking whether the player knows if that goblin is a minion or not. The goblin should be asking himself whether or not it is a minion! Or maybe I'll have my first group roll up characters and then have them enter combat for the first time only to find out they were only minions. Maybe I'll even hint, "the enemy wizard attacks, but misses." "Damn, that power does half damage on a miss...how much do we take" "...no... you don't take any..."




OH! that a scary thought. *shudders* You are an evil genius


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

JesterOC said:
			
		

> Yes much better than the two weapon fighting feat! If I recall correctly, the feat just adds damage to a single attack.




Well, there are some higher level powers that allow multiple attacks in the Stormwarden paragon path (those are both whirlwind attack type powers).  My guess is there's a lower level power that lets you do two attacks when dual wielding.  Wouldn't be surprised if it's encounter rather than at-will though.


----------



## AllisterH (May 19, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> The who and the what now? The bloodied mechanic does nothing in and of itself, it's just a descriptor. Yes, there are a lot of abilities which tie into it, but I'd like an explaination of why pinging monsters like that is the best idea.




As mentioned in the article, most monsters are out when subjected to 6-8 basic attacks. Encounter and Daily attacks are gnerally multiples of said basic attack. For simplicity, lets say an encounter power is 2xbasic attack and a daily is 3.

You're fighting a monster that has a Bloody threshold (what should we call monsters that "trigger" at bloody?").

Let's say it take 6 basic "hits" to take out the monster.
If you open with an encounter power and then follow up with at-will attacks, you're looking at the following
Round 1: Encounter = 2hits
Round 2 : At-will, Monster become bloody.
Rounds 3-5, you're fighting a much tougher creature as you'll need 3 more rounds to put the monster down.

If you open with at-will attack until the monster is bloody, you get the following,
Round 1-3: At-will, monster become bloody.
Round 4: Encounter = 2 hits
Round 5: At will knocks out monster

So instead of taking on a monster for 3 rounds when its super-strong, you only fight it for one round. Similarly the same thing even applies to the angel of valor. Your chance of HITTING with your encounter/daily power actually goes UP by 10% when it becomes bloody.

Thus, it makes more sense to open with at-will until bloody THEN go to town with the big guns. Which is why I don't think the *problem* of PCs using dailies on minions will actually occur at least after people get experience with the system.


----------



## FadedC (May 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> As mentioned in the article, most monsters are out when subjected to 6-8 basic attacks. Encounter and Daily attacks are gnerally multiples of said basic attack. For simplicity, lets say an encounter power is 2xbasic attack and a daily is 3.
> 
> You're fighting a monster that has a Bloody threshold (what should we call monsters that "trigger" at bloody?").
> 
> ...




Well I'm not entirely sure about that.....we haven't seen all that many monsters who become notably more powerful when they are bloodied. It seems more common for them to unleash some one shot ability on you. Some monsters even become weaker when you bloody them like the angels, and characters and races have abilities that can only be used on a bloodied opponent meaning you might want to try to bloody them as soon as possible.


----------



## frankthedm (May 19, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> I did, however, feel that the legion devils were... too much the same.  I don't think the same monster should span the whole level range from mid-Heroic to low-Epic, without at least a general explanation for what the difference is between a Grunt and a Legionnaire.  It has a bit of the treadmill feel--that sense that when you're level 1, the city guards are all 1st-level warriors, but when you're level 20, suddenly they've all turned into 18th-level fighters.



That is a pet peeve of mine, but it does not _have_ to happen. Since 4e battles are expressly built with an XP budget, packs of lower level critters and armies of humanoids are far easier to use. ALso since PC AC is a LOT more controlled in 4e, lower level foes still have a chance to hit and thus matter. 

Instead of deploying four Legion Devil Legionnaires, a DM could instead deploy two Legionnaires each with a dozen grunts at their disposal. I love the idea, but not everyone has the minis to do this. Nor is every DM patient enough to roll attacks with such a low chance of hitting.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Which is why I don't think the *problem* of PCs using dailies on minions will actually occur at least after people get experience with the system.




Well, that depends how common monsters that hulk out when bloodied are.


----------



## AllisterH (May 19, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> Well, that depends how common monsters that hulk out when bloodied are.




Well, it's not just the monsters that get stronger, but also the monsters that get WEAKER.

Take the Angel of Valor. Until it is bloodied, opponents have a -2 to attack it. When would you rather use your encounter power? Pre or post-bloodied?

Keep in mind that there's also the tiefling which actually wants to get creatures bloodied but even for the tiefling, I wouldn't be surprised that using your encounter power AFTER the creature is bloodied works better with the tiefling's racial abilities.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Take the Angel of Valor. Until it is bloodied, opponents have a -2 to attack it. When would you rather use your encounter power? Pre or post-bloodied?




Well, that depends on the encounter power.  I'm sure there are some that don't provide (much) increased damage but increase your attack odds (basically an encounter version of the Ranger's Careful Attack).  That would be a great power to use before the angel is bloodied.

But in any case, my broader point is there's no way to tell untell we see the MM (and even after we see the MM it's really going to depend on what monsters a DM actually puts in his campaign).  So debating this now is kind of pointless.  But hey, that's what the internet's for, right?


----------



## TeutonicBerserker (May 19, 2008)

Hawke said:
			
		

> Yeah, Cleave+Minions makes me think of a character shouting "I am Cleave McCleaverson, Minion Killer Extraordinaire!" before rushing into a crowd and laying some serious waste.
> 
> Also, we shouldn't be asking whether the player knows if that goblin is a minion or not. The goblin should be asking himself whether or not it is a minion! Or maybe I'll have my first group roll up characters and then have them enter combat for the first time only to find out they were only minions. Maybe I'll even hint, "the enemy wizard attacks, but misses." "Damn, that power does half damage on a miss...how much do we take" "...no... you don't take any..."





I think that one of the problems with 3e and now 4e is that the designers have taken alot of the metagame design and brought it into the parlance of the players. Templates are a great tool for DM's to design a new monster, and the mook rules have aolot going for them as well, but this stuff should be kept behind the screen.


----------



## hong (May 19, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> That is a pet peeve of mine, but it does not _have_ to happen. Since 4e battles are expressly built with an XP budget, packs of lower level critters and armies of humanoids are far easier to use. ALso since PC AC is a LOT more controlled in 4e, lower level foes still have a chance to hit and thus matter.
> 
> Instead of deploying four Legion Devil Legionnaires, a DM could instead deploy two Legionnaires each with a dozen grunts at their disposal. I love the idea, but not everyone has the minis to do this. Nor is every DM patient enough to roll attacks with such a low chance of hitting.



 I'm planning to do that!


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

TeutonicBerserker said:
			
		

> Templates are a great tool for DM's to design a new monster, and the mook rules have aolot going for them as well, but this stuff should be kept behind the screen.




I think salting a crowd of minions with a couple of base monsters will be pretty common.


----------



## TheSleepyKing (May 19, 2008)

Valamyr said:
			
		

> Hmm, nice concept. But, attacks and powers that deal damage to many monsters at once, like i suppose, a basic fireball, will wipe out many or most or all minions from the battlefield in one hit, no?




That's not my reading of it (and please somebody correct me if I'm wrong). A minion doesn't automatically die if it takes damage -- it automatically dies on a successful hit. Even though a fireball might do half damage on a miss to a regular creature, that's still a miss, so the minion doesn't die. Thus any minion that the caster fails to hit with the fireball lives. Still, wide area, low damage effects (such as the Dragonborn breath with the expanded AoF feat) are going to be very popular with players as minion exterminators, I expect.


----------



## Rowsdower (May 19, 2008)

Two things, if I may:

1) we'll have ways of recovering spent dailies.  So it won't be that big a deal.

2)Noticed that in the excerpt they mentioned only giving minions one hp because there were situations the minions could survive taking small amounts of damage.  What kind of situations I wonder, and will these situations play for other monster types; elites and solos?  A level 21 minion with (oh, say) 10 hp could survive a hit from a level 21 player under the right conditions?

Anyway, already have big plans for minions.  Big, sinister, evil plans.  Mwuahahaha!


----------



## Derren (May 19, 2008)

The minion progression reminds me of:
[sblock]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 [/sblock]

That being said, I don't have a use for minions which break the combat system only to let the players feel like some anime/action heroes with superpowerz.


----------



## Hambot (May 19, 2008)

Vampire spawn would be easy to do as minions.  When you hit them, they are knocked prone.  Put the mini on its side.

Hit them again and they're history.

And recharge   ,  : Minion gets back up to fight again if they haven't been properly dealt with!

If you only have 1 hit point, some form of regeneration 1 is pretty good.


----------



## Destil (May 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Take the Angel of Valor. Until it is bloodied, opponents have a -2 to attack it. When would you rather use your encounter power? Pre or post-bloodied?



Reliable fighter daily? Before, no contest.


----------



## hong (May 19, 2008)

Destil said:
			
		

> Reliable fighter daily? Before, no contest.



 Why not after? "Reliable" just means you do some damage, not necessarily full damage.

I grok what Allister is saying. As a rule of thumb, it's a good idea to hang back on your big guns until the enemy has been bloodied. At worst, you kill them just as fast as if you used your big guns immediately. At best, you shorten the time in which they become harder to kill/more dangerous.


----------



## vagabundo (May 19, 2008)

I love minions: "I have a minion, do you have a minion?"...

On the PC side I can see it being a bit of a pain if they burn their daily on a minion, still I think they will learn to hold back a little on using their good stuff, until they identify the really dangerous creatures. 

If they see 200 orcs charging down a hill at them it is only a foolish player that unleashes his daily at a random guy.


----------



## Belphanior (May 19, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> Since it's listed alongside speed, my guess is teleporting may take a move action.  In that case it wouldn't be possible to move, attack, and teleport on the same turn.




*cough*



			
				War Devil (Malebranche) Level 22 Brute (Leader) said:
			
		

> *Fiendish Tactics* (minor; recharge    )
> Ranged 10; affects up to 2 allied devils of the war devil’s level or lower; each target can take a move action or make a basic attack.





Let us not forget that the legion devils are teamplayers.


----------



## Ginnel (May 19, 2008)

A Daily power is the epitome of a characters skills an attack in which they use up their reserves to pull off a devasting blow, this is surely a resource any of us would keep in reserve until there is a hard fought battle (argh sounds like manga )

so a character using his daily power on a minion wouldn't make sense....however.....

If you view that a daily attack is being tried by the character at least once a battle and instead of that happening he just does an at will attack instead, the time where the player actually uses it is when the blow hits maybe the using it on a minion does make sense

My personal view for martial dailys is that the opportunity to use it doesn't arise for the character until the player spends that daily ability and then he has the time to heft his sword overhead for a huge attack.
For Divine powers its an outside power that flows through the character that they can bring forth by praying in desperate circumstances to their god which is physically draining for the character so can only be attempted once per day.
For Arcane spellcasters its that higher magnitude spell they have chosen to be able to cast for the day.


----------



## small pumpkin man (May 19, 2008)

Rowsdower said:
			
		

> Two things, if I may:
> 
> 1) we'll have ways of recovering spent dailies.  So it won't be that big a deal.



We do? Archmages do, but there don't seem to be general most people get this abilities which can do this.


			
				Rowsdower said:
			
		

> 2)Noticed that in the excerpt they mentioned only giving minions one hp because there were situations the minions could survive taking small amounts of damage.  What kind of situations I wonder, and will these situations play for other monster types; elites and solos?  A level 21 minion with (oh, say) 10 hp could survive a hit from a level 21 player under the right conditions?
> 
> Anyway, already have big plans for minions.  Big, sinister, evil plans.  Mwuahahaha!



Cleave and the fighter basic attack which does damage on a miss should do about 8 damage at level 21.


----------



## Belphanior (May 19, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Cleave and the fighter basic attack which does damage on a miss should do about 8 damage at level 21.




8 damage? We know that...
* He's supposed to have a +5 weapon by then.
* There are several feats that can enhance damage.
* We've seen that some at-will powers can gain greater effects at level 21.

I really don't think he'll do 8 damage per swing, even discounting critical hits (which'll do, what, +5d6 easily?).


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 19, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Cleave and the fighter basic attack which does damage on a miss should do about 8 damage at level 21.




However, don't forget that the minion definition means that cleave (do [str] damage to a secondary target) will kill a minion, but reaping attack (do [str] damage to a target even on a miss) won't.

Cheers


----------



## Ginnel (May 19, 2008)

Belphanior said:
			
		

> 8 damage? We know that...
> * He's supposed to have a +5 weapon by then.
> * There are several feats that can enhance damage.
> * We've seen that some at-will powers can gain greater effects at level 21.
> ...




True I think the dwarf female fighter had cleave and she only did 3 damage which was her 16str's +3 bonus she had the bonus for damage with hammers and axes of +2 and only had hammers and axes on her character sheet and still cleave only did 3 damage, I'm pretty sure the descriptions of the cleave power and the power which damages on a miss both say inflict str damage and therefore wouldn't take into account the magic weapons bonus?

But i suppose if your playing a fully twinked str fighter 20 at 1st   4th/8th/11th/14th/18th/21st = 6 extra str so thats 26 str = 7hp's damage per cleave so not quite 8 but near enough


----------



## AllisterH (May 19, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> That being said, I don't have a use for minions which break the combat system only to let the players feel like some anime/action heroes with superpowerz.




So Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are anime/action heroes with superpowerz? Wow, didn't know that. I mean, it's not like I haven't read Conan novels where Conan does something similar....

re: Using a daily on a minion
I still same the "problem" people are trying to fix is a theoretical problem that will NOT occur at the actual table once people get the system under their belt.

As I've shown, at worst, opening with an at-will and waiting until the monster is bloody to use encounters/dailies will result in a monster being defeated in the same time as before.
Don't come up with house rules until the problem is actually occuring. Why make more work for yourselves?


----------



## Pickles JG (May 19, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Why not after? "Reliable" just means you do some damage, not necessarily full damage.
> 
> I grok what Allister is saying. As a rule of thumb, it's a good idea to hang back on your big guns until the enemy has been bloodied. At worst, you kill them just as fast as if you used your big guns immediately. At best, you shorten the time in which they become harder to kill/more dangerous.




"Reliable" means that you do not count as using it if you miss. Ideal for Angels as you want to get them bloodied as fast as possible.  All the dailies did _something_ on a miss except the reliable one - looks like WotC realised/discovered it sucks to blow your big shots.

My minions will be really obvious to the players - metagamingly they will expect minions if they are seriously outnumbered (cant realy help this) & the minis or markers I use will be more generic (as I have not got 100s of unique ones). This works fine in Fengshui where the minions are called unnamed characters & this encourages naming of non minions.


----------



## Ethalias (May 19, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> ...debating this now is kind of pointless.  But hey, that's what the internet's for, right?




"ENWorld announcement: Following a revelation in a post by Blackeagle the 4Ed Forums have been closed due to lack of interest."   

You're right *sob* What have I been doing my whole life?! *click*BOOM*


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> So Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are anime/action heroes with superpowerz?




I don't know the name for it, but it seems like an example of words losing their "punch" and needing an even stronger power.

Aragon, Gimli and Legolas are no longer just heroes. They are superheroes. I suppose that makes Superman a Demigod or something like that... 

Heroes _always_ have more power(s) then ordinary people. That's what makes them distinct from them. It's even debatable that an ordinary person can ever rise up to be a hero - if you become a hero, you were special all along. 

Superheroes are not actually "more heroic" then Heroes. They just have an unusual set of powers - flight, invulnerability, spiderweb-spinning and stuff like that. 

Chopping someone down with one sword swing is not a superpower. Any kind of hero or villain, and possibly even an ordinary person (if he's a warrior) can do it. 
Shooting laser from your eyes might be a superpower. But fantasy has a different name for these kind of characters - mages, spellcasters.


----------



## HerntheHunted (May 19, 2008)

Is it just me or is the damage progression of these Legion Devils a little bit on the thin side?
I mean, 1Pt per 5 levels while your Defender type gets 30 HP in the same amount of time. The higher you go level-wise the lesser a threat these minions become. Might have to adjust a bit....


----------



## ebenmckay (May 19, 2008)

It seems to me that Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas didn't exhibit any superpowers (well maybe Legolas, that twink...) so I would just call them heroes.  Good ones, paragons to be sure, but not super.

I liked the picture of rats, it was funny. What you don't see is how all of those rats use a different color palette to make them easily told apart.   

As an aside, is anyone else worried that Derren is losing his touch?  It took a whole 9 pages before he got around to trolling the thread with an anime/superhero post.  I think he's starting to come around to 4e!


----------



## Mirtek (May 19, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> The who and the what now? The bloodied mechanic does nothing in and of itself, it's just a descriptor. Yes, there are a lot of abilities which tie into it, but I'd like an explaination of why pinging monsters like that is the best idea.



If being bloodied triggers abilities which increases the monster's damage output by 25% it's better to spend 4 rounds of the fight to slowly hit it with basics until it's bloddied and then finish it of in 2 rounds with the big punches. Otherwise you would beat it bloody after 2 rounds if you open with the heavy punches only to have to deal with it's 25% increased damage fpr the remaining 4 rounds you need to finish it off with normal attacks.


----------



## PeelSeel2 (May 19, 2008)

I love the idea of minions.  It doesn't work into my concept of level, but with 4e, I have to change that anyways.  That is fine.  I think I will make two hit minions also, and keep track of 'Hitpoints' like I normally do.  For each monster and character in combat I have a white board.  For Monster and characters I keep a total that everyone can see of how many hit points everyone has taken.  It adds to the excitement somehow.  The players fret over the totals.  So with normal minions, I will cross them off the board when hit, but a two hit, I will write the damage.  Then they will think it is more of a threat   Also, the minions that get missed but still take damage, I will write the damage down for them.  It should add fun because they will never know who is a minion and who is not;  that is where the real fun of minions come in.  What a great plot device!!


----------



## Derren (May 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> So Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are anime/action heroes with superpowerz?




Watch LotR again and then say that they aren't....


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 19, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Watch LotR again and then say that they aren't....




I like to actually *read* literature.  I leave movies to Dragonball fans.


----------



## Leatherhead (May 19, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> I like to actually *read* literature.  I leave movies to Dragonball fans.



Dragonball was better as a book.


----------



## Voss (May 19, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> I like to actually *read* literature.  I leave movies to Dragonball fans.




The manga is better.
You can at least get through the Tedious Fight Sequences of Posing in under 5 minutes.


Anyhoo. My take on minions- I still don't like them.  Game-wise, I see where they are going with them. Game world-wise, they still don't fit.  They almost work at level one, but at some point, they strike me as hitting a point of absurdity.   You can get a more believable affect by just using a group of low level monsters.

Partly, I don't like the 'gotcha' aspect with using real resources on something irrelevant.  Particularly if the GM is being a jerk (which is in the realm of possibility), and actually playing this angle up.  Thats on the player's side.  On the GM's side, I dislike that it encourages the players to metagame the monsters so they don't waste resources on the minions. 

Further, I don't like the fact that they are fully aware that minions fall apart if you take them  too far out of level.  To me, thats a sign that the subsystem doesn't work.  It simply  isn't internally coherent- the same XP values of kobold minions and a level 21 legion devil is almost a guaranteed win for the kobolds- that horde almost has to roll a 20 at some point, and at that point, they win. Same with players.  They can take it, no matter the level, as long as they can keep attacking and hope for the big numbers.

I think an alternative could have been reached, even if you need or want the simplification.  Minions can take X hits, based on tier.  Criticals count as an 'extra' hit, and encounter powers count as 2 hits, dailies as 3.  (I was thinking they could take 2/3/4, based on heroic/paragon/epic).  Its simplified for the DM, but isn't quite as mechanically naked to the players, or more importantly functionally incoherent for the setting.  Minion damage can still be a flat number, but something closer to an average thats level appropriate, rather than a number thats fairly meaningless.


----------



## hong (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Partly, I don't like the 'gotcha' aspect with using real resources on something irrelevant.




If you have to use real resources, then clearly they are not irrelevant.


----------



## Knightlord (May 19, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Watch LotR again and then say that they aren't....




You're kidding, right? :/

Please explain to me how.


----------



## The_Fan (May 19, 2008)

Random thought here...

Level+4 is supposed to be a potentially beatable, but most likely fatal encounter (to at least one party member, maybe more). Level-4 minions are still relevant in combat, if little more than an action-waster.

So what would happen if you had an encounter with 80 minions of party level-4? Would they still pose a threat? Could they even win?


----------



## Piratecat (May 19, 2008)

Knightlord said:
			
		

> You're kidding, right? :/
> 
> Please explain to me how.



Actually, don't. No hijacks, please.


----------



## Knightlord (May 19, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> Actually, don't. No hijacks, please.




My apologies.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (May 19, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> I like to actually *read* literature.



What does that have to do with _The Lord of the Rings_?


----------



## Piratecat (May 19, 2008)

That "no hijacks" thing went for everyone. Keep the thread focused on minions, not LotR, please!


----------



## Wormwood (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> My take on minions- I still don't like them.  Game-wise, I see where they are going with them. Game world-wise, they still don't fit.  They almost work at level one, but at some point, they strike me as hitting a point of absurdity.   You can get a more believable affect by just using a group of low level monsters.



Yeah, but groups of lower-level monsters are just not the same credible threat that level-appropriate minions are. Therefore, I'm willing to sacrifice that small amount of believability for more exciting game play.


----------



## AllisterH (May 19, 2008)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> That "no hijacks" thing went for everyone. Keep the thread focused on minions, not LotR, please!




Er, but wouldnt the use of minions be akin to how Aragorn et al treated the orcs? Isn;t that what the minions plot device supposed to be for? To model scenes from books and movies?


----------



## HerntheHunted (May 19, 2008)

The_Fan said:
			
		

> Random thought here...
> 
> Level+4 is supposed to be a potentially beatable, but most likely fatal encounter (to at least one party member, maybe more). Level-4 minions are still relevant in combat, if little more than an action-waster.
> 
> So what would happen if you had an encounter with 80 minions of party level-4? Would they still pose a threat? Could they even win?




Hard to say without knowing the powers the players could have on any given level (especially AoEs) but I´d think it would be hard to impossible. And probably Veeerrryyy long.


----------



## el-remmen (May 19, 2008)

Yeah, I just don't dig the idea of "minions" for D&D.  I can see them for HONG KONG ACTION THEATRE! and superhero type games, but not for D&D (and before anyone brings up movies or fantasy lit, I don't think of D&D as emulating them either - only _D&D_ is D&D).

I can see how they might be useful from a book-keeping point of view - but I never had much trouble keeping track of lots of little things when _most_ die in one hit - but those one or two that manage to survive a hit or two having their dramatic moment to worry the PCs.


----------



## Voss (May 19, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Yeah, but groups of lower-level monsters are just not the same credible threat that level-appropriate minions are. Therefore, I'm willing to sacrifice that small amount of believability for more exciting game play.




But level appropriate minions *aren't* a credible threat, as far as I can tell. You need 15 or so kobold minions to even have a chance at taking down *a* first level character. Same with the legion devils.  You need so many to line up and try to beat on someone that it doesn't strike me as exciting.  Its more like hacking through underbrush with a machete.  Its a tedious chore that you are required to do to get to some place interesting.

They're a minor tactical problem (clear them or get around them to attack the actual monsters) if you mix them a reasonable proportion with real monsters, but they aren't ever a threat.

A lower level monster will hit a bit less often, but its made up for with more damage- attacks that players will have to pay attention to, not just ignore- provoking opportunity attacks from minions really doesn't matter much, because their chance to hit isn't great, and the damage is so small that it doesn't actually matter.


----------



## Naszir (May 19, 2008)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> only _D&D_ is D&D).




This I just don't get.  Is Basic D&D D&D?  Is AD&D D&D?  Is anything that has houserules D&D? Is 2E or 3E D&D?

Minions seem to me to be a very good mechanic for those of us who do not want to divide our attention to a lot of little notekeeping and instead concentrate on the story and the actions of the players.  

It provides something cinematic without being bogged down in the details of how many hit points orc #12 has.

It provides a way to have the players feel they can fight almost overwhelming odds yet still come through the battle.


----------



## Piratecat (May 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Er, but wouldnt the use of minions be akin to how Aragorn et al treated the orcs? Isn;t that what the minions plot device supposed to be for? To model scenes from books and movies?



Discussing Gimli and Legolas cutting down orcs at Helm's Deep? Totally appropriate. Discussing whether LotR is "literature," or anime, or other discussion involving literary criticism? Belongs in another thread. Sorry I wasn't clearer.


----------



## hong (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> They're a minor tactical problem (clear them or get around them to attack the actual monsters) if you mix them a reasonable proportion with real monsters, but they aren't ever a threat.




Exactly. They're not meant to be a threat by themselves. They're a minor tactical problem, and an opportunity to showboat.

Why do ppl have this aversion to showboating? It is very strange.


----------



## Knightlord (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> But level appropriate minions *aren't* a credible threat, as far as I can tell. You need 15 or so kobold minions to even have a chance at taking down *a* first level character. Same with the legion devils.  You need so many to line up and try to beat on someone that it doesn't strike me as exciting.  Its more like hacking through underbrush with a machete.  Its a tedious chore that you are required to do to get to some place interesting.
> 
> They're a minor tactical problem (clear them or get around them to attack the actual monsters) if you mix them a reasonable proportion with real monsters, but they aren't ever a threat.
> 
> A lower level monster will hit a bit less often, but its made up for with more damage- attacks that players will have to pay attention to, not just ignore- provoking opportunity attacks from minions really doesn't matter much, because their chance to hit isn't great, and the damage is so small that it doesn't actually matter.




But 1st level standard monsters almost *never* hit. At least the minions have a greater chance of actually hitting the PC's. And, as stated, minions are supposed to be just a *minor tactical problem*, but become a *major tactical problem* in large groups.

In short (and the following numbers are just hypothetical):
-1st level Kobold Standard Monster: Say +6 to hit and 1d8+2 damage vs. Level 10 Fighter's AC 26 and roughly 90HP. The Kobold needs a 20 to hit and does a max of 10 pts. Meh.

-9th level Kobold Minion: Say +12 to hit and 5 damage vs. Level 10 Fighter's AC 26 and roughly 90HP. Needs a 14 to hit and does auto 5 damage. Not great, but better than the Standard monster and can potentially be deadly when in groups.


----------



## Cirex (May 19, 2008)

Xena usually one-hits minions. And it's so cool!

Minions are a great addition to 4e and although I'm planning to keep my players in the dark, I'll describe the non-minions enemies as "fearsome". That should be enough to tell them apart.


----------



## ShockMeSane (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Further, I don't like the fact that they are fully aware that minions fall apart if you take them  too far out of level.  To me, thats a sign that the subsystem doesn't work.  It simply  isn't internally coherent- the same XP values of kobold minions and a level 21 legion devil is almost a guaranteed win for the kobolds- that horde almost has to roll a 20 at some point, and at that point, they win. Same with players.  They can take it, no matter the level, as long as they can keep attacking and hope for the big numbers.




Your example is in blatant defiance of the minion rules from the most basic level. I mean, they specifically state this is exactly how you are not supposed to use minions. A minion is not a special, insanely weak version of a monster, it is a story element.

There are a number of levels where D&D of all editions breaks down if you go completely out of your way to break the spirit and recommended use of the rules, but I'm not sure that makes for a valid argument because unlike a video-game, D&D is moderated by a human being that is hopefully smarter than a box full of tacks.

Despite all that, if you still hate Minions for how "meta-gamey" they are (which is an argument I can understand), they are exceptionally easy to remove as a DM.

I for one will try them in my first campaign where appropriate, and then make a decision based on how that works out. It may be the only appearence of minions in my games, or they may become a great new tool to make use of. Just going to have to wait and see how my players react to them.


----------



## el-remmen (May 19, 2008)

Naszir said:
			
		

> This I just don't get.  Is Basic D&D D&D?  Is AD&D D&D?  Is anything that has houserules D&D? Is 2E or 3E D&D?




Huh? I have been very vocal here over the years that to me "It is _ALL_ D&D."

I guess I could have been clearer and said ". . . D&D to _me_."

I said only "D&D is D&D" I only meant that I am not looking for D&D to emulate any other form of fantasy-based entertainment.

So yeah, I was not trying to say that 4E is not D&D, or that having minions makes something not D&D.


----------



## hong (May 19, 2008)

Hm. I always thought it was self-evident that D&D existing in a hermetically sealed bubble, free from influences from the outside world, was a bad thing.


----------



## kitoy (May 19, 2008)

I really really like the new minion rules.  My players and I are big fans of the concept of huge fights against dozens of foes.  In play, those kinds of fights usually ended up being disappointments.  As a DM, I ended up doing way too much accounting keeping track of hit points for mooks that had a 5% chance of hitting the players.  The players didn't have much fun because they just got to watch me play the, "Was this one hit? How about this one?" game.

I love the ease of use implied by the new rules and can't wait to try them out.  I just need to adjust my thinking around the concept of minions as speed bumps/semi-credible threats on the way to the main action.

I can't wait to see the looks on my players faces when I throw a dozen or so monsters at them at first level!  They're gonna freak.


----------



## el-remmen (May 19, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Hm. I always thought it was self-evident that D&D existing in a hermetically sealed bubble, free from influences from the outside world, was a bad thing.




Maybe I should start a separate thread on this issue in General, because I don't want to hijack this thread (I'll see if I have time to do so later - or someone else can do it) - but I see a difference between influence and emulation.   Lots of movies and books influence my campaigns/adventures, I am just not trying to emulate them.


----------



## Cadfan (May 19, 2008)

This all depends on the game environment.  Take minions in Feng Shui.  The rules there are, in short, that all minions die if you hit them for more than 5 damage, but a hit for less than 5 damage is not tracked.  So you can hit them indefinitely at 4 damage per hit, but only once for 5+.  This works for Feng Shui because most characters hit for way more than 5 damage, so the realism breakage that would occur if you smacked a minion 12 times for 4 damage each (enough to kill a major named character) is very unlikely to happen.

Regarding these minion rules, if level 21 characters are regularly throwing around 1 damage attacks, then minions won't work so well.  But if level 21 characters rarely or never throw 1 damage attacks, then everything is fine.  As long as the typical attack damage is high enough that is plausible that it would kill a minion, there isn't a problem.

So... let me think about what's in the game.

*Basic attacking* follows a 1[W]+Stat progression, with a boost at epic level.  I don't think there will be a problem there, except possibly if you end up with a wizard knifing a level 26 minion with a nonmagical dagger or something.  But since wizards have at will magic that does way more damage than their crappy dagger powered by a strength score of 8, I don't think this will be a noticeable problem.

*Area of effect powers* don't look to be a problem, because they tend to do significant damage.  At will area of effects like Scorching Burst already don't do any damage on a miss.  Same with Burning Hands.  Its only daily powers like Acid Arrow that do half damage on a miss, at least so far.  This could bug people, but I doubt it will come up often, since Wizards have better options for killing weak foes.  If it does come up, I'll DM around it.  If a Wizard wants to use a daily power to waste one minion, I may just let it happen.  Why not?

*Attacks that do only [Ability Score damage]* could be an issue, but I don't think they will based on what I know at the moment.  This would be stuff like Cleave or Reaping Strike.  This is probably the most dangerous territory, because at least hypothetically someone could take Cleave and then never increase their strength score above a +2 or something.  But that would be moronic for a Fighter, so I'm figuring it won't happen.  At level 21, I expect most Fighters will have strength bonuses of around +6 or more, due to the rate at which ability scores increase.  Reaping Strike is a little tougher, since letting minions die to it violates the "minions don't die on a miss" rule.  This puts us in the Feng Shui Minion territory, where you can Reaping Strike a minion indefinitely for 4 damage, but only connect once for 5.  I may adjust that slightly, so that if you miss a minion with Reaping Strike more than once or twice, it eventually dies.  That will be an on-the-fly adjustment at most, though.

*Combat involving vastly divergent power levels* might be a concern, but probably won't.  The secret to not having level 1 PCs beat up level 21 minions is to not have them meet.  That works for me.  If the PCs party involved several level 15 characters and a single level 3 character, that might create problems, but honestly that's already a problem.  And if they have a low level NPC trailing along with them, well, I'll just ad lib the NPCs combat.  I always did in the past for non combat relevant NPCs.

*Low level items saved up until higher levels.*  Lets say that at level 1, you buy a flask of burning oil that does 1d8 damage.  At level 30 you throw it at a bunch of minions, because you haven't used it yet and you never took it off your character sheet.  It might bug me if PCs started doing this.  Since the damage in this type of item is based on the item, not the character (at least in 3e, we don't know in 4e) its possible for level 30 PCs to bring level 1 guns to a level 30 fight.  It would bug me if doing this to clear out minions became commonplace.  That's about the biggest criticism I've got, though.


----------



## Cadfan (May 19, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. They're not meant to be a threat by themselves. They're a minor tactical problem, and an opportunity to showboat.
> 
> Why do ppl have this aversion to showboating? It is very strange.



What I don't get is why people have an aversion to admitting that _all monsters_, regardless of minion status, are tactical problems, story elements, and opportunities to fight stuff.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (May 19, 2008)

I'm really looking forward to minions in play - when I started telling people about a little 4e playtest that I did with around 30 or 40 dead monsters in a couple of hours the response tended to "At first level?!"

Big fights with lots of enemies seem inherently more fun to me that small groups. These rules make it possible to do this without getting too bogged down in monsters that have no chance of seriously impacting the battlefield, nor of seriously hurting the PC's.

It also allows the PC's to look good, for villains to sacrifice their minions to slow the PC's down even if they know it isn't likely to actually stop them and...well, frankly, I love the idea.

Oh, and zombie hordes. Can't get enough of them zombie hordes.


----------



## hong (May 19, 2008)

You could change "minions die from a hit that does 1+ hp" to "minions die from a hit that does X+ hp", where X increases with level. That way a kobold is like straw, but a legion devil could withstand lots of little hits.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (May 19, 2008)

I think the concept of minions is going to quickly be made irrelevant as PCs keep an area effect damage spell/power (however low level) in reserve for the end encounter.

Presto! All minions removed from the board.

Watch how quickly PCs adapt to counter the concept of minions...


----------



## hong (May 19, 2008)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> I think the concept of minions is going to quickly be made irrelevant as PCs keep an area effect damage spell/power (however low level) in reserve for the end encounter.
> 
> Presto! All minions removed from the board.
> 
> Watch how quickly PCs adapt to counter the concept of minions...



 This is undoubtedly the exact reason for the "minions take no damage from a miss" rule.


----------



## DandD (May 19, 2008)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> I think the concept of minions is going to quickly be made irrelevant as PCs keep an area effect damage spell/power (however low level) in reserve for the end encounter.
> 
> Presto! All minions removed from the board.
> 
> Watch how quickly PCs adapt to counter the concept of minions...



 Ehrm, yes? Isn't that intended? That the players come up with smart tactical choices and decisions to remove the annoying minions as fast as possible? To use their area-effect powers (and hopefully hit) them so that they go down fast?


----------



## Wormwood (May 19, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> You could change "minions die from a hit that does 1+ hp" to "minions die from a hit that does X+ hp", where X increases with level. That way a kobold is like straw, but a legion devil could withstand lots of little hits.



Until this article, I'd suspected that minions _would _ have something like 1hp/level (not tracked, of course).


----------



## Saragon (May 19, 2008)

*Quite fond of minions, actually*

My current DM _loves_ mooks in our 3.5 game. Only one problem -- with 3.5's rules, the typical "Adventurers vs. horde of weak but dangerous creatures" fight takes _forever_. For mooks to be at all interesting, they have to have several Hit Dice, and that means enough HP to quite possibly NOT drop in one hit. On the other hand, they can't actually hit us except on a natural 20 if they're weak enough to count as "mooks", so we tend to ignore them. Should the DM increase their strength enough to actually threaten us, then they have enough HP to absorb several hits and are no longer mooks. See the problem? A single battle like this can take all night.

The "minions" idea in 4e is unquestionably one of my favorite refinements from 3.x. I know some of you may have done something like this before as DMs, but we haven't, and it's very good to have it written out for us. I know it'll speed up our DM's planning a lot, and that alone is worth it.

Not sure why there was a problem bringing up the Helm's Deep scene from _The Two Towers_, because that's a scene that has informed fantasy tropes pretty much since the book's publication. It's something players _want_ to do, and something DMs _want_ to throw at players, because it's such a classic idea. (Forget Helm's Deep, actually -- this goes back to the Battle of Thermopylae.) That it's a naturally cinematic trope doesn't reduce its value.


----------



## Cadfan (May 19, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> This is undoubtedly the exact reason for the "minions take no damage from a miss" rule.



Its even more thorough than that.  Most area of effects _already_ do no damage on a miss.


----------



## hong (May 19, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Its even more thorough than that.  Most area of effects _already_ do no damage on a miss.



 If fireball doesn't do half damage on a miss, I'll be shocked. Shocked, I say!


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 19, 2008)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> I think the concept of minions is going to quickly be made irrelevant as PCs keep an area effect damage spell/power (however low level) in reserve for the end encounter.
> 
> Presto! All minions removed from the board.
> 
> Watch how quickly PCs adapt to counter the concept of minions...




... if the AOE hits every minion.  Since one has to roll an attack roll for each creature in the effect, that should make that an unlikely outcome.  Combine this with dynamic encounter areas, and I doubt we're going to see all minions swallowed up in a single fireball.


----------



## Cadfan (May 19, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> If fireball doesn't do half damage on a miss, I'll be shocked. Shocked, I say!



You're thinking of Lightning Bolt.


----------



## hexgrid (May 19, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> Xena usually one-hits minions. And it's so cool!
> 
> Minions are a great addition to 4e and although I'm planning to keep my players in the dark, I'll describe the non-minions enemies as "fearsome". That should be enough to tell them apart.




Seems like rolling or not rolling for damage would also be a dead give away.


----------



## Voss (May 19, 2008)

Knightlord said:
			
		

> But 1st level standard monsters almost *never* hit. At least the minions have a greater chance of actually hitting the PC's. And, as stated, minions are supposed to be just a *minor tactical problem*, but become a *major tactical problem* in large groups.




I don't think they live up to this, however.  They're a minor tactical problem in large groups, and completely irrelevant in small ones. 



> In short (and the following numbers are just hypothetical):
> -1st level Kobold Standard Monster: Say +6 to hit and 1d8+2 damage vs. Level 10 Fighter's AC 26 and roughly 90HP. The Kobold needs a 20 to hit and does a max of 10 pts. Meh.
> 
> -9th level Kobold Minion: Say +12 to hit and 5 damage vs. Level 10 Fighter's AC 26 and roughly 90HP. Needs a 14 to hit and does auto 5 damage. Not great, but better than the Standard monster and can potentially be deadly when in groups.




That strikes me as a particularly unreasonable comparison. Take some monster stats that we actually know about: the goblin picador is attacking at +9 at level 2, and the level 6 legion devil minion is attacking at +11.  That isn't a large difference, and they goblin also averages about 5 damage, same as the devil's set damage.  And the goblin doesn't break the versimilitude of the game, as he won't explode when a small child standing off to the side calls it a meanie and gets a lucky roll when it throws a rock at its head.


----------



## DandD (May 19, 2008)

Of course, seeing as the child isn't a player character, he's a minion at best when fighting anything in the game.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> And the goblin doesn't break the versimilitude of the game, as he won't explode when a small child standing off to the side calls it a meanie and gets a lucky roll when it throws a rock at its head.




If the PCs have small children on their side, clearly the balance of encounter difficulty has changed.  Therefore, more minions would be appropriate for sufficiently large numbers of children.


----------



## med stud (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I don't think they live up to this, however.  They're a minor tactical problem in large groups, and completely irrelevant in small ones.



I've done playtests with minions. The fighter thought "they are just minions!" and charged in. He missed two cleaves in a row and the minions would have knocked him out if not for the cleric. That was the dwarf pregen from KotS vs seven minions BTW. Minions are dangerous, not one-on-one but in groups.


			
				Voss said:
			
		

> That strikes me as a particularly unreasonable comparison. Take some monster stats that we actually know about: the goblin picador is attacking at +9 at level 2, and the level 6 legion devil minion is attacking at +11.  That isn't a large difference, and they goblin also averages about 5 damage, same as the devil's set damage.  And the goblin doesn't break the versimilitude of the game, as he won't explode when a small child standing off to the side calls it a meanie and gets a lucky roll when it throws a rock at its head.



An angry child throwing a stone doesn't deal any damage if you want to keep versimilitude. Otherwise a 2nd edition magic user could be killed by three angry kids throwing stones instead of one. Hell, even a first level fighter in 2nd edition that rolled bad for HP could be killed by children throwing rocks if there were many of them enough if that was attacks that dealt damage.


----------



## Ginnel (May 19, 2008)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> Seems like rolling or not rolling for damage would also be a dead give away.



Hmm True good point, you could vary the damage by rolling before hand if you'd like to give a bit more variety or just role it wouldn't take that long especially if you role in groups of attacking each PC.

I'm just gonna wait till players get used to minions then suddenly find that a hoard of monsters they are fighting don't go down in one hit(either i home brew a 2 hit minion or there actually is a hoard of statted monsters), que quite smirk/Muwhahahaa, but then that will be an exception rather than the rule as I think minions are a good idea.


----------



## hong (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I don't think they live up to this, however.  They're a minor tactical problem in large groups, and completely irrelevant in small ones.




"It's only a rabbit. I'll have its head off!"



> That strikes me as a particularly unreasonable comparison. Take some monster stats that we actually know about: the goblin picador is attacking at +9 at level 2, and the level 6 legion devil minion is attacking at +11.  That isn't a large difference,




ie, exactly as large as the rate at which AC increases: +1 per 2 levels.



> and they goblin also averages about 5 damage, same as the devil's set damage.




IOW, 4 minions will do 4 times as much damage than the picador.



> And the goblin doesn't break the versimilitude of the game,




You misspelled "believability". Hope this helps!


----------



## Lizard (May 19, 2008)

Looking at the devil minions...plate armor+heavy shield only equals a +5 to AC?


----------



## Knightlord (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> ...And the goblin doesn't break the versimilitude of the game, as he won't explode when a small child standing off to the side calls it a meanie and gets a lucky roll when it throws a rock at its head.




Minion status seems to function as a way to make PC's feel like badasses, but not so for commoners. In regards to *children* and indeed the rest of the common world, I suspect minions probably function like normal monsters. If not, then there would be no need for heroes, right? I mean, why summon a noble paladin to rid the village of a sinister Kobold infestation if farmer John can simply take up his pitchfork and mow down the Kobolds minions himself, Matrix-style?


----------



## AllisterH (May 19, 2008)

re: Using a lower level monster instead of a minion.

Looking at the table from the excerpts, "Quests", a single level 9 minion has the same xp value as a level 1 standard monster.

Anyone want to compare two similar monsters (a minion soldier versus a soldier) that we have *official* stats for?


----------



## keterys (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I don't think they live up to this, however.  They're a minor tactical problem in large groups, and completely irrelevant in small ones.




In a recent battle I did a couple minions in back doing ranged attacks did a ton of damage while being ignored in favor of the 'dangerous guys'. The paladin had to beg the casters to stick their heads out and take care of them.





			
				Voss said:
			
		

> That strikes me as a particularly unreasonable comparison. Take some monster stats that we actually know about: the goblin picador is attacking at +9 at level 2, and the level 6 legion devil minion is attacking at +11.  That isn't a large difference, and they goblin also averages about 5 damage, same as the devil's set damage.  And the goblin doesn't break the versimilitude of the game, as he won't explode when a small child standing off to the side calls it a meanie and gets a lucky roll when it throws a rock at its head.




The DDM goblin's stats shouldn't be used for any comparison. They're based on when attacks and defenses were higher and the hp to damage ratio was far different. 

Minions don't explode when small children get a lucky roll with a rock because _they don't fight small children_.


----------



## keterys (May 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Looking at the devil minions...plate armor+heavy shield only equals a +5 to AC?




Shields add to reflex as well as AC. Plate doesn't let you get your int or dex bonus to AC, but you'd still get it to reflex.


----------



## Lacyon (May 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Looking at the devil minions...plate armor+heavy shield only equals a +5 to AC?




You mean, +9 for the grunt, +12 for the Hellguard, +14 for the Veteran, and +17 for the Legionnaire?

Are you trying to give them Dex in spite of their heavy armor _and_ double-counting level bonus as a result, or is there some breakdown of their AC that you're seeing and I'm not?


----------



## Mort_Q (May 19, 2008)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> Seems like rolling or not rolling for damage would also be a dead give away.




Isn't rolling a handful of dice behind the screen every round, regardless of whether you use them, a standard DM trope?


----------



## Wormwood (May 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Looking at the devil minions...plate armor+heavy shield only equals a +5 to AC?



Stormtrooper armor.


----------



## Phaezen (May 19, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> You mean, +9 for the grunt, +12 for the Hellguard, +14 for the Veteran, and +17 for the Legionnaire?
> 
> Are you trying to give them Dex in spite of their heavy armor _and_ double-counting level bonus as a result, or is there some breakdown of their AC that you're seeing and I'm not?




That is the 4wesome part of the statblocks is that there is no breakdown for monsters, so it doesn't really matter if they are wearing full plate, have mithril scales covering thier bodies or are wearing frilly pink tutus they have the ac that is appropriate to thier level, and the PC's won't be walking around with major armouries in bags of holding  

Phaezen


----------



## Benimoto (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> That strikes me as a particularly unreasonable comparison. Take some monster stats that we actually know about: the goblin picador is attacking at +9 at level 2, and the level 6 legion devil minion is attacking at +11.  That isn't a large difference, and they goblin also averages about 5 damage, same as the devil's set damage.  And the goblin doesn't break the versimilitude of the game, as he won't explode when a small child standing off to the side calls it a meanie and gets a lucky roll when it throws a rock at its head.



If your point is that you can just use monsters 4 levels lower than a level-appropriate minion, and achieve about the same results, you're probably right.  The advantage to using the minions is that, by XP values, you can use twice as many (125 XP for a level 2 goblin VS 63 for a level 6 minion.)  With the minions, you'll never have to track a condition like harpooned.  And of course, you'll never have to track which creatures have taken damage and how much.

Like the article said, minions are purely there for DM convenience.  They exist to allow a certain type of fight scene in a way that doesn't put too much of a drain on the DM's time and resources.  They allow you to essentially extend the useful life of monsters.  You'll notice in the article that it recommends switching a monster out with minions 7-8 levels after you've fought the original monster.  That's exactly when monsters that originally needed an 12 or so to hit now need a 19 or 20.

The sacrifice comes, as you mention, in believability.  Of course, all the examples you mention that stretch belief all involve "lucky hits" or natural 20s.  It seems to me that you've discovered that when you take one effect that doesn't scale well across levels (natural 20s by weak creatures) and combine it with another (minions having 1 hp) that you run into unbelievable scenarios.  That makes sense.  You've already stretched believability twice.  How elastic do you think that stuff is?


----------



## OchreJelly (May 19, 2008)

I suspect 4E’s version of:
“How bad does the monster look hurt?” 
will be:
“Does the monster look like a minion?”


----------



## Evilhalfling (May 19, 2008)

Hawke said:
			
		

> Also, we shouldn't be asking whether the player knows if that goblin is a minion or not. The goblin should be asking himself whether or not it is a minion! Or maybe I'll have my first group roll up characters and then have them enter combat for the first time only to find out they were only minions.




This is the way I had planned for 0-level PCs. With the exception that any hit means that they are now dying, instead of just dead. Perhaps they will also get random damage, cause thats fun.  
hmm no difference between ftr and wizard hp that way, maybe defenders will get an (unrevealed) per encounter power (ignore the damage from one hit, you are now considered bloodied, activated automatically of a sucessful hit); leaders may get the same as a daily.


----------



## Lizard (May 19, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> An angry child throwing a stone doesn't deal any damage if you want to keep versimilitude. Otherwise a 2nd edition magic user could be killed by three angry kids throwing stones instead of one. Hell, even a first level fighter in 2nd edition that rolled bad for HP could be killed by children throwing rocks if there were many of them enough if that was attacks that dealt damage.




And it's completely impossible for people to be killed by tossed stones.


----------



## Voss (May 19, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Minions don't explode when small children get a lucky roll with a rock because _they don't fight small children_.




But they *can*.  Thats the problem with the whole concept.  If you take a see/hear/do no evil approach, then yes its fine, if you refuse to look at any problems that come up.  If you try to have a functional, believable world, it has all sorts of problems when you realize that Evil Priest Bob can send an devilish minion after the prince/princess/small puppy of whatever, and a lucky blow with a vase can reasonably expected to end such fiendish plots 1 time out of 20.  

Now, maybe you don't have a problem with it, but I do. I can easily see doing a scenario where a village is attacked, and the village militia is shooting arrows and spears at the attackers.  Having them just pop (possibly on both sides) at lucky shots from a bunch of peasants is frankly ridiculous, and isn't something I want in my games.



> The DDM goblin's stats shouldn't be used for any comparison. They're based on when attacks and defenses were higher and the hp to damage ratio was far different.




Eh.  I grabbed a monster at random from the ones that we have stats for.  And I don't really think that the current cards, which came in boxes less than a month ago are that out of date.  If they are, and the 4e sides of the cards from the current set are worthless, than WotC owes a serious apology to any 4e customer who made the mistake of buying them.


----------



## Lizard (May 19, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> You mean, +9 for the grunt, +12 for the Hellguard, +14 for the Veteran, and +17 for the Legionnaire?
> 
> Are you trying to give them Dex in spite of their heavy armor _and_ double-counting level bonus as a result, or is there some breakdown of their AC that you're seeing and I'm not?




My understanding was that AC=Reflex+Armor.

It's since been explained that the shield adds to reflex defense.

Boy, it would be nice if the sources of armor values were broken out in the description, so that it's easy to see what provides what and calculate the difference if something changes -- i.e, if a shield is sundered or removed -- without having to have memorized the values for shields, armor, etc. Something like "AC 20 +16 Reflex +4 Armor" or "Reflex 18 +4 Level +2 Dex +2 Shield" or the like. Perhaps by the time fifth edition rolls around, this kind of cutting-edge design will be used.


----------



## med stud (May 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> And it's completely impossible for people to be killed by tossed stones.



Look at his post again. He said a _child_ is throwing a stone ffs, get the quote in context please!

I very much know that stones can kill people. I know about stoning. I know about David and Goliath. That wasn't what Voss was talking about, though. Now if Voss was instead talking about a well trained seventeen year old who threw a well balanced stone with good precision, my argument doesn't hold. It didn't seem like that, though.


----------



## DandD (May 19, 2008)

Only simulationists have a problem with the minion rules. People who outgrew that phase don't. Of course, seeing as D&D 4th edition clearly states that this is for purely gamist value, no simulationist would have a problem with those rules, as they would automatically ignore it, unless they purposefully chose not to and want to think too much about it.

Admin here. Please see the first post on the next page.  ~ Piratecat


----------



## Lizard (May 19, 2008)

Phaezen said:
			
		

> That is the 4wesome part of the statblocks is that there is no breakdown for monsters, so it doesn't really matter if they are wearing full plate, have mithril scales covering thier bodies or are wearing frilly pink tutus they have the ac that is appropriate to thier level, and the PC's won't be walking around with major armouries in bags of holding
> 
> Phaezen




And the awesome lasts just until a PC says "I rip the shield off his arm with my telekinesis!" (Or any of a dozen other ways) and the game grinds to a halt while everyone looks up the bonus for a shield so the revised Reflex and Armor defense can be calculated, because putting them in the stat block might have made the numbers too scary.


----------



## AllisterH (May 19, 2008)

Oh no, I sense another 

"Do/Should the rules govern the gameworld or just the PCs" thread....

Let's take your example of the evil priest attacking the princess. Unless the PCs are in the room, why does it matter what the stats are for the minion? Hell, even if they ARE in the room, unless they physically interact with the minion, it shouldn't matter...


----------



## Voss (May 19, 2008)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> If your point is that you can just use monsters 4 levels lower than a level-appropriate minion, and achieve about the same results, you're probably right.  The advantage to using the minions is that, by XP values, you can use twice as many (125 XP for a level 2 goblin VS 63 for a level 6 minion.)  With the minions, you'll never have to track a condition like harpooned.  And of course, you'll never have to track which creatures have taken damage and how much.
> 
> Like the article said, minions are purely there for DM convenience.  They exist to allow a certain type of fight scene in a way that doesn't put too much of a drain on the DM's time and resources.  They allow you to essentially extend the useful life of monsters.  You'll notice in the article that it recommends switching a monster out with minions 7-8 levels after you've fought the original monster.  That's exactly when monsters that originally needed an 12 or so to hit now need a 19 or 20.




Unfortunately, you're encountering monsters purely as minions in the first place (legion devils), or mixed in with real monsters of the same type that function largely the way PCs do (kobolds, orcs).  If you first encounter real kobolds, and then 7-8 levels later, they're replaced with disposable kobolds that you could one shot, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.  After 7 or 8 levels, being able to easily slaughter things that were threats 
originally isn't that much of a stretch.  It stretches believablility a little, but not excessively. 

However, it doesn't work like that.  You hit minions from the very beginning, mixed in with credible opponents.  That, to me, isn't believable at all.  You really could conceivably drag along a pack of children to throw rocks at the minions while you deal with the real threats.  When kobold A can take 3 hits with an axe, and kobold B falls to a single pointy stick, I'm going to notice.  And I'm going to want an in-game reason for why it happens. And frankly so is my character- Magnus the paladin is going to be wanting an explanation for why some kobolds can take a greatsword to the face while others fall immediately.  Is he killing kobold children now?  That could very well be against his code of honor.



> The sacrifice comes, as you mention, in believability.  Of course, all the examples you mention that stretch belief all involve "lucky hits" or natural 20s.  It seems to me that you've discovered that when you take one effect that doesn't scale well across levels (natural 20s by weak creatures) and combine it with another (minions having 1 hp) that you run into unbelievable scenarios.  That makes sense.  You've already stretched believability twice.  How elastic do you think that stuff is?




Not very, and thats part of the problem.  D&D combat is already heavily abstracted, but I can live with it.  Adding additional levels of pure abstraction that are completely out of touch with both reality and the game's assumptions is just a bad way to go.


----------



## Lacyon (May 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> My understanding was that AC=Reflex+Armor.




I'm not sure that's the case. I know it _appears_ to be the case, because Reflex and AC are based on the same stat, and the 1/2 level bonus applies to both, so (particularly at low levels) typically the armor is the only difference between the two.

EDIT: Thinking about this further, it actually makes _no sense_ for AC to be Reflex + Armor. If that were the case, the neck slot would add to AC and you'd never need magic armor for that (or else you'd get a double-boost to AC from magic armor and neck slot).



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Boy, it would be nice if the sources of armor values were broken out in the description, so that it's easy to see what provides what and calculate the difference if something changes -- i.e, if a shield is sundered or removed -- without having to have memorized the values for shields, armor, etc. Something like "AC 20 +16 Reflex +4 Armor" or "Reflex 18 +4 Level +2 Dex +2 Shield" or the like. Perhaps by the time fifth edition rolls around, this kind of cutting-edge design will be used.




The only things you might break would be armor and shields, and those _can_ be back calculated if you need them. Penalties to Dex and the like can be handled indirectly, likewise something that reduces natural armor bonuses or whatever.

Alternatively, you could just remove all the abilities that literally say they sunder someone's shield, and replace them with powers that inflict a -2 penalty to AC and, when said power is used against a foe with a non-magical shield, fluff it up as breaking the shield, and in other cases you're doing something else suitably distracting to the target.

Not sure why people are excited about cluttering up the stat block with things it really doesn't need.


----------



## Benimoto (May 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Anyone want to compare two similar monsters (a minion soldier versus a soldier) that we have *official* stats for?



You can compare the level 3 Orc Raider (a skirmisher) with the level 11 Legion Devil Hellguard.  They're both worth 150 XP.

The Orc has 17 HP, 17 AC and attacks at +8 vs. AC for 1d12 + 3 damage (crit 1d12 + 15).

The Hellguard has 1 HP, 27 AC (29 with squad defense) and attacks at +16 vs. AC for 6 damage.

You can see that if the hellguard had 17 HP like the orc that most of the orc's hits would be criticals that would kill it instantly.  On the other hand, the Hellguard hits the orc on every attack (except a natural 1, which would hit if it wasn't an automatic miss) and needs 3 hits to kill it, or 4-5 if the orc gets off its special ability Warrior's Surge.  Odds slightly favor the hellguard, even if the Orc can hit on a 19.

Interesting.  I suppose the real comparison would be with the monsters the article mentions, ie. 16th level Abyssal Ghouls vs. the 23rd level Abyssal Ghoul Myrmadons.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> And the awesome lasts just until a PC says "I rip the shield off his arm with my telekinesis!" (Or any of a dozen other ways) and the game grinds to a halt while everyone looks up the bonus for a shield so the revised Reflex and Armor defense can be calculated, because putting them in the stat block might have made the numbers too scary.




Your hand-wave fu is not strong. 4e's core mechanic is the hand-wave. You better brush up.

I think I'll sell a paper cutout of a hand with 4e on it. When a rules question like this comes up, you just flash the hand above the DM screen.

Surely I can make at least as much money off that as a Jump to Conclusions mat.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 19, 2008)

I would have gone maybe with a minion dies when hit with an attack that deals 1/2 its level in damage. If it takes less damage it is merely bloodied. A second hit kills it then...

But thats an easy houserule...


----------



## Voss (May 19, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Only simulationists have a problem with the minion rules. People who outgrew that phase don't. Of course, seeing as D&D 4th edition clearly states that this is for purely gamist value, no simulationist would have a problem with those rules, as they would automatically ignore it, unless they purposefully chose not to and want to think too much about it.




Sorry, but I have a lot of trouble with the idea that 4th edition is for people who value not thinking.  Thats demeaning to the game, the developers and everyone who plays it.


----------



## Piratecat (May 19, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Only simulationists have a problem with the minion rules. People who outgrew that phase don't.



We do *not* need the gratuitous insult. If you can't disagree without insulting people, don't post.

Lizard, I love not having the very-seldom-used information on the stat block. I vastly prefer needing to look up a shield now and then, rather than have the monster's crucial information obscured by information that I don't care about one bit while running combat.

You disagree, I know, and that's cool - I'm just sharing a different perspective.


----------



## drothgery (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> But they *can*.  Thats the problem with the whole concept.




No, they can't (at least, not unless the DM just enjoys poking at corner cases of the system). When Evil Priest Bob sends a devil to abduct the toddler Princess Jane, it's not a minion relative to the princess, so if for some crazy reason dice are involved in the fight at all, the devil's not statted as a minion for that fight. When that same devil joins the Evil Priest Bob's Devlish Hordes to attack Sir Steve the Awesome, Defender of the Light (Paladin 26), Lady Mary the Amazing (Wizard 26), and their friends, the same devil (along with lots of his mechanically identical twins) is now statted as a minion because it can't do much more than provide a speed bump to Our Heroes, so there's no point in making them more mechanically complicated than they need to be.


----------



## Lacyon (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> If you first encounter real kobolds, and then 7-8 levels later, they're replaced with disposable kobolds that you could one shot, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.  After 7 or 8 levels, being able to easily slaughter things that were threats
> originally isn't that much of a stretch.  It stretches believablility a little, but not excessively.
> 
> However, it doesn't work like that.  You hit minions from the very beginning, mixed in with credible opponents.  That, to me, isn't believable at all. You really could conceivably drag along a pack of children to throw rocks at the minions while you deal with the real threats.  When kobold A can take 3 hits with an axe, and kobold B falls to a single pointy stick, I'm going to notice.




Except that this has nothing to do with minion rules.

Did it break versimilitude for you when Kobold Warrior died in one solid blow because he rolled a 1 on his hit die, but a totally different Kobold Warrior took additional hits to kill because he rolled better? How about the Kobold with multiple class levels?

There's always been variation of survivability within creature type; it just makes sense that they aren't all the same.


----------



## AllisterH (May 19, 2008)

Benimoto said:
			
		

> You can compare the level 3 Orc Raider (a skirmisher) with the level 11 Legion Devil Hellguard.  They're both worth 150 XP.
> 
> The Orc has 17 HP, 17 AC and attacks at +8 vs. AC for 1d12 + 3 damage (crit 1d12 + 15).
> 
> ...



Wouldn't the proper challenge be a 11th level PC? AC of 11th level pc is base + magic armour + level bonus which for Kathra be around an AC of 26?, while her attack bonus is probably around +12?

The Orc skirmisher pretty much hits only on a 18 or higher and gets hit on a 5 or higher...Isn't this the same problem we're trying to avoid by using minions. The fact that lower level critters don't act as good minions (can't really hit the PCs and have weak defense but still require bookkeeping?)


----------



## Knightlord (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> But they *can*.  Thats the problem with the whole concept.  If you take a see/hear/do no evil approach, then yes its fine, if you refuse to look at any problems that come up.  If you try to have a functional, believable world, it has all sorts of problems when you realize that Evil Priest Bob can send an devilish minion after the prince/princess/small puppy of whatever, and a lucky blow with a vase can reasonably expected to end such fiendish plots 1 time out of 20.
> 
> Now, maybe you don't have a problem with it, but I do. I can easily see doing a scenario where a village is attacked, and the village militia is shooting arrows and spears at the attackers.  Having them just pop (possibly on both sides) at lucky shots from a bunch of peasants is frankly ridiculous, and isn't something I want in my games.




Friend, I think you may be looking at this whole "minion" thing way too hard. Again, Minions exist to make the heroes look cool because they can take on several of these foes at once. I do not believe they were designed with "commoners" in mind. *Minion* is a game mechanic. It doesn't have to be a Role-playing element, and honestly, it probably shouldn't. And when the town militia attacks the *Minions*, and you actually want to play it out, just don't have the minions behave as minions (ie. add extra HP or something to increase their lifespan), or just roll a d20 for each side and see who rolls lower and consequently loses a soldier. It doesn't have to be entirely accurate as long as its fun.

Now, when the PC's show up, the minions *should* behave as minions when interacting with the heroes. This showcases the heroic nature of the PC's.


----------



## Lacyon (May 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> And the awesome lasts just until a PC says "I rip the shield off his arm with my telekinesis!" (Or any of a dozen other ways) and the game grinds to a halt while everyone looks up the bonus for a shield so the revised Reflex and Armor defense can be calculated, because putting them in the stat block might have made the numbers too scary.




-2 AC and Reflex. If you're having trouble remembering, ask one of the PCs who has a shield to look at their character sheet.

If the shield were magical, it would only be there because you put it there (presumably as treasure). You'd already be recalculating stats from the base creature, taking the magic threshold into account, so you'd have the numbers either fresh in your mind or possibly even have them written down in your notes.

Honestly, this is not hard.


----------



## Shabe (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> But they *can*.  Thats the problem with the whole concept.  If you take a see/hear/do no evil approach, then yes its fine, if you refuse to look at any problems that come up.  If you try to have a functional, believable world, it has all sorts of problems when you realize that Evil Priest Bob can send an devilish minion after the prince/princess/small puppy of whatever, and a lucky blow with a vase can reasonably expected to end such fiendish plots 1 time out of 20.
> 
> Now, maybe you don't have a problem with it, but I do. I can easily see doing a scenario where a village is attacked, and the village militia is shooting arrows and spears at the attackers.  Having them just pop (possibly on both sides) at lucky shots from a bunch of peasants is frankly ridiculous, and isn't something I want in my games.




Why can't a functional, believable world cope with minions? 

A)If a PC isn't around do minions exist? If a hero turns up, *wham* the monster's head falls off, the PCs are heroic.

B)Just because Evil Priest Bob send down a minion doesn't mean it has to have the minion keyword.

C)Until or if you world has a cinematic moment where its fitting for minions to be in the encounter then there is no need to use them.

D) Why don't you rule that only heroes can kill minions in one shot and if it pleases you to have armies of soliders versus hordes of devilish minions, then why can't they both be falling dead (or as you put it popping) after one fatal blow. 
Also what is wrong with a mob of peasants presenting a threat to demons attacking their village, just stat the peasants as AC 10 minions +1 to hit 1d2 damage range 10/20 with stones, they have a bad chance to hit the minion's defences and if the devils attacked back then it would be a massacre.
Remember HPs are described more along the lines of plot immunity, if the creature hardly had a chance to survive the plot its a suitable minion.

E) Sure you can have a child kill a minion, but wouldn't the minions notice and then charge over at the tasty morsel, the point of minions is they come in large groups. You could have a really cool turning point in the fight where the PCs were in control then a Kid taunts / kills a monster then the bad guys are enraged to go after the innocent kid (seeing as its a soft easy target) while the PCs try to stop them.


----------



## Benimoto (May 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> The Orc skirmisher pretty much hits only on a 18 or higher and gets hit on a 5 or higher...Isn't this the same problem we're trying to avoid by using minions. The fact that lower level critters don't act as good minions (can't really hit the PCs and have weak defense but still require bookkeeping?)



Yes, exactly.  I was just responding to someone earlier in the thread that we now have enough stats to compare a minion and a regular monster at the same XP levels.  You can pretty much see the mechanics at work there, like you said.


----------



## Lizard (May 19, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> -2 AC and Reflex. If you're having trouble remembering, ask one of the PCs who has a shield to look at their character sheet.




There's only one kind of shield in the game now?

Sheesh.

Point remains -- there's no reason to remove 3e style 'breakdowns'. You lose possibly useful information for no real gain in readability. (I'm going to have to presume there's no such thing as 'flat footed' in 4e, so that you always have your dex bonus to AC)


----------



## Knightlord (May 19, 2008)

drothgery said:
			
		

> No, they can't (at least, not unless the DM just enjoys poking at corner cases of the system). When Evil Priest Bob sends a devil to abduct the toddler Princess Jane, it's not a minion relative to the princess, so if for some crazy reason dice are involved in the fight at all, the devil's not statted as a minion for that fight. When that same devil joins the Evil Priest Bob's Devlish Hordes to attack Sir Steve the Awesome, Defender of the Light (Paladin 26), Lady Mary the Amazing (Wizard 26), and their friends, the same devil (along with lots of his mechanically identical twins) is now statted as a minion because it can't do much more than provide a speed bump to Our Heroes, so there's no point in making them more mechanically complicated than they need to be.




This. Also, I must commend you on the clarity of your explaination.


----------



## HerntheHunted (May 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Wouldn't the proper challenge be a 11th level PC? AC of 11th level pc is base + magic armour + level bonus which for Kathra be around an AC of 26?, while her attack bonus is probably around +12?
> 
> The Orc skirmisher pretty much hits only on a 18 or higher and gets hit on a 5 or higher...Isn't this the same problem we're trying to avoid by using minions. The fact that lower level critters don't act as good minions (can't really hit the PCs and have weak defense but still require bookkeeping?)




Yep, that´s the point. Mooks should be weak but not entirely harmless and at the same time they should be handled easliy by the DM. Fine and beautiful thing, these Minion rules.


----------



## Lacyon (May 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Point remains -- there's no reason to remove 3e style 'breakdowns'. You lose possibly useful information for *no real gain in readability*.




This is where we disagree.

Strongly.


----------



## keterys (May 19, 2008)

Light shields are -1, -1 actually.

I suspect the number of attacks that disarm to be absurdly small, if there are any that aren't just stat debuffs instead.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I have a lot of trouble with the idea that 4th edition is for people who value not thinking.  Thats demeaning to the game, the developers and everyone who plays it.



D&D is not meant to be realistic.  It's meant to have a semblance of realism, but ultimately the whole point is to interact in a game patterned after fantasy novels and action movies.  Thus, hit points, initiative, arbitrary skill sets, random stats that have no bearing on each other.
I doubt you're thinking about this the entire time you play.  But the unrealism is intrinsic.

I want minor monsters who don't utterly disrupt the flow of combat.  I have the option of using minions.  So do you.  But you don't have to.  You've heard this plenty of times, but I'm adding my voice to it.  They say in the description of minions that they are optional.
Personally, if somehow a minion became important (I would try to make minions sort of incapable of this), I'd just change them into a non-minion.  It's as easy as if I had drawn up the thing as a non-minion in the first place.  No loss of time or anything.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 19, 2008)

I still think, that there should be a minion template which holds the xp for the monster  constant... so your players actually know what they have to expect... if they met one of those monsters before...

also those legion devils need a lot of space for such a linear scaling... with scaling rules, they could have cut at least half of those stat blocks... the only adjustment had to be: minion damage scales with 1/5 per level...

also it now seems the orc minion stats bonuses were really messed up... i hope it was corrected in the actual book...


----------



## Cadfan (May 19, 2008)

Voss- its not about not thinking.  Its about not overthinking.  Every edition has had places where the rules didn't model a perfect gameworld.  Some editions tried harder than others to attain that "complete world model" effect, and some tried less.  3e tried pretty hard, but by the very nature of the product couldn't reach that ever-receding target (there's actually a logical proof of this).  And the more it tried, the more its failure to reach a perfect model stuck out.

4e adopts a different system- model a genre, not a world.  And then it tells people "the rules have a thin spot here.  Here's a list of ways you should avoid poking the rules, so as not to tear them."  That's far better than denying the thin spot exists, at least for me.


----------



## Benimoto (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> You hit minions from the very beginning, mixed in with credible opponents.  That, to me, isn't believable at all.  You really could conceivably drag along a pack of children to throw rocks at the minions while you deal with the real threats.  When kobold A can take 3 hits with an axe, and kobold B falls to a single pointy stick, I'm going to notice.  And I'm going to want an in-game reason for why it happens. And frankly so is my character- Magnus the paladin is going to be wanting an explanation for why some kobolds can take a greatsword to the face while others fall immediately.  Is he killing kobold children now?  That could very well be against his code of honor...
> Sorry, but I have a lot of trouble with the idea that 4th edition is for people who value not thinking. Thats demeaning to the game, the developers and everyone who plays it.



I completely agree.  Although at heart, minions are a construct of DM convenience, there's a few easy ways to think of them.  First, as you've already hit on, they could be children or ill-prepared monsters.  There may be some ethical concerns raised, but I personally like that kind of roleplaying.

Alternately it seems to me that dying after you get hit by a greatsword in the face is the natural state of things, so you could have a campaign where the vast bulk of combatants are, by number, minions, and the regular, elite and solo monsters are the exceptions, like the heroes are exceptions to the general populace.  That could make a good "war" campaign.

As a third possible option, the PCs already have such relatively high HP and attack bonuses at first level compared to what they gain at each level, that you could simply imagine 4-6 levels "before" first level, and say that the minions they face now were credible threats at one of those imaginary earlier levels, but are minions now.

You could use any or all of those justifications over the course of several combats.  Or invent a different one.

Like I said, it's a little stretch when you use them, and combined with other little stretches, like auto-hitting attacks, that may be too much.  As you've hit upon earlier, you can really just replace every 2 minions with a monsters 4 levels lower and achieve probably similar results if you don't want to use them.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (May 19, 2008)

Minions don't have to be treated as minions in reference to non-player characters. Treat them as minions only in regard to the player characters.  

 Or, don't use minions at all; they're entirely *optional*.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 19, 2008)

As should surprise no one who read my "Minions are aliens from another game system" thread, I don't fine this Excerpt to be satisfying.  Minions are exactly what I expected them to be: an ugly rules kludge for narrative/cinematic purposes.  I guess the devs decided "We need Minions", push came to shove, and rather than killing a sacred cow (BAB that advances with level), Sim got thrown under the bus.  Needless to say, not the choice I would have made.

What's so painful about this (to me), is that it's blindingly obvious that the WotC devs knew exactly what they were doing too.  The only real difference between the various Minion levels is that Init, BAB, Skills and Defenses all advance the same +1/2 level that PCs advance.  Am I the only one who sees this as a stupid arms race?  Remove the +1/2 advancement from all parties and what you're left with is _the exact same result_.  

The Minion rules are guilty of two sins: (1) they're a kludge patch on top of an unnecessary complexity, (2) they introduce all sorts of corner case errors as a result of having null HP and taking null damage.  These two sins have second-order effects as well, such breaking verisimilitude and making Sim world-design impossible.  Luckily the transparency of the rules also make the fix an easy one.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 19, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Voss- its not about not thinking.  Its about not overthinking.



Perhaps what some consider a moment's thought you consider over-thinking?  Sadly I do not believe I can think is smaller increments.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 19, 2008)

Moniker said:
			
		

> Minions don't have to be treated as minions in reference to non-player characters. Treat them as minions only in regard to the player characters.
> 
> Or, don't use minions at all; they're entirely *optional*.



 Treat the cause, not the symptom.


----------



## Kraydak (May 19, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Voss- its not about not thinking.  Its about not overthinking.  Every edition has had places where the rules didn't model a perfect gameworld.  Some editions tried harder than others to attain that "complete world model" effect, and some tried less.  3e tried pretty hard, but by the very nature of the product couldn't reach that ever-receding target (there's actually a logical proof of this).  And the more it tried, the more its failure to reach a perfect model stuck out.
> 
> 4e adopts a different system- model a genre, not a world.  And then it tells people "the rules have a thin spot here.  Here's a list of ways you should avoid poking the rules, so as not to tear them."  That's far better than denying the thin spot exists, at least for me.




My impression is more that that WotC went: "our groups/play-testing groups don't try for corner cases, therefore we can simplify the rules a lot".  The problem is that if your simplifications result in ugly corner cases, then the net result may well not be simpler.  What is worse is that as a design strategy, it makes life easy for the developers, but harder for the DM (who gets to shoulder all the problems when players deviate from the design).

I am seeing many "simplifications", *that in groups I play in* would derail the game by triggering corner-case problems.  Minions are one of them.  What is really sad is that you could rewrite minion-rules in a way that loses very little simplicity but gains a lot of robustness (going from 1hp/nothing on miss to several hp/extra damage on hit ends up simple when you want it, but can seamlessly shift to a more complex rule set if needed). Robustness of a rule set, even if it costs simplicity, can easily be more playable, but the cost/advantage ratio will be very group dependent.  4e's rules as I have seen them so far makes me feel that the play-testing was inadequate, due to inadequately aggressive/antagonistic/whatever term you want play-testing groups.  (note that adequately and actually in the above are two very, very different things)


----------



## MrMyth (May 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Point remains -- there's no reason to remove 3e style 'breakdowns'. You lose possibly useful information for no real gain in readability. (I'm going to have to presume there's no such thing as 'flat footed' in 4e, so that you always have your dex bonus to AC)




Whoa - have you seen the new statblocks in the MM? You can fit 3-4 statblocks in the same amount of space taken up by a 3e statblock, and as far as I can tell, you still have pretty much 99% of the needed information for all circumstances. 

Even outside of readability (and I do find the new statblock clearer), I very much like how much content this means they'll be able to fit into the MM. That, at least for me, is a very significant real gain.


----------



## Rex Blunder (May 19, 2008)

In my opinion, minion rules are a logical extension of a good rule of game design:
"Complexity should be proportional to the interest of the players."

For instance, most mass battle rules do not track hit points of individual soldiers, because no one is interested in the fate of any individual soldier. PCs or important NPCs shouldn't have their fates determined by these rules because the players care about the outcomes: therefore an actual D&D encounter might be in order.

Same thing with minions. No one (including the DM) cares much about any of the horde of charging mooks. Therefore, they can be run with simplified rules. This allows a different scale of battle to be run - somewhere between the four-on-four that 3e did well and the hordes of a mass battlesystem.

The BBEG and his lieutenants shouldn't be minions, because defeating one should feel like an accomplishment. 

If anyone particularly cares if an angry child gets lucky and offs one of the demon hordes, then I guess minions are not appropriate for this battle. (although I maintain that *CATS, STALE PASTRIES, and A STONE THROWN BY AN ANGRY CHILD* do 0 damage).

This may mean that minions are never appropriate for Andor, Lizard, Derren, Voss, or El-Remmen, because that side effect bothers them.

Personally, I agree with most people on this thread: the believability cost is less than the benefit of being able to expand the scope of possible battles.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (May 19, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Treat the cause, not the symptom.




I do.  I play D&D as a game and story.  I don't need the rules to be world-sim fuel.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> And frankly so is my character- Magnus the paladin is going to be wanting an explanation for why some kobolds can take a greatsword to the face while others fall immediately.




No Kobolds can take a greatsword to the face.  Neither can humans, orcs or anyone else.  HP are, and always have been, an abstraction.  They do not reflect "greatswords to the face".  Being reduced to 0 hit points and dying reflects "greatswords to the face". 

Whenever I think about 4es minions, my mind pulls up the image of Aragorn stepping away from Frodo and turning to face a horde of Urak-hai coming over the hill at Parth Galen.  How many of those died to one blow from Aragorn or the others?  But one killed Boromir and nearly killed Aragorn in a tense, brutal fight.  Perfect example of a fight with minions to me.  PCs getting to slay right and left, bodies piling up, tense fights, the horde is still enough of a threat to accomplish their goal for the encounter (find the halflings!).


----------



## keterys (May 19, 2008)

One alternate solution for those who want it - set a damage threshold for minions. Below that threshold, minion shrugs off the hit. Over that threshold, they die.

You might want to change how Cleave works, though. And presumably any daily at all would kill minions then.


----------



## Lizard (May 19, 2008)

drothgery said:
			
		

> No, they can't (at least, not unless the DM just enjoys poking at corner cases of the system). When Evil Priest Bob sends a devil to abduct the toddler Princess Jane, it's not a minion relative to the princess, so if for some crazy reason dice are involved in the fight at all, the devil's not statted as a minion for that fight.




I don't run NPC-on-NPC fights unless they're VERY vital (two people are duelling and the PCs really care about the outcome but, for some reason, can't directly intervene), but I do try to check for quasi-believability, so the players won't be distracted by red herrings.

For example, if the Lord High Commander Of The Realm, known to be a great warrior, is allegedly killed by two ordinary kobolds, the PCs would be right to not accept this at face value -- it doesn't happen in D&D, period. So if I want a princess kidnapped, if she's a child or a commoner, then, yeah, a minion can do it -- assume she won't roll a 20 before the minion has her in GM Discretion Land. (A Hero system in-joke, sorry.) Indeed, following the normal rules of these things, if there's one devil, it CAN'T be a minion. So goes the narrative flow. 

OTOH, if the princess of the realm is also a powerful figure, in game terms, then I expect the kidnapping entity to be one which could reasonably defect her before she could escape, summon guards, and so on. You don't need to roll out the entire fight; you do, in my mind, need to "finger in the wind" the conflict so that it's plausible by game rule as well as storytelling logic. The thing about being a DM is, you have an unlimited toolbox -- you can send ANYTHING to kidnap the princess, so why not pick something which makes internal sense as well as driving the plot forward?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (May 19, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> As should surprise no one who read my "Minions are aliens from another game system" thread, I don't fine this Excerpt to be satisfying.  Minions are exactly what I expected them to be: an ugly rules kludge for narrative/cinematic purposes.  I guess the devs decided "We need Minions", push came to shove, and rather than killing a sacred cow (BAB that advances with level), Sim got thrown under the bus.  Needless to say, not the choice I would have made.
> 
> What's so painful about this (to me), is that it's blindingly obvious that the WotC devs knew exactly what they were doing too.  The only real difference between the various Minion levels is that Init, BAB, Skills and Defenses all advance the same +1/2 level that PCs advance.  Am I the only one who sees this as a stupid arms race?  Remove the +1/2 advancement from all parties and what you're left with is _the exact same result_.
> 
> The Minion rules are guilty of two sins: (1) they're a kludge patch on top of an unnecessary complexity, (2) they introduce all sorts of corner case errors as a result of having null HP and taking null damage.  These two sins have second-order effects as well, such breaking verisimilitude and making Sim world-design impossible.  Luckily the transparency of the rules also make the fix an easy one.




the more i think about it, the more it makes sense... maybe it would have been enough to let the hp, damage and skills scale with level... (or the DCs fall)

but, scaling attacks and damage make sure, low level monsters are no threat for the average PC. If you don´t scale every encounter exactly to the level, but have fixed encounters, PCs may feel more and more powerful when they advance... partly because of their scaling bonuses... lets see how it works out.


----------



## Lizard (May 19, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Light shields are -1, -1 actually.
> 
> I suspect the number of attacks that disarm to be absurdly small, if there are any that aren't just stat debuffs instead.




Why?

Ripping the weapon out of a foe's hand is a CLASSIC cinematic maneuver. It's precisely the kind of swashbuckling high action 4e is supposed to simulate better than 3e. I've seen it used to great effect in the campaign I'm running currently.

If rules simplification trumps fulfilling the purpose of the rules, there's a fundamental design failure. 

(In the case of minions, I admit the point is moot, since I don't think any 4e powers fails to do damage, so your disarm would kill the minion. But against other foes, disarm/sunder is very visual, very dramatic, and very useful, so it would be a shame if they didn't exist in the rules due to worship at the altar of simplicity for simplicity's sake. I guess we'll know in, oh, two weeks or so.)


----------



## Shabe (May 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> drothgery said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But he wasn't suggesting you would send minion to kidnapp a princess, Voss was, drothgery was just giving an example of how it could be explained.
I'm quite sure that the sensible solution is that the Evil Priest Bob of High Bobbyness instead sends out a sneaky lurker to kidnapp her, a minion just wouldn't be appropriate and it was only Voss who was suggesting such a circumstance would crop up.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 19, 2008)

Too much thread to read it all...

In general I like the idea of minions.  In practice my only concern (and one that might still be addressed by the rules) is that low-cost, low-power burst effects (alchemists fire?) might be disproportionally useful against higher level minions.


----------



## Korgoth (May 19, 2008)

Since D&D has always had the possibility of a grown man, even a warrior, having 1 hit point, I'm going to stick with my contention that only injuries which are potentially life-threatening do 1 or more hit points of damage.  So I agree with Rex that thrown rocks, stale pastries, stubbed toes, etc. do not inflict 1 hit point of damage.

Hit points are a measure of your ability to cheat death, to turn a lethal blow into a non-lethal one.  They're a mixture of luck, skill and fate.

If you want to talk about "realism", realistically a dagger is a very dangerous weapon.  A dagger thrust to the heart should kill just about any organism, including alien beasts from the netherworld (assuming that they're fleshy and have analogous organs to the heart).  So even a totally bad@ss creature might be susceptible to the peasant's arrow... after all, if the arrow strikes it in the neck or the eye or the heart it could expire from a single hit.

Other games, like Runequest and Rolemaster and so on have always had the possibility of men and creatures, even powerful ones, dying from 1 hit.  The Minion rules are no different.  The only difference is, in Rolemaster the extent to which you lead a charmed life is discovered mostly through the die rolls (as in, not getting your arm chopped off by a lucky shot).  In D&D, the extent to which you live a charmed life is quantified in the rules... you have a reserve of "hit points" which you have to blow through before the arm-chopping starts.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 19, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> guess the devs decided "We need Minions", push came to shove, and rather than killing a sacred cow *(BAB that advances with level)*, Sim got thrown under the bus.



Is that really a Sacred Cow? Before 3E, there was no BAB, if I am not mistaken. 

And I think they did in function exactly that - in 3E, if you wanted attack bonus, you get hit points. In 4E, if you're a Minion, you get attack bonus, but no hit points. 

Unless what you meant to say that increasing BAB and similar stuff with level or HD should also not be done for PCs, either. I might be willing to see that as a possible alternative. Though beware - with such a mechanic, advancement will feel slower.


----------



## keterys (May 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> Ripping the weapon out of a foe's hand is a CLASSIC cinematic maneuver. It's precisely the kind of swashbuckling high action 4e is supposed to simulate better than 3e. I've seen it used to great effect in the campaign I'm running currently.
> 
> ...




It's a balance issue - D&D has weapons that swing the balance of the game so strongly that it puts the game in a poor position if you make disarming easy.

And once you take disarm out of the equation, boy does it simplify a lot of monster mechanics. Win/Win.

So instead of 'Man in Black disarms Inigo... *roll roll* and uses his Super Disarm feat to fling the weapon 3 squares away...' 'Okay, Inigo tumbles away and retrieves his weapon. Your turn'

It'll be 'Man in Black uses his daily Swashbuckle Strike, which slides Inigo 3 squares and he can't make any attacks until the end of his turn'  or he's stunned or whatever. Same effect if people describe it dramatically.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> keterys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This is where I have a problem with your objections.  The minion article says:



			
				WotC said:
			
		

> When you use minions, you should use those of a level appropriate to the encounter you’re building.




A devlish minion is not a level appropriate encounter for the prince/princess/small puppy.  If you want an encounter with a creature much more powerful than it's opponent, don't use a minion!  For you to say "the minion rules don't work" based on a circumstance where the rules specifically say not to use minions just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Shabe (May 19, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> What's so painful about this (to me), is that it's blindingly obvious that the WotC devs knew exactly what they were doing too.  The only real difference between the various Minion levels is that Init, BAB, Skills and Defenses all advance the same +1/2 level that PCs advance.  Am I the only one who sees this as a stupid arms race?  Remove the +1/2 advancement from all parties and what you're left with is _the exact same result_.




Interesting idea, so the PC's experience in combat doesn't help them avoid attacks or find openings in their opponents defences, its just the magic items that they find that help them at all?

So apart from a few fancy manouvers and more hp, they are as "skillful" as bob the peasant tm. Its something to think about, but the +1/2 lvl does allow you to feel as if you are progressing, you know that if you came back to those same silly lvl 1 kobolds in 10 levels time you are going to wipe the floor with them, see i don't think minions should represent the exact same creatures you fought off x levels ago, i think minions should represent different creatures perhaps they are the better trained cousins from up north, who have relavant stats for you to fight against, but the players are still more heroic than them.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Is that really a Sacred Cow? Before 3E, there was no BAB, if I am not mistaken.



It was called THAC0, not BAB, but horse by another name and all that ...




			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Unless what you meant to say that increasing BAB and similar stuff with level or HD should also not be done for PCs, either. I might be willing to see that as a possible alternative.



Yes, that's what I mean.  If you want the cinematic option of fighting hordes of mooks, then you need to make sure they're a credible (if individually small) threat.  Removing the +1/2 advancement rate while scaling up HP and Dmg according to RAW allows "normal" monsters to serve as Minions once you're sufficiently higher level than they are.




			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Though beware - with such a mechanic, advancement will feel slower.



Yeah, I've thought of that.  It wouldn't feel slower to me because I am painfully aware of how the +1/2 level advancement is an illusion, but for someone who finds it to be a pleasurable but nutrition-free placebo (like candy made from gum arabic and Splenda), there would be a sense of loss.  I think I could sell it as "Removing needless complexity from the game", since they still get all the cool class powers and such.  After all, static bonuses really aren't that interesting compared to _Acid Arrow_ or _Tide of Iron_, and once you've made the mental adjustment (and seen from gameplay experience that nothing is lost), smooth sailing should follow.


----------



## Rechan (May 19, 2008)

I saw updated stats for the Vampire Spawn. No regeneration. Also, I believe they don't get a bonus to attack for how many are available. They're just typical minions.

[sblock]They're in the back of Keep on the Shadowfell. No, I can't provide stats.[/sblock]


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> (In the case of minions, I admit the point is moot, since I don't think any 4e powers fails to do damage, so your disarm would kill the minion.)




Notwithstanding that ripping the shield off someone's arm must surely be at least as painful as the bite of a housecat, doing at least one hp of damage and killing the minion, there's also the fact that hit points are entirely about _morale_ these days.

You have any idea how demoralizing it is to lose your shield or your weapon? 

Seriously, unless you have someone nearby with a ready "Atta boy!" or "Get up, Rock!" to give you a quick second-wind hit point boost, you might as well just fall over dead.

4e emulates this nicely.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (May 19, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. They're not meant to be a threat by themselves. They're a minor tactical problem, and an opportunity to showboat.
> 
> Why do ppl have this aversion to showboating? It is very strange.




Exactly.  Especially for the protagonists/heroes of the game, y'know, who *should* be in the spotlight and should be kicking butt and taking names (with or without bubblegum).

Or maybe I've been playing too much Feng Shui/Exalted/Deadlands/Scion over the last several years...


----------



## ebenmckay (May 19, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> No Kobolds can take a greatsword to the face.  Neither can humans, orcs or anyone else.  HP are, and always have been, an abstraction.  They do not reflect "greatswords to the face".  Being reduced to 0 hit points and dying reflects "greatswords to the face".




What he said.

Invoking movies and literature, how often has anyone seen a hero take a hit, be it from a gun, dagger, sledgehammer, sword, or what-have-you, and NOT immediately be terribly wounded? Regardless of the demonstrated power of the hero, a couple landed hits and he's panting and struggling to keep his feet.

I contend that HP have ALWAYS been abstract, and the new edition is no different.  Greatsword to the face = dead or dying.  Otherwise that level 20 fighter is going to stand there, hands folded and unarmored in front of the classroom while the student with the greatsword keeps chopping him in the head, and that's just dumb.

As for two armies of minions popping each other left and right: sounds fine to me.  I think of Helm's Deep, and that old man with the shaky bow who fired too soon and drops a well armored uruk-hai on the front line, or those Civil War movies where lines of soldiers fire and lines of soldiers drop.

It seems reasonable to me that minions fall in one hit.  That they necessarily DIE in one hit is what I disagree with.  They are certainly out of the fight in mechanical terms, but I see that as the minion going "ow, that hurts, I think I'll stay down and bleed for a bit".  It doesn't break believability for me, because I see it in basically every war movie, western, fantasy, scifi, drama, etc. movie where armies are killing each other or heroes are facing hordes of inferior opponents.  If you don't have a name, one hit drops you and you stay down, dead or unconscious or just bleeding.


----------



## Cadfan (May 19, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Perhaps what some consider a moment's thought you consider over-thinking?  Sadly I do not believe I can think is smaller increments.



Sucks for you then.

I remember late night conversations back in my old college gaming club, about the way that clerical healing in 3e supported the "meat points" theory of injury, which the game explicitly denies, or about how the fastest way to get better at goat herding was to stab someone.  Those conversations were fun.  They also weren't the seeds of great RPG design.

In eight years or so, people are going to be going through this all over again.  But you know what?  Thanks to accidents of history, in your position will be some guy who finds minions acceptable, but who thinks that 3e style clerical healing breaks the game's realism.  And those who accept that abstraction is abstraction will continue to enjoy a game that is, at its best, a very abstract model.


----------



## Lacyon (May 19, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> As should surprise no one who read my "Minions are aliens from another game system" thread, I don't fine this Excerpt to be satisfying.  Minions are exactly what I expected them to be: an ugly rules kludge for narrative/cinematic purposes.  I guess the devs decided "We need Minions", push came to shove, and rather than killing a sacred cow (BAB that advances with level), Sim got thrown under the bus.  Needless to say, not the choice I would have made.




If you accept that monsters don't have a "level" granting them bonuses in the same way that PCs do, and instead just get training/racial/awesome bonuses to different stats and abilities, and level for monsters is instead a metagame construct for informing how much of a threat that monster represents, all of these problems go away.



			
				Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> What's so painful about this (to me), is that it's blindingly obvious that the WotC devs knew exactly what they were doing too.  The only real difference between the various Minion levels is that Init, BAB, Skills and Defenses all advance the same +1/2 level that PCs advance.  Am I the only one who sees this as a stupid arms race?  Remove the +1/2 advancement from all parties and what you're left with is _the exact same result_.




Except that when characters of different skill levels fight, we expect their skill difference to have an impact on how likely they are to succeed at imposing various negative conditions on one another. Your "solution" breaks sim, nar, _and_ game expectations.


----------



## Rechan (May 19, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> What's so painful about this (to me), is that it's blindingly obvious that the WotC devs knew exactly what they were doing too. The only real difference between the various Minion levels is that Init, BAB, Skills and Defenses all advance the same +1/2 level that PCs advance. Am I the only one who sees this as a stupid arms race? Remove the +1/2 advancement from all parties and what you're left with is the exact same result.



What you see as a stupid arms race, I see "Keeping relevant the use of minions". 

But then, I have no problem with "same thing, bigger numbers" when, well, that's all minions are meant for. 

I guess I'm just the odd man out, not having a problem with WotC using a formula.


----------



## Wormwood (May 19, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Ripping the weapon out of a foe's hand is a CLASSIC cinematic maneuver. It's precisely the kind of swashbuckling high action 4e is supposed to simulate better than 3e. I've seen it used to great effect in the campaign I'm running currently.
> 
> If rules simplification trumps fulfilling the purpose of the rules, there's a fundamental design failure.



I'd say that if you use your Force power to remove a monster's shield (or other piece of fluff) then you get an ad hoc +2 bonus to attack that NPC until he resets back to default (using the 3e "DM's friend as a guideline)

Naturally, I'm sure the 4e DMG will have something to the effect of "what to do when clever, swingy things are done in combat".


----------



## Wormwood (May 19, 2008)

Nightchilde-2 said:
			
		

> Or maybe I've been playing too much Feng Shui/Exalted/Deadlands/Scion over the last several years...



No such thing.


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 19, 2008)

Shabe said:
			
		

> Interesting idea, so the PC's experience in combat doesn't help them avoid attacks or find openings in their opponents defences, its just the magic items that they find that help them at all?
> 
> So apart from a few fancy manouvers and more hp, they are as "skillful" as bob the peasant tm.



Think about the abstract nature of HP and Dmg.  We all know that "in real life" a longsword through the center of mass is usually quickly fatal.  Yet somehow a 1st level PC can be "hit" with an orc's waraxe multiple times and just "sleep it off."  How does he do this?   He does this through skill - at the last moment he turns the blow a bit to make it a glancing one, or it misses him entirely (in a physical sense) but he expended a lot of strength and endurance doing so.  Only the last blow is the fatal one.

A 1st level Warrior can do this 2-4 times before his defenses are exhausted.  A high level warrior can do it _all day_.  How is it that two warriors, facing the same opponent, and facing the same attack roll of 16 from the same axe, get such different results?  One loses half his resources, while the other loses less than 5% of his.  I would say that's the "skill and experience" of having more HP.

Likewise, if two warriors can attack you with the same longsword, one does 1d8+2 while the other does 2d8+16, I'd say that represents his skill at striking blows.  You simply can't turn his blows aside as easily as the lesser warrior's.





			
				Shabe said:
			
		

> Its something to think about, but the +1/2 lvl does allow you to feel as if you are progressing, you know that if you came back to those same silly lvl 1 kobolds in 10 levels time you are going to wipe the floor with them, see i don't think minions should represent the exact same creatures you fought off x levels ago, i think minions should represent different creatures perhaps they are the better trained cousins from up north, who have relavant stats for you to fight against, but the players are still more heroic than them.



That's all in your head.  By any rational readings of the 4E rules, there is no difference at all.  And the +1/2 advancement is an illusion.  See my response to Mustrum_Ridcully.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (May 19, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Think about the abstract nature of HP and Dmg.  We all know that "in real life" a longsword through the center of mass is usually quickly fatal.  Yet somehow a 1st level PC can be "hit" with an orc's waraxe multiple times and just "sleep it off."  How does he do this?   He does this through skill - at the last moment he turns the blow a bit to make it a glancing one, or it misses him entirely (in a physical sense) but he expended a lot of strength and endurance doing so.  Only the last blow is the fatal one.
> 
> A 1st level Warrior can do this 2-4 times before his defenses are exhausted.  A high level warrior can do it _all day_.  How is it that two warriors, facing the same opponent, and facing the same attack roll of 16 from the same axe, get such different results?  One loses half his resources, while the other loses less than 5% of his.  I would say that's the "skill and experience" of having more HP.
> 
> ...




Dungeons and Dragons doesn't seem like the system you need to run games, based on your feedback regarding base mechanics that pervade each and every incarnation of the rules.


----------



## jaycrockett (May 19, 2008)

So what do we know about alchemists fire, acid flasks, caltrops, environmental effects, fist fights, etc and how they interact with minions?  And is a 10 fall always lethal?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 19, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Yeah, I've thought of that.  It wouldn't feel slower to me because I am painfully aware of how the +1/2 level advancement is an illusion, but for someone who finds it to be a pleasurable but nutrition-free placebo (like candy made from gum arabic and Splenda), there would be a sense of loss.  I think I could sell it as "Removing needless complexity from the game", since they still get all the cool class powers and such.  After all, static bonuses really aren't that interesting compared to _Acid Arrow_ or _Tide of Iron_, and once you've made the mental adjustment (and seen from gameplay experience that nothing is lost), smooth sailing should follow.



Well, you could (and should) probably also remove the HD and any damage increases, then. They are also just an illusion. (And if you do only increase HP, you also get in the unfortunate situation of higher level combat simply taking longer) then. 

The level increases of attacks, skills and defenses are not an illusion, though. You _get_ better against lower level foes. And this can matter if you want to get a feeling for where you stand in the world.

Though 4E might actually be the first edition where it could work to do it this way, since HP or Attack modifiers are far from the most important part of a monster, especially the humanoid ones.


----------



## Voss (May 19, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> A devlish minion is not a level appropriate encounter for the prince/princess/small puppy.  If you want an encounter with a creature much more powerful than it's opponent, don't use a minion!  For you to say "the minion rules don't work" based on a circumstance where the rules specifically say not to use minions just doesn't make any sense.




It was just an example, specifically to point out how absurd the minion rules get. Here's what my problem with minions boils down to:

1 hp is generally something I associate with, say, a glass window.  A thrown rock will break it, even if thrown by a small child.  1 hp = 1 hp, so if a small child can break a window, he can kill a  21st level legion devil, an orc minion or a kobold minion, or whatever.  This, to me, is an absurd thing.  Even if you never have small children killing devils, (though its such an entertaining image...) you still have a subsystem that is actively wacky and absurd.  Even in gamist terms, a first level wizard can kill *something* with a rusty dagger, and get somewhere between 25 and several hundred, if not thousand XP.  That strikes me as really messed up.  Meanwhile, he can run into something of the same type that will turn him into dogmeat if he tries something that ridiculous.


----------



## MrGrenadine (May 19, 2008)

I really like the minion rules in theory, but in practice I'll make a small change:

At Heroic level, a successful hit kills a minion if it does at least 3 hp damage.  At Paragon level, the minimum damage raises to 6, and at Epic, it raises to 9.​
If a successful hit does less than the mimum damage required for a kill, then the minion is thrown back one square and knocked prone.​
Why?  Because 1 hp damage is the absolute minimum for any successful hit, and I just can't live with the possibility of a wizard with an 8 strength and a dagger felling a demon warrior with one poke.


This is also an easy condition to add to *any* creature that I want to behave like a minion, and I can turn the condition on and off at will, (in other words, there would never be a two minion boxing match, because the 'minion' condition wouldn't apply unless and until the creatures were facing off against the PCs.)

Also, the minimum damage numbers may need to be raised or lowered, but a few 4e sessions should determine that.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> It was just an example, specifically to point out how absurd the minion rules get. Here's what my problem with minions boils down to:
> 
> 1 hp is generally something I associate with, say, a glass window.  A thrown rock will break it, even if thrown by a small child.  1 hp = 1 hp, so if a small child can break a window, he can kill a  21st level legion devil, an orc minion or a kobold minion, or whatever.  This, to me, is an absurd thing.  Even if you never have small children killing devils, (though its such an entertaining image...) you still have a subsystem that is actively wacky and absurd.  Even in gamist terms, a first level wizard can kill *something* with a rusty dagger, and get somewhere between 25 and several hundred, if not thousand XP.  That strikes me as really messed up.  Meanwhile, he can run into something of the same type that will turn him into dogmeat if he tries something that ridiculous.




You may find a useful rule to be that minions are only minions when facing an enemy no more than 4 levels lower.  If a "minion" is more than four levels higher than the PCs, they get Con + 3 * level hitpoints.  (Numbers may be adjusted after playtesting.)

I think that's how I'll be handling such a corner case, anyway.  I know having number of hitpoints be situationally variable rather than an in-game measurable feature of the creature makes simulationism scream in agony, but I'll cope.


----------



## Rex Blunder (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> 1 hp is generally something I associate with, say, a glass window. A thrown rock will break it, even if thrown by a small child. 1 hp = 1 hp, so if a small child can break a window, he can kill a 21st level legion devil, an orc minion or a kobold minion, or whatever.




By your logic, 1/4 of all level 1 commoners (probably about 21% of the total population) in 3e are as hard to kill as a glass window. If Dennis the Menace hits 4 people with his slingshot during his career, he is probably a murderer.

I feel like, by objecting to minions but accepting HP, you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

Look around you! There are camels everywhere, walking around like they're regular people! Put on these special glasses and you can see them!


----------



## Edwin_Su (May 19, 2008)

I wonder about a specific type of minions, the ones with regeneration.

For example a Troll
I assume a troll minion would go down in 1 attack that uses fire or acid.

But what of the other attacks (like a hit with a plain weapon) would you still have to track hit points to see when a troll minion would get back on his feet again?

Or would you just make it immune to all but acid and fire damage to speed up play ?

Or maybe just roll a 1d4 when the minion goes down to see in which round it will get back up ?


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> It was just an example, specifically to point out how absurd the minion rules get. Here's what my problem with minions boils down to:
> 
> 1 hp is generally something I associate with, say, a glass window.  A thrown rock will break it, even if thrown by a small child.  1 hp = 1 hp, so if a small child can break a window, he can kill a  21st level legion devil, an orc minion or a kobold minion, or whatever.




There's your problem.  1hp<>1hp.  If my 10th level fighter has 100 hp, the first hp of damage I take is a somewhat close call, like an arrow flying by my head or a sword swing that glances off my full plate.  99 hit points of damage later, the last hp represents the dagger that buries itself in my throat or a sword thrust through the heart.  Not the same.

1hp on a minion is simply a signifier for "this monster dies on any solid hit".   



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> Even in gamist terms, a first level wizard can kill *something* with a rusty dagger, and get somewhere between 25 and several hundred, if not thousand XP.  That strikes me as really messed up.




But (as has been pointed out many times before) according to the rules a first level wizard *can't* kill a high level minion with a rusty dagger, because if a first level wizard is facing a high level minion, the DM is doing something the rules explicitly warn against.  Complaining the rules don't work when you break the rules doesn't really tell us anything about the rules.


----------



## Dausuul (May 19, 2008)

MrGrenadine said:
			
		

> Why?  Because 1 hp damage is the absolute minimum for any successful hit, and I just can't live with the possibility of a wizard with an 8 strength and a dagger felling a demon warrior with one poke.




Why not?

In the real world, a guy with a dagger can kill you in one hit.  The toughest man alive can still be killed with one hit.  If you were to slash the dagger across the demon warrior's throat, why wouldn't it bleed out and die?

Now, what are the odds of you actually pulling that move off, if you're a weakling wizard?  Pretty damn low.  But that's what the minion's Armor Class is for.

If you ask me, what's unrealistic is all the stuff that has so many hit points it _can't_ be killed in one hit.


----------



## Mad Mac (May 19, 2008)

> I really like the minion rules in theory, but in practice I'll make a small change:




  I'm thinking the same thing, but I'll probably just handwave it at the table. "You punch for the Devil Legionaire for...2 damage? Eh, he's still up."


----------



## Irda Ranger (May 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Well, you could (and should) probably also remove the HD and any damage increases, then. They are also just an illusion.



"Illusion" was the wrong word (my fault).  They're a marker for skill, just like BAB and AC, but they're analog/ablative, rather than binary/threshold.

To briefly crib my own thread on this topic from a week ago (LINK), there are four primary variables to all agents with a 4E game (except Minions): HP, AC/Defense, BAB and Dmg.  (Dmg being the average amount of damage you can do with an attack).  These variables can be arranged in a simple quadrant of "Defense vs. Offense" and "Threshold vs. Ablative".

Core D&D advances all four variables, but you can remove advancement in pairs.  If you remove BAB/AC advancement you get a Heroic Fantasy game where one high level dude can fight off 50 1st level orcs before succumbing (the Boromir situation).  If you remove HP/Dmg advancement you get a Gritty Fantasy setting where even a 20th level dude can be killed by an Orc drudge who rolls a crit (the Layer Cake situation).

But you have to adjust them in their correct opposing pairs (Ablative to Ablative, Threshold to Threshold).  If you don't .... "you ... get in the unfortunate situation of higher level combat simply taking longer", as you point out.  Which is why if you allow HP to advance (which I do, because I want to play the Heroic Fantasy version of D&D) Dmg should go up too.





			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The level increases of attacks, skills and defenses are not an illusion, though. You _get_ better against lower level foes. And this can matter if you want to get a feeling for where you stand in the world.



Your advancing skill in defending yourself is reflected in your HP, and your increasing skill at attacking is shown by the Dmg you can do.





			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Though 4E might actually be the first edition where it could work to do it this way, since HP or Attack modifiers are far from the most important part of a monster, especially the humanoid ones.



Although I agree that 4E is the first game where you can do this easily, the real reason (IMO) is because it's the first edition where all Thresholds (BAB, AC, Defenses and Skills) advanced along the same power curve.


----------



## Voss (May 19, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> There's your problem.  1hp<>1hp.  If my 10th level fighter has 100 hp, the first hp of damage I take is a somewhat close call, like an arrow flying by my head or a sword swing that glances off my full plate.  99 hit points of damage later, the last hp represents the dagger that buries itself in my throat or a sword thrust through the heart.  Not the same.



  Thats your opinion, though, not mine.  It doesn't help me like these minion rules any more.





> But (as has been pointed out many times before) according to the rules a first level wizard *can't* kill a high level minion with a rusty dagger, because if a first level wizard is facing a high level minion, the DM is doing something the rules explicitly warn against.  Complaining the rules don't work when you break the rules doesn't really tell us anything about the rules.




Where is the arbitrary line in the sand then?  At what point is this not absurd?  6th level? 5th? 4th?  Considering the wizard can _sleep_ a random group of kobolds and then stab them with a dagger, and Kobold A is a minion and dies, and Kobold B isn't a minion and doesn't, the absurdity seems to me to go all the way down.  Its been said that the definition of insanity is performing the same action and expecting different results.  Well, this particular subsystem strikes me as designed to be insane, because you really can perform the same action and get completely different results!


@Rex - Yes, third edition had its share (more, really) of stupid rules.  That fact doesn't help me like this rule.  The camel (the combat system), is a bit of an ugly beast, but it works out here in the desert of D&D systems. Minions don't make it to the first oasis.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Where is the arbitrary line in the sand then?  At what point is this not absurd?  6th level? 5th? 4th?




Well, we don't know exactly what advice the DMG is going to give on "appropriate level encounters", so it's hard to say until the books come out.  The designers have said that since the power curve is considerably flatter you'll be able to pit the party against higher level foes than you could in 3e without risking a TPK.  So I'm guessing 4-5 levels difference will be the max.  Looking at the examples we've seen, minions have 1/4 the XP of a normal creature of that level, and a five level difference about doubles the XP.  So killing a minion 5 levels higher than you earns you about half as much XP as killing a normal monster of your level.  Hardly seems broken to me.



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> Considering the wizard can _sleep_ a random group of kobolds and then stab them with a dagger, and Kobold A is a minion and dies, and Kobold B isn't a minion and doesn't, the absurdity seems to me to go all the way down.




How is that any more absurd than the rest of the hit point system?  Wizard stabs Kobold A and rolls well and it dies.  Wizard stabs Kobold B and rolls poorly and it does not. 



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> Its been said that the definition of insanity is performing the same action and expecting different results.  Well, this particular subsystem strikes me as designed to be insane, because you really can perform the same action and get completely different results!




I swing a sword and roll high and hit, I swing a sword and roll low and miss.  I hit something with a fireball and roll good damage and kill it, I hit something with a fireball and roll poor damage and it lives.  I make a running leap across a chasm and roll well on my athletics check and make it to the other side, I make a running leap across a chasm and blow the roll and fall to my death.  Same actions, different results.


----------



## Rex Blunder (May 19, 2008)

I actually think that 3e had a lot of GOOD rules.

I have no problem with 25% of commoners having the same number of hit points as a pane of glass.

Most of the time, D&D 3.x rules lead to good gameplay - better than many more realistic systems. Sure, it breaks down catastrophically under any number of thought experiments: many involving HP (are they largely morale - a highlevel warrior can take many hits - or are they meat - cure light wounds fix physical wounds? Why can a low-constitution sage with 20 ranks in a knowledge skill necessarily beat a 1st-level fighter in a longsword duel?), but some involving commoner railguns, infinite travel via a line of horses, etc. 

But at the table, it works most of the time, and where it doesn't, everyone agrees to look the other way, or we make a joke and move on. That's how we always played 3.x at my table. 3.x rules are not a good simulation of anything, and they're certainly not internally consistent. If that's your goal, you either should be disgusted with 3e or you have to wear blinders.

But it's worth it, because 3e's many abstractions, shortcuts, and ridiculous assumptions add up to a great game, that has entertained me and my friends for years.

Voss, you don't have to like or use the minion rule. But I wish you wouldn't claim that it's worse than any number of 3e rules. Is it REALLY worse than the sage beating the fighter in the duel? No - they both require a handwave or a lame justification. But who cares? These situations occur a LOT more on message boards than during actual D&D play.


----------



## Korgoth (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> It was just an example, specifically to point out how absurd the minion rules get. Here's what my problem with minions boils down to:
> 
> 1 hp is generally something I associate with, say, a glass window.  A thrown rock will break it, even if thrown by a small child.  1 hp = 1 hp, so if a small child can break a window, he can kill a  21st level legion devil, an orc minion or a kobold minion, or whatever.  This, to me, is an absurd thing.  Even if you never have small children killing devils, (though its such an entertaining image...) you still have a subsystem that is actively wacky and absurd.  Even in gamist terms, a first level wizard can kill *something* with a rusty dagger, and get somewhere between 25 and several hundred, if not thousand XP.  That strikes me as really messed up.  Meanwhile, he can run into something of the same type that will turn him into dogmeat if he tries something that ridiculous.




Where does the 1hp = glass window come from, though?  It cannot have come from any previous edition of D&D.  In all editions, commoners had 1-4 or 1-6 hp.  Which means that lots of people had only 1 hp.  Likewise, barring house rules about granting max hp at 1st level, a fair number of characters could have only 1 hp as well.  So has traditional D&D always been populated with hordes of glass people?

And so what's 2 hp... double-paned glass?  I don't think you can consistently think of hit points as a linear measurement of material structural integrity in _any_ edition of D&D.

And again, in reality daggers are deadly weapons!  If you get stabbed in the chest, you're going to have a punctured lung at least, if not a destroyed heart.  That kills you!  So the only defense against daggers is to have them not stab you in the chest.  You can do that both by positioning tough materials between your chest and the dagger (armor and/or shield) or by not being where the dagger thrust ends up (getting out of the way).

If a dagger does not strike you in the chest, but merely cuts your arm in a non-vital spot, then I say that you've taken no damage at all.  You have a boo-boo... but a boo-boo is not 1 hit point of damage.  1 hit point of damage is either a blade going through your eye and into your brain (thus killing you), or the amount of resources you're charged for that stab to the eye actually being a narrow miss.


----------



## Pssthpok (May 19, 2008)

The way I see it is simple: if you're not prepared for the idea of a wizard one-shot stabbing a devil, you're not prepared for what minions are intended to be. 

They're the martially adept goons that Tony Jaa takes out by the dozens.

They're the Foot Soldiers who get tripped by the Turtles and are subsequently out of the fight.

They're the zombies who swarm the doors and windows, but go down with one swift lick of a cricket bat.

If you can't hold that sort of idea in your head and go with it, deal with the pedantry of having goons with x# of HP who need then to be tracked and remembered round by round. Your choice; either way is fine, but one is far more conducive to scene-building and fun.


----------



## Rex Blunder (May 19, 2008)

Also, in 3.5, paper walls have 1 hp. I guarantee you that a small child can totally slice up a paper wall with a chocolate bar, a guitar pick, a fingernail, or a Magic card.

Voss, since you assert that 1hp=1hp, do you assert that in 3.5, a small child can kill 20% of commoners by one hit with a chocolate bar, a guitar pick, a fingernail, or a Magic card?

Do you assert that a paper wall, a glass window, and 20% of commoners take the same amount of force to destroy?

Of course you don't. Hit points are an abstraction. For instance, D&D doesn't have fractional hit points, which would be necessary to model all these things. However, it doesn't, because it *wouldn't add to gameplay.*

So please, let's put to bed cats, stale muffins, and rocks thrown by children once and for all, and if you want to criticize minions, don't do it on the grounds that 4e is departing from 3e's rigorous scientific model of damage.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 19, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> I actually think that 3e had a lot of GOOD rules.
> 
> I have no problem with 25% of commoners having the same number of hit points as a pane of glass.
> 
> ...




This is a good post.  Every game has plenty of corner cases that lead to some silliness if you dwell on it too much.  So don't dwell on it.  The corner cases of 3e are well known and long discussed, but they did not lead to a bad game as Rex points out.  4e has its corner cases as well, but so what? (and not that I agree, at all, with Voss's attempts at throwing corners at the minion rules here, I think he misses terribly (which we know, does no damage regardless)). 

A difference in design conceit is that 3e tried to address as many of those corner cases as it could, which led to a large amount of rules creep which only spawned new corner cases.  With 4e, the designers specifically seem to be accepting the existence of these corners and saying, "meh, intelligent gamers understand intent.  A group of intelligent gamers aren't going to try and break the system just because something's there, no one is actually going to bring a sack of rats to a fight (or children with rocks)."

Meanwhile, Voss is proudly standing up and shouting back, "I will!" and then claiming that the mere existence of corners means the system is somehow broken and unworkable.  I guess if that's your bag, more power to you.  Me, I'm going to just enjoy playing a game with my friends, just like I have for the last 30 years.


----------



## CrimsonNeko (May 19, 2008)

Really read the excerpt.  I think it illustrates quite well when you use minions.  You fight ogres at level 5.  Those are normal mobs.  However, 10 levels later, those ogres would be a joke to fight.  You'd one shot them anyway, and they'd never hit you.  Instead of making a worthless encounter, they are giving you rules to make those ogres actually have a small chance to do something while still keeping the feel of "these are just the small guys."  I don't know about you, but I find fighting things that aren't a threat in any way, shape, or form kinda pointless.


----------



## Voss (May 19, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> I actually think that 3e had a lot of GOOD rules.
> 
> Voss, you don't have to like or use the minion rule. But I wish you wouldn't claim that it's worse than any number of 3e rules. Is it REALLY worse than the sage beating the fighter in the duel? No - they both require a handwave or a lame justification. But who cares? These situations occur a LOT more on message boards than during actual D&D play.




I didn't.  I just claimed that the number of rules in 3e, good or bad, was completely irrelevant as to whether or not the minion rule was good or bad.



> Do you assert that a paper wall, a glass window, and 20% of commoners take the same amount of force to destroy?
> 
> Of course you don't.




Actually, I do.  Because thats what the rules say.  If you do one point of damage to any of those things, they are dead or destroyed.  Its an absurdity, but its the games absurdity, not mine. But can we go back to the minion rules, because I was certainly never criticizing it based on 3e.  I was criticizing it based on the fact that its internally inconsistent with other parts of 4e.

@Thasmodious-
 The problem is, this isn't a corner case.  All minions die when they take at least 1 point of damage from a direct hit.  It doesn't matter what the source is, or anything else, just that attack hits and does measurable damage.  There aren't any exceptions involved- the attacker doesn't have to be of an appropriate level, a PC or be wearing a blue scarf under the moon- the attacker just has to hit it with a damaging attack.

Furthermore, when you have 5 types of kobolds in a room, and 4 can take 20 to 30 times they damage of the other, there is a verisimilitude issue that isn't even vaguely corner case.   Its really that 1 out of 5 kobolds will die to a dagger thrust, while the other 4 *won't die* if hit with a greatsword.  Maybe that doesn't bother you.  It does bother me, and it certainly isn't more or less intelligent to ignore it than to point it out.  Its a matter of playstyle preference.  I enjoy games more if they are internally consistent, and if they stand up to a little thoughtful analysis.  

I find that most of 4e does stand up better to thoughtful analysis than 3e does.  However, there are specific subsystems, like this one, that do not stand up well to analysis.


----------



## keterys (May 19, 2008)

> and Kobold A is a minion and dies, and Kobold B isn't a minion and doesn't




'... Kobold A is a COMMONER and dies, and Kobold B is a FIGHTER and doesn't' is drastically different how?


----------



## Cadfan (May 19, 2008)

For the record, skip the coup de gras for a maximized 1d4-1=3 points of damage, and shoot the target with a magic missile that does 2d4+4=6 to 12 points of damage.


----------



## frankthedm (May 19, 2008)

CrimsonNeko said:
			
		

> Really read the excerpt.  I think it illustrates quite well when you use minions.  You fight ogres at level 5.  Those are normal mobs.  However, 10 levels later, those ogres would be a joke to fight.  You'd one shot them anyway, and they'd never hit you. .



 5% hit rate is not never when used in large enough numbers. Also don’t be too sure on one-shotting to much other than minions in 4E. 


			
				CrimsonNeko said:
			
		

> Instead of making a worthless encounter, they are giving you rules to make those ogres actually have a small chance to do something while still keeping the feel of "these are just the small guys."



They have more than a small chance from what their ‘to hit’ bonuses looked like to me. They just don’t deal a lot of damage unless they pile up on you.







			
				CrimsonNeko said:
			
		

> I don't know about you, but I find fighting things that aren't a threat in any way, shape, or form kinda pointless.



 To me it is visceral proof that my character has risen above previous foes. It tells me I’m not just earning XP for my enemies benefit. I like mowing foes by the *dozens* with a high level character as their blows bounce off my armor.


----------



## shadowlance (May 19, 2008)

> various comments about lucky hits and high level minions





Revelation  ->>  Smaug was a minion!!


I kid


----------



## Knightlord (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Furthermore, when you have 5 types of kobolds in a room, and 4 can take 20 to 30 times they damage of the other, there is a verisimilitude issue that isn't even vaguely corner case.   Its really that 1 out of 5 kobolds will die to a dagger thrust, while the other 4 *won't die* if hit with a greatsword.  Maybe that doesn't bother you.  It does bother me, and it certainly isn't more or less intelligent to ignore it than to point it out.  Its a matter of playstyle preference.  I enjoy games more if they are internally consistent, and if they stand up to a little thoughtful analysis.




Again, one must remember that HP are an abstraction. The kobolds are not really being hit by a greatsword until the final blow when their HP drops to or below zero. So in role-playing terms, the one kobold that died was just either unlucky and failed to dodge that greatsword or it was your character that landed a solid, skillful blow on the kobold, despite his dodging and weaving, thus killing him.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> The problem is, this isn't a corner case.  All minions die when they take at least 1 point of damage from a direct hit.  It doesn't matter what the source is, or anything else, just that attack hits and does measurable damage.  There aren't any exceptions involved- the attacker doesn't have to be of an appropriate level, a PC or be wearing a blue scarf under the moon- the attacker just has to hit it with a damaging attack.




I don't see the problem with that. 



> Furthermore, when you have 5 types of kobolds in a room, and 4 can take 20 to 30 times they damage of the other, there is a verisimilitude issue that isn't even vaguely corner case.   Its really that 1 out of 5 kobolds will die to a dagger thrust, while the other 4 *won't die* if hit with a greatsword.  Maybe that doesn't bother you.




It doesn't bother me because that isn't what the system represents.  Someone else used the example of a high level fighter standing in front of a class at Merc College and telling a student to hit him repeatedly in the head with a greataxe to show it doesn't hurt much.  Is that how you see things?  I would think not.  HPs are not direct damage.  Never have been.  Those other 4 aren't being struck a mortal blow by the greatsword, they are fighting back, getting worn down, nicked, cut, injured, but not dealt a mortal blow.  The minion system says some creatures can be taken out of the fight with one hit.  Those are the guys who take the greatsword to the face, whereas the more skilled and powerful kobold would have turned it aside, ducked and had the flat ring his helm, parried it at the last second and have the blow dislocate his shoulder.  

If you want to insist that every HP represents actual damage, then that is fine for your games.  But you can't claim that is the truth of the system.  It never has been.  They are an abstraction.  But what you can't do is insist on interpreting HPs differently than the system does then arguing that the system fails because it doesn't answer the call of verisimilitude within the bounds of your own unsupported interpretation of the rules.  And that is what you are trying to do if you are claiming that minions are killed by a rock while others can take greatswords to the face and live.




> I enjoy games more if they are internally consistent, and if they stand up to a little thoughtful analysis.




If you mean the consistency of the rocks and greatswords, then that's not inconsistency at all.  But if you mean this in the way the guy who started the aliens thread means (that minions being the exception levels makes you tougher) then there is at least a point to that one.  It's not one I'm concerned about.  I prefer the 1e/2e days where internal consistency wasn't a requirement of the system to the 3e experiment of a complete above the board framework.  It was a great idea and would have been great if it worked.  The problem was in the level of complexity it created.  To actually maintain that internal consistency, every monster, every NPC, every monster with a class had to be as fully statted out as a PC.  Considering PCs are necessarily built on the most complex and heavy section of any RPG ruleset, that turned into a bit of a nightmare for beleaguered Dms who insisted on internal consistency.  Most DMs just winged a lot of it and hoped the players didn't notice and complain about this guy having one too many feats or that guy's init mod being too high.  

I don't have a problem with exception based design.  Creatures improve in the areas attack, damage, defense, "toughness" with level EXCEPT minions, who just don't get tougher.  I am fine with that bit of "inconsistency" because it leads to a mechanic that allows for a lot of fun and flair in combat encounters.  I don't want my DM tombstone to some day read "Was Always Internally Consistent" but rather "We'll Always Remember the Great Kobold Horde".  Which would be much better than what it would read now, if up to my players - "30 Feet is Not a Chasm".


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Furthermore, when you have 5 types of kobolds in a room, and 4 can take 20 to 30 times they damage of the other, there is a verisimilitude issue that isn't even vaguely corner case.   Its really that 1 out of 5 kobolds will die to a dagger thrust, while the other 4 *won't die* if hit with a greatsword.



All of the Kobolds die if they're hit by a dagger thrust in the right place.  All of the Kobolds die if they're hit by a greatsword in the right place.  4 of the 5 Kobolds are skilled combatants and you have to try a couple of times (wearing down their hit points) before you get a solid hit.  1 of the 5 is either unskilled or unlucky and you tag him solidly with your first hit or he's such a wimp that he stops fighting even though you didn't wound him very badly.  I don't see any verisimilitude problem here.



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> I enjoy games more if they are internally consistent, and if they stand up to a little thoughtful analysis.
> 
> I find that most of 4e does stand up better to thoughtful analysis than 3e does.  However, there are specific subsystems, like this one, that do not stand up well to analysis.



I think the minion rule stand up to thoughtful analysis perfectly well if you think about hit points in the right way.  If you want to think about hit points as representing something different than they represent in 4e, then I hardly see how that's a flaw in the minion rules.


----------



## D'karr (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Actually, I do.  Because thats what the rules say.  If you do one point of damage to any of those things, they are dead or destroyed.  Its an absurdity, but its the games absurdity, not mine. But can we go back to the minion rules, because I was certainly never criticizing it based on 3e.  I was criticizing it based on the fact that its internally inconsistent with other parts of 4e.




This discussion is funny.  If you don't use the rules as intended, what do you really have to complain about?  How can you say they are bad?

If I took a dirt bike and tried to race in the Indy 500, and did not perform well, then I can't complain about the dirt bike and say how bad it is because it does not perform as well as the Indy cars.

I would have to look at my premise (the dirt bike is designed for the Indy 500) and figure out that it was ridiculous.

The same applies here.


----------



## Dausuul (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> The problem is, this isn't a corner case.  All minions die when they take at least 1 point of damage from a direct hit.  It doesn't matter what the source is, or anything else, just that attack hits and does measurable damage.  There aren't any exceptions involved- the attacker doesn't have to be of an appropriate level, a PC or be wearing a blue scarf under the moon- the attacker just has to hit it with a damaging attack.
> 
> Furthermore, when you have 5 types of kobolds in a room, and 4 can take 20 to 30 times they damage of the other, there is a verisimilitude issue that isn't even vaguely corner case.   Its really that 1 out of 5 kobolds will die to a dagger thrust, while the other 4 *won't die* if hit with a greatsword.




The problem is that you're thinking of hit points in "pure physical toughness" terms.  I used to do that, and the 3.X and previous rules supported it pretty well.  But in 4E, it just plain doesn't work any more.  Forget minions--what about the warlord's healing abilities?  Those make no sense at all if hit points = physical toughness.  Not to mention recovering all hit points after a rest.

In this case, minion kobolds are "regular fighters," easy enough to take out with a single solid hit.  Non-minion kobolds are the PCs of the kobold world, the elite warriors.  Solid hits on them are much harder to land, fortune tends to smile on them, and they have the strength of will to soldier on with much more serious wounds than most kobolds can take.

Furthermore, the situations you're talking about _are_ corner cases.  When is a 4E wizard ever going to be fighting with a dagger?  He'll be shooting _magic missiles_.  When are kids with slingshots going to be fighting legion devils?  And frankly, I have no problem with the idea that a gang of peasants with spears can kill a legion devil; legion devils are tough customers but not invulnerable.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 19, 2008)

Knightlord said:
			
		

> Again, one must remember that HP are an abstraction. The kobolds are not really being hit by a greatsword until the final blow when their HP drops to or below zero. So in role-playing terms, the one kobold that died was just either unlucky and failed to dodge that greatsword or it was your character that landed a solid, skillful blow on the kobold, despite his dodging and weaving, thus killing him.



Well, for some reason, this is never entirely accepted with people that don't like Minions. Which is why I tend to assume there isn't really much I can do to help them the wisdom and innate superiority of D&D 4E.  If people don't like it, they don't like it, and you can't change it.

I think I can only remember one occasion where I've personally witnessed the contrary. I wasn't a fan of Deep Space Nine early seasons, but I read the "Making Of" book to Deep Space Nine, and after having read that, I got a new appreciation for the series (and that was before I got to see the later Dominion War seasons...)
I wonder if the writers did also write a Making of to Voyager and can make me change my stance on that series, too?


----------



## keterys (May 19, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> Someone else used the example of a high level fighter standing in front of a class at Merc College and telling a student to hit him repeatedly in the head




Now I have this vision of telling someone with a greatsword to 'Stab me in the jimmies!'. After all, it's all just hit points, and not like there are hit locations or 'loss of limb' rules.

I love when simulation is touted as a route to better realism but actually leads to less.


----------



## Baen (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Furthermore, when you have 5 types of kobolds in a room, and 4 can take 20 to 30 times they damage of the other, there is a verisimilitude issue that isn't even vaguely corner case.   Its really that 1 out of 5 kobolds will die to a dagger thrust, while the other 4 *won't die* if hit with a greatsword.  Maybe that doesn't bother you.  It does bother me, and it certainly isn't more or less intelligent to ignore it than to point it out.  Its a matter of playstyle preference.  I enjoy games more if they are internally consistent, and if they stand up to a little thoughtful analysis.




I think a large part of this comes with the new definition of HP. Now I don't really want to bring that whole fight in here, enough people are discussing what hp actually represents. From a 4e design standpoint though what it seems to represent is nothing truly physical or an aspect of morale. It seems to me at least that hp is now meant purely as a representation of their plot worth. The max hp is the representation of how important they are to the story, and the current result is a value of how close they are to leaving it.

Technically EVERYONE should die if they are hit with a greatsword. However some foes are supposed to be more memorable, therefore they slip out of the way or are simply tougher. Think of the leader of the Uruk-hai, he was a regular monster while the rest where minions. They could still do damage en masse(and even kill "players") yet died relatively quickly when brought to combat. Also compare them to normal orcs, who are essentially lower level minions. 

I think of it instead as a single one of the monsters was not as well trained as the other four, they are a real challenge for the pcs, this guy is the newbie in the group, or was simply unlucky. Regardless it allows in a sense for more cinematic play that enforces verisimilitude. Instead of having 20 level 1 orcs against your level 10 pcs (who know for a fact that they can't touch them since they are level 10) instead the weak guys that drop like flies actually matter in the battle.


----------



## Scribble (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I was criticizing it based on the fact that its internally inconsistent with other parts of 4e.
> 
> Furthermore, when you have 5 types of kobolds in a room, and 4 can take 20 to 30 times they damage of the other, there is a verisimilitude issue that isn't even vaguely corner case.   Its really that 1 out of 5 kobolds will die to a dagger thrust, while the other 4 *won't die* if hit with a greatsword.  Maybe that doesn't bother you.  It does bother me, and it certainly isn't more or less intelligent to ignore it than to point it out.  Its a matter of playstyle preference.  I enjoy games more if they are internally consistent, and if they stand up to a little thoughtful analysis.
> 
> I find that most of 4e does stand up better to thoughtful analysis than 3e does.  However, there are specific subsystems, like this one, that do not stand up well to analysis.




I think it's not standing up because the way it's being viewed is being done so in a way that won't stand up.  

In my opinion: 

1. ALL creature and things die when you hit them with a deadly attack.

2. All attacks made are intended to be deadly. This means if you need a 10 or higher to kill something, you have a 50% chance to kill it. Period. 50% chance to stab it through the heart, make it cease to be. A fighter can't take multiple deadly attacks. He can ony take one. 

3. Armor represents a physical defense. Things like skill and stuff are represented by a level bonus. You've learned to get out of the way. Things like Dex improve this. It's easier to use your skill to get out of the way of a killing blow because you are nimble. But a good hit is still a good hit. You DIE.

4. Hit points represent somethign else. A passive defense almost. A will to live, luck, the force, extra quaters in the machine, or what I like to call MOXIE. You might want to call it Mojo. 

5. Moxie turns things tht should be hits into near misses, or flesh wounds. It's a way of stackign the deck in your favor. Again it is NOT the ability to take multiple killing blows. It's a way to take somethign that SHOULD have been a killing blow, and negate that.

6. Not everyone has Moxie. 

7. On a game level Moxie / Hit Points = bonus defensive percentage points. 

8. When you run out of HPs you are pretty much a normal person. You luck is up. You have no more bonus perentage points to stack things in your favor. A hit kills you. A miss does not.


----------



## Rex Blunder (May 19, 2008)

OK, Voss, we'll agree to differ about the nature of hit points and game rules generally, I guess.

So here's my minion question: how often do you all think they should be used? When planning encounters, do you think they should be in 10% of encounters? 30%? 50%? more? 

I know it often depends on the needs of the situation. But I guess I'm asking, how much do you all plan to use minions? In the toolbox, will it be an important tool like a hammer or a specialty one, like, um, a stone polisher? (I wouldn't know a specialty tool if someone threw it at me for 1hp damage.)


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 19, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> 4. Hit points represent somethign else. A passive defense almost. A will to live, luck, the force, extra quaters in the machine, or what I like to call MOXIE. You might want to call it Mojo.



That's nothing new. It's all about the dude field. However, since in 4E you're using powers, now your attacks are also loaded with dude factor, helping you to penetrate the opponent's dude field. In fact, some attacks - those that do damage on a miss - are not only consisting of a real attack, but also of raw dude factor, so even if the attack misses, your dude factor still weakens the dude field of your opponent.

Minions has no dude field, so it's easy to penetrate it, killing the minion. On a miss, however, your attack only deals damage (despite the miss), because it's your dude factor ablating the enemies dude field. But a minion has no dude field to ablate, hence you deal no damage on a miss to a minion.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Scribble (May 19, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> That's nothing new. It's all about the dude field. However, since in 4E you're using powers, now your attacks are also loaded with dude factor, helping you to penetrate the opponent's dude field. In fact, some attacks - those that do damage on a miss - are not only consisting of a real attack, but also of raw dude factor, so even if the attack misses, your dude factor still weakens the dude field of your opponent.
> 
> Minions has no dude field, so it's easy to penetrate it, killing the minion. On a miss, however, your attack only deals damage (despite the miss), because it's your dude factor ablating the enemies dude field. But a minion has no dude field to ablate, hence you deal no damage on a miss to a minion.
> 
> Cheers, LT.




Exactly!

Damage on a miss isn't physical damage either. (Until that 1 hit point of killing blow.)

It's your Moxie (dudeness) battling it out with the othwer guy's Moxie (dudeness) in an attempt to cosmicaly prove who's the one who stands.


----------



## Voss (May 19, 2008)

Oddly, I'm using hit points as a complete abstraction.  When something reaches 0 hit points its down/dead/whatever (personally I prefer unconscious at 0, and dead at Con, but thats not particularly relevant).  I'm perfectly comfortable with that level of abstraction, so I'm comfortable with hitting a kobold 3 times before it goes 'down'.  What I'm not comfortable with is the idea that is true for these kobolds, but not for those kobolds.  I don't care enough to justify the abstraction, but I want it to be consistent.  This isn't.


Another weird thing that the minion rules encourage:

Hrothgar the Mighty has made his name with his great axe, Dragon-hewer.  But those who follow the saga of Hrothgar the Mighty have noted a peculiar quirk that Hrothgar exhibits in battle.  At times he is seen to discard the axe he values so highly, and pull out a wicked dagger that he calls Minion-Poker.  When asked about this behavior by a brave bard over many cups of ale, Hrothgar said:

'What am I, an idiot?  I've got an extra 10% chance to hit with this thing, and it doesn't matter how much damage I do!'


----------



## FadedC (May 19, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> OK, agree to differ about the nature of game rules, I guess.
> 
> So here's my minion question: how often do you think they should be used? When planning encounters, do you think they should be in 10% of encounters? 30%? 50%? more?
> 
> I know it often depends on the needs of the situation. But I guess I'm asking, how much do you all plan to use minions? In the toolbox, will it be an important tool like a hammer or a specialty one, like, um, a stone polisher? (I wouldn't know a specialty tool if someone threw it at me for 1hp damage.)




I plan to mostly use minions to represent monsters that the party is just more powerful then as a whole. So I may not use kobold minions and regular kobolds together at first level, because I just like the idea that all kobolds are a threat at that level. But if the party is 6th level fighting gnolls who use kobolds as shock troops then those kobolds will now be minions...even if they are the exact same ones they fought at lvl 1. 

If I do use minions at first level they will probably be things like large rats or half starved kobolds in loincloths.....things you'd only expect to be threatening to an armed and armored person in large numbers. Exact percentages would probably depend on the scene I'm trying to create.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 19, 2008)

The kobold that goes down in 3 hits, is the one that manages to block part of the attack with his shield, or slip to the side so only his tail gets hit, etc. The kobold that goes down in one hit is the one that is distracted for a second and has his head lobbed off in one hit.

As for the dagger, Hrothgar the Mighty doesn't know what is or isn't a minion. The concept wouldn't make sense to him, the kobold he chopped down in one hit was because of his luck, the kobolds unluckiness, circumstances, skill, etc. The kobold that went down in three was because he was better on his feet, dodged more often, etc.

Thus pulling out a dagger for specific target wouldn't make sense since he has no clue if he will impale that dagger into the kobold's eye anymore that it will simply brush off the kobold's armour.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Oddly, I'm using hit points as a complete abstraction.  When something reaches 0 hit points its down/dead/whatever.  I'm perfectly comfortable with that level of abstraction, so I'm comfortable with hitting a kobold 3 times before it goes 'down'.  What I'm not comfortable with is the idea that is true for these kobolds, but not for those kobolds.  I don't care enough to justify the abstraction, but I want it to be consistent.  This isn't.




So you're arguing that the minion rules are too realistic?  



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> Another weird thing that the minion rules encourage:
> 
> Hrothgar the Mighty has made his name with his great axe, Dragon-hewer.  But those who follow the saga of Hrothgar the Mighty have noted a peculiar quirk that Hrothgar exhibits in battle.  At times he is seen to discard the axe he values so highly, and pull out a wicked dagger that he calls Minion-Poker.  When asked about this behavior by a brave bard over many cups of ale, Hrothgar said:
> 
> 'What am I, an idiot?  I've got an extra 10% chance to hit with this thing, and it doesn't matter how much damage I do!'



It seems like that's only a problem if minion status is too obvious.  Like I said before, I think there' won't be any visual difference between minions and standard monsters in my campaign (elites and solos will stand out I think).  If your players start doing this just increase the percentage of regular monsters relative to the number of minions.


----------



## FadedC (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Hrothgar the Mighty has made his name with his great axe, Dragon-hewer.  But those who follow the saga of Hrothgar the Mighty have noted a peculiar quirk that Hrothgar exhibits in battle.  At times he is seen to discard the axe he values so highly, and pull out a wicked dagger that he calls Minion-Poker.  When asked about this behavior by a brave bard over many cups of ale, Hrothgar said:
> 
> 'What am I, an idiot?  I've got an extra 10% chance to hit with this thing, and it doesn't matter how much damage I do!'




Actually that would only be true in 2 cases....

1) The dagger and the axe had the same enhancement bonus
2) Hrothgar has an equal strength and dex (daggers use dex to hit)

If Hrothgar were known for his great speed and agility and had an epic dagger  of equal reknown to dragon-hewer then I have no problem imagining him using the dagger to dispatch weaker foes.


----------



## Leatherhead (May 19, 2008)

Could someone clarify something for me please:

Aren't AoE attacks now handled with one die roll as opposed to rolling one die for every creature in the area, meaning you are either going to kill all the minions or none of the minions in a blast?


----------



## Scribble (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Oddly, I'm using hit points as a complete abstraction.  When something reaches 0 hit points its down/dead/whatever.  I'm perfectly comfortable with that level of abstraction, so I'm comfortable with hitting a kobold 3 times before it goes 'down'.  What I'm not comfortable with is the idea that is true for these kobolds, but not for those kobolds.  I don't care enough to justify the abstraction, but I want it to be consistent.  This isn't.




It is. Again it's nothing to do with this one take 3 hits this one doesn't. It's not 3 killing blows. Both of them take the same amunt of killing blows to die. One. 

Why does the wizard stand longer then the fighter or the thief? 

Moxie is Moxie. 




> Another weird thing that the minion rules encourage:
> 
> Hrothgar the Mighty has made his name with his great axe, Dragon-hewer.  But those who follow the saga of Hrothgar the Mighty have noted a peculiar quirk that Hrothgar exhibits in battle.  At times he is seen to discard the axe he values so highly, and pull out a wicked dagger that he calls Minion-Poker.  When asked about this behavior by a brave bard over many cups of ale, Hrothgar said:
> 
> 'What am I, an idiot?  I've got an extra 10% chance to hit with this thing, and it doesn't matter how much damage I do!'




So your in game characetr uses metagame knowledge. You're already existing in an unbelievable state, why stop now?


----------



## Vaeron (May 19, 2008)

Leatherhead said:
			
		

> Aren't AoE attacks now handled with one die roll as opposed to rolling one die for every creature in the area, meaning you are either going to kill all the minions or none of the minions in a blast?




Nope.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 19, 2008)

Leatherhead said:
			
		

> Could someone clarify something for me please:
> 
> Aren't AoE attacks now handled with one die roll as opposed to rolling one die for every creature in the area, meaning you are either going to kill all the minions or none of the minions in a blast?



You roll once for damage then individually for hits.


----------



## keterys (May 19, 2008)

I've been looking for a mechanic to support the Hercules and Xena style combat where they 'switch things up' with other weapons for no other reason than it's "cooler" 

Sold!


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 19, 2008)

> Hrothgar the Mighty has made his name with his great axe, Dragon-hewer. But those who follow the saga of Hrothgar the Mighty have noted a peculiar quirk that Hrothgar exhibits in battle. At times he is seen to discard the axe he values so highly, and pull out a wicked dagger that he calls Minion-Poker. When asked about this behavior by a brave bard over many cups of ale, Hrothgar said:
> 
> 'What am I, an idiot? I've got an extra 10% chance to hit with this thing, and it doesn't matter how much damage I do!'




Seems to me that if he is more well known for the axe, then he's probably using the axe more often than not.  If he's using the dagger more, then he'd probably be well known for that.

So most times he uses an axe.  Sometimes a dagger.  I honestly don't understand what's wrong with that.


----------



## theNater (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Another weird thing that the minion rules encourage:
> 
> Hrothgar the Mighty has made his name with his great axe, Dragon-hewer.  But those who follow the saga of Hrothgar the Mighty have noted a peculiar quirk that Hrothgar exhibits in battle.  At times he is seen to discard the axe he values so highly, and pull out a wicked dagger that he calls Minion-Poker.  When asked about this behavior by a brave bard over many cups of ale, Hrothgar said:
> 
> 'What am I, an idiot?  I've got an extra 10% chance to hit with this thing, and it doesn't matter how much damage I do!'



So, wait, Hrothgar uses a quicker, more accurate weapon when facing a bunch of weak foes than he does when he's trying to power through a dragon's scales?

And you find this weird?


----------



## Voss (May 19, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> So you're arguing that the minion rules are too realistic?



Nope. Just inconsistent




> It seems like that's only a problem if minion status is too obvious.  Like I said before, I think there' won't be any visual difference between minions and standard monsters in my campaign (elites and solos will stand out I think).  If your players start doing this just increase the percentage of regular monsters relative to the number of minions.




However if they aren't obvious, the DM is by and large being a jerk to the players, and playing a game of 'Gotcha! You wasted your encounter/daily powers, ha ha'.  That doesn't strike me as satisfying either.


@Fallen Seraph- why wouldn't it?  He knows that certain types of monsters go down in one hit, and others don't.  Once he learns which types those are, why wouldn't he take advantage of it?  On one level, I agree with you, because I dislike the fact that it encourages this sort of metagame thinking, but the system by and large encourages it.  

There isn't much of a reason for players not to do it, unless the DM metagames himself and punishes them for it.


----------



## drjones (May 19, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> So Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas are anime/action heroes with superpowerz? Wow, didn't know that. I mean, it's not like I haven't read Conan novels where Conan does something similar....



Yes but they are NPCs, PCs are not allowed to do anything interesting.  That's why Big D only plays fighters with no feats in 3.5, right Derren?


----------



## Blackeagle (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> However if they aren't obvious, the DM is by and large being a jerk to the players, and playing a game of 'Gotcha! You wasted your encounter/daily powers, ha ha'.  That doesn't strike me as satisfying either.




Some of this is going to depend on playstyle and such, but I don't think using single target encounter powers on a minion is going to be that big a waste.  You get those every encounter after all.  On the other hand, I think using a single target daily power even on a standard monster is going to be a waste a lot of the time.  That's part of why I'll be making elites and solos distinctive (plus the fact that I want to make the elites seem badass to increase player satisfaction about beating them).  

On the other hand, multi target encounter powers seem to be what minions are made for.


----------



## JesterOC (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Nope. Just inconsistent




They are suposed to be inconsistant, they are a special case rules to be used only under the proper conditions.  It is a form of optimization to lower the workload on the DM.  If you don't want the optimization don't use them.



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> However if they aren't obvious, the DM is by and large being a jerk to the players, and playing a game of 'Gotcha! You wasted your encounter/daily powers, ha ha'.  That doesn't strike me as satisfying either.




It is not a waste if the character feels threatened enough to use it.  You seem to think they are a joke monster created just to tease players by 'faking' them into thinking they are a threat but they are not.  A large mob of minons that is level balanced for the PC's is a real threat.  They can kill the party, if the party does  not treat them with respect.

You don't have to use minons. It just is easier and faster to use them.  If you want to sacrafice the speed of combat for consistancy, go for it (if you are the DM of course).

On the other hand use them if you like the idea of huge mobs of creatures that are deadly and easier to DM  as long as you realize that they can only be used in controlled situations.

JesterOC


----------



## Korgoth (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Actually, I do.  Because thats what the rules say.  If you do one point of damage to any of those things, they are dead or destroyed.  Its an absurdity, but its the games absurdity, not mine. But can we go back to the minion rules, because I was certainly never criticizing it based on 3e.  I was criticizing it based on the fact that its internally inconsistent with other parts of 4e.




So because both a paper wall and a commoner in 3.x have the same hit points, you assume that they have the same physical properties?  You're right that it is an absurdity, but I maintain that the absurdity is of your own design.  You're construing the rules in the most absurd light possible and then complaining about the absurdity.  That's like me going to McDonald's and complaining that the menu is mostly hamburgers... it's a result that I engineered for myself.

It seems that a fair number of people have put forward reasonable interpretations of the "1 hit point" status (my interpretation being the most reasonable, obviously).  So you have your choice of suitable rationales here!  But it just doesn't make any sense to say "If I construe this rule ludicrously, it comes off sounding ludicrous."  Of course it does, if you do that.


----------



## Scribble (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Nope. Just inconsistent




Still not seeing how. 

Everything in D&D has a percentage chance of being dead or not dead. Minions are no different.

If the rules said soemthign like Minions are around until the DM decides they should die... THAT would be inconsistent.




> However if they aren't obvious, the DM is by and large being a jerk to the players, and playing a game of 'Gotcha! You wasted your encounter/daily powers, ha ha'.  That doesn't strike me as satisfying either.




I think it will be fairly obvious myself. I mean the Guy standing in the back Yelling "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH GET THEM!!! GET THEM!!!!!!" is probably not a minion...

But how is it a waste of a power?

The whole point of minions is to have a large number of goons that are still a credible threat. So you used your powers to get rid of a credible threat... Isn't that what they're for?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (May 19, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> @Fallen Seraph- why wouldn't it?  He knows that certain types of monsters go down in one hit, and others don't.  Once he learns which types those are, why wouldn't he take advantage of it?  On one level, I agree with you, because I dislike the fact that it encourages this sort of metagame thinking, but the system by and large encourages it.



If there was a determinable difference then yeah. Like in 3e, with skeletons you would switch your dagger for a club.

But with minions, they are exactly the same as any other monster of its race. So a normal kobold and a kobold minion are exactly the same. The only difference is that in-game, the one kobold blocks the hit, the other is beheaded.

To use a movie example, we see in LoTR there is scenes where one Orc takes slightly more effort to bring down then another. They both look and act the same, it is simply circumstance, luck, etc. that determines the difference.


----------



## drjones (May 19, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Yeah, I've thought of that.  It wouldn't feel slower to me because I am painfully aware of how the +1/2 level advancement is an illusion, but for someone who finds it to be a pleasurable but nutrition-free placebo (like candy made from gum arabic and Splenda), there would be a sense of loss.  I think I could sell it as "Removing needless complexity from the game", since they still get all the cool class powers and such.  After all, static bonuses really aren't that interesting compared to _Acid Arrow_ or _Tide of Iron_, and once you've made the mental adjustment (and seen from gameplay experience that nothing is lost), smooth sailing should follow.



But.. all advancement in all RPGs is an illusion.  Unless you count advancing waistlines from too much pizza and beer.


----------



## Saitou (May 20, 2008)

So I read through this entire thread.

And this is some _epic_ whining. Square peg into round hole, the works. It's... impressive.

And I hang around _videogame fanboys_ for cryin' out loud.


I think Voss's problem is he keeps telling himself he's being "gamist" or is adhering to the rules of the "game" when in fact he just doesn't understand, or doesn't want to accept a perfectly consistent if a bit Schrodingeresque mook in the Minion.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 20, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> All minions die when they take at least 1 point of damage from a direct hit.  It doesn't matter what the source is, or anything else, just that attack hits and does measurable damage.  There aren't any exceptions involved- the attacker doesn't have to be of an appropriate level, a PC or be wearing a blue scarf under the moon- the attacker just has to hit it with a damaging attack.



I actually disagree about this conclusion. The minion rules are for combats between pcs and minions with an identical level.

I've already mentioned it in Irda's thread:
For a commoner (or a level 1 pc) a level 21 minion wouldn't actually be a minion. It would 'morph' into a regular monster of the same variety.

The article describes the opposite effect, since it happens in both directions:
The level 8 ogres of old 'morph' into level 16 minions when the level 16 pcs return to the area where they battled ogres before.

I'm _really_ glad the article pointed out that it doesn't really make sense to have a level 1 party encounter a level 20 minion even if it would be a level-appropriate encounter if you just looked at the xp value. Imho, pcs should never encounter minions of a level higher than their own. If their level is higher they're no longer minions!

So, if you had a mixed group of level 16 pcs and level 1 npcs (for whatever reason), the pcs would be able to kill the level 16 ogre minions with a single hit but the level 1 npcs wouldn't because to them they're not minions.

Similarly, I've seen a thread with a topic like 'what happens if two minions have a fist-fight?'. I didn't even look into the thread, since the answer is obvious to me: Minions are not minions if they're encountered by minions.

Encounters between npcs/minions and minions should simply be handwaved. Narrate them in any way that helps make the story work.


----------



## TheSleepyKing (May 20, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Seems to me that if he is more well known for the axe, then he's probably using the axe more often than not.  If he's using the dagger more, then he'd probably be well known for that.
> 
> So most times he uses an axe.  Sometimes a dagger.  I honestly don't understand what's wrong with that.




I believe what he's referring to is the problem of players (meta)gaming the system. Since daggers get a bonus to attack over axes, why wouldn't you use them on minions? It's probably out of character for a PC to pull out a lower-damage, higher accuracy weapon to deal with minions, but the minion system gives the player a definite incentive to do so. They'll never use power attack, or any ability that would reduce their ability to hit -- which would be weird for a barbarian-style character that always uses power attack. Likewise, players will choose an area attack with a large coverage but lower damage over a more focused blast because the wide area power works better as a "minion clearer". 

Really, this is the only problem I have with minions. I understand the complaint about the relativistic nature of minions (ie. that to a first level party there is no such thing as a level 8 ogre minion -- all ogres are tough, it's only when the players reach 8th level that ogres can become minions), and how it makes the world PC-centric, but I tend to think that's something that's problematic in theory but works out in practice. (EDIT: Like Jhaelen just said in the post above   ).


----------



## Bill Bisco (May 20, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Another weird thing that the minion rules encourage:
> 
> Hrothgar the Mighty has made his name with his great axe, Dragon-hewer.  But those who follow the saga of Hrothgar the Mighty have noted a peculiar quirk that Hrothgar exhibits in battle.  At times he is seen to discard the axe he values so highly, and pull out a wicked dagger that he calls Minion-Poker.  When asked about this behavior by a brave bard over many cups of ale, Hrothgar said:
> 
> 'What am I, an idiot?  I've got an extra 10% chance to hit with this thing, and it doesn't matter how much damage I do!'



Voss, reading this made me laugh very hard, and it's saddening that these other people can't appreciate it   



			
				Jhaelen said:
			
		

> I actually disagree about this conclusion. The minion rules are for combats between pcs and minions with an identical level.
> 
> I've already mentioned it in Irda's thread:
> For a commoner (or a level 1 pc) a level 21 minion wouldn't actually be a minion. It would 'morph' into a regular monster of the same variety.
> ...



  This is all completely made up by you.    You're looking at these rules and trying to craft them in a way that makes sense to you.  We've seen no evidence of the rules saying that minions morph depending on their opponents.  

The reason that this thread is going on for so long is because you all aren't talking mechanics, you're adding in your own ideas and trying to have an opinion contest.  These metagame criticisms are valid criticisms.  Now, if you don't find the implications that big of a deal, that's fine, but Voss's points are still valid.


----------



## hong (May 20, 2008)

Bill Bisco said:
			
		

> This is all completely made up by you.    You're looking at these rules and trying to craft them in a way that makes sense to you.




One might posit that this is slightly more useful than looking at the rules and trying to craft them in a way that makes no sense to you.

But only slightly more useful, mind.


----------



## JesterOC (May 20, 2008)

Bill Bisco said:
			
		

> This is all completely made up by you.    You're looking at these rules and trying to craft them in a way that makes sense to you.  We've seen no evidence of the rules saying that minions morph depending on their opponents.




Yes we do it is right here. 



			
				Stephen Schubert said:
			
		

> A cool aspect of the minion idea is the way that you can scale your encounters as PCs progress through the Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tiers, while still using similar creature types throughout the campaign. An 8th level encounter might involve battling ogres, but later in that campaign you might have an earth titan that has enslaved an ogre tribe, and thus create a 16th level encounter with an elite earth titan and a bunch of ogre bludgeoneer minions.




Perhaps you should read the article again.  It is quite clear if you have an open mind.



			
				Voss said:
			
		

> Hrothgar the Mighty has made his name with his great axe, Dragon-hewer. But those who follow the saga of Hrothgar the Mighty have noted a peculiar quirk that Hrothgar exhibits in battle. At times he is seen to discard the axe he values so highly, and pull out a wicked dagger that he calls Minion-Poker. When asked about this behavior by a brave bard over many cups of ale, Hrothgar said:
> 
> 'What am I, an idiot? I've got an extra 10% chance to hit with this thing, and it doesn't matter how much damage I do!'




If I detect a player pulling a stunt like that against a rule designed to speed up play and make it more fun, then I guess I would switch them isntantly to real ogers and let him deal with them with his dagger of metagaming.

JesterOC


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 20, 2008)

The biggest issue with the argument at hand is that people are trying to fit a meta game aspect of the game into the world part of the game.  If you are going to complain about minions then you must also complain about every other aspect of D&D that is meta game based (which comes out to pretty much everything) because if you can accept one meta game concept then why cant you accept another?

IMO its pretty simple, when in game minions do not exist what so ever.  They just dont.  They dont have 1 HP, they dont do fixed damage, nothing.  Saying they do is where you go wrong because once you say they do you are applying rules not intended for in game in to an in game scenario. Its like trying to play a pnp with a joystick.  It doesnt work because they are two different things and they are incompatible with each other.

Now if minions dont exist in game, what are they?  They are whatever you wish.  Fluff is Fluff, and its up to you to make it as realistic as you like.  You want to call a minion a very weak and very easy to kill opponent, go ahead.  But keep in mind that its because of fluff, not because its a minion.  You could just as easily called it a god, it doesnt matter.  Fluff is fluff and has nothing to do with the meta game.  Proof?  I can have a level 30 fighter who just killed a perimordial and I can fluff the fighter as a really lucky wimp.  Fluff is fluff and is compleatly seperate from the meta game.


----------



## Bill Bisco (May 20, 2008)

JesterOC said:
			
		

> Yes we do it is right here.



 What Stephen Schubert writes and what the game rules (which we don't have) say are 2 different things.  Again we have seen no evidence from the game rules that creatures transform back and forth from being minions and not being minions   


> Perhaps you should read the article again.  It is quite clear if you have an open mind.



 Most respectfully, it's quite clear that many people are interested in adding their own opinions and self-justifying them into the game.   


> If I detect a player pulling a stunt like that against a rule designed to speed up play and make it more fun, then I guess I would switch them isntantly to real ogers and let him deal with them with his dagger of metagaming.
> 
> JesterOC



Ooh, so you're going to metagame right back?  Interesting.


----------



## Rex Blunder (May 20, 2008)

> What Stephen Schubert writes and what the game rules (which we don't have) say are 2 different things.




Ooh, deconstructionism! The author's intent is irrelevant and unknowable.


----------



## Bill Bisco (May 20, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> Ooh, deconstructionism! The author's intent is irrelevant and unknowable.



Indeed, we've had a lot of fun at the CharOp boards in the past talking about the Sage's rulings which go against the rules.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (May 20, 2008)

JesterOC said:
			
		

> If I detect a player pulling a stunt like that against a rule designed to speed up play and make it more fun, then I guess I would switch them isntantly to real ogers and let him deal with them with his dagger of metagaming.
> 
> JesterOC




I disagree.  I think it depends on the fluff.  First let me set some ground rules.  Fluff wise, IMO, there are two types of minions.  Minions that you know are minions, and minions that you dont know are minions.  

If you are an epic level fighter and you are about to face a bunch of extremely weak kobolds (minions you know are minions), it makes sense for a fighter to switch to a weapon with which he is more proficient with (that is a dagger, or another such weapon with which he would be more likely to hit).  Because the fighter knows that all he has to do is get past their defenses in order do dispose of them and it makes more sense to use a more accurate weapon.

On the other hand, in situations where there are minions that you dont know are minions, the situation wont come up and therefor doesnt matter.

For categorizing the minions I think, when going for a level appropriate encounter, it is best to describe large numbers of minions as known minions and small numbers of minions as unknown minions.


----------



## AllisterH (May 20, 2008)

So to Voss and Bisco, do you think D&D should be able to model LotR and Conan? If so, how would you do it?


----------



## JesterOC (May 20, 2008)

ForbidenMaster said:
			
		

> I disagree.  I think it depends on the fluff.




Yes I agree also.  I just wanted to deal with the specific scenario that Voss used, where the player was clearly meta gaming.  In reality, players should be rewarded for using a quick more accurate weapon if that is what it seems they need.  But calling a weapon a minon sticker well that just invites non minons to show up to the party .

JesterOC


----------



## Bill Bisco (May 20, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> So to Voss and Bisco, do you think D&D should be able to model LotR and Conan? If so, how would you do it?



D&D already modeled LOTR in 3.5, the Fellowship just wasn't that high of level.  

But if a scalable minion effect was requested I would give the players scaling damage.  I might for instance give players a +2 damage bonus per level and give minions a subsequent +2 hp per level, thus a minion 5 levels higher than the player would not be subject to an autokill, but a minion of their level would.  This is just one idea of solving the issue, let's play with it and see if we can find other solutions.


----------



## AllisterH (May 20, 2008)

Bill Bisco said:
			
		

> D&D already modeled LOTR in 3.5, the Fellowship just wasn't that high of level.
> 
> But if a scalable minion effect was requested I would give the players scaling damage.  I might for instance give players a +2 damage bonus per level and give minions a subsequent +2 hp per level, thus a minion 5 levels higher than the player would not be subject to an autokill, but a minion of their level would.  This is just one idea of solving the issue, let's play with it and see if we can find other solutions.




Um, that at a quick glance has some SERIOUS problems...If a monster is designed to suffer 4-7 hits (according to the minion article), dependant on role) , then a standard monster at level 20 at its BASE is going to need between 160-280hp. THEN add in the regular HP for level....

Looking at an elite and solo creatures, that's a massive number of HP


----------



## Bill Bisco (May 20, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Um, that at a quick glance has some SERIOUS problems...If a monster is designed to suffer 4-7 hits (according to the minion article), dependant on role) , then a standard monster at level 20 at its BASE is going to need between 160-280hp. THEN add in the regular HP for level....
> 
> Looking at an elite and solo creatures, that's a massive number of HP



Oh indeed, HP levels would have to rise.  But HP just like Attack and Defense are relative.  If you gain 10 levels and get +5 attack and defense, but your opponent has gained 10 levels and gained +5 attack and defense, your chance of hitting is the same as if no levels were gained.

Granted HP is slightly more complex than that, but not overly so.


----------



## Lurker37 (May 20, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Hrothgar the Mighty has made his name with his great axe, Dragon-hewer.  But those who follow the saga of Hrothgar the Mighty have noted a peculiar quirk that Hrothgar exhibits in battle.  At times he is seen to discard the axe he values so highly, and pull out a wicked dagger that he calls Minion-Poker.  When asked about this behavior by a brave bard over many cups of ale, Hrothgar said:
> 
> 'What am I, an idiot?  I've got an extra 10% chance to hit with this thing, and it doesn't matter how much damage I do!'




The bard almost spills his drink laughing, before planting his index finger squarely on the addled barbarian's forehead.

"Hrothgar, you old fool! With an axe, you can _cleave_!"

Still laughing at the stunned expression on the barbarian's face, he pushes the old drunk back off his stool onto the floor to sleep off the booze, and turns to the task of composing the song that will make Hrothgar a laughing stock for months to come.

**************************************************************

There - now I've made a completely unfounded assumption about the rules that makes sense to me - that you'll need a certain minimum weapon size to cleave, possibly denoted by the 'heavy' keyword. Gee! Unfounded assumptions are fun! However, as someone has already stated that's all we have to work with at the moment, and it _is_ fun, so I make more than a few myself!

Here are my personal takes on the main objections I've noticed regarding minions so far. These are all my opinion, and I reserve the right to be wrong:

1. *They don't work well when you send out just one to do something. *The rules we have seen clearly state that you're meant to encounter them in numbers. The minion rules are meant to recreate the experience of encountering large numbers of weaker foes which are still collectively dangerous. It strikes me as similar to the swarm rules - were there similar arguments over how poorly swarm rules modeled a single generic wasp? That argument may be facetious, but I'm trying to illustrate that just because misuse of a rule can have odd results, that doesn't mean it's automatically a bad rule. Especially if you have to break another rule to misuse it in the first place: Minions come in groups.

2. *One hit point = < Fragile household item > .* This is an argument about the hit point system, threads about which have toppled servers and swallowed small children. 4E is clearly increasing the visible level of abstraction in the hit point system. Complaints about whether this is a good thing are a separate topic, IMO. For better or worse, this increased abstraction is present in 4E, and the minion rules are based on that premise. Obviously, if you dislike the premise then the minion rules will also annoy you.

3. *A child could kill a minion with a thrown rock.* Said child could also kill a nontrivial percentage of commoners ( and wound much of the rest) with that same rock, if the DM allows it to inflict even a single hit point of damage. If it can kill a human, then it can kill a minion. That's not a flaw in the minion rules - it's a problem with the deadliness of throwing small rocks. 

4. *Minions should have more than one HP, especially at higher levels.* My understanding is that the designers tried that and decided that it didn't work so well in play, because it created more work for the DM - something they wanted to avoid. This seems to be in line with a goal they have stated of making the game more accessible to first-time DMs. Furthermore they state that the goal was for the minions to drop with any solid blow - hence misses doing no damage.  In fact, they were originally going to not use the hit point system at all, but playtesters observed that this made them immune to environmental hazards, since there's no roll to hit. The single hit point is a concession to stop people from trying to argue that Minions can swim through lava unharmed. 

Furthermore, the rules we've seen so far seem to imply that attacks that only do one point of damage will be very, very rare. Most add the stat bonus from a primary stat, and many involve rolling more than one die. Add magical weapons/implements to the mix, and I can see most first level characters doing a minimum of four of five points of damage even on a poor roll. So the fact that a single point of damage would have been enough to kill them  might never, ever actually become obvious in normal play. 



My personal opinion on minions is that it looks like they will be a lot of fun if used as presented - a way of providing the PCs with an encounter containing a large number of opponents without it becoming a cakewalk or a TPK, and without making the DM use half a forest and a box of pencils to track each monster's HP. I'm in favour of this because I can think of many, many examples in film and fiction of non-superhuman heroes hacking through the rank and file to get to the real threat. Conan, Aragorn, any character ever played by Errol Flynn... 

I can't help but regard D&D now having a way to recreate these sorts of scenes without slowing to a crawl as a good thing. My suspension of disbelief won't break because this mechanic is actually supporting something I have long enjoyed as part of the genre. 

In short, I think it will be fun.


----------



## NilesB (May 20, 2008)

Rex Blunder said:
			
		

> So here's my minion question: how often do you all think they should be used? When planning encounters, do you think they should be in 10% of encounters? 30%? 50%? more?



KoTS has by my quick count:
Zero encounters solely with minions.
15 encounters with a mixture of minions and nonminion foes.
8 encounters with all the monsters lacking minionitude.
and one combat encounter solely wit hazards/traps.


----------



## Errantocracy (May 20, 2008)

The problem with these rules is, of course, that they are not idiot proof, something which seems to be of great concern to the idiots.

Minions are a system to present a large group of enemies to the PCs that provide a challenge without overwhelming them, nothing more, nothing less. If that's too complicated for you, don't use them.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 20, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I'm perfectly comfortable with that level of abstraction, so I'm comfortable with hitting a kobold 3 times before it goes 'down'.  What I'm not comfortable with is the idea that is true for these kobolds, but not for those kobolds.



You mean you didn't add class levels to Kobolds?


----------



## med stud (May 20, 2008)

Bill Bisco said:
			
		

> D&D already modeled LOTR in 3.5, the Fellowship just wasn't that high of level.
> 
> But if a scalable minion effect was requested I would give the players scaling damage.  I might for instance give players a +2 damage bonus per level and give minions a subsequent +2 hp per level, thus a minion 5 levels higher than the player would not be subject to an autokill, but a minion of their level would.  This is just one idea of solving the issue, let's play with it and see if we can find other solutions.



That would be a more complex way of achieving the same results. Minions would still go down in one hit and you would have to do more calculations. I can't see what you would gain by that method.


----------



## Mirtek (May 20, 2008)

OchreJelly said:
			
		

> I suspect 4E’s version of:
> “How bad does the monster look hurt?”
> will be:
> “Does the monster look like a minion?”



The question remains whether the  minion status will be something that can be recognized.

Prior to the orc preview art I was inclined to say that the minion status could be guessed by looking at the warriors of savage culures who respect personal progress and not so much by looking at a force from civilized lands (were the leader, dressed in the finest armor and weapons, is as a matter of fact the minion and only leading the force because he's the cousin of the king).

But looking at the orc preview art I say that it will be almost impossible to tell even in savage cultures. Because the orc warrior minion (first row, first orc from the right) doesn't look any less impressive than the orc bloodrager elite (first row, second orc from the right).

So even in savage cultures you can't tell a minion from an elite


----------



## D.Shaffer (May 20, 2008)

*shrug* The 'Minions 1 HP' rule is just DM shorthand for "Minions have HP that's roughly around the average damage the PC's can do with a solid hit of an at will power. It's just 1 HP to make it easier to track."  If you REALLY dont like this level of DM shorthand, just replace the 'Minion 1 HP' rule with the average damage the PC's can do.

Minions are there for the DM's who want the fantasy equivalent of Strormtroopers.  They're a cinematic tool. If you dont want them, then dont use them.  Replace 4 minions with 1 non minion of an equal amount of XP or give them 'real' HP.  Dont tell me they shouldnt exist at all because you dont like them.   It's like the DM equivalent to badwrongfun in scenario construction.


----------



## Voss (May 20, 2008)

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> The bard almost spills his drink laughing, before planting his index finger squarely on the addled barbarian's forehead.
> 
> "Hrothgar, you old fool! With an axe, you can _cleave_!"




I don't get it.  Nothing prevents him from cleaving with the dagger, no matter how absurd that sounds.


@Mustrum- I never had any desire to DM 3e.  None, since watching paint dry seemed a much more entertaining activity.  So no, I didn't.


----------



## Voss (May 20, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> So to Voss and Bisco, do you think D&D should be able to model LotR and Conan? If so, how would you do it?




Conan, largely yes, though for both you have to take out a lot of stuff.  Magic items in particular have to go, as well as the way magic is handled at times (Magic in that setting is more more rare, almost exclusive to villains or plot-furthing NPCs, and very, very dangerous).  But thats largely a matter of genre drift.  

But the problems of modeling literature aside, I think 4e (and D&D) does Conan-style fantasy pretty well.  The protagonists go from place, killing things and taking stuff.  I can see a place for minions in a Conan place game (given the number of people he slaughters in any given battle), but I think its a place where whats entertaining to read isn't necessarily entertaining to play.  Hacking through a horde of inconsequential nithlings strikes me as more of a chore than fun.  But yeah, it works, D&D is just a little more high magic in tone.  Restrict it to fighters, rogues, rangers and warlords and work the enhancement bonuses from magic items into the classes and you're pretty much done.  Magic dabbling can be done through the multiclassing feats, and would be fairly rare.

It could be fun, actually.  My own campaign setting has more of a Howard/Leiber feel, along with a more Iron Age historical feel.  A fallen Assyrian-style empire, a falling Roman-esque empire, and most people are tribal and in small villages at the edges of the empires.  No phantom-fungi style monsters, only about a dozen intelligent races (only about half the PH races strike me as viable), and all the anachronisms cut (which admittedly is something of a departure from the Howard material, since he has phalanxs, knights in full plate, and naked men with clubs running around simultaneously)
I keep spellcasting classes, but I may curtail magic items severely


Unfortunately D&D also does LotR fairly well: the party does something inconsequential while the DM NPCs do the actual quest and solve the setting.  Again the magic level is a bit high, and spellcaster PCs are out of place, though you can have a couple 'magic' weapons and things, if you're important enough.


----------



## Stoat (May 20, 2008)

Mirtek said:
			
		

> The question remains whether the  minion status will be something that can be recognized.




Most of the minions in Shadowfell are recognizably different from the non-minion members of their race.  They carry different weapons and wear different armor.  Perceptive players will quickly learn to spot them.

Based on what I've seen, the minion mechanic adds an interesting twist to the game.  The Shadowfell encounters look like they'll be a lot of fun to play through, and they look challenging to boot.  I suspect that PC's will learn to treat minions with fear and respect.

As for Hrothgar, if he wants to take the time to sheath his axe and draw his dagger, more power to him.  If he wants to save time by dropping his axe, even better.  

Practically speaking, I suspect most RL players will continue to use the same weapon for two reasons: (1) convenience; and (2) minions will most often team up with non-minions.  A canny player will want to have the best weapon in hand for dealing OA's or whatever to the non-minions in the group.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 20, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> I don't get it.  Nothing prevents him from cleaving with the dagger, no matter how absurd that sounds.



True. You shouldn't have taken a Barbarian-type Fighter, though. I can just see the image of a Barbarian, seeing all the guys attacking him. "Bring it own, cowards! I can take you all! Hah! To make it fair, I'll even throw away this big axe and pick up this old rusty Dagger! HAHAHA!" 



The only weakness in the Greataxe/Dagger switching tactic is to assume that the character actually has a Dagger with a similar magical enhancement as the Greataxe. If I remember correctly, the profiency bonus ranges from something like +1 to +3 or +4. The difference really becomes marginal over time...



> @Mustrum- I never had any desire to DM 3e.  None, since watching paint dry seemed a much more entertaining activity.  So no, I didn't.



Well, it was fun, for a while. It became a chore, after some time. But I definitely added class levels to Kobolds. Because fighting identical Kobolds over multiple encounters is almost as boring as watching paint dry. And I can't allow my players to be bored that much. I am bad enough at DMing as it is...


----------



## HerntheHunted (May 20, 2008)

D.Shaffer said:
			
		

> Minions are there for the DM's who want the fantasy equivalent of Strormtroopers.




Not quite. I actually expect Minions to HIT somebody once in a while.  
But yes, methinks they could provide a nice little tool.


----------



## Dausuul (May 20, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The only weakness in the Greataxe/Dagger switching tactic is to assume that the character actually has a Dagger with a similar magical enhancement as the Greataxe. If I remember correctly, the profiency bonus ranges from something like +1 to +3 or +4. The difference really becomes marginal over time...




Other weaknesses include:

a) Needing to either spend a feat on Quick Draw or use a move action to switch weapons
b) Opportunity attacks against non-minions would now use dagger damage instead of greataxe damage
c) Character may be specialized with greataxes, reducing or negating the benefit
d) Similar to c), character may have attack powers and feats that require a specific type of weapon


----------



## D'karr (May 20, 2008)

Stoat said:
			
		

> Most of the minions in Shadowfell are recognizably different from the non-minion members of their race.  They carry different weapons and wear different armor.  Perceptive players will quickly learn to spot them.
> 
> Based on what I've seen, the minion mechanic adds an interesting twist to the game.  The Shadowfell encounters look like they'll be a lot of fun to play through, and they look challenging to boot.  I suspect that PC's will learn to treat minions with fear and respect.




I ran Keep on the Shadowfell as a demo at my FLGS this weekend.  A good time was had by all. See below for how minions kicked ass:

[sblock=Keep on the Shadowfell butt-kicking: ]The party was all set go to Winterhaven when they encountered some Kobold Bandits.  This posed no problem until the Kobold Slinger shot a gluepot at the Dwarven Fighter.  Needless to say the fighter was trying to get rid of this mucky substance for the better part of the encounter.  

Then the kobold minions swarmed around the group.  Then the Dragonshields came around for some adventurer payback.  With the fighter immobilized, the kobolds could pretty much shift to whereever they wanted.  They would shift around just to gain combat advantage.  But the kicker in all this was that the dragonshields were hitting just because of the Mob Attack bonuses provided by the minions.

A fun time was had by all as the wizard and the dragonborn used Area of Effect spells and Breath Weapons to great advantage.  When they hit...  The slow effect of sleep came in very handy.

But whoever thinks that minions are pushovers has another thing coming.  Just because minions die when hit, does not make them easy to hit or any less dangerous when they do hit.  And when you have 5 or 10 minions storming on you, the suffering is legendary.  Just ask the Dragonborn paladin that was taken out twice by swarming tactics.  Two dragonshields flanking and 6 additional minions adds up to a + to hit bonus.  Add in their +7 with a short sword and these suckers are hitting on anything *above a 4* on a d20.  Then the minions can start the dance of pain by continuing to shift into flanking position.
[/sblock]

After that little ordeal the party had much more pain to suffer through.  Fear and respect is an understatement for what this party learned through the school of hard-knocks.  My unit of kobold minions are now called the Pain Tenders...


----------



## AllisterH (May 20, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Unfortunately D&D also does LotR fairly well: the party does something inconsequential while the DM NPCs do the actual quest and solve the setting.  Again the magic level is a bit high, and spellcaster PCs are out of place, though you can have a couple 'magic' weapons and things, if you're important enough.




Hey, Eberron doesn't do that...Now, GH and FR, you may have a point.


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 21, 2008)

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Huh? I have been very vocal here over the years that to me "It is _ALL_ D&D."
> 
> I guess I could have been clearer and said ". . . D&D to _me_."
> 
> ...



See, it would have been so much cooler if you'd said "Everybody's talkin' 'bout the new sound, funny, but it's still D&D to me"  With respect to Billy Joel.


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 21, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> One alternate solution for those who want it - set a damage threshold for minions. Below that threshold, minion shrugs off the hit. Over that threshold, they die.
> 
> You might want to change how Cleave works, though. And presumably any daily at all would kill minions then.



I agree about Cleave.  My personal preference would be that Cleave function in that if you do damage to your first target, you may then continue your strike to attempt to do damage to another adjacent target instead of having to outright kill the first target in order to continue your cleave.  That way you could _injure_ a swath of foes instead of the kill/null way it's worked to date.  
Still doesn't matter for minions, of course, because you've done damage so they die.  But I kind of like the idea of say 1 hp/lvl of the minion instead of the flat 1 hp minion.  It kind of scales minions all by itself, instead of having tiers of minions or somesuch.  Sure, it may put a pea under the mattress of WotC's "But then DMs have to track minion HPs!!!" issue, but I don't think it's that bad.  I mean really, even at that, how many HPs could a minion have?  Or maybe that's too much even, and you need some kind of mitigating factor taking the PC's level into account.  I don't know off the top of my head, but I think the flat 1 hp minion is a bit too oversimplified.  And while I generally dislike 4E, the concept of minions I do like.  I'm just not at all sure I like how they did it.  Which, oddly, tends to be my reaction to a lot of 4E so far.  "Interesting idea, but I think they did it all wrong".  :/


----------



## Blackeagle (May 21, 2008)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> I agree about Cleave.  My personal preference would be that Cleave function in that if you do damage to your first target, you may then continue your strike to attempt to do damage to another adjacent target instead of having to outright kill the first target in order to continue your cleave.  That way you could _injure_ a swath of foes instead of the kill/null way it's worked to date.




Well, according to what we've seen so far, that's the way it works.



> Cleave Fighter Attack 1
> You hit one enemy, then cleave into another.
> At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
> Standard Action Melee weapon
> ...




Nothing in there says you have to drop the first enemy.


----------



## Wolv0rine (May 21, 2008)

Blackeagle said:
			
		

> Well, according to what we've seen so far, that's the way it works.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in there says you have to drop the first enemy.



Good deal, I hope an actual look at the rules in the books themselves don't invalidate that implication.  Although it also looks like you can only cleave into One additional foe, which it unfortunate.

On minions..  another thought...  if a minion dies on any successful hit, does that mean that if the Fighter backhands a minion, it dies?  I mean that's just...  *too* much for me to swallow right there.


----------



## hong (May 21, 2008)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Good deal, I hope an actual look at the rules in the books themselves don't invalidate that implication.  Although it also looks like you can only cleave into One additional foe, which it unfortunate.
> 
> On minions..  another thought...  if a minion dies on any successful hit, does that mean that if the Fighter backhands a minion, it dies?  I mean that's just...  *too* much for me to swallow right there.



 It falls over, stunned and out of the fight. Haven't YOU ever wanted to punch a troll in the face?

Remember that 0 hp == either death or KO'd, depending on what you want, and presumably, what the DM wants.


----------



## hong (May 21, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Haven't YOU ever wanted to punch a troll in the face?




Shut up, you lot.


----------



## Blackeagle (May 21, 2008)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Although it also looks like you can only cleave into One additional foe, which it unfortunate.




Well that's all you could do with cleave in 3e.  My guess is if Great Cleave is in 4e, it'll be a separate, higher level power.


----------



## Dausuul (May 21, 2008)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> On minions..  another thought...  if a minion dies on any successful hit, does that mean that if the Fighter backhands a minion, it dies?  I mean that's just...  *too* much for me to swallow right there.




A minion dies if it takes 1 point of damage.  A backhand to the face is not going to do 1 point of damage.

Now, a successful unarmed attack would take a minion down, though presumably not kill it (since it's nonlethal damage).  But an unarmed attack isn't a backhand slap; it's Indiana Jones laying out some Nazi grunt with one punch.


----------



## IanArgent (May 25, 2008)

Dausuul said:
			
		

> But an unarmed attack isn't a backhand slap; it's Indiana Jones laying out some Nazi grunt with one punch.




Quite well illustrated in any of the Indy movies, actually. Indy generally drops the minions in one hit (in at least 1 instance I can think of, he gets 3(!) minions with one attack - Last Crusade, the 3 guys lining up to have a go at him on the tank, whom he drops with one shot from a Luger. This apparently surprises him enough that he discards the Luger in case its power becomes uncontrolled...). But when he gets into a fistfight with a non-minion enemy; the fight goes on (literally) for minutes with both Indy and the bad guy literally trading punches, knocking each other down, bloodying faces, etc. Nonetheless, Indy has to honor the threat of the minions.

There's a couple of chase scenes in these movies where Indy is running from the bad guys who have firearms and are sending hails of fire at him, which barely miss, or are blocked by structural elements of the buildings, etc. In 4E D&D terms, _these are *not* misses._ They just aren't hits of a sufficient damage to take him below 0 HP. His running, dodging, and weaving is tiring, to be sure, and eventually the shooting will catch up to him. (By which point he's turned the tables or done something so clever/stupid that the encounter ends).

D&D has always seemed to me to be aimed at the "pulpier" end of things (with Eberron being the extreme case). It would be an excellent system to run, say, the Belgariad and Mallorean in (really any of Eddings' series, given the similarities of all his worlds), or any of the Riftwar sagas (which are faily clearly modeled on D&D even if the urban myths about the source of the stories aren't true). And from where I sit, 4E D&D looks much better for this kind of thing than 3ed was. A D&D game is, in general, all about the PCs. There are systems/worlds where this is not the default assumption (WoD being the primary example, but you could make an argument about Shadowrun as well). I don't have to go to Hong Kong action flicks to see mooks, I can draw out of the works inspired by and the works that inspired D&D without having to pick on D&D novels. Enemies have value even in a situation where they will drop out of the fight due to one good hit - the PCs may need to stop the minions from dropping other minions, the minions may have enough combat prowess that as a group their attacks can threaten the PC, etc

In most of the fights in these kinds of novels, the protagonists know going in or shortly after the battle starts that some of their opponents are going to be dropped by one hit, and some have the skills/luck necessary to mix it up with them for a time. It doesn't break my suspension of disbelief (admittedly a pretty strong suspension to be reading these books  ) when I see this narrated.


Finally - back to the glass window - a glass window has 1 HP because D&D doesn't have fractional HP. The situation is not transitive; any attack that can deal 1 HP will break the glass window, but an attack that will break a glass window may not deal 1 HP. Anyone can be killed by a 1 HP attack, _if_ it happens to hit them when they have only one HP. It happens that some creatures, being more skilled/lucky than the rest, are rarely (if ever) at a point when an attack will catch them unaware enough to do that last, critical, hit point. they dodge aside at the last minute, their god smiles on them and the dagger slips on a rib instead of sliding through to puncture a lung, etc. All HP are not equal; some are more important than others. In 4E we actually appear to have 2 "important" HP - the one that sits just in front of the "bloodied" condition, and the last one before 0.  And the one before bloodies isn't all that important in a physical sense, as it can be replaced by someone else yelling at you to "shake it off", or even your own attempts to shake it off. (We do have a slight oddity in that even if you're unconscious and bleeding to death, someone can still yell at you to "pull yourself together", and you will; I may make a tiny house rule to say that at 0 and below you are out of the fight and dying; but not necessarily unconscious, just unable to take effective action. If you are inspired, you can get back up and keep fighting - I'm not in any sense a simulationist, so this doesn't bother me)


----------

