# Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)



## Kzach (Jul 11, 2009)

Find out why this post was edited here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4862807-post303.html

Discuss it with me via email, not in the thread. Thanks.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 11, 2009)

Despite my reservations about 4E as a game, I actually do like DM'ing it.

In contrast, DM'ing 3E/3.5E was a like "chore" in comparison.  DM'ing 1E AD&D can become like "chore" too, if one plays it RAW.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 11, 2009)

Kzach said:
			
		

> 4e is dry and boring and nonsensical
> I keep seeing the same criticisms over and over and over again by (usually) the same people. I'm finally convinced that they're right: 4e is everything they say it is.




Well, I don't think it's any more dry and boring and nonsensical than most other editions, myself, at least in the rulebooks. A stablock is kind of flavorless regardless of the format, but there are other places to inject flavor, and I think 4e uses those as well as any other edition does, by and large. 



> To my mind, if the 4e rules were meant to be taken and used completely literally without narrative interpretation and imaginative involvement of the players and DM in creating a co-operative story environment, then it would be really boring and it would be very dry and none of the rules would make any sense.




Well, which brings us to the underlying truism about any PnP RPG: The game is only as good as the group running it. This is as true for FATAL as it is for D&D 4e, though. 



> I realised years ago that I had been missing out on one of the coolest and most fun aspects of roleplaying by adhering to this notion that a game system has to be 'realistic'. The amount of rules I made up to represent hit points and wounds in D&D could fill a small book.




You don't have to have a lot of detailed rules to maintain suspension of disbelief. VP/WP, for instance, isn't very complex. HP has been pretty poorly defined in every edition, so that, at least, isn't a new issue for those who find it breaks their suspension of disbelief (though it's a little different in 4e than it was before). There's a continuum here, and it's certainly possible to have HP be "more realistic," if that's what you want, than they currently are, without having a small book of additional rules.



> 4e requires you to be imaginative because if you don't, then things start to make very little sense. I'm not saying you can't be imaginative in other systems, just that without some sort of imaginative element, 4e quickly becomes very dry and mechanical and logic breaks down almost immediately.




"4e is only good in the hands of a good group?" If that's true, that's kind of a tragedy, since 4e certainly wanted to be easy enough for ANY group, not just the few ones with a DM who is good at turning dry stuff into interesting stuff.

Shouldn't 4e have tried to be interesting right up front, not demanding that DMs be interesting first? Wouldn't that have made it more accessible, and still allow DMs who have interesting ideas to do their own things (since the DM is always the final arbiter)? 



> For the naysayers, I say: try it. Just let yourself go. Put the book down and roleplay through the combats with descriptive verses about how you use Tide of Iron to force someone over a cliff or Positioning Strike to weave through the battlefield or Rain of Steel to cleave about you mercilessly. Be imaginative.




Man, knocking someone off a cliff is *hard* in 4e. Aside from not being able to push people more than one square off the edge (you can't force movement to somewhere you can't move normally to), they then get a saving throw to go prone instead of to fall off (50% chance).

So first you've gotta hit them (maybe 60% chance), then you've gotta move 'em into the empty space (depends on the power how easy that is), then they STILL get a chance to not get boned (50% chance). 

I mean, 4e can certainly throw up some barriers to awesomeness. A good group will probably ignore those barriers when they conflict with awesomeness, but that's true in any edition of D&D, or in any PnP RPG, period. If I've got a good group, and we're happy playing Pathfinder, maybe, what's 4e gonna do? Say "Hey, you can have the same fun you're having now by learning a brand new ruleset and being forced to be creative, even when your mind is feeling lazy from 48 hours of Recession-week work?" 

Man, maybe I should just go play Diablo. It's certainly less friggin' _work_.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 11, 2009)

*Compared with what?* A good part of how one judges the destination may be where one started, the basis in what is familiar. If one has spent the past decade or so playing a game with an even heavier burden of rules, then the contrast with that particular piece of work may seem liberating. If one's idea of roleplaying is coming up with "descriptive verses" for game-mechanical transactions, then more dissociated mechanisms may be just the thing.

I have tried it repeatedly. I have found it rules-heavy and slow-paced, and those other adjectives as well. No doubt that has to do with coming from decades of playing RPGs much less complex and (in terms of encounter resolution) time consuming. You're talking about a game past the scale of RuneQuest or The Fantasy Trip, practically in Champions territory. It's a long, long way from what I have known as D&D.

So, your reply to the response may exhibit a lack of perspective and understanding. Indeed, your very words might be sent back to you: "Be imaginative. You never know, you might like it." Do you really need 800+ pages of rule-books (in the first three volumes alone, never mind, e.g., PHB 2)? Do you need all that square-counting and number-crunching, the lists of powers to define your options?

Maybe you do, but if you assume that everyone else does then you may be missing the point. One of my all-time favorite RPGs (the 1976 1st ed. _Metamorphosis Alpha_) has but 32 pages (albeit of small type). You can get it for free online, thanks to designer Jim Ward's generosity. That's my idea of a game that requires and stimulates imagination.


----------



## Jasperak (Jul 11, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> One of my all-time favorite RPGs (the 1976 1st ed. _Metamorphosis Alpha_) has but 32 pages (albeit of small type). You can get it for free online, thanks to designer Jim Ward's generosity. That's my idea of a game that requires and stimulates imagination.




Do you have a link?


----------



## MichaelK (Jul 11, 2009)

I didn't find that very convincing.

Judging only from what you've written there it seems like I've got two choices.

1) Play 3e and have a realistic system that works, plus I can use my imagination with it to make it even better.

2) Play 4e and the system is so dull, boring and nonsensical that I'll have to cover over its system flaws with my imagination.

I'm not saying that's what 4e is actually like, I'm just saying that's how it sounds in your post.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 11, 2009)

Kzach said:


> I keep seeing the same criticisms over and over and over again by (usually) the same people. I'm finally convinced that they're right: 4e is everything they say it is.




Well, it's interesting to see someone converted against it


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 11, 2009)

Jasperak said:


> Do you have a link?



Metamorphosis Alpha - Science Fiction RPG

There is a free .rtf file of the text, plus files for the cross-section, sample levels and modular-dwelling diagrams -- and links to articles from Dragon Magazine and White Dwarf and other neat stuff.

As noted at the top of the page, a PDF of the book is for sale at RPG Now and Drive Thru RPG.

The newer site (concentrating on the latest edition) is Home (metamorphosisalpha.net rather than .com). A PDF *errata sheet* for the first edition is there on this page: http://www.metamorphosisalpha.net/html/ma1e.html.


----------



## Jasperak (Jul 11, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Metamorphosis Alpha - Science Fiction RPG
> 
> There is a free .rtf file of the text, plus files for the cross-section, sample levels and modular-dwelling diagrams -- and links to articles from Dragon Magazine and White Dwarf and other neat stuff.
> 
> ...




Thanks, I went to that site and saw they were charging for the PDF but didn't look far enough down to see that they offered the rules in RTF format. Thanks again.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jul 11, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I have tried it repeatedly. I have found it rules-heavy and slow-paced, and those other adjectives as well. No doubt that has to do with coming from decades of playing RPGs much less complex and (in terms of encounter resolution) time consuming. You're talking about a game past the scale of RuneQuest or The Fantasy Trip, practically in Champions territory. It's a long, long way from what I have known as D&D.




I have played a lot of Champions and if you think 4e is in Champions territory, frankly, you don't know what you are talking about. 4e is not even close to Champions. 3.5e is much closer to Champions level complexity than 4e is. I was constantly having to flip through my books when playing or DMing 3.5e.

In fact, 4e is the first edition of D&D where I have played entire sessions without anyone, DM included, needing to open a rulebook. At all.

And not only that, but playing with full confidence that we aren't fudging anything, winging it, or guessing what we thought a rule was. Now THAT is rules light for me.


----------



## Jasperak (Jul 11, 2009)

EDIT-While I consider this thread an insult against my simulationist tendencies, I don't want to be a dbag about it.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 11, 2009)

MichaelK said:


> I didn't find that very convincing.
> 
> Judging only from what you've written there it seems like I've got two choices.
> 
> ...



This was my thought as well.  
I don't want to get baiting in to someone else's over-statement of 4E's flaws.

But if all the "fun" comes from outside the book, then can you remind me what exactly it is that I'm buying?

Roleplaying isn't between the covers of a book.  But the game mechanics must live up to my roleplaying.


----------



## WarlockLord (Jul 11, 2009)

I don't mean to be a troll, but I think HP inflation kinda makes it hard to keep teh awesome flowing.  Sure, it's cool when someone does a backflip and kicks their opponent in the face, but when it's only doing 7 damage...yeah.


----------



## ST (Jul 11, 2009)

BryonD said:


> But if all the "fun" comes from outside the book, then can you remind me what exactly it is that I'm buying?




Rules.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 11, 2009)

Dragonblade, your standard is D&D 3.5 -- but it's not mine. "Hasn't got as much Spam® in it as Spam® egg sausage and Spam®, has it?"

If a melee proceeds at slightly less glacial speed than in Champions or Star Fleet Battles, then that is faint praise -- or none at all, as it was _designed_ to take so long in order to please players who _like_ it that way.

Putting the rules for a scenario on loose-leaf pages does not reduce their number! Again, if one's frame of reference is a game in which a character sheet can fit on an index card, then the relative heaviness of 4E looks a bit different than if one is comparing it with WotC's previous release.


----------



## Agamon (Jul 11, 2009)

I see the point being, regardless of system, you get out of it what you put into it.  I agree with this.  I'll add that different people want different things from the mechanics that a game runs on.  What's fun is relative, but what is fact is that if you don't put some work into it, it'll be less fun than it could be.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 11, 2009)

> What's fun is relative, but what is fact is that if you don't put some work into it, it'll be less fun than it could be.




Right. You work at your fun. I'ma go play WoW and have fun delivered to me for all the effort of simply pressing a button. Hope working hard for little real benefit works out for you. 

I'm over-stating it, but as long as D&D requires lots of work, it's going to be something that not many people want to do, regardless of the edition.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 11, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm over-stating it, but as long as D&D requires lots of work, it's going to be something that not many people want to do, regardless of the edition.




The original basic D&D box sets from the 1980's were simple enough to play, without requiring a lot of preparation and work.


----------



## Agamon (Jul 11, 2009)

The "work" I do is pushing buttons, too.  Maybe work is the wrong word.  Time and/or care might be better.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 11, 2009)

WarlockLord said:


> I don't mean to be a troll, but I think HP inflation kinda makes it hard to keep teh awesome flowing.  Sure, it's cool when someone does a backflip and kicks their opponent in the face, but when it's only doing 7 damage...yeah.




This is definitely an interesting point.  One of the first things one of my players said after we played 4e was (and yes, I'm paraphrasing)....

"Heroic, how is a 6'7, 300lb Dragonborn fighter in any way heroic when he's struggling to kill a 3'0 90lb mini-lizardman(Kobold Dragonshield).  That ain't heroic, it's comedy."

...Hey, he had a point.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 11, 2009)

One way around this problem of too many hit points dragging out the length of combats in 4E, is to add the player character's level number to the damage they do.  Star Wars Saga Edition has something like this, but adding in level/2 to the damage for melee and ranged attacks.

For example, a magic missile does 1 + 2d4 + INT mod damage, for a level 1 wizards.  For a level 8 wizard, a magic missile does 8 + 2d4 + INT mod damage.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 11, 2009)

I don't need rules to facilitate roleplaying. I need rules to determine the success of something. 



Imaro said:


> "Heroic, how is a 6'7, 300lb Dragonborn fighter in any way heroic when he's struggling to kill a 3'0 90lb mini-lizardman(Kobold Dragonshield).  That ain't heroic, it's comedy."



Let's turn that on its head.

"Dangerous, how is a 12', 2Klb giant in any way threatening when he's struggling to kill a 6'7, 300lb half-orc? That ain't dangerous, that's comedy."


----------



## Imaro (Jul 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I don't need rules to facilitate roleplaying. I need rules to determine the success of something.
> 
> 
> Let's turn that on its head.
> ...




Actually, it depends on who the protagonist is.  If the giant isn't the protagonist, yes, the half-orc is heroic because only a hero (more in the greek sense of the word) could accomplish such a feat.  Now if the giant is the protagonist, then yes... he's more comedic than heroic, see the difference?


----------



## Vegepygmy (Jul 11, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Right. You work at your fun. I'ma go play WoW and have fun delivered to me for all the effort of simply pressing a button. Hope working hard for little real benefit works out for you.



This is a point of view that I think is very common in today's world, but totally alien to me.  In my experience, _everything_ in life is more rewarding when it requires effort.  "Simply pressing a button" does nothing for me.  But for a lot of people, having to do more than that is an unconscionable burden.

I put a lot of effort into my D&D games.  Most of the time I enjoy doing it for its own sake; sometimes it feels more like "work" than "fun."  But I find the end results more rewarding, so I don't regret it.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> he's more comedic than heroic, see the difference?



Not really. I acknowledge it, but I don't agree with it.

In any action sequence where the protagonist is fighting something Small and Fast, it's always a struggle to win, becauae the things are always fast and dodgy. Something is "skittery". The "Whack-a-mole" issue has always been present. If for instance you had to fight a bobcat, it would be hellishly hard to kill it because cats (especially small cats) are fast and _very_ nasty in close quarters. I wouldn't think fighting off a possessed cat would be comedy, it'd be painful.

I don't see it as "comedy". If you called them demons, instead of mini-lizardmen, would that help your sense of heroism? 

IMHO, kobolds/goblins have _always_ been treated with a level of comedy. They're presented so pathetic that they aren't seen as a  legitimate threat. Like fighting eight year olds with pocket knives. So fighting them *has always been* a joke. *That* is not heroic to me; fighting rats and little joke humanoids is _not_ heroic. No hero in a greek sense ever fought a few rats and called it a battle, even when he first started out.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Not really. I acknowledge it, but I don't agree with it.




Uhm, ok.



Rechan said:


> In any action sequence where the protagonist is fighting something Small and Fast, it's always a struggle to win, becauae the things are always fast and dodgy. Something is "skittery". The "Whack-a-mole" issue has always been present.




Uhm sure, if you say so but even a small "skittery" or just plain quick PC has the same troubles with them... a Halfling Rogue, high dex ranger, etc. and that is a function of escalated hit points... not their speed.  You see a whack-a-mole is quick, but it usually just takes one good whack.




Rechan said:


> I don't see it as "comedy". If you called them demons, instead of mini-lizardmen, would that help your sense of heroism?




were not talking about demons...were talking about kobolds, goblins, etc. and their place in versions of D&D.   



Rechan said:


> IMHO, kobolds/goblins have _always_ been treated with a level of comedy. They're presented so pathetic that they aren't seen as a  legitimate threat. Like attacking a cluster of eight year olds with pocket knives. So fighting them _is_ a joke. *That* is not heroic to me; fighting rats and little joke humanoids is _not_ heroic, it's laughable. No hero in a greek sense ever fought a few rats and called it a battle.





SO doesn't that mean it's even more comedic when a supposed "joke monster" wails our so called hero to a pulp?  And thus you agree with what I am saying?

As an example... Achilles fights hordes of men with lesser skill than him and slaughters them all, yet he is considered heroic and his story is considered heroic because he did that.  No one says well if Achilles had fought a superman and won... then he would've been a hero.  

Now if one or more of those lesser skilled warriors had slaughtered him or even gave him serious wounds and left him crippled... would he more heroic or less heroic because of this?


Edit:  And if you go by the actual myths, Achilles was magically invulnerable on most of his body, so how was hios fighting of normal men any different than the goblin/kobold/rat analogy...at least before 4e?


----------



## Rechan (Jul 11, 2009)

> Uhm, ok.



Um, ok.

Besides, the HP isn't relevant. It's not meat being hacked off. Even if you HIT them, that doesn't mean you do physical damage; it can merely be a near miss, in narrative form, and when they hit 0 you finally HIT them and kill them. Their HP is just another representation of their skitteryness. 



Imaro said:


> SO doesn't that mean it's even more comedic when a supposed "joke monster" wails our so called hero to a pulp? And thus you agree with what I am saying?



No. I don't agree with you at all. 



> Now if one or more of those lesser skilled warriors had slaughtered him or even gave him serious wounds and left him crippled... would he more heroic or less heroic because of this?



IIRC, a lesser man, Paris, did. 

Achilles wasn't heroic because he was a Hero. He was just invulnerable. The only difference between Achilles and anyone else on the field was that he couldn't be harmed. For someone who can't be harmed to just go slaughter countless men, that isn't very heroic. In fact I'd say that's barbaric.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 11, 2009)

I'm more with Rechan.

Kobolds are no friggin' joke. If they can threaten a 1st level 4e D&D character, they can slaughter a dozen normal humans before being possibly controlled. 

They are shifty, tricky, trappy little pikers made all the more frustrating because they *should* be easy to kill, but aren't.


----------



## Stereofm (Jul 11, 2009)

I believe ANY system can be fun in the hands of a good DM, even when the rules are an awful bug-ridden mess, and the adventure is a senseless bloodbath of hack and slash. (I am not particularly targeting 4e here, as I have seen this elsewhere).

Now it requires the players and GM to be in a certain positive mood to achieve this, and some skill at gaming. That's not happening often. If you don't meet these requirements, and the game  system and MUCH more importantly the MODULE is not stellar, well ... 

So while I believe someone can have fun with 4e, that won't be true of everyone, and in my case this is a lost bet. I have yet to read any argument anywhere that might possibly make me reconsider.

Besides there are plenty of other options for good gaming around, so why bother ?


----------



## Rechan (Jul 11, 2009)

stereofm said:
			
		

> I believe ANY system can be fun in the hands of a good DM, even when the rules are an awful bug-ridden mess, and the adventure is a senseless bloodbath of hack and slash.



The reverse is also true; a beautiful system with an exciting adventure can be utterly awful in the hands of a bad DM or bad group. 

The playing field thus is "What's it like with a decent group and a decent GM". 



> So while I believe someone can have fun with 4e that won't be true of everyone



I think the following is more true:


> So while I believe someone can have fun with (INSERT SYSTEM HERE) that won't be true of everyone



The D&D community is split because the editions facilitate different kinds of play. They facilitate different gaming needs. It's not whether there's too many HP or not enough options, but style. And the D&D community is going to have to cope with the truism that the larger RPG community has: games suit different tastes, play what suits you.


----------



## Stereofm (Jul 11, 2009)

(double post)


----------



## Stereofm (Jul 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I think the following is more true:




Yeah you are right, that's what I should have said, and what I meant truly.

To each his own.


----------



## MichaelK (Jul 11, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Like fighting eight year olds with pocket knives.




That's a lot more difficult than you might think. I'm not saying I've done that before, but I would be scared if a bunch of eight year olds ran up to me with pocket knives. Imagine how fast they'd be.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 11, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm more with Rechan.
> 
> Kobolds are no friggin' joke. If they can threaten a 1st level 4e D&D character, they can slaughter a dozen normal humans before being possibly controlled.
> 
> They are shifty, tricky, trappy little pikers made all the more frustrating because they *should* be easy to kill, but aren't.




But they're only like this in 4e.  My point was after playing previous editions, in my player's opinion, it in no way felt heroic to struggle in a battle with kobolds or goblins.  Now whether you like the new feel of these monsters or not is subjective but it is certainly a difference brought on by hit point escalation of both PC's and monsters.  

IMO, it's not heroic to be slaughtered by the scrubs of the monster world... but that's just me.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jul 11, 2009)

I've always tried, as DM, to explain the game as a STORY, not just "_you take 7hp damage"_ or whatever, so it's always descriptive, high adventure.
Thus 4th ed's ideas are great for me 

Sure a push/pull etc may not be that, it maybe tricking your enemy into a ruse to get too close and making hin vulnerable, kicking him in the g'nads so he staggers or whatever.
ti's taken D&D YEARS ot get what I always wanted, those kind of tactical, fun, and really believable things rather than standing toe to toe just hacking at each other liek Whack-A-Rat! hehe

it's all about FUN in the end! 

Simulationism sucks, SUCK big time, because it wastes too much time on mechanics and not on fun. Sure some folk love it, fine by me if they do, but most folk do not liek that at all, they want fun, HEROIC fun. Silly fun. Bloodthristy fun, etc.

I can really enjoy 3.5 on a computer game, but as a DM, hell no. Very very unpleasant to run it, too complex, I want to RP the story/game with pals not robots, and have a hoot with battles etc 

on the "small enemy" issue

are you KIDDING that kobolds aren't a threat?! you ever been in real fights?
enemies with advantages are not ajoke, be it numbers, skills, pure meaness (guts), poison etc
toughest fighter I have ever seen is 5'1", he fought another guy for eight HOURS, every time he got beaten to a pulp, he'd go home, clean up and come back
other guy gave in eventually, literally exhausted and broke his hands on the small guy's bones. That relaly happened

Another small guy I knew KO'd, 1st punch, a guy a good foot+ taller than him, broke his jaw.
Guts, toughness and skill are not ever to be taken lightly.

D&D mechanics don't show the fact that any fight can eaisly equal death/maiming, it's meant ot be heroic fantasy. 
But I sure as heck wouldn't consider goblins etc "easy" and have not played them like that as a DM
if they were that easy they'd have been exterminated long ago.
Creatures fighting for survival are not to be taken lightly, and ones that have survived will have evolved skills etc to make them worthy of survival.

"Tucker's Kobolds" !!


----------



## RefinedBean (Jul 11, 2009)

Imaro said:


> IMO, it's not heroic to be slaughtered by the scrubs of the monster world... but that's just me.




But they're no longer scrubs, that's the whole point.  Now every monster has the possibility of being threatening, even downright lethal.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 11, 2009)

RefinedBean said:


> But they're no longer scrubs, that's the whole point.  Now every monster has the possibility of being threatening, even downright lethal.




I understand the philosophy of every fight is a major, life threatening challenge now... I'm just not sure if story wise it makes my player's characters appear more heroic or more comedic (apparently they don't feel heroic taking forever to kill scrub monsters).  And I'm also not sure whether I like it or not form a DM perspective...I don't know if every fight really needs to be a life threatening, drawn out slug-fest... but I don't necessarily want a paper tiger fight with minions that's over in a round or two.  I guess I wish 4e had a better balance between these extremes.

Anyway, I've sidetracked the thread enough with this so I'll leave it alone from here on out.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 11, 2009)

> But they're only like this in 4e. My point was after playing previous editions, in my player's opinion, it in no way felt heroic to struggle in a battle with kobolds or goblins. Now whether you like the new feel of these monsters or not is subjective but it is certainly a difference brought on by hit point escalation of both PC's and monsters.
> 
> IMO, it's not heroic to be slaughtered by the scrubs of the monster world... but that's just me.




I see your point, but I do think it's a fairly trivial point, because there's built-in solutions in the game. For instance: minions. Also for instance: re-fluffing. 

The substantive points of high HP are there, but I don't really see this as one of them. 

Perhaps my perception is colored because I always figured Kobolds were tough little biters underneath it all.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jul 11, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> it's all about FUN in the end!
> 
> Simulationism sucks, SUCK big time, because it wastes too much time on mechanics and not on fun. Sure some folk love it, fine by me if they do, but most folk do not liek that at all, they want fun, HEROIC fun. Silly fun. Bloodthristy fun, etc.










Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 11, 2009)

A level 2 kobold? With 36 hit points?

Level 9 daily Thicket of Blades is close burst 1, for 3[W]+Strength modifier. Let's say (3x8) =24, +4 for strength and +2 for magic = 30. Not a kill yet, even with maximum damage -- unless it's a critical hit and the bonus roll for a "high critical" weapon and/or magic is enough.

In the old days, a 9th-level fighter could on average fell a kobold chieftain and his two bodyguards -- _and_ a normal kobold or two -- in a single round. The rank and file would have been cut down at a rate of five or six per round.

And that's _without_ a bonus for strength or any magic. Number Appearing: 40-400? No, that does not mean our man is likely to be tied down for forty minutes or so. Even if their morale does not break after the first round, he probably won't have to slaughter more than 50 or 60 to send the rest packing.


----------



## Psion (Jul 11, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> I've always tried, as DM, to explain the game as a STORY, not just "_you take 7hp damage"_ or whatever, so it's always descriptive, high adventure.
> Thus 4th ed's ideas are great for me




Wow. That's pretty much the exact reason 4th ed's ideas are not great for me.



> Simulationism sucks, SUCK big time, because it wastes too much time on mechanics and not on fun.




Swimming sucks because whenever you jump in water, you drown.

There's just a bit of a chance that if this is why you think simulation sucks, you may be _doing it wrong_.



> Sure some folk love it, fine by me if they do, but most folk do not liek that at all, they want fun, HEROIC fun. Silly fun. Bloodthristy fun, etc.




Well, that certainly would explain why Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is raking it in at the box office while getting panned by the critics.

But I'll be happily giving that a pass too.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jul 11, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> If a melee proceeds at slightly less glacial speed than in Champions or Star Fleet Battles, then that is faint praise -- or none at all, as it was _designed_ to take so long in order to please players who _like_ it that way.
> 
> Putting the rules for a scenario on loose-leaf pages does not reduce their number! Again, if one's frame of reference is a game in which a character sheet can fit on an index card, then the relative heaviness of 4E looks a bit different than if one is comparing it with WotC's previous release.




Melee in 4e is faster than in 3e, at least in my experience. A highly involved 3e combat with 5 PCs and a couple appropriate monsters might take an hour to play through 3 rounds. In 4e, I can get through about 6 rounds in 45 minutes with 5 or more monsters even. Its faster, more players get more turns, and its much more fun.

Champions on the other hand could take 2-3 hours to run a simple combat with 5 heroes and one villain. Not even in the same ballpark.

Also, the self-contained monster stat-blocks and the PC power writeups are a boon to speed of play. Sure, if you compare page counts then the games might be comparable. But in actual play, 4e has consistently proven to be easier, smoother, and quicker than 3.5 play in general. Now thats not true across the board. Levels 1-5 in 3e can be quicker and easier than in 4e. But 3e also becomes an increasingly unplayable trainwreck once you get much past level 11. 4e plays well all the way from 1 to 30.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 11, 2009)

> Simulationism ... wastes too much time on mechanics and not on fun.



See, there's a funny thing. (I take it your meaning is more conventional than Forge-speak, something like "realism" or "process modeling".)

The funny thing is that this has nothing to do with how much time is spent on mechanics. The amount of work it takes to play 4E adds little to simulation simply because it's not concerned with simulation. It's time-consuming _and_ abstract.

Those are two independent variables.



> you ever been in real fights?



What's it matter, if "simulationism sucks"? Make up your mind!


----------



## Kzach (Jul 12, 2009)

Psion said:


> But I'll be happily giving that a pass too.




But it has robots.

And explosions.

And Isabel Lucas.

And Megan Fox.

Who cares that it's not Citizen Kane? Hell, it's worth going to see JUST for the scene with Megan straddling a Harley!


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

Kzach said:


> Who cares that it's not Citizen Kane?



I don't hold action movies next to Citizen Kane. I stand them next to Die Hard. If they can compare to Die Hard, then they're awesome. 

Action movies _can_ be both smart and fun. 



> Hell, it's worth going to see JUST for the scene with Megan straddling a Harley!



Yeah, I want to spend $8 just for that.


----------



## Nightson (Jul 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> A level 2 kobold? With 36 hit points?
> 
> Level 9 daily Thicket of Blades is close burst 1, for 3[W]+Strength modifier. Let's say (3x8) =24, +4 for strength and +2 for magic = 30. Not a kill yet, even with maximum damage -- unless it's a critical hit and the bonus roll for a "high critical" weapon and/or magic is enough.
> 
> ...




Level nines don't fight level two creatures, and if they do they're minions.  The combat system works within five levels of the characters, it does not extend forever in all directions.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 12, 2009)

Nightson said:


> Level nines don't fight level two creatures, and if they do they're minions.  The combat system works within five levels of the characters, it does not extend forever in all directions.



Ack!

So, if a fighter goes from 12th level to 13th, he gains 6 hit points, but ... when our 13th level character meets a young red dragon (7th level) he fought the day before (when he was 12th level), the monster goes from yesterday's 332 hit points to ... 1??

Does a group of 1st-level PCs meeting the dragon likewise turn into a group of minions?

But if the newly minted 13th-level fellow is in the neighborhood, then the dragon is also a minion ... so if one of the newbies can somehow hit it before getting hit, then scratch one dragon?

This all seems to me both a bit complex and very confounding!


----------



## Eridanis (Jul 12, 2009)

When I saw the thread title, I was tempted to close this thread. However, the discussion's been good so far, so I'll leave it open; but please note that if discussion goes south, it will be closed without another warning. Thanks, all.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> This all seems to me both a bit complex and very confounding!



This all seems to me to be snarky.


----------



## Luce (Jul 12, 2009)

After all edition changes there is a period of "growing in" pains during which people learn to adjust/synchronize  their thinking with the rules. Once this is done players and DMs can go back to making an engaging story instead of constantly having to focus their thinking on the rules applications.

/_not a hijack attempt_
Now I like 3.X, but when it first came out it took me a while to unlearn and re-learn some basic assumptions I had developed from previous editions(mainly 2nd). The 2 main being:
One, monsters deadlines have changed for many monsters. The first time my players fought a mummy they were celebrating afterward their victory right to the point of XP award time. "we fought a freaking mummy not some sort of glorified zombie, right?" I had to show them the MM entry before they calmed down a bit. These among other monsters used to be much more dangerous.

Two, challenges were no longer as oscillating. What I mean is that the PCs were assumed to  be able to face a wide variety of challenges. An example from Dungeon: In the adventure "forgotten man" (Dun 75) a group of six 6 level characters face both things like gargoyles and jermlaine and a 18 level lich. Of  the former is not nearly as chalenging as the latter, but all encounters present some danger.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> A level 2 kobold? With 36 hit points?
> 
> Level 9 daily Thicket of Blades is close burst 1, for 3[W]+Strength modifier. Let's say (3x8) =24, +4 for strength and +2 for magic = 30. Not a kill yet, even with maximum damage -- unless it's a critical hit and the bonus roll for a "high critical" weapon and/or magic is enough.
> 
> ...




And some folks complain 4e is "superheroic"?   Seriously, the same thing can happen in 4e if the critters are minions, but the difference is that previous editions assumed ALL kobolds/goblins/orcs/etc are minions, and very few actually were competent.  4e assumes a larger proportion of those monsters are competent and have unusual skillsets.

Back on topic, 4e is only as dry, boring, and nonsensical as the DM or group that runs it.  Same can be said for 3e, 2e, 1e, or any RPG.  Roleplaying doesn't come from rules or books, it comes from your imagination.  If someone truly does need to have hard-wired rules, feats, etc in the system to roleplay, I feel sorry for them- they are artifically limiting themrselves when they really don't need to.  Look back at 1e AD&D- there were no skills, feats, etc back then, and people did and STILL DO roleplay using 1e and have characters with deep backgrounds and personalities.

What a lot of folks do like is that 4e opens up the interpretation of the game to be described as whatever best tickles the DM's or players' fancy at the time.  Yes, this could be done in previous editions, but 4e makes it easier to do and actively encourages it via reskinning of powers, monsters, and giving players some narrative control to describe when and how they use their abilities.  Thats a HUGE strength IMO.

4e does have more abstraction than other games on the market (Runequest or Harn for example), but about the same amount as any previous version of D&D, and NO version of D&D has done an even remotely good job of being simulationist or realistic.  3e tried to pretend to be simulationist, but did a rather poor job with it and ended up being a confused mishmash of themes and tropes that fell apart under even basic scrutiny.  D&D has always been about heroic adventure, swords and sorcery swashbuckling, and larger-than-life heroes.

And for what its worth, I tend to run games that are not gonzo, over-the-top supers games, but more dark fantasy with strong horror themes and lots of investigation and RP in an internally consistent and detailed setting, and 4e has not only NOT been a hinderance, but actually facilitates the kind of games I like to run far more than 3e ever dreamed of being able to.  In fact, I resurrected my 1e AD&D horror swords & sorcery setting and converted it to 4e, and have had no problems.  The only change to the core 4e I made was slowed down the rate of healing somewhat, and allowed for long-term injuries.  The same setting in 3e required 56 pages of houserules and adjustments just to be able to work to my satisfaction, but by then it was too much hassle to mess with.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2009)

> please note that if discussion goes south, it will be closed without another warning. Thanks, all.



_
[foghornleghorn]_Suh!  I shall endeavor to be the ver' *pickchah* of a gentleman, as long as no one heah insults mah beloved South!_
[/foghornleghorn]_




Kzach said:


> I keep seeing the same criticisms over and over and over again by (usually) the same people. I'm finally convinced that they're right: 4e is everything they say it is.
> 
> Which is a shame because they're missing out on a whole heap of fun.
> 
> ...




I hear what you're saying, but that sounds like you've run into a lot of rules-lawyers and so forth who eventually show up in any RPG, any edition.

What you describe as your fun, freewheeling 4Ed game sounds like my 3.X games.

The absolute truth was said while I was composing my post:



> 4e is only as dry, boring, and nonsensical as the DM or group that runs it. Same can be said for 3e, 2e, 1e, or any RPG.




Mechanically, 4Ed doesn't do what I want it to do, not in the way I want it to- and from both sides of the DM's screen.  I could have fun playing the game, but definitely not DMing it, and the fun I'd have wouldn't match the enjoyment I'd have in another system.

3.X does.  End of story.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 12, 2009)

No Snark, Boojum or Bandersnatch -- just perplexity!

Was Nightson pulling my leg?

Gothmog, an 8th level fighter is a Superhero; 9th and up are Lords.


----------



## Kzach (Jul 12, 2009)

> 4e is only as dry, boring, and nonsensical as the DM or group that runs it. Same can be said for 3e, 2e, 1e, or any RPG.



*
That's sortof what I was trying to get at. It's about 90% of the point I was aiming for but said succinctly and thus with far less waffle 

The other 10% was that I was trying to say that 4e is more conducive to a less literal and more free-wheeling play-style than 3rd edition. That isn't to say that you can't have much the same game with the two systems, it's more to say that one system promotes/encourages a certain play-style more than the other and vice versa.

IMO, 4e needs players to be more imaginative at the table and less literal with the rules to facilitate a more narrative type of play. And when one does so, it fits that play-style very well.

With 3e you could certainly do much the same, but I don't feel it suited that sortof play-style as well as 4e does. 3e IME was always more suited to the more literal and strict gaming style where the rules are well-explained and are meant to be taken exactly as written with no narrative interpretation.

And again, neither one is better than the other because of these differences, but I do think they suit different play-styles and for me personally, 4e is the system that I feel more comfortable with at the table and enjoy playing more because of those perceived differences.

2e, however, seemed to both suffer and benefit from neither having the well-explained and well-balanced rules but also required you to therefore fill in the gaps with narrative interpretation.

I strongly believe that 3e was the result of many years of players like myself trying to fill those gaps with house-rules. I remember the first thing I thought about 3e when it came out was, "OMG! Those are my house-rules!" I often went to (2e) games with new people and half the first session would agreeing on house-rules and remarkably, despite the internet being far less ubiquitous back then, people often had very similar ideas on how to 'fix' things.

But IMO, 3e went in one direction without taking into account the other direction. And I see 4e as having see-sawed back towards that direction by trying to strike a balance between narration and rules. And in many ways, I followed the same path that led me to dislike 3e and crave what I felt I had lost in 2e.

No play-style is superior to another in an objective sense, but in a subjective sense, systems can fill a particular play-styles needs more effectively than another and so to me, 4e is the bees-knees, whilst to others its anathema.

I think people who argue the superiority of one system over another fail to see or recognise this.






*Sorry, lost who originally said it and am too lazy to scroll through the thread to re-attribute


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> No Snark, Boojum or Bandersnatch -- just perplexity!
> 
> Was Nightson pulling my leg?



No, you're just taking him too literally. 

If you confront something 5 levels under you, it's not even a challenge, combat is a pointless exercise. 5 levels under you can't hit your defenses, or damage you in any significant way.

If you confront something 5 levels above you, it's so much of a challenge combat a pointless exercise. 5 levels above you, you can't hit their defenses or damage them in any significant way. 

So there would be no _reason_ for 9th level characters to encounter 2nd level kobolds, because they are mechanically not on the same plane. A DM wouldn't put them in the same room as a 9th level character. If the PCs do run across them, then they're going to be minions, they're going to be set dressing, and not meant to really be fought, because the 9th level PCs so far outclass them that it'd be like roleplaying doing laundry: a waste of time and effort in counting HP and rolling damage.

If the point is to emulate "You destroy them without any real effort or threat to you", you can do that in a narrative fashion; you don't need to actually roll for that. If the point is to emulate "you're cutting a swath through an army, but it's still dangerous", then you use minions of a reasonable level to the party.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> But they're only like this in 4e.  My point was after playing previous editions, in my player's opinion, it in no way felt heroic to struggle in a battle with kobolds or goblins.  Now whether you like the new feel of these monsters or not is subjective but it is certainly a difference brought on by hit point escalation of both PC's and monsters.
> 
> IMO, it's not heroic to be slaughtered by the scrubs of the monster world... but that's just me.



See below



Ariosto said:


> A level 2 kobold? With 36 hit points?
> 
> Level 9 daily Thicket of Blades is close burst 1, for 3[W]+Strength modifier. Let's say (3x8) =24, +4 for strength and +2 for magic = 30. Not a kill yet, even with maximum damage -- unless it's a critical hit and the bonus roll for a "high critical" weapon and/or magic is enough.
> 
> ...



Except that in the previous edition, an kobold encountered after level 3 seemed to be a bar8/rang3/scout3 - which weren't that easy to kill, iirc. Unless you were a spellcaster of course, but that is a totally different matter, of course.



Kzach said:


> But it has Megan Fox.




FIFY - just because I am drunk and hot chicks are pretty much all that is on my mind. And she is just... yummy


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 12, 2009)

Rechan said:


> No, you're just taking him too literally.
> 
> If you confront something 5 levels under you, it's not even a challenge, combat is a pointless exercise. 5 levels under you can't hit your defenses, or damage you in any significant way.
> 
> ...




Actually, the point is, if a level 9 character runs into kobolds in 4e, they are most likely level 9 minions, so they die in just one hit, as they did back in the good old days, of 1e and 2e.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Actually, the point is, if a level 9 character runs into kobolds in 4e, they are most likely level 9 minions, so they die in just one hit, as they did back in the good old days, of 1e and 2e.



That too.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 12, 2009)

> If you confront something 5 levels under you, it's not even a challenge, it is a pointless exercise. 5 levels under you can't hit your defenses, or damage you in any significant way.



So why make it take so long to dispose of such a wretch? I understand that there may be a different power curve when characters are expected to get at as high as 30th level. However even a 6th-level fighter in AD&D can put down about three kobolds per round. It's a bit unsettling that a 9th-level DAILY in 4E might average less than it takes to fell even a Kobold Slinger.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 12, 2009)

> Except that in the previous edition ...



The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin' on it's back! Remarkable bird, id'nit, squire? Lovely plumage!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2009)

Kzach said:


> The other 10% was that I was trying to say that 4e is more conducive to a less literal and more free-wheeling play-style than 3rd edition.




I disagree.  As I said above, eventually, 4Ed will have its own crop of literalist RAW-only rules lawyers, if it doesn't already.


> IMO, 4e needs players to be more imaginative at the table and less literal with the rules to facilitate a more narrative type of play.
> _<snip>_
> 3e IME was always more suited to the more literal and strict gaming style where the rules are well-explained and are meant to be taken exactly as written with no narrative interpretation.
> _<snip>_
> I think people who argue the superiority of one system over another fail to see or recognise this.




Very creative 3.X players (and those who play other systems) might take that as an insult.

I daresay nobody has ever played 3.X- or 99% of the rest of the RPGs out there- with _all_ of the rules in effect, or without houserules.

How narrativist or simulationist your game is depends upon you and your fellow players.  The way your group _interacts_ with a given system will determine whether your game is N-ist or S-ist, not the game itself.

That said, a game that doesn't serve the "unimaginative" or casual gamer well might be doing itself a disservice in being opaque to their enjoyment.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> So why make it take so long to dispose of such a wretch?



I guess I don't see the point in the question. I mean, can 20th level AD&D character kill ogres with a single blow? No? Okay then. 

Or are you just complaining about the SYSTEM in how a level 9 PC cannot kill a level 1 monster in one hit on average? 

The power curve is different. As are hit points. As are classes; fighters just _aren't_ the damage dealers. 

It's also funny that you mention '9th level fighter daily might not kill a level 1 kobold'. I was in a test run yesterday, and a level 1 barbarian's daily killed a kobold skirmisher in one hit, without a crit. From full HP to dead.

But this all seems to be a wasted exercise. Why are we comparing 6th level fighter to 1/4 HD monster in AD&D to 9th level fighter to 1st level monster in 4e? That's like comparing D&D characters to GURPS characters; they are just Different.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 12, 2009)

The difference, I think, is the point. (By the way, that's 1/2 HD, or for the leaders roughly 1 HD in HP -- just half a point below average -- but fighting at -1 to hit.)

It's not lack of imagination that leads some people to be less than thrilled by one game or another. That a 5-level difference should always be (as you put it, Rechan) "a pointless exercise" might be as undesirable to some as the classic D&D scheme is to others.


----------



## evildmguy (Jul 12, 2009)

I understand what the OP is trying to say and while I get the revelation he had with hit points, which I myself had in the past year, I also agree with the general sentiment that it's the group and what they do with the rules to have fun that matters.  

As for myself, I had a rules lawyer in my group from the time I was eight until thirty.  These particular rules lawyers killed role playing in favor of what the rules could do for them and that's not what I wanted from the game.  Unfortunately, being young, I tried to counter with more rules, and it became a habit, rather than try to tell a story and gain their trust with how I used the rules.  I don't know how different things would be if I had tried that, or indeed if I had been able to do that back then.  

What I like about 4E is that it is easier to prepare.  What I realized recently is that only the DMs see this, most players might not realize how tough it got to be to design a high level 3.X monster using the rules.  Having said that, sure it's possible to "fake" it and not spend tons of time on prep.  Again, for myself, I go back to the rules lawyer and him almost wanting to audit the DM to make sure I made them properly, so for me it did take a long time.  

(I think one rules lawyer I had figured a few things out when he DMed but I didn't stick around for the full campaign to see.)  

So, it seems that the consensus on here is, it depends on the group, as with almost any game.  

edg


----------



## BryonD (Jul 12, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Very creative 3.X players (and those who play other systems) might take that as an insult.



A year or so ago I may have taken it as an insult.  But I've learned that these type comments reflect the speakers own limitations within 3E (or whatever) and the assumption that no one else could have a better experience.

If anything it is an ego stroke.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 12, 2009)

That's really it as far as I can see: Different strokes for different blokes, and what's hot to someone from the Arctic may be cold to someone from the Tropics.

My gut tells me that 4E is probably one of the last to run into the latest design cul-de-sac, sort of a _fin de siècle_ Powers & Perils for the anti-sim set, but time shall tell.

There are sleeker "story-telling" games, and leaner "simulation" ones as well. There are plenty less apparently confused and conflicted about just _what_ they're trying to do. There is also no shortage of complex designs benefiting from much longer development.

That's a potential problem for the Wizards, though, and nothing but an embarrassment of riches for hobbyists! If someone really is not acquainted with the wide variety of approaches out there (as the original post seemed to me to suggest), then there is plenty to discover.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2009)

BryonD said:


> A year or so ago I may have taken it as an insult.




Which is why I said "might."


----------



## Barastrondo (Jul 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> So why make it take so long to dispose of such a wretch?




It's a good question, but you need to be asking the DM as well as the ruleset. 



> I understand that there may be a different power curve when characters are expected to get at as high as 30th level. However even a 6th-level fighter in AD&D can put down about three kobolds per round. It's a bit unsettling that a 9th-level DAILY in 4E might average less than it takes to fell even a Kobold Slinger.




In AD&D, hit points were treated as a biological fact of species. Kobolds were defined by their 1/2 HD as much as anything else, gnolls were significant because they sat between the 1+1 HD of hobgoblins and the 3+1 HD of bugbears, and so on. That started to change with level advancement being an option for humanoids, and then eventually that just raised the question of "So why can't they, like humans, fill pretty much any narrative role you need them to at any level?" 

I think the basic point of preference is whether you go inside-out or outside-in for antagonist design. One approach basically starts with a fixed stat block for monsters, and then builds their narrative use from there. The other approach starts with the narrative use for a monster, and then builds its stat block from there. In a way, it's kind of like the choices between top-down or ground-up world design. 

4e's really not very good for the "the mechanics will be the foundation for the situation" approach, but it's freakin' dynamite for the "the situation will be the foundation for the mechanics" approach. Yeah, there are other sleeker systems out there — but there's a definite market for people who want a strong narrative-first approach to a game and a rather robust core game experience married to that. 

I'm glad to see it myself. Like you say, there's an embarrassment of riches out there for gamers, and 4e is another neat option to choose. It does what it does very well.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> There are sleeker "story-telling" games, and leaner "simulation" ones as well. There are plenty less apparently confused and conflicted about just _what_ they're trying to do. There is also no shortage of complex designs benefiting from much longer development.



This is true. 

But the problem is that if you want to play Indy RPG #8287, it's very hard finding players for it. It's also always a very niche game for a niche genre. So not only do you have to find people willing ot play a strange new system, but you have to find those that buy into the idea.

D&D? Everyone knows what D&D is. Anyone who has ever rolled a polyhedrian knows what a +1 sword is and what level a fireball is. D&D is the gateway game, a touchstone for all RPGs. Finding people who who know it (or at least decently), and have experience with it, and are interested in playing, is MUCH easier than putting a flyer up at the local college saying 'Hey let's play Dogs in the Vineyard'. 

This is not a problem if you game with the same people every weekend for years on end. Myself? I've never had a group (much less a game!) hold together longer than two years. It seems even harder Today to hold a group together, with people more mobile and with little free time for hobbies (not to mention conflicting schedules). I just moved to a new area, and it's freaking hard to put a committed group together.

There's also the issue that you have to find people who like what you like. One of the problems my last group had was that everyone had their own favorite system and wanted things more like that. One guy loved D&D 3.5; I loved 4e; another tried twice to turn the game into Rolemaster; I know another who would rather play Rifts. When everyone is really pining to play THEIR system, you come into a problem.

I would leap at the chance to try Spirit of the Century/Dresden Files RPG, Dread, Paranoia, or Prime Time Adventures. But I can't. So I settle for D&D.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2009)

Rechan said:


> There's also the issue that you have to find people who like what you like. One of the problems my last group had was that everyone had their own favorite system and that really crippled things. One guy loved D&D 3.5; I loved 4e; another tried twice to turn the game into Rolemaster; I know another who would rather play Rifts. When everyone is really pining to play THEIR system, you come into a problem.




One solution for that is to have everyone who wants to run a game design a campaign, and have *everyone* design PCs for each campaign.

You then set up a schedule of rotating games.  And if someone wants to introduce a new game, it supplants his regularly scheduled campaign.

I was part of a group in Austin that did essentially this for 3 years, and it worked like a charm. Sure, you may hate 4Ed, and someone else hates 3.X, and someone else hates RIFTS or Rolemaster...but nobody's playing something they hate for long, and you always have your preferred games to look forward to.

Think of it like the RPG equivalent to Kissingerian diplomacy- everyone is equally happy and unhappy, in turns.

And as a bonus, you may find other games you like.


----------



## Korgoth (Jul 12, 2009)

When I tried 4e (several sessions of a campaign, not just one session... and the DM was very nice and I liked my character, etc.) I found out that the problems I thought I would have with the game were not the problems I actually did have with it, or at least they didn't bother me as much as the problems that cropped up and surprised me.

First was that combat was (to me, of course... who else would I be talking about?), well, *tedious* in the extreme. You hit half the time, and do something like 1/4 to 1/6 of the target's total with an average attack. So each. lousy. dreary. boring. thug. takes. forever. to. drop. Oh, and there are a dozen of them.

So here you have these long, uninteresting combats that take basically the whole session... we'd have like 10 minutes of role playing and then when "bullet time" starts that's pretty much it... there goes the rest of the session.

The second problem was something like what someone might call "simulationist", though I hate that term... it was the fact that the semantic content or "skin" of the opponent was totally arbitrary. For example, shirtless boxers who hit for the same damage as armed foes and have AC of an armored man. A pirate in a shirt and pants who had an AC of 21... even though my elf with the 20 Dex and the magic armor only managed a 20.

Why did the unarmored pirate have an AC of 21? So an appropriate-level striker would have to roll a 10 or better to hit him, obviously. So it's basically Elder Scrolls: Oblivion or something where the whole world scales with the party.

To me, that sucks the life and interest out of the campaign world. If a pirate in a poet shirt and leather pants has an AC 21 just because of math, and if street toughs have 60 hit points just because of math, and everything is just so just because of math, then by all means, karma police arrest this man. Because it's the equivalent of someone taking a belt sander to my imagination.

Now that being said, clearly some people enjoy 4E. I don't know what they could possibly get out of it, but I don't know that about a lot of things people do so that's no big deal.

I don't think, unlike what the OP may think, that people who dislike 4E and say these things about it merely lack imagination. My imagination is pretty great. I just think that it is a game with a relatively narrow appeal... it delivers one very focused type of play experience, and that's either what you dig or what you don't dig. Kind of like Diplomacy (a game I find aggravating but a lot of people think it's one of the best games evar) or Avalon Hill's original Civilization (a game a lot of people find boring but I think it's one of the best games evar).


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Jul 12, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.






Psion said:


> Wow. That's pretty much the exact reason 4th ed's ideas are not great for me.
> 
> Swimming sucks because whenever you jump in water, you drown.
> 
> ...






Ariosto said:


> See, there's a funny thing. (I take it your meaning is more conventional than Forge-speak, something like "realism" or "process modeling".)
> 
> The funny thing is that this has nothing to do with how much time is spent on mechanics. The amount of work it takes to play 4E adds little to simulation simply because it's not concerned with simulation. It's time-consuming _and_ abstract.
> 
> ...




I want to play D&D with friends, not a wargame where there's rules for everything including chaffing from carrying "x" amount of gear giving "y" penalty to hit! 

Most folk I have ever played with, want fun. Now, to some, fun is of course, uber detailed simulationism, as said if that's what ye like then fair dinkum, _but it is not the reason most folk play D&D._
They like humour, they like over the top high adventure, they want to sit arpund with pals, whooping it up when they crit or blow 10 enemies to cinders, and enjoy being immersed in a fantasty which they are actively shaping, not being mere mooks to the DM and the rules.

Ever seen "The Crimson Pirate"? old movie, rollicking good fun, and the antecedent of "Pirates of the Carribean".. How many folk would rather play that, than "100 Years War"?
How many folk would rather play "Conan" than "Kreigspiele"?
*We're roleplayers, not rollplayers.*

3rd ed started adding in some more believable tactics (bullrush, trip, disarm), but it was still largely "whack-a-rat": standing there seeing who could whittle the other down first...without much tactics. And when grapple came up...ugh!!

You also couldn't put in loads of critters in 3rd ed, due to complexity and the very tricky balancing issues, which ruined a whole facet of combat.
Please do not say that is wrong, because it's patently obvious fact (or there wouldn't have had to be so much house ruling etc)

I started putting numbers on minis so you could keep track of their hit points spells etc....OMG as a DM it was extremely unpleasant having to be a book keeper, rather than a story teller.

In 1st and 2nd ed, I knew monster's stats by heart and could come up with them at whim, not so in 3rd ed, when you were forced to use a E-Tools to have any realistic chance of a "quick" build.
And Challenge Ratings, Effective Character Level and Level adjustment was just plain broken at times, as well as a pain in the posterior.

So a large number of folk got fed up DMing! Go on ask them, I am far form being the only one.
Thus, 3.5 ed was indeed THE SUCK for D&D because it was poisoning the game itself. No DM, no game.
If you do not want to face that fact *shrug*

I dare anyone to take a new player to D&D, give them 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th ed, with E-Tools and the Character Builder, and see which is the most confusing and unpleasant for them to make a character.
it will nearly always be 3.5 ed.

it's not that 3rd ed is "bad" or "simulationism is wrong", but as said, over complexity should be left to a CPU, and D&D isn't, cannot and shouldn't be "realistic" with a bazillion rules...it should be _plausible _though, _within the setting_, which is a fantasy game.

So the player base has fractured, some going back to 1st and 2nd ed, others going to Pathfinder. 
3rd ed was a great idea, added much needed things, like the skills, but the over simulationism, like skill _points_, made it too unwieldy...all to the detriment of D&D in the long run.

Imagine the "Crypt" battle in Conan the Destoryer, now THAT folks, is pure D&D, like it or not  It's awesome fun. 
Imagine playing that with each edition. 

1st and 2nd ed you may need to tweak existing critters or NPCs to fit, but it's not too much problem, unless you have to make a lot of saving throws (against umpteen potential resist types, which was a pest). Tying creatures directly to Hit Dice was a flaw in those editions, preventing easy advancement/challenge

3.5 ed..um...say Conan is a 1st lvl barbarian, 7th lvl fighter, 2nd levle thief, then...30 enemies of appropriate level, then work out skill points track hit points...for the DM, that is a HELL of a lot of work and frankly, DMs have a life you know.

4th ed hey, 30 minions and a handful of leaders, easy as pie! take any critter you want, change it's name, maybe change a few iconic powers if needed, and voila'! 

I've always spun a story on how a fight goes as the PCs and NPCs hits misses and damage are rolled, but if you just sit there and roll dice and deal only with the mechanics...meh, what fun is that, that ain't roleplaying?!

At the end of a game, everyone, including the DM, should feel like they've had a great time, playing a rip-snorting adventure, rather than spendig 3+ hours doing statistics or wargaming (which is another hobby entirely).


on another point:
If folk wish simulationism, there must always be the sense of real danger,  hence EVERY opponent should potentially _deadly_ (hey, adventurers travel in bands, 5 against 1 is just being smart! hehe)

For "High adventure", not every encounter has ot have the threat of death, but instead, have the risk of things_ going wrong_.
For example, it could be skill check going wrong, or a weak enemy may shout and alert more weak enemies, LOTS Of weak enemies who together are a threat, etc.



The Transformers refference was a bit of a cheap shot and shows a disconnect 
I can't stand how much the media, of all types, has got so damned cheap and dumbed down in plotting and tension. Great works are still made though (See "Rome" for example).
The fault though is not about "heroics" or fun etc.
Go have a look at "The French Connection", that absolutely rules. Partially because it's so damn rough looking, look at the car chase cinematography.
I HATE how everythhing now is so smooth,even when they are trying to be "rough" it often looks fake.
The attention to detail for "rough realism" actually takes a _lot _of _work_.

I may love "Kagemusha" but I do not want to _play _that, it's too much angst-ridden and tragedy, there's more than enough of that in real life, _I play D&D to get away from real life's garbage, to have FUN!_
Pirates of the Caribbean or Hawk the Slayer are a hell of a lot more "fun" than Kagemusha, even though the latter is an awesome film.

Sure, some folk like simulationism, but they are in the minority of _players_.
Most folk out there want to have fun, the rules are just the framework, not the _reason d'etre!_
Yes folk have the right to thei opinion that simulationism and 3.5 is superb, but many folk do not (or think there are serious flaws)
D&D is interactive story telling and grown ups playing "soldiers".
4th ed, for me, does a good job of that. Still can be improved, but what doesn't need improvement? 

Some folk love a certian edition, ok I get that  I just love D&D itself, long as it's fun to play I don't give a hoot what edition, when I'm 60 I guess I'll be playing 8th or 10th edition, so what?


----------



## TheNovaLord (Jul 12, 2009)

back to the OP

I played 4e , for about 6 months i think, hoping it would be 'quicker/easier' than 3.5 which got a bit bogged down above level 7 or so.

Unfortunately it is really quite complictaed to have a combat in, and given the fights take 6 rounds+, does bcome dry and dull, as its sometimes hard to add in the 'fun/description' of your attacks if they fail quite a lot, and really dont seem overly effective

on the other hand im not going back to 3.5 either and as i dont think i could cope again with 4 attacks per round, miss chances for blur etc.

If they lightened 4e a bit i think it would get even more 'consoley/cartoony' so im not sure what the answer is. 

it does seem pretty popular and i know quite a few poeple who are sticking with it, so it obviously has its appeal....


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jul 12, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> ...To me, that sucks the life and interest out of the campaign world. If a pirate in a poet shirt and leather pants has an AC 21 just because of math, and if street toughs have 60 hit points just because of math, and everything is just so just because of math, then by all means, karma police arrest this man. Because it's the equivalent of someone taking a belt sander to my imagination...



I tried to give you XP for this but was kindly told by EN World's computer that I must stop being so frugal with handing out XP to other people first. 

I concur with this wonderfully expressed paragraph and could not agree more so.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Hairfoot (Jul 12, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I tried to give you XP for this but was kindly told by EN World's computer that I must stop being so frugal with handing out XP to other people first.
> 
> I concur with this wonderfully expressed paragraph and could not agree more so.



I, however, was permitted.  A great post.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 12, 2009)

People keep using terms like 'simulationism' and 'narrativism' and clearly you're not all talking about the same thing. It makes for a garbled discussion and is my second biggest reason for not liking the terms.



Silverblade The Ench said:


> They like humour, they like over the top high adventure, they want to sit arpund with pals, whooping it up when they crit or blow 10 enemies to cinders, and enjoy being immersed in a fantasty which they are actively shaping, not being mere mooks to the DM and the rules.
> 
> Ever seen "The Crimson Pirate"? old movie, rollicking good fun, and the antecedent of "Pirates of the Carribean".. How many folk would rather play that, than "100 Years War"?
> How many folk would rather play "Conan" than "Kreigspiele"?
> ...



When Ron Edwards used the term 'simulationist' you're exactly the kind of guy he was talking about. Kind of ironic. For a quick but incomplete explanation see this page.

I think EN World would be better served by dumping these poisoned terms and adopting better terminology.


----------



## Kzach (Jul 12, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> To me, that sucks the life and interest out of the campaign world. If a pirate in a poet shirt and leather pants has an AC 21 just because of math, and if street toughs have 60 hit points just because of math, and everything is just so just because of math, then by all means, karma police arrest this man. Because it's the equivalent of someone taking a belt sander to my imagination..




You summed up the problem rather well.

You see only the math.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> SO doesn't that mean it's even more comedic when a supposed "joke monster" wails our so called hero to a pulp?  And thus you agree with what I am saying?




And for this you use minions not normal monsters.


also, goblins/kobolds never been joke monsters at level 1-3, you never had a TPK from kobolds or goblins in earlier editions before?


----------



## Samuel Leming (Jul 12, 2009)

BTW, Kzach, I really don't agree with your premise. I didn't find 4e to be dry or boring. Most of my criticisms of 4e center on its lack of support for my prefered play style.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> But they're only like this in 4e.  My point was after playing previous editions, in my player's opinion, it in no way felt heroic to struggle in a battle with kobolds or goblins.




Seem to me a lot of the major claims against 4E are people asking it to play like 3E. Can't you realize this is a new edition that plays differently?

If you want a game that plays like 3E, stay playing 3E. If you want a different take on D&D then play 4E or anyother fantasy game that is not 3E.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jul 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> So why make it take so long to dispose of such a wretch? I understand that there may be a different power curve when characters are expected to get at as high as 30th level. However even a 6th-level fighter in AD&D can put down about three kobolds per round. It's a bit unsettling that a 9th-level DAILY in 4E might average less than it takes to fell even a Kobold Slinger.




The 9th level daily you mentioned can technically kill 8 kobold minions.

At level 30 that same 9th level daily could kill 8 Balor minions.

Meanwhile the badass clearly defined villain could take many more  rounds to kill.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 12, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> ... snip...




Good post with some very good points.



Barastrondo said:


> It's a good question, but you need to be asking the DM as well as the ruleset.




I'm just curious, when discussing the actual merits of a game, and it's rules how does this factor in to it?  Not trying to be snarky just trying to clarify what you mean.



Barastrondo said:


> In AD&D, hit points were treated as a biological fact of species. Kobolds were defined by their 1/2 HD as much as anything else, gnolls were significant because they sat between the 1+1 HD of hobgoblins and the 3+1 HD of bugbears, and so on. That started to change with level advancement being an option for humanoids, and then eventually that just raised the question of "So why can't they, like humans, fill pretty much any narrative role you need them to at any level?"




I disagree with you here to a point.  I agree that in previous editions hp's were a function of  fantasy biology... but I don't see 4e as making hp's a function of narrative role.  Instead they've become a function of balancing out in-game challenge to PC's according to role and level.  This is mechanics not narrative based design.



Barastrondo said:


> I think the basic point of preference is whether you go inside-out or outside-in for antagonist design. One approach basically starts with a fixed stat block for monsters, and then builds their narrative use from there. The other approach starts with the narrative use for a monster, and then builds its stat block from there. In a way, it's kind of like the choices between top-down or ground-up world design.




Yes, but didn't 3e/3.5 porovide you with the tools for both.  You could have a world populated by rank and file kobolds, kobolds modified to fit the narrative and/or a mixture of both. The problem, IMO, is that 4e only provides one aspect as opposed to giving you both and letting one decide the type of game he wants.



Barastrondo said:


> 4e's really not very good for the "the mechanics will be the foundation for the situation" approach, but it's freakin' dynamite for the "the situation will be the foundation for the mechanics" approach. Yeah, there are other sleeker systems out there — but there's a definite market for people who want a strong narrative-first approach to a game and a rather robust core game experience married to that.




I'm curious, why do you feel 4e is great for.. "the situation will be the foundation for the mechanics"... I guess what I'm wondering is what does it do specifically that makes it great for this type of game.  I think it's a great "challenge based on interaction of mechanics in play game",  but I fail to see how it in any way promotes or encourages "narrative" first.  If anything I feel it promotes mechanics first and applied narrative to fit the mechanics.  Now granted the mechanics can often be interpreted in many ways but that still isn't "narrative" first... it's mechanics first.



Barastrondo said:


> I'm glad to see it myself. Like you say, there's an embarrassment of riches out there for gamers, and 4e is another neat option to choose. It does what it does very well.




I agree and while I have issues with 4e I still play it, though I honestly can't say I prefer it over 3.5 with E6 (well E8 for my group), C&C or even Exalted 2e  for my fantasy fix.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

This may sound like a silly question but presumably people didn't have a problem that an opponent's attack would increase in previous editions so why the problem with defense increasing as well?

I mean, not picking on you personally Korgoth, but when you were playing and wondered why "This guy in the shirt has an AC better than mine in chainmail", why in previous editions didnt you say "This guy wielding a knife has a better attack than me and I'm wielding a battleaxe"

The "half-level" increase to me seems to me anyway as an intrisinic part of D&D just that it is formalized. In pre 3e for example, characters actually got better at resisting effects than at 1st level (Korgoth, give your love of pre 3e D&D, surely you remember when a high level fighter pretty much could laugh in the face of non-damage magical effects like Mass Charm)


----------



## Imaro (Jul 12, 2009)

cangrejoide said:


> Seem to me a lot of the major claims against 4E are people asking it to play like 3E. Can't you realize this is a new edition that plays differently?
> 
> If you want a game that plays like 3E, stay playing 3E. If you want a different take on D&D then play 4E or anyother fantasy game that is not 3E.




OK, I said I was through commenting on the kobold/goblin thing, but I really want to make a point about this type of post... What are you trying to accomplish here?  I mean honestly, who are you to tell me what I should or shouldn't play.  This is a forum for discussion, and I am choosing to discuss a particular problem one of my players had with 4e.  Please don't tell me that because I don't love every aspect of a game I shouldn't be playing it, because honestly it doesn't add much to the discussion and is liable to get under peoples skin since it's patronizing.  I've discussed the problem civily with other posters and have seen other viewpoints, but this type of post is pretty much pointless.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 12, 2009)

Nightson said:


> Level nines don't fight level two creatures, and if they do they're minions. The combat system works within five levels of the characters, it does not extend forever in all directions.




This is a problem. A given thing in the game world should be able to interact with any other creature or thing without the fabric of the universe coming apart. Having to turn scrub level things into spontaneous minions just so a high level party won't look ridiculous spending a lot of time fighting them is a rather lazy and patchy solution IMHO.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> OK, I said I was through commenting on the kobold/goblin thing, but I really want to make a point about this type of post... What are you trying to accomplish here?  I mean honestly, who are you to tell me what I should or shouldn't play.  This is a forum for discussion, and I am choosing to discuss a particular problem one of my players had with 4e.  Please don't tell me that because I don't love every aspect of a game I shouldn't be playing it, because honestly it doesn't add much to the discussion and is liable to get under peoples skin since it's patronizing.  I've discussed the problem civily with other posters and have seen other viewpoints, but this type of post is pretty much pointless.




I keep hearing comments like "I could do this in 3E why cant I do this under 4E" or "3E did this much better, why doesnt 4E does it like 3E".

Time after time same comments, if thats the case why change to play 4E if 3E did all of that and more? You should play whatever you want to play just dont start blaming a game because its not what you want to play.

its like the Pennyarcade strip of questioning why the cat isnt a dog.

I just dont get it.

/shrug


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is a problem. A given thing in the game world should be able to interact with any other creature or thing without the fabric of the universe coming apart. Having to turn scrub level things into spontaneous minions just so a high level party won't look ridiculous spending a lot of time fighting them is a rather lazy and patchy solution IMHO.




You know I'm kind of curious about something....

How long should a fight last? In my experience, a level X party that faces a level X encounter, I expect between 5-7 rounds of combat. 

A level X party dealing with a level X-5 encounter? In my experience that tends to take no more than 2-3 rounds.

I'm not sure where this idea that 4e combat in general is long comes from (higher level than party SOLO SOLDIERS from the 1st MM can be a true pain in the butt - but a high level normal monster against an equal level normal character and anything over 6-8 rounds and you're doing it wrong...)

With respect to the scenario posted above, there's nothing actually preventing a DM from using the "standard" monster but in fact you're going to be well wasting two rounds of combat for no real gain IMO.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jul 12, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is a problem. A given thing in the game world should be able to interact with any other creature or thing without the fabric of the universe coming apart. Having to turn scrub level things into spontaneous minions just so a high level party won't look ridiculous spending a lot of time fighting them is a rather lazy and patchy solution IMHO.




Isnt it the same thing?

Earlier editions: 9th level party meets a group of 1st level kobolds. Wizard uses fireball and inflcts 20 points of damage each. They are all dead since they had only 4 hit points.


4E: 9th level party meeds a group of 1st level kobolds. Wizard uses fireball and hits all of them. They are all dead since they where minions and die on a hit.


----------



## Psion (Jul 12, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> I want to play D&D with friends, not a wargame




Again, this would be reasons I don't like 4e. 4e seems to me to be the most minis centric edition since OD&D (if that), and has taken pains to shift the balance question entirely to combat. That's more like a wargame to me.



> Most folk I have ever played with, want fun. Now, to some, fun is of course, uber detailed simulationism, as said if that's what ye like then fair dinkum, _but it is not the reason most folk play D&D._




I think you are bashing strawmen here. Most people don't like "uber detailed simulationism". But that just happens to include, well, most people who like simulationism.  

To my perception, people like simulationism at the game table like it because it helps remove obstacles to roleplaying and immersion. When things happen that don't make sense, for some (many? most?) people, that reminds them that it's just a game and breaks suspension of disbelief.

I personally don't care for (for example) the likes of itemized encumbrance. But you don't have to simulate everything to be practicing simulationism. It's a cost/benefit sort of thing. Enforce logic in places that are the most visible and require the least additional effort.



> They like humour, they like over the top high adventure, they want to sit arpund with pals, whooping it up when they crit or blow 10 enemies to cinders,




Sure. Uh huh. Okay. Nothing here that doesn't happen every session for my 3e games here.



> and enjoy being immersed in a fantasty which they are actively shaping, not being mere mooks to the DM and the rules.




And once you mention the word "immersed", you've hit on something that my 3e games have done better for me than less simulationist games out there.

(And I do some as part of my regular gaming line up, mind you. But I recognize games for their strengths and weaknesses.)

Your vision of gaming reality is less than universal.



> *We're roleplayers, not rollplayers.*




That wasn't clever over 10 years ago when it was first uttered by someone as a way to declare their "_one true way_" better than someone else's "_badwrongfun_". Repition, overuse, and lack of originality in the last 10 years have made it less so.



> You also couldn't put in loads of critters in 3rd ed, due to complexity and the very tricky balancing issues, which ruined a whole facet of combat.
> Please do not say that is wrong, because it's patently obvious fact (or there wouldn't have had to be so much house ruling etc)




Funny, despite this supposed "fact", I haven't had particular problems. Indeed, if you wanted to pick an end of the spectrum that 3e isn't particular good at (and that 4e had some good answers for), it would be the singular enemy boss fight that, due to economy of actions, 3e parties tended to dominate unless you really loaded down said boss with some unfair abilities.



> The Transformers refference was a bit of a cheap shot and shows a disconnect




And what disconnect would that be? I was just responding to how _cool_ you think all the bloodthirstiness and action is.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 12, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> I want to play D&D with friends, not a wargame where there's rules for everything including chaffing from carrying "x" amount of gear giving "y" penalty to hit!



LOL  So your argument is to misrepresent the opposing view and then establish a false dichotomy between your misrepresentation and playing with friends.  



> *We're roleplayers, not rollplayers.*





> Thus, 3.5 ed was indeed THE SUCK for D&D because it was poisoning the game itself. No DM, no game.
> If you do not want to face that fact *shrug*



Are you a 3E fan just pretending to like 4E so you can make 4E fans look dumb?

Do you even know the difference between "fact" and "opinion"?

Why was 3E the "golden age" as Clark Peterson recently put it?  Why was it the "high point in a generation" as Joesph Goodman put it?  Perhaps they should consult with you before they continue their businesses, as clearly they are unaware of your insights.



> I dare anyone to take a new player to D&D, give them 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th ed, with E-Tools and the Character Builder, and see which is the most confusing and unpleasant for them to make a character.
> it will nearly always be 3.5 ed.



You lose.  
If the kind of people one games with finds the very idea of 3E being confusing to be shocking then the freedom to build the character how you want it is much more pleasant.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 12, 2009)

cangrejoide said:


> Isnt it the same thing?
> 
> Earlier editions: 9th level party meets a group of 1st level kobolds. Wizard uses fireball and inflcts 20 points of damage each. They are all dead since they had only 4 hit points.
> 
> ...




Any minion is a balloon or a pinata not a monster. Minions are constructed ego generation machines so that PC's have something to mow through quickly so that controllers can feel like they are making a meaningful contribution to the party.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 12, 2009)

> You summed up the problem rather well.
> 
> You see only the math.




Well, the math clearly comes first in 4e design.

Up until 4e, the game was essentially descriptive. "Ah. You have a kobold. These are weak little creatures. Weak little creatures are described with the following statistics:"

Now, 4e is essentially mathmatecal. "Ah. You have a single level 1 monster filling the skirmisher role. Level 1 monsters filling the skirmisher role have the following statistics: (blah). If you'd like it to be special, here is a kobold ability you can add: (blah)."

What the numbers describe is an afterthought.


----------



## Psion (Jul 12, 2009)

Samuel Leming said:


> People keep using terms like 'simulationism' and 'narrativism' and clearly you're not all talking about the same thing. It makes for a garbled discussion and is my second biggest reason for not liking the terms.
> 
> When Ron Edwards used the term 'simulationist' you're exactly the kind of guy he was talking about. Kind of ironic. For a quick but incomplete explanation see this page.




Just to be perfectly clear, I don't use Ron Edwards or the Forge as the source of my lexicon. _Particularly_ where "simulationism" is concerned, which seemed to be a dumping ground for "badwrongfun" gaming on the forge.

You'll notice I almost never use the term narratavism; that term was coined at The Forge. 

But _Simulation _in regards to RPGs was a term used at the height of RPG discussion on usenet (particularly rec.games.frp.advocacy, but its sister groups as well). And the term put forth in John Kim's threefold model there does seem to have a good deal of correspondence with the way most people not steeped in forge terminology seem to understand and use it.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jul 12, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Any minion is a balloon or a pinata not a monster. Minions are constructed ego generation machines so that PC's have something to mow through quickly so that controllers can feel like they are making a meaningful contribution to the party.




Exactly the same function a level 1 monster vs a 9th level party does in earlier editions. Same thing.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

And this discussion was going so interesting....

Silverblade, even as a 4e fan, I think you're being a tad incidenary (sp?)

re: Minions

Seriously, I'm not sure why anyone would use a lower level monster as a minion since that isn't their purpose IMO. A minion to my understanding are supposed to represent mooks. a.k.a potentially dangerous to the PC but one good hit makes them fall over

(funny thing about minions, I always saw minions as the most realistic mechanic across all editions....Most creatures do go down with one hit of a battleaxe - the "hero" is the one that can take multiple battleaxes to the face)


----------



## BryonD (Jul 12, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> Why did the unarmored pirate have an AC of 21? So an appropriate-level striker would have to roll a 10 or better to hit him, obviously. So it's basically Elder Scrolls: Oblivion or something where the whole world scales with the party.



In 4E the world is built to fit the combat system.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

BryonD said:


> In 4E the world is built to fit the combat system.




Again I'll ask.

Why did you have no problem in previous editions with escalating attack bonus (especially given the existence of the wizard who in most cases past 1st level never would wield a weapon) yet have a problem with escalating defenses?

Why exactly should a leve1 10/CR 10 monster be as easy to hit as a level 1/CR 1 monster since everything else about the former has increased...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 12, 2009)

cangrejoide said:


> Exactly the same function a level 1 monster vs a 9th level party does in earlier editions. Same thing.




Not really. A first level monster vs a 9th level party was indeed a scrub but the function mechanically speaking was a bit different.

In AD&D hit points were hit points (no matter if you viewed them as abstract or not). A creature had X hit points and that was that.

A 4E minion has one hit point but that one hit point is subjective. When is a hit point not a hit point? When a minion gets caught in a fireball from a 9th level caster who rolls a miss. 

In older editions a "miss" with such a spell was equal to the monster making a save. It is hilarious when minions and regular mooks are in a mixed group and the battered/damaged mooks die from a "missed" fireball attack but the minion who has perhaps 1/8 the hit points is just fine. 

Special rules for interacting with the universe make minions a joke rather than monsters.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Again I'll ask.
> 
> Why did you have no problem in previous editions with escalating attack bonus (especially given the existence of the wizard who in most cases past 1st level never would wield a weapon) yet have a problem with escalating defenses?
> 
> Why exactly should a leve1 10/CR 10 monster be as easy to hit as a level 1/CR 1 monster since everything else about the former has increased...



Who said I have a problem with escalating defenses?


----------



## Hairfoot (Jul 12, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Any minion is a balloon or a pinata not a monster. Minions are constructed ego generation machines so that PC's have something to mow through quickly so that controllers can feel like they are making a meaningful contribution to the party.



Sigworthy.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 12, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Any minion is a balloon or a pinata not a monster. Minions are constructed ego generation machines so that PC's have something to mow through quickly so that controllers can feel like they are making a meaningful contribution to the party.



But they _are_ making a meaningful contribution to the party. Because that 4 Minions, if left unchecked, can ruin your PCs. And if you have to "check" them without a Controller, then they cost you. 

There is no illusion or trick in it. There are 4 guys that deal a small amount of damage to you that can replace 1 guy that deals a moderate amount of damage to you. 



> Up until 4e, the game was essentially descriptive. "Ah. You have a kobold. These are weak little creatures. Weak little creatures are described with the following statistics:"
> 
> Now, 4e is essentially mathmatecal. "Ah. You have a single level 1 monster filling the skirmisher role. Level 1 monsters filling the skirmisher role have the following statistics: (blah). If you'd like it to be special, here is a kobold ability you can add: (blah)."



But isn't this also "narrative"? In the story of the combat, the kobold is the guy running around, backstabbing people and trying to evade combat. That's his purpose in the story, and the rules provide you to give that outcome when running the combat.

The same is true for those bare-chested pirate with AC 21 comapred to that plate armor clad Anti-Paladin with AC 21. Their story focus is to be a threat to the PCs. A bare-chested pirate needs an AC 21 to do it in the game system against your PCs, so that's what he gets.

If you want the bare-chested pirate to be a weakling that the PCs kill inconsequential, by all means make him a Minion or a lower level AC 15 guy. But if your story goal is to have someone that makes the fight scene look dangerous and challenging to the PCs, you need to give him the right stats for it. 

And it is not as if 4E was the first edition to create an AC 21 Pirate. If you wanted one in D&D 3E, you could have him - just give him a decent Dex and Bracers of Armor or some fancy Prestige Class in 3E. 4E just doesn't tell us how the Pirate achieves this, because it is basically irrelevant to the outcome.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Who said I have a problem with escalating defenses?




Ok colour me confused.

You don't have a problem with escalating defenses, but you DO have a problem with the half-level escalating AC?

Can you explain why you have a problem with the latter?

re: Minions
I like the minion concept (there _ARE_ some mechanical issues at times  - but the concept is sound) as I personally used to do the same thing in 3e. I mean, how else do you replicate action scenes where the hero takes out hordes of nameless mooks yet you know the hero actually has to expend effort since the mooks ARE dangerous to him.

Then again, I originally stole the idea from Feng Shui where I remember the designers explicitly mentioning the idea of action scenes from books and movies.

re: 3e as a rules-limiter
I think the issue with 3e is that many DMs felt unconfident that you couldn't decouple HP from the CR of the monster as the WOTC designers themselves seemed unwilling to provide examples.

I think that's the biggest failing for 3.x. It wasn't a failing of the system per se but of the designers. There weren't enough examples of the actual WOTC designers going "I want a CR X monster to have these STATS. I don't give to figs as to how I get there"

EDIT: Heh..I think Mustrum just ninjaed me about the comments about stats and monsters


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 12, 2009)

cangrejoide said:


> Exactly the same function a level 1 monster vs a 9th level party does in earlier editions. Same thing.



No, it's not exactly the same.  A level 1 monster in earlier editions is a level 1 monster in the reality of that game world.  It's a threat to other level 1 creatures and, in numbers, to somewhat higher level ones.  Depending on the situation, the name-level PCs can judge that they should or should not take out the orc lair based on how much of a threat those orcs pose to the rest of the game world (local towns, passing caravans, etc.).  The orcs are assumed to have an existence "off-screen" that is much the same as their existence "on-screen." 

On the other hand, we are not supposed to assume that the 1-hp minion is some pathetically inferior class of being relative to the rest of its species and that, if it gets by the PCs, it will easily be slain by the town beggar with a rock.  No, the case is that minions are weakened to the brink of death _by facing PCs_. 

Minions certainly allow for some kinds of cinematic action, and they can speed gameplay.  But minions are not just like low-HD monsters.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jul 12, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> And it is not as if 4E was the first edition to create an AC 21 Pirate. If you wanted one in D&D, you could have him - just give him a decent Dex and Bracers of Armor or some fancy Prestige Class in 3E. 4E just doesn't tell us how the Pirate achieves this, because it is basically irrelevant to the outcome.



It's relevant, unless you want to be the one to tell the players that an unarmoured pirate was Godzilla because of his bracers, and not hand out the items when he's dead!

Previous editions had the internal consistency to account for things like boosted stats and healing magics, which is why 4E is sometimes considered, re the OP, nonsensical.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

Brother MacLaren said:


> No, it's not exactly the same.  A level 1 monster in earlier editions is a level 1 monster in the reality of that game world.



Why does the game have to represent the reality of the game world?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 12, 2009)

> But isn't this also "narrative"? But isn't this also "narrative"? In the story of the combat, the kobold is the guy running around, backstabbing people and trying to evade combat. That's his purpose in the story, and the rules provide you to give that outcome when running the combat.




Well, that's true in 3e or 4e or any edition. I was just drawing the distinction between starting points: 4e starts with the numbers you need, while every other edition starts with the idea you have. 

The math isn't any more or less the story than the ideas, of course, but that's where 4e's issue with verisimilitude comes in: if I can't suspend disbelief that a bare-chested pirate is as difficult to hit as a fully armored paladin, then it's a problem, even if the numbers say that's the way it should be.



> And it is not as if 4E was the first edition to create an AC 21 Pirate. If you wanted one in D&D, you could have him - just give him a decent Dex and Bracers of Armor or some fancy Prestige Class in 3E. 4E just doesn't tell us how the Pirate achieves this, because it is basically irrelevant to the outcome.




You're right, but that level of abstraction can be mind-breaking for a lot of people. It is important how the pirate got to be so hard to hit. It is key to describing it as a DM, it is key to comparing it with the paladin the party fought earlier, it is key to guiding player choice about what they want out of the experience, and how they view the workings of the world.

It's not enough for the pirate just to have an arbitrarily determined numerical AC. The story and meaning behind that number is very important to a lot of players (myself included, though I'm more flexible than some. )


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 12, 2009)

Silverblade the Ench, in post #72, seems completely to have missed my point.

There's a reason besides layout that the 4E combat chapter alone is more pages than (e.g.) the entirety of 1st ed. Metamorphosis Alpha or (accounting for the half-size format) Traveller Book 1 _Characters and Combat_, and almost twice as many as D&D Volume 1 _Men & Magic_. There's a reason the Character Classes chapter alone is longer than the *whole rule-book* for 1st ed. RuneQuest.

Top Secret, plenty "simulationist" (and fairly "complex" by my lights), is only 62 pages.

The reason is that, relative to many earlier designs, 4E is a bloody complicated set of rules.

That makes the "role-players, not roll-players" line to laud 4E versus "simulationist" (i.e., preferring rules that make some sense in a world/character context) gaming absurd to me. The heavy weight of "roll-playing" in 4E is just what turns off some people!

Different strokes, etc., again. But let's not confuse the preferences by hiding them behind false dichotomies.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 12, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The same is true for those bare-chested pirate with AC 21 comapred to that plate armor clad Anti-Paladin with AC 21. Their story focus is to be a threat to the PCs. A bare-chested pirate needs an AC 21 to do it in the game system against your PCs, so that's what he gets.



But this is despite the narrative.  His armor class is based on making the combat mechanics work.  It is all about "the math".

If it was about the narrative then his AC should be what his ability and equipment provide.  If he is supposed to be a challenge to the party then there should be some in story reason that he is a challenge.  A plate clad anti-paladin, bare chested pirate, and thick scaled lizard man are all completely different from a narrative point of view.  But the mechanics of 4E throw that out the window so that the math works.

In 3E a monk gets AC bonuses purely from level and can be a high AC without armor.  But the concept drives that.  

The pirate isn't a pirate.  The pirate is a "threat to the PCs" within the "game mechanics".
The anti-paladin isn't an anti-paladin.  The anti-paladin is a "threat to the PCs" within the "game mechanics".
The lizard man isn't a lizard man.  The lizard man is a "threat to the PCs" within the "game mechanics".

There is a window of variability.  And of course there are variations in "special" features.  But everything remains constrained to this small space of mathematically approved conflict resolution.  

Yes, you can role play the pirate vastly differently than the anti-paladin.  So can I.  But I don't buy games for the role play.  Me and my friends provide that.  I pay money for good game systems that mechanically realize anti-paladins as anti-paladins and pirates as pirates.  I want the rules to put making the pirate be a pirate up front and center.  Making fun and challenging encounters is easy, just give me the pieces that model the elements they are expected to.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jul 12, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Not really. A first level monster vs a 9th level party was indeed a scrub but the function mechanically speaking was a bit different.
> 
> In AD&D hit points were hit points (no matter if you viewed them as abstract or not). A creature had X hit points and that was that.
> 
> ...




To me thats just an overcomplication and uneeded extra bookeeping.

If I place 1st level opponents against a 9th level party I just expect them to die, its their main reason. I agree that minions are there to die. Yeah thats their whole shindig, same way you placed low level monsters against a high level party.

As for normal monsters dying when minions stayed alive? well you said it, they made their save or the nomal mook where too batterted while the minions had some fight in them. You describe it as you see fit. 

The only difference is that the minion concept did away with alll the nonsensical bookeeping. They die on a hit, done. To me its a very simple an elegant way to achieve the same result and reduces the work of the GM, freeing up space for other mor eimportant tasks.

Let me ask you this from another POV:

Whats the point of having a pc group face against 50 oppents 8 levels lower than them and keep a hit point tally for each one? Is it effcient for the DM running this? Is it fun?


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

KM said:
			
		

> but that level of abstraction can be mind-breaking for a lot of people.



And for some people (myself included), that level of accounting is mind breaking. It feels soul numbing. 



> It is important how the pirate got to be so hard to hit.



Your players expect you to show your math? 



			
				ByronD said:
			
		

> If it was about the narrative then his AC should be what his ability and equipment provide.



No, if it was about the narrative, his AC should be what is relevant to his role in the story. If he is meant to be a threat and hard to kill, and yet his AC is 16, then he has an AC because of "the math". Whether his AC comes from Bracers of Armor or an obscure PrC to get there is inconsequential if it has no baring on the story.

3e has its own math. It's just "how do I milk every source to account for the number I want" rather than "what number do I want? I'll use that."


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

Brother MacLaren said:


> No, it's not exactly the same.  A level 1 monster in earlier editions is a level 1 monster in the reality of that game world.  It's a threat to other level 1 creatures and, in numbers, to somewhat higher level ones.  Depending on the situation, the name-level PCs can judge that they should or should not take out the orc lair based on how much of a threat those orcs pose to the rest of the game world (local towns, passing caravans, etc.).  The orcs are assumed to have an existence "off-screen" that is much the same as their existence "on-screen."
> 
> On the other hand, we are not supposed to assume that the 1-hp minion is some pathetically inferior class of being relative to the rest of its species and that, if it gets by the PCs, it will easily be slain by the town beggar with a rock.  No, the case is that minions are weakened to the brink of death _by facing PCs_.
> 
> Minions certainly allow for some kinds of cinematic action, and they can speed gameplay.  But minions are not just like low-HD monsters.




Exactly.

I LIKE the fact that the game mechanics don't represent the gameworld.

When I describe the after effects of an orc horde, why exactly do the PC need to know whether or not the orcs were minions or not?

I like the fact that D&D has finally said "you know what? D&D should be able to model the standard classic action scene found in both books and movies such as Conan and LotR" - THIS is what D&D supposedly is actually trying to simulate is it not?

re: Simulation
I honestly thought the term "D&D as a simulation" meant that D&D was trying to simulate what it actually draws influence from? 

I mean, what other type of simulation are we referring to?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 12, 2009)

Hairfoot said:


> It's relevant, unless you want to be the one to tell the players that an unarmoured pirate was Godzilla because of his bracers, and not hand out the items when he's dead!
> 
> Previous editions had the internal consistency to account for things like boosted stats and healing magics, which is why 4E is sometimes considered, re the OP, nonsensical.



But you also force the DM to have an explanation ready why the monster has just the right statistics to make the fight interesting, challenging and entertaining. 

"Oh, damn, I can't give him the Bracers, that would exceed their Wealth by Level. I will make up a PrC that gives him a bonus to unarmored AC. Oh no, the PCs could qualify for it, too and then they are overpowered! Ah, I say that the pirates in this region made a Pact with the GOd of Piracy and get this as a special template, that works like this".
Of course, you could just handwave it because after all the PCs are not entitled to know every mechanical detail. But if you do that, what is the point of the "simulation rules". 
If you want your PCs to get Bracers of Armor, they'll get it from the pirate. If you don't think they need that, they won't. 

I think it is far more important that the rules tell me how challenging a monster is (or how I create a monster that is "this" challenging) then to give me an arcane way of creating a monster that might or might not be equivalent to a certain level.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 12, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Why was 3E the "golden age" as Clark Peterson recently put it?  Why was it the "high point in a generation" as Joesph Goodman put it?  Perhaps they should consult with you before they continue their businesses, as clearly they are unaware of your insights.




I didn't quote all of your post, because you were being extremely rude.

I could of course mis-remember (is that a word?), but I am pretty that Clark uses that term in reference to the amount of stuff published for the edition. I am however pretty certain that Joseph talks about the sales of 1 specific year, when he talks about high point in a generation. Not the quality of the game. 

I see nothing that contradicts the theory that it is easier to find someone willing to DM 4e than it was to find someone willing to DM 3.x.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Ok colour me confused.
> 
> You don't have a problem with escalating defenses, but you DO have a problem with the half-level escalating AC?
> 
> Can you explain why you have a problem with the latter?



I think I somewhat spoke to that in the post above.  It wasn't the key idea.

Even more on the particular point, the pirate's level is defined not by the pirate, but by the party.  

And why should everything's AC go up with level?

Escalating defenses based on concept: cool

Arbitrary and uniform, self-canceling escalating defenses for everything: unappealing

You asked your question in response to this statement from me:


> In 4E the world is built to fit the combat system.




I'm sorry if I can't explain that concept more clearly.  (no snark intended in that)

For reference, I was hoping that 4E would further differentiate attack progressions as well......
Escalating attack bonuses are fine, but the concept neutral uniform attack bonus increase of 4E is just as unappealing to me as is the mathematically correct challenge trumps mechanically realization of concept issue.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jul 12, 2009)

Brother MacLaren said:


> No, it's not exactly the same.  A level 1 monster in earlier editions is a level 1 monster in the reality of that game world.  It's a threat to other level 1 creatures and, in numbers, to somewhat higher level ones.  Depending on the situation, the name-level PCs can judge that they should or should not take out the orc lair based on how much of a threat those orcs pose to the rest of the game world (local towns, passing caravans, etc.).  The orcs are assumed to have an existence "off-screen" that is much the same as their existence "on-screen." .




How is this different in 4E? 



Brother MacLaren said:


> On the other hand, we are not supposed to assume that the 1-hp minion is some pathetically inferior class of being relative to the rest of its species and that, if it gets by the PCs, it will easily be slain by the town beggar with a rock.  No, the case is that minions are weakened to the brink of death _by facing PCs_.




It is not. Its a minion, but if it faces a town beggar armed with a rock, that poor beggar will be skewered in no time. A minion will be a minion to a PC but that same minion may change to a full monster to an NPC or any other monster. 

It's all relative, get it?




Brother MacLaren said:


> Minions certainly allow for some kinds of cinematic action, and they can speed gameplay.  But minions are not just like low-HD monsters.




Minions are just a condition imposed on any creature by definition of narrative, or what the story demands.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jul 12, 2009)

It's far past bedtime in my world, but I want to (prematurely) congratulate the indefatiguable Ariosto on his 1000 posts in a frighteningly short span of time.

Well done.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 12, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But isn't this also "narrative"? In the story of the combat, the kobold is the guy running around, backstabbing people and trying to evade combat. That's his purpose in the story, and the rules provide you to give that outcome when running the combat.




Personally I think your stretching a bit here.  The kobolds have one power...the At-will shift... which simulates sneakiness (though in reality a shift can be numerous things, according to fans of 4e, so were not even sure it simulates sneakiness in combat).  

You see, IME with games based around narrative, in said game the kobolds would basically have an ability called sneakiness and it would allow the DM/GM to alter the story being told in ways specifically accounting for a kobold being "sneaky" and all the DM felt that entailed within the confines of the story being told.  What we get is the ability of a kobold to move 5ft at will (an ability balanced for it's role and level as opposed to it being concerned with story first)... now that could be interpreted as "sneakiness" but it could also be interpreted as many other things... it's just a mechanic that one interprets in the way you want and thus it is not narrative based but mechanics based.  Or at least that is how I see it.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

Hairfoot said:


> It's relevant, unless you want to be the one to tell the players that an unarmoured pirate was Godzilla because of his bracers, and not hand out the items when he's dead!
> 
> Previous editions had the internal consistency to account for things like boosted stats and healing magics, which is why 4E is sometimes considered, re the OP, nonsensical.




Um, aren't you arguing FOR 4e here. Certainly as a DM, 4e is looking way more attractive

As a DM, all I'm seeing is more headaches using the pre 4e approach as now I have to explain "WHY" for pretty much everything....

"Ok, I have to give him a super high DEX but wait that now affects his other stats such as initative, skills and reflex save..."

"ok, maybe I'll just say he is wearing a really good pair of Bracers of armour, but now the PCs have it and the wizard isn't hittable at all"

"ok, I'll use say a prestige class...ah, hell, now Johnny asking about it"

Why is it wrong for a DM to want to say 

"Ok, I want my 10th level party to fight Blackbeard's crew - here's what the AC and to hit needs to be"?

Korgoth, seriously, pre 4e, did nobody do this? Was I the only DM that did this before 4e actually gave guidelines.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 12, 2009)

> Your players expect you to show your math?




It is important how the pirate got so hard to hit. It's not important because of the numbers. It's important for the description. For the narrative. For internal consistency. For character expectations ("how can I get that high of an AC while being barechested?").

Maybe it's best to present it in terms of mathematics. I am not a very mathematically-inclined person. To me, a number represents something. 6 isn't just "the number 6," it is 6 _of something_. It is one more than 5 of that thing. 

AC 21 represents 21 _of something_. If I don't know what it represents 21 of, it gets in the way of me imagining it, describing it, and, ultimately, presenting it in my game.

Previous editions started with what those things were -- those nouns. 4e starts with what the number is, and asks you to come up with what the things it represents are.

This is an issue for me because numbers don't mean anything to me.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 12, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It is important how the pirate got so hard to hit. It's not important because of the numbers. It's important for the description. For the narrative. For internal consistency. For character expectations ("how can I get that high of an AC while being barechested?").
> 
> I need to start with a noun, not a formula.




Maybe he is quick on his feet or good at parrying?


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

> Even more on the particular point, the pirate's level is defined not by the pirate, but by the party.



How is this different from previous editions? The DM makes the pirate's level to be under that of the party (to present less of a threat), to make it equal to the party (to make an equal level threat) or higher level than the party (to be more challenging a threat). 

The Party is in the forefront of the DM's mind. 

It's a rare game where the pirate's existence is static. "He's 5 levels above us? Okay guys, let's fall back, go level up 10 levels. He stands no chance against us then."


----------



## BryonD (Jul 12, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> I see nothing that contradicts the theory that it is easier to find someone willing to DM 4e than it was to find someone willing to DM 3.x.



I don't claim to dispute this point.  

But I'm not certain that the opposite is true either.  
And I really am quite certain that it was not true for 3E one year after release.

Are you defending the point that 







> Thus, 3.5 ed was indeed THE SUCK for D&D because it was poisoning the game itself. No DM, no game.
> If you do not want to face that fact *shrug*



or are you just replying out of context?

Sure, some people found 3E to be something that they got "a pain in the posterior", and some of those people can handle 4E.  That doesn't make them quality DMs.  Granted, "quality" wasn't part of the prior point, but it is important to me.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 12, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Why does the game have to represent the reality of the game world?



Doesn't have to be.  I happen to prefer when it does, others do not.  But to give an example, when the game does represent the reality to some degree, it lets PCs judge the effectiveness of various plans.  If the city guard is presented as much more powerful than the PCs, then maybe we should ask them for backup when going to confront the cultists, and not assume that they are some kind of Schroedinger's Guards that vary in power depending on what the plot demands.  

And if the rules are consistent, you can figure out clues from things that happen "off-screen."  Not metagaming, but PCs applying knowledge gained in-game.  If the game rules are NOT the reality of the world, then on what basis are PCs supposed to evaluate events?  What IS the reality of the world?  It can be done, I know, but it's not my preference.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 12, 2009)

Rechan said:


> How is this different from previous editions? The DM makes the pirate's level to be under that of the party (to present less of a threat), to make it equal to the party (to make an equal level threat) or higher level than the party (to be more challenging a threat).
> 
> The Party is in the forefront of the DM's mind.
> 
> It's a rare game where the pirate's existence is static. "He's 5 levels above us? Okay guys, let's fall back, go level up 10 levels. He stands no chance against us then."



When I make a pirate that is a challenge for a 10th level party there is a reason in the story that the pirate is a challenge.

That is the difference.  

The world is full of things that are much stronger and much weaker than the party and their power is not in any way a function of the party.

Again, the world is designed to be the world and then the players take on the role of their characters dealing with that.  The world does not constantly morph to be a mathematically appropriate challenge.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> You see, IME with games based around narrative, in said game the kobolds would basically have an ability called sneakiness and it would allow the DM/GM to alter the story being told in ways specifically accounting for a kobold being "sneaky" and all the DM felt that entailed within the confines of the story being told.  What we get is the ability of a kobold to move 5ft at will (an ability balanced for it's role and level as opposed to it being concerned with story first)... now that could be interpreted as "sneakiness" but it could also be interpreted as many other things... it's just a mechanic that one interprets in the way you want and thus it is not narrative based but mechanics based.  Or at least that is how I see it.




*looks at previous editions monsters*  Given that there's nothing preventing in narrative for the 4e monster to be descirbed as sneaky in plot, I see the additional ability as a win for 4e. Seriously, at least now a player not only hears how "kobolds are sneaky" but in combat they are "sneaky"

(Personally, I don't consider them sneaky, but shifty. Sneaky is more the gnomes "fade away when hit" ability)

re: Bare chested pirate

Actually, KM, explaining how a bare chested pirate got that AC is exactly the same way that pirate with the long knife is fighting better than the PCs are.

- LEVEL.

Again, I know I keep harping on this, but why no problem with the fact that a creature  is better with a weapon due to level but so much trouble that avoiding getting hit with a weapon in the first place due to level. A creature's saves ALSO go up as the creature levels so even there, in pre 3e, a bucknaked fighter is literally laughing in the face of anything that calls for a saving throw.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 12, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> To me, that sucks the life and interest out of the campaign world. If a pirate in a poet shirt and leather pants has an AC 21 just because of math, and if street toughs have 60 hit points just because of math, and everything is just so just because of math, then by all means, karma police arrest this man. Because it's the equivalent of someone taking a belt sander to my imagination.



Does the idea that a house cat can kill an 18 year old male with above average constitution take a belt sander to your imagination?

In my second D&D game, back in 1978, my 1e AD&D 1st level magic user with a 15 constitution ('cause that's what I rolled) had only 1 hit point ('cause that's what I rolled).  He died because he was bit by a dog.  He didn't get a disease, like rabies, he got bit on the leg, then the dog bit someone else before getting a longsword to the head.

A basic, average roll dog bite wouldn't kill a man immediately. Except for my 18 year old MU with 15 con. 

I loved AD&D, but please don't try to argue that a game sucks because it relies on math to get the mechanics right.  All editions of D&D tried to use math to get the mechanics right, some with different unrelated systems, others with unified systems.  If you look at just the math, then every edition is like putting a belt sander to your imagination.

You just prefer to ignore the same with 1e (or whatever your preferred version of D&D is).


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> This is an issue for me because numbers don't mean anything to me.



Nor do the numbers mean anything to me. I just don't _care_ what method was used to create the 21. All I care about is whether it's proportionate or not. 

I'd describe him as parrying or dodging.

To me, explaining the _why_ of an AC is like explaining the _why_ of hitpoints. Regardless of his AC, how can this barechested guy of X level take Y damage before dieing? Why can he fight the same way at max HP as he does at 1 HP? To answer all these questions, we create abstract explanations of hit points. So why is AC different?


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 12, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Are you defending the point that or are you just replying out of context?
> 
> Sure, some people found 3E to be something that they got "a pain in the posterior", and some of those people can handle 4E.  That doesn't make them quality DMs.  Granted, "quality" wasn't part of the prior point, but it is important to me.




I wasn't defending the point. While I rate 3.x to be the worst edition of D&D I certainly do not think it was poisoning anything. In fact, it did great things for the game and for a lot of people, I just happened to be in the minority that didn't find it optimal for my style/taste/personal preferences. 

Regarding the quality DM, let's not go there, because it sounds to me that you are implying that DM's who like 4e and thought DM'ing 3.x was a chore are not good DM's.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 12, 2009)

Rechan said:


> How is this different from previous editions?



Maybe this is a better answer:
Forget editions.

For the games I enjoy, building a pirate is priority one.  Then you build a fun interaction, be it debate, battle, trade, or conversation.

As Mustrum_Ridcully decribed, in the system being discussed the AC is selected to adapt to the party, and then a veneer of pirate is piled on top.  Pull of the cover and slap on an anti-paladin.  It doesn't matter because the framework isn't based on what the guy is.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 12, 2009)

> People keep using terms like 'simulationism' and 'narrativism' and clearly you're not all talking about the same thing.



Blame Ron Edwards and his Forge cohorts for their need to be so "precious".

I am not about to call my preferred approach *"pervy"*, thank you very much.

The G, N and S words have, I think, fairly commonly understood meanings outside the ivory tower of "GNS theory".


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 12, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> The second problem was something like what someone might call "simulationist", though I hate that term... it was the fact that the semantic content or "skin" of the opponent was totally arbitrary. For example, shirtless boxers who hit for the same damage as armed foes and have AC of an armored man. A pirate in a shirt and pants who had an AC of 21... even though my elf with the 20 Dex and the magic armor only managed a 20.
> 
> Why did the unarmored pirate have an AC of 21? So an appropriate-level striker would have to roll a 10 or better to hit him, obviously. So it's basically Elder Scrolls: Oblivion or something where the whole world scales with the party.
> 
> To me, that sucks the life and interest out of the campaign world. If a pirate in a poet shirt and leather pants has an AC 21 just because of math, and if street toughs have 60 hit points just because of math, and everything is just so just because of math, then by all means, karma police arrest this man. Because it's the equivalent of someone taking a belt sander to my imagination.




IMO, the seminal difference between 4e and the prior incarnations of D&D is this: In 4e *The world exists based upon the PCs interactions.* (For example: In this type of role-playing minions make sense. The power of a creature is viewed only in relation to the PCs powers.)

The earlier editions of D&D believed this: *The world exists and the PCs interact with it.* (For example: In this type of role-playing minions do not make sense. Each creature has power based upon it's place in the world, regardless of the power of the PCs.)

Both types of play can be a lot of fun, but they are entirely different ways of viewing a role-playing game and, I believe, this is the primary reason for the dissatisfaction many of the the D&D audience has with 4e. The basic assumption of what type of role-playing game D&D is changed.

joe b.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

BryonD said:


> When I make a pirate that is a challenge for a 10th level party there is a reason in the story that the pirate is a challenge.
> 
> That is the difference.
> 
> ...




Ok, I'm getting confused.

Why is it wrong that pirates are considered a 10th level encounter in terms of world design -a.k.a suitable for the end adventure of an heroic tier party?

I mean, is there a design document that states you can't have pirates higher than 1st level? Not being snarky or anything but I'm not seeing why this is considered "bad game mechanic"


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 12, 2009)

cangrejoide said:


> How is this different in 4E?



It's different for exactly the reason you describe:



cangrejoide said:


> It is not. Its a minion, but if it faces a town beggar armed with a rock, that poor beggar will be skewered in no time. A minion will be a minion to a PC but that same minion may change to a full monster to an NPC or any other monster.
> 
> It's all relative, get it?



Yes, I get it.  That was my POINT, that minions are not "exactly the same" as 1-HD monsters in earlier editions.  One is relative, one is not.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 12, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> I wasn't defending the point. While I rate 3.x to be the worst edition of D&D I certainly do not think it was poisoning anything. In fact, it did great things for the game and for a lot of people, I just happened to be in the minority that didn't find it optimal for my style/taste/personal preferences.



Well, the point was central to my response.



> Regarding the quality DM, let's not go there, because it sounds to me that you are implying that DM's who like 4e and thought DM'ing 3.x was a chore are not good DM's.



Nope.  I am not implying anything to do with "like".
I am stating that if you take all the people who say they couldn't handle 3E, that it was to difficult for them to DM, that these people as a group will not be as good at DMing as people who had no problem with it.

I completely agree that tastes differ and that has no bearing on skill in any slight way.

But there are plenty of people who feel free to go on and on about their own inability to deal with 3E.  It was to hard for them.  They say so.
If half a group of people say the fast pitch cage is to hard to hit, then I assume that the guys who can hit the fast pitch are better at hitting.  If they all go to the slow pitch cage they may all be able to hit.  But I'll bet you good odds that the guys who were hitting the fast pitches are doing a better job of driving the slow pitches where they want them to go.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

Brother MacLaren said:


> not assume that they are some kind of Schroedinger's Guards that vary in power depending on what the plot demands.



"The guards are proportionate to our level, so we'd get no help from them" is as metagame as "the guards are higher level than us, so they can help us". 



> If the game rules are NOT the reality of the world, then on what basis are PCs supposed to evaluate events?



By the basis of the story? 

I shouldn't have to ask "So what level is this NPC?" to get the idea of how powerful he is. He's as powerful as the DM says he is. He might be a weakling but be able to blow a hole in a mountain. If the DM tells me that, then I accept it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

BryonD said:


> As Mustrum_Ridcully decribed, in the system being discussed the AC is selected to adapt to the party, and then a veneer of pirate is piled on top.  Pull of the cover and slap on an anti-paladin.  It doesn't matter because the framework isn't based on what the guy is.



The system doesn't care that he's a "pirate", no. It does care that he's, say, a skirmisher. The anti-paladin would be, maybe, a soldier. You're oversimplifying the system. AC does scale with level, but you seem to be arguing that all monsters/NPCs of level X have an AC of Y.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 12, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Any minion is a balloon or a pinata not a monster. Minions are constructed ego generation machines so that PC's have something to mow through quickly so that controllers can feel like they are making a meaningful contribution to the party.






Hairfoot said:


> Sigworthy.




This is absurd.  The designers at WOTC did not design the minion so that it can stroke the egos of players or PCs.  They represent the mooks of the world that come in waves (like so many movies, books, etc) and the heroes mow through them.  

Do you honestly believe it was made to help the poor poor egos of players with controller PCs?  

Gimme a break...


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 12, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Well, the point was central to my response.
> 
> 
> Nope.  I am not implying anything to do with "like".
> ...




Thanks for clarifying that. But for the record, baseball analogies are lost on me. I am European and over here, only the girls play something similar (softball) and it's even less popular than curling is (which means very little ).


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Well, the point was central to my response.
> 
> 
> Nope.  I am not implying anything to do with "like".
> ...




Personally, I never thought 3.x was hard to DM. Time-consuming and not worth the effort given the amount of effort put into it.

I thought it was more concerned with "must follow the rules even though they are pointless".

Ok, let's get back to the 10th level pirate. Is there anything intriniscally wrong with having a 10th level pirate?

If we're doing this in 3e, how would YOU do it BryonD? (or is pirates not a suitable challenge for 10th level PCs?)

If anyone else would like to do it for pre 3e, I would like to see how it is done (I've been gaming since 1e and DMing since 2e and personally, I always did it like 4e so my method in 2e/3e breaks the rules)


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 12, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> The system doesn't care that he's a "pirate", no. It does care that he's, say, a skirmisher. The anti-paladin would be, maybe, a soldier. You're oversimplifying the system. AC does scale with level, but you seem to be arguing that all monsters/NPCs of level X have an AC of Y.




Correct. All monsters/NPCs of level X have an AC of Y+(12-16).



joe b.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 12, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> Correct. All monsters/NPCs of X have an AC of Y+(12-16).
> 
> 
> 
> joe b.




Technically, that's the guideline. Nothing in the rule forbids you to go outside that range. Then again, rumour has it that Mearls, Wyatt, Heinsoo and Collins all have ninja-suits and are not afraid to use them, so you never know.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 12, 2009)

Rechan said:


> "The guards are proportionate to our level, so we'd get no help from them" is as metagame as "the guards are higher level than us, so they can help us".



It's not metagaming if it's based on in-game experiences.  "Remember how the guards tripped and disarmed the barbarian in 2 seconds when he refused to surrender his axe on entering the city?  And how they spotted our invisible rogue sneaking out of the shop?  Well now that we're on good terms with them, we could use that kind of talent on this mission." 



Rechan said:


> By the basis of the story?



Right, and part of the story is established characters or creatures providing a benchmark.  If the tribe of stone giants needs front-line melee help, and we have a rough in-game idea of how strong stone giants are, we can expect we're in for a real challenge.  If the prisoner escaped from under the guard of Callastian the Ranger Lord, then we can judge there's magic involved or he's a sneak of unparalleled skill.  If the portal to the Abyss is resisting the attempts of the archmage Gunthley to close it, then we aren't going to have much luck with the direct approach.

In a more "tailored" game, none of this matters.  Players expect that if the DM puts a challenge in front of them, they are to face it.  In a more "status quo" game, including many sandbox games, that is not the case.  PCs are expected to decide on their own whether or not to confront a challenge based on their best understanding of the nature and difficulty of the challenge.


----------



## EroGaki (Jul 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Um, aren't you arguing FOR 4e here. Certainly as a DM, 4e is looking way more attractive
> 
> As a DM, all I'm seeing is more headaches using the pre 4e approach as now I have to explain "WHY" for pretty much everything....
> 
> ...




I have a problem with this. I may be in the minority, but just deciding "I want the pirate to have an AC of 21" and not backing it up feels like cheating.

I've DM'd my fair share of games, and I know firsthand the headache it can cause, especially in situations like the pirate, but I don't like bending the rules to that extent; I like to play the same game and use the same rules as the player. If a player asked me how it is possible for a bare-chested pirate to have a high AC, I would like to actually be capable of answering within the rules of the game. Basically, I tend to dislike using the DM Card and saying "because I said so."

That's not saying that some special abilities/powers/pacts that the PC's don't have acess to can't be invented; it is a magical world after all. I'm just saying that the players are bound to the rules of the game; the DM should be too. 

As a player, I would feel cheated if my DM did this. But then, I guess that's why I don't play 4E; I like both DM and players being on the same page rules wise.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

BryonD said:


> I am stating that if you take all the people who say they couldn't handle 3E, that it was to difficult for them to DM, that these people as a group will not be as good at DMing as people who had no problem with it.
> 
> I completely agree that tastes differ and that has no bearing on skill in any slight way.
> 
> ...



The problem with this is that there's no objective definition of being a "good DM". You might have a guy who develops wonderful plots and interesting characterizations, makes his own high-quality, useful player handouts, etc, etc, but sucks at math, making 3.X, particularly at higher levels, hard for him to DM. Is this guy not a "good DM"? I don't think that's fair to say.

Conversely, you can have a guy who's a real rules master, and can handle all kinds of spell-like effects being in place at one time, and run multiple monsters without confusion, but otherwise sucks as a DM. He has no trouble with 3.X, but if you ask his players whether he's a "good DM" you'd probably get a mixed response.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 12, 2009)

> Nor do the numbers mean anything to me. I just don't care what method was used to create the 21. All I care about is whether it's proportionate or not.
> 
> I'd describe him as parrying or dodging.
> 
> To me, explaining the why of an AC is like explaining the why of hitpoints. Regardless of his AC, how can this barechested guy of X level take Y damage before dieing? Why can he fight the same way at max HP as he does at 1 HP? To answer all these questions, we create abstract explanations of hit points. So why is AC different?




It isn't different. The why of HP is important to me, too.


----------



## Derren (Jul 12, 2009)

Brother MacLaren said:


> In a more "tailored" game, none of this matters.  Players expect that if the DM puts a challenge in front of them, they are to face it.




And thats exactly how 4E works. Because of the abstraction there is no way for the players to know how hard or dangerous something is beforehand, short of metagaming, anyway. So instead, everything is exactly so dangerous that it is a challenge for the PCs, not more, not less, no matter if that kind of challenge the enemy provides makes sense.

And god beware when NPCs fight as allies of the PCs in a battle against minions. Is the presence of the PCs already enough to downgrade a monster to minion status? Or does the monster has normal HP against the NPC and is only a minion when the PCs attack him?


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

KM said:
			
		

> It isn't different. The why of HP is important to me, too.



I really don't know how to respond to that.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 12, 2009)

> The orcs are assumed to have an existence "off-screen" that is much the same as their existence "on-screen."



There's a critical difference. The amount of "stage management" and "cast management" a Game Operations Director is apparently expected to do in 4E is not everyone's cup of tea.

This particular stew of "story telling" and "war game" elements seems to me pretty half-baked for a human-moderated game. As I mentioned earlier, my gut tells me that it's probably a dead end -- but I could be wrong!


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 12, 2009)

Derren said:


> And thats exactly how 4E works. Because of the abstraction there is no way for the players to know how hard or dangerous something is beforehand, short of metagaming, anyway. So instead, everything is exactly so dangerous that it is a challenge for the PCs, not more, not less, no matter if that kind of challenge the enemy provides makes sense.




Regarding this, 4e works exactly like the DM wants, just like every other edition of D&D.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> I have a problem with this. I may be in the minority, but just deciding "I want the pirate to have an AC of 21" and not backing it up feels like cheating.



This has always been a part of D&D, I think. Before 3E, monsters just had an AC, with no details of the how the number came to be.

In 3E, the situation really didn't change much. Despite the fact that monsters had the components of their AC spelled out, there was a giant fudge factor that allowed you to effectively assign the AC you wanted: the natural armour bonus. Need your monster to have a higher AC to challenge a party of the appropriate level? Easy, add a few points of natural armour.

This goes away if you build your monster/NPC just using class levels, but that's a lot of work if you do it for every NPC.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> *looks at previous editions monsters*  Given that there's nothing preventing in narrative for the 4e monster to be descirbed as sneaky in plot, I see the additional ability as a win for 4e. Seriously, at least now a player not only hears how "kobolds are sneaky" but in combat they are "sneaky"
> 
> (Personally, I don't consider them sneaky, but shifty. Sneaky is more the gnomes "fade away when hit" ability)




I never said I considered previous editions as "narrative" based games either, my point was that 4e isn't a game prioritized on a narrative playstyle first... I mean couldn't I just as easily stick a level of rogue on a kobold in 3.x... now he's even more sneaky than in 4e.  Does that make 3.x "narrative"?

Re: Yeah I guess a kobold is more "shiffty" ... but again with abstract mechanics what does that even mean?


----------



## Derren (Jul 12, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Regarding this, 4e works exactly like the DM wants, just like every other edition of D&D.




No, 4E works exactly how the 4E rulebooks say it does. That the DM can deviate from that ruling doesn't change that.


----------



## Oni (Jul 12, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> The second problem was something like what someone might call "simulationist", though I hate that term... it was the fact that the semantic content or "skin" of the opponent was totally arbitrary. For example, shirtless boxers who hit for the same damage as armed foes and have AC of an armored man. A pirate in a shirt and pants who had an AC of 21... even though my elf with the 20 Dex and the magic armor only managed a 20.
> 
> Why did the unarmored pirate have an AC of 21? So an appropriate-level striker would have to roll a 10 or better to hit him, obviously. So it's basically Elder Scrolls: Oblivion or something where the whole world scales with the party.
> 
> To me, that sucks the life and interest out of the campaign world. If a pirate in a poet shirt and leather pants has an AC 21 just because of math, and if street toughs have 60 hit points just because of math, and everything is just so just because of math, then by all means, karma police arrest this man. Because it's the equivalent of someone taking a belt sander to my imagination.




See now something like this doesn't bother me in slightest.  I feel like a lot of people get hung up on the idea that the rules must somehow be the physics of the game world, rather than just a means to facilitate play.  Why does the pirate lord have a high AC?  Because it's more interesting than being able to smear him in one shot because he's not wearing plate.  The rules were meant to service the story, not the other way around.  If anything it would have been nice if that had extended to the PC's more (i.e. things like their AC were more tied to their concept and dramatic convention than their equipment).


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

Derren said:


> And thats exactly how 4E works. Because of the abstraction there is no way for the players to know how hard or dangerous something is beforehand, short of metagaming, anyway. So instead, everything is exactly so dangerous that it is a challenge for the PCs, not more, not less, no matter if that kind of challenge the enemy provides makes sense.



Yes, because monsters were never grouped by approximate difficulty level in any version of D&D before 4E. 



Derren said:


> And god beware when NPCs fight as allies of the PCs in a battle against minions. Is the presence of the PCs already enough to downgrade a monster to minion status? Or does the monster has normal HP against the NPC and is only a minion when the PCs attack him?



Your mastery of the 4E system is showing.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

Derren said:


> No, 4E works exactly how the 4E rulebooks say it does. That the DM can deviate from that ruling doesn't change that.



Again, how is this different from all other editions of D&D?


----------



## EroGaki (Jul 12, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> This has always been a part of D&D, I think. Before 3E, monsters just had an AC, with no details of the how the number came to be.
> 
> In 3E, the situation really didn't change much. Despite the fact that monsters had the components of their AC spelled out, there was a giant fudge factor that allowed you to effectively assign the AC you wanted: the natural armour bonus. Need your monster to have a higher AC to challenge a party of the appropriate level? Easy, add a few points of natural armour.
> 
> This goes away if you build your monster/NPC just using class levels, but that's a lot of work if you do it for every NPC.




True, however the big difference is that with the bare-chested pirate, there is no explanation other than "I wanted it that way." If a human pirate isn't wearing armor or using magic, and doesn't have some fancy prestige class, then I would call foul.

However, I have no problem with DM Fiat if there is an actual explanation to it; maybe the pirate has an obscure template or prestige class. Perhaps the human pirate isn't human at all. Who knows? The point being, if you want to have a bare-chested pirate with a high AC, use the rules presented, even if you have to make up something new. Don't just hand wave it with your mystical DM powers, that stinks of cheating a laziness, IMO.




Derren said:


> No, 4E works exactly how the 4E rulebooks say it does. That the DM can deviate from that ruling doesn't change that.




This. Thank you.


----------



## Derren (Jul 12, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Again, how is this different from all other editions of D&D?




They worked according their own rule books, not according to the 4E one.

I don't really understand what you intend with this question as I was replying to Jacks "4E works however the DM wants it to".
The ability to houserule doesn't change the rules of the game. They are a concious decision of not following the rules in certain cases.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> I have a problem with this. I may be in the minority, but just deciding "I want the pirate to have an AC of 21" and not backing it up feels like cheating.



Technically, there's no cheating here with the pirate. A PC can achieve that type of AC barechested by simply levelling. Given that historically, everything else in D&D has levelled (attacks and saves), the only difference is that 4e put AC on the same system.

4E half-levelling aspect always seemed to me like a natural outgrowth of the previous editions where everything else levelled.

Surely others wondered why AC yet saves levelled in earlier edition?



EroGaki said:


> That's not saying that some special abilities/powers/pacts that the PC's don't have acess to can't be invented; it is a magical world after all. I'm just saying that the players are bound to the rules of the game; the DM should be too.
> 
> .




THIS I think is why there _MIGHT_ (and I empathize "might") be more 4e DMs than 3e.

It's one thing for the players to have to worry about their special abilites (they only have one thing to deal with), a DM certainly shouldn't be foreced to play the same game, because frankly, he isn't playing the same game.

re: Sandbox game
Actually, there's nothing preventing a DM from using 4e in a sandbox manner. Just like BryonD mentions that people put limitations on 3e where there aren't any, I believe people do the same with 4e.

I tend to find 4e slighlt better for sandbox games myself anyway since 

a) unless you REALLY, REALLY jump levels (we're talking at least a tier and a half here), the game is not "rocket tag" which as an aspect I think is totally against the sandbox nature of gaming

b) running away is actually effective.

I'm not sure why 3e's system where "he who wins initative just plain wins" and "you'll be dead before you even get two moves away" is conducive to sandbox play. As a player, wouldn't the latter method actually stop you form exploring the world since anything just slightly above you level is a potential TPK??

I know in certain MMORPGs/RPGs that allow for "go anywhere", people don't explore areas since a random battle WILL kill you dead unless you can outrun the beastie


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> True, however the big difference is that with the bare-chested pirate, there is no explanation other than "I wanted it that way." If a human pirate isn't wearing armor or using magic, and doesn't have some fancy prestige class, then I would call foul.



So give him a reason. A ridiculous Dex score. A special dodge bonus. An environmental bonus. If you want to have a reason, you devise a reason. (As you yourself suggest in the bit below



EroGaki said:


> However, I have no problem with DM Fiat if there is an actual explanation to it; maybe the pirate has an obscure template or prestige class. Perhaps the human pirate isn't human at all. Who knows? The point being, if you want to have a bare-chested pirate with a high AC, use the rules presented, even if you have to make up something new. Don't just hand wave it with your mystical DM powers, that stinks of cheating a laziness, IMO.



I think you're arguing semantics. If you have to make up something new to get the AC desired, that's the very same thing as just deciding what the AC is.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 12, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Even more on the particular point, the pirate's level is defined not by the pirate, but by the party.



Actually, the pirate's level could be because that is what is listed in the MM.  Just like 1e or 3e.   For example, your Human Pirate is a Level 9 monster in the MM2.

Sometimes, it is defined by the party, but not all the time.  And, back in 1e, I often adjusted monster level and HP to enhance the story or provide a challenge to the PCs.  Did you?


BryonD said:


> And why should everything's AC go up with level?



Because at a higher level, you are just plain BETTER at things. Like dodging swords and axes.

The 9th level Pirate has become very good at dodging swords and stuff, especially without armor.  His level says he is plain BETTER at it than the 1st level Pirate Thug would be (his AC is 14).


----------



## EroGaki (Jul 12, 2009)

Oni said:


> See now something like this doesn't bother me in slightest.  I feel like a lot of people get hung up on the idea that the rules must somehow be the physics of the game world, rather than just a means to facilitate play.  Why does the pirate lord have a high AC?  Because it's more interesting than being able to smear him in one shot because he's not wearing plate.  The rules were meant to service the story, not the other way around.  If anything it would have been nice if that had extended to the PC's more (i.e. things like their AC were more tied to their concept and dramatic convention than their equipment).




Agreed, for the most part. I notice that when the rules tend to be disregarded for the sake of facilitating play, it happens from behind the screen. Players rarely get to play bare-chested pirates with high AC's by virtue of interesting concept. If a PC runs around with no armor on in D&D, he gets pasted. Why should DM's be the only ones who get license to disregard the rules?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

Derren said:


> They worked according their own rule books, not according to the 4E one.



Give me a break, you know what I meant.



Derren said:


> I don't really understand what you intend with this question as I was replying to Jacks "4E works however the DM wants it to".



My point is that many complaints about 4E also work as complaints about all editions of D&D. However, these days they tend to be framed as things that are wrong with 4E, and only 4E.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 12, 2009)

Decades ago, ignorant of any previous such attempts, I cooked up a combination of traditional RPG mechanisms with dramatic rules -- a basis of description and resolution in the demands of narrative structure. At first, I thought that "my innovation" was very promising. My friends, although they thoroughly enjoyed the new approach (as a change of pace, not as "better than" an RPG), averred that hardly anyone was likely to "get" it.

Nowadays, it's clear that a great many people grasp the essential idea. However, the lessons I learned (the hard way) about needing to design rules to the point rather than trying to do a new kind of job with ill-fitted, hand-me-down tools seem not to have attained such wide currency.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> Correct. All monsters/NPCs of level X have an AC of Y+(12-16).



That's the guideline. And that's a range, not a number.


----------



## EroGaki (Jul 12, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> So give him a reason. A ridiculous Dex score. A special dodge bonus. An environmental bonus. If you want to have a reason, you devise a reason. (As you yourself suggest in the bit below
> 
> 
> I think you're arguing semantics. If you have to make up something new to get the AC desired, that's the very same thing as just deciding what the AC is.




Actually, I'm not. Making up something new (prestige class, template) is working within the bounds of the rules. It also provides possible plot hooks/ideas/etc.

Handwaving something because you want it to be that way despite the rules not supporting it is a whole new animal, and one I personally don't support.

Granted, this is just my opinion; my DMing style might be significantly different from yours.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> There's a critical difference. The amount of "stage management" and "cast management" a Game Operations Director is apparently expected to do in 4E is not everyone's cup of tea.
> 
> This particular stew of "story telling" and "war game" elements seems to me pretty half-baked for a human-moderated game. As I mentioned earlier, my gut tells me that it's probably a dead end -- but I could be wrong!




Compared to the effort expected of a 3e DM? We've seen in this thread that many people believe that 4e is "less hard" for DMs by both 4e proponents and detractors.

To me, the DM is the lifeblood of any RPG and anything that makes for an easier job AND makes it more attractive to DM is great for D&D.

re: 4e as a wargame
Personally, I think this is a weird criticism of 4e. Exactly why is that "what you do BEFORE combat" should be so heavily weighted? That type of system mastery I find favours the players who tend to have more free time to master their character whereas the 4e approach of "what you do in combat actually determines half your success" favours DMs again since they don't have to worry so much about the mechanical system mastery concept.

Personally, I always despised Constructed and only play Limited on MTGO which again explains why I tend to prefer 4e.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 12, 2009)

Derren said:


> They worked according their own rule books, not according to the 4E one.
> 
> I don't really understand what you intend with this question as I was replying to Jacks "4E works however the DM wants it to".
> The ability to houserule doesn't change the rules of the game. They are a concious decision of not following the rules in certain cases.




It is not a house-rule, it's called not following a guideline. There is a huge difference between a rule and a guideline. 

Let me explain: In 4e, it is a rule that every character gets a +1 stackable bonus to (amongst others) his AC and his to-hit at every odd level. 

On the other hand, that the world should conform after the players' level is merely a guideline. Guidelines for level appropriate combat is given, yes, but again, they are guidelines.

This was exactly the same in other editions. So indeed, not using a guideline is not at all the same as house-ruling.


----------



## Derren (Jul 12, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> My point is that many complaints about 4E also work as complaints about all editions of D&D. However, these days they tend to be framed as things that are wrong with 4E, and only 4E.




And yet I do not see how this applies to what you quoted.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> Actually, I'm not. Making up something new (prestige class, template) is working within the bounds of the rules. It also provides possible plot hooks/ideas/etc.
> 
> Handwaving something because you want it to be that way despite the rules not supporting it is a whole new animal, and one I personally don't support.



I'm just saying it's effectively the same thing. If you create a dread pirate prestige class and give it a special dodge bonus to AC, that's effectively the same as just giving the thing a higher AC. As DM, you have purview to create new stuff like this, so you effectively have the purview to simply increase an NPC's AC.

When fighting the pirate, the characters have no idea whether he has a prestige class that gives him an AC bonus, since that's a game mechanic, not an in-game thing.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

Derren said:


> And yet I do not see how this applies to what you quoted.



Jack99 claimed that "_Regarding this, 4e works exactly like the DM wants, just like every other edition of D&D_." Essentially, 4E is like other editions in this regard.

You responded with something about how no, 4E uses the rules of 4E. While strictly correct, you're implying that the problem here is unique to 4E. It's not.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 12, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> When fighting the pirate, the characters have no idea whether he has a prestige class that gives him an AC bonus, since that's a game mechanic, not an in-game thing.



But from the character's point of view, the pirate has some ridiculously effective parrying skills.  They don't know it as a "feat" or "prestige class" but they can recognize that his technique is amazing.  And perhaps one lightly-armored character might want to learn Bonetti's Defense as well.  I suppose you could tell them that was Bonetti they just killed, so they'll have to invent their own style.


----------



## Oni (Jul 12, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> True, however the big difference is that with the bare-chested pirate, there is no explanation other than "I wanted it that way." If a human pirate isn't wearing armor or using magic, and doesn't have some fancy prestige class, then I would call foul.
> 
> However, I have no problem with DM Fiat if there is an actual explanation to it; maybe the pirate has an obscure template or prestige class. Perhaps the human pirate isn't human at all. Who knows? The point being, if you want to have a bare-chested pirate with a high AC, use the rules presented, even if you have to make up something new. Don't just hand wave it with your mystical DM powers, that stinks of cheating a laziness, IMO.




Does this mean that DM's can't invent their own PrC's and template and the like, because that is essentially the same as because I said so.  I mean really what's the difference between "because I said so" and "because he has the bare-chested pirate template"?  Why make the DM jump through hoops to do what he's going to do anyway?  I frankly don't understand how a DM can cheat in a game where he make up any mechanical content he wants anyway.  When players start playing the gotcha game on the DM and demanding to know the mechanical minutia behind every little thing there is a serious problem IMHO.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 12, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> There's a critical difference. The amount of "stage management" and "cast management" a Game Operations Director is apparently expected to do in 4E is not everyone's cup of tea.
> 
> This particular stew of "story telling" and "war game" elements seems to me pretty half-baked for a human-moderated game. As I mentioned earlier, my gut tells me that it's probably a dead end -- but I could be wrong!



You know, it is OK to call people that run 4e games Dungeon Masters.   You don't have to be snarky about it.




EroGaki said:


> True, however the big difference is that with the bare-chested pirate, there is no explanation other than "I wanted it that way." If a human pirate isn't wearing armor or using magic, and doesn't have some fancy prestige class, then I would call foul.



But remember, in 4e (and in 1e, 2e) the NPCs and monsters are not built with the same mechanics as the PCs.  It's not a foreign concept and one, quite frankly, that caters more to my old-school style of DMing.

You can't call foul if the rules state that it's way things are. 




EroGaki said:


> I have a problem with this. I may be in the minority, but just deciding "I want the pirate to have an AC of 21" and not backing it up feels like cheating.
> 
> I've DM'd my fair share of games, and I know firsthand the headache it can cause, especially in situations like the pirate, but I don't like bending the rules to that extent; I like to play the same game and use the same rules as the player. If a player asked me how it is possible for a bare-chested pirate to have a high AC, I would like to actually be capable of answering within the rules of the game. Basically, I tend to dislike using the DM Card and saying "because I said so."



Again, this is a 3.x mentality and is simply a different paradigm than 4e, as well as 1e and 2e.



EroGaki said:


> As a player, I would feel cheated if my DM did this. But then, I guess that's why I don't play 4E; I like both DM and players being on the same page rules wise.




In 3.x there was the presumption that if an NPC or Monster has it or can do it, then a PC should as well.  Some editions of D&D don't adhere to this paradigm, but if that's what you prefer, then 3.x is the game for you, for sure.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 12, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> I'm just saying it's effectively the same thing. If you create a dread pirate prestige class and give it a special dodge bonus to AC, that's effectively the same as just giving the thing a higher AC. As DM, you have purview to create new stuff like this, so you effectively have the purview to simply increase an NPC's AC.
> 
> When fighting the pirate, the characters have no idea whether he has a prestige class that gives him an AC bonus, since that's a game mechanic, not an in-game thing.




It's not the same thing, because once you create the "Dread Pirate" prestige class... a PC can now, by meeting the requirements of said PrC, attain the same bonus.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

Brother MacLaren said:


> But from the character's point of view, the pirate has some ridiculously effective parrying skills.  They don't know it as a "feat" or "prestige class" but they can recognize that his technique is amazing.  And perhaps one lightly-armored character might want to learn Bonetti's Defense as well.  I suppose you could tell them that was Bonetti they just killed, so they'll have to invent their own style.



Well yes, description of the AC in-game is rather different than defending the mechanical construction of the AC.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

Oni said:


> I mean really what's the difference between "because I said so" and "because he has the bare-chested pirate template"?  Why make the DM jump through hoops to do what he's going to do anyway?  I frankly don't understand how a DM can cheat in a game where he make up any mechanical content he wants anyway.



This is precisely my point, expressed in a better way.


----------



## EroGaki (Jul 12, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> I'm just saying it's effectively the same thing. If you create a dread pirate prestige class and give it a special dodge bonus to AC, that's effectively the same as just giving the thing a higher AC. As DM, you have purview to create new stuff like this, so you effectively have the purview to simply increase an NPC's AC.
> 
> When fighting the pirate, the characters have no idea whether he has a prestige class that gives him an AC bonus, since that's a game mechanic, not an in-game thing.




The only difference is that if a Dread Pirate prestige class was created, it would *possibly* have an impact outside of that lone encounter. Was the pirate the only such example of the prestige class? Perhaps there is an entire organization of them. And what if one the PC's wants to become one?

If you just hand-wave it aside, and the PC's have questions, or they desire to somehow gain said benefit (be it prestige class or something else) what will you say? Besides "no, I say you can't. The end." 

Listen, I'm not arguing against a DM's purview. All I'm saying is that they should work within the system. The same system that the players play in.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> It's not the same thing, because once you create the "Dread Pirate" prestige class... a PC can now, by meeting the requirements of said PrC, attain the same bonus.



And if you make one of the requirements "Must have been born and raised among the Pirates of the Iron Coast?", can any PC dip into the PrC for the AC? Which you can do, since you're the DM and you have control over entrance to prestige classes and any other mechanic you devise.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> The only difference is that if a Dread Pirate prestige class was created, it would *possibly* have an impact outside of that lone encounter. Was the pirate the only such example of the prestige class? Perhaps there is an entire organization of them. And what if one the PC's wants to become one?
> 
> If you just hand-wave it aside, and the PC's have questions, or they desire to somehow gain said benefit (be it prestige class or something else) what will you say? Besides "no, I say you can't. The end."
> 
> Listen, I'm not arguing against a DM's purview. All I'm saying is that they should work within the system. The same system that the players play in.



Sure, but I'm saying that a DM has enough work to do without having to worry about justifying an NPC's AC to his players. If questions arise, perhaps then mechanics can be developed. I don't see a reason to invent mechanics until they're actually needed.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> Agreed, for the most part. I notice that when the rules tend to be disregarded for the sake of facilitating play, it happens from behind the screen. Players rarely get to play bare-chested pirates with high AC's by virtue of interesting concept. If a PC runs around with no armor on in D&D, he gets pasted. Why should DM's be the only ones who get license to disregard the rules?




Hold on a minute...We've been talking about a 10th level unarmoured human with an AC of 21 as if it was something "4e doesn't allow PCs to match NPCs"

That's not hard to do in 4e as a PC.

10th level buck naked human PC started with a 20 DEX.

10 + 5 (from level) + 6 (from 22 dex - two stat point increases) = 21 AC.

(anyone care to check my math?)

Is this another one of those "make a point but exaggerate the problem significantly"


----------



## Psion (Jul 12, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> IMO, the seminal difference between 4e and the prior incarnations of D&D is this: In 4e *The world exists based upon the PCs interactions.* (For example: In this type of role-playing minions make sense. The power of a creature is viewed only in relation to the PCs powers.)
> 
> The earlier editions of D&D believed this: *The world exists and the PCs interact with it.* (For example: In this type of role-playing minions do not make sense. Each creature has power based upon it's place in the world, regardless of the power of the PCs.)
> 
> Both types of play can be a lot of fun, but they are entirely different ways of viewing a role-playing game and, I believe, this is the primary reason for the dissatisfaction many of the the D&D audience has with 4e. The basic assumption of what type of role-playing game D&D is changed.




I think this is worth noting for anyone in the audience who is having a fundamental bit of trouble understanding why some folks (especially those with broad experience with pre-3e D&D) are experiencing a bit of a style clash with 4e. For us (I'll be bold enough to presume speak for the group here), kobolds are NOT something that should be threatening high level characters. Kobolds occupy the mindspace of "weak low level challenge", and for them to fill some other space other than as an oddity (such as the kobold sorcerer lich in Bastion/Dragonwing's _Villains_) is to define something that is not a kobold.

I have been using the idea of "sliding scale heroism" in other games (like Spycraft 2.0), and don't object to the approach for its own sake. It's only the way that the approach warps the landscape when speaking about D&D that seems wrong to me.

It's worth noting that you don't have to use 4e this way. I know if I were to ever run 4e, you'd only see unique kobolds that weren't minions and you'd never see a Balor minion regardless of level. And indeed, I wonder how many DMs who moved on to 4th but preferred an "older school" feel do just that.


----------



## EroGaki (Jul 12, 2009)

Oni said:


> Does this mean that DM's can't invent their own PrC's and template and the like, because that is essentially the same as because I said so.  I mean really what's the difference between "because I said so" and "because he has the bare-chested pirate template"?  Why make the DM jump through hoops to do what he's going to do anyway?  I frankly don't understand how a DM can cheat in a game where he make up any mechanical content he wants anyway.  When players start playing the gotcha game on the DM and demanding to know the mechanical minutia behind every little thing there is a serious problem IMHO.




As I have explained, "Because I said so" isn't the same as creating a prestige class/template/whatever. Any of those things exist in the game world, for good or ill, to be used by or against the players.

"Because I said so" is nothing more than a smoke screen for the DM to *possibly be a tyrant. "Because I said so" implies that at any point in the game, the DM can do whatever he wants to your character.

The Gotcha game won't happen if you actually play by the rules, IMO. As long as you use the rules as a framework (even if it is incredibly loose and far-fetched) you will be fine. If you get caught with your pants down because a player discovered that Mr. Pirate has no mechanical basis for being a badass other than "because I said so," _then _you'll be in trouble.


* I say this only because I myself have experienced this sort of tyranny. Most DM's aren't like that, and if it sounded like I was saying you were, I apologize; it was not how I meant it to come off.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 12, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> And if you make one of the requirements "Must have been born and raised among the Pirates of the Iron Coast?", can any PC dip into the PrC for the AC? Which you can do, since you're the DM and you have control over entrance to prestige classes and any other mechanic you devise.




SO now your argument is that handwaving is the same as creating a PrC *and creating requirements no one can attain at the moment*... now who's jumping through hoops?

Unless of course their PC dies and they create one born and raised on the Iron Coast.  Really we can do this all day, but it seems like this is just you avoiding the fact that there is a difference between creating an actual PrC and handwaving an effect.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 12, 2009)

> Compared to the effort expected of a 3e DM?



Once again: No.

All this chat about how the new poke in the eye with a blunt stick is so much better than the old root canal was pretty funny when WotC offered it in a faux French accent.

What was really funny was how it was depicted as all downhill after 1st ed. AD&D. The supposed big problem with that game? Miniature figurines had yet to be invented in 1979 ... _riiight_.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 12, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> And if you make one of the requirements "Must have been born and raised among the Pirates of the Iron Coast?", can any PC dip into the PrC for the AC? Which you can do, since you're the DM and you have control over entrance to prestige classes and any other mechanic you devise.



Yes, you can certainly do that.  But if you do go down the road of making it a PrC-based ability (rather than just assigning a number because you're the DM) and make it just slightly less exclusive, then you can have adventures where the swashbuckler PC is trying to bribe/cajole/trick his way into the pirate community to learn these awesome skills... in some games, that would be a derailment of the plot, in others it could become the plot.

As opposed to flat bonuses per se, the things that explain bonuses -- PrCs, feats, weapon mastery (BECMI), items, etc. -- all offer potential for roleplaying, not just mechanical advantage (which unfortunately is how they are most often used/viewed IME).


----------



## Psion (Jul 12, 2009)

Oni said:


> Does this mean that DM's can't invent their own PrC's and template and the like, because that is essentially the same as because I said so.  I mean really what's the difference between "because I said so" and "because he has the bare-chested pirate template"?  Why make the DM jump through hoops to do what he's going to do anyway?  I frankly don't understand how a DM can cheat in a game where he make up any mechanical content he wants anyway.  When players start playing the gotcha game on the DM and demanding to know the mechanical minutia behind every little thing there is a serious problem IMHO.




Well, it's a matter of perspective. For some DMs (and some moods for some DMs that do it different ways at other times  ), "playing by the same rules the players do" is something to be aspired to and enjoyed.


----------



## EroGaki (Jul 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Hold on a minute...We've been talking about a 10th level unarmoured human with an AC of 21 as if it was something "4e doesn't allow PCs to match NPCs"
> 
> That's not hard to do in 4e as a PC.
> 
> ...





The 21 AC was the example. If you want a better example, let's say the 10th level pirate has an AC of 31. Or 41.

My intention was not to exaggerate a problem so much as to point out something I find irksome and in poor taste. The fact that you get a boast to AC as you level is actually one of the good things in 4E, IMO.

I was illustrating something I think is messed up, regardless of system. My apologizes if that wasn't clear.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> SO now your argument is that handwaving is the same as creating a PrC *and creating requirements no one can attain at the moment*... now who's jumping through hoops?



No, that's just an example for a PrC. A PrC doesn't have to be the reason. Just an example.

But yes, I agree that it is jumping through hoops, and that's my point. As a DM, why should I have to jump through hoops, even if "within the rules", to get the desired result? Since I *can* jump through the mechanical hoops to get the desired result if I'm so inclined, why can't I also just use the desired result?


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> It's not the same thing, because once you create the "Dread Pirate" prestige class... a PC can now, by meeting the requirements of said PrC, attain the same bonus.



Which adds to the DMs work the need to balance this prestige class so that it doesn't become unbalanced in the hands of PCs.  Unless you backload this class so that no PC can ever take it (which a lot of players and DMs consider "cheating") then it that's a lot of balance work.

In 4E (and many other systems and styles of some systems) I can ignore the PC balance issue and just worry about the encounter.  Sometimes I might have to work it into the feel of how the world works, but not always.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

Brother MacLaren said:


> Yes, you can certainly do that.  But if you do go down the road of making it a PrC-based ability (rather than just assigning a number because you're the DM) and make it just slightly less exclusive, then you can have adventures where the swashbuckler PC is trying to bribe/cajole/trick his way into the pirate community to learn these awesome skills... in some games, that would be a derailment of the plot, in others it could become the plot.



Well yes, of course. That's a nice side effect. But that doesn't mean I should *have *to do it this way. If I often do it this way, but sometimes simply lack the time and just handwave it, what's wrong with that?


----------



## EroGaki (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> SO now your argument is that handwaving is the same as creating a PrC *and creating requirements no one can attain at the moment*... now who's jumping through hoops?
> 
> Unless of course their PC dies and they create one born and raised on the Iron Coast.  Really we can do this all day, but it seems like this is just you avoiding the fact that there is a difference between creating an actual PrC and handwaving an effect.




This.



Brother MacLaren said:


> Yes, you can certainly do that.  But if you do go down the road of making it a PrC-based ability (rather than just assigning a number because you're the DM) and make it just slightly less exclusive, then you can have adventures where the swashbuckler PC is trying to bribe/cajole/trick his way into the pirate community to learn these awesome skills... in some games, that would be a derailment of the plot, in others it could become the plot.
> 
> As opposed to flat bonuses per se, the things that explain bonuses -- PrCs, feats, weapon mastery (BECMI), items, etc. -- all offer potential for roleplaying, not just mechanical advantage (which unfortunately is how they are most often used/viewed IME).




And this.



Psion said:


> Well, it's a matter of perspective. For some DMs (and some moods for some DMs that do it different ways at other times  ), "playing by the same rules the players do" is something to be aspired to and enjoyed.




As well as this. 

I see nothing wrong with adding such a prestige class/feat/template. Doing so might just offer more to the adventure, or future adventures.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

Psion said:


> I think this is worth noting for anyone in the audience who is having a fundamental bit of trouble understanding why some folks (especially those with broad experience with pre-3e D&D) are experiencing a bit of a style clash with 4e. For us (I'll be bold enough to presume speak for the group here), kobolds are NOT something that should be threatening high level characters. Kobolds occupy the mindspace of "weak low level challenge", and for them to fill some other space other than as an oddity (such as the kobold sorcerer lich in Bastion/Dragonwing's _Villains_) is to define something that is not a kobold.
> 
> .




The thing is, kobolds in 4e ARE just low level threats across all editions. In 2e, a single kobold could certainly ruin your day as a 1st level PC (which as a 2e DM I can attest to.

I think the only difference is that the scale in 4e isnt as sharp as in previous editions.

Once a fighter hits 5th level, gets some plate armour plus shield and or finds a magic cloak/ring, with the mage having enough scrolls/slots to be using frieball, have a cloak and bracers plus more hp, the kobolds quickly become well too weak as the gear of the PCs and their abilites simply outstrips them.

4e's more gradual slope means that this doesn't kick in until a high level.

(As an aside, how many rounds of combat do people think is too long anyway?)

re: "Arbitary" PrC entrance requirements

Er, didn't the Red wizard and the witches of Rashemen have the "must be from Thay/must be female" entry requirements? 

I've stopped DMing 3.x but I thought it was totally cool to have such PrC such as "only if you're a local from this area can you enter".


----------



## EroGaki (Jul 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> The thing is, kobolds in 4e ARE just low level threats across all editions. In 2e, a single kobold could certainly ruin your day as a 1st level PC (which as a 2e DM I can attest to.
> 
> I think the only difference is that the scale in 4e isnt as sharp as in previous editions.
> 
> ...




For me, unless the battle is truly epic (end bosses, etc) 10 rounds or longer is too long. In any edition.

As for prestige class requirements, "only if you're a local from this area can enter" is great, IMO. Now if a PC is made from that area and meets the requirements, than great!


----------



## Imaro (Jul 12, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> No, that's just an example for a PrC. A PrC doesn't have to be the reason. Just an example.
> 
> But yes, I agree that it is jumping through hoops, and that's my point. As a DM, why should I have to jump through hoops, even if "within the rules", to get the desired result? Since I *can* jump through the mechanical hoops to get the desired result if I'm so inclined, why can't I also just use the desired result?




First, I meant you were jumping through hoops as well as moving goalposts to show their was no difference.

No one is saying you can't do it the way you want to, but when you start talking about "better"... well you need to keep in mind it's subjective.  Some DM's like the ability to use the rules framework to create things for their game that while requiring work are rewarding enough( in their opinion) to be worth it.  Others feel it is too much work for not enough pay off... neither view is superior, but it often seems 4e fans can't understand why you would want to do all that work... or why you would want a detailed system that facilitates it?  The flip side to that is you can always hand-wave something so how does said system stop those who were going to handwave anyway.  Yet a system of handwaving certainly imposes restrictions on those who want a more detailed formula.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jul 12, 2009)

Derren said:


> And thats exactly how 4E works. Because of the abstraction there is no way for the players to know how hard or dangerous something is beforehand, short of metagaming, anyway. So instead, everything is exactly so dangerous that it is a challenge for the PCs, not more, not less, no matter if that kind of challenge the enemy provides makes sense.




You are referring to the concept of tailored encounters vs. status quo encounters. This concept is NOT edition specific. I could have a 1st level party encounter an ancient great wyrm dragon in 3e as easily as I can in 4e. The 4e DMG provides guidelines for providing tailored encounters JUST LIKE the 3e DMG does. Status quo encounters don't need rules since the goal isn't to provided a balanced combat challenge.

I now return you to your friendly edition war discussion, already in progress.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 12, 2009)

> In my second D&D game, back in 1978, my 1e AD&D 1st level magic user with a 15 constitution ('cause that's what I rolled) had only 1 hit point ('cause that's what I rolled).



Had you been playing by the book, your character should have had 2 hit points.



> He died because he was bit by a dog.  He didn't get a disease, like rabies, he got bit on the leg ...



It is a keen observation that old-style D&D is not set up to reflect non-life-threatening injuries to low-hit-point characters by way of hit point deductions.

Had the dog not merely bitten a leg but savaged the character in a prolonged assault with deadly force -- the sort of "combat" situation that (perhaps not so surprisingly?) the "combat" rules were designed to depict -- then the outcome might be more reasonable.

As with any other craft, a Dungeon Master must learn to choose the right tool for the job at hand!


----------



## Imaro (Jul 12, 2009)

Glyfair said:


> Which adds to the DMs work the need to balance this prestige class so that it doesn't become unbalanced in the hands of PCs.  Unless you backload this class so that no PC can ever take it (which a lot of players and DMs consider "cheating") then it that's a lot of balance work.
> 
> In 4E (and many other systems and styles of some systems) I can ignore the PC balance issue and just worry about the encounter.  Sometimes I might have to work it into the feel of how the world works, but not always.




See right here is the disconnect.  For you creating a PrC wasn't enjoyable in a reward vs. work way...I understand that, but for others it was interesting and even enjoyable.  Now my question is what exactly stopped you from handwaving bonuses in 3.x?  Yet the people who wanted a detailed system were also satisfied.  

In 4e the detailed system is to basically handwave, with a couple of guidelines.  It only caters to those who wanted to and could have handwaved all along and not really to those who enjoyed using specific mechanics to build things.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> The 21 AC was the example. If you want a better example, let's say the 10th level pirate has an AC of 31. Or 41.
> 
> My intention was not to exaggerate a problem so much as to point out something I find irksome and in poor taste. The fact that you get a boast to AC as you level is actually one of the good things in 4E, IMO.
> 
> I was illustrating something I think is messed up, regardless of system. My apologizes if that wasn't clear.




No worries, I think we might be suffering a case of "telephone" here.

The monster design guidelines states that for a monster their AC is in the range of level + (12-16 ) - which is dependant on role.

In 4e, a PC can more or less hit the same AC with level

(30th level pirate - AC of 42)
(30th level naked elf - AC of 39)

The issue I think for some is that a naked human or elf shouldnt have that high an AC since it breaks simulation. Personally, given D&D historically being a level based game, I have no problem with that.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> First, I meant you were jumping through hoops as well as moving goalposts to show their was no difference.



Not _no _difference. _Effectively _no difference, in the sense that you can get the desired result by inventing a mechanic to reach it.



Imaro said:


> No one is saying you can't do it the way you want to, but when you start talking about "better"...



I don't recall talking about "better". I recall a poster saying that handwaving feels like cheating, and my arguing against that.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 12, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Minions are constructed ego generation machines so that PC's have something to mow through quickly so that controllers can feel like they are making a meaningful contribution to the party.



You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> See right here is the disconnect.  For you creating a PrC wasn't enjoyable in a reward vs. work way...I understand that, but for others it was interesting and even enjoyable.  Now my question is what exactly stopped you from handwaving bonuses in 3.x?  Yet the people who wanted a detailed system were also satisfied.
> 
> In 4e the detailed system is to basically handwave, with a couple of guidelines.  It only caters to those who wanted to and could have handwaved all along and not really to those who enjoyed using specific mechanics to build things.




Heh...you do realize that the same is true for 4e right?

There _IS_ a detailed "build the monster as a PC" in the DMG.

I think the difference is the "DEFAULT" situation is that in 4e, you handwave the situation whereas in 3e, the DEFAULT is "here are the rules".


----------



## Imaro (Jul 12, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Not _no _difference. _Effectively _no difference, in the sense that you can get the desired result by inventing a mechanic to reach it.




But many posters have shown you the effective difference and you choose to ignore it.  I really don't know what else to say, but there is certainly an effective difference to the game/campaign/adventure/etc.  between assigning an arbitrary AC bonus to an NPC and doing so through a PrC.  How much of that effective difference that is actually leveraged in the game is up to the DM and players.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Heh...you do realize that the same is true for 4e right?
> 
> There _IS_ a detailed "build the monster as a PC" in the DMG.
> 
> I think the difference is the "DEFAULT" situation is that in 4e, you handwave the situation whereas in 3e, the DEFAULT is "here are the rules".




I thought we were talking about PrC's or 4e's equivalent with Paragon Paths.  Is there even a section in the 4e DMG that touches on creating your own PP's?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> But many posters have shown you the effective difference and you choose to ignore it.  I really don't know what else to say, but there is certainly an effective difference to the game/campaign/adventure/etc.  between assigning an arbitrary AC bonus to an NPC and doing so through a PrC.  How much of that effective difference that is actually leveraged in the game is up to the DM and players.



Fine, effective _mechanical _difference. Better?

I thought I was fairly clear above when I discussed the side benefits of full development of the new mechanic, but that sometimes if you can't spend the time doing that and just handwave it instead, it's not cheating.


----------



## Glyfair (Jul 12, 2009)

Psion said:


> For us (I'll be bold enough to presume speak for the group here), kobolds are NOT something that should be threatening high level characters. Kobolds occupy the mindspace of "weak low level challenge", and for them to fill some other space other than as an oddity (such as the kobold sorcerer lich in Bastion/Dragonwing's _Villains_) is to define something that is not a kobold.



I can see this.  They do sort of fill that niche in 4E (as far as I remember they hold the low to mid heroic tier as  threats).  However, I know at least one friend who object to kobolds not dying in a single blow and your solution would work for him.  However, that is completely up to the DM to give that feel.


----------



## Oni (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> ...but it often seems 4e fans can't understand why you would want to do all that work... or why you would want a detailed system that facilitates it?




That inability to understand the other perspective cuts both ways my friend.  



> The flip side to that is you can always hand-wave something so how does said system stop those who were going to handwave anyway.  Yet a system of handwaving certainly imposes restrictions on those who want a more detailed formula.




The problem is one of expectation.  The people that favor rules heavy systems for instance have an expectation that the DM does all this work and can show the math for anything he throws at the party.  When you start handwaving you're longer playing a game where the rules are the physics of the game world and then along comes the gotcha game.  So yes, I think a system where you have to justify every little thing does put shackles on one's ability to handwave without harming the expectation of the players.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I thought we were talking about PrC's or 4e's equivalent with Paragon Paths.  Is there even a section in the 4e DMG that touches on creating your own PP's?




Wait, what?

I thought we were talking about the AC of monsters being "random".

I honestly think there's two different things we're arguing about.

Erogaki pointed out that one of the few things he likes about 4e is the half-level nature of the game whereas BryondD hates it as he sees it as arbitary.

Again, there are guidelines based on role and the PCs generally when they hit the same level will have an AC around the same as the monsters.

The guidelines in the DMG simply eliminate the in-between steps that the PCs use since the DM doesn't need it (IMO of course).

For example, while quite possible for a 10th level AC of 31, the DMG and the MM certainly doesn't recommend it....


----------



## Imaro (Jul 12, 2009)

Oni said:


> That inability to understand the other perspective cuts both ways my friend.




I guess I'll agree here, even though I have seen more 3.x fans concede that 4e is easier to DM and they could understand why some would like it as opposed to 4e fans who have stated they understand why some might want more complexity within their gaming system.





Oni said:


> The problem is one of expectation.  The people that favor rules heavy systems for instance have an expectation that the DM does all this work and can show the math for anything he throws at the party.  When you start handwaving you're longer playing a game where the rules are the physics of the game world and then along comes the gotcha game.  So yes, I think a system where you have to justify every little thing does put shackles on one's ability to handwave without harming the expectation of the players.




But rule 0 exists in 3.x and 4e.  So any one who feels the way you've stated is self-imposing this restriction upon themselves.  I mean I can even be upfront with my players and tell them I will be fudging certain things, it's a player/DM trust thing.  Now again where does one go for the system fiddling and mechanic building systems they enjoyed with 3.x in 4e?


----------



## Imaro (Jul 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> I thought we were talking about the AC of monsters being "random".
> 
> ...




Hmm. I was more so focusing on the ways one went about assigning said bonuses to things in 3.x and 4e ( with PrC's vs. arbitrary bonus assignment as the focus) as well as the disadvantages and advantages, depending on what one enjoys, of both methods.  So I guess were kind of discussing the same thing... but also not.


----------



## Korgoth (Jul 12, 2009)

I think KamikazeMidget and ByronD in particular have both had some good responses so far. I also prefer that the numbers reflect the _semantic content_ of the world, rather than being wholly independent of the "skin" the DM chooses to apply.



AllisterH said:


> Why is it wrong for a DM to want to say
> 
> "Ok, I want my 10th level party to fight Blackbeard's crew - here's what the AC and to hit needs to be"?
> 
> Korgoth, seriously, pre 4e, did nobody do this? Was I the only DM that did this before 4e actually gave guidelines.




I think what is said about the NPCs and monsters has to be meaningful in some way, or else I'm not interested. I don't see the descriptions as interchangeable skins... to me that's actually patronizing to the players. Like "OK now I'm just telling you this cool bit of fluff to spice up the game; I say you're fighting pirates but really it would be the same if I said you were fighting giant battlemechs or rabid fur seals."

For example, in next Monday's game of Empire of the Petal Throne (OD&D rules), the party will probably meet a barbaric warrior cult that lives in the jungle (in fact, they live in the ruined temple complex that the party just leased back in the big city). These warriors wear two things: a helmet shaped like the flaming bat creature they worship, and a loincloth. They go into battle naked to show their loyalty to the Fire Bat.

Now, their loyalty to the Fire Bat means something: it means they're AC 9.

Of course, they're "fanatics" in the literal meaning of the term (see also "fane"). So they won't run away. Their leader is pretty buff, like level 6 or 7 (not looking at my notes right now). But he's AC 9... he's a naked dude. Maybe he can cope with the party, and maybe they can cope with him. Who knows? Many of my encounters are not automatically hostile, but these boys are. I enjoy the fact that I have no idea what the party will do or how things will turn out.

As to your example of Blackbeard's pirates: it really depends on what you mean for them to be. If you mean for them to be super-dextrous and adept at parrying with the cutlass, give them some bonuses... but you should tell the players something like "These guys are uniformly agile and experts with a unique fighting style!" So let them treat the cutlass as a shield, and give them whatever bonus you would give someone for a good Dex (-1 in OD&D, making them AC 7; -3 or -4 in AD&D, making them perhaps AC 6 or AC 5). But don't just set something completely arbitrary and treat it like it's normal.

The rules and rulings (the latter more important than the former) together constitute a language that the DM is using to tell the players about the world that they're exploring. So strange and unique things can and should happen (this is fantasy!), but you don't want to put yourself in the position of talking out both sides of your mouth.

To put it another way: why not have your 1st level PCs fight a Titan? Here's a Titan for you:
Titan AC 9, Move 15', HD 1, HP 4, Att 1, Dmg 1d3.

In fact, your 1st level party could fight a bunch of Titans. They would become locally famous because they killed like 20 Titans their first time out of the village. Or Dragons. Or time-traveling German Panther tanks. Or if you want to keep things down to earth, why not use the above stat line for a bunch of black knights that attack the town? Then the PCs can slay a whole bunch of evil knights. Though I suggest using Titans because if you use black knights the PCs will want to harvest their armor.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jul 12, 2009)

I thought we were all trying to put a halt to edition wars...

Some people like some ways to play the game, others like other ways.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 12, 2009)

To substitute a down pillow for a sack of concrete for one shot, then swap the props again for the next, is simple enough on a movie set.

It seems to me pretty cumbersome for an RPG, though. The very necessity that should be mother to the invention is missing!

I'm not stuck with an out-of-shape actor playing Stupendous Man in a rubber muscle suit. I can just give SM, the sack of concrete, Granny June, the bullets from a gangster's gun -- each element -- whatever characteristics are appropriate to it and let them interact accordingly.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> I'm just curious, when discussing the actual merits of a game, and it's rules how does this factor in to it?  Not trying to be snarky just trying to clarify what you mean.




The way I see it, if the rules and merits of a game are tools in a toolbox, then it becomes relevant to ask how you're using them. How good is the new electric screwdriver if you're trying to use it to drive a nail, for instance. Level 2 kobold slingers aren't tools to show how tough 9th-level characters are (while minions would be). They're more critters that are specialized in the 1-5 level bracket. 



> I disagree with you here to a point.  I agree that in previous editions hp's were a function of  fantasy biology... but I don't see 4e as making hp's a function of narrative role.  Instead they've become a function of balancing out in-game challenge to PC's according to role and level.  This is mechanics not narrative based design.




I should probably call it a fusion of narrative mechanics and the desire to deliver a "play" experience. Things like minions and healing surges aren't there to deliberately _simulate_ a narrative, but at the same time they're great tools for _achieving_ one while still having the rolling dice part of the game be fun as well. 



> Yes, but didn't 3e/3.5 porovide you with the tools for both.  You could have a world populated by rank and file kobolds, kobolds modified to fit the narrative and/or a mixture of both. The problem, IMO, is that 4e only provides one aspect as opposed to giving you both and letting one decide the type of game he wants.




I don't think that 3/3.5 went very far into the idea of the narrative at all. It could do both, but it had a very limited feel for the narrative — as anyone who  wanted to create an NPC with about 50 skill points and 4 hit points found out. It went for mechanical consistency above all — the sage has many levels in Expert not because the mechanics of levels are the most excellent pick for how you should represent him, but because skill points are intrinsically tied to level gain. The minotaur has strong Reflex and Will saves not because minotaurs are naturally more agile and strong-willed than bullish-tough, but because it's a monstrous humanoid and they're all like that. 

Now, again I recognize that such mechanical consistency is absolutely a selling point for other people. It wasn't my cup of tea, though. For the amount of handwaving I tended to do, the system's strengths outweighed its drawbacks by enough that I would still run it at the time, but not so much that I'd run it again now.

(Also my wife is having at _least_ as much fun as me with the new edition, if not more. I realize I'm being a Big Girl when I say that her enjoyment compounds my own, but... well, that's the way it is.) 



> I'm curious, why do you feel 4e is great for.. "the situation will be the foundation for the mechanics"... I guess what I'm wondering is what does it do specifically that makes it great for this type of game.  I think it's a great "challenge based on interaction of mechanics in play game",  but I fail to see how it in any way promotes or encourages "narrative" first.  If anything I feel it promotes mechanics first and applied narrative to fit the mechanics.  Now granted the mechanics can often be interpreted in many ways but that still isn't "narrative" first... it's mechanics first.




Mostly it's actual play experiences talking. I have a good chemistry with the system. The way I work in plotting out a game system, I always start with a narrative in mind, and then I check out the tools available to me. If I have some aspect of a story in mind, I generally have the freedom to put together almost anything I want. Once I have that in mind, it's time to add the game aspects, and well, that's how I see it working.

Some system particulars? Well, I do like role-based mechanics for opponents. Some self-analysis reveals I like to use brutes, skirmishers and minions above all, and tend to move only toward controllers as mid-bosses or end-bosses. Now, that may not be the most mechanically ingenious way for me to set up encounters, but like I said, I start with an idea of what the fight might be like first and then build stats to fine-tune it. (Reskinning monsters is probably just a subset of role-based mechanics, but I love the implementation so much it deserves a separate mention.)

Skill challenges I also like a lot. They allow for some variable definition of what a "scene" is. For instance, take the infiltration of a fort. You can play out the "evading patrols, ambushing sentries, working the locks, and finding your way to the inner sanctum" part as a series of separate encounters... or you can make it a skill challenge, compressing that part of the evening into one intense "encounter" and then getting to the next part. Skill challenges are a way to play with narrative pacing, something I find quite useful.

And for that matter, I also favor the "encounter" structure to more detailed timekeeping. It's another way to play with pacing. I've seen some interesting things happen when several encounters back-to-back are treated as one long running encounter, for instance. 

Do I think 4e would teach a strong narrative style to newcomers? No, probably not (though I'd rank it pretty high among versions of D&D that could encourage it). Does it play nicely with a DM who's already got a strong interest in narrative play? Oh heck yes.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 12, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> I don't see the descriptions as interchangeable skins... to me that's actually patronizing to the players.



How, exactly, is that patronizing? 



> Like "OK now I'm just telling you this cool bit of fluff to spice up the game; I say you're fighting pirates but really it would be the same if I said you were fighting giant battlemechs or rabid fur seals."



I imagine a smart DM wouldn't re-skin a 50ft battlemech as a 6ft pirate. The fact you can create idiotic re-skinning examples doesn't mean _good_ examples don't exist.

Ask a Champions player if it's somehow patronizing to define a Ranged Killing Attack in more than one way (ie, the idea that effects-based rules are somehow patronizing is batty). 



> Now, their loyalty to the Fire Bat means something: it means they're AC 9.



What it means is you decided they're not particularly effetive combatants. One imagines you could have decided differently without insulting your players... 



> But he's AC 9... he's a naked dude.



Can't he be skilled at dodging blows? 



> If you mean for them to be super-dextrous and adept at parrying with the cutlass, give them some bonuses... but you should tell the players something like "These guys are uniformly agile and experts with a unique fighting style!"



Welcome to 4e! Please enjoy your stay.

Really, most of these points boil down to being mired in D&D-isms. There's nothing wrong with preferring a specific edition/set of tools. But we probably shouldn't confuse a preferred set of representational strategies with logic.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> I
> 
> As to your example of Blackbeard's pirates: it really depends on what you mean for them to be. If you mean for them to be super-dextrous and adept at parrying with the cutlass, give them some bonuses... but you should tell the players something like "These guys are uniformly agile and experts with a unique fighting style!" So let them treat the cutlass as a shield, and give them whatever bonus you would give someone for a good Dex (-1 in OD&D, making them AC 7; -3 or -4 in AD&D, making them perhaps AC 6 or AC 5). But don't just set something completely arbitrary and treat it like it's normal.




Hmm....I think you might be getting your AC rejigging seriously off as the 4e system isn't arbitary to what I understand how you mean.

AC of -4 in AD&D translates to an AC of 24 in both 3e and 4e. Again, using your example of the 10th level naked pirate.

A 10th level buck naked human PC can achieve the same thing as the pirate so I'm not sure why you consider it weird.....

Going by the guidelines in the DMG, a PC can almost always achieve the same range of AC as the NPC/Monsters can. THe only difference is that the DMG method doesn't worry about the details as to how, just the end result.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2009)

Kzach said:


> You see only the math.




No, he sees how the math is screwing up his willing suspension of disbelief.  The math is intruding upon his imagination in a way that damages his fun.


----------



## Korgoth (Jul 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Hmm....I think you might be getting your AC rejigging seriously off as the 4e system isn't arbitary to what I understand how you mean.
> 
> AC of -4 in AD&D translates to an AC of 24 in both 3e and 4e. Again, using your example of the 10th level naked pirate.
> 
> ...




When I said -3 or -4 I was referring to Dex bonuses in AD&D... so that pirate would turn out to be AC 6 or AC 5, which are the equivalent of AC 14 or AC 15 in 3E/4E.


----------



## Korgoth (Jul 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> What it means is you decided they're not particularly effetive combatants.




If anybody in the party approaches the 7th level naked guy as if he's an ineffective combatant, I hope that guy has a blank character sheet handy.

As far as being good at dodging blows... sure, they're great at dodging blows. An AC 9 guy standing next to a veteran warrior still gets missed by that warrior 45% of the time. That accounts for his dodging, parrying, etc.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 12, 2009)

As for 4e being 'dry and boring'...

I think some people are looking for the inspiration to run the game from the rules themselves. While some of 4e's fluff is terrific --things like the Shadowfell and the Astral Sea-- there is less of it in the core books.

Other people get their inspiration from other sources; literature, film, comics, etc. For them --ie me and my friends-- we couldn't care less if the rules themselves are inspiring. We're looking for an interesting and easy-to-use task-resolution system. The imaginative bits we can provide for ourselves. 

_Our_ 4e is a rich, colorful, amusing and batty-as-all-Hell experience. Rather like our 3e experience (albeit easier to run!).


----------



## Mallus (Jul 12, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> As far as being good at dodging blows... sure, they're great at dodging blows. An AC 9 guy standing next to a veteran warrior still gets missed by that warrior 45% of the time. That accounts for his dodging, parrying, etc.



Now imagine that the naked guy is even _better_ at dodging blows ie his base unarmored (and unclothed) AC is 5. Can you picture it? There's no reason an NPC who isn't a reject from a Shaw Brothers movie can't have a base unarmored AC equivalent to chain mail. 

See what I mean about being mired in D&D-isms? 

There are lots of ways to represent things in the given game space.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> When I said -3 or -4 I was referring to Dex bonuses in AD&D... so that pirate would turn out to be AC 6 or AC 5, which are the equivalent of AC 14 or AC 15 in 3E/4E.




???? Ok, I think conversing with both Erogaki and BryonD has got me all flummoxed

But then the 4e system isn't arbitary as you explain it. Tack on another 5 points for being a 10th level NPC and the AC in the 4e hits 19/20. Your example would ALSO apply to a PC.

Ok, what level was your PC as something is very weird here....A 10th level PC should be able to hit an AC of 21 without much trouble IMO.

Are we talking about the half-level mechanic or "how the NPC gets their numbers"?


----------



## Starbuck_II (Jul 12, 2009)

Rechan said:


> IMHO, kobolds/goblins have _always_ been treated with a level of comedy. They're presented so pathetic that they aren't seen as a legitimate threat. Like fighting eight year olds with pocket knives. So fighting them *has always been* a joke. *That* is not heroic to me; fighting rats and little joke humanoids is _not_ heroic. No hero in a greek sense ever fought a few rats and called it a battle, even when he first started out.




Princess Bride. Done. Hero who only kills one rat in the Swamp of Desolation (he though they were only a myth).


----------



## Oni (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> But rule 0 exists in 3.x and 4e.  So any one who feels the way you've stated is self-imposing this restriction upon themselves.  I mean I can even be upfront with my players and tell them I will be fudging certain things, it's a player/DM trust thing.  Now again where does one go for the system fiddling and mechanic building systems they enjoyed with 3.x in 4e?




Yes, but in my opinion it just doesn't carry the same weight.  The feeling of restriction is not necessary self imposed, my personal experience is that a lot of that springs from the baggage of expectation on the part of the players on how the game should be approached and played.  Of course the one can buck the system, but why not use something that is more supportive of the style you like out of the box.  So yes, if you ignore the rules of 3.x you can make it do certain things, but that's not really informative of the expected experience is it.  

The fact is we just have different taste.  For you the lack of fiddlybits is a weakness, and for me it's one of the strengths.  I played 3.x for a long time, and frankly you'll never convince me that system is as conducive to a more easygoing handwaving approach.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

As far as "kobolds should not be a threat to high level characters", I can't count the number of times I've seen a kobold barb8/sor4/rogue2 meant to be thrown at high level characters.



Imaro said:


> I guess I'll agree here, even though I have seen more 3.x fans concede that 4e is easier to DM and they could understand why some would like it as opposed to 4e fans who have stated they understand why some *might want more complexity* within their gaming system.



C'mon now. Both are complex in some fashion.

But, I have played Champions. I know a guy who loves Rolemaster, another who loves BattleTech and Rifts. The issue is not "why some might WANT" so much as why it's enjoyed in the first place.

I can acknowledge certain people like sushi, but that doesn't mean I can agree that I find sushi tasting good.

Apparently Simulationist became a dirty word in this thread or something, but really that's how I see it. 3e is in the simulationist department; the rules are the physics of the world, there's a rule for everything. A lot of people enjoy taking the rules and creating the world with it, to the point of determining what level of druid is necessary per x acre of farmland to increase crop yield by y. I can acknowledge that people like Sim type games, and they would want a game that suits that. 

That is the opposite of what I want out of a gaming system. 

But I certainly believe that the simulationist guy has a right to his game, and enjoy it, and I'm not criticizing it. I would never say 3e is not D&D. As long as I don't have to play it.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 12, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Both are complex in some fashion.



Also, there's mechanical complexity and non-mechanical complexity. A campaign using a complex set of rules can still be unsatisfying _simplistic_ in terms of story, characters, theme, etc. And vice-versa. 

Also redux: there's elegant mechanical complexity (ie HERO & Mutants and Masterminds) and inelegant mechanical complexity (ie, 3.5e with all options on).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2009)

HERO is my all-time favorite RPG system.  When I design a PC in HERO, I get exactly what I wanted when I envisioned the PC, 99 times out of 100.  (That last 1 represents campaign rules that inhibit a certain design in some way.)

But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy or even love other, simpler systems.  I have repeatedly sung the praise of Metagames' The Fantasy Trip, for instance- one of the simplest RPGs _ever._

For me, my rejection of 4Ed wasn't about its simplicity, but its overall methodology and design decisions that simply didn't jibe with the way I played D&D for 30+ years...and wished to continue to play D&D.

Or, to put it a different way, I could have embraced 4Ed as a FRPG if it had been called anything but Dungeons & Dragons...as I had done with several other FRPGs over the decades.

Instead, it was as if Metallica had given up metal and started playing rasta-influenced jazz.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 12, 2009)

Rechan said:


> C'mon now. Both are complex in some fashion.




Uhmm. where did I state 4e had * no complexity*?  However I thought it was pretty much the accepted view that 3.x (in the context of designing NPC's, monsters, etc. that we are discussing) had a more complex system.  Thjus the use of the words... *more complex* in my previous post.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 12, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> HERO is my all-time favorite RPG system.  When I design a PC in HERO, I get exactly what I wanted when I envisioned the PC, 99 times out of 100.  (That last 1 represents campaign rules that inhibit a certain design in some way.)
> 
> But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy or even love other, simpler systems.  I have repeatedly sung the praise of Metagames' The Fantasy Trip, for instance- one of the simplest RPGs _ever._
> 
> ...




Fair Enough.

Just don't be surprised that some of us still see "THIS is D&D" when we play 4e.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Uhmm. where did I state 4e had * no complexity*?



That was what I read when I read what you said. Sorry to misunderstand.



> However I thought it was pretty much the accepted view that 3.x (in the context of designing NPC's, monsters, etc. that we are discussing) had a more complex system.  Thjus the use of the words... *more complex* in my previous post.



I was taking it as a whole, in comparing the systems. Because you did say "within their gaming system", not "within making NPCs".


----------



## Mallus (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> However I thought it was pretty much the accepted view that 3.x (in the context of designing NPC's, monsters, etc. that we are discussing) had a more complex system.



It is.

But does a more complex rule set necessarily lead to a more complex campaign? What, if any, is the relationship between the two?


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

EroGaki said:


> For me, unless the battle is truly epic (end bosses, etc) 10 rounds or longer is too long.



In all honesty I can count the number of times on my hand that a fight lasted that long. The reasons for that were either: 
1) big boss fight,
2) a _lot_ of space (like 200 by 300) area we were all moving through, trying to complete a certain goal while dealing with a ton of enemies,
3) dice being so utterly bad everyone was whiffing.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> It is.
> 
> But does a more complex rule set necessarily lead to a more complex campaign? What, if any, is the relationship between the two?




Ok, where did I comment on the simplicity or complexity of anyone's campaign as influenced by 3.x or 4e.  Now if you're trying to start a new discussion cool, but it feels like you're insinuating I made a value comparison on the quality of peoples games based on the ruleset they choose when I've done no such thing.


----------



## Imaro (Jul 12, 2009)

Rechan said:


> That was what I read when I read what you said. Sorry to misunderstand.
> 
> 
> I was taking it as a whole, in comparing the systems. Because you did say "within their gaming system", not "within making NPCs".




Well in al honesty I do believe overall 3.x is a more complex system, especially with all sourcebooks, than 4e.  But at the same time I think 4e is a more complex system than C&C which in turn is more complex than OD&D or Risus.  There are levels to complexity and I do feel 4e's level of complexity is lower than 3.5's. 

 Now... just so were clear this in no way reflects on the quality of one's game or even my preferences as they can be mercurial (heck I run C&C just like I'll run Exalted or 3.5) but I do think there are levels to complexity.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Well in al honesty I do believe overall 3.x is a more complex system, especially with all sourcebooks, than 4e.  But at the same time I think 4e is a more complex system than C&C which in turn is more complex than OD&D or Risus.  There are levels to complexity and I do feel 4e's level of complexity is lower than 3.5's.




I think 4e's complexity comes with synergies between characters/within groups. Also, on the actual battlefield. I mean, people call it a wargame/boardgame; that's fairly complex imho. 

Also, creating a 17th level character from scratch? Complex. 



> Now... just so were clear this in no way reflects on the quality of one's game or even my preferences as they can be mercurial (heck I run C&C just like I'll run Exalted or 3.5) but I do think there are levels to complexity.



Aye. 

For the record, I think Mallus is just raising the line of question, not accusing. He made the same point earlier, and I think he's just segueing into his point.


----------



## Droogie128 (Jul 12, 2009)

Oh look.. another edition war. This is new and exciting! I'm sure you'll convince the people who've enjoyed whatever edition they've been playing and love to suddenly stop and "convert". Seriously... this is beyond old. I play in a 4e and a 3.5 game and enjoy them both. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Fair Enough.
> 
> Just don't be surprised that some of us still see "THIS is D&D" when we play 4e.




Don't worry about that!

After playing in over 100 different systems, I long ago came to realize:

1) Edition changes are inevitable, and you can't sell Edition N+1 if its identical to Edition N.

2) Some people have fewer "sacred cows" than others when it comes to what is essential to calling Game X Game X.

3) _Nobody_ agrees as to which "sacred cows" are truly sacred.

What hacks me is when people can't or are unwilling to admit those points, and start with the name-calling & condescension.

4Ed and whatever games may be derived from it- including possible future versions of D&D- may be fun to play, but are not and will never be D&D for me.  That doesn't mean that my preferences are superior or predominant, just different...and vice versa.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Now if you're trying to start a new discussion cool...



Yep.



> ... but it feels like you're insinuating I made a value comparison on the quality of peoples games based on the ruleset they choose when I've done no such thing.



Oops. Sorry. That wasn't my intent.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jul 12, 2009)

Imaro said:


> It's not the same thing, because once you create the "Dread Pirate" prestige class... a PC can now, by meeting the requirements of said PrC, attain the same bonus.







EroGaki said:


> The only difference is that if a Dread Pirate prestige class was created, it would *possibly* have an impact outside of that lone encounter. Was the pirate the only such example of the prestige class? Perhaps there is an entire organization of them. And what if one the PC's wants to become one?
> 
> If you just hand-wave it aside, and the PC's have questions, or they desire to somehow gain said benefit (be it prestige class or something else) what will you say? Besides "no, I say you can't. The end." .




So you really pretend for your GM to make up a Bare Chested Prestige class just to justify him as a threat?

really? A whole Prestige class just for one encounter?

really?




EroGaki said:


> "Because I said so" is nothing more than a smoke screen for the DM to *possibly be a tyrant. "Because I said so" implies that at any point in the game, the DM can do whatever he wants to your character.





Okay now I get it. You have trust issues with your GM. You requiere him to prove mathematically everything that happens lest he "cheat" on you.

Well sadly I have bad news for you, in 4E the monsters rules are different than the Players rules. The reason behind this is to ease the work of the DM. No other reason. 

Again, if you want an exact/mathematically/rule obsessed game system maybe 3E is more what you are looking for.* 4E is an entirely new and different game*.


----------



## Oni (Jul 12, 2009)

Droogie128 said:


> Oh look.. another edition war. This is new and exciting! I'm sure you'll convince the people who've enjoyed whatever edition they've been playing and love to suddenly stop and "convert". Seriously... this is beyond old. I play in a 4e and a 3.5 game and enjoy them both. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?




I was under the impression this was a discussion and not a particularly vitriolic one.  If you're not interested in the discussion I have to ask why you're even posting.  Yes blindly bashing games sucks, but screaming edition war the second anyone dares discuss the various approaches of different editions is kind of getting tired.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 12, 2009)

Oni said:


> I was under the impression this was a discussion and not a particularly vitriolic one.  If you're not interested in the discussion I have to ask why you're even posting.  Yes blindly bashing games sucks, but screaming edition war the second anyone dares discuss the various approaches of different editions is kind of getting tired.



I agree. If this is an edition war, what would we call last summer? An edition apocalypse?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2009)

Oni said:


> I was under the impression this was a discussion and not a particularly vitriolic one.




I agree, its been pretty quiet.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jul 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Now imagine that the naked guy is even _better_ at dodging blows ie his base unarmored (and unclothed) AC is 5. Can you picture it? There's no reason an NPC who isn't a reject from a Shaw Brothers movie can't have a base unarmored AC equivalent to chain mail.
> 
> See what I mean about being mired in D&D-isms?




But thos D&D-isms are why some of us play the game, if leaving them behind is mandatory, it's no wonder some people think 4e is not D&D, no matter how good the game is.


----------



## Korgoth (Jul 12, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> ???? Ok, I think conversing with both Erogaki and BryonD has got me all flummoxed
> 
> But then the 4e system isn't arbitary as you explain it. Tack on another 5 points for being a 10th level NPC and the AC in the 4e hits 19/20. Your example would ALSO apply to a PC.
> 
> ...




I don't know where the 10th level thing came from... maybe someone else's example.

The campaign I played in was at level 4 or 5 when I dropped. My elven ranger needed a 10 to hit this pirate... which was the number I almost always needed to hit everything at every level.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 12, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Now imagine that the naked guy is even _better_ at dodging blows ie his base unarmored (and unclothed) AC is 5. Can you picture it? There's no reason an NPC who isn't a reject from a Shaw Brothers movie can't have a base unarmored AC equivalent to chain mail.



But don't his higher HP already partially reflect an improved ability to dodge, parry, or roll with the blows?  If you improve his AC on top of that, you're creating a steeper power curve.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2009)

Yep- kind of like some of the more aberrant 1Ed modules with farmers who were 15th level fighters and the like.

Which is NOT how WotC or 3PPs want to recapture that "old school" feel.


----------



## Eridanis (Jul 12, 2009)

Droogie128 said:


> Oh look.. another edition war. This is new and exciting! I'm sure you'll convince the people who've enjoyed whatever edition they've been playing and love to suddenly stop and "convert". Seriously... this is beyond old. I play in a 4e and a 3.5 game and enjoy them both. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?




The reason this thread is still open is because people have been pretty much avoiding personal attacks, staying respectful, and keeping on topic. Trust me, this would have been slammed closed if it was getting out of hand.

Next time, please report a post you think is out of line instead of posting in the thread and accidentally starting a fight that needn't happen. And welcome to the boards!


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 13, 2009)

Brother MacLaren said:


> But don't his higher HP already partially reflect an improved ability to dodge, parry, or roll with the blows?  If you improve his AC on top of that, you're creating a steeper power curve.




Given that 4e doesn't allow for CON to affect HP after 1st level a la pre 1e-3e, the increasing AC compensates for this. A 4e 10th level fighter with a CON of 20 starts off with a HP of 35 but at 10th level, he'll only have gained 54 HP (6 hp per level after 1st for fighters and other defenders).

The 3e fighter will start with 15 HP and gain on average 10 HP (avg die of d10 + CON modifier) per level after and that's assuming the 3e fighter doesn't get a CON stat booster 

(Hmm..now that I look at it, a 20 CON wizard in 3e actually by around  level 18 will have more HP on average than the 20 CON 4e fighter)

Given that pre 4e, every other defense stat increases, 4e simply put EVERYTHING on the same track....

re: Pirate with AC of 21.
Sorry Korgoth, but when you said that you encountered a bare chested pirate with an AC of 21, I thought your DM had pulled the example pirate from the monster manual 2 which has pirates as 9th/10 level opponents and do have an AC of 23.

As well, exactly needing a 10 to hit everything? That's very weird as well since unless you fight monsters of the exact same level AND role, you shouldn't be needing the same number (generally speaking the range is +/- 2) and that's without incombat modifiers (leader boosting defenses, youre flanking etc...in my experience the range is usually +/- 5 or 6)


----------



## Mallus (Jul 13, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> But thos D&D-isms are why some of us play the game...



Oh sure... I'm not criticizing anyone's attachment to a particular set of mechanics. My point was only that there's nothing inherently unrealistic about a pirate in a flouncy pirate shirt being hard to hit (and that if you really can't conceive of _how_ Mr. Pirate Shirt has such a high AC, you're probably mired in D&D-isms). 



> ... if leaving them behind is mandatory, it's no wonder some people think 4e is not D&D, no matter how good the game is.



Again, sure. But I would point out that there's precedent in D&D for an unarmored person having an AC equivalent to that of an armored one, hence my mentioning the monk ie, the 'rejects from a Shaw Brothers movie'.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 13, 2009)

Brother MacLaren said:


> But don't his higher HP already partially reflect an improved ability to dodge, parry, or roll with the blows?



Yes. A combatant's ability to dodge and roll with blows is represented in D&D by both AC and hit points. You could represent Captain Pirate Shirt's dodging ability strictly by using a higher HP total, or by raising his base AC, or through a combination of the two  



> If you improve his AC on top of that, you're creating a steeper power curve.



I seem to recall higher level monsters/opponents having both better AC's and more hit points in, well, every edition of D&D I've played.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 13, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Yes. A combatant's ability to dodge and roll with blows is represented in D&D by both AC and hit points. You could represent Captain Pirate Shirt's dodging ability strictly by using a higher HP total, or by raising his base AC, or through a combination of the two



The caveat here is that inflating his HP is just as much "Cheating" as it is inflating his AC. Because one has to account for the HP inflation.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 13, 2009)

The matter of expectations to which Oni referred is significant -- but from my perspective no notable distinction between WotC's games. I have no dog in that fight.

The question of "how many rounds a combat should last" may illustrate some of the disjunction. It's not a matter of so many rounds to me; it's a matter of an hour of *real time* versus a few minutes.

Likewise, I neither know nor care much more about "templates" and other such rigmarole than do my characters. That is just another pile of numbers that either reflects a cause or does not, depending on whether the cause is _present_ or not. It does not change nonsense into sense. If I wanted to play an abstract and arbitrary dice-rolling game, I would be off to the casinos.

It is certainly easier to play in the "by the numbers" way when the situation is tightly constrained -- so many characters all of such a level going from one pre-calculated encounter to another. The _constraints_ make for ease, though, not the way, I think. Yet that may have to do with the way I think. It is very strange to me to consider a "story" first in terms of DCs and ACs and levels and such.

First come the tangible things, the substance and gravity of the world. Mountains are greater than men, shaped by wind and water and fire that outlast species. Creatures have characteristics shaped in turn by their inherited constitutions and by their courses through the world from birth to earth.

"By th' mass, and 'tis like a camel                             indeed." " Methinks it is like a weasel." " It is backed like a weasel." " Or like a whale." " Very like a whale."

Somehow, amorphous mathematical vapors just don't satisfy me. Is it a weasel, or is it a whale?


----------



## MerricB (Jul 13, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> The campaign I played in was at level 4 or 5 when I dropped. My elven ranger needed a 10 to hit this pirate... which was the number I almost always needed to hit everything at every level.




I've seen this happen in my 4e games; it doesn't happen any more. 

If a DM only uses monsters of the PC's level, then you very quickly get into a situation where monster AC has a very small variance. Basically, you need a 10±2 to hit. 

Instead, if you follow the encounter guidelines from the DM, and use a mix of monster levels (IIRC, it can be up to 4 higher or lower than the party), then you get 10±6, or a range of 4 to 16 for your to hit number! 

Getting trapped by the "only opponents of the same level" is too easy to fall into, despite it not actually being how the game is presented. 

Cheers!


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 13, 2009)

> Getting trapped by the "only opponents of the same level" is too easy to fall into, despite it not actually being how the game is presented.



Yes, indeed! The designers are sometimes blamed for "rules" that players themselves have imposed.

On the other hand, I think the designers have time and again listened to the players, and shaped their designs to accommodate what they have heard. Thus, Oni's point about expectations points to an ongoing dialog -- one to which some D&Ders are for a while (and perhaps some others for another while) largely treated as irrelevant.


----------



## Azgulor (Jul 13, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.




Preach it, amigo!


Oh, and, like, gamism sucks worse, dude.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 13, 2009)

> I could have embraced 4Ed as a FRPG if it had been called anything but Dungeons & Dragons.



That _is_ the root and thorny problem. There should be no (or at least fewer) "edition wars" but for a certain party's curious concept of "editions".

*Pokethulhu* is a delightful game, but it is not *Call of Cthulhu*. Likewise, Issaries' *Hero Quest* is not *RuneQuest* (and not Milton Bradley's Hero Quest, either).

What is in a name? The thing named, and one's relationship with it. A rose by any name might smell as sweet, but if Rose is one's sweetheart then it matters _which_ girl one kisses -- a substitute just won't do.


----------



## EroGaki (Jul 13, 2009)

cangrejoide said:


> So you really pretend for your GM to make up a Bare Chested Prestige class just to justify him as a threat?
> 
> really? A whole Prestige class just for one encounter?
> 
> ...




First off, I don't appreciate the snarkiness of your post. Second, I don't have trust issues with my DM; I just certain expectations and ideas of how a D&D game should be run. This might be different than yours, and that's fine, but don't try to play me off as some brat who whines when he doesn't get his way; rudeness is not needed in an intelligent conversation, I would hope.

Third, I don't play 4E for one of the reasons you just listed. Snark aside, I realize the game isn't for me. Hence, I play 3E. Again, I guess I have a different DMing style than you, which is fine.


----------



## Anton85 (Jul 13, 2009)

It just seems saying 4e is a good RPG, is like saying Transformers should win best picture. Yeah Transformers is lots of fun if you just want to vedge out, hoot at girls and look at big explosions but, its just not any deeper then that.  

I think 4e is one of the best written RPGs out there (in terms of explaining the rules and certain mechanical elements that get to the core of the matter). However, when ever someone comes up with a situation that shows that the game does not work for their group in a situation, the response seems to be that, "Thats not how the game is meant to be played"

For example the fact that a 9th level fighter cant kill a second level character in one blow is a horrible situation to some groups. There are plenty of fixes (make them minions, just narrate it etc.) but, none of them appeal to me as a DM. 

I want my characters to earn their power and i want that power to mean somthing. 

I want a system where characters can be diverse, and not just be defined in terms of combat. 

I want a system that has rules for situations outside of combat. 

My group tried to construct a trojen horse durring our last session. The best mechanical way we could do it was to turn it into a skill challenge. We didnt use a single skill that would acctually help to build the horse, and the entire thing was a bit unsatisfing.


----------



## Anton85 (Jul 13, 2009)

About the rose thing.......

If i gave a girl a flower and she said, "Oh you gave me a roes, you just earned 10 points!"

And I responded, "Well it is a rose, but these flowers are referred to as poop flowers instead of roses....." What do you think her response would be?

The point is that words matter and names matter. Old Bill knew this better then anyone. When people use that particular quote, i think most of them miss the point. Its not about names or words, its about sensations.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 13, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> On the other hand, I think the designers have time and again listened to the players, and shaped their designs to accommodate what they have heard. Thus, Oni's point about expectations points to an ongoing dialog -- one to which some D&Ders are for a while (and perhaps some others for another while) largely treated as irrelevant.




Indeed. And, let's face it, it's pretty much impossible for everyone who plays D&D to be satisfied. Even within the time AD&D was being developed and released, the game was changing dramatically from the original D&D set! In the years since then...

Cheers!


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 13, 2009)

Anton85 said:


> My group tried to construct a trojen horse durring our last session. The best mechanical way we could do it was to turn it into a skill challenge. We didnt use a single skill that would acctually help to build the horse, and the entire thing was a bit unsatisfing.




Um, how would you do this before?


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 13, 2009)

> And, let's face it, it's pretty much impossible for everyone who plays D&D to be satisfied.



Ah, yes. Who could forget the bitter Bearded Dwarf Women Controversy?


----------



## Rechan (Jul 13, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Ah, yes. Who could forget the bitter Bearded Dwarf Women Controversy?



SHH! Do not speak of the Argument That Shall Not Be Named! It will result in disaster!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 13, 2009)

> And, let's face it, it's pretty much impossible for everyone who plays D&D to be satisfied.




Just wait for that mythical Final Edition, where everyone gets exactly the rules they want because they choose which rules they want for their own games, still professionally designed, rather than relying on an immutable codex of rules that happens to change once every 5 or so years.


----------



## Wormwood (Jul 13, 2009)

> For example the fact that a 9th level fighter cant kill a second level character in one blow is a horrible situation to some groups. There are plenty of fixes (make them minions, just narrate it etc.) but, none of them appeal to me as a DM.




Since my players don't expect me to delineate the "level" of their opponents, that situation has never come up. 



> I want my characters to earn their power and i want that power to mean somthing.




As do I. And they do,



> I want a system where characters can be diverse, and not just be defined in terms of combat.



And this is a situation unique to 4e how, exactly? 



> I want a system that has rules for situations outside of combat.



Again, so do I. Thankfully, I found the skills and skill challenge system. 



> My group tried to construct a trojen horse durring our last session. The best mechanical way we could do it was to turn it into a skill challenge. We didnt use a single skill that would acctually help to build the horse, and the entire thing was a bit unsatisfing.




I'm putting on my 2e and 3e hat and I can come up with nothing except NWP: Carpenter or Profession: Carpenter (in 1e, of course, you could just narrate your 20th century engineering knowledge into the game). On the other hand, this is the sort of thing *perfect* for a Skill Challenge (how about History, Nature and some Thievery to hide that trap door).


----------



## FireLance (Jul 13, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> IMO, the seminal difference between 4e and the prior incarnations of D&D is this: In 4e *The world exists based upon the PCs interactions.* (For example: In this type of role-playing minions make sense. The power of a creature is viewed only in relation to the PCs powers.)
> 
> The earlier editions of D&D believed this: *The world exists and the PCs interact with it.* (For example: In this type of role-playing minions do not make sense. Each creature has power based upon it's place in the world, regardless of the power of the PCs.)
> 
> Both types of play can be a lot of fun, but they are entirely different ways of viewing a role-playing game and, I believe, this is the primary reason for the dissatisfaction many of the the D&D audience has with 4e. The basic assumption of what type of role-playing game D&D is changed.



I was having similar thoughts, but from the DM side of the screen. I believe that the "default" DM style has gradually shifted from being a referee running mostly status quo encounters in a sandbox-style game to an entertainer running mostly tailored encounters in a game with an assumed plot or story arc. Issues such as whether an opponent is appropriate for the PCs (in terms of attack bonus, AC and other defenses, hit points, damage, etc.) and how an opponent is supposed to perform in a fight with the PCs (how hard is it to hit, how many hits are required to take it down, etc.) are only meaningful when the DM sets out to tailor an encounter.

If a high-level party decides to take on an ogre tribe, and becomes bored because the ogres have attack bonuses that are too low to make them a meaningful threat, but have so many hit points that they need three or four hits to kill each ogre, the sandbox referee DM would not consider it to be a problem. After all, it was the players who decided to take on the ogres instead of the black dragon in the swamp or the giants in the hills. However, if an entertainer DM wants to send a high-level party against a tribe of ogres (and for some storyline reason, it _has_ to be ogres*) he will want ogres that are (1) not boring to fight; (2) still a threat to the PCs; and (3) for the sake of in-game consistency, less dangerous than the stone giants the PCs fought last week and the frost giants they are going to face next session. This is the line of thinking that results in the concept of minions. 

Similarly, practices such as varying the opponents' attack bonuses, AC and other defences based on the PCs' level are born out of the desire to create an interesting encounter first, and to justify how the opponents came by those numerical bonuses later, as a secondary concern, if it ever comes up at all. To be fair to 4e, though, there is sufficient scope within the official guidelines (I hesitate to call them rules) for variations in the numerical bonuses of opponents of the same level (usually depending on the role the monster is expected to play in a fight) and for the PCs to face opponents of varying levels.

At the end of the day, though, I believe that most of us do agree that mathematically-sound guidelines are a good thing, and internal self-consistency is a good thing, and mcuh of the sound and fury about putting the cart before the horse is because we simply don't agree which is which.

[SBLOCK=*] IMO, a much better solution would simply be to _never come up with a storyline in which the high-level PCs have to fight ogres_. I personally prefer to confine my use of minions to the lower levels, but YMMV.[/SBLOCK]


----------



## Barastrondo (Jul 13, 2009)

Anton85 said:


> It just seems saying 4e is a good RPG, is like saying Transformers should win best picture.




Why is it such an over-the-top thing just to call an RPG good? I'd figured it was more like "it just seems saying 4e is a good RPG is like saying that blue cheese tastes good on hamburgers." Not everybody is going to like blue cheese. Some people might like blue cheese, but prefer cheeseburgers with cheddar or American cheese only. Yet you can mention liking a blue cheese burger without anyone saying "That's like saying that McDonald's should get three stars in the Michelin guide." 



> I think 4e is one of the best written RPGs out there (in terms of explaining the rules and certain mechanical elements that get to the core of the matter). However, when ever someone comes up with a situation that shows that the game does not work for their group in a situation, the response seems to be that, "Thats not how the game is meant to be played"




That isn't necessarily a personal attack. It's just a way of saying that your play style and the play style the game is built for are different, often in very specific situations. In some cases, the person may simply be trying to offer advice. I prefer to look at statements like that with the benefit of the doubt: does the person mean "Try doing X, it works great," or "Any competent person should have been doing X, what's wrong with you?" Often it's the former.

People who like a game, any game, are frequently trying to share the love. This is a cool thing, even when it's not 100% clear that's what they're doing! It's so much nicer than trying to spread the hate.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 13, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> Why is it such an over-the-top thing just to call an RPG good?



Because he was saying that 4e _is not_ a good RPG unless you're looking for the lowest common denominator, nothing but base, mindless entertainment.

The way I read his comment, to put it in a simpler analogy: Calling 4e a Good RPG is like calling toast with a slice of cheese on it a pizza. It's only good if you haven't eaten for three days.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2009)

And I think that part of that Transformers analogy is because 4Ed is a bit more combat-centric than 3.X, at least at the starting line.  3.X has non-combat skills, non-combat feats, non-combat spells & powers...things relatively absent from 4Ed.

Transformers, if the reviewers are correct, is an action flick that really focuses on action, almost to the exclusion of everything else.

Hence the comparison.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 13, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And I think that part of that Transformers analogy is because 4Ed is a bit more combat-centric than 3.X, at least at the starting line.  3.X has non-combat skills, non-combat feats, non-combat spells & powers...things relatively absent from 4Ed.



I can staple paper wings to my car, but that doesn't mean that I can now say that my car is more flight-supportive than the next car.

Just because the Craft and Profession skills exist does not give 3e a robust number of non-combat options. 

4e has non-combat powers and spells: they're called rituals and utility powers. And feats to increase skills. And magical item creation rituals. 4e has non-combat skills. 

Does 4e have fewer than 3e? Yes. But it's fewer the same way that 2 is fewer than 3. 

There's always an underlying assumption with these arguments that frustrates me: that 4e is the most deviation from all the D&D editions. 

You know what skills were in 2e? _Non-weapon proficiencies_ - it says right there in the name, 'This has nothing to do with weapons'. What were the non-combat related stuff in 1e? 

If you set all the editions next to one another, the one that stands out the most different from the others is 3e.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 13, 2009)

> The way I read his comment, to put it in a simpler analogy: Calling 4e a Good RPG is like calling toast with a slice of cheese on it a pizza. It's only good if you haven't eaten for three days.




I read it more like calling 4e a good RPG is like calling Transformers a good movie. It's fun and entertaining and all, but it lacks depth and substance and if all you're going to do is watch explosions and look at hot girls, you can satisfy this by buying a gun and watching porn, without needing to go to a movie theater. That the movie is marketed mostly at young men and teenagers shows it as a middle ground between boyhood and manhood in the US -- a stepping stone between playing with action figures and pulling girls' hair to entering the military and grudgingly settling for monogamy. 

The implication there being that 4e is _shallow_, not that it's not fun, but it's not something you can invest yourself into, and the sort of fun that it provides can be found in other places as well (board games, video games, whatever), places that actually focus on it. Transformers is entertaining, but prurient, cheap, tawdry, base, and simplistic. It is eye candy, it is pornography, it is nothing beyond titilation.

Note that this isn't necessarily a bad thing for 4e to be, depending on your perspective. I'm not sure most people would say that D&D has any sort of responsibility to do anything but let me have fun. 



> 4e has non-combat powers and spells: they're called rituals and utility powers. And feats to increase skills. And magical item creation rituals. 4e has non-combat skills.
> 
> The Craft and Profession skills does not give 3e a robust number of non-combat options.
> 
> There's always an underlying assumption with these arguments that frustrates me: that 4e is the deviant of the D&D editions.




There's a tangle of assumptions and annoyances that would do well to become disentangled, here.

First, the final bit: a lot of 4e *is* deviant, seen from the perspective of other editions. It switches cart and horse, it sacrifices sacred cows, it is about action and combat not about survival and resource management, etc., etc. 4e being deviant isn't limited to what it does or doesn't do to the combat/noncombat mix.

4e is like every other edition of D&D in that its support for things to do outside of beating things upside the head is sparse. You are meant to fight things.

However, utility powers *are* for combat, by and large. They just aren't attacks. You do things during combat other than attack.

Rituals are not for combat. Skill challenges are not for combat. But every other edition had "rituals" (and had more of them, because they were wizard and priest spells), and we've had some form of skill challenges since the introduction of thief skills, mostly with more granularity and variety than 4e provides, so 4e does offer fewer things to do aside from combat.

4e doesn't offer anything really new, and the things it does offer -- the quantity of skills and rituals -- is significantly less than existed in most other editions.

4e isn't particularly aberrant for D&D in not providing a lot of things to do outside of combat. 4e provides less, but no edition provides much.

But if you were running a fairly combat-lite game before 4e, certainly you can see how 4e provides fewer options for that kind of game than 3e or 2e (regardless of if they provided a huge number or not, 4e does provide less).


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 13, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Just wait for that mythical Final Edition, where everyone gets exactly the rules they want because they choose which rules they want for their own games, still professionally designed, rather than relying on an immutable codex of rules that happens to change once every 5 or so years.



I would not hold my breath, but that very well could (in theory) be roughly the shape of things eventually to come.

Recall that the first two D&D supplements were titled *Greyhawk* and *Blackmoor*, after the first two campaigns. They were in essence presentations of "house rules" (although mostly from the pens of Gygax and his crew even in the booklet attributed to Arneson). In other words, they were not in a sense any more "core" D&D than _The Arduin Grimoire_.

The concept of the game as singular and more or less consistent entity, beyond an identity that was to some extent defined _in opposition_ to identification with any particular source of inspiration, started IMO really to get solidified with AD&D (and the several Basic sets that for so many preceded the hardbound tomes).

The notion that "everything (published by Company X) is core" has played ever more hob with the original tool-kit concept as the product has tended to a more monolithic kernel (to borrow computer operating-system jargon). Inherent modularity has given way to large-scale integration, and the "basic" game has grown into a monster.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I can staple paper wings on a car, but that doesn't mean that I can now say that my car supports flight more than the next car.
> 
> 4e has non-combat powers and spells: they're called rituals and utility powers. And feats to increase skills. And magical item creation rituals. 4e has non-combat skills.
> 
> ...




Neither I nor the original proposer of the Transformers analogy referenced 2Ed or 1Ed, as far as I can tell.  The comparison was strictly between 3Ed and 4Ed.

1Ed didn't have much in the way of noncombat skills- well, skills of any kind, really- but it did have non-combat spells.  2Ed expanded upon that, as did 3Ed.  4Ed dialed that all back a bit...somewhere between 2Ed and 3Ed, by my reckoning.

If I wanted to in 2Ed Players Option or 3.X, I could design a cleric or wizard virtually devoid of offensive capacity.  *Every* spell would be defensive or buffing or otherwise non-combative.  And yes, they can be fun and effective PCs who carry their own weight.

I haven't seen that kind of commitment to supporting non-combatant PC designs in 4Ed- at some point, a PC will be _forced_ to have a combat power, be it a daily, encounter or whatever.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jul 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> There's always an underlying assumption with these arguments that frustrates me: that 4e is the most deviation from all the D&D editions.
> ...If you set all the editions next to one another, the one that stands out the most different from the others is 3e.




I disagree, and I think more than anyone, Mr Browning has hit the nail on the head in this regard:



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> IMO, the seminal difference between 4e and the prior incarnations of D&D is this: In 4e The world exists based upon the PCs interactions. (For example: In this type of role-playing minions make sense. The power of a creature is viewed only in relation to the PCs powers.)
> 
> The earlier editions of D&D believed this: The world exists and the PCs interact with it. (For example: In this type of role-playing minions do not make sense. Each creature has power based upon it's place in the world, regardless of the power of the PCs.)
> 
> Both types of play can be a lot of fun, but they are entirely different ways of viewing a role-playing game and, I believe, this is the primary reason for the dissatisfaction many of the the D&D audience has with 4e. The basic assumption of what type of role-playing game D&D is changed.




So rather than quibling about combat/non-combat issues, I think this gets at the heart of what makes 4E so different to *think *about compared to other editions. In terms of play and from a player's perspective, the way my group plays D&D is how we play D&D, regardless of edition so what irks me discussion-wise is more a muted "bleargh" during play. I would love to see an amalgum of 3.x and 4E brought together into a cohesive whole with some of the "simulation" poured back in. That would be fun to discuss and play (in my opinion of course).

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Rechan (Jul 13, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I read it more like calling 4e a good RPG is like calling Transformers a good movie. It's fun and entertaining and all, but it lacks depth and substance and if all you're going to do is watch explosions and look at hot girls, you can satisfy this by buying a gun and watching porn, without needing to go to a movie theater.
> 
> ... The implication there being that 4e is _shallow_, not that it's not fun, but it's not something you can invest yourself into



Isn't that what I said?  Certainly in more words, but that's what I meant. But then, I have a poor view of Transformers, so.



> First, the final bit: a lot of 4e *is* deviant, seen from the perspective of other editions. It switches cart and horse, it sacrifices sacred cows, it is about action and combat not about survival and resource management, etc., etc. 4e being deviant isn't limited to what it does or doesn't do to the combat/noncombat mix.



IMO the places that 4e deviates from 1e/2e is the same place that 3e deviated, except in three circumstances. 

Races can be any class, no level limits, feats, players can make and buy magical items, no dual classing, no infravision, there are guidelines for adjusting NPCs/monster stats, de-emphasis on exploration, the loss of acquiring/making Keeps, the importance of minis, etc.

3e deviates from them all: everyone behaves by the same rules (NPCs are built like PCs, and PCs can use all the mechanical tricks NPCs use). The emphasis on simulation/rules as physics. The magical item reliance/arms race. 

The only place that I feel 4e differs from the editions before it is the removal of the Vancian system for the Powers system, the system does not support the concept of boys fresh off the farm, and the castration of the Alignment system.

Someone else put it in a way that I like: 4e seems more like a transition between 2e and 3e, than it does coming from 3e. It has 3e mechanical conceptions, but behaves more like 2e.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Someone else put it in a way that I like: 4e seems more like a transition between 2e and 3e, than it does coming from 3e. It has 3e mechanical conceptions, but behaves more like 2e.




In many ways, that's probably pretty accurate.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 13, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Neither I nor the original proposer of the Transformers analogy referenced 2Ed or 1Ed, as far as I can tell.  The comparison was strictly between 3Ed and 4Ed.



I was responding to was your "It's Combat Focused", which I take issue with.

With regards to edition wars and particularly the non-combat argument, I just think that the above assumption is present.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 13, 2009)

Eh, no harm, no foul!

Moreso than in face-to-face discussions- where one can also read verbal intonations and body language- confusion is all part and parcel of debate on the internet!

But as KM pointed out- better than I did, FWIW- 4Ed _is_ noticeably more combat focused than 3Ed.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 13, 2009)

> I believe that the "default" DM style has gradually shifted from being a referee running mostly status quo encounters in a sandbox-style game to an entertainer running mostly tailored encounters in a game with an assumed plot or story arc.



I concur, and note that there seem to be many contributing reasons for the shift.

Those who consider it self-evidently not mere difference but objective improvement may little notice the "shoe on the other foot" factor. I think I speak for more of my generation than just myself in stating that my aim as an "edition warrior" is fervently not homogenization of the D&D scene into conformity with some One True Way -- but to stave off the encroachment of that very phenomenon.

The whole diversity of the hobby today sprouted from the seminal work of Arneson and Gygax. Whatever one's parochial limits to the game (and mine are no less so than yours, I think), they are contrary to the spirit that was fountainhead -- and I would preserve as touchstone -- to all.

Rather than diving from one fad or fashion into another as into a cult, always in Year Zero, can we not preserve the full richness of our shared and growing heritage?


----------



## Rechan (Jul 13, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Those who consider it self-evidently not mere difference but objective improvement may little notice the "shoe on the other foot" factor. I think I speak for more of my generation than just myself in stating that my aim as an "edition warrior" is fervently not homogenization of the D&D scene into conformity with some One True Way -- but to stave off the encroachment of that very phenomenon.



Then we are in the same boat even as we are on opposite sides.

I am an "edition warrior" not because I think it's better, but to push back the "It's not D&D" "It's shallow" "It's just a videogame/boardgame/whatever derogative dumbed down term". It's a position of defense, like yourself.

To make a point, I don't go at length about what I thought of 3e or why I don't play 3e. But I cannot count how many times I've seen 'Yeah well this is what I think of 4e and why I don't play it' in multiple threads. The only complaint I see from 4e-players in reference to 3e is prep-time for DMs.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 13, 2009)

:re Sandbox DMing

I actually think many of the more modren day MMORPGs and RPGS might be to blame for this but not in the way people think (providing tailored encounters)

Many such computer games do allow for free range of the party/PC but the lethality is so jacked up that if you just LOOK at something funny, your PC is dead.

This is all because of the level system whereas in say a sandbox game like the Grand Theft Auto series which doesn't have levelling per se, the threat level across regions remains more or less constant.

Would you wander around Azeroth significantly above your level range even though it has great scenery?

This is why I tend to believe 4e is more suited for sandbox play as the common complaint that monsters don't do enough damage means that you won't get one shotted and players would be more willing to explore.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 13, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> I agree. If this is an edition war, what would we call last summer? An edition apocalypse?



LOL - Let me see if I can not find that XP button.



Anton85 said:


> It just seems saying 4e is a good RPG, is like saying Transformers should win best picture. Yeah Transformers is lots of fun if you just want to vedge out, hoot at girls and look at big explosions but, its just not any deeper then that.
> 
> I think 4e is one of the best written RPGs out there (in terms of explaining the rules and certain mechanical elements that get to the core of the matter). However, when ever someone comes up with a situation that shows that the game does not work for their group in a situation, the response seems to be that, "Thats not how the game is meant to be played"
> 
> For example the fact that a 9th level fighter cant kill a second level character in one blow is a horrible situation to some groups. *There are plenty of fixes (make them minions, just narrate it etc.) but, none of them appeal to me as a DM. *




Notice bold part. This is basically your issue with 4e. You do not like how they have done things. That's fine. But stop saying that 4e can't do this or can't do that, when it's simply because you do not like how 4e has done things. 

Take your example of the 9th level fighter killing a level 2 kobold. I think we can all (or at least a lot of us) agree that baring some very special circumstances, a lowly kobold is not supposed to be a threat to a level 9 character. The level 9 character should also be able to kill the kobold quickly and easily. 4e does handle this. The minion approach is not some weird "fix" imagine by some random people on the internet, but instead, it is a new tool to simulate the increased power of a player character. 

Remember, combat in D&D is abstract. Hit point damage can mean a lot of things. So it doesn't really matter that a kobold has 36 hit points when you meet it at 2nd level and only 1 when you meet it at 9th level. That is just the reverse of your damage out-put increasing and it yields the same result.

The kobold with which you struggled at lower level (you needed 4-5  hits) is very easy to kill at 9th level (1 hit).

Regarding skills: Yet again, it's just you who doesn't like how 4e  handles skills and skill resolution. There is a tool, which you used. Maybe your DM made a bad SC, or maybe you guys just don't like SC's. Still doesn't change the fact that 4e has a solution to the situation.

For what it is worth, I can't see why you couldn't add some of those missing skills that you seem to like to 4e. Make them cost a feat or background points or something, and then add craft or whatever it is you feel is lacking to the skill list. I have a hard time seeing that would unbalance anything. Of course, if you play RPGA, you are SOL.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jul 13, 2009)

*3.5E and Natural Armor*

I'm skipping a lot of posts (this thread has gotten ... quite ... long.)

There is a mechanic in 3.5E which is very similar to the 4E steady AC growth by level.  That is natural armor.

As best as I can figure it, natural armor is assigned in the particular amount which is needed to create a suitable AC for a particular CR level.  There is a partial explanation for it, in terms of the creature having tougher skin, or what-not, but that never sat very well with me.

As a quick example, a Marilith has a natural armor bonus of +16.  That is twice the benefit of full plate.

I think that many concerns over level dependent benefits (AC, BAB, HP, Expected Damage) ultimately translate into concerns over _levels_ as a mechanic.  You could model increases in skill by explicit training.  Hand out a lot more feats as "training options" and have skills increase _only_ by particular training.  (As an aside, doesn't WFRP pretty much work like this?)

To address a different issue raised earlier in the thread, I've considered the minion mechanic to be a simplification of attacks against lower power level creature, where "1 HP" was representative of a single attack being some high percentage (say, 90) likely to kill the creature.  (A kind of renormalization.)  If a level 9 attack does not have that high of a chance chance to kill a level 2 creature in one shot, then I'd say the in-game math is wrong.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 13, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Many such computer games do allow for free range of the party/PC but the lethality is so jacked up that if you just LOOK at something funny, your PC is dead.



What's funny is that in other games, all the monsters level with you. Morrowind/Oblivion is a good example of this; all the enemies increase, to the point that they're dropping "level" appropriate loot. (Trolls and vampirse are the exception, because you need a lot of fire to punch them in the face). 



> This is all because of the level system whereas in say a sandbox game like the Grand Theft Auto series which doesn't have levelling per se, the threat level across regions remains more or less constant.



I thought in GTA, you couldn't explore areas you weren't supposed to be in, because you had to complete certain missions to unlock the new areas?

You can't begin quests outside of your "level" because you haven't completed the quests in order to unlock the bigger ones. Or unlock the area where your quests are located.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jul 13, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> :re Sandbox DMing
> 
> I actually think many of the more modren day MMORPGs and RPGS might be to blame for this but not in the way people think (providing tailored encounters)
> 
> ...



I'm not really jiving with your logic or analogies here. Can you please expand further or explain a little more clearly? Sandbox play to my mind is more built on the characters interacting within a stable well-defined world, not with a focus on character-tailored encounters (what I perceive to be the focus of 4E). Willingness to explore comes from the motivation of the characters (and players), not from less swingy combat.

Every campaign that our group plays is pretty much a sandbox style game - it's what our group enjoys. There is an internal logic to the world and an average militia-man guarding his village will be of the same standard, regardless of where his village is. Part of the fun however, is working out what adventures seem possible, while what other ones seem too hard or difficult. In one game, our group passed up on finding the ancient red dragon and relieving him/her of a certain gem instead preferring the "easier side-quest" of Return to the Tomb of Horrors.

To my way of thinking, I don't feel like 4E would capture the incredible danger we all felt taking on something that we knew was too tough. There's just too much of an in-built safety net mechanically speaking. Am I perceiving 4E wrong in this regard?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 13, 2009)

I guess I should define what sandbox means to me....

A sandbox game is basically one in which the PCs can say "I want to go exploring over THERE" and they decide when they go someplace (barring plot restraints)

In a game with high lethality, players I find are much less willing to do this as an encounter beyond your level will likely get you grokked and you can't run away quick enough (this is the most important thing IMO. PCs need to be able to beat feet when pressed). Keep in mind that PCs technically shouldn't know what exactly is "beyond the hills" unless there's definite information available.

For example, in 4e, there's nothing I can see stopping a party from simply exploring the world a la previous editions of D&D (1e is championed as the best exemplar of this and it didn't HAVE a skill system so the lack of skills like Profession/Craft should have no problem with it) and it's less lethal gameplay is more conducive IMO to players willing to explore. 

A 4e 10th level party is just as dead facing a 20th level monster as previous editions are, but it's more closer to 1e/2e where you can actually take a couple rounds of punishment


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 13, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> To my way of thinking, I don't feel like 4E would capture the incredible danger we all felt taking on something that we knew was too tough. There's just too much of an in-built safety net mechanically speaking. Am I perceiving 4E wrong in this regard?
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise




It is correct that 4e is not as unforgiving as the older versions, especially 3.x. But IMO that makes it all the more suited for a sandbox game. Because when you run into something 10 levels higher than you, instead of dying during the first round, you now actually have options. Stay and fight (and lose) or run. 

So, in  order words, if you want your players to die because they took a wrong turn, then 4e is probably not the right game for you. If on the other hand you want a game that allows your players to live as long as they make the right decisions (baring the usual unluck etc), then 4e works really well.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jul 13, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I would love to see an amalgum of 3.x and 4E brought together into a cohesive whole with some of the "simulation" poured back in. That would be fun to discuss and play (in my opinion of course).




In my 11 years of playing D&D in numerous groups, I have never met a "Simulationist" at the table that was working to do more than DM-proof their personal Rube Goldberg device or Machiavellian plots.

The desire for simulationism, to me, is the desire to pull off unexpected yet reasonable plans that can be retold as an ego-boosting tale.  The guy who builds the linked-portal rings / copper-piece box that explodes when broken like an atom bomb, for example.  Simulationism, as a RP gaming desire,  isn't asking for more granularity and "realism" in worlds; its asking to see the strings and levers that the player can use to their advantage, and the DM can use to interact with the players on a deeper metagame (in the true meaning of the word) level.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Then we are in the same boat even as we are on opposite sides.
> 
> I am an "edition warrior" not because I think it's better, but to push back the "It's not D&D" "It's shallow" "It's just a videogame/boardgame/whatever derogative dumbed down term". It's a position of defense, like yourself.
> 
> To make a point, I don't go at length about what I thought of 3e or why I don't play 3e. But I cannot count how many times I've seen 'Yeah well this is what I think of 4e and why I don't play it' in multiple threads. The only complaint I see from 4e-players in reference to 3e is prep-time for DMs.



I think I'm about as "old school" as anyone more uncouth than venerable Mike Mornard (or industrial Iron Man Rick Loomis) -- but the sense of _pioneering_ is in that context ever so much more evocative to me than slavish devotion to text thereby transformed into a merely "old" museum piece.

I have seen loads of absurdity from some quarters anathematizing "skills systems" and the like. I was (as far as I or my play-testers knew at the time) an early experimenter in the field of the "narrative" game. OD&D is for me nothing unearthed in a "renaissance" but what I have always refereed even though it was considered (from what I saw) passé 30 years ago -- and at the same time I was an early adopter of RuneQuest and GURPS, and a nearly compulsive collector and reader of every work on which I could get my hands.

When AD&Ders sniff about how Dragonborn and Tieflings are This or That (usually knowing even less about This or That than about the races themselves), I just dismiss them as the squares that (Corporation X) Fanboys have ever been.

Come on, really: Dragonewts and Deodanths? Been there; done that; got the T-shirt in 1981.

I don't have a whole lot of patience for that.

But I don't have a lot more for people who insist that Official D&D® should be turned into Something Completely Different.

What is this, Sheep and Shopping Status?

Hobbit and He-Man -- two great flavors that might taste great together (if that's your thing). Frodo, though, is not all _that_, and Sauron is no Skeletor.

Why is this such a problem?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 13, 2009)

cangrejoide said:


> So you really pretend for your GM to make up a Bare Chested Prestige class just to justify him as a threat?
> 
> really? A whole Prestige class just for one encounter?
> 
> ...




Of course, you can still trust your DM. Those numbers for his monsters - if they are in the ballpark of the guidelines, it was probably a fair challenge and you got the right amount of XP for it.

Well, maybe it wasn't fair, because he pitted 10th level monsters against your first level party. But the numbers are appropriate to the level.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 13, 2009)

To go a little more back to the original topic (though maybe not), one thing I particularly like about 4E is a monsters identity and nature is far better represented in the game mechanics then ever before. 

Maybe I used the wrong word with "Sneaky" when talking about Kobolds. "Shifty" might be better. 
But it is definitely a great example of what the 4E game rules do. The monster race "Kobolds" feel different from the monster type "Orc" not just because they are lower level monsters. They also have different abilities. Kobolds shift as a minor action as their racial ability. That makes them a real pest in melee combat, they constantly evade your attacks and reform their battle lines, making it hard for the party to concentrate on one Kobold. 
The Orc instead gets a special attack he can use if he is bloodied that heals some hit points. If you fight an Orc, and you hurt him, you see him lashing out against you and regaining his fighting spirit. 

Compare that to a 3E Orc or Kobold? What is so unique about them? The Kobold is just a weaker threat, but he is not different. The only way you "know" that it should play differently is because the flavor text says so. The "simulationist" rules do not actually support much of that. And if you still want to use your Kobold 10 levels later, he's a Kobold with 10 levels in Sorceror and could as well be Orc with 10 levels of Sorceror - you wouldn't notice the difference by the way the battle played out.

So for me, the MM is definitely not dry or devoid of flavor or fluff. Each monster (or group of monsters) has its unique thing that makes it stand out from the others, it has a shtick, something that _will_ come up in play when I use the monster.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 13, 2009)

Maybe it's just more West Coast (high entropy, mythopoetic, etc.) versus Midwest?

The "final arbiter of fantasy role playing" ain't in Wisconsin anymore, though.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 13, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> That's fine. But stop saying that 4e can't do this or can't do that, when it's simply because you do not like how 4e has done things.



How's this:
For me, there are a lot of things that 4E can not do in the way I want them done nearly as well as other systems can.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 13, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> To go a little more back to the original topic (though maybe not), one thing I particularly like about 4E is a monsters identity and nature is far better represented in the game mechanics then ever before.
> 
> Maybe I used the wrong word with "Sneaky" when talking about Kobolds. "Shifty" might be better.
> But it is definitely a great example of what the 4E game rules do. The monster race "Kobolds" feel different from the monster type "Orc" not just because they are lower level monsters. They also have different abilities. Kobolds shift as a minor action as their racial ability. That makes them a real pest in melee combat, they constantly evade your attacks and reform their battle lines, making it hard for the party to concentrate on one Kobold.
> ...



To me, I see the opposite.

At the very best it is a wash, because 3E is built with the assumption that the DM can add these things in as they see fit.
3E kobolds are vanilla and a whole pile of flavors and toppings are there to be added.  4E kobolds are all chocolate chip.  There isn't anything to stop you from building your own kobolds in 4E from the ground up.  But if you do that then it is just a wash between the two systems.

And even then I give 3E the edge.  You are throwing out exactly the element you are praising 4E for having if you build a different version.  Whereas the variation is exactly what 3E expects.


I do agree that wider differences for 10th level versions of orcs and kobolds (and elves and gnomes) would be very preferable.  I was highly intrigued when this feature was teased for 4E.  But I found the implementation to be underwhelming.  Either way, it is certainly a detail that I would like to see handled better in 3E.


----------



## cangrejoide (Jul 13, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And I think that part of that Transformers analogy is because 4Ed is a bit more combat-centric than 3.X, at least at the starting line.  3.X has non-combat skills, non-combat feats, non-combat spells & powers...things relatively absent from 4Ed.




Your 4E game mastery is showing.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> How's this:
> For me, there are a lot of things that 4E can not do in the way I want them done nearly as well as other systems can.




Which is fine. That's an opinion, and even though I disagree a lot, you are entitled to it. But it was not what the guy I quoted claimed.


----------



## wedgeski (Jul 13, 2009)

BryonD said:


> 3E kobolds are vanilla and a whole pile of flavors and toppings are there to be added.  4E kobolds are all chocolate chip.  There isn't anything to stop you from building your own kobolds in 4E from the ground up.  But if you do that then it is just a wash between the two systems.



I have to agree with M_R, here. Being able to open up the MM and ask myself "what's this guy's schtick?", and to have that question answered in a few short power descriptions, is awesome. You're right to say that 3E gave you options -- lots of options -- for modifying a bland monster and creating something cool, but I fail to see how providing *at least one* interesting dynamic can be seen as anything except a net gain.


----------



## Psion (Jul 13, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I disagree, and I think more than anyone, Mr Browning has hit the nail on the head in this regard:




While I think Joe hit upon an important distinction which has consequences, I don't think it captures the totality and conflict over same. I think you'd be remiss to overlook some of the other posts on the prior page, which I for one am finding very insightful.


----------



## Psion (Jul 13, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> It is correct that 4e is not as unforgiving as the older versions, especially 3.x. But IMO that makes it all the more suited for a sandbox game. Because when you run into something 10 levels higher than you, instead of dying during the first round, you now actually have options. Stay and fight (and lose) or run.




Anyone else notice the assumption here I'm noticing?

It's not that you didn't have options before, just that combat wasn't always an option. But now, combat is automatically an option, where it might not have been before. I personally find enjoyment in having the players think their way around problems they can't fight.

"Combat is always an option" is a design assumption I don't want to see in my games, ever.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 13, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But they _are_ making a meaningful contribution to the party. Because that 4 Minions, if left unchecked, can ruin your PCs. And if you have to "check" them without a Controller, then they cost you.




That is exactly my point. The minions exist simply to provide a fire that controllers must put out. If these artificial constructs didn't exist then controllers could be replaced with more strikers.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 13, 2009)

Psion said:


> Anyone else notice the assumption here I'm noticing?
> 
> It's not that you didn't have options before, just that combat wasn't always an option. But now, combat is automatically an option, where it might not have been before. I personally find enjoyment in having the players think their way around problems they can't fight.
> 
> "Combat is always an option" is a design assumption I don't want to see in my games, ever.




You are the one assuming. But let me clarity.

Example:

The DM runs a sandbox game. The players, having heard stories of the Red Wood and it's ancient elven ruins, decide to ignore the warnings that trolls live near the ruins in great numbers. The players figure they can either parlay/bribe the trolls or run away.

As they make their way through the forest, they are surprised (ambushed) by a couple of trolls.

In 3.x: At least two, if not more characters die the first round. If surprised, they might not even have a chance to attempt a non-lethal resolution.

In 4e: Chances are that noone will outright die in the first round. The players are still SOL, but at least the get the chance to run.

This example illustrates what I meant. I was not talking anything about combat always being an option. That's the whole point. It's not. They are still going to die, but in 4e, they will at least live long enough to have a chance to do something else besides fight. Often that was not the case in 3.x. IME anyway.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 13, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> This is absurd. The designers at WOTC did not design the minion so that it can stroke the egos of players or PCs. They represent the mooks of the world that come in waves (like so many movies, books, etc) and the heroes mow through them.
> 
> Do you honestly believe it was made to help the poor poor egos of players with controller PCs?
> 
> Gimme a break...




Not for the sake of ego so much as to justify the existence of the entire controller role. Announce a game and declare no minions will be used and see how many controllers are in the party.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jul 13, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Rather than diving from one fad or fashion into another as into a cult, always in Year Zero, can we not preserve the full richness of our shared and growing heritage?




Certainly, but let's always remember that if one is requesting some respect for the validity of one's choices, it helps to show some respect for the validity of other people's choices in that very same sentence. There are reasons to play a new game, or a new edition of any game, other than "fads," "fashions" or "cults." Sometimes a new game simply gives you a play experience you enjoy more, and it doesn't matter what the people outside your group think. 

That's the crux of why there are new games and new editions in the first place. If the original version of D&D was all things to all people, we wouldn't have had a wave of derivative fantasy games like Tunnels & Trolls or Palladium Fantasy or Arduin back in the day, much less roleplaying games that take place outside the pseudo-medieval fantasy format like Paranoia, Toon, Shadowrun, Vampire, etc. 

This is not a negative thing! It's like the influx of new restaurants into an area that give people more options about where to eat. Now, that can have some negative effects on a given group if, for instance, you'd be happy eating good old-fashioned comfort food every week at the same restaurant, and now your friends are more likely to want Chinese or Italian or sushi or Thai. But overall, it's good that more people get a chance to indulge in their favorite food because there are more choices out there.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 13, 2009)

I've renamed the thread to make the title less argumentative and to reflect the subject which the original user started more clearly.

edit: Not my intention to put words into the OP's mouth though, sorry if it came off that way. Please feel free to edit it back to something you want (as long as it isn't argumentative).


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 13, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Not for the sake of ego so much as to justify the existence of the entire controller role. Announce a game and declare no minions will be used and see how many controllers are in the party.




I think that _might_ have been true if you're just playing PHB1 and the only "controller" is the wizard.

But now with the existence of the invoker, druid and the upcoming Psion, I'm guessing more people play those classes since they are fun in of themselves.

re: Racial abilities

I really do like how two things in the 4e version of monsters.
a) The low level foes all feel distinct since each race gets its own schtick. Basically, it makes them memorable and distinct a la the classic troglytde (sp?) and you can then still have different types in the same race.

b) Providing more than one detailed entry for the "fodder" races (i.e. the gnolls, orcs, humans, goblins etc of the campaign world - basically the races where the BBEG gets his grunts from). I've always found it a failing that given there was an assumption you would be using lots of the same fodder races, the MMs didn't provide sufficiently detailed entries for the different types. The Monstrous Manual (2e's hardcover) seemed like it was going that way at times but there wasn't enough follow up for me (just changing weapons and HD doesn't make an unique entry)

re: Sandbox play and lethality.
Rechan nails it from my PoV. What I noticed IME, players weren't even willing to go into strange and new places since just hoping for the parley option is a sure way to make a new character (all dependant on how nasty the DM was of course)


----------



## ggroy (Jul 13, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> That is exactly my point. The minions exist simply to provide a fire that controllers must put out. If these artificial constructs didn't exist then controllers could be replaced with more strikers.




Back in the days of 1E AD&D, most of the people I knew who played lower level magic users typically played them like a sniper during combat until they ran out of spells.  Then afterward they would switch to another weapon, such as a staff or dagger, to defend themselves if any monsters got close enough to strike them.

The one obvious scenario I can think of offhand where a 1E magic user could be played like a 4E style "controller" for crowd control, would be a scenario at higher levels (ie. level 5 and above) where the magic user could fire 3 or more magic missiles at once with each magic missile directed at 3 or more different monsters.  If the small crowd of enemies were monsters with a low number of hit points, they would go down relatively quickly.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 13, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Not for the sake of ego so much as to justify the existence of the entire controller role. Announce a game and declare no minions will be used and see how many controllers are in the party.



I am pretty sure I would still play one, and I would expect my character to be very useful. 

Bigby's Grasping Hand or Illusory Ambush are not Controller spells aimed at dealing with Minions. Heck, not even Thunderwave is.


----------



## Kzach (Jul 13, 2009)

Discuss via email, not in the thread. Thanks.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 13, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Take your example of the 9th level fighter killing a level 2 kobold. I think we can all (or at least a lot of us) agree that baring some very special circumstances, a lowly kobold is not supposed to be a threat to a level 9 character. The level 9 character should also be able to kill the kobold quickly and easily. 4e does handle this. The minion approach is not some weird "fix" imagine by some random people on the internet, but instead, it is a new tool to simulate the increased power of a player character.
> 
> Remember, combat in D&D is abstract. Hit point damage can mean a lot of things. So it doesn't really matter that a kobold has 36 hit points when you meet it at 2nd level and only 1 when you meet it at 9th level. That is just the reverse of your damage out-put increasing and it yields the same result.
> 
> The kobold with which you struggled at lower level (you needed 4-5  hits) is very easy to kill at 9th level (1 hit).




Minions actually don't work the way described above because that kobold minion would still die in one hit from that 1st-level party that just came in through the other door in the room.

The minion concept is entirely indefensible outside of a meta-game argument designed to promote increased opponent numbers to facilitate a combat system highly-focused upon advantageous movement and multiple variations on movement constraints while providing a illusion to the player of a sense of power and might. The minions concept falls solidly into a type of role-playing in which reality is based upon the PCs power levels.

Monsters in 4e exist in some Heisenbergian state wherein their "normal" or "minion" status solely depends upon the level of the first party to step into the door. Once that state is fixed by party A, when party B enters the room, the "role-playing handwave" of why minions make sense is destroyed: their existence is solely a reflection of PC power.

joe b.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 13, 2009)

One way to make minions more formidable, is to significantly increase their defense stats such that there's only a 20% chance (or less) of hitting them, while still only having one or a low number of hit points.  They could be the guards which actively obstruct the players from entering a room.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Jul 13, 2009)

EDIT - Never mind this post.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 13, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> Minions actually don't work the way described above because that kobold minion would still die in one hit from that 1st-level party that just came in through the other door in the room.



If you hit them. 

A monsters average life expectation is based on its hit points and the likelihood of hitting it. In a way, you could classify it with a formula like "Hit Points x Defense", with a few extra weighing terms. A Minion at higher level shifts the factor from HP to Defense. In a mathematical perfect XP system, one could actually try, this mythical product value could be a Minions XP value. 



> Monsters in 4e exist in some Heisenbergian state wherein their "normal" or "minion" status solely depends upon the level of the first party to step into the door. Once that state is fixed by party A, when party B enters the room, the "role-playing handwave" of why minions make sense is destroyed: their existence is solely a reflection of PC power.



By RAW, a Kobold Minion is always a Kobold Minion, and a Kobold Skirmisher is always a Kobold Skirmisher.

The selection whether you pick a (hypothetical) level 9 Kobold Minion instead of a Level 2 Kobold Skirmisher against your 10th level happens out of the game during a "metagame" phase - your encounter or adventure design. 




> One way to make minions more formidable, is to significantly increase their defense stats such that there's only a 20% chance (or less) of hitting them, while still only having one or a low number of hit points. They could be the guards which actively obstruct the players from entering a room.



This is also a formidable way of making them more difficult to run. If you give them hit points, you have to track them. One of the things that makes running large battles in D&D 4 easy is that you don't track the Minions hit points. Most of the time, you don't even have to apply status effects to them, since most of these effects come with hit points, and a Minion dies if he takes damage. 

Of course there are exceptional cases. Powers that deal damage without an attack mean automatic death for a Minion. One thing I have considered is to give Minions a Resist X value depending on level or tier, basically giving them a damage threshold. Most attacks that deal automatic damage deal only very little of it. You still don't need to track anything, you just always have to roll damage for a Minion. But that happens most of the time anyway...


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 13, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If you hit them.
> 
> A monsters average life expectation is based on its hit points and the likelihood of hitting it. In a way, you could classify it with a formula like "Hit Points x Defense", with a few extra weighing terms. A Minion at higher level shifts the factor from HP to Defense. In a mathematical perfect XP system, one could actually try, this mythical product value could be a Minions XP value.




I agree, with some reservations. For monsters your concept is true, but the minion effectively reduces one side of the equation to an irrelevant state, greatly changing the durability probability. For example a minion has at minimum of a 5% chance of outright death per attack, which is obviously absent from other creatures.



> By RAW, a Kobold Minion is always a Kobold Minion, and a Kobold Skirmisher is always a Kobold Skirmisher.
> 
> The selection whether you pick a (hypothetical) level 9 Kobold Minion instead of a Level 2 Kobold Skirmisher against your 10th level happens out of the game during a "metagame" phase - your encounter or adventure design.




I agree. I was referring to explaining minions as the poster I quoted explained them. Minion's cannot be said to be the same creature "with which you struggled at lower level (you needed 4-5 hits) is very easy to kill at 9th level (1 hit)." Such an explanation places monsters in a state of uncertainty. That said, this is the most common role-playing reason that I have heard used to support the minion concept.

joe b.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jul 13, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Hobbit and He-Man -- two great flavors that might taste great together (if that's your thing). Frodo, though, is not all _that_, and Sauron is no Skeletor.




  Bad example. I know them both, I love them both, and D&D isn't particularly well-suited to _either_. 

  Try Conan and Cloud Strife (Final Fantasy VII).


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 13, 2009)

I don't think the natural 20 rule exists in 4e....I thought it was there but I don't see it the "attack roll" explanation...so minions shouldn't have an automatic 5% chance of death..


----------



## Mallus (Jul 13, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> The minion concept is entirely indefensible outside of a meta-game argument designed to promote increased opponent numbers to facilitate a combat system highly-focused upon advantageous movement and multiple variations on movement constraints while providing a illusion to the player of a sense of power and might.



There's another reason for them. Minions are a class of opponent that decouple attack and defense values from hit points. Meaning that they can provide a reasonable degree of challenge to a party without too much additional bookkeeping (seeing as they have 1 HP, effectively). 

In previous editions, this class of opponent didn't exist. If a creature could _hurt_ a mid-to-high level party, then it could automatically _take_ a more-or-less proportional amount of hurt in return (and thus requiring more accounting of said units of _hurt_). 



> The minions concept falls solidly into a type of role-playing in which reality is based upon the PCs power levels.



The reality in an RPG is ultimately the backdrop for telling stories with and about the PC's. Most, if not all, role-playing is essentially of this type. 



> Monsters in 4e exist in some Heisenbergian state...



Can we have a moratorium on invoking Heisenberg, please? Pretty please??


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 13, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> I don't think the natural 20 rule exists in 4e....I thought it was there but I don't see it the "attack roll" explanation...so minions shouldn't have an automatic 5% chance of death..




Pg 276 under Automatic Hit.

joe b.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 13, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> I agree, with some reservations. For monsters your concept is true, but the minion effectively reduces one side of the equation to an irrelevant state, greatly changing the durability probability. For example a minion has at minimum of a 5% chance of outright death per attack, which is obviously absent from other creatures.



Yes, it changes the "curve" describing his death chance, but if you were really just interested in "average death probability by round", you could create a fixed point.



> I agree. I was referring to explaining minions as the poster I quoted explained them. Minion's cannot be said to be the same creature "with which you struggled at lower level (you needed 4-5 hits) is very easy to kill at 9th level (1 hit)." Such an explanation places monsters in a state of uncertainty. That said, this is the most common role-playing reason that I have heard used to support the minion concept.



I see it as a "modelling" thing. We use models in a lot of contexts in sciences. Sometimes we use different models based on the scale of what we look into. In Solid State Physics, a lot of succesful models accurately predict the observations without relying on quantum states of atoms or molecules. Trying to use those would be theoretically more accurate, but it is most of the time beyond our available processing tower. The "higher scale" model is far faster and not noticeable less precise. 

Some scientists even say that this is what we should do. I picked the example of Solid State Physics because I read an article about it where that is exactly what the authors wrote. Their model works great, doesn't use quantum mechanics, so don't bother with them until you have to.
And some consider it even a possibility that this is how the "science" in the end will work out - there are different models for different scales or contexts. For certain situations, a model fundamentally (not just because we lack brain power) doesn't work and we need a different one. The first time I read about this was when reading on the Grand Unifying Theory, where people noticed that there is still no testable theory that unifies Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics - it's possible we need to keep those seperated, describe large scale events with RT, small scale events with QM, and maybe we need a third one that only works where the scales "meet" (The Big Bang, Black Holes). Of course, that's still up to debate. It doesn't change that models can be useful depending on context or scale. 


In RPGs, our own brain is usually the processing power. So we should look to use models that work reasonably fast with our brain without losing too much precision. 
One scale in D&D is level. Yes, you can pit level 20 heroes against CR 1 or Level 1 or HD 1 monsters. But you can also try to use a different model for them that's easier to use. Minions are such a model. 

The game rules are not the physics of the game world. They are an abstract model of it. 

Now people could say that switching to the Minion model is too imprecise for their taste. But then, they don't have to use the model. If they think that using level 1/CR1/1HD monsters against 20th level PCs gives them better results, they can do so. They can use Minions to model something different (for example, unique creatures that are inherently "weak" on some level - Decrepit Skeletons or Lich Vestiges, but never Level 10 Kobold Minions). Or just not at all.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 13, 2009)

Mallus said:


> There's another reason for them. Minions are a class of opponent that decouple attack and defense values from hit points. Meaning that they can provide a reasonable degree of challenge to a party without too much additional bookkeeping (seeing as they have 1 HP, effectively).
> 
> In previous editions, this class of opponent didn't exist. If a creature could _hurt_ a mid-to-high level party, then it could automatically _take_ a more-or-less proportional amount of hurt in return (and thus requiring more accounting of said units of _hurt_).




The need to reduce bookeeping is a desirable goal, but I think that reason is at the lowest end of a list of reasons for minions. The main explicitly listed reason what to provide something the players can carve through like butter without allowing the normal rules to get in the way. IMO, the unlisted reason (and the real one, I believe as a designer) is that in 4e there is a goal of multiple opponents per encounter. Minions provide "bodies" for powers and movement dynamics, while offering little threat in return.



> The reality in an RPG is ultimately the backdrop for telling stories with and about the PC's. Most, if not all, role-playing is essentially of this type.




Of course. The question is always in what manner are those stories unfolded and do the mechanics of the game support or detract from the various ways of unfolding.



> Can we have a moratorium on invoking Heisenberg, please? Pretty please??




Whatchu talkin 'bout Willis? 

joe b.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 13, 2009)

re: Minions as a concept

I'm somewhat surprised at the resistance of the minion concept. I mean, isnt D&D supposed to simulate (heh, there's that word again) fantasy movies and books?

And the minion concept is a basic trope of said genre. Did people not think it was well, a failing, of D&D nt to be able to model one of those most common tropes in fantasy fiction?

I always thought the designers were thinking along the following lines.

Designer 1: "Hey, you know what would be cool? Doing that scene in the Conan movies where he takes out the guards with one slash"

Designer 2: "Well, we have kobolds..but then again, once you hit a certain level, kobolds don't remain a threat"

Designer 1: "Yeah, we need something that individually is a threat to the target but goes down easily"

Poof the minion concept.

And I repeat again...The minion concept makes more sense than the rest of the system. Usuaully, when you stab a human with 2 feet of steel, they GO DOWN.

Minions as a cncept aren't a genre-breaking or audience-disbelief thing. It's the fact that the HERO can take so many shots which is what more harder to swallow.

As an aside, remember, pre 4e's actual release, there were strong hints that minions HAD more than 1 hp (remember the vampire minions from the mini-game?) but realizing that this has to be handled by a DM, they went with the 1 hp.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 13, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> By RAW, a Kobold Minion is always a Kobold Minion, and a Kobold Skirmisher is always a Kobold Skirmisher.




So those rampaging kobold minions can be taken out with a stick or a rock from farmer Bob, or from tripping and falling. What happened to being minions only when facing the PC's? A kid can take out a Balor minion on a natural 20.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 13, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> I agree. I was referring to explaining minions as the poster I quoted explained them. Minion's cannot be said to be the same creature "with which you struggled at lower level (you needed 4-5 hits) is very easy to kill at 9th level (1 hit)." Such an explanation places monsters in a state of uncertainty. That said, this is the most common role-playing reason that I have heard used to support the minion concept.
> 
> joe b.




Well it works quite well if you look at it that way. I will grant you that it's not RAW though. Should have been though .

Btw, are we going to see something else (for 4e) aside from Lands of Darkness from you guys, or have you lost interest in 4e? Your posts doesn't sound as if you like it much.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 13, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> So those rampaging kobold minions can be taken out with a stick or a rock from farmer Bob, or from tripping and falling. What happened to being minions only when facing the PC's? A kid can take out a Balor minion on a natural 20.




1. You know, I don't think there's an actual "natural 20" rule in the books.

2. Again, the DM handles things off screen so I don't see why people insist on using the rules to model the world.

I mean, I really don't understand this as it leads to things like

"Wait, why aren't monsters like Wraiths and Barghests completely overrunning the world"

"A ladder is cheaper than two 10' pole? The economy is very strange".

I have always treated D&D as a way for the PCs to interact with the world because if you look too closely, you end up with way more headaches.

I learnt that all the way back in 1e when we tried to "fix" HP so that it made sense. Yeah, that lasted all of a couple of sessions before someone said "can we go back to the old method"?


----------



## wedgeski (Jul 13, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> Minions provide "bodies" for powers and movement dynamics, while offering little threat in return.



I think my guys would like to have a little word with you about how much threat minions represent.  However, the designers have flat out said that minions should be worth less XP than they are now (i.e. they're not as threatening as they should be) and we're still in the Heroic Tier, which is where minions can do the most damage, so your observation will only become more true with time.

Having said all of that, the pure cinematic raison d'etre for minions is plenty good enough for me. I've seen enough roars of approval at the table when someone cuts through four or five in a round to know that it's good enough for my players too. Pure fun, an element with practically no other purpose in life (or death) than to make the players feel like heroes. I like. The fact that I've found interesting uses for minions outside of that (for example, an ad-hoc militia raised by the wizard to go and rescure her friends) is just icing on the cake.

This sandbox-perspective "what happens to a minion when a group of 1st-level spuds walks in" is so far from the fundamental note of 4E as I see it that I wouldn't even dream of asking the question. 4E is all about the players, the world is painted through their eyes. In the spirit of the OP, if there was one fact that I would try and persuade a resistant DM to embrace, it would be that.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jul 13, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> I mean, isnt D&D supposed to simulate (heh, there's that word again) fantasy movies and books?



If it is, it only does so rather badly. Or in a mediocre (and decidedly bizarre / 'idiosyncratic') way, at best.



> I always thought the designers were thinking along the following lines.
> 
> ---snip---



Really? I imagine they looked at minions in other RPGs, some of them not so far removed from, say, 3e itself, and thought 'gee, that works well - let's add that!' - and no, that is not a criticism of any kind. Use what works, from wherever (legally) is probably a good policy.

That said, minions as they appear in 4e (or hey, in any other RPG, more recently published or less so) won't appeal to every gamer. So yeah, I guess whether it's paid off can only be determined by relative sales and the like. . . and I am _not_ going there (again).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 13, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> So those rampaging kobold minions can be taken out with a stick or a rock from farmer Bob, or from tripping and falling. What happened to being minions only when facing the PC's? A kid can take out a Balor minion on a natural 20.



I am just saying what the RAW is. I am not saying that you should have a kid fight a Balor Minion. (Not that a Balor Minion exists unless you create it.)

It's also noticeable that a creature doesn't have to die when reduced to 0 hit points or less. So tripping or falling might knock a Minion out. (though in case of falling, he also might get an Acrobotics Check to reduce falling damage, possibly below 0 points). 

And if farmer Bob attacks kobold minion, the farmer might also be a minion. Is it really surprising that farmer Bob has a fair chance to knock him out with a stick or that the Minion has a fair chance to knock the farmer out? 


It's not as if 1st level D&D 3E Commoners were without chance of knocking out a common Kobold with just one hit. 

The point is that you usually won't bother to even pick stats for such a fight. We just assume either the results we want to have, or the results that seems most likely. If we're rewriting David vs Goliath, that kid kills the Balor with a lucky shot. If we go by likelihoods, the kid dies. 

If you have a kid, the PCs, and the Balor Minion in the same room, things have the potential for something you might consider a "strange" result. But then, the PCs might totally miss the lucky kid because they are fighting against Balor Minions, which probably means there is also _a_ Chthulhu and a Tarrasque in the room fighting them.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 13, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Well it works quite well if you look at it that way. I will grant you that it's not RAW though. Should have been though .
> 
> Btw, are we going to see something else (for 4e) aside from Lands of Darkness from you guys, or have you lost interest in 4e? Your posts doesn't sound as if you like it much.




We're got several 4e releases in the pipeline: we're working on Freeport Companion for 4e, we have a race book called Castoffs and Crossbreeds, and we have Nevermore 4e coming along as well.

And I should state that when I talk about gaming mechanics and creator goals, I'm usually very dispassionate. I'm not a fan of the minion concept in D&D, mostly because I consider it philosophically troublesome in relation to the other design philosophies of the game. I know it bothers others, and I wonder if there would have been a better method of meeting the goal of making the PCs feel powerful (and having enough bodies on the board to push, pull, slide, and threaten) without creating an entirely different "how tough is this thing" abstraction that is in philosophic conflict with the core abstraction of "how things are hurt" in the rules set.

Minions take two different kinds of damage, unlike other creatures. Damage when the PCs are around (1 hp of which is fatal) and damage when the PCs aren't around (which they've managed to survived to live to see the PCs eventually).

As I said earlier, this type of abstraction is indicative of a change in the type of role-playing game D&D is. It's moved towards a game in which the world exists only in relation to the PCs, as opposed to what it has traditionally been, a game in which the PCs interact with a world that functions independent of them (be that at an abstracted level).

Both styles can be a lot of fun to play, but they are different styles.

joe b.


----------



## Mircoles (Jul 13, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> So those rampaging kobold minions can be taken out with a stick or a rock from farmer Bob, or from tripping and falling. What happened to being minions only when facing the PC's? A kid can take out a Balor minion on a natural 20.




There is no Balor minion. The Balor is a lvl 27 elite brute. No one is taking it out in one shot.


----------



## the Jester (Jul 13, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> As I said earlier, this type of abstraction is indicative of a change in the type of role-playing game D&D is. It's moved towards a game in which the world exists only in relation to the PCs, as opposed to what it has traditionally been, a game in which the PCs interact with a world that functions independent of them (be that at an abstracted level).




I just wanted to say that this is a fascinating insight. I am really enjoying 4e, but this sums up about 2/3 of the reservations I have about it.

On the other hand, I love minions and I love the way they're implemented. My philosophy on monsters in 4e is that the same giant lizard could be a solo 2nd level, elite 5th level, standard 6th level or minion 10th level creature. Not just the same _type_ of monster, but the _very same monster_- you know, the scarred lizard with the purple patch of scales on its left side. 

In a more traditional style game, that sort of monster design... just doesn't work for me. 

That's an interesting juxtaposition of what I like and don't like in 4e right there.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 13, 2009)

Mircoles said:


> There is no Balor minion. The Balor is a lvl 27 elite brute. No one is taking it out in one shot.




No books at work. I might have named it incorrectly. Oh well, choose any minion at level twentysomething then.


----------



## vagabundo (Jul 13, 2009)

the Jester said:


> I just wanted to say that this is a fascinating insight. I am really enjoying 4e, but this sums up about 2/3 of the reservations I have about it.
> 
> On the other hand, I love minions and I love the way they're implemented. My philosophy on monsters in 4e is that the same giant lizard could be a solo 2nd level, elite 5th level, standard 6th level or minion 10th level creature. Not just the same _type_ of monster, but the _very same monster_- you know, the scarred lizard with the purple patch of scales on its left side.
> 
> ...




This is exactly how I view the monsters in 4e - and how I think they should be thought of; I'm unsure if this is RAW though. But everything is viewed through the lens of the Player Characters. So HPs scale and distort according to their power level. 

If an NPC is more than five levels higher he should should have extra damage and power;  sandboxes wont work well out of the 4e tool box, but could be house-ruled easily enough.

I'm glad of this design, it allows for a linear character progression and easy maths, but makes it more difficult to get the scope of the DND "world" into mind, as the monsters to monster to NPC interactions are now non-linear and complex.  If you want to create a simulationist worlds from the 4e RAW your going to have some mental problems.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Jul 13, 2009)

Mallus said:


> There's another reason for them. Minions are a class of opponent that decouple attack and defense values from hit points. Meaning that they can provide a reasonable degree of challenge to a party without too much additional bookkeeping (seeing as they have 1 HP, effectively).



If you decouple the three fundamnetal defining characteristics of a 'monster', you are effectively removing it as a 'monster' and putting a skill challenge in its place.

In previous editions, this class of opponent didn't exist. If a creature could _hurt_ a mid-to-high level party, then it could automatically _take_ a more-or-less proportional amount of hurt in return (and thus requiring more accounting of said units of _hurt_).[/quote]
Yes, they did exist.  They were called 'traps'. 




> The reality in an RPG is ultimately the backdrop for telling stories with and about the PC's. Most, if not all, role-playing is essentially of this type.



Like many things, one person's observation is not by defintion universal.


----------



## Pbartender (Jul 13, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am just saying what the RAW is. I am not saying that you should have a kid fight a Balor Minion. (Not that a Balor Minion exists unless you create it.)
> 
> It's also noticeable that a creature doesn't have to die when reduced to 0 hit points or less. So tripping or falling might knock a Minion out. (though in case of falling, he also might get an Acrobotics Check to reduce falling damage, possibly below 0 points).
> 
> ...




In other words...  "THIS IS BATTERY ACID, YOU SLIME!"


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 13, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> We're got several 4e releases in the pipeline: we're working on Freeport Companion for 4e, we have a race book called Castoffs and Crossbreeds, and we have Nevermore 4e coming along as well.



Sounds very intriguing - Is this Nevermore something I am supposed to know what is? Doesn't ring a bell atm.



> And I should state that when I talk about gaming mechanics and creator goals, I'm usually very dispassionate.



Fair enough.



Mircoles said:


> There is no Balor minion. The Balor is a lvl 27 elite brute. No one is taking it out in one shot.



There is one in one of the adventures  (I think it was in the last one)


----------



## Mallus (Jul 13, 2009)

Storm-Bringer said:


> If you decouple the three fundamnetal defining characteristics of a 'monster', you are effectively removing it as a 'monster' and putting a skill challenge in its place.



This seems, well, false.

A Skill Challenge is a series of related Skill Checks used in conjunction to resolve a specific conflict or achieve a goal.

A Minion is a monster that has near party level to-hit and defenses but effectively 1 HP. Not quite a glass cannon, more like a glass handgun.

I'm not seeing the similarity (and my threshold for similarity is pretty low )



> Yes, they did exist.  They were called 'traps'.



If you want to see Minions as motile traps you're certainly welcome to. But you're straining to draw a parallel that's not terribly instructive. 



> Like many things, one person's observation is not by definition universal.



Do you have a counter-observation to offer? One that might lead to a discussion? Or are just pointing out that I'm not omniscient (I'm married, I know that already...)?


----------



## Mallus (Jul 13, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> Minions provide "bodies" for powers and movement dynamics, while offering little threat in return.



I can agree with that assessment, but I think you're underselling the threat Minions are meant to represent. They're different from the previous edition's ubiquitous fodder, the 1HD monster. Minions are meant to hit PC's, and not be auto-hit in return. If you ignore them, they'll harm you.  



> The question is always in what manner are those stories unfolded and do the mechanics of the game support or detract from the various ways of unfolding.



Sure. I guess Minions (and whatever implications some people feel that they carry) don't have an effect one way or the other on the story content of my campaign. All we see is the bookkeeping benefits. 



> Whatchu talkin 'bout Willis?



Invoking Arnold Drummond is always kosher!


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jul 13, 2009)

wedgeski said:


> ...the pure cinematic raison d'etre for minions is plenty good enough for me. I've seen enough roars of approval at the table when someone cuts through four or five in a round to know that it's good enough for my players too. Pure fun, an element with practically no other purpose in life (or death) than to make the players feel like heroes. I like.




For me, fighting paper tigers doesn't feel heroic.  I now know that anything that goes down on one hit was a minion, and was just there to be a minor nuisance.  And if I've wasted anything other than an At-Will to kill it?  Argh.

I much prefer fighting enemies who actually make sense in the world, and don't just exist as a cinematic concept.  AFAIC, the character I'm role-playing is heroic by dint of his actions in a dangerous world, and its much more heroic to actually fight something with teeth, that fights back, that can take a hit and change tactics and come back for more.

Just popping dangerous looking balloons doesn't do it for me.


----------



## wedgeski (Jul 13, 2009)

MrGrenadine said:


> Just popping dangerous looking balloons doesn't do it for me.



Well, you don't fight rooms full of minions (well, my guys did once, but that's besides the point). The balloons are there to make the noise while the clowns in the middle rip you a new one with their pointy teeth. Minions are dressing, decoration, and if you don't think they can hit you, get your favourite PC, and stroll into the middle of a bunch of them, and see what happens. 

Surely not every fight you engage in has to be a bitter struggle to the bloody death? Doesn't that get exhausting?


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 13, 2009)

re: Minions and the world

Just curious. Before 3e and it introduced stats for monsters, did people assume monsters couldn't function in the world since there were no stats for them in the MM?

Do people have this much trouble with coming to terms with Solos and Elites as those two clearly are metagame mosters as much as minions are.


----------



## Psion (Jul 14, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> You are the one assuming. But let me clarity.
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...




I consider that a very contrived example or a very naive one, and illustrates that you missed my point about combat not being the only option. You simply assume that the players stumble into the trolls and get into a combat. That's really back to my take on an undesirable situation or poor sandbox DMing: combat is the only option.

You stumble into a hex with a troll in a sandbox game with a good sandbox DM*, the DM will consider what the prevailing situation in the area is. Do the trolls influence the environment around them? Do the PCs find carcasses? Tracks? Remnant of unfortunates who ran across the trolls?

When you are doing setting driven DMing, the monsters in the hex aren't the only thing present in the environment, and the terrain is more than just something to complicate your power uses.

If this really was the players' fault (e.g., as you said, they assume they can parley with trolls and ignore warnings), then that might serve as a harsh lesson. One that rolling up the new characters should help hammer home.**

But trolls surprising players without warning in a sandbox game? That simply wouldn't happen were I to run. Trolls are not stealth hunters; they are used to ruling by brute force.

* - And really, you could write a DMG to educate would be good sandbox DMs.

** - In BD&D, rolling a new character might be pretty quick. In 3.5, I might contrive to let them live with some major consequence, e.g., they wake up naked hanging over the stew.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 14, 2009)

> In other words... "THIS IS BATTERY ACID, YOU SLIME!"






> The balloons are there to make the noise while the clowns in the middle rip you a new one with their pointy teeth.




    

Thanks to my clown phobia, I now have to rock back and forth in a corner for a few minutes.

And this thread was going so well, too...

THANKS, JERKS. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFHBtu6Nb40]YouTube - Scary Dancing Clown[/ame]


----------



## ST (Jul 14, 2009)

I have to admit I've never understood "The rules must properly simulate activities for DM solo-play". If there aren't characters in a scene, it fundamentally _never happened._ The DM can totally introduce past scenes, off-camera, even I suppose a hypothetical Demon Minion tripping and breaking his own neck somewhere, but it doesn't actually happen in the imagined game world until the DM tells the group that it happened. Before that, it's just game prep. So I just don't see the need for the rules to fulfill that purpose. It's not a part of play.

I _do_ understand that some people prefer symmetric/PC-neutral game designs, where you could run all that stuff without any players present and it'd work out the way you'd want it to. I'm not denigrating that preference. I just don't see that not fulfilling that preference is a design flaw.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jul 14, 2009)

Psion said:


> I consider that a very contrived example or a very naive one...
> You stumble into a hex with a troll in a sandbox game with a good sandbox DM*, the DM will consider what the prevailing situation in the area is. Do the trolls influence the environment around them? Do the PCs find carcasses? Tracks? Remnant of unfortunates who ran across the trolls?
> 
> When you are doing setting driven DMing, the monsters in the hex aren't the only thing present in the environment, and the terrain is more than just something to complicate your power uses.




Funnily enough in my 3.x Age of Worms game, right at first level where the group is trekking to get to some rumoured treasure cave, they see a huge dollop of faeces, smack bang in a clearing by the river. It's pretty fresh, but the scout botches her check. The wizard spots a disturbance in the distance - birds flying everywhere. Scout gets a re-roll when the group hears a strange bellow off in the distance. Ah yes, the mating calling card of the troll - let's get as far away from the river as possible guys [1st level party encounter with Troll averted.]

It was just funny how you guys used the troll example.

However, I will say that the 4E skill challenges system (when done right) can simulate this play well - effectively, that was what I doing back then in 3E. However, in terms of game philosophy, I still think there are some pretty big conflicts between 4E ideals and traditional sandbox gaming.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 14, 2009)

Psion said:


> I consider that a very contrived example or a very naive one, and illustrates that you missed my point about combat not being the only option. You simply assume that the players stumble into the trolls and get into a combat. That's really back to my take on an undesirable situation or poor sandbox DMing: combat is the only option.
> 
> You stumble into a hex with a troll in a sandbox game with a good sandbox DM*, the DM will consider what the prevailing situation in the area is. Do the trolls influence the environment around them? Do the PCs find carcasses? Tracks? Remnant of unfortunates who ran across the trolls?
> 
> ...




I have to agree, I enjoy the sandbox-style play you're talking about here, and its become the de facto way I run my games.  And you know what?  Absolutely NOTHING prevents you from running this kind of game using 4e.  In fact, I've been doing it for over a year now with no hitches.

Probably only about half the encounters my group runs into end up in straight-out combats.  Often there is some other aspect involved as well- subterfuge, negotiations, intimidation, or running away!  While many of 4e's character abilities are combat-focused, that has been true in every version of D&D (even 3.x), and people still roleplay and solve problems without being forced into combat.

I tend to populate the world with people/creatures/places/etc that make sense for their locations first and foremost, and the PCs can go where they choose.  The world is NOT in any way a series of level-appropriate encounters for the group of PCs.  Usually the adventures I give them are things they can handle, but when the PCs have been told there are ogres in the nearby forest and they go there anyway as level 2 PCs, they found a warband of 8 to 12 ogres, complete with a bad-ass leader type and a shaman.  They were warned.  (That also ended with them being subdued and captured, which then lead to a daring escape where they also saved the cousin of a local noble and made an ally!).  Likewise, the party heard about a group of goblins making trouble for a town they had helped early in their careers, and when they went back as 7th level PCs, they found level 1-4 goblins causing the troubles, and trounced them handlily.

I've also used weather and terrain hazards as they explore, and the group has survived flash floods, losing their food and supplies during a blizzard in the winter, and accidentally getting in the middle of a conflict between some elves and shifters that was a long-standing fued.  In those cases, we've used skill challenges, and they work beautifully, despite what the critics online say.  Success was in no way guaranteed, and we RP through the situation until such time as a skill check is needed, and only then do the dice come out.

So I can say definitively that the only thing prventing folks from using 4e for sandbox style play is themselves, and their own preconceptions.  The system works just fine for it.


----------



## Jack99 (Jul 14, 2009)

Psion said:


> I consider that a very contrived example or a very naive one, and illustrates that you missed my point about combat not being the only option. You simply assume that the players stumble into the trolls and get into a combat. That's really back to my take on an undesirable situation or poor sandbox DMing: combat is the only option.
> 
> You stumble into a hex with a troll in a sandbox game with a good sandbox DM*, the DM will consider what the prevailing situation in the area is. Do the trolls influence the environment around them? Do the PCs find carcasses? Tracks? Remnant of unfortunates who ran across the trolls?
> 
> ...




So basically what you are saying is that a good sandbox DM always warns the players when they have ventured into dangerous territory? Which I already did via a NPC - In my book, and last I checked, in Gary's, one warning was more than enough. What you are doing is trying to save their asses instead of letting them face the consequences of their actions. Despite your attitude, nowhere in troll lore does it state that they leave carcasses laying around everywhere where they hunt. In fact, one might be tempted to say just the opposite. Trolls devour everything and leave nothing behind. Besides, the troll was just one example. It could easily have been a stealthier monster (a lurker!).

Anyway, I am gonna drop this debate with you, since instead of learning something, you are more interested in questioning my DM-skills.

Cheers


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Jul 14, 2009)

Mallus said:


> This seems, well, false.



What you are saying is that a normal monster has three dimensions:  Defences (AC, Dex, what have you), Damage, and Hit Points.  Minions don't have that last dimension.  Their hit points are essentially undefined.  If you hit, they are dispatched, if you miss, they aren't.  Powers with a miss component don't trigger on minions, so it's pass/fail.

This is the same as saying a cube has height, width and depth.  Except these cubes over here are missing that last component.  So we have flat cubes with only height and width.  But they are still cubes!  They are just flat cubes the party can kick over easily so they feel heroic.



> A Skill Challenge is a series of related Skill Checks used in conjunction to resolve a specific conflict or achieve a goal.



Which is exactly what combat with minions is:  achieving a goal, in this case an out of game goal to make the players feel like big damn heroes.

You are probably used to thinking of skill challenges with defined numbers plugged in rather than variables.  You just have to plug the numbers in on the fly with minions.  The equation looks like this, in skill challenge terms:

(Number of minions) successes before (minion damage divided by PC hit points) failures.

So, 10 minions that do 5 damage vs the PC with 30hp:

10 successes before 6 failures.

If the PC can achieve 10 successes, that is, dispatch 10 minions, before those ten minions can deliver 30pts of damage, the PC succeeds.  It's like any other skill challenge.  The applicable skills are whatever attacks the player uses, the DC is whatever defence applies for that attack.  Str vs AC, Dex vs AC, Int vs Will, etc.

The player has the opportunity to 'reset' some of their failures (getting hit by the minions) with healing surges.  Other than that, it is the exact same system as a skill challenge.  In fact, the healing surges only serve to decrease the number of failures before the challenge is over, so it really doesn't change it drastically.



> A Minion is a monster that has near party level to-hit and defenses but effectively 1 HP. Not quite a glass cannon, more like a glass handgun.



Well, as above, if we consider a monster (or 'suitable opponent') to have those three dimensions, and minions are lacking in one of those dimensions, you can hardly say it is a 'monster'.  Like our flat cubes in the previous example, it doesn't really make sense to call them 'monsters'.

Interestingly, the depth of our flat cubes isn't precisely gone, it's simply undefined.  It could be near infinite, in fact.  For example, Blast of Cold does 6d6 and immobilizes the target on a hit, or half damage and slowed on a miss.  Unless the target is a minion, in which case, it does no damage, but the minion is slowed, save ends.  The other kobolds in the encounter, who may have an actual number of hit points (say, 12-15) could all very well be dead, but the minions fight on after a miss.  In this case, the minions have _more_ hit points than the regular opponents.



> I'm not seeing the similarity (and my threshold for similarity is pretty low )



Hopefully, I have provided examples to make the similarity clearer.



> If you want to see Minions as motile traps you're certainly welcome to. But you're straining to draw a parallel that's not terribly instructive.



It's quite instructive, in fact.  If you disable the trap, no more damage, but it doesn't have hit points _per se_.  Well, it generally didn't in previous versions.  Currently, with traps having the equivalent of hit points, they are _more_ akin to monsters than minions are.




> Do you have a counter-observation to offer? One that might lead to a discussion? Or are just pointing out that I'm not omniscient (I'm married, I know that already...)?



Sure, I will use your structure to do so:

The reality in an RPG is ultimately the backdrop for exploring a world and engaging in a role. Most, if not all, role-playing is essentially of this type.

It's only 'telling a story' in the broadest sense of relating what happened to other people after the sequence of events is completed.  At the time they are in play, the characters are not telling a story, they are creating a story.  The narrative, that is, the sequence of events and their larger meaning, comes after the events have been resolved for good or for ill.  You can't tell a story while you are creating it, however, as the events are not yet fixed; you don't know what happens next, so you can't know how that relates to what happened before, and certainly not how it will affect what happens after that.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 14, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> And the minion concept is a basic trope of said genre. Did people not think it was well, a failing, of D&D nt to be able to model one of those most common tropes in fantasy fiction?



I know this is late in the thread, but it also captures another genre convention.

The Inverse Ninja Law + The Big Monster.

The protagonists encounter Monster X. The first time they fight Monster X, Monster X is _hard to kill_. It's a bastard on legs. Maybe it has a weak point that's difficult to hit, or a tough hide, or is just durable. 

Later, there's suddenly a _ton_ of Monster X's. But the protagonists mow through them. Not only that, but the protagonists never miss when they're faced with a large number of Monster X's.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 14, 2009)

Mustrum Ridcully said:
			
		

> It's not as if 1st level D&D 3E Commoners were without chance of knocking out a common Kobold with just one hit.



Not to mention 3e 1st level commoners could be taken out by a cat.  



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> As I said earlier, this type of abstraction is indicative of a change in the type of role-playing game D&D is. It's moved towards a game in which the world exists only in relation to the PCs, as opposed to what it has traditionally been, a game in which the PCs interact with a world that functions independent of them (be that at an abstracted level).



The abstraction is also relevant to another change.

Previous editions treated 1st level PCs like characters from _Night of the Living Dead_; average joes dumped in the middle of danger, and have to scrap to survive. Granted, the average joes are fighting rats and 1/2 HD monsters, not hordes of infectious zombies, but the situation is just as lethal. They drop like flies. (as someone once said, you kept dieing until you made it to 2nd level with someone, and you felt accomplished).

4e assumes, narrative, that PCs ARE DIFFERENT. They are not NPCs who just strolled off a farm and picked up a sword. They are more potent than NPCs. PCs are more like Ash at the beginning of Army of Darkness, or Buffy in the first season of said show; competent, capable, and being awesome by virtue of being the title character, but they have to work to win. Single zombie-demons aren't the threat, the named villains are the real challenge.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2009)

MrGrenadine said:


> For me, fighting paper tigers doesn't feel heroic.  I now know that anything that goes down on one hit was a minion, and was just there to be a minor nuisance.  And if I've wasted anything other than an At-Will to kill it?  Argh.
> 
> I much prefer fighting enemies who actually make sense in the world, and don't just exist as a cinematic concept.  AFAIC, the character I'm role-playing is heroic by dint of his actions in a dangerous world, and its much more heroic to actually fight something with teeth, that fights back, that can take a hit and change tactics and come back for more.
> 
> Just popping dangerous looking balloons doesn't do it for me.



Did you ever fight low level monsters in 3E? They are just paper. Nothing Tiger to it. Most of the time, they won't even be able to touch you.

Did you ever fight Minions in 4E? They are not paper tigers. They kill you if you ignore them or treat them as if they were no threat. Just like any other monster of their level. It's just that you get 4 of them instead of 1 of them pitted against you. Fighting through a horde of Orc Minions can be a spectacularly rewarding experience, because bodies are dropping left and right. But... they can actually overpower you.


----------



## Hairfoot (Jul 14, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Not to mention 3e 1st level commoners could be taken out by a cat.



That's an overused and redundant example.  I've never seen a single group that didn't recognise the silliness of that and rule it out.  That's a far cry from the current model of "if it's in the rules it must be essential to the maths, so we can't take it out".


----------



## Rechan (Jul 14, 2009)

Hairfoot, perhaps you missed the winking smiley, but I wasn't trying to make a serious point.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 14, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Did you ever fight Minions in 4E? They are not paper tigers. They kill you if you ignore them or treat them as if they were no threat. Just like any other monster of their level. It's just that you get 4 of them instead of 1 of them pitted against you. Fighting through a horde of Orc Minions can be a spectacularly rewarding experience, because bodies are dropping left and right. But... they can actually overpower you.



Indeed. You can characterize minions as mobile traps or skill challenges if that fits better with your view of the world, but they are still supposed to be a threat*. Defeating four minions is supposed to be as much of an accomplishment as defeating a standard monster of the same level.

[SBLOCK=*]Actual threat level may vary depending on party composition.[/SBLOCK]


----------



## Psion (Jul 14, 2009)

Gothmog said:


> I have to agree, I enjoy the sandbox-style play you're talking about here, and its become the de facto way I run my games.  And you know what?  Absolutely NOTHING prevents you from running this kind of game using 4e.  In fact, I've been doing it for over a year now with no hitches.




Good on you.

My post wasn't a commentary on 4e (per se) so much as the expressed philosophy upthread that combat should always be an option.

I believe I've already stated nothing stops you from doing this in 4e. But I do believe expectations can be an obstacle if you have players who carry assumptions about "scaling challenges" with them.

(Ed: And I will note, from experience, this expectation wasn't absent in the average 3.5 gametable, either.)


----------



## Dimitris (Jul 14, 2009)

I still haven't checked the 4e. We don't see a good reason to do that. We know the 3.5e rules. We know the changes we need, to adapt the game to our style of play. We are not in need for another system. We are expecting the Pathfinder rules as a set of new ideas to refresh (not change) our system.

The 4e reminds me a card game. A lot of special exceptional powers to be combined and produce a more interesting encounter. And I am saying "interesting" not necessary more "true" or more "believable" etc. Of course the battle system was always in the core of the D&D system but the discussions I remember were if we have to change this or the other rule in order to produce a more believable scene, depict a little bit better a situation etc. Now 4e adds sets of special powers/actions etc, to make the GAME more INTERESTING, but not to make the STORY more BELIEVABLE and so the EXPERIENCE more DEEP.

And as I have said before there are a lot of really challenging tabletop and card games: Puerto Rico, Tigris & Euphratis, Caylus, Agricola, Dominion etc 

Dimitris


----------



## Psion (Jul 14, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> last I checked, in Gary's, one warning was more than enough.




If that's the way you roll, that's fine. As long as you are willing to have the players re-roll characters.

As for me, I don't consider DMing philosophy automatically correct just because Gary uttered it. I think you've mistaken me for someone else. I'm not so much of an old school viking-hat DM who is out to buzz-kill the adventure because someone didn't quite get that they were no longer playing in a world of scaled challenges that they could invariably take on.



> What you are doing is trying to save their asses instead of letting them face the consequences of their actions.




You are mischaracterizing my position. There would certainly be consequences. But weighing the impact to fun at the table of having to stop and re-roll characters, I might let them get by with consequences that have less impact than the one simply plugging into the combat system would naively lead me to.

But there would be consequences. And I would hope that they learned a thing or two about the dangers of the world they live in for the next time they stumble into bigger trouble than they are ready to face. If that lesson didn't take, the next time the lesson might need a bit more sting, and less generosity might be required.

But if you think I'm going to be shamed for approaching the situation generously, you'd be mistaken. It's _indispensable_ for enjoyable sandbox play. Letting the players wander around as if they were blind in a minefield is not conducive to enjoyable sandbox play.



> Despite your attitude, nowhere in troll lore does it state that they leave carcasses laying around everywhere where they hunt. In fact, one might be tempted to say just the opposite. Trolls devour everything and leave nothing behind. Besides, the troll was just one example. It could easily have been a stealthier monster (a lurker!).




That's fine. If the party wandered into an inescapable deathtrap with no chance that the player's actions could facilitate their escape, I'd be wrong then, too.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 14, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I know this is late in the thread, but it also captures another genre convention.
> 
> The Inverse Ninja Law + The Big Monster.
> 
> ...




While this is indeed a staple of genre fiction, that fact does not make such a convention any less stupid.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 14, 2009)

Hairfoot said:


> That's an overused and redundant example.  I've never seen a single group that didn't recognise the silliness of that and rule it out.  That's a far cry from the current model of "if it's in the rules it must be essential to the maths, so we can't take it out".




Moreover, that example would be dealt with simply by following the guidelines in the DMG re: ineffective attacks.


RC


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 14, 2009)

Hairfoot said:


> That's an overused and redundant example.  I've never seen a single group that didn't recognise the silliness of that and rule it out.  That's a far cry from the current model of "if it's in the rules it must be essential to the maths, so we can't take it out".




Ah, I know Rechan was just joking about the cat but there _IS_ something I would like to point out.

If the mechanics of the gameworld are represented in the rules, why are you throwing out the rules? Isn't this tantamount to saying that the mechanics DO NOT model the world?

(As an aside, I thought the 3.x DMG explicitly said to ignore this type of attack anyway?)

EDIT: Sandbox play

Ok, Psion I'm really getting confused....If you're giving hints as to what is over _THERE_, aren't you basically dictating where they'll go. 

My understanding of sandbox play was that the "players" have to find out themselves by either research or first hand experience and not by the DM dropping hints such as "trolls live here and you can see their evidence".

As Rechan points out, what happens if it is a displacer beast, a creature known for being stealthy?

(this discussion has been interesting since the terms being used by everyone seems to be highly dependant on their frame of reference)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 14, 2009)

ST said:


> I have to admit I've never understood "The rules must properly simulate activities for DM solo-play". If there aren't characters in a scene, it fundamentally _never happened._ The DM can totally introduce past scenes, off-camera, even I suppose a hypothetical Demon Minion tripping and breaking his own neck somewhere, but it doesn't actually happen in the imagined game world until the DM tells the group that it happened. Before that, it's just game prep. So I just don't see the need for the rules to fulfill that purpose. It's not a part of play.
> 
> I _do_ understand that some people prefer symmetric/PC-neutral game designs, where you could run all that stuff without any players present and it'd work out the way you'd want it to. I'm not denigrating that preference. I just don't see that not fulfilling that preference is a design flaw.




The DM can always determine the outcome of events that do not involve the PC's without resolution mechanics. A consistently run game world populated with constructs that have stable objective attributes in relation to one another aid in making those outcomes more logical. If there are things in the world with a value that can shift depending on who is or is not present, then a logical determination of an outcome for a given event becomes harder to make.

I could perhaps buy into the minion nonsense if there were any rhyme or reason to the minion status and it was applied across the world as a whole. For example if a given creature was treated as a minion to anything X number of levels over it's own at least there would be some benchmark for making the determination. It would have to apply equally to PC's and monsters of course. A 1st level PC charging in against a level 10 dragon should be swatted like a fly. A minion of "equal" level to a regular monster (or the PC's) just doesn't make sense. 

If there are two monsters of the same level standing next to each other what exactly makes one a minion and the other not? Aside from the MM saying so that is.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Moreover, that example would be dealt with simply by following the guidelines in the DMG re: ineffective attacks.
> 
> 
> RC



IIRC, the core rules give you the rules for the level 1 Commoner and the DMG contains the cat statistics? What are the cat statistics for - if it can't kill the Commoner, who can it use these attacks on? 
Aside from this, I seem to remember that the rule on ineffective attacks mostly applies to attacking objects, not creatures? 

BUT: 
No, don't answer. The Cat vs Commoner thing is just a joke and it does not say anything at all about the quality of a game system or play style or whatever. Some designer thought it would be could to have some statistics for a cat, doesn't mean the system is flawed. It's just that the specific way he chose to model it with the system is flawed. That happens all the time. 

The only thing it highlights is how you can use models "wrong" and that you have to put some thought into it. The Cat vs Commoner thing is an example of a model used "wrong" because the model makes a prediction that doesn't mesh with your expectations, based on believability concerns.

Deciding that level 10 parties don't fight level 1 Kobold Skirmishers but Level 10 Kobold Minions is similar, but with another goal - instead of being concerned with believability, you think about the gameplay experience. 

But the rules do not make any assumptions regarding this. They don't tell you have to switch a Kobold Skirmisher to a Kobold Minion or anything. If you find this unrealistic or inconsistent, you ignore this option. The rules give you the guidelines to tell you that a level 1 monster against a level 10 party is not a good challenge. But that doesn't mean the system makes it impossible to do it. It is just not a good challenge. It doesn't force you to adopt a new playstyle where everything is "level appropriate". The naive assumption put forth by the guidelines is more that you don't send Kobolds against a level 10 party by default, not that you come up with Kobold Minion stats - if you want to keep it challenging.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The DM can always determine the outcome of events that do not involve the PC's without resolution mechanics. A consistently run game world populated with constructs that have stable objective attributes in relation to one another aid in making those outcomes more logical. If there are things in the world with a value that can shift depending on who is or is not present, then a logical determination of an outcome for a given event becomes harder to make.
> 
> I could perhaps buy into the minion nonsense if there were any rhyme or reason to the minion status and it was applied across the world as a whole. For example if a given creature was treated as a minion to anything X number of levels over it's own at least there would be some benchmark for making the determination. It would have to apply equally to PC's and monsters of course. A 1st level PC charging in against a level 10 dragon should be swatted like a fly. A minion of "equal" level to a regular monster (or the PC's) just doesn't make sense.
> 
> If there are two monsters of the same level standing next to each other what exactly makes one a minion and the other not? Aside from the MM saying so that is.



The Minion is the poorly trained, physically weaker, badly equipped one, with poorer morale, compared to the other. 

What makes one medium size guy a Level 10 guy and another medium size guy a Level 1 guy? 

What makes one uninjured guy have 20 hit points and another uninjured guy have 40 hit points?


----------



## Pbartender (Jul 14, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What are the cat statistics for - if it can't kill the Commoner, who can it use these attacks on?
> 
> ...
> 
> Some designer thought it would be could to have some statistics for a cat, doesn't mean the system is flawed. It's just that the specific way he chose to model it with the system is flawed. That happens all the time.




They included cats for the sole purpose of being Wizards' familiars, of course. They needed the stats because the cat will be following the wizard around and will potentially be involved in the same combats the wizard is.

Had the cat been rendered unable to kill a commoner, inevitably someone would have complained, "A cat can't kill rats and birds, either...  how's it going to eat?"


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

ST said:


> I have to admit I've never understood "The rules must properly simulate activities for DM solo-play".




I would guess that's because no one's really advocating such. Well, that is not in the way that I believe you're stating.

There's more play in role-playing games than what just occurs between the players and the GM. For those who prefer playing in a pretend world that exists independently of the PCs, there's the game the GM (and the player) plays alone. In this aspect of roleplay the rules function not only as directions on what widgets can do what while at the table, but as guidelines to how to create a "pretend reality" wherein those (player or GM) who prefer to role-play as if the world exists independent of the PCs find help in creating that independent world based upon the rules expectations.



> If there aren't characters in a scene, it fundamentally _never happened._




As I said, one type of roleplaying is "The world exists to interact with the PCs" type, and what you've posted is the calling-card of that type. That isn't the only type of roleplaying, however.



> I _do_ understand that some people prefer symmetric/PC-neutral game designs, where you could run all that stuff without any players present and it'd work out the way you'd want it to. I'm not denigrating that preference. I just don't see that not fulfilling that preference is a design flaw.




IMO, the design flaw is that minions do not fulfill any other role except to exist to interact with the PCs. This leaves those who enjoy role-playing in worlds that pretend exist outside of the PCs dissatisfied, be those people GMs or players.

Minions are attritting mechanical-devices. They increase the difficulty in making the optimal powers choice to use harder (Damn! I used my daily on a minion!) while filling space based upon a preference for multiple opponent combat coupled with the focus on mobility found in 4e. They perform this function admirably, but they do such in a way that alienates other styles of play.

joe b.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 14, 2009)

Could be worse.

Now, if the commoner is a minion, he can be taken out by the first feebleblow butterfly that flutters on past.


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> They included cats for the sole purpose of being Wizards' familiars, of course. They needed the stats because the cat will be following the wizard around and will potentially be involved in the same combats the wizard is.
> 
> Had the cat been rendered unable to kill a commoner, inevitably someone would have complained, "A cat can't kill rats and birds, either...  how's it going to eat?"



Dang, I just noticed that I invented the Minion as Skill Challenge concept far earlier! 

At some point, I said when a Troll is hunting humans, he is not rolling attack rolls and dealing damage, he rolls Wilderness Lore. 

Different model for different scales...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Could be worse.
> 
> Now, if the commoner is a minion, he can be taken out by the first feebleblow butterfly that flutters on past.
> 
> ...



If can do that, it can also kill a human. Or how are you expressing a Butterfly killing a Minion if not by using some monster statistics for him, or any other way of dealing 1 point of damage? 

I think Minions work well as a "world design" tool, too.

Just like 3E had most people being Commoners, 4E has most people being Minions. You hit them, you knock them out. A great human army is fighting another great human army? Most people on the battlefield are minions. Aim your Catapult in the mass of people - most of them die.

Anyone with real training and experience is not a minion. But in a typical pseudo-medieval army, that aren't a lot.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 14, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> IIRC, the core rules give you the rules for the level 1 Commoner and the DMG contains the cat statistics? What are the cat statistics for - if it can't kill the Commoner, who can it use these attacks on?
> Aside from this, I seem to remember that the rule on ineffective attacks mostly applies to attacking objects, not creatures?






Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Deciding that level 10 parties don't fight level 1 Kobold Skirmishers but Level 10 Kobold Minions is similar, but with another goal - instead of being concerned with believability, you think about the gameplay experience.
> 
> But the rules do not make any assumptions regarding this. They don't tell you have to switch a Kobold Skirmisher to a Kobold Minion or anything. If you find this unrealistic or inconsistent, you ignore this option. The rules give you the guidelines to tell you that a level 1 monster against a level 10 party is not a good challenge. But that doesn't mean the system makes it impossible to do it. It is just not a good challenge. It doesn't force you to adopt a new playstyle where everything is "level appropriate". The naive assumption put forth by the guidelines is more that you don't send Kobolds against a level 10 party by default, not that you come up with Kobold Minion stats - if you want to keep it challenging.




This entire level of challenge thing is a product of bonus bloat based game systems. The reason a level 1 kobold isn't a challenge of any kind to a level 10 character is because of the built-in scaling of the math for the underlying system. When there are assumptions for bonuses and defenses of a given range based on level there will be enough of a disconnect after so many levels that two things cannot meaningfully interact with each other. When bonuses start piling up to the point where the d20 roll acts more like a kicker to the attack bonus this problem becomes even worse.

The scaling issue reminds me of something we discovered soon after we got the Babylon 5 tabletop ship combat game. The game was point based with more powerful ships costing more points and the assumption was that even points would produce a good contest (in theory). Looking carefully at the ship statistics we noticed that the pirate raider fighters could not inflict a single point of damage against any Mimbari vessel (including the fighter) therefore rendering the whole point concept meaningless. If a single Mimbari fighter could not lose against an infinity of raider fighters there was no point in rolling the dice.

This is the same kind of situation that we have in level scaling D&D. It's the reason that ridiculous rules constructions such as minions are needed to provide "challenge" while not being too tough. 

Take a look at the monster statistics and "to hit" tables from 1E AD&D. There were no rules or guidelines saying that a monster or a PC had to have AC X at a given level. Defenses didn't rise through the roof requiring a slew of bonuses stacking just to get the privelege of a 50% chance to hit. Defenses didn't "scale" so much. The end result was that, as levels were gained your character actually improved and hit things more often. 
The higher hit points of tougher monsters gave them staying power and provided for tougher fights. Before the layering of bonuses there was no need to scale defenses higher and higher. Why keep jacking up the hit points of monsters in addition to making them harder to hit based on level?

The overall effect of this was that lower level monsters were not rendered totally irrelevant at higher levels. If the DM handed out too much magic then the party might be too well protected for the lowest level creatures to provide much of a threat. The difference is that it is not the system telling the DM that the PC's should have all these goodies.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think Minions work well as a "world design" tool, too.
> 
> Just like 3E had most people being Commoners, 4E has most people being Minions. You hit them, you knock them out.




I don't think that's the assumption of the game. People have no statistics unless they are expected to interact with the PC in some type of conflict. Also, note from the DMG "A minion is destroyed when it takes any amount of damage."

joe b.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> I would guess that's because no one's really advocating such. Well, that is not in the way that I believe you're stating.
> 
> There's more play in role-playing games than what just occurs between the players and the GM. For those who prefer playing in a pretend world that exists independently of the PCs, there's the game the GM (and the player) plays alone. In this aspect of roleplay the rules function not only as directions on what widgets can do what while at the table, but as guidelines to how to create a "pretend reality" wherein those (player or GM) who prefer to role-play as if the world exists independent of the PCs find help in creating that independent world based upon the rules expectations.
> 
> ...




Really?  Are you honestly going to say that there are DM's out there who do not simply decide who won the Battle of Emredy fields but actually play out, according to the rules of the game, the interactions of NPC's when no PC's are involved?

Are there actually people who do this?  I'm sorry, but I do not for a moment believe that there is a single DM IN THE WORLD who scraps his entire adventure because his bad guy failed a saving throw at level six and died, thus meaning he never actually became a lich.

Every DM in the world simply designs through fiat.  We all do.  There is not a DM anywhere who actually follows the rules when designing adventures.  There never has been and never will be.




> IMO, the design flaw is that minions do not fulfill any other role except to exist to interact with the PCs. This leaves those who enjoy role-playing in worlds that pretend exist outside of the PCs dissatisfied, be those people GMs or players.
> 
> Minions are attritting mechanical-devices. They increase the difficulty in making the optimal powers choice to use harder (Damn! I used my daily on a minion!) while filling space based upon a preference for multiple opponent combat coupled with the focus on mobility found in 4e. They perform this function admirably, but they do such in a way that alienates other styles of play.
> 
> joe b.




Those who pretend to enjoy their world's apart from the PC's should stop doing that before they go blind.  Again, no DM in the world ever designs the way you are talking about.  Not one.

This is a total myth that has been brought up to fuel edition fights.  "We must protect those poor DM's who enjoy playing with themselves."  No one does this.  No one follows leveling rules when creating NPC's, they simply slap on X levels onto whatever they need and away they go.  How did the King get to be a 14th level fighter?  Who cares?  He's a king.  He fought in some wars.  He did some training.  Poof, he survived and now he's 14th level.  End of story.

The funny thing is so many games HAVE minion rules already.  Savage Worlds, for example, makes everyone a minion other than the PC's and a few important NPC's.  Everyone else drops after one hit.

4e just finally caught up with the pack.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> For those who prefer playing in a pretend world that exists independently of the PCs, there's the game the GM (and the player) plays alone.



Oh absolutely. I play that game all the time, to the chagrin of my wife and employers. But that game's an act of writing fiction. I don't need game mechanics for it.



> In this aspect of roleplay the rules function not only as directions on what widgets can do what while at the table, but as guidelines to how to create a "pretend reality" wherein those (player or GM) who prefer to role-play as if the world exists independent of the PCs find help in creating that independent world based upon the rules expectations.



But the rules for the game make lousy rules for the world, even when treated as mere guidelines. Worlds that conform (closely) to rules expectations tend to defy all common sense.

Quick example, 3e. Aging never results in senility, getting hit with an axe never results in limb loss (or an infected wound), an armored horse and rider have no inertia, economics doesn't exist, and so on. 

This is what happens when you extrapolate how a world works from a set of rules designed to facilitate the acting out of adventure stories. Better to see the game rules as a set of interface protocols, between the the players and the fictional world the game takes place in.



> This leaves those who enjoy role-playing in worlds that pretend exist outside of the PCs dissatisfied, be those people GMs or players.



I don't see why this is neccessarily true. 

Our 4e homebrew setting 'pretend exists' outside of the PC's, because the various co-creators and DM's (and players) involved are engaged in the act of imagining it into continued existence. The campaign uses Minions. The two things look wholly unrelated to me.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> I would guess that's because no one's really advocating such. Well, that is not in the way that I believe you're stating.
> 
> There's more play in role-playing games than what just occurs between the players and the GM. For those who prefer playing in a pretend world that exists independently of the PCs, there's the game the GM (and the player) plays alone. In this aspect of roleplay the rules function not only as directions on what widgets can do what while at the table, but as guidelines to how to create a "pretend reality" wherein those (player or GM) who prefer to role-play as if the world exists independent of the PCs find help in creating that independent world based upon the rules expectations.




I don't think that's entirely true. A pretend world that exists independently of the PCs is still subject to the GM's narrative control whenever he wants things to happen. To some, that's a major advantage. If Crescentia declares war on Akklorash, the GM doesn't have to play through the overtures, making NPC Diplomacy checks to see whether the war is averted or not. He can if he likes: but he's deliberately making extra work for himself, and not everyone enjoys that extra work.

I believe that the split here isn't between "whether you think the world should exist independent of the PCs," it's the question of whether the rules are the foundation for what happens in the world, or whether what happens in the world is the foundation for the rules. If a sudden plague sweeps across a given country, one approach is to come up with mechanical effects for the plague and then apply them to each NPC by the rules; another is to determine how lethal it is, what NPCs die, and then figure out rules for the plague that reflect that. It's a top-down vs. bottom-up decision. 



> IMO, the design flaw is that minions do not fulfill any other role except to exist to interact with the PCs. This leaves those who enjoy role-playing in worlds that pretend exist outside of the PCs dissatisfied, be those people GMs or players.




Again, I think you're not necessarily representing the group you're talking about. I like worlds that exist outside of the PCs. I run worlds that exist outside of the PCs. But I don't require them to be mechanical outside of the PCs' interaction. This no doubt comes from the way I played back in college, where dice would come out only every other session or so and half the people we interacted with were never statted, but the concept of a world that exists and does things just isn't married to mechanical presence in my mind. 



> Minions are attritting mechanical-devices. They increase the difficulty in making the optimal powers choice to use harder (Damn! I used my daily on a minion!) while filling space based upon a preference for multiple opponent combat coupled with the focus on mobility found in 4e. They perform this function admirably, but they do such in a way that alienates other styles of play.




Generally speaking, I've found that if you're using your daily on a minion, the DM isn't describing things in much detail, or the players are naturally twitchy. Most players I've dealt with take their dailies fairly seriously, and save them for clear and obvious threats — discerning between rank-and-file orcs and the big badass with the bow who's filling Boromir full of arrows. The only times I've seen dailies used against minions in-game is when a PC throws an area-effect daily against a distinctly tough enemy and catches some minions in the burst. (I _have_ seen some encounter powers wasted on minions, to variable definitions of "waste," but not more than once for any given player. After that they pay more attention to description.)

I absolutely agree that they alienate other styles of play, but I'd have to say they don't really make things harder to strategize outside one of those incompatible styles of play. They add more challenge (do I move through the minion cluster to try and nail their boss with my encounter?), but in a fairly positive way.

Of course, my various groups took very well to 4e. Use that as whatever disclaimer you see fit.

Edit: Gah, with those other two posts, this looks like a dogpile. Hope you take this post in the spirit in which it was intended!


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Really?  Are you honestly going to say that there are DM's out there who do not simply decide who won the Battle of Emredy fields but actually play out, according to the rules of the game, the interactions of NPC's when no PC's are involved?




No. I'm not saying that.

The rules indicate things such as black dragons like swamps. I, therefore put black dragons in swamps. The rules indicate that minions are destroyed when they take any damage. Any existing minion has never suffered damage in their entire life or they would have no life.

This is what I'm talking about when I say using the rules away from the table to create a world guidelined by those rules.



> Every DM in the world simply designs through fiat.




I disagree. Most DMs design world through fiat under the guidelines of the rules. The minion rules are not conductive to world creation because minions are a mechanic aspect of combat, and were not conceived of as a mechanical aspect of an independent pretend world.

joe b.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 14, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> Generally speaking, I've found that if you're using your daily on a minion, the DM isn't describing things in much detail, or the players are naturally twitchy. Most players I've dealt with take their dailies fairly seriously, and save them for clear and obvious threats — discerning between rank-and-file orcs and the big badass with the bow who's filling Boromir full of arrows. The only times I've seen dailies used against minions in-game is when a PC throws an area-effect daily against a distinctly tough enemy and catches some minions in the burst. (I _have_ seen some encounter powers wasted on minions, to variable definitions of "waste," but not more than once for any given player. After that they pay more attention to description.)




When we were learning 4e last summer, my group and I jointly agreed that if a PC uses a daily or encounter power that only affects/hits one minion, the use of that power is not expended.  This does not apply to burst/blast powers that hit multiple creatures, and might only hit one minion due to attack rolls.  We've kept that houserule since then, and while it doesn't happen very often anymore due to players being more familiar with the system, it does occasionally pop up, and keeps the players from feeling as if they have been gypped or wasted a powerful ability.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Oh absolutely. I play that game all the time, to the chagrin of my wife and employers. But that game's an act of writing fiction. I don't need game mechanics for it.




If you plan to use the fiction at the table, rules help. When you do a D&D fiction, it's different then when you do a Traveler Fiction, or a Spirit of the Century fiction. The fictions are shaped by the ruleset.



> This is what happens when you extrapolate how a world works from a set of rules designed to facilitate the acting out of adventure stories.




As in all things there are gradations of rules extrapolation. My previous post indicates what level of rules I'm concered with in world creation. Kraken are encountered in the water. If the kraken's couldn't breath water, I'd have a rules problem with it from the perspective of fiction building.



> Better to see the game rules as a set of interface protocols, between the the players and the fictional world the game takes place in.




That's how I see it. The rules should seamlessly flow from table to non-table. That's the goal for a good rule. Some rules perform well in one place, and not in another. They are rules that are not so good. Minions are one of those rules, IMO, like aging to pick one from your list.



> Our 4e homebrew setting 'pretend exists' outside of the PC's, because the various co-creators and DM's (and players) involved are engaged in the act of imagining it into continued existence. The campaign uses Minions. The two things look wholly unrelated to me.




You're fine with the extrapolation of the minion being different at the table compared with not at the table. I'm not. It's really just as simple as that.

I find the extrapolation too contrary between these two areas for enjoyment because of the dramatic difference it the "reality" between the two. In one area (table) minions die from any damage while in the other (non-table) they are just like regular monsters. And there are many other people who don't like it as well and because of that, I think it wasn't a good design decision as there are probably ways to have the "minion" effect without causing dissatisfaction.

joe b.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jul 14, 2009)

Gothmog said:


> When we were learning 4e last summer, my group and I jointly agreed that if a PC uses a daily or encounter power that only affects/hits one minion, the use of that power is not expended.  This does not apply to burst/blast powers that hit multiple creatures, and might only hit one minion due to attack rolls.  We've kept that houserule since then, and while it doesn't happen very often anymore due to players being more familiar with the system, it does occasionally pop up, and keeps the players from feeling as if they have been gypped or wasted a powerful ability.




That's a good call. My brother also favors letting people make Insight checks to determine "do I sufficiently outclass this guy that I can drop him with a well-aimed shot?", and in some cases to determine whether a creature's lowest NAD (such an unfortunate acronym!) is Fort, Ref or Will. I've adopted both practices, and I think it works out fine. If the players are going to be acting like movie heroes, they should have the confidence to drop mooks without bringing out the big guns, as well as the heroic instincts to tell whether a raging minotaur is likely to be psychically vulnerable or powerfully stubborn. 

Recognizing minions for what they are or targeting weak defenses isn't a game-breaker, enjoyably enough. The only question is if you can make that revelation an interesting part of the game.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 14, 2009)

Minions are a funny thing.  As I've said before, there's a certain zen to minions.  Minions are gamist or narrative; they aren't a simulation of anything in the real world.

If you're treating minions as independent creature types, I think it creates more problems than it solves.  And, more to the point, I think you're missing the spirit of them.  For example...


> The rules indicate that minions are destroyed when they take any damage. Any existing minion has never suffered damage in their entire life or they would have no life.



...takes what's not a simulationist element and treats it in a simulationist fashion.  It's not surprising when it blows up and doesn't make sense. 

This absolutely doesn't make world-building impossible.  It's just a different kind of world-building, and a different level of detail - should the DM choose to use minions in their game.

Say, there's a keep deep in the forest.  I know it's inhabited by 50 brigands.  They have a wizard with them, and the bandit king is a warlord of some repute.  These sorts of details can be set in stone - they're part of the world.  The game statistics of those average bandits, though, could vary.  While the wizard and bandit king may be set ahead of time, the individual brigands could be lower-level monsters or higher-level minions depending on their purpose at the time.

Alternately, as I said, a DM intent on simulation could stat every single one of them out right at the outset.  They're never minions; they're just lower-level brigands.  There's no problem with this; the minions are just an optional shortcut.  If it's important to you that you can stat out the entire world independent of the PCs, you should never use minions.

-O


----------



## scruffygrognard (Jul 14, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Um, how would you do this before?



In 3rd edition, you would use relevant skill checks (such as _profession: engineer_ along with _profession: carpenter_).  In AD&D you would use a secondary skills (from page 12 the DMG) or non-weapon proficiencies.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 14, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Take a look at the monster statistics and "to hit" tables from 1E AD&D. There were no rules or guidelines saying that a monster or a PC had to have AC X at a given level. Defenses didn't rise through the roof requiring a slew of bonuses stacking just to get the privelege of a 50% chance to hit. Defenses didn't "scale" so much. The end result was that, as levels were gained your character actually improved and hit things more often.
> The higher hit points of tougher monsters gave them staying power and provided for tougher fights. Before the layering of bonuses there was no need to scale defenses higher and higher. Why keep jacking up the hit points of monsters in addition to making them harder to hit based on level?
> 
> The overall effect of this was that lower level monsters were not rendered totally irrelevant at higher levels. If the DM handed out too much magic then the party might be too well protected for the lowest level creatures to provide much of a threat. The difference is that it is not the system telling the DM that the PC's should have all these goodies.





Ok, time to defend 3e AND 4e from this assertion.

There's this belief that 3e and 4e are the first editions which "quantified" what a PC needed in terms of equipment and stats.

However, this I find not true....3e and 4e are the first to EXPLICITLY tell you. 1e and 2e tended to "hide the math" from the players.

For example, the fighter gained followers at 9th and this is expected. Take a look at what the fighter GAINED as followers.

You don't think the system was assuming that a 6th level fighter had plate mail + 1, a shield +1 and a spear +1?

As for the "non-scaling" issue,

2nd edition - Human wearing full plate armour + shield (nonmagical  versions of both). - AC 0.

Which means that kobolds and goblins ALREADY can't hit the heavy armour wearing people other than on a 20. 

Let's assume we have a "munchkin" player and he rolled a 17 DEX and the "monty haul" DM (a.k.a, a typical adventure module) at 5th level had provided a full player armour + 1 and shield +1.

AC of -5. So, how many monsters in the MM can actually hit this? Pretty much any creature under 5 HD is not even touching this.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> I don't think that's entirely true. A pretend world that exists independently of the PCs is still subject to the GM's narrative control whenever he wants things to happen. To some, that's a major advantage. If Crescentia declares war on Akklorash, the GM doesn't have to play through the overtures, making NPC Diplomacy checks to see whether the war is averted or not. He can if he likes: but he's deliberately making extra work for himself, and not everyone enjoys that extra work.




I expect GMs to always exert narrative control to the point of mostly ignoring all rules except those that make players question their suspension of disbelief. For some, minions break that suspension because they're handled so dramatically different in the two realms (table and non-table.)



> I believe that the split here isn't between "whether you think the world should exist independent of the PCs," it's the question of whether the rules are the foundation for what happens in the world, or whether what happens in the world is the foundation for the rules. If a sudden plague sweeps across a given country, one approach is to come up with mechanical effects for the plague and then apply them to each NPC by the rules; another is to determine how lethal it is, what NPCs die, and then figure out rules for the plague that reflect that. It's a top-down vs. bottom-up decision.




I think most people employ neither a top-down nor a bottom-up decision, but use a series of smaller decisions made from both perspectives. 



> Again, I think you're not necessarily representing the group you're talking about. I like worlds that exist outside of the PCs. I run worlds that exist outside of the PCs. But I don't require them to be mechanical outside of the PCs' interaction. This no doubt comes from the way I played back in college, where dice would come out only every other session or so and half the people we interacted with were never statted, but the concept of a world that exists and does things just isn't married to mechanical presence in my mind.




The reason why so many people have responded to my post is that they seem to think I'm saying that one must stat things out and use the rules instead of GM fiat, whereas what I mean is that the rules one has for the game influence what type of fiat one performs. If you want Hong Kong action fiat, don't use Rolemaster rules, use Feng Shui.

By introducing a minion rule in D&D that has "turned off" a sector of D&D gamers that don't want to fiat a fiction based upon that mechanical construction. Even within the group that accepts the minion concept, there are those that don't like high-level minions because the concept becomes increasing harder to fiat with increasing power levels for them.



> Generally speaking, I've found that if you're using your daily on a minion, the DM isn't describing things in much detail, or the players are naturally twitchy.




The daily was used to make sure I was communicating how minions can result in misplaced application of limited resources. I don't think it would happen very often, but it does show the point.



> Edit: Gah, with those other two posts, this looks like a dogpile. Hope you take this post in the spirit in which it was intended!




No problems. I'm just talking about rules and how they affect design, so I don't have any skin it it to feel dogpiled.  It's just business to me. I'm always trying to identify mechanical effects and consequences with an eye towards design.

joe b.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 14, 2009)

cperkins said:


> In 3rd edition, you would use relevant skill checks (such as _profession: engineer_ along with _profession: carpenter_).  In AD&D you would use a secondary skills (from page 12 the DMG) or non-weapon proficiencies.




1. Profession does not work that way...seriously, I've noticed people seem to ignore how profession works and put an entirely new spin on it.

2. This kind of leaves out 1e since IIRC, secondary and NWP were *optional* rules.

:re Minions
For me personally, as expected, I LIKE being able to do what my players read and see on the screen. For me, D&D is a way to be Conan or Aragorn.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> No. I'm not saying that.
> 
> The rules indicate things such as black dragons like swamps. I, therefore put black dragons in swamps. The rules indicate that minions are destroyed when they take any damage. Any existing minion has never suffered damage in their entire life or they would have no life.
> 
> ...




But what if I put my Black Dragon in a jungle?  Can I do that?  Or would I have to roll in order to see if my black dragon could survive in a new environment?  

You are right though, minion rules are not conducive to world creation.  However, 1e survived with 25% of the population of the world having 1 hit point and no one bitches about that.  Basic D&D did the same as well.  Normal human got d4 hit points.  Did you wipe out 25% of your populations regularly when you played 1e or 2e?

Somehow I doubt it.  Why?  Because things like hit point and armor class and whatnot have absolutely nothing to do with world building.  They are combat rules, not rules for creating a world.

Heck, even in 3e, a 1st level commoner has 1 hit point 25% of the time.  Yet, for some reason, we didn't have massive deaths occuring regularly in 3e campaigns either.

Think about this for a second when you say that the rules inform world building.  25% of ALL 1st level commoners, regardless of race, in 3e have 1 hit point.  The overwhelming majority of the population of any humanoid nation are 1st level commoners, meaning that in most nations, (or tribes, or nation states, what have you) somewhat less than 25% of the people, lets be generous and say 20% of the population, has ONE HIT POINT.

Yet, this isn't a problem.

If you could ignore that in every other edition of D&D, why is suddenly having minions a major stumbling block?


----------



## Obryn (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> You're fine with the extrapolation of the minion being different at the table compared with not at the table. I'm not. It's really just as simple as that.



I'd agree.  I think you can absolutely run an entire 4e campaign without ever using a minion, if they detract from your fun.  It's one of those things I'd let the players know ahead of time, though - it might influence some of their choices.

For my table, I rather like them.  Then again, I play other games with minions as well, and I added minion rules (and sort of elite rules) to 3e before 4e was even announced, in order to decouple HPs from everything else. 

-O


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> No. I'm not saying that.
> 
> The rules indicate things such as black dragons like swamps. I, therefore put black dragons in swamps. The rules indicate that minions are destroyed when they take any hit point damage..



No, the rules just say that anyone with 1 hit point is taken out when he takes any hit point damage. Minions have a special rule that says that they don't take damage on a miss.

A Level 1 Commoner gains 1d4 hit points in 3E. That can amount to 1 hit points. So this Commoner can never take hit point damage in his life.

But there are effects that cause something like "damage" that don't require hit point damage. 3E Poisons and both 3E and 4E diseases for example. 

Aside from that, any hit that reduces a monster to 0 hit points or less can be a knockout, if the player wishes so. So Minions can survive being hit and taking hit point damage, they just won't continue fighting.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 14, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If can do that, it can also kill a human. Or how are you expressing a Butterfly killing a Minion if not by using some monster statistics for him, or any other way of dealing 1 point of damage?




It does damage equal to 1/1,000,000 of a hp......but it is still damage.  If a feebleblow butterfly strikes a human 1 million times, it does 1 hp of damage.  If it strikes a minion, though, that minion has taken "hit point damage" and is therefore defeated.

Best monster in the world.  I might stat them up for RCFG......... 


RC


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Minions are a funny thing.  As I've said before, there's a certain zen to minions.  Minions are gamist or narrative; they aren't a simulation of anything in the real world.
> 
> If you're treating minions as independent creature types, I think it creates more problems than it solves.  And, more to the point, I think you're missing the spirit of them.  For example... *snip*...takes what's not a simulationist element and treats it in a simulationist fashion.  It's not surprising when it blows up and doesn't make sense.




Yep. I hadn't thought to use GSN terms as I tend to avoid them, but they do a pretty good job of showing the trouble with minions a portion of the gaming audience has.



> If it's important to you that you can stat out the entire world independent of the PCs, you should never use minions.




Indeed. I think it shows the shift away from prior editions that I was talking about. Although one never did stat out the entire world independent of the PCs, it was assumed to be possible.

Much of the problem with minions is that they are fairly well integrated into the expected combat system scenarios. Minions are supposed to be in 4e combats because that's how to get enough bodies on the table to support the powers/movement combat mix of the game and they will be found in published support of the game. You can run without them, of course, but the encounter balances are harder and you reduce the ability of certain classes to "shine" through the powers that affect larger groups. The minion is integral, IMO, to 4e D&D combat.

joe b.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> It does damage equal to 1/1,000,000 of a hp......but it is still damage.  If a feebleblow butterfly strikes a human 1 million times, it does 1 hp of damage.  If it strikes a minion, though, that minion has taken "hit point damage" and is therefore defeated.
> 
> Best monster in the world.  I might stat them up for RCFG.........
> 
> ...




*LOL*

Serious question to RC (and others anti-minions)

Would the minions rules be AS bad to you if the WOTC designers had stuck to their *original* minions rules (which did have minions gaining small bits of HP - Vampire level 8 minions had 6 HP IIRC)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> It does damage equal to 1/1,000,000 of a hp......but it is still damage.  If a feebleblow butterfly strikes a human 1 million times, it does 1 hp of damage.  If it strikes a minion, though, that minion has taken "hit point damage" and is therefore defeated.
> 
> Best monster in the world.  I might stat them up for RCFG.........
> 
> ...



I strongly support a Quantum Weather Butterfly. 

But I'd like to note that a Minion has one hit point. As does a character that had taken enough damage to be reduced to 1 hit point. A feebleblow butterfly dealing 1/1,000,000 damage would kill both. Or rather, it miight kill neither. I am not sure the "minimum 1 point of damage" rule is still in effect in 4E. 

You are using a strange outlier that's a problem in all editions of D&D. I assume you fixed the issue in RCFG?


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> No one follows leveling rules when creating NPC's, they simply slap on X levels onto whatever they need and away they go.  How did the King get to be a 14th level fighter?  Who cares?  He's a king.  He fought in some wars.  He did some training.  Poof, he survived and now he's 14th level.  End of story.



As a DM I always kept in mind that earning levels is hard and quite lethal.  A 14th-level fighter is a veteran of MANY battles; PCs only get there through a *heavy* weighting of the system in their favor.  Elite arrays, max HP at 1st level, encounters just happening to usually be level-appropriate and rationed out to 4/day, DM "understandings" not to use certain monsters or tactics, etc.  It always seemed to me that for an NPC in the world, the mortality rate on leveling up should be around 50% or so, making a 14th-level NPC *very* rare and the survivor of battles with thousands of deaths (both his allies and enemies).  He'd have to have some really remarkable quests or accomplishments in his backstory, as a 14th-level PC typically would have.  

Not that I'd literally roll the dice and advance him through combat, but I'd consider a generally plausible backstory that didn't explicitly contradict the rules.  I hope you can see what I'm getting at; there's a middle ground between gaming by myself with my NPCs, and assuming that NPCs get their levels "just because" without any reference to the internal reality of the game world.   

I suppose for a king, I could redefine levels to be "the favor of the gods" and not actually earned.  The gods favor him, so his sword swings are more accurate and his resistance to poison is greater, even though he's only 17 and has barely set foot outside of the castle.  Certainly a couple of people in the world can play by different rules than the PCs do, but I wouldn't want to overdo it.  One consideration is that levels should feel special and like an accomplishment.  A 4th-level fighter should feel like a Hero.   

I thought 3E's assumed demographics were too generous, and I preferred using monsters to leveled NPCs.   I defined most of the legendary (11+) NPCs in the world ahead of time, so the PCs would hear about them and their accomplishments before they met them.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> I expect GMs to always exert narrative control to the point of mostly ignoring all rules except those that make players question their suspension of disbelief. For some, minions break that suspension because they're handled so dramatically different in the two realms (table and non-table.)




I understand. The difference doesn't bother me much. Generally speaking, the question of role and minion comes to mind only once combat becomes really a question. For instance, I still haven't decided what role to make the villain of a current campaign arc, although I know he's some sort of winter-sorcerer type. Maybe he'll be a controller, maybe an artillery; probably elite. Doesn't matter yet. 



> I think most people employ neither a top-down nor a bottom-up decision, but use a series of smaller decisions made from both perspectives.




Which would make sense. And presumably some rules would work very well with one and terribly for another; minions are a stand-out, of course, but there are probably other rules that work well for worldbuilding but less so for table-contact play. (Anything that says "an adventure wouldn't be likely here, as it seems the rules would indicate it was already taken care of/wouldn't come to pass," maybe.)



> The reason why so many people have responded to my post is that they seem to think I'm saying that one must stat things out and use the rules instead of GM fiat, whereas what I mean is that the rules one has for the game influence what type of fiat one performs. If you want Hong Kong action fiat, don't use Rolemaster rules, use Feng Shui.




I think it was more the question of whether or not preferring a world that exists outside the PCs tends to incline one toward, say, minion use. I think that your preference for a logical world beyond the table isn't really the criterion. It has more to do with questions like "does the 1 HP rule of a minion apply throughout the creature's lifespan, or only when the character gets into a major dramatic event?" 

Minion rules, as you note, don't simulate biological reality for monsters. They tend to be expressions of larger universal "laws" such as the idea that at lower levels a single ogre is a terror, but as you become more and more of a mythological figure, you can hew ogres in half with one shot. 



> By introducing a minion rule in D&D that has "turned off" a sector of D&D gamers that don't want to fiat a fiction based upon that mechanical construction. Even within the group that accepts the minion concept, there are those that don't like high-level minions because the concept becomes increasing harder to fiat with increasing power levels for them.




Right. And I'll admit that not everything really needs to get to be a minion; I wouldn't make giants minions (even if they tended to get one-shotted in 1e if you had the right magic items). But those are specific applications, and in general I love the rule. It's like a skill challenge; I wouldn't run any of them out of the book as formal as all that, as they're too limiting, but a define-as-you-go skill challenge is delicious. 

One of the things I like about minions and skill challenges is that they're a chance to mechanically tinker with pacing. Same for solos and elites, though in the other way. I like that the game has specific rules subsets that allow you to speed up or slow down the action while keeping the players involved. It's a very different approach than D&D has traditionally used, but I find it works great if that's your interest.





> The daily was used to make sure I was communicating how minions can result in misplaced application of limited resources. I don't think it would happen very often, but it does show the point.




Sure, but it's not really much of a recurring problem. My personal bugbear is rules that work great once or twice, then become more of a problem as they happen every session. Minions are kind of the inverse of that: they can cause tactical trouble the first time, but provide a smoother experience the more they see play.



> No problems. I'm just talking about rules and how they affect design, so I don't have any skin it it to feel dogpiled.  It's just business to me. I'm always trying to identify mechanical effects and consequences with an eye towards design.




Such is my interest as well!


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> . The minion is integral, IMO, to 4e D&D combat.
> 
> joe b.




Wait, what?

I (and most 4e DMs I know personally) only use minions about as much as we use Solos. Personally, I only use it for "set" pieces a la the PCs versus the rampaging hordes and their backs against the Gate of Evil.

Tend to use Elites a lot and more of the level -3 and level -4 monsters.

A level -4 monster can still easily hit PCs (instead of the mythical 50% - hit ona 11, they'll hit on a 14) and you get two monsters per PC which for a 5 person party, is already 10 monsters plus PCs.

That's usually way more enough for the controller to feel useable (of course, again, I find this weird that people think the controllers , specifically the wizard, are only useful versus minions)


----------



## Pbartender (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> The reason why so many people have responded to my post is that they seem to think I'm saying that one must stat things out and use the rules instead of GM fiat, whereas what I mean is that the rules one has for the game influence what type of fiat one performs. If you want Hong Kong action fiat, don't use Rolemaster rules, use Feng Shui.
> 
> By introducing a minion rule in D&D that has "turned off" a sector of D&D gamers that don't want to fiat a fiction based upon that mechanical construction. Even within the group that accepts the minion concept, there are those that don't like high-level minions because the concept becomes increasing harder to fiat with increasing power levels for them.




Of course, at the same time, the minion concept fixed certain other fiction-based fiat problems that 3E had.

Namely, I distinctly remember one adventure I wanted to write that involved the assassination of a powerful and influential high-level Diplomat.  I could make him an NPC Expert or Noble, but...  If I made him high enough level to accurately represent the level of skill he had in Diplomacy and such, then his BAB, saving throws and hit points would have been too high for any assassin within the scope of the adventure to succeed.

The only way to solve the problem was to use DM fiat in a manner similar to what you're suggesting must be used for minions to survive to adulthood.  In other words, "He can be assassinated in a single hit by being stabbed by a dagger, because it's important to the adventure and the setting and I say so."


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But what if I put my Black Dragon in a jungle?  Can I do that?  Or would I have to roll in order to see if my black dragon could survive in a new environment?




Depends on what you think appropriate. The rules say you can break them if you think it's appropriate.



> You are right though, minion rules are not conducive to world creation.




It doesn't matter if I'm right. What matters, IMO, is if there's a better way of getting the mechanical effects desired out of the minion concept that doesn't alienate a part of the gaming audience.



> If you could ignore that in every other edition of D&D, why is suddenly having minions a major stumbling block?




Honestly, I rarely had 1hp creatures in my worlds in prior editions and at a much lower % than indicated by the raw dice. I'd just kinda assumed most of the 1hpers in the world had already died off, resulting in only a few 1hpers being around.

I suspect the major difference is one of scale. In 1e, hp varied from 1 to about 100 for normal creatures (not uniques). In 4e that has increased from 1 (only minions) to the weakest creature in the world (outside a minion) having around 20hp while the strongest reaching close to 1,400hp. A minion, is about 1/20th as tough as the next weakest creature in the world.

The difference of scale is dramatically larger, and that increase results in it being increasingly harder to ignore an issue, IMO.

joe b.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 14, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> *LOL*
> 
> Serious question to RC (and others anti-minions)
> 
> Would the minions rules be AS bad to you if the WOTC designers had stuck to their *original* minions rules (which did have minions gaining small bits of HP - Vampire level 8 minions had 6 HP IIRC)



Okay, so that's basically like using B/X or 1E and choosing 1 hp/HD, as you might for a really old and feeble foe.  Ogre with 4 hp, Hill giant with 8 hp, etc.  And I suppose 1 hp/HD could represent "really bad luck" as well as "inherently feeble," so it's not impossible.  Still not a fan of that approach, since I'm not a particular fan of the minion trope in TV/movies _when it seems that the hero is winning because his foes are incompetent rather than because he is that good_.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> No, the rules just say that anyone with 1 hit point is taken out when he takes any hit point damage. Minions have a special rule that says that they don't take damage on a miss.




In the DMG it says destroyed. There is the miss take no damage and there is the option of turning a kill into a knockout. These are the exceptions to the destroyed by taking any amount of damage.

joe b.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 14, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> Minion rules, as you note, don't simulate biological reality for monsters. They tend to be expressions of larger universal "laws" such as the idea that at lower levels a single ogre is a terror, but as you become more and more of a mythological figure, you can hew ogres in half with one shot.




But the reality is that you in fact do not become mighty enough to hew ogres in half with one shot. Special ogre pinatas have to be constructed to permit this expression of "might". Despite getting very powerful, an actual ogre still takes a bit of effort to defeat.

The ogres in this case transform into servants of El Nebuloso. That does not make the PC's more mythic.

"Jolly good"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 14, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> *LOL*
> 
> Serious question to RC (and others anti-minions)
> 
> Would the minions rules be AS bad to you if the WOTC designers had stuck to their *original* minions rules (which did have minions gaining small bits of HP - Vampire level 8 minions had 6 HP IIRC)




I am not sure that I would categorize the minion rules as "bad", per se.  Depending upon what you want from a game, they might be quite good.  In a Doctor Who scenario, for example, there might well be plenty of minions, and I could see this working for red shirts in Star Trek as well.

(Of course, the purpose of Red Shirts was to show how much danger the main cast was in, and if we know that the RS are 1-hit-kills, then this doesn't really serve that function at all.......This requires some thought!  )

I dislike the idea of minions for the style of D&D I enjoy, and I strongly dislike the argument plan that goes "Same as it ever was, like cats and commoners" when this isn't the case.  



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I strongly support a Quantum Weather Butterfly.
> 
> But I'd like to note that a Minion has one hit point. As does a character that had taken enough damage to be reduced to 1 hit point. A feebleblow butterfly dealing 1/1,000,000 damage would kill both. Or rather, it miight kill neither. I am not sure the "minimum 1 point of damage" rule is still in effect in 4E.




AFAICT, there is no "minimum 1 point of damage" rule in 4E, nor is there a rule that requires a minion to take 1 point of damage to be defeated.  A minion is defeated when it takes any hit point damage.



> You are using a strange outlier that's a problem in all editions of D&D.




I disagree.  This isn't a problem at all in previous editions of D&D that admonished the DM to use common sense whenever the rules seemed implausible.  It is only with the admonishment to use the rules over common sense that the problem exists.

If you think that the DM should allow common sense to outweigh the rules in 4e, I welcome you to say so in this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ealing-dm-who-takes-things-too-literally.html).  Otherwise, I hope, we can accept that this is a recent development.



> I assume you fixed the issue in RCFG?




Yes.  I used the same fix as all TSR-D&D has used:  giving the GM explicit permission and encouragement to overide the rules when the rules don't make sense.

(Not that this occurs, of course, in RCFG.    )

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 14, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> Of course, at the same time, the minion concept fixed certain other fiction-based fiat problems that 3E had.
> 
> Namely, I distinctly remember one adventure I wanted to write that involved the assassination of a powerful and influential high-level Diplomat.  I could make him an NPC Expert or Noble, but...  If I made him high enough level to accurately represent the level of skill he had in Diplomacy and such, then his BAB, saving throws and hit points would have been too high for any assassin within the scope of the adventure to succeed.
> 
> The only way to solve the problem was to use DM fiat in a manner similar to what you're suggesting must be used for minions to survive to adulthood.  In other words, "He can be assassinated in a single hit by being stabbed by a dagger, because it's important to the adventure and the setting and I say so."





This problem, though, I think I fixed.  


RC


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 14, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> Of course, at the same time, the minion concept fixed certain other fiction-based fiat problems that 3E had.
> 
> Namely, I distinctly remember one adventure I wanted to write that involved the assassination of a powerful and influential high-level Diplomat.  I could make him an NPC Expert or Noble, but...  If I made him high enough level to accurately represent the level of skill he had in Diplomacy and such, then his BAB, saving throws and hit points would have been too high for any assassin within the scope of the adventure to succeed.
> 
> The only way to solve the problem was to use DM fiat in a manner similar to what you're suggesting must be used for minions to survive to adulthood.  In other words, "He can be assassinated in a single hit by being stabbed by a dagger, because it's important to the adventure and the setting and I say so."



Somewhat OT, but the best fix for this that I saw was a suggestion of basically giving an "occupation bonus" of about 0.5-1 per year of intensive practice, up to a +10.  Works for diplomats, craftsmen, etc., but unlikely to make much difference for adventurers.  Doesn't have to be DM fiat, can be a new universally-applied rule.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> The minion is integral, IMO, to 4e D&D combat.



I would pretty much completely disagree with this.   It's a matter of DM and player taste.  There are even published adventures - Thunderspire Labyrinth, for one - without really any minions at all.

I, personally, tend to add more, because I love movie ninjas.  I don't see it breaking anything if you remove them entirely, though.  You've mentioned that you think it breaks 4e combat, but I'm not really seeing how it could do that, after running the game for a year. 

Thinking about it.... if having no minions breaks 4e combat, it should stand to reason that _any _4e combat without minions should be broken.  I honestly haven't found this to be the case.

OTOH, If having a single combat without minions *isn't* broken, then I don't see how a series of combats without minions could be broken.

-O


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> Minion rules, as you note, don't simulate biological reality for monsters. They tend to be expressions of larger universal "laws" such as the idea that at lower levels a single ogre is a terror, but as you become more and more of a mythological figure, you can hew ogres in half with one shot.




I agree. I think that treating certain monsters in such a way (making them minions) is dramatically different than how prior editions treated all monsters. Which goes back to my postulate that 4e is moving in a different direction of style of play than prior editions.



> Right. And I'll admit that not everything really needs to get to be a minion; I wouldn't make giants minions (even if they tended to get one-shotted in 1e if you had the right magic items). But those are specific applications, and in general I love the rule. It's like a skill challenge; I wouldn't run any of them out of the book as formal as all that, as they're too limiting, but a define-as-you-go skill challenge is delicious.




I think it's a lot like a skill challenge, with a bit of player challenge thrown in as well in determining what is a minion and what is not.



> Such is my interest as well!




I think talking about design from a professional rather than a fan perspective is much easier. It's all about what's the goal of the design, does that design do what was intended, and what unforeseen outcomes of the design occur?

joe b.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 14, 2009)

Brother MacLaren said:


> Okay, so that's basically like using B/X or 1E and choosing 1 hp/HD, as you might for a really old and feeble foe.  Ogre with 4 hp, Hill giant with 8 hp, etc.  And I suppose 1 hp/HD could represent "really bad luck" as well as "inherently feeble," so it's not impossible.  Still not a fan of that approach, since I'm not a particular fan of the minion trope in TV/movies _when it seems that the hero is winning because his foes are incompetent rather than because he is that good_.




Yeah...I got the sense the original rule was simple

1 HP per level for minions was the idea but they discovered that meant that the DM had to actually keep track of the HP which defeated the entire point of having minions

(a.k.a make it easy for the DM to simulate large number of opponents versus the PCs)

re: Solos in the world

Here's another question. Solos are as much a metagame construct as minions. Are they as problematic for people as minions are?

Another question. If the mechanics/rules are the physics of the world, how did you deal with spawning monsters like the Wraith or the Pit fiend in pre 3e?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 14, 2009)

Brother MacLaren said:


> Somewhat OT, but the best fix for this that I saw was a suggestion of basically giving an "occupation bonus" of about 0.5-1 per year of intensive practice, up to a +10.  Works for diplomats, craftsmen, etc., but unlikely to make much difference for adventurers.  Doesn't have to be DM fiat, can be a new universally-applied rule.




The RCFG fix allows:

(1)  Weapon damage to be increased by the use of weapon skill ranks,

(2)  Rogues to increase sneak attack damage as an "assassin's blow", and

(3)  A "getting the drop" mechanic that also allows an increase in damage.

In RCFG, the dagger is dangerous, but more dangerous is the hand that wields it!

To top this off, a heroic diplomat is RCFG is 6-8th level (max non-classed level is 10).  Because RCFG uses static DCs for tasks, character growth is meaningful at this level.  As a sedentary occupation, the diplomat would have 1d4 hp per level, or a range of 6 to 32, plus anything for Con.


RC


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> The only way to solve the problem was to use DM fiat in a manner similar to what you're suggesting must be used for minions to survive to adulthood.  In other words, "He can be assassinated in a single hit by being stabbed by a dagger, because it's important to the adventure and the setting and I say so."




It seems like every rule giveth and every rule taketh away sometimes. 

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I would pretty much completely disagree with this.   It's a matter of DM and player taste.  There are even published adventures - Thunderspire Labyrinth, for one - without really any minions at all.
> 
> I, personally, tend to add more, because I love movie ninjas.  I don't see it breaking anything if you remove them entirely, though.  You've mentioned that you think it breaks 4e combat, but I'm not really seeing how it could do that, after running the game for a year.




If you got the impression that I thought lacking minions breaks 4e combat that wasn't my intent. I don't think lacking minions "breaks" combat, I do think that it makes it harder to create balanced encounters if you don't use them than when you do. Harder, to me, isn't broken, just that it requires more effort.

joe b.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jul 14, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> But the reality is that you in fact do not become mighty enough to hew ogres in half with one shot. Special ogre pinatas have to be constructed to permit this expression of "might".  Despite getting very powerful, an actual ogre still takes a bit of effort to defeat.




That's not "reality." That's your perception. Mine is that "ogre" does not mean "XX HP," and "actual" does not mean "non-minion." If something takes on a non-minion role, that makes them a credible threat. This is a decision not rated on genetics. The level 3 bandit chieftain is not an "actual" human being by compare to the 1-HP miller. He is more of a direct antagonist. 

The idea of hit dice being a biological factor of species (kobolds are the 1/2-HD humanoid, goblins are the 1-1 HD humanoid, and the ecological niche that gnolls fill in the world is the 2 HD space between hobgoblins and bugbears) isn't one I subscribe to. It was useful back in the day, but even then you had different humanoids that line up in power level for the simple gaming purpose of letting players measure their increasing power level against them. 

If you strip away all the context and just say "What is an ogre?", some people's definition will include 4+1 HD. But if that's not how things are defined as the player characters would see them, the PCs not being aware of the hit die mechanic, then the utility of having ogres be 4+1 HD in particular is fairly negligible. The practical effect is that PCs can measure themselves against ogres and know themselves to be outmatched, face a tough fight, or able to brutalize the poor oafs. But fixed hit dice, level and role is not the only way to achieve that practical effect. And I tend to favor solutions that lead to more elegant and engaging combats. 



> The ogres in this case trnsform into servants of El Nebuloso. That does not make the PC's more mythic.
> 
> "Jolly good"




If that's how you see it, sure. I prefer to make use of the minions rules, though, because it's more in keeping with how I see mythic heroes operating. The rules can now more accurately keep track of how we see the fight playing out in our heads. 

But I come from a land where context is the coin of the realm. Absolutes tend to break down and start rusting the moment you start applying various contexts, so they are more idle carnival curiosities than state treasures.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> But the reality is that you in fact do not become mighty enough to hew ogres in half with one shot. Special ogre pinatas have to be constructed to permit this expression of "might". Despite getting very powerful, an actual ogre still takes a bit of effort to defeat.




Which is why many people don't like the minion concept. The narrative about why the Ogre falls in one shot isn't seen as sign of strength on the PC side, it's seen as sign of weakness on the enemy's. Different play styles have somewhat dramatically different takes on the concept.

joe b.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 14, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> But I come from a land where context is the coin of the realm. Absolutes tend to break down and start rusting the moment you start applying various contexts, so they are more idle carnival curiosities than state treasures.





AFAICT, the crux of the argument you are responding to is that minions change the context of the "ogre" you are facing, so that your ability to hew it in half ceases to have any real meaning.

That's one of the problems with minion-type rules.  Batman should be able to plow through common criminals, but if the common criminals are such that a feebleblow butterfly can do the same, does it really make Batman seem all that powerful?

Likewise, the Horta may kill minion Red Shirts left and right, but does this actually give Captain Kirk any real reason to imagine that it is something to be worried about, if he knows those Red Shirts are minions?

This is all about context.


RC


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 14, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Another question. If the mechanics/rules are the physics of the world, how did you deal with spawning monsters like the Wraith or the Pit fiend in pre 3e?



The Wraith Apocalypse is always thought-provoking.  Perhaps non-magical counters exist (a line of salt across the doorway blocks them from entering a house), or they have some limits on how far they can travel from where they were spawned, or something else.  But, yes, by RAW they will take over the world in a matter of days.  Which pretty much demands divine intervention to hit the reset button, remove all incorporeal undead from the world, and leave a post-apocalyptic world for the PCs to explore some centuries later.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> If you got the impression that I thought lacking minions breaks 4e combat that wasn't my intent. I don't think lacking minions "breaks" combat, I do think that it makes it harder to create balanced encounters if you don't use them than when you do. Harder, to me, isn't broken, just that it requires more effort.
> 
> joe b.



Fair enough.  Sorry for the misreading. 

With that said, I think it's still pretty easy to make balanced encounters without them.  I've found that more minions makes encounter balancing harder, actually, since throwing them all out at once makes for a very poor minion battle.  I need to take waves into account for them to work effectively.

(Also, I either halve the XP value of minions - thus doubling their numbers - or else make them "tough minions" who take 2 hits and have a certain level of DR preventing easy popping, but who still die in 1 hit if you hit them hard enough.)

-O


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, there is no "minimum 1 point of damage" rule in 4E, nor is there a rule that requires a minion to take 1 point of damage to be defeated.  A minion is defeated when it takes any hit point damage.



That's because there is no hit point damage below 1. There is just no damage. The stat block says its hit points are 1.



> Yes.  I used the same fix as all TSR-D&D has used:  giving the GM explicit permission and encouragement to overide the rules when the rules don't make sense.
> 
> (Not that this occurs, of course, in RCFG.    )
> 
> RC




So you haven't fixed it.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> The practical effect is that PCs can measure themselves against ogres and know themselves to be outmatched, face a tough fight, or able to brutalize the poor oafs. But fixed hit dice, level and role is not the only way to achieve that practical effect. And I tend to favor solutions that lead to more elegant and engaging combats.




But doesn't the minion mechanic throw a spanner in PC measurements of themselves vs. other creatures? I'd think the minion mechanic decreases the accuracy of group power judgments when facing opponents as opposed to increasing accuracy of that judgment. For example, we PCs brutalize minion ogres, face a tough fight against non-minion ogres, and are outmatch by uber-ogres, but which one are these ogres in front of us?

I'd assumed one of the reasons why minions were made was to increase the uncertainty of power judgments.

joe b.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> That's one of the problems with minion-type rules. Batman should be able to plow through common criminals, but if the common criminals are such that a feebleblow butterfly can do the same, does it really make Batman seem all that powerful?



Indeed, context is important. Perhaps that feebleblow butterfly can get lucky and score a hit to kill a minion (note it would have to do at least 1 hp of damage, since hit points are measured in integers; 1/1,000,000 of a hp has no meaning). Batman, of course, can hit the minion with one Batfist tied behind his back.

I would also suggest that a butterfly would not cause any damage, unless perhaps it a vampiric dire butterfly. And since minions require at least 1 hp of damage to take down, the butterfly can't do it.

But we can move back to the much more reasonable example of an untrained peasant, who can take down this minion *if* he gets lucky on his attack roll. But do we really think he's going to look like Batman? Let's say he gets lucky and hits and kills a minion right off. The remaining minions then attack the peasant, and kill him. That's the thing about minions; they come in bunches.

Batman, on the other hand, downs at least one on his turn, and then soaks the damage he would take on the minions' turn. He then proceeds to take out a couple more each turn until they're defeated. He's taken some damage, but nothing a healing surge or two won't cure. The peasant, on the other hand, is still dead.

Batman takes out two dozen minions, and walks away. The peasant takes out one minion, and then promptly dies. Do you see a difference? Because I see a difference.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 14, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> That's because there is no hit point damage below 1.




Is that a rule or your house rule?  



> So you haven't fixed it.




Until now, it wasn't broken.  


RC


----------



## Barastrondo (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, the crux of the argument you are responding to is that minions change the context of the "ogre" you are facing, so that your ability to hew it in half ceases to have any real meaning.




But the opposing viewpoint (which is mine) is that the minion rules are a way to represent the context (which is that ogres are not a significant threat to you at upper levels, though they can still cause problems in numbers). It all depends on whether you see the rules as the context, or whether you see them as something to use to reinforce the context. 



> That's one of the problems with minion-type rules.  Batman should be able to plow through common criminals, but if the common criminals are such that a feebleblow butterfly can do the same, does it really make Batman seem all that powerful?




You keep using this term "feebleblow butterfly." What kind of Mothras do you live near that a butterfly capable of doing 1 HP worth of damage is considered feeble? You live in Australia, don't you?



> Likewise, the Horta may kill minion Red Shirts left and right, but does this actually give Captain Kirk any real reason to imagine that it is something to be worried about, if he knows those Red Shirts are minions?




I think there's a grave discrepancy in perception here. I don't think Captain Kirk "knows the red shirts are minions" at all. I think Captain Kirk thinks of them as human beings, and if he's a pretty good captain, he might even know most to all of them by name. The _player_ may know that they're not going to help him out much in this fight, but as far as the _character_ is concerned, this is trouble. Similarly, the player may know that taking out minions may not be the world's greatest representative of what a Horta (whatever that is) can do, but he may pay attention to what his character sees, the context that is defined by the entire encounter, and develop an estimate from there.

I mean, I dunno. My players may be egregiously new-school in thought  (though most of them started with the red box, as did I), but when I had a cave fisher snip a guy in half like he only had one hit point, they reacted as though their characters would. I can only assume that the perception that "minions make everything seem less dangerous" is not universal. 



jgbrowning said:


> But doesn't the minion mechanic throw a spanner in PC measurements of themselves vs. other creatures? I'd think the minion mechanic decreases the accuracy of group power judgments when facing opponents as opposed to increasing accuracy of that judgment. For example, we PCs brutalize minion ogres, face a tough fight against non-minion ogres, and are outmatch by uber-ogres, but which one are these ogres in front of us?




In my experience? The players pay more attention to their opponents as a way to figure this out. It does help that I have an expansive miniatures collection by now that gives them extra visual reminders (the ogres in ratty hide singlets are probably minions, the heavily armored ones are probably not), but I'm not reliant on them. It encourages me to put more description into the antagonists ("the ogre with the eyepatch," "the ogre with the breastplate covered in reliefs of screaming faces," "the skinny adolescent ogre"), and if I don't provide enough, my players ask. 

This applies to everything, of course. Raiding the Temple of the Horned Ape to rescue the girl? The players generally take it that the robed and armored high priest is not a minion, but that the eight shirtless cultists in kilts are likely kind of disposable. The _characters_ take everyone as a threat, but they dispose of the lesser ones in proper cinematic fashion. 



> I'd assumed one of the reasons why minions were made was to increase the uncertainty of power judgments.




I dunno, maybe, but I don't really see much point to it myself. The narrative benefit of having "the rabble" is excuse enough. Interestingly, I've found that as players get more used to the mechanic, they frequently drop the minions _first_ — knowing that minions are still a threat with their aiding another and flanking and such, and reducing the number of attack rolls made against them each round. There's also the tendency to use encounter powers to wound one of the more dangerous combatants and drop a minion or three at the same time off-handedly. It provides a great natural dramatic escalation to the battle. If the minion rule doesn't work for people at all, obviously this wouldn't either, but man, we're having great fun.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 14, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> The idea of hit dice being a biological factor of species (kobolds are the 1/2-HD humanoid, goblins are the 1-1 HD humanoid, and the ecological niche that gnolls fill in the world is the 2 HD space between hobgoblins and bugbears) isn't one I subscribe to. It was useful back in the day, but even then you had different humanoids that line up in power level for the simple gaming purpose of letting players measure their increasing power level against them.




A humanoid does not need to remain at a fixed HD simply due to species. I agree on that point. With added toughness/training a humanoid can become a much tougher fighter than the racial statistics indicate. Weakness for a given species is easily done by assigning lower hp values per HD. Thus a 2hp goblin is a wimp, a 7hp goblin is tough for a goblin without special training and a 42 hp goblin is a badass with several fighter levels.



Barastrondo said:


> If you strip away all the context and just say "What is an ogre?", some people's definition will include 4+1 HD. But if that's not how things are defined as the player characters would see them, the PCs not being aware of the hit die mechanic, then the utility of having ogres be 4+1 HD in particular is fairly negligible. The practical effect is that PCs can measure themselves against ogres and know themselves to be outmatched, face a tough fight, or able to brutalize the poor oafs. But fixed hit dice, level and role is not the only way to achieve that practical effect. And I tend to favor solutions that lead to more elegant and engaging combats.




I don't see a problem with a base ogre being 4+1 HD as a measure against the typical human being 1HD. The "minion" ogres might have 5 or 6 hp being the weakest of thier kind. This makes the weakest pathetic ogre on par with a rather robust human in terms of staying power which feels about right to me. 




Barastrondo said:


> If that's how you see it, sure. I prefer to make use of the minions rules, though, because it's more in keeping with how I see mythic heroes operating. The rules can now more accurately keep track of how we see the fight playing out in our heads.




If you enjoy the minion rules, use them and happy gaming. We found them amusing at first but have become annoyed with them. While the minions permit scenes from fiction to occur within the game, just remember that the characters in the fiction were not being played by real people who get to see the underlying mechanics supporting thier acts of heroism. 

What if Aragorn got to the bottom of the hill at Amon Hen, looked back at all the carnage he had created and saw only cardboard cutouts lying on the ground? Would he feel that his accomplishment was worth anything?



Barastrondo said:


> But I come from a land where context is the coin of the realm. Absolutes tend to break down and start rusting the moment you start applying various contexts, so they are more idle carnival curiosities than state treasures.




When anything and everything morphs depending on context you get a world without substance.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 14, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Batman takes out two dozen minions, and walks away. The peasant takes out one minion, and then promptly dies. Do you see a difference? Because I see a difference.




Sure there's a difference (and nice description, btw).  Like I said, I don't think minion rules are bad, per se, but I think that they can cause problems.....like when Batman goes to rescue Commissioner Gordon and Aunt Harriet from Two Face's minions, only to discover than not only can the Commish take out minions as well as Batman can, but so can Aunt Harriet!

There are better ways to model Batman's prowess, IMHO, that don't cause this problem to arise.

(And, in a ruleset that encourages the GM to utilize common sense, I don't think this problem would necessarily arise with the minion rules, either!   )


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 14, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> But the opposing viewpoint (which is mine) is that the minion rules are a way to represent the context (which is that ogres are not a significant threat to you at upper levels, though they can still cause problems in numbers).




Assuming that all ogres are now minions, this would be accurate.  



> It all depends on whether you see the rules as the context, or whether you see them as something to use to reinforce the context.




Cool.

If you are saying that the DM can and should use common sense to adjudicate rules in order to reinforce the contextual meaning of the game milieu, we are on the same page.  Now, if you could please say as much in this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ealing-dm-who-takes-things-too-literally.html) I would appreciate it.



> You keep using this term "feebleblow butterfly." What kind of Mothras do you live near that a butterfly capable of doing 1 HP worth of damage is considered feeble? You live in Australia, don't you?




Canada.  But I think your 1 hp minimum is a house rule.  Or can you tell me where to find it in the RAW?



> I think there's a grave discrepancy in perception here. I don't think Captain Kirk "knows the red shirts are minions" at all. I think Captain Kirk thinks of them as human beings, and if he's a pretty good captain, he might even know most to all of them by name. The _player_ may know that they're not going to help him out much in this fight, but as far as the _character_ is concerned, this is trouble.




This is, I think, the crux of the problem.  The player has to know how the character perceives the threat.  But the basis for player knowledge is shifted.  Captain Kirk's player may have the good Captain go "OMG!  Horta!", but unless the same player also views the horta as a threat to CK, a great deal of the visceral thrill is gone.  IMHO, at least.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out over time.  Will anyone bother to make "Retro Clones" of 4e 25 years from now?

There are some things about 4e that I realy like, but there are so many more things that turn me off.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> Honestly, I rarely had 1hp creatures in my worlds in prior editions and at a much lower % than indicated by the raw dice. I'd just kinda assumed most of the 1hpers in the world had already died off, resulting in only a few 1hpers being around.



Really??!  In 3e all bats, rats, tiny vipers and toads have 1hp by RAW. Assuming there is some consistent ratio, animals smaller than bats, rats, tiny snakes and toads should all have some fraction of a hp (how many hp does a normal mosquito or a butterfly have?). Are you saying that in all of your games, every animal smaller than a house cat was on the verge of complete extinction? Were city sewers devoid of rats? Were swamps devoid of clouds of biting insects? It must have been nice for adventurers not having to worry about fleas in their bedrolls or lice in their helmets.

For that matter, were diseases completely absent from your worlds? If a creature as big as a rat has only 1hp and it's therefore impossible to imagine it surviving to any significant number in a world that "makes sense" then bacteria, viruses, fungi and other single-celled organisms must be 100% extinct, right?


----------



## Scribble (Jul 14, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I don't see a problem with a base ogre being 4+1 HD as a measure against the typical human being 1HD. The "minion" ogres might have 5 or 6 hp being the weakest of thier kind. This makes the weakest pathetic ogre on par with a rather robust human in terms of staying power which feels about right to me.




To me it just means more numbers then I need to keep track of on the game table.



> If you enjoy the minion rules, use them and happy gaming.




I agree to each his own. If you don't enjoy them don't use them. 



> What if Aragorn got to the bottom of the hill at Amon Hen, looked back at all the carnage he had created and saw only cardboard cutouts lying on the ground? Would he feel that his accomplishment was worth anything?




The other day I had a fly buzzing around the office. When I finally got it, all it took was one swap from a rolled up paper, but when I was trying to just ignore it... Oye- I couldn't get any work done. I'd start doing something, then sure enough... bzzzzzzzztttttt  and I'd totally lose my train of thought- Drove me nuts!

Minions like anything else in the game are just a tool in the toolbox. If you use it poorly, the outcome is going to look like Homer Simpson's spice rack. If you use them well, however, then despite the ease at which they can be taken out, Minions add dimension and extra tricks to the fight.  

Think of them like a weapon or armor. By themselves these things aren't much threat. But when wielded by a skilled warrior, now they become something you can't ignore. 

For instance there are some monsters that can sacrifice minions in order to regain HP or cause some sort of effect to happen. If the PCs don't take out the minions first they'll suffer that effect.  Sometimes there are monsters that gain AC bonuses when allies are around. Minions are great for that scenario. If the PCs ignore the minions, then the big baddie is that much tougher to deal with.

After all a pawn can only move forward one square at a time, and can only take other pieces diagonally... But I've seen people checkmated using pawns.

But in the end, if you don't enjoy this kind of stuff... Well then yeah minions I guess just ain't your thing.

(Personally I like to give the PCs minions from time to time as well.)




> When anything and everything morphs depending on context you get a world without substance.




Shrug, again to each his own. I find the rules don't have much of an impact on the substance of my games.  (And in fact I get annoyed when they try to overstep their place.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Is that a rule or your house rule?




Well, the weakened condition for example allows damage to be reduced to half. The rules do not say that this means you get to do .5 points of damage. There is no instance where you ever have hit point damage that is less than 1 point. 

Hit point damage is always represented in a positive non-zero integer. 

So yes, you might be right. Maybe soon, we will get a monster that deals 2.5 or 0.5 points of damage Until we see that, I assume that it's a rule.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 14, 2009)

Here are my experiences from play:

We were running the modules and we decided not to pick up the next one; I'd start building the campaign world we were kicking around in.

I went in with a few goals for design: I wanted the world to challenge the players, I wanted to maintain some internal consistency (in order for players to be able to plan ahead), and I wanted to be fair and impartial about it.

This is when I suddenly understood "Gygaxian naturalism" and lamented the loss of No. Appearing and Frequency listings in the MM.  I lost my 1E books a long time ago so I stole from OSRIC or something like it to populate monster tribes.

I had a lair full of human cultists - mostly low-level bandits.  I used the 2nd-level human bandit for the MM at first.  When we got into combat with these guys the PCs were 7th or 8th level.  It was pretty lame.  They couldn't hit the PCs but they had too many HP.

I figured I'd change them into the 7th level human minions for next time.

That's now my rule of thumb; add four or five levels, make them minions.  Once they are minions they stay that way.  (Kobold Dragonshields would "max out" at 7th level.)

A cheap fix, perhaps, but it maintains enough consistency for me and allows the game to proceed.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure there's a difference (and nice description, btw). Like I said, I don't think minion rules are bad, per se, but I think that they can cause problems.....like when Batman goes to rescue Commissioner Gordon and Aunt Harriet from Two Face's minions, only to discover than not only can the Commish take out minions as well as Batman can, but so can Aunt Harriet!



You did it again. The Commish and Aunt Harriet *cannot* take out minions "as well as Batman can". They can take out a single minion with a lucky shot, and risk immenent death in doing so. Batman eats minions for breakfast. *Not* the same thing.

You're assuming the ability to take down a minion with a lucky blow while putting yourself in great danger is the equivalent of being able to mow down minions left and right. They are not equivalent.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure there's a difference (and nice description, btw).  Like I said, I don't think minion rules are bad, per se, but I think that they can cause problems.....like when Batman goes to rescue Commissioner Gordon and Aunt Harriet from Two Face's minions, only to discover than not only can the Commish take out minions as well as Batman can, but so can Aunt Harriet!




But you're ignoring the fact that neither Commissioner Gordon, or Aunt Harriet have Batman's Attacking ability. 

Sure- if they hit they will kill a minion just as Batman does, but it's not in the same way or as often. It becomes that scene where batman is trying to rescue Aunt Harriet and Two Face yells "Kill them All- HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!"

Batman rushes in and gets surrounded by minions. He's taking them out quickly and with basically one batsudo chop at a time, but then he looks over and sees Aunt Harriet being backed into a corner by a minion with a club- OH NO!!! He still has at least a  round or two worth of minions to deal with, he can't get to her in time. Aunt Harriet is doomed! She's backing up and screaming, reaching for anything to defend herself with in her terrified state... Minion smiles evilly with that "You're dead now old lady!" evil minion smile... Batman is trying his best to get there....

And then at the last minute Aunt Harriet finds a pipe, or a pan, or a brick, and wildly swings it, and smacks the minion right in the temple.

Sure the minion died just as quickly as the ones fighting batman, but batman is surrounded by like 30 dead minions... whereas Harriet has one lucky shot.

It's also the scene where Batman is leading Aunt Harriet out of the warehouse, fighting minion after minion. He's beat up, worn down but soldiering on. Then he's distracted by something- looking the other way and a minion rushes up behind him with a spear/sword/chainsaw/vorpal rabbit- Oh no batman gonna die!!!!

But then at the last second Aunt May finds a pan... DONG!

Batman looks up at Aunt Harriet with that- "Whoa... didn't expect that one.." action hero look, grunts a thank you, and they move on.

The point is, ability to actually HIT the thing plays a part in how easy it is for you to kill it.



> There are better ways to model Batman's prowess, IMHO, that don't cause this problem to arise.




Maybe, if someone finds them (and they don't add complications) then I'll take a look. 

Right now minions give m ways to do things game wise, and ways to do things  "scene wise" that I am enjoying.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Canada. But I think your 1 hp minimum is a house rule. Or can you tell me where to find it in the RAW?



I think, given that you have asserted that you can cause damage of more than 0 hp but less than 1 hp, you should provide some support for your assertion. Extraordinary claims require... well you know. I suggest that fractional hp damage is an extraordinary claim. I don't believe there's ever been a monster or weapon or spell in D&D history that causes fractional hp damage.

I seem to recall in the 1E multiclassing rules that you held on to your fractional hit points (I may be mistaken here), but they only came into play when calculating your new hps when you leveled. They did not count as hp when taking damage.

Does the "always round down" rule still exist in 4E? If so, you can't cause fractions of a hp damage. (Note that that's not the only rule that could prevent such a thing from happening, just the first one that comes to mind.)


----------



## Pbartender (Jul 14, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Really??!  In 3e all bats, rats, tiny vipers and toads have 1hp by RAW. Assuming there is some consistent ratio, animals smaller than bats, rats, tiny snakes and toads should all have some fraction of a hp (how many hp does a normal mosquito or a butterfly have?).




Of course, in modern D&D all fractions are rounded down.  You can't have a fractional hit point...  You have either 0 or 1.

In other words, technically speaking, all creature with hit points have to have at least 1 hit point...  Even an Itchypest Flea.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jul 14, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Does the "always round down" rule still exist in 4E?




Yes. PHB page 11. Btw, you can cause 0 points of damage with a successful attack (e.g. melee attack with STR 8), it was in the official FAQ IIRC.

EDIT: PHB page 58 has an example of this. It's not in the official FAQ, but it's mentioned in this thread (Rules you didn't realize).


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 14, 2009)

Peraion Graufalke said:


> Yes. PHB page 11. Btw, you can cause 0 points of damage with a successful attack (e.g. melee attack with STR 8), it was in the official FAQ IIRC.



And of course, 0 hp damage is not enough to kill a minion, since they have 1 hp.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Really??!  In 3e all bats, rats, tiny vipers and toads have 1hp by RAW. Assuming there is some consistent ratio, animals smaller than bats, rats, tiny snakes and toads should all have some fraction of a hp (how many hp does a normal mosquito or a butterfly have?). Are you saying that in all of your games, every animal smaller than a house cat was on the verge of complete extinction? Were city sewers devoid of rats? Were swamps devoid of clouds of biting insects? It must have been nice for adventurers not having to worry about fleas in their bedrolls or lice in their helmets.
> 
> For that matter, were diseases completely absent from your worlds? If a creature as big as a rat has only 1hp and it's therefore impossible to imagine it surviving to any significant number in a world that "makes sense" then bacteria, viruses, fungi and other single-celled organisms must be 100% extinct, right?




You're always free to believe what you want to believe. 

joe b.


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 14, 2009)

@ joe b.:  Thank you so much for sharing your perceptions on 4E design.  It has helped me tremendously clarify from a design point of view *why* 4E was bothering me so much.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> You're always free to believe what you want to believe.
> 
> joe b.




I'll believe what you tell me, if you answer the question. You said creatures with 1hp didn't really exist in your games because you assumed they died off. I'm asking if this was really carried through to its logical simulationist conclusion or if you "fiated" aspects of that general rule that created a nonsensical world.

As I see it, there are two possible ways to get around the "too fragile to live" dilemma your method appears to create. Either ignore the "1hp creatures die" rule for creatures smaller than a house cat (i.e. make an exception) or assume that a toad, a mosquito and an amoeba all have at least 2hp (the same as a house cat or a weasel).

Neither one seems especially satisfactory, but maybe you used a different method that I'm not thinking of.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Jul 14, 2009)

I think it is important to remember, before the comparison to earlier versions' monsters with 1hp gets out of hand:

Minions don't have 1hp.

Their hit points are _undefined_.  Any successful attack dispatches them, but an unsuccessful attack - especially a 'miss' effect - does not.  If the miss effect states  half damage or 2[W] instead of 3[W] or whatever, at that very moment, the minion has (half damage) +1 hit points, or 2[W]+1 hit points.  They still don't have a single hit point, but at 0 hit points they are dispatched, so they have one more hit point than the damage that would have been dealt, because they can't be dispatched on a miss.  When a miss effect is triggered again the following round, they will again have (half damage) +1 hit points, or 2[W]+1 hit points.  In fact, a string of very unlucky rolls by a player would lead one to believe they have, in fact, infinite hit points, with a special condition that they are dispatched on any successful attack.

Thinking of them as '1hp monsters' is not accurate.  They really are a mid-combat skill challenge.  The mechanics are identical.  The cognitive dissonance, as I see it, is in finding some rationalization as to why they are monsters.  They aren't monsters, they are flat cubes, they are missing a dimension that defines every other opponent; namely, hit points.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 14, 2009)

Storm-Bringer said:


> Thinking of them as '1hp monsters' is not accurate.  They really are a mid-combat skill challenge.  The mechanics are identical.  The cognitive dissonance, as I see it, is in finding some rationalization as to why they are monsters.  They aren't monsters, they are flat cubes, they are missing a dimension that defines every other opponent; namely, hit points.



This really doesn't have anything to do with the issue I'm discussing with Joe. It's an interesting point, but doesn't really have any bearing on the simulationist world-building aspects of minions.


----------



## Barastrondo (Jul 14, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> If you enjoy the minion rules, use them and happy gaming. We found them amusing at first but have become annoyed with them. While the minions permit scenes from fiction to occur within the game, just remember that the characters in the fiction were not being played by real people who get to see the underlying mechanics supporting thier acts of heroism.




It's easy enough to remember. Those real people are at my table every week, bringing food and drink. They all see the underlying mechanics, but we view them as an enabler rather than a millstone. If they bug your group, absolutely the best rule is to drop them, but I can assure you I'm not inflicting them on unhappy players.



> What if Aragorn got to the bottom of the hill at Amon Hen, looked back at all the carnage he had created and saw only cardboard cutouts lying on the ground? Would he feel that his accomplishment was worth anything?




I'm not sure how that line of argument applies. Aragorn's player and Aragorn are not the same thing. The tendency to view the world through the filter of game mechanics isn't a common one at our table; for us, Aragorn sees orcs, even though Viggo knows they were extras. We don't have trouble with the two images blending in our heads. 



> When anything and everything morphs depending on context you get a world without substance.




I disagree. It is without the particular substance of a ruleset that encourages absolutes regardless of context, but that's just one breed of substance. I haven't seen many absolutes that are worthy of preservation regardless of context — at least as far as game mechanics go. "Treat your players like decent human beings" is the kind of absolute I tend to get behind.



Raven Crowking said:


> Assuming that all ogres are now minions, this would be accurate.




Most probably would be within the context of that campaign, because it's the ideal way to model them. But campaigns and campaign worlds are different things. Just because rank-and-file ogres wind up being minions when one campaign gets up to about 15th level or so doesn't mean that another 3rd-level campaign in the same world is suddenly going to find that most ogres they run into are minions. 

To us, the in-character perspective takes precedence over the mechanical consistency. It would make less sense to treat a 3rd-level encounter with ogres the same way as the 15th-level one. I realize this is the core point of contention, and that wouldn't work at all for many folks in this thread; I just point out what works for us, and I defend it as something that works _great_ for us.



> If you are saying that the DM can and should use common sense to adjudicate rules in order to reinforce the contextual meaning of the game milieu, we are on the same page.  Now, if you could please say as much in this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ealing-dm-who-takes-things-too-literally.html) I would appreciate it.




I don't think the thread in question quite applies. I have the feeling that trying to argue for common-sense calls as a whole would give the mistaken impression that I felt the thread-starter in general was a common-sense call, and I honestly don't. I come down on the side of it being literal beyond the point of common sense, so I can't in good conscience defend it with these terms. Apologies! 



> Canada.  But I think your 1 hp minimum is a house rule.  Or can you tell me where to find it in the RAW?




I'm sorry, what "1 hp minimum"? I was just commenting on the wonder of butterflies that could do 1 hp of damage and be considered "feeble." They weren't my creation, to be sure!



> This is, I think, the crux of the problem.  The player has to know how the character perceives the threat.  But the basis for player knowledge is shifted.  Captain Kirk's player may have the good Captain go "OMG!  Horta!", but unless the same player also views the horta as a threat to CK, a great deal of the visceral thrill is gone.  IMHO, at least.




I guess it depends on how much the player took into account his mechanical knowledge as a player in the first place. One of the reasons that I like 4e so much is that with quick and easy build-your-own monster rules, role-based mechanics, and the ease of reskinning, you can have a lot of diversity between monsters. It's really hard to second-guess what a monster's mechanics are, so you rely more on in-character observation. 

(Example: the necrosis-spitting mutant "bull rat" that we went up against in my brother's last game? Ankheg stat block. Which is to say, L3 elite brute with a spit attack and a grab attack. No way I could have predicted that stat block, so I had to react to what my character saw.)



> It will be interesting to see how this plays out over time.  Will anyone bother to make "Retro Clones" of 4e 25 years from now?




Too many factors to consider. The odds are certainly lower, since there are been so many different RPGs out there to cater to every potential taste in 2008, and there weren't nearly as many 25 (35?) years ago. To say nothing of the "first to market" factor — a first contact is certainly a hell of a mindshare advantage.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I'll believe what you tell me, if you answer the question.




If you believed what I've told you, you would not have asked the question because the answer to your question's already been said.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> @ joe b.:  Thank you so much for sharing your perceptions on 4E design.  It has helped me tremendously clarify from a design point of view *why* 4E was bothering me so much.




Glad to see something I said helped with some design conceptualizations. 

To me, minions are problematical for my play style preferences since the desired narrative intent of minions  to make the players feel powerful is in opposition to how I like to play D&D, and how I have played for years.

To use the most recent analogy, minions are a mechanic useful when going for a Batman feel, but I don't want a Batman feel when I play D&D. To me, a D&D character isn't the same kind of character I'd expect to play in Feng Shui so minions are out of place.

joe b.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jul 14, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Did you ever fight low level monsters in 3E? They are just paper. Nothing Tiger to it. Most of the time, they won't even be able to touch you.




Since you asked...yes.  And what you describe has never been my experience.   Most first lvl monsters, in the right numbers, are tough for first lvl characters in 3E, and in every iteration before that.



> Did you ever fight Minions in 4E? They are not paper tigers. They kill you if you ignore them or treat them as if they were no threat. Just like any other monster of their level. It's just that you get 4 of them instead of 1 of them pitted against you. Fighting through a horde of Orc Minions can be a spectacularly rewarding experience, because bodies are dropping left and right. But... they can actually overpower you.




Also, yes.  And what you describe has never been my experience.   I'm currently in a weekly 4e game, and I can assure you that when we ID which of the enemies are minions, we ignore them and their 5 fixed damage in favor of teaming up on the real enemies, who invariably have greater firepower.  Thats not to say that I'd want to be surrounded by 8 minions, but ASAIC thats easily remedied with proper battlefield management and positioning.

Again, I just don't get the same thrill "dropping bodies left and right" when those bodies had 1 single hp, and I could've felled them wielding a sprite's dagger.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 14, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> I had a lair full of human cultists - mostly low-level bandits. I used the 2nd-level human bandit for the MM at first. When we got into combat with these guys the PCs were 7th or 8th level. It was pretty lame. They couldn't hit the PCs but they had too many HP.
> 
> I figured I'd change them into the 7th level human minions for next time.




I completely understand why you would use minions in this situation. The nature of the scaling level system makes using lower level monsters a very messy option. If the 1E or OSRIC rules were used those 2nd level bandits could still be decent challenge to a 7th/8th level party in sufficient numbers.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Jul 14, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Serious question to RC (and others anti-minions)
> 
> Would the minions rules be AS bad to you if the WOTC designers had stuck to their *original* minions rules (which did have minions gaining small bits of HP - Vampire level 8 minions had 6 HP IIRC)




This would be a step in the right direction.

My preference would be that minions have normal hit points for their level, and their "minion-ness" gives the attacking PC a multiplier to his or her damage.

This would make them at least a little sturdier, and add some small percent chance that the minion will live if low or minimum damage is rolled.

Chance is good.  Thats where the fun is for me.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 14, 2009)

MrGrenadine said:


> Also, yes.  And what you describe has never been my experience.   I'm currently in a weekly 4e game, and I can assure you that when we ID which of the enemies are minions, we ignore them and their 5 fixed damage in favor of teaming up on the real enemies, who invariably have greater firepower.  Thats not to say that I'd want to be surrounded by 8 minions, but ASAIC thats easily remedied with proper battlefield management and positioning.



This is part of why I double the number of minions.  Frankly, they are overvalued by RAW.  Having twice as many makes them somewhat scary again.

As for their threat...  sufficient low-level minions can be a huge threat when paired with ... well, just about anything, but particularly brutes and anything with extra damage on combat advantage.  Even low-power minions become frightening when they're all Aiding Another with more dangerous foes.

Their damage can be lackluster, especially if you don't double them.  I think ranged minions work pretty fine as-is, though; they can spread out for defense against area attacks, and can stay out of threatening range pretty easily.

-O


----------



## Ourph (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> If you believed what I've told you, you would not have asked the question because the answer to your question's already been said.
> 
> joe b.



Do you have a post# you can point me to, because I'm not seeing this particular issue addressed anywhere else. I'm seeing a lot of assertions that creatures who die if they take 1hp of damage are too fragile to exist in a world that makes "sense" but nobody has addressed how that jives with the existence of just such fragile creatures in editions without the minion mechanic.


----------



## ST (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning, I'm using your points to extend my argument, so please don't take this as a straight "nuh uh" rebuttal. This is just me comparing and contrasting my opinion with yours.



jgbrowning said:


> There's more play in role-playing games than what just occurs between the players and the GM. For those who prefer playing in a pretend world that exists independently of the PCs, there's the game the GM (and the player) plays alone. In this aspect of roleplay the rules function not only as directions on what widgets can do what while at the table, but as guidelines to how to create a "pretend reality" wherein those (player or GM) who prefer to role-play as if the world exists independent of the PCs find help in creating that independent world based upon the rules expectations.




I disagree -- I fundamentally don't believe that the version of the game world that exists only in the GM's head is actually part of the game. It's prep.

Stuff isn't part of the game at the table until it is introduced. After it's introduced, it only matters to the GM whether it was previously extant in his head or improvised, since he's the only one that knows.

I see how there's pleasure to be had in building within the "test server" version of the game world that exists only in the GM's head, and that's a popular activity among GMs, but I don't think it ultimately relates to the actual roleplaying game at the table, the thing that gets played. My experience is that most of the time, the extreme detail in the GM's version of the imagined world is illusory -- stuff in the _shared imagined world_, which is the version of the world the game at the table takes place in, is blurred with the fact that it's a consensus among multiple people. Stuff happens, is seen, is felt, smelled, etc., it's a dirtier place than the one in the GM's head. Less Platonic, less ideal simulation. 

The reason I keep hammering this point is because I think it's key to the discussion. 3.x is a toolkit that works equally well to play at the table or in the GM's solo version.  That it gives GMs guidelines to imagine a rich, developed world is a thing that makes those GMs like it. Heck, it _needed_ to do that, since GM prep time was fairly intensive. But I literally don't see that as a gameplay issue.



> As I said, one type of roleplaying is "The world exists to interact with the PCs" type, and what you've posted is the calling-card of that type. That isn't the only type of roleplaying, however.




Again, I'm arguing here more in a terminology sense than "Nuh uh, you're wrong", but again I disagree. This could be my own personal glitch, or whatever. 

My point is that roleplaying (in terms of what 3.x and 4e are trying to do,so that it's not a sprawling "what is roleplaying?" question) is a multiplayer activity. Fundamentally. At least two people involved. As such, there will be a shared imagined space, and that's the "game world". Yeah, I know, it's hard to discuss things that are both shared and imaginary, but if I type "There's a red apple, kind of soft, with a brown spot on the top," I just shared something imagined.

The way I see it, it's important that the shared imagined space feel real, feel supported by mechanics, backstory, etc. in various ways. However, because it's imagined, whether it _seems_ firmly supported, that is "real", is what matters, rather than whether or not it is actually firmly supported. 

That's why I argue vehemently that no, the kind of roleplaying where it's really really important that the GM's solo version of the game world is mechanically supported is not just "another kind of roleplaying", it's roleplaying with an additional GM-only activity bolted on the side. Which is totally cool. I'm saying that the world can be just as real and consistent _in play_ even if the prep was done in a different fashion.

I totally agree in every way that everyone imagining the shared game world should see it as a solid thing that makes its own sense. That phrase "The world just exists for the players" is too vague there. In one sense, it's literally true in all roleplaying games, the stuff that isn't played, isn't played.. In another sense, it can imply that the world is disposable or somehow less meaningful or important than the players, which I don't think any of us are looking for. The world can come into existence only as needed for the players, and yet be consistent and have a weight and realism all its own. My take is for it do have that heft, everybody at the table, not just the GM, needs to have that buy-in for what the world feels like and how to describe stuff in that context. I think it's much more of a communications skill than a factor of prep, in a lot of cases. That's just my opinon, of course.


----------



## Oni (Jul 14, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> If you enjoy the minion rules, use them and happy gaming. We found them amusing at first but have become annoyed with them. While the minions permit scenes from fiction to occur within the game, just remember that the characters in the fiction were not being played by real people who get to see the underlying mechanics supporting thier acts of heroism.
> 
> What if Aragorn got to the bottom of the hill at Amon Hen, looked back at all the carnage he had created and saw only cardboard cutouts lying on the ground? Would he feel that his accomplishment was worth anything?




This begs the question, for any hero standing atop a mountain of dead foes, where any of them individually a worthy challenge?  I think the obvious answer to that is no.  However there comes a point where enough of them present a situation that the hero can only tackle with considerable risk to himself.  I think anytime a task has risk, succeeding at it has value.  

Wouldn't it be more fair to measure the worth of a challenge by its totality rather than the strength of its individual parts?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 14, 2009)

Oni said:


> This begs the question, for any hero standing atop a mountain of dead foes, where any of them individually a worthy challenge?  I think the obvious answer to that is no.  However there comes a point where enough of them present a situation that the hero can only tackle with considerable risk to himself.  I think anytime a task has risk, succeeding at it has value.
> 
> Wouldn't it be more fair to measure the worth of a challenge by its totality rather than the strength of its individual parts?




I still think that there is a qualitative difference between standing atop a mountain of deceased low-level fighters or a mountain of dead girl scouts, and a Hero would perceive that difference.  Even within the subset of non-challenging foes, there are distinctions.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> Monsters in 4e exist in some Heisenbergian state wherein their "normal" or "minion" status solely depends upon the level of the first party to step into the door. Once that state is fixed by party A, when party B enters the room, the "role-playing handwave" of why minions make sense is destroyed: their existence is solely a reflection of PC power.
> 
> joe b.



This concern sounds familiar.....  
Only it isn't just limited to "normal" vs. "minion".
As was described upthread, a pirate villian is also in an indeterminate state until a Party A steps through the door.

This is great if balanced mini battles are the prime concern of design.  

The same issue also applies to the lock on the door the party walks through...

There is nothing wrong with preferring it this way.
But there is also nothing wrong with a preference that these issues play second fiddle to creating the world in a consistent way.
IMO, there is something wrong with disputing that these are two distinct viable alternatives or refusing to accept that someone else may find the alternative preferable.


----------



## Oni (Jul 14, 2009)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I still think that there is a qualitative difference between standing atop a mountain of deceased low-level fighters or a mountain of dead girl scouts, and a Hero would perceive that difference.  Even within the subset of non-challenging foes, there are distinctions.




Like I said a situation should be measured by the totality of the challenged presented.  Of course a hero can tell the difference between a situation that challenged him (beating up trained fighters) and one that didn't challenge him (beating up on a bunch of helpless little girls).  I'm not sure I see your point though.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

ST said:


> I disagree -- I fundamentally don't believe that the version of the game world that exists only in the GM's head is actually part of the game. It's prep.




To me, prep is part of the game because the prep is what the game at the table is going to be about, there is no game without prep, even if that prep is just a second. What one considers during prep is guided by the rules of the game, hence, no twin-pistol wielding John Woo action hero in the typical D&D game. As a game get older, these rules create a shared conceptual agreement concerning how the mechanics and the non-mechanics interact. For example, trolls regenerate in D&D. Trolls in other fantasy games don't have too.



> Stuff isn't part of the game at the table until it is introduced. After it's introduced, it only matters to the GM whether it was previously extant in his head or improvised, since he's the only one that knows.




I think there's tremendous amounts of stuff that's part of the game that's not introduced at the table. For example, the party saves a farmer from some orcs. In order for the GM to know what the results of that action are, he has to have some sort of framework (experienced or not experienced by the players at the moment) to provide guidance on how to deal with the results of the action in a manner that helps players continue their willing suspension of disbelief.

IMO, creating this framework within which the table top enters and moves about is integral to the actual creation of the game. It's the context for all the widgets and numbers and combats. Without this framework, a roleplaying game typically becomes a type of squad-level wargame.



> I see how there's pleasure to be had in building within the "test server" version of the game world that exists only in the GM's head, and that's a popular activity among GMs, but I don't think it ultimately relates to the actual roleplaying game at the table, the thing that gets played.




I think it relates because what's going on in the GMs head when not at the table influences what's going to happen at the table. The game isn't just what happens when GM and players meet at the table, it's also what happens when each person is alone and thinking about the game, IMO. Because they will bring their ideas to the game, creating a framework within which things on the table-top interact.



> The reason I keep hammering this point is because I think it's key to the discussion. 3.x is a toolkit that works equally well to play at the table or in the DM's solo version. 4e supports the former much better than the latter. People get upset that it fails to support the latter, I get that, but I really do think that's a separate issue from how the game plays. It's a philosophical issue rather than a logistical one, in other words.




I don't know if I'd say 4e supports table-top play better than 3e, but it does support a different style of table-top play, and it does support that style very well.

joe b.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 14, 2009)

Oni said:


> Like I said a situation should be measured by the totality of the challenged presented. Of course a hero can tell the difference between a situation that challenged him (beating up trained fighters) and one that didn't challenge him (beating up on a bunch of helpless little girls). I'm not sure I see your point though.




Goes down in 1 soft hit = helpless little girl.  That helpless little girl may look like a girl, a kobold, an ogre, or a large winged demon. The appearance isn't important, the vulnerability to a pimp slap is.


----------



## Keldryn (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure there's a difference (and nice description, btw).  Like I said, I don't think minion rules are bad, per se, but I think that they can cause problems.....like when Batman goes to rescue Commissioner Gordon and Aunt Harriet from Two Face's minions, only to discover than not only can the Commish take out minions as well as Batman can, but so can Aunt Harriet!
> 
> There are better ways to model Batman's prowess, IMHO, that don't cause this problem to arise.
> 
> (And, in a ruleset that encourages the GM to utilize common sense, I don't think this problem would necessarily arise with the minion rules, either!   )




In the Batman example, I don't think it would be unreasonable to rule that the Commissioner and Aunt Harriet are unable to cause significant damage to the minions unless they are armed.  If they could, then they wouldn't have needed rescuing.  If they need to roll a high enough number to hit the minions' AC when attacking with a weapons, then a lucky but lethal shot feels appropriate to me.

The intent of the minion rules -- as I see it -- is that they are minions because they are a minor threat to skilled, well-armed combatants.  If they aren't facing such combatants (i.e. the PCs), then they're not minions.  But if they aren't involved in combat with the PCs, then there is no need to apply combat stats to them, as the game centers on the players and their characters' actions, not on what's going on in the background.  Some DMs (and players) will object strongly to this approach, but I love it.  

The game status of "minion" isn't intended to define what a creature is in objective terms and explain how it interacts with the world when not in the presence of the PCs.  "Minion" is a shorthand way of saying that a creature poses some threat to the PCs, but its purpose is simply to slow down the PCs a bit on their way to the real threat and add a bit of dramatic tension.  As such, they aren't worth the effort of tracking hit points when the PCs *should* be able to take it down with one hit, if they roll well, but could take 2 or 3 additional hits if the PCs are unlucky and roll poorly.  

When DMing previous editions, I'd often just kill off a "filler" monster if it was brought down to 1-4 hit points from a single hit, rather than bother with tracking its hit points and initiative for yet another round.  And there were times I purposefully gave a monster very low HP, in the hopes that they would essentially be "speed bumps" and threaten the PCs but go down in one hit.  But again, I don't view the rules as an objective set of attributes that govern how the world operates "off-camera."  A creature's stats are only relevant to me when they are interacting with the PCs, and I love that the system embraces this philosophy in its design.  I can understand why a lot of people will disagree with this and object to the idea that the same individual Ogre could be a level 4 solo, a level 6 brute, or a level 9 minion, depending on what level the PCs are and what purpose said ogre serves in the adventure (please nobody correct me on what the ogre's level and roles are in the MM; I'm just making up numbers).


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

BryonD said:


> IMO, there is something wrong with disputing that these are two distinct viable alternatives or refusing to accept that someone else may find the alternative preferable.




IMO, there's nothing wrong with anyone's preferences in role-playing. To me it's like one person liking pepperoni pizza and someone else disliking it while liking mushroom and onion pizza. Arguing which is better is kinda like arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Now, discussing if certain mechanics do what they're designed to do and if there are unintended consequences is a bit more interesting.  That's game design, and learning how to make things work for my version of better is always cool with me.

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Do you have a post# you can point me to, because I'm not seeing this particular issue addressed anywhere else. I'm seeing a lot of assertions that creatures who die if they take 1hp of damage are too fragile to exist in a world that makes "sense" but nobody has addressed how that jives with the existence of just such fragile creatures in editions without the minion mechanic.




Post #378 where I said "I expect GMs to always exert narrative control to the point of mostly ignoring all rules except those that make players question their suspension of disbelief."

In addition Hussar's post, and my post to him was concerning humanoids which you quoted. Not cats, bat, fungi, and bacteria. In my game, I rarely have humanoids with 1hp, expecting most of them to have died out.

Why don't the smaller things with 1 hp die out? For the same reason they don't in the real world. Simulation is a scale that one needs not go to the far end to prefer.

joe b.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 14, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Goes down in 1 soft hit = helpless little girl.  That helpless little girl may look like a girl, a kobold, an ogre, or a large winged demon. The appearance isn't important, the vulnerability to a pimp slap is.



You're treating opponents as one dimensional, with hp being the only important dimension. But that's not an accurate representation of opponents.

The stat block for a helpless girl probably looks something like this...

Init: +0, HP: 1, Atk: -5, Dmg: 1hp, AC: 6, Fort: 4, Ref: 6, Will: 4

Whereas the stat block for a 10th level minion probably looks something like this...

Init: +8, HP: 1, Atk: +16, Dmg: 8hp, AC: 25, Fort: 22, Ref: 24, Will: 22

If the only dimension that matters is HPs, then if you pit the little girl and the 10th level minion against each other, it should be a wash. Each opponent should kill the other 50% of the time because, as far as HP go, they have identical stats. But that's not what happens. In all but the rarest cases, the 10th level minion destroys the helpless little girl because, in the end, they're not the same. There are dimensions to monsters that matter just as much or more than the number of HP they have.


----------



## Oni (Jul 14, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Goes down in 1 soft hit = helpless little girl.  That helpless little girl may look like a girl, a kobold, an ogre, or a large winged demon. The appearance isn't important, the vulnerability to a pimp slap is.




To which I would say, see my post prior to that one, about the totality of challenge rather than strength of its parts.  

I wonder why the assumption about soft hits and barely poking things and them dying.  A soft hit would be a miss, a blow that's so feeble it slides off of armour,  successful hit implies a forceful blow with intent to harm IMHO.


----------



## ST (Jul 14, 2009)

Prep is absolutely essential to play. It does inform and shape that play. I disagree that it is a _part_ of play, specifically the play at the table. Hm, I think I see something, in 3.x the rules for play could be used as implied rules of prep. Whether the rules were actually strictly followed is not the issue, just that they could be. 

This makes sense, as 4e has rules for prep that are specifically not part of the rules of play. (Well, guidelines, few traditional games have concrete prep 'rules'.) I feel they work pretty well, specifically in that they offer advice for bridging stuff like "What is the in-world thing that these monsters are doing" to "How do these monsters behave in combat", although it's not extensive. 

Okay, so in my head I phrase it as a philosophical difference in how the prep phase of the campaign (which I'm not calling 'play', because there's only one person involved) is done. That makes sense. The two editions give very different GM advice on how to handle this phase, with 3.x expecting the GM to apply the rules effects to simulate the world, and 4e expecting the GM to apply the prep advice to create the scenario. Yeah, okay, put that way the huge difference in approach is obvious. 

My contention is that whichever approach a group uses for a campaign will work, and provide consistent, believable, and complex results -- _if the group buys into the approach_. So, yeah, if a GM personally feels that the 4e approach, or the 3.x approach, does not give him the tools he needs to build a world with proper vermillisitude, then it doesn't. It's not really up for debate, it really won't work for that group because they do not want to buy in to it. I'm just saying that is a very different thing from "It won't work, period."


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, the crux of the argument you are responding to is that minions change the context of the "ogre" you are facing, so that your ability to hew it in half ceases to have any real meaning.
> 
> That's one of the problems with minion-type rules.  Batman should be able to plow through common criminals, but if the common criminals are such that a feebleblow butterfly can do the same, does it really make Batman seem all that powerful?




I think the problem is, you are operating from a profound misunderstanding of the concept of minions (they are equally killable by PCs as by NPCs), enhanced by the introduction of entirely made-up rules (butterflies that do fractional amounts of damage). 

In short: Batman can take out those minions because that is their purpose in the rules - to be defeated by the hero. A butterfly won't do so because, to the butterfly, those enemies don't exist as minions. The rules don't typically present us what stats are fitting for the criminals to have in regards to butterflies because _we don't need to know that_. 

Minion's having 1 hp is not intended to represent the survivability of the monster within the context of the setting, but the survivability of the monster in the context of a battle with PCs. It is a simple mechanic by which monsters can remain a legitimate threat while being easily removed from the fight, in a manner seen in countless fantasy stories, games and movies. 

A group of PCs can encounter an Ogre Guard at a low level, and have a difficult fight with it. Many levels later, they might return to the Ogre Camp and find themselves facing all the Ogre Guards within - which now are minions. They have not changed in their context to the setting, but in their context to the PCs. 

Now, the claim seems to be being made that by creating stats that indicate minions die in 1 hit, the DM has to represent that in a monster's interactions with NPCs and the environment. The Ogre village could never prove a threat to the local town, obviously, because enough farmers throwing rocks would eventually hit them and take them all out - right? 

Well, no. You aren't supposed to be running them as minions against the farmers. You honestly shouldn't be spending time rolling out a combat between NPCs in the first place! Whether the ogres are a threat to the local village should be decided by _you_, as the DM, based on the priorities of plot and whatever is appropriate to the setting. You don't need to compare some arbitrary variables against each other to determine what should happen within a setting entirely manufactured by your own agency.

If you do have a butterfly flitter past an ogre minion and kill it, the fault isn't on the system - it is on _you_, for applying the minion rules in a manner other than intended and deliberately creating a circumstance to undermine their use. 

Meanwhile, you have bypassed one of the common arguments against your point here - that this was arguably more of an issue in past editions where commoner's _did_ have 1 hitpoint, 'for reals' within the context of the setting. You have done so with your hypothetical butterfly that does a fractional amount of damage, focusing on the weakness of a minion as 'dies upon receiving any amount of damage', while ignoring the fact that 4E assumes that 'any amount of damage' will always equal at least 1. 

I don't know whether this is outright stated anywhere within the rules, but it is nonetheless clearly an assumption of the game as evidence by the fact that _every single monster in the game_, when using attacks that deal damage, does at least 1 damage with those attacks. Inventing something outside of this, again, isn't a problem with the system, but with your deliberate choice as a DM to bypass the system and create something outside of its normal guidelines.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 14, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Goes down in 1 soft hit = helpless little girl. That helpless little girl may look like a girl, a kobold, an ogre, or a large winged demon. The appearance isn't important, the vulnerability to a pimp slap is.



Assuming the pimp can hit the minion's AC, which is typically much higher than a helpless little girl's, maybe. And that the pimp beats the minion's initiative or survives the minions's first strike, which is far more powerful than tghat of a helpless little girl. Have you always defined monsters based solely on their hit points?


----------



## ST (Jul 14, 2009)

The minion rules are crystal clear that they apply to monsters being fought by players during a combat encounter. Period. As someone said upthread, the HP of a minion outside of that situation is _undefined_.

Of course you can come up with silly situations by extrapolating this to something that isn't in the rules. That's trivial to do with almost any rule. But that's just houseruling in something that you don't like, which seems needlessly masochistic to me. 

And again, if you're talking about a minion taking damage somewhere other than "On the table, in an encounter against PCs", you're not talking about play. Then again, it does feel like play, with a GM and players at the table, is almost totally tangential to this entire argument.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

ST said:


> Prep is absolutely essential to play. It does inform and shape that play. I disagree that it is a _part_ of play, specifically the play at the table.




I think you may want to explore this idea more, because, as a designer and publisher I really do believe the actual power of a role-playing game comes down to not how it plays at the table, but *how it plays out in the heads of the people *away from the table. In my experience, the games that people really want to play are the games that get stuck in their heads when they're away from the table. The concepts, conceits, scenes, and flexibility of a shared world in which they want to explore and experience.

Of course the at table play is very important and don't think I'm taking any importance away from such, but I think it is  secondary to a strong sense of "I want to go there" when people think of the game when away from the table.



> My contention is that whichever approach a group uses for a campaign will work, and provide consistent, believable, and complex results -- _if the group buys into the approach_. So, yeah, if a GM personally feels that the 4e approach, or the 3.x approach, does not give him the tools he needs to build a world with proper vermillisitude, then it doesn't. It's not really up for debate, it really won't work for that group because they do not want to buy in to it. I'm just saying that is a very different thing from "It won't work, period."




"It won't work, period" can be true for some people. Really, for some people some things just simply do not work and cannot work and will never work. It's how some people actually do not like bacon. 

So, IMO, instead of looking at what can and cannot work when viewing a system (I think one can role-play and have a lot of fun with just about any system imaginable) perhaps look and ask, "what style of play does this rule system support better and what style is it more counter to?"

joe b.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 14, 2009)

Oni said:


> To which I would say, see my post prior to that one, about the totality of challenge rather than strength of its parts.
> 
> I wonder why the assumption about soft hits and barely poking things and them dying. A soft hit would be a miss, a blow that's so feeble it slides off of armour, successful hit implies a forceful blow with intent to harm IMHO.




Totality? OK a mountain of 150 "little girls". No change.

Soft hit in this case refers to causing very little (1hp) damage on a successful hit. A soft hit is still a hit in game terms. It's no different than saying "the axe cleaves through bone and brain, take 1 point of damage".
Remember that hp are abstract and forcing an opponent to use vital energy defending against a glancing blow can still be a " hit" and deal "damage".


----------



## ST (Jul 14, 2009)

I respect your opinion, but there's no way I will budge from "The game part of a roleplaying game is the part where everybody's there, together, playing". I spent a long time looking at it the way you described, and I'm done with that, at least in the context of producing what I find to be functional prep material that drives interesting play.

There's a lot of value in solitary creative activities, writing a novel or a RPG supplement or, yes, even the super fantastic setting that all the players will (hopefully) love. But fundamentally those activities are not the same as multiplayer play. From experience, I don't even find that their outputs correlate very well. 

I'm not interesting in creating a game where my players will go "Oh, man, I just like to sit back and think about what it'd be like to be in that world." I want one where my players go "Oh man, when are we playing again?" From my perspective, it sounds like the "not-playing, but thinking about it" parts are _more_ important in your approach than the parts with people, together, at the table. I have not in the past found play that resulted from such methods to be satisfactory to me. I have no doubt they work for other folks, though.

So yeah, pretty much we just have a fundamental difference in approach as to the entire purpose of the hobby, no biggie.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> In my experience, the games that people really want to play are the games that get stuck in their heads when they're away from the table. The concepts, conceits, scenes, and flexibility of a shared world in which they want to explore and experience.




I kind of agree here- but I don't think the rules have anything (much) to do with them getting stuck in the player's heads. From what I've experienced, this has more to do with the flavor/story elements of the game then the rules.

Example: World of Darkness

World of Darkness stuff NEVER fails to make me dream about game sessions... The rules are eh... (Mostly eh because I get bored of 1 die type games quickly.. I wanna use my DICE man!!!!)

The point being that the rules don't inspire my dreaming. The weird little snippets of half story White Wolf puts in the books, and the pictures and stuff do that.

Another Example? GURPS...

I can read the GURPS sourcebooks at any given moment and be inspired by all the info in them... But when it comes to the actual rules? I find them kind of cumbersome. In fact when it comes time to translate my dreams into game session with GURPS... Usually it's a LOT of work.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 14, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> I think the problem is, you are operating from a profound misunderstanding of the concept of minions (they are equally killable by PCs as by NPCs), enhanced by the introduction of entirely made-up rules (butterflies that do fractional amounts of damage).




AFAICT, the butterfly can do 0 hp damage, and the effect be the same in 4e.

You are apparently under the impression that if a party consists of 4 PCs and 2 NPCs, the NPCs cannot kill minions the way that the PCs can.  I am curious as to where I can find this in the RAW. 



> A group of PCs can encounter an Ogre Guard at a low level, and have a difficult fight with it. Many levels later, they might return to the Ogre Camp and find themselves facing all the Ogre Guards within - which now are minions. They have not changed in their context to the setting, but in their context to the PCs.




You seem to be advocating using common sense to interpret rules.  I have a thread I'd like to see you make that claim in.  



> Now, the claim seems to be being made that by creating stats that indicate minions die in 1 hit, the DM has to represent that in a monster's interactions with NPCs and the environment. The Ogre village could never prove a threat to the local town, obviously, because enough farmers throwing rocks would eventually hit them and take them all out - right?




The PCs are fighting the ogres while the NPC farmers throw rocks.  According to RAW, what happens to the ogres? 



> Meanwhile, you have bypassed one of the common arguments against your point here - that this was arguably more of an issue in past editions where commoner's _did_ have 1 hitpoint, 'for reals' within the context of the setting.




They sure did, but the DM was also admonished to use common sense when determining what an effective attack was.  Indeed, pre-WotC-D&D, rules were intended as guidelines to aid the DM in making reasonable rulings.  

If the rules suggest wacky things, as all rules do, but the DM adjudicates to remove the effects of those wacky things, then the system can work.  If the rules suggest wacky things, as all rules do, _*but the DM is not supposed to adjudicate to remove the effect of those wacky things*_, then large problems can ensue.

I will grant you freely that playstyle is the largest determinant as to whether wacky things will occur.  



> You have done so with your hypothetical butterfly that does a fractional amount of damage, focusing on the weakness of a minion as 'dies upon receiving any amount of damage', while ignoring the fact that 4E assumes that 'any amount of damage' will always equal at least 1.




Where should I look for that in the books?   If not, it is your assumption that this is an assumption of the game.  I could likewise say that, because PC gnomes didn't come out in the 1e PHB, 4e assumed that there would be no PC gnomes.  Of course, we know that to be false, and we knew (or should have known) that it was false then.  

But, in the case of 4e in particular, we cannot know what the basic assumptions of the core rules are on the basis of what is currently included, because the core rules are always being expanded upon.

The lamejoke butterfly might well be in the Monster Manual XXVII.  




RC


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

ST said:


> I'm not interesting in creating a game where my players will go "Oh, man, I just like to sit back and think about what it'd be like to be in that world." I want one where my players go "Oh man, when are we playing again?"




Perhaps I didn't state my point clearly enough, but I believe the main reason why someone goes "Oh man, when are we playing again?" in response to a particular game (as opposed to just playing any game to hang out and have fun with friends) is because of what exists in their mind when away from the table, because they don't want to do what happened last session all over again, they want to do something different, something that they are imagining could happen. This desire to play does not come from the table, it comes from the imagining of what they could do in addition to what they have already done.

And I think that the "game" that exists in their mind is very important when determining the power of a particular role-playing game. The more people who are, to use your term, prepping for a game, the more powerful the game is because it has more sticking power in the minds of the players. As a game designer, I must focus heavily upon getting the world and the possibilities of the world to stick in peoples head when they are not at the table because that will bring them to the table to play my game, not just any game.

So when I say, "not-playing ,but thinking about it" play this is what I mean. Without this imagining of what you could do next session, a game dies.



> From my perspective, it sounds like the "not-playing, but thinking about it" parts are _more_ important in your approach than the parts with people, together, at the table. I have not in the past found play that resulted from such methods to be satisfactory to me.




It is more important if you want to get people to keep playing your game. Having fun at the table is very dependent upon the people you're playing with, but the desire to play a particular game at the table is independent of other people, and it is what keeps a game alive. The desire to play a particular system will keep people trying to find a table for that game.

I think the "thinking about it" part is what drives people to particular systems and games, while "at the table" is what drives people to roleplaying in general. I think "thinking about it" is the more important aspect when figuring out why individuals prefer one game over another, be that because the mechanics are helping making the table top experience more fun, or in some cases, even when the mechanics make it harder. It's not hard to find people who say, "I love game X, even though it's system is wonky."



> So yeah, pretty much we just have a fundamental difference in approach as to the entire purpose of the hobby, no biggie.




It is possible. I think I just think of "prep" and "thinking about the game" as an integral part of the gaming experience while you don't. But as you say, it's no biggie. In the end, it just may seem semantic.

joe b.


----------



## ST (Jul 14, 2009)

Don't sweat it; we're just talking past each other at this point. 

Very little of my personal experience with prep is about the world anyway; for my games, setting is a source of situation and color, and NPCs with their own goals that'll contend against the PC's goals. That kind of stuff is a different style of prep, but it's definately still prep. 

I've also only had two players in my group at any time in the last five years that particularly cared about the exact, precise description of setting apart from what was relevant to a given scene. And I don't really care about it either. That didn't hurt the game or make it less evocative, because the stuff I was relegating to Color was stuff that nobody at the table was particularly interested in. That doesn't mean there weren't lots of other things at the table we were intensely interested in.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 14, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> IMO, there's nothing wrong with anyone's preferences in role-playing. To me it's like one person liking pepperoni pizza and someone else disliking it while liking mushroom and onion pizza. Arguing which is better is kinda like arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
> 
> Now, discussing if certain mechanics do what they're designed to do and if there are unintended consequences is a bit more interesting.  That's game design, and learning how to make things work for my version of better is always cool with me.
> 
> joe b.



Just to be clear, I'm agreeing with you completely.  

I just get amused when I'm the mushroom and onion guy and I'm being told that pepperoni is just as good a vegetarian pizza.


----------



## ST (Jul 14, 2009)

One more point:


jgbrowning said:


> It is more important if you want to get people to keep playing your game. Having fun at the table is very dependent upon the people you're playing with, but the desire to play a particular game at the table is independent of other people, and it is what keeps a game alive. The desire to play a particular system will keep people trying to find a table for that game.




I can see why you feel this way as a _game designer_, but this particular advice is about getting people to use your product, as opposed to what they do during play. It was a very popular model in the 90's, say with Vampire's metaplot-heavy supplements, and much has been written on the disconnect between thinking about play and actual play in that context. I do find it interesting that there aren't any major publishers who find it economically viable these days.

To put it another way: I don't care about keeping a particular system or ruleset or setting alive. I care about, when I host a group of people to play, that we all have a good time and are creatively invested in what's going on. That's my only interest, so the other issues don't factor into it for me.


----------



## MrMyth (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, the butterfly can do 0 hp damage, and the effect be the same in 4e.




"A minion is destroyed when it takes any amount of damage." 

I'm not entirely sure how to read that statement as implying that 0 damage butterflies can kill minions. 



> You are apparently under the impression that if a party consists of 4 PCs and 2 NPCs, the NPCs cannot kill minions the way that the PCs can.  I am curious as to where I can find this in the RAW.




Is it a combat encounter? Has the DM statted out NPCs that are explicitly designed to be relevant to the combat? Then yes, they can certainly kill minions, if he is essentially treating them as backup characters. 

But determining whether a tribe of Ogres can threaten a village - that doesn't require rolling out an explicit combat that doesn't involve the PCs, that takes place off-screen, and which is motivated by the DMs story to begin with. 

The minion rules are there for combat relevant purposes. Generally, that means the PCs. If the DM really decides something else is combat relevant to the minions, sure, he can use them then. If he does so in the fashion you are describing - deciding that a butterfly needs to be combat relevant to an Ogre minion, _he is making a bad judgement_ _call_, and one that goes against the intent of the minion rules to begin with. 



> You seem to be advocating using common sense to interpret rules.  I have a thread I'd like to see you make that claim in.




And yet, I'm making it in this thread, since this is the one where you are making arguments based on misinterpretations of the rules and spontaneously invented fake rules. But yes, some common sense is coming into play. The fact it is backed up by the intent and direct instruction of the 4E designers certainly helps, though. 



> The PCs are fighting the ogres while the NPC farmers throw rocks.  According to RAW, what happens to the ogres?




Why are the NPC farmers there? Do you, as a DM, intend for them to be a threat to the Ogres? If so, you can assign them stats capable of killing the Ogres. If you desire them to instead only be able to hinder the Ogres, you can probably treat them more as some sort of terrain or obstacle that only hinders the Ogres. If you simply have a bunch of level 1 commoners and roll for 20s to kill minions, I suggest you are ignoring the explicit instruction and intent of the minion rules. 



> They sure did, but the DM was also admonished to use common sense when determining what an effective attack was.  Indeed, pre-WotC-D&D, rules were intended as guidelines to aid the DM in making reasonable rulings.
> 
> If the rules suggest wacky things, as all rules do, but the DM adjudicates to remove the effects of those wacky things, then the system can work.  If the rules suggest wacky things, as all rules do, _*but the DM is not supposed to adjudicate to remove the effect of those wacky things*_, then large problems can ensue.
> 
> I will grant you freely that playstyle is the largest determinant as to whether wacky things will occur.




So what precisely is your issue with the minion rules in 4E, which the designers have clearly stated are only intented to come into play for combat-relevant context with appropriate level PCs. 



> Where should I look for that in the books?   If not, it is your assumption that this is an assumption of the game.




Folks have already pointed out earlier in the thread where to find the rules that prove you can't deal fractional damage. (Namely, you always round down. One of the few big rules put forward in the very beginning of the PHB, I seem to recall. Thus, fractional damage less than 1 = 0 damage.)



> I could likewise say that, because PC gnomes didn't come out in the 1e PHB, 4e assumed that there would be no PC gnomes.  Of course, we know that to be false, and we knew (or should have known) that it was false then.




Indeed, that is a perfectly valid comparison! Or, alternatively, not remotely so. 

We know new content will appear, since that is an underlying assumption of the game. Assuming that new mechanics will appear that completely contradicts all previously seen mechanics and core fundamentals of the system is a lot less reasonable. 

Inventing a hypothetical butterfly that does 1/10000 of a damage at a time is blatantly preposterous, and attempts to treat it as a serious possibility within the context of the game only serve to demonstrate an unwillingness to genuinely engage in this discussion on a reasonable level.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, the butterfly can do 0 hp damage, and the effect be the same in 4e.



I'm not sure where you're getting this. The minions in my MM all have 1 hp. 1 hp - 0 hp = 1 hp, not 0 hp.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 14, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> And yet, I'm making it in this thread, since this is the one where you are making arguments based on misinterpretations of the rules and spontaneously invented fake rules. But yes, some common sense is coming into play. The fact it is backed up by the intent and direct instruction of the 4E designers certainly helps, though.



Indeed.

RC: Use common sense when using the minion rules. Problem solved.

As long as you let the players know you're going to be overriding the rules at times, and as long as it doesn't gimp someone's character significantly, I don't see how it's an issue.


----------



## ST (Jul 14, 2009)

My wife and I were discussing this thread, and her take was "You guys are arguing about the difference between an art gallery and an art class."

I was like, "Uh, gonna need you to explain that to me."

Her point was that, having only played in a few games, there were only a few folks she'd trust to create a full, detailed world to play in. Her exact words were, "I don't want another Lord of the Rings ripoff". That a world is insanely detailed is not in any way a selling point to her, if it doesn't provide compelling situations for play. 

But, she said, there were lots of people she'd be happy to have GM if it's a smaller scope, more "let's create as we go" situation, which may very well have a specific constrained setting and situation, but the focus is not on all that detail. The focus in that kind of game is squarely on the characters, color-heavy, and usually much more about what's introduced at the table than what was pre-prepped.

So in other worlds, if she signs up for an art class, but is instead taken to an art gallery, it doesn't matter how detailed those paintings are -- it wasn't the activity she signed up for.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

ST said:


> I can see why you feel this way as a _game designer_, but this particular advice is about getting people to use your product, as opposed to what they do during play. It was a very popular model in the 90's, say with Vampire's metaplot-heavy supplements, and much has been written on the disconnect between thinking about play and actual play in that context. I do find it interesting that there aren't any major publishers who find it economically viable these days.




You'll may find it funny, but I'm not a fan of metaplot nor rulebooks with a lot stories and a lot of detail. I prefer broad and bold strokes, with the details left up to individual GMs to fill in depending on what their player's prefer. Something more along the line of the gaming equivilent to an earworm song. 

joe b.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 14, 2009)

MrMyth said:


> Is it a combat encounter? Has the DM statted out NPCs that are explicitly designed to be relevant to the combat? Then yes, they can certainly kill minions, if he is essentially treating them as backup characters.




So, in other words, your argument is not based upon the RAW, but rather upon how you would like the RAW to be interpretted.


RC


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 14, 2009)

ST said:


> My wife and I were discussing this thread, and her take was "You guys are arguing about the difference between an art gallery and an art class."
> 
> I was like, "Uh, gonna need you to explain that to me."
> 
> ...




If you were thinking I'm an art gallery kinda guy, that would be incorrect.  I'm a fan of the art class approach and prefer the players to be involved in the creation of the world by thinking about their PCs away from the table, and then bringing their thoughts to the table where the disparate desires of the players and GM are hashed-out and codified as the shared creation.

To me, thinking about playing isn't just prep work, its an integral part of gaming - without which the shared worlds and the game would that much poorer. The more the players and the gm think about the game away from the table, the better the at the table experience can become, IMO.

joe b.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> The PCs are fighting the ogres while the NPC farmers throw rocks.  According to RAW, what happens to the ogres?




I don't know if there is a RAW answer to this.  I could be wrong, though.

I prefer to look at NPC-NPC conflicts as "level contests", with the higher level NPC almost always winning (save situational modifiers).  Elites and Solos gain a bonus (+2 and +4-5 in my head) and minions a penalty (-5 or so).

If I was running the game, those 1st-level farmers - even if they were trained as slingers by the PCs into skirmishers - would not kill the 11th-level ogre minions on a single hit, and would drop on a single crushing blow from the ogre.

They would be quite a bit more effective against 1st level kobold minions.

Outside of combat, do minions - even low-level ones - only have 1HP?  Outside of combat I'd ignore HP and just use common sense and simple level contests.


----------



## ST (Jul 14, 2009)

I love those (Gazeteer-type sourcebooks) too, although we probably use them differently in prep.  Gazeteers and such are both great for simulation and chock full of color and situation. 

I don't think metaplot-heavy is a necessary outgrowth of what I was talking about, just that it was a common approach to turn a game into a continuing line. A line of Gazeteers or whatever is probably more applicable for D&D.

I realize some of the stuff I'm saying sounds like it's trying to 'diagnose' you or label you or something, that's definately not my intent.  I'm just describing where following your particular trains of thought would lead me personally.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 14, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> RC: Use common sense when using the minion rules. Problem solved.




Use common sense when using the rules, period.  All problems solved.


RC


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Jul 14, 2009)

Ourph said:


> This really doesn't have anything to do with the issue I'm discussing with Joe. It's an interesting point, but doesn't really have any bearing on the simulationist world-building aspects of minions.



It does if you want to simulate a world that exists on its own, rather than as a backdrop for the PCs.  Minions fall somewhere between 'scenery' and 'monster', but closer to the 'scenery' side.  When the PCs are looking, they are dispatched with a successful hit.  When the PCs aren't looking, there is no way to determine how durable they are.

As opposed to normal monsters, even in 4e.  You can do some rough calculations and figure the 60hp Ogre can survive for X number of rounds against the villagers.  If they have a 60% chance of hitting the Ogre, and do 5 points of damage each, that is an effective damage of 3 per round, so they would defeat the Ogre in 20 rounds.  Conversely, the Ogre will hit the villagers 80% of the time and do 5 points of damage, for an effective damage per round of 4pts.  Villagers have 5hp each, so unless the Ogre can split an attack between two villagers, that would be 16 villagers before he is defeated.  If the evil wizard that is behind all this is casting spells also, then you can calculate the damage based on their percentages of being able to save to get the effective damage for the spells.

Unless the villagers are minions, in which case, the numbers start getting wonky.  Miss effects are canceled, so the wizard is instantly less effective against the minions than they would be against villagers with hit points.  The minions are more threatening than regular peasants because of that.

Theoretical exercise, you may be thinking?  What if the PCs have to defend this village?  Sure, you can just pull a number out of a hat for the number of villagers that are killed.  But you will have no idea how long the PCs have until the villagers are all killed or the enemies are driven off.  Arbitrarily picking a number of rounds is the same as tripping a flag in a video game; ie, it has nothing to do with the PCs actions other than clearing a stage or surviving for a certain number of minutes.

Which is fine, if a given group likes that kind of thing.  But it demonstrates that minions are problematic for building a world, and that these 'weaker' opponents are more dangerous than regular monsters, depending on who you are.  A serious problem when trying to simulate an independent world.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 14, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, in other words, your argument is not based upon the RAW, but rather upon how you would like the RAW to be interpretted.



I'm not sure how the narrow quote you preceded this comment with suggests that MrMyth isn't following the D&D 4e rules.

In the 4e DMG I, it explicitly states that most NPCs don't need stats. Most NPCs just need a name and some description. Such NPCs wouldn't do any damage to a minion because such an NPC wouldn't participate in combat, per prior decision by the DM to not stat the NPC in the first place. This is entirely consistent with the 4e game rules.


----------



## Loonook (Jul 14, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> I don't know if there is a RAW answer to this.  I could be wrong, though.
> 
> I prefer to look at NPC-NPC conflicts as "level contests", with the higher level NPC almost always winning (save situational modifiers).  Elites and Solos gain a bonus (+2 and +4-5 in my head) and minions a penalty (-5 or so).
> 
> ...




Honestly, I like this approach... but I would probably take it in a different direction... when we were running a scenario of a large battle in older versions of the game, my first group's DM had a brilliant tactic:  'Grunts' for either side are represented by Unit Points, and the PCs and non-grunt creatures were represented as they are.  PCs could cut swathes through grunts by attacking their overall points (similar to swarm or mob rules in 3.x) and grunts would battle against other grunts based on their numbers and how they were being utilized.

PCs in a grunt 'unit' provided a bonus to the Grunts dependent on affinities... a cleric leading a group of temple initiates would give a higher benefit to them than he would give to a group of mercenary archers, and the ranger in the group would do the opposite.  In your example, an 11th level Minion may have... 11 UP.  Those 1st level commoners?  Each at 1 UP.  Now, the commoners aren't going to be able to take down that ogre on their own unless they include ranged attackers alongside (allowing the ogre to be surrounded on all sides, then pelted with stones, bolts, etc.)  or they have that little bump from the PC in their 'stack' (making them effectively 2 UP or even 3 UP units if the character had specific tactics training, was a warlord/leader of the specific group, had trained the group extensively in tactics... you get the idea).  

This of course was the highly simplified form... the DM loved random tables, benefits for units in their terrain, etc.  But that's not too difficult to work out based on your +2/-2 sorts of modifiers which a group could receive, or the aid of a specific member of the party.  We also used basic routing rules, member loss, etc. to represent the various things which could occur, but creating a system where a Minion may be worth (UP/lvl), a Solo worth (4*UP/lvl), and so on, with bonuses from any specific thing would allow for large-scale battles to be brought about without too many problems... and give the PCs assistance when they help bring the farmhands up against the wolves.

Slainte,

-Loonook.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 15, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> I'm not sure how the narrow quote you preceded this comment with suggests that MrMyth isn't following the D&D 4e rules.




I asked for the RAW answer; he failed to supply it.


RC


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I completely understand why you would use minions in this situation. The nature of the scaling level system makes using lower level monsters a very messy option. If the 1E or OSRIC rules were used those 2nd level bandits could still be decent challenge to a 7th/8th level party in sufficient numbers.




Again I call foul. 

I pointed out quite easily how a 7th level heavy armoured PC is easily hitting an AC of -5 meaning you need at least 20 2nd level bandits to even hit the PCs since you are going to need a natural 20.

As an aside, Aunt Harriet might not be able to hit the minions since unless I missed something, there's no natural 20 hit rule in 4e.

EDIT: In fact, using the ogre versus the famer example, there's no way for a farmer to actually HIT an ogre. An ogre minion could have either an AC of 23 or 28 which means that the human rabble (assuming that's the appropriate stats for a human farmer) can't even hit the latter minion.

Keep in mind, even though I find the concept of minions workable, I'm personally not adverse to critiques about HOW they're implemented. For example, the minions from MM2 are much better designed than the MM1 especially the higher level ones AND I also agree that minions are valued too much (I use 4 minions per pc + 1 per half tier when doing budgeting)


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 15, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Use common sense when using the rules, period.  All problems solved.



Indeed. Bearing in mind that the DM isn't the only one at the table.


----------



## Scribble (Jul 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> AAs an aside, Aunt Harriet might not be able to hit the minions since unless I missed something, there's no natural 20 hit rule in 4e.




There is Page 276: Automatic Hit: If you roll a natural 20 (the die shows a 20), your attack automatically hits.

It's just not a crit unless you can also hit with that result. So technically the farmers could kill the ogre minion. They have a 5% chance if they get a swing off which is as it should be in my opinion.

More then likely though they will miss, and then the ogre will not.  

Smush.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 15, 2009)

Scribble said:


> More then likely though they will miss, and then the ogre will not.
> 
> Smush.



I'd say it's more like a 'splat' with large dose of 'crunch'.

(Hey, it's a D&D supplement!)


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Again I call foul.
> 
> I pointed out quite easily how a 7th level heavy armoured PC is easily hitting an AC of -5 meaning you need at least 20 2nd level bandits to even hit the PCs since you are going to need a natural 20.



With the PC able to choose his magic items as in 3E's ridiculous expectation, sure.   But looking at the sample level 6-9 PCs in my Expert modules (X4 and X9), none of them had magic gear worth more than a 2-point improvement over 1st level, and X9's fighter-types are at AC 2, 2, and 4.  

These are the values the system was designed for.  While it could be broken by Monty Haul DMs, the expectation was that HP, not AC, would provide the majority of improvement in defense at higher levels.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 15, 2009)

Storm-Bringer said:


> I
> 
> As opposed to normal monsters, even in 4e.  You can do some rough calculations and figure the 60hp Ogre can survive for X number of rounds against the villagers.  If they have a 60% chance of hitting the Ogre, and do 5 points of damage each, that is an effective damage of 3 per round, so they would defeat the Ogre in 20 rounds.  Conversely, the Ogre will hit the villagers 80% of the time and do 5 points of damage, for an effective damage per round of 4pts.  Villagers have 5hp each, so unless the Ogre can split an attack between two villagers, that would be 16 villagers before he is defeated.  If the evil wizard that is behind all this is casting spells also, then you can calculate the damage based on their percentages of being able to save to get the effective damage for the spells.
> 
> ...




?????

You do realize that the above scenario doesn't work in ANY edition by RAW.

Ogres in every edition since the game of D&D has been created will, assuming they actually hit the farmer, will obliterate a 1st level NPC

2nd edition : Farmers had 1d6 hp while ogres did damage by weapon with a +8 bonus to damage.

3rd edition : Farmers have 1d4 hp while ogres do damage again by weapon (either 2d8 + 7 - melee or 1d8 + 5 ranged).

Where's this splitting damage idea coming from.....


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 15, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Indeed. Bearing in mind that the DM isn't the only one at the table.




If the DM doesn't bear that in mind, he soon will be.




RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> ?????
> 
> You do realize that the above scenario doesn't work in ANY edition by RAW.



Agreed. This is one of my patented "That's not an issue with 4E, it's an issue with D&D" posts.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 15, 2009)

Brother MacLaren said:


> With the PC able to choose his magic items as in 3E's ridiculous expectation, sure.   But looking at the sample level 6-9 PCs in my Expert modules (X4 and X9), none of them had magic gear worth more than a 2-point improvement over 1st level, and X9's fighter-types are at AC 2, 2, and 4.




Taken from the black cover 2nd edition PHB. Follower (a.k.a, the guy who actually looks up to your PC at 9th level)

7th level follower - plate mail + 1, shield + 1 (AC of 0), broad sword + 2 

To me anyway, that clearly is an example of the system showing what a PC should have by that level and that's not even getting into anything like high dex or rings of protection etc.



Brother MacLaren said:


> These are the values the system was designed for.  While it could be broken by Monty Haul DMs, the expectation was that HP, not AC, would provide the majority of improvement in defense at higher levels.




Monty Haul DM - Heh....so basically anyone that actually uses the modules as is? Remember, a poster on these selfsame boards had the posts detailing how the typical BD&D adventure module blows the doors off the 3rd edition version in terms of treasure.

Thanks Scribble, I've been looking all over for that section and I couldn't find it.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 15, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> If the DM doesn't bear that in mind, he soon will be.



Indeed again. Would you care to post that in the other thread?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Again I call foul.
> 
> I pointed out quite easily how a 7th level heavy armoured PC is easily hitting an AC of -5 meaning you need at least 20 2nd level bandits to even hit the PCs since you are going to need a natural 20.)




You call foul?  Lets look into some numbers. A 7th level fighter with decent exceptional strength and a +1 weapon hits AC -5 on a 16 in AD&D barring situational modifiers. I don't call that easily hitting. As for AC values I present you with various pre gen PC's and some NPC's from classic TSR AD&D products:
Module I2-Pregens

Jubelo F7 AC 2
Azure C6 AC 0
Perin T7 AC 7

Module A1-4 Slave Lords

Eanwulf F10 AC-1
Stalman Klim C11 AC 3
Slippery Ketta T10 AC 2

Now lets look at those 20 2nd level bandits shall we. Lets be generous and say they attack as 1 HD monsters so as not to overwhelm the poor PC's.
An AD&D 1HD monster without a single pitiful +1 bonus to his name will hit AC 2 on a 17. The only sample character needing a natural 20 to hit is Eanwulf and he is 10th level.

My AD&D data is taken from the source rules and modules does not include broken crap from UA (the beginning of superbloat) or assume PC's will be strutting around with multiple 18's and magical gear suitable for a character of twice thier level or more. 

If the group from I2 were ambushed by 20 of these guys Perin would be toast and the other two would probably have to flee. If the bandits actually attacked as the 2 HD creatures they are then forget it. It's full on TPK with Azure getting hit on a 16. 

Minions were not needed in AD&D because lower level monsters worked just fine. 

[/quote]


----------



## Mad Mac (Jul 15, 2009)

You're assuming the pregens are particularly representative of actual characters...

  Simply put, you can hit AC 0 in AD&D with just the nonmagical plate and sheild combo, which was available to most characters who weren't magic users or thieves. All you need is a single +1 armor or sheild or ring or protection or whatever to hit AC -1. 

  I really can't think of any old D&D modules that weren't littered with magic weapons, armors, and sheilds. Wonderous items, wands, rings, sure, they weren't so easy to come by. But +1 or +2 stuff was everywhere.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 15, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Indeed again. Would you care to post that in the other thread?





Happily.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4865103-post123.html


RC


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jul 15, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I asked for the RAW answer; he failed to supply it.



Do you think I supplied a RAW answer in my previous post?

FWIW, NPCs (or DM PCs) can kill minions just like any PC can. If one NPC is fighting another NPC, all the typical 4e combat rules apply. If an NPC is there, but not fighting, they will often have no stats (pre 4e DMG I) and thus not kill any minions (or anyone else, for that matter).

I don't have the book accessible, but the guidelines for creating NPCs in 4e can be found in the DM's Toolbox chapter, after the sections containing encounter and monster templates. One of the first things said on the subject of creating NPCs is that they typically don't need much in the way of stats, almost certainly don't need the fleshing-out PCs need except in rare circumstances.

I don't see that as creating any weirdness. I also see it as consistent with MrMyth's statements on the subject:



			
				MrMyth said:
			
		

> Is it a combat encounter? Has the DM statted out NPCs that are explicitly designed to be relevant to the combat? Then yes, they can certainly kill minions, if he is essentially treating them as backup characters.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 15, 2009)

Mad Mac said:


> You're assuming the pregens are particularly representative of actual characters...
> 
> Simply put, you can hit AC 0 in AD&D with just the nonmagical plate and sheild combo, which was available to most characters who weren't magic users or thieves. All you need is a single +1 armor or sheild or ring or protection or whatever to hit AC -1.
> 
> I really can't think of any old D&D modules that weren't littered with magic weapons, armors, and sheilds. Wonderous items, wands, rings, sure, they weren't so easy to come by. But +1 or +2 stuff was everywhere.




Plate is AC 3, a shield gives +1 for AC 2. Dex or magic is needed to get an AC of 0. This is AD&D not Unearthed Bloat.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Monty Haul DM - Heh....so basically anyone that actually uses the modules as is? Remember, a poster on these selfsame boards had the posts detailing how the typical BD&D adventure module blows the doors off the 3rd edition version in terms of treasure.



Based on what?  3E's useless gp values of treasure?  AC-boosting items look pretty sparse to me in X9 (none) and X1 (1 item).  If you finished X4 and X5, you could equip all your fighters with plate +1 and shield +1, for a whopping 2point increase over their first-level AC.  MAYBE you'd get a set of +2 plate from X4 if you were lucky.

What matters is not the GP value of treasure, but 3E's assumption that PCs can buy or easily create the specific items they want.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 15, 2009)

3e DEFENDERS, UNITE

I will point out this insightful post *Treasure and leveling comparisons: AD&D1, B/ED&D, and D&D3 -  updated 11-17-08 (Q1) *

Notice that at the end of the village of Hommlet, the PCs are only level 3 and ALREADY they have plate mail +1. Same goes for the keep where after the adventure, the PCs could have picked up 2 suits of plate mail +1 and they're level only level 3.

After the 1st level of the ToEE, the PCs actually have a shield +2 and they're only level 4. Now, I can see the wizard being in trouble since their AC would suck royally (I don't see Bracers until the PCs hit around level 8) but even the rogue looks like they could be rocking an AC close to 0.

Clerics and other heavy armour wearing classes though? Should be well under AC 0 by level 5.

Similarly, the 7th level follower you get as a 9th level fighter ALSO has an AC of 0.

Not to pick on pre 3e "guidelines" but there's a huge disconnect between the sample characters and what the other hints of the system we're showing.


http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ns-ad-d1-b-ed-d-d-d3-updated-11-17-08-q1.html


----------



## Mad Mac (Jul 15, 2009)

> Plate is AC 3, a shield gives +1 for AC 2. Dex or magic is needed to get an AC of 0. This is AD&D not Unearthed Bloat.




  I stand corrected. Even so, you are really mantaining that an additional +2 or more AC is unreasonable for a 7th to 9th level character? Having +1 armor and weapons by the time you start collecting followers is Monty Haul? You're using a very different interpretation of the term that I ever heard. 

  Just using treasure tables and modules I know my groups had heaps of +1 items by 7th level or so.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Notice that at the end of the village of Hommlet, the PCs are only level 3 and ALREADY they have plate mail +1. Same goes for the keep where after the adventure, the PCs could have picked up 2 suits of plate mail +1 and they're level only level 3.




Ok, if the Pc's are fortunate and successful, they will have won a suit of +1 plate from Lareth. This is part of the spoils of war and will be a trophy for whomever wears it.

A 3E character by 3rd level should by the guidelines given have 2700gp worth of gear. This means that every character should have the resources to walk into town and buy a suit of +1 full plate if desired and have that armor be available if the population center is large enough. Not permitting this is cheating the players and requires adjusting the challenges to compensate for the PC's not being properly outfitted. 




AllisterH said:


> Not to pick on pre 3e "guidelines" but there's a huge disconnect between the sample characters and what the other hints of the system we're showing.




There was indeed a disconnect between the treasures listed in modules and the advice about the placement of magic treasure in the DMG. IIRC there was a piece in Dragon Magazine where Gary said as much.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 15, 2009)

Mad Mac said:


> Just using treasure tables and modules I know my groups had heaps of +1 items by 7th level or so.



Fine, so your AC is 2 points better than it was at 1st level.  Monsters that used to hit you on a 16+ now need an 18+, or something like that.  It's nowhere near the AC advancement offered in 3E through the combination of stacking bonus types, buffing spells, class abilities, and getting to pick your magic items.

The need for minions came about because, in 3E, PC's AC increase so fast that low-level monsters very quickly ceased to be a threat.  While AC in earlier editions did increase with level due to magic items, it was not so rapid a rise.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 15, 2009)

Mad Mac said:


> I stand corrected. Even so, you are really mantaining that an additional +2 or more AC is unreasonable for a 7th to 9th level character? Having +1 armor and weapons by the time you start collecting followers is Monty Haul? You're using a very different interpretation of the term that I ever heard.
> 
> Just using treasure tables and modules I know my groups had heaps of +1 items by 7th level or so.




I'm not suggesting that having magic items is Monty Haul , but rather that having a -5 or lower AC is not common at or below name level for a campaign with carefully placed magical treasure. 

It isn't like the PC's were being outclassed by the monsters. Lets look at the AC values of some heavy hitters:

Storm Giant AC 1
Ancient Red Dragon AC -1
Pit Fiend AC -3
Iron Golem AC 3

There are some exceptions:

Malebranche (horned devil) AC -5

This is a very tough AC for a 5+5 HD devil. The unusually high AC had little to do with scaling and was all about thier nature and status as a devil. Compare this with the -3AC of the 13 HD pit fiend. If level were the greatest indication of defense values this would be way off.

In AD&D the level gap was represented by hit points and attack values rather than scaling defenses.
This is also the reason why lower level monsters can be used with more success than they can in 3E or 4E.


----------



## Oni (Jul 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Totality? OK a mountain of 150 "little girls". No change.




Except the hero would probably be dead fighting 150 minions.  I'm not sure the hyperbole helps the conversation.  



> Soft hit in this case refers to causing very little (1hp) damage on a successful hit. A soft hit is still a hit in game terms. It's no different than saying "the axe cleaves through bone and brain, take 1 point of damage".
> Remember that hp are abstract and forcing an opponent to use vital energy defending against a glancing blow can still be a " hit" and deal "damage".




I would think it would be quite a bit different.  Hit points are not just the ability to stand there and soak up damage.  It's more about the ability to endure pain, skill at rolling with or avoiding blows, and even just luck.  Minions just don't have the combat skill to avoid killing blows like more highly trained individuals.  You attack that does 50 damage does 50 damage whether the target has 1HP or 100HP, it's just the 100HP creature has the wherewithal to avoid being killed by the blow.  You yourself say that HP are an abstraction so why treat them as the physics of of the game world?  So while having your HP loss represent a glancing "hit" and dealing "damage" it also doesn't have to either.  


Anyway it's pretty obvious you don't like the execution of minions in 4e, so how would you have done it instead?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 15, 2009)

Oni said:


> I would think it would be quite a bit different. Hit points are just the ability to stand there and soak up damage.




I think the 4E rules would have an issue with that. 



Oni said:


> It's more about the ability to endure pain, skill at rolling with or avoiding blows, and even just luck. Minions just don't have the combat skill to avoid killing blows like more highly trained individuals. You attack that does 50 damage does 50 damage whether the target has 1HP or 100HP, it's just the 100HP creature has the wherewithal to avoid being killed by the blow.




No argument here. Hp are indeed abstract, and have always been so. 50 damage is 50 damage no matter how many HP the target has. Well, 1 HP is 1 HP and using simple comparative values 1HP cannot withstand a stiff breeze compared to 50 HP.



Oni said:


> You yourself say that HP are an abstraction so why treat them as the physics of of the game world? So while having your HP loss represent a glancing "hit" and dealing "damage" it also doesn't have to either.




Quite so, you can call a near miss that forces an opponent to use up the last reseves of energy to dodge it a hit if the mechanical resolution indicated a hit that scores damage. The physics of the gameworld don't change. If you roll a successful hit and score damage then it generally happens no matter how you want to narrate it.



Oni said:


> Anyway it's pretty obvious you don't like the execution of minions in 4e, so how would you have done it instead?




For starters you can eliminate thier need by scrapping the ridiculous bonus bloat and regemented scaling madness of the base system. There isn't a sane need to keep jacking up the numbers in such a fashion other than to sell a constant stream of splatbooks. Your mileage and gaming needs may vary quite a bit.


----------



## Oni (Jul 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I think the 4E rules would have an issue with that.




Pardon my typo. 

Hit points are *not* just the ability to stand there and soak up damage.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> For starters you can eliminate thier need by scrapping the ridiculous bonus bloat and regemented scaling madness of the base system. There isn't a sane need to keep jacking up the numbers in such a fashion other than to sell a constant stream of splatbooks. Your mileage and gaming needs may vary quite a bit.




Personally, I always thought this was very, very weird about D&D.

You get better at attacking - To hit bonus improves as you level.

You can take more punishment - Hp increases as you level.

You can resist effects better - Saving throws increase (in pre 3e, a high level fighter laughs in the face of non-damaging magic from any source) - including the fact that your Reflex/Breath weapon save gets better.

Yet you DON'T get better at avoiding mundane attacks?

Even back when I played 1e/DM 2e I thought there was something very weird going on there.....


----------



## ST (Jul 15, 2009)

Good point.

For comparison, most other RPGs that don't use AC typically have two factors: ability to avoid an attack entirely, and ability to have the damage from that attack reduced. 

Most of those games let you increase your chance to dodge/be missed and relegate DR to armor.


----------



## MerricB (Jul 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> There was indeed a disconnect between the treasures listed in modules and the advice about the placement of magic treasure in the DMG. IIRC there was a piece in Dragon Magazine where Gary said as much.




If there is, could you find the issue number for us, please? I'd like to read that article. I certainly remember Gary talking in the AD&D DMG about how early D&D games didn't suggest limits on magic item placement, and so lots of campaigns just used what the tables suggested and broke as a result.

Mind you, I have the feeling that the discussion of "low magic" that Gary has in the DMG is aimed specifically at new (1st level) campaigns; once the medium to high levels are reached, magic items became a lot more frequent. As the years have gone by, I've become very suspicious of a lot of the interpretations of Gary's advice in the AD&D DMG; it seems to me that Gary often was talking about quite specific issues which have been then made more general by the readers.

With regard to the threat of low-level monsters in AD&D: I do agree with you to some extent. I do feel that hit points determine longevity in AD&D far more than AC, although it was terribly easy for a DM to break the AC system by just giving out a couple of good magic items. Or through a fighter with very good stats.

In 4e, low-level monsters are far more successful as threats than in 3e. 3e had an incredibly steep power curve; so much so that I was of the opinion by the end that an ogre was a TPK at level 2, a threat at level 3, and a walkover by level 5. That's a terribly short period of usefulness. In 4e, the useful levels of a monster are extended to far more than 3e.

However, ignoring minions, a low-level monster in 4e, despite possibly being a credible _threat_, may well survive too long against higher level PCs. The goblin skirmisher (1st level) has 29 hp. An 11th level rogue can one-shot that; most other PCs won't without using encounter powers. This is a clear disconnect from how it worked in previous editions, although this isn't always a bad thing.

Cheers!


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> You can take more punishment - Hp increases as you level.
> Yet you DON'T get better at avoiding mundane attacks?



HP are a mix of ability to withstand punishment and ability to dodge (or at least roll with) mundane attacks.  The difference between escalating AC as the primary defensive mechanic, and escalating HP, is that HP can be worn down over time.

An 8th-level fighter in B/X might take as many or only half as many hits from 1-HD foes compared to a 1st-level fighter (depending on if he has magic armor), but be able to withstand 8 times as many hits.  So if he's taken 3 or 4 hits, he can judge that it's time for a fighting withdrawal.  Now suppose we escalated HP slower, but AC faster, so that he is hit only 1/8 as often but can only take 2x as many hits.  Fights would be more swingy; he could breeze through hordes of lesser foes effortlessly, or a couple of bad rolls could kill him.  The reliance on HP as the main level-based difference in defense reduces the swinginess. 

I liked the deflect mechanic in the Master Set; a skilled swordsman could indeed improve his ability to parry blows 1-on-1, but a large number of lesser foes could still overwhelm him.  As it should be IMO.  Conan fights the Battle of the Mounds by engaging foes one at a time, not charging in and letting himself get surrounded by armed men.  Give him a high level-based bonus to AC, and he can act like the Bride vs. the Crazy 88, which is not a scene I ever want to see again in a game or a movie.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> Post #378 where I said "I expect GMs to always exert narrative control to the point of mostly ignoring all rules except those that make players question their suspension of disbelief."
> 
> In addition Hussar's post, and my post to him was concerning humanoids which you quoted. Not cats, bat, fungi, and bacteria. In my game, I rarely have humanoids with 1hp, expecting most of them to have died out.
> 
> ...




So, basically, you're saying that you're only simulationist to a point.  You take the rules to simulate your world to a point you feel comfortable with and then arbitrarily cut it off any further than that.

In other words, you rewrite the rules to suit your tastes.  1st level commoners and any 1 hit die (or lower) monster NEVER has 1 hit point.  They, as you say, die off.

The problem I'm having with this is it's so illogical.  You have no problems fiating over the rules to ignore the minion like status of 25% of the population of your entire world (at least the humanoid parts of it) but, the fact that there is a specific minion type for some monsters makes you balk?

The fact that the rules in every edition specifically HAD minions doesn't bother you though.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.



BryonD said:


> Just to be clear, I'm agreeing with you completely.
> 
> I just get amused when I'm the mushroom and onion guy and I'm being told that pepperoni is just as good a vegetarian pizza.




See, I'd agree with the both of you if you weren't slathering your pizza with hamburger.  Your idea of simulation forces you to change the rules.  To selectively apply the rules of the game to create the world that you like.  Yet, for some reason, having explicit rules that are exactly the same from a world building stance as the rules of every other edition tips you over.

Again, there's a bit too much protestation going on.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 15, 2009)

I ask myself, "*Why* minions, in the first place?"

For a start, I notice that the scaling by level of both attack and defense factors creates some problems to my mind -- but that it certainly does not prevent high-level characters from whacking low-level monsters with near impunity.

The problem is that, even with some increase in damage per hit, critters of all sorts in 4E simply have too many hit points ... and the "grind" just gets worse as levels get higher.

That's largely intentional, if perhaps not as well calibrated as it could be. The designers wanted to give plenty of opportunity to bring powers, combat advantage, and conditions into play. The at-will and encounter powers especially need some time for shifting, sliding, and synergies to produce decisive positions on the board.

Unfortunately, it also means that anything on par (in hit points) with even a first-level character is a drag for high-level PCs to take out. Actual first-level stats make the situation even duller because the chance of scoring a hit on a PC is -- thanks to the scaling of factors -- so remote as to be nearly inconsequential even if hits could not be shrugged off with healing surges.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 15, 2009)

Why have Minions? They exist so you can fight a large group of monsters without running into a management nightmare. They don't just have one hit point, they also deal a fixed amount of damage. This means while you still have to roll attacks for every monster, you at least don't need to account their hit points or roll their damage rolls. 
At the same time, their attack and defense remains "relevant" for their level, making each roll useful (and not just hope for "not a 1" and "only a 20").
Their primary purpose is to provide a different model of "low level" threats without hurting the gameplay experience by requiring too much management or dice rolls and too many "hopeless" dice rolls.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 15, 2009)

Mustrum, hit points points and damage dice do not in my experience constitute a "management nightmare". On top of all the complications in 4E, maybe they could be the straw that breaks the camel's back ... but that is to put things out of proportion!

The real necessity comes from the factors I outlined above, a whole complex of interrelated design choices. I'm not sure what "problems" they were meant to solve, but some they have created are clear enough.


----------



## vagabundo (Jul 15, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> I ask myself, "*Why* minions, in the first place?"
> 
> Snip




They are low management beasties. They are designed to be run in large amounts and their powers, hp and damage output reflects that. 

I've run them and they are fun and don't ruin the game for us, but it as easy to design encounters without them. And there are many ways to avoid the grind, both mechanically and narratively. Very few intelligent creatures have fanatical morale.

I've also run some variants; two hit minions and the like.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 15, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Mustrum, hit points points and damage dice do not in my experience constitute a "management nightmare". On top of all the complications in 4E, maybe they could be the straw that breaks the camel's back ... but that is to put things out of proportion!
> 
> The real necessity comes from the factors I outlined above, a whole complex of interrelated design choices. I'm not sure what "problems" they were meant to solve, but some they have created are clear enough.




I disagree. 4 minions replace 1 monsters. This means 4 attack rolls and 4 damage rolls. It also means you have to track 4 hit points values and conditions for 4 monsters. That increases management considerably. And you still have 4 other monsters to manage on top of that. 

When I DM 4E and use minions in an encounter, I really notice how much more easy it is to keep track of the Minions and to resolve their actions. It is a significant speed up. 

Maybe "management nightmare" is hyperbole. But maybe it is not, considering that you could replace every monster in an encounter with 4 minions and tracking hit points, attacks, damage rolls and conditions for 20 monsters certainly will be a nightmare.

Every other approach to Minions that does not used "1 hp" and "fixed damage" will always have this problem. And I think this problem is far more serious then any "simulation" concerns about what a Minion represents in the game world. It will make the experience of a battle against large groups of individual weak foes a long exercise in dice rolling, without adding any more tension and excitement to the battle then if you had used 4E style Minions.

I am of the opinion that the experience at the game table is the most important experience. If you do not have fun during what you do at the game table, you won't remember that session fondly. You remember the tedium, the flaws, the failures. You might also remember a kick ass story, and wish that you'd have a better system to have that story to go with, but no, next week, you are guaranteed using the same flawed game experience.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 15, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I disagree. A minion replaces 4 monsters. This means 4 attack rolls and 4 damage rolls. It also means you have to track 4 hit points values and conditions for 4 monsters. That increases management considerably. And you still have 4 other monsters to manage on top of that.




4 minions replace one normal monster. 

I think minions exist so you can run combats with many opponents that 1) are not lethal at the intended level and 2) don't take forever.

I don't think they work but that's only because they are overvalued in terms of XP.  It's too easy to wipe them out - unless they have ranged attacks, but none of them ever do!  

In gameworld/fictional terms I have no problem with them.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 15, 2009)

I confess I didn't read the whole thread.  I found this post interesting:



jgbrowning said:


> The minion concept is entirely indefensible outside of a meta-game argument designed to promote increased opponent numbers to facilitate a combat system highly-focused upon advantageous movement and multiple variations on movement constraints while providing a illusion to the player of a sense of power and might. The minions concept falls solidly into a type of role-playing in which reality is based upon the PCs power levels.




Let's say that we want as a goal for play to present a game where reality is not based on PC power levels.  "Level" is an abstraction of a concept in the game world; it means "power", more or less, on a scale from 1 to whatever.


Here's how I see it working:

To get the real "combat level" of a monster, you adjust for minion/normal/elite/solo status.  A level 6 minion = a level 1 normal as a rule of thumb.

You wouldn't change its level to determine out of combat things.

It seems like a handy way to get the playability of minions but to preserve a consistent world.


It seems like the designers might have had the same idea:

Opening up the MM2, there are two entries for Lolthbound Goblins - a level 3 soldier and a level 12 minion skirmisher.  Seems like the same basic idea though the level difference is higher (probably because drow are around level 12 in general).  I would have made the goblin minions 8th level and given the drow more powerful slaves - troglodytes, probably.  And the troglodyte minions in the MM are 12th level!  Cool.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> See, I'd agree with the both of you if you weren't slathering your pizza with hamburger.  Your idea of simulation forces you to change the rules.  To selectively apply the rules of the game to create the world that you like.  Yet, for some reason, having explicit rules that are exactly the same from a world building stance as the rules of every other edition tips you over.
> 
> Again, there's a bit too much protestation going on.



Mr. Senator, when did you stop beating your wife?

I'm sorry but your wild generalization is vastly removed from reality.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 15, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Why have Minions? They exist so you can fight a large group of monsters without running into a management nightmare. They don't just have one hit point, they also deal a fixed amount of damage. This means while you still have to roll attacks for every monster, you at least don't need to account their hit points or roll their damage rolls.
> At the same time, their attack and defense remains "relevant" for their level, making each roll useful (and not just hope for "not a 1" and "only a 20").
> Their primary purpose is to provide a different model of "low level" threats without hurting the gameplay experience by requiring too much management or dice rolls and too many "hopeless" dice rolls.




The hopeless die rolls only exist due to the scaling mechanics at the root of the system. The management factor only becomes an issue because tracking attacks and damage is only a burden when combined with having to monitor all sorts of fiddly temporary conditions, buffs, and other miscellaneous status effects in the first place. 

As for remaining relevent, a lot of AD&D monsters do remain useful for more levels without a lot of modification. Monsters in the 3+ HD range are terrifying at low level and remain credible opponents up to at least name level in greater numbers without having to fiddle with attack and defense values. As an example check out the large bugbear tribe in module D1. Thier stats were typical but thier numbers made a challenging encounter for characters of level 9+.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 15, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> 4 minions replace one normal monster.



Oops.



> I think minions exist so you can run combats with many opponents that 1) are not lethal at the intended level and 2) don't take forever.
> 
> I don't think they work but that's only because they are overvalued in terms of XP.  It's too easy to wipe them out - unless they have ranged attacks, but none of them ever do!



I've recently used a "down-sized" Black Pudding in my online campaign. The Minions spawned by him did seem very effective. But then, it's an MM2 figure.

Generally I agree - more Artillery Minions are needed. Or Skirmisher Minions that can do ranged attacks as well as melee attacks.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 15, 2009)

re: "the grind"

Um, it takes about 4-6 rounds for a PC to put down an equivalent levelled monster IME.

These 10+ round combats only take place if you're fighting a MM1 Solo that is about 4 to 5 levels above the party...

Personally, when I have run combats involving lots of lower level monsters, (say level -4/-5), it only takes about 2-3 rounds.

Of course, this might be because we actually have 2 wizards in my party who seem to actually know how to get the most out of their class


----------



## DaveMage (Jul 15, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Mr. Senator, when did you stop beating your wife?
> 
> I'm sorry but your wild generalization is vastly removed from reality.




Yep.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Yet you DON'T get better at avoiding mundane attacks?
> 
> Even back when I played 1e/DM 2e I thought there was something very weird going on there.....



Never bothered me.
If there is a reason to get better at hitting something, you get better at it.
If there is a reason to get better at avoiding being hit, you get better at it.

I will agree that in some cases (magic-user / wizard being a prime example to me) the idea of what constitutes a reason to get better at hitting is to liberal.  

But it seems quite reasonable to me that gaining a level of fighter makes you more adapt at hitting things, but does not automatically make you better at pure avoidance.  AC goes up with level, but much less directly than attack.  To me it a reasonable approach.



That said, isn't your problem bigger in 4E than it has ever been in any prior edition?

Yes, your AC goes up with your level.  But the attack bonuses of "mundane" attackers also recalculate themselves based on your level.    That very fact has been praised multiple times in this thread.  
Are we now praising 4E because the kobold minions can more easily attack the party at the same time as we praise 4E because the party can more easily evade the kobold's strikes?


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> So, basically, you're saying that you're only simulationist to a point.  You take the rules to simulate your world to a point you feel comfortable with and then arbitrarily cut it off any further than that.




That is what everyone does. The only difference is where the cut off is. They are all arbitrary based upon preference.



> In other words, you rewrite the rules to suit your tastes.  1st level commoners and any 1 hit die (or lower) monster NEVER has 1 hit point.  They, as you say, die off.




I said rarely. Please actually respond to what I say, the fact that you translated "_I rarely had 1hp creatures in my worlds in prior editions and at a much lower % than indicated by the raw dice. I'd just kinda assumed most of the 1hpers in the world had already died off, resulting in only a few 1hpers being around_" into a response based around *NEVER *makes me think you're not really talking to me, because you're surely not responding to what I'm saying.



> The problem I'm having with this is it's so illogical.  You have no problems fiating over the rules to ignore the minion like status of 25% of the population of your entire world (at least the humanoid parts of it) but, the fact that there is a specific minion type for some monsters makes you balk?




I don't fiat them to ignore them, I fiat them because I assume most of them have suffered 1hp of damage and therefore they're dead.



> The fact that the rules in every edition specifically HAD minions doesn't bother you though.




First: since I fiated out most 1hp humanoids, doesn't that mean I *was *bothered by them?

Second: You're confusing 1hp creatures with minions, that is not the case. Minions are explicit mechanical constructions that exist outside the normal scale of creature toughness for the explicit purpose of dying quickly and making player's feel tough while providing a mechanical role in combat. A creature with 1 hp in 4e isnt like a creature with 1hp in prior editions because having 1hp in one edition is different in design than having 1hp in others. I've already gone over this, but since you don't seem to be reading what I'm posting, I'll repeat it here, "_I suspect the major difference is one of scale. In 1e, hp varied from 1 to about 100 for normal creatures (not uniques). In 4e that has increased from 1 (only minions) to the weakest creature in the world (outside a minion) having around 20hp while the strongest reaching close to 1,400hp. A minion, is about 1/20th as tough as the next weakest creature in the world. The difference of scale is dramatically larger, and that increase results in it being increasingly harder to ignore an issue, IMO_.

In more words, a 1hp bandit in a pre-4e editiion (where bandits had 1-6hp - 1e) would have the equivalent of around 4-6hp in 4e, if that bandit was not a minion were one to scale creature strength across editions and if one assumes the listed bandit in the 4eMM is the strongest. If you assume the listed 4eMM bandit as being average instead of strongest, a 1e bandit with 1 hp would then scale into a 4e bandit with about 12hp.

Minions are not like 1hp creatures in other editions.



> Methinks thou dost protest too much.




Methinks you should just talk to me as opposed to be snooty. I'm a real human person. Talk to me like you'd talk to someone sitting next to you on the bus.



> See, I'd agree with the both of you if you weren't slathering your pizza with hamburger.  Your idea of simulation forces you to change the rules.  To selectively apply the rules of the game to create the world that you like.  Yet, for some reason, having explicit rules that are exactly the same from a world building stance as the rules of every other edition tips you over.
> 
> Again, there's a bit too much protestation going on.




Your statement is based upon the belief that minions existed in prior editions. I believe they didn't as minions are more than only 1hp creatures - they are 1 hp creatures in context with all the other creatures in the game. A 1hp creature in 1e non-4e D&D is different than a minion because of the relation between a 1hp creatures and the toughness of non-1hp creatures.

Also, your statements are based upon the faulty assumption that I didn't seem to have problems with 1hp creatures in prior rules, even though I *explicitly fiated most of them away *because I *did have problems *with them.

joe b.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 15, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Yes, your AC goes up with your level.  But the attack bonuses of "mundane" attackers also recalculate themselves based on your level.    That very fact has been praised multiple times in this thread.
> Are we now praising 4E because the kobold minions can more easily attack the party at the same time as we praise 4E because the party can more easily evade the kobold's strikes?




????

When the party is fighting kobolds, I personally like the fact that the Kobolds aren't screwed to hit the PCs.

When the party advances past dealing with kobolds, I personally like the fact that their defences increase without the use of equipment. 

Not seeing the contradiction here...


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> ????
> 
> When the party is fighting kobolds, I personally like the fact that the Kobolds aren't screwed to hit the PCs.
> 
> ...




I'm not seeing contradiction so to speak, but rather I see the use of minions as a solution to a problem created by the scaling of the base system. Using a patchy solution such as minion rules to fix a problem created by the design of a system in need of such a fix is hardly praiseworthy. 

In other words, the fundamental design flaws were concealed by the superficial design flaws.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> ????
> 
> When the party is fighting kobolds, I personally like the fact that the Kobolds aren't screwed to hit the PCs.
> 
> ...



Have you not read all the many posts in this thread praising the fact that minions remain threats as the party increases?

Yes, defenses increase.  But attacks increase at an equal rate and cancel it out.

The contradiction is you are praising an increase in defense when 4E character have less true ability to defend themselves, despite that fact that they happen to have a higher number after AC on their character sheet.

If you throw L1 minions at a L10 party, then yes.  In this pointlessly trivial case they are less likely to be hit.  But even then it is not better than the "need a 20" to hit situation in 3E.

I'm not saying the party won't still roll right over the kobolds.  But the better defense is just an illusion.  Everything scales equally in both attack and defense so that the bigger numbers are just window dressing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm not seeing contradiction so to speak, but rather I see the use of minions as a solution to a problem created by the scaling of the base system. Using a patchy solution such as minion rules to fix a problem created by the design of a system in need of such a fix is hardly praiseworthy.
> 
> In other words, the fundamental design flaws were concealed by the superficial design flaws.



So you would remove all bonuses? Most bonuses? 

Maybe that would work, too. Maybe 4E is still to married to 3Es idea of BAB, level based max skill ranks and saving throws increasing by level. 

But make no mistake - people will also dislike a solution where most bonuses are gone. It removes the "meaning" of level or ability scores. People already say that the 3-18 stat range is superflous considering the fact that only even numbers grant modifiers. 
People are complaining about the fact the skills only have three or four "competency" status - untrained, trained, focussed, and maybe "get special bonus". If you limit your attainable bonuses, you keep that "problem" and even expand it to new areas.

I think Minions are a good approach to this "problem". It achieves the desired goals.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> When the party is fighting kobolds, I personally like the fact that the Kobolds aren't screwed to hit the PCs.






			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> Yet you DON'T get better at avoiding mundane attacks?
> 
> Even back when I played 1e/DM 2e I thought there was something very weird going on there.....



Are the kobolds attacks mundane?

Is the party getting better at avoiding the kobold's mundane attacks, thus making the kobolds screwed to hit them?

Or are the kobolds not screwed to hit them, thus demonstrating that the party has become no better at avoiding their mundane attacks?


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 15, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Have you not read all the many posts in this thread praising the fact that minions remain threats as the party increases?




Because people want to use appropriate level minions at various points in the character's life


BryonD said:


> Yes, defenses increase.  But attacks increase at an equal rate and cancel it out.
> 
> The contradiction is you are praising an increase in defense when 4E character have less true ability to defend themselves, despite that fact that they happen to have a higher number after AC on their character sheet.




Perhaps you didn't notice in this thread that I as a DM make regular use of lower level foes? I thought we went over the fallacy that 4e *requires* equal level opponents. In fact, using widely differing level opponents in the same encounter is a really great feature of 4e and easily prevents the boring/grindness of combat that some people complain about.

Is this one of those "The book says you HAVE to do this" but the book actually says "hey, try this method" arguments?



BryonD said:


> I'm not saying the party won't still roll right over the kobolds.  But the better defense is just an illusion.  Everything scales equally in both attack and defense so that the bigger numbers are just window dressing.




???? Again, unless you ONLY use foes of the same level EVERY single combat, this argument makes no sense.

EDIT: What contradiction are you talking about BryonD (can anyone help me out here?)

At low levels, I like the fact that kobolds aren't screwed to hit me just because somebody got lucky and has plate armour.

At higher levels, I like the fact that kobolds no longer have as good a chance to hit me as they did at the earlier stage and NOT because I found plate armour.

How am I contradicting myself here?


----------



## BryonD (Jul 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Because people want to use appropriate level minions at various points in the character's life
> 
> 
> Perhaps you didn't notice in this thread that I as a DM make regular use of lower level foes? I thought we went over the fallacy that 4e *requires* equal level opponents.
> ...



I'm completely with you here.

But, why then do you praise that they are not screwed to hit, when your low level kobolds are screwed to hit?

4E requires nothing.  But if you praise minions not being screwed to hit at the same time as praising increased defenses, then it is a contradiction.

It is one or the other, but not both.  

You said that the kobolds were not screwed.  That very implicitly pushes the reader to reasonably conclude you are using level appropriate minions.  Don't get upset when your reader takes you at your word.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 15, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So you would remove all bonuses? Most bonuses?
> 
> Maybe that would work, too. Maybe 4E is still to married to 3Es idea of BAB, level based max skill ranks and saving throws increasing by level.
> 
> ...




Not all bonuses of course but the vast majority of the ones that exist simply to scale up everything yes. Byron D was right in his assessment that all the higher numbers are just window dressing. 

If attacks, defenses, and hit points scale more or less equally for PC's and monsters then there isn't really much noticeable improvement in terms of actually improving as an adventurer against a worthy foe of equal level.
You end up with a base level of competence at 1st level that stays on a roughly even track. In 1E defenses didn't scale anywhere near as fast resulting in an actual increase in hit percentage as levels increased providing more actual improvement.

All the character build choices and escalating bonuses do is provide fodder for the character tweaking mini game. This can be a lot of fun for some people on it's own but after all is said and done, at the actual table the result of all that tweaking is a wash if the world scales along with you.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 15, 2009)

BryonD said:


> You said that the kobolds were not screwed.  That very implicitly pushes the reader to reasonably conclude you are using level appropriate minions.  Don't get upset when your reader takes you at your word.




???

Not upset but I think you might've jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Kobolds do NOT necessarily mean appropriate level minion. 

If I caused confusion, my apologies.

Let's try this one more time.

1. I like at early levels (1-3), kobolds (the regular and minion versions) have roughly a 50/50 chance to hit the PCs and this doesn't get vastly affected because the DM was a monty haul DM and gave out great armour.

2. I like as I increase levels, those kobolds start to drop off in effectiveness BECAUSE I get more effective at simply ignoring their attack. I like the fact that there comes a point in the PC's career where they only have to worry about the natural 20 rule. Much more importantly is the fact that this is NOT_ gear dependant.

Clearer?

re: Gear and level.
Using that as an opener, and regarding the half-level aspect of 4e, again personally it suits me.

Whenever we did the classic "strip the party of the gear" scenario, I don't mind the loss of power in the classes (which was the point of the scenario), I just didn't like HOW MUCH gear meant to the character.

Remember vaguely once that our 1e DM did that scenario and we ran into the people that were wearing our gear and we absolutely got stomped of course, finding out that they were vastly lower than us was a true kick in the pants.

re: Solos

With regard to the metagame nature of minions, do people have as much problem with Solos (and elites to a lesser extent). Yeah, I mentioned it before, but perhaps it got lost in the flood of the minion wars.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Mr. Senator, when did you stop beating your wife?
> 
> I'm sorry but your wild generalization is vastly removed from reality.




Really?  25% of all humans in 1e have 1 hit point.  How is that different?  You can fiat it away and ignore it, somehow wiping out massive numbers of the population, ignoring the fact that doing so would result in mass extinction, ignore all the small animals who, in every edition, had 1 hit point, which you also apparently kill, thus wiping out much of the biomass of your world.

But, apparently this is a wild generalization.

YOU are the one insisting that the rules inform world building.  I'm simply holding you to your own standard.  If you ignore the rules to make a believable world, which I imagine that you and every other DM out there does, then why does having an explicit type of monster suddenly become a major stumbling block?




jgbrowning said:


> That is what everyone does. The only difference is where the cut off is. They are all arbitrary based upon preference.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So, you wipe out 25% of the population of your worlds? Or somewhere to that effect?  What do you do with all the creatures that actually only have 1 hit point?  Oh, that's right, you ignore the rules.



> First: since I fiated out most 1hp humanoids, doesn't that mean I *was *bothered by them?




You couldn't possibly have fiated out most of the 1hp humanoids.  You'd still have to wipe out massive numbers of population in order to get "most".  

You ignore the rules, same as everyone else.



> Second: You're confusing 1hp creatures with minions, that is not the case. Minions are explicit mechanical constructions that exist outside the normal scale of creature toughness for the explicit purpose of dying quickly and making player's feel tough while providing a mechanical role in combat. A creature with 1 hp in 4e isnt like a creature with 1hp in prior editions because having 1hp in one edition is different in design than having 1hp in others. I've already gone over this, but since you don't seem to be reading what I'm posting, I'll repeat it here, "_I suspect the major difference is one of scale. In 1e, hp varied from 1 to about 100 for normal creatures (not uniques). In 4e that has increased from 1 (only minions) to the weakest creature in the world (outside a minion) having around 20hp while the strongest reaching close to 1,400hp. A minion, is about 1/20th as tough as the next weakest creature in the world. The difference of scale is dramatically larger, and that increase results in it being increasingly harder to ignore an issue, IMO_.
> 
> In more words, a 1hp bandit in a pre-4e editiion (where bandits had 1-6hp - 1e) would have the equivalent of around 4-6hp in 4e, if that bandit was not a minion were one to scale creature strength across editions and if one assumes the listed bandit in the 4eMM is the strongest. If you assume the listed 4eMM bandit as being average instead of strongest, a 1e bandit with 1 hp would then scale into a 4e bandit with about 12hp.
> 
> Minions are not like 1hp creatures in other editions.




Why not?  Why is there this vast gulf?  Just because there is a higher "high end", why does it make any difference when the starting point is EXACTLY the same.  A 1 hit point humanoid or creature dies when he takes 1 point of damage.  Full stop.  There is no difference.



> Methinks you should just talk to me as opposed to be snooty. I'm a real human person. Talk to me like you'd talk to someone sitting next to you on the bus.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Look, we're not going to convince each other here.  Really, we're not.

I just think that your entire line of argument is specious.  You are insisting on a difference that doesn't exist.  A minion has 1 hit point and is not the only member of a given race that exists, and thus represents some part of the whole.  A 1 hit point 1 HD creature, of any stripe, is not the only member of a given race that exists and thus represents some part of the whole.

Your solution in earlier editions was to basically ignore the problem.  You didn't use 1 hit point creatures in adventures, and that's fine, but, you certainly did not just kill them off because, if you did, you would have nothing alive in your world.  You would have mass extinctions.  A 25% mortality rate before accidental death or disease = everyone dead very quickly.

You are claiming that a 1 hit point bandit in 1e suddenly gains more hit points in later editions.  But, that's not the point.  We're not transplanting here.  Raven Crowkings radioactive Africanized killer butterflies still kill your bandit in 1e same as he kills the minion in 4e.

If you could essentially ignore the problem for 30 years, I find it very curious that suddenly having higher hit point limits makes it difficult to believe.  Hell, 3e monsters ran into mid range triple digits and it didn't bother you.  Suddenly, because there are epic challenges in the Monster manual, it becomes a major mental stumbling block?

I'm just not seeing it.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> YOU are the one insisting that the rules inform world building.  I'm simply holding you to your own standard.



Hussar, I stopped debating you months ago when your pattern of building every single debate solely on the premise of inventing absurd distortions of the other guys position and trying to force the conversation to center on those misrepresentations became boring.

Two replies to me in and you are true to form.

If you honestly think that my standard has anything to do with what you have described, then you don't grasp the debate well enough to merit my time.
If not, you are being intentionally deceitful.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 15, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> If I caused confusion, my apologies.



Now come on, lets play fair.
Go back and read the posts I responded to.

In one you are strongly praising that minions are not screwed.
In another you are strongly praising that defenses increase.

Now you are playing a shades of grey game.  
I like the shades of grey game.

But that position is not the one you presented before.
If it is what you meant and you said it badly, then that is cool.  But you said it very badly.  Twice.



> Clearer?



Yeah, 3E and 4E both allow balanced and lop-sided encounters.



> re: Gear and level.
> Using that as an opener, and regarding the half-level aspect of 4e, again personally it suits me.
> 
> Whenever we did the classic "strip the party of the gear" scenario, I don't mind the loss of power in the classes (which was the point of the scenario), I just didn't like HOW MUCH gear meant to the character.
> ...



Cool.  
3E suites me.  At least compared to 4E.  There are other methods I also like.
But no need to argue pure preference of style there.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2009)

BryonD said:


> Hussar, I stopped debating you months ago when your pattern of building every single debate solely on the premise of inventing absurd distortions of the other guys position and trying to force the conversation to center on those misrepresentations became boring.
> 
> Two replies to me in and you are true to form.
> 
> ...




Hey, I can only argue with what you write.  If I am misunderstanding you, I apologize.

Are you not saying that minions do not work in a world building sense because they have only one hit point and thus would die by butterfly wing?

If that is what you are saying, my question to you is how did you design your worlds in EVERY OTHER EDITION when every other edition had 1 hit point animals and people.

In every edition, 1 hit point is 1 hit point.  When you take damage, you take at least one point of damage (barring some corner cases).  How did you get around 25% of your population having 1 hit point?  And, why does that work around not apply now to minions?


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Jul 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Not all bonuses of course but the vast majority of the ones that exist simply to scale up everything yes. Byron D was right in his assessment that all the higher numbers are just window dressing.
> 
> If attacks, defenses, and hit points scale more or less equally for PC's and monsters then there isn't really much noticeable improvement in terms of actually improving as an adventurer against a worthy foe of equal level.
> You end up with a base level of competence at 1st level that stays on a roughly even track. In 1E defenses didn't scale anywhere near as fast resulting in an actual increase in hit percentage as levels increased providing more actual improvement.
> ...




"Always fighting orcs" as I believe it's called.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> If that is what you are saying, my question to you is how did you design your worlds in EVERY OTHER EDITION when every other edition had 1 hit point animals and people.



You are presuming I favored other editions of D&D.
In 1E my world building sucked, but I was a kid playing kid style orc killing D&D.

In 2E I became unsatisfied and left for better systems.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2009)

BryonD said:


> You are presuming I favored other editions of D&D.
> In 1E my world building sucked, but I was a kid playing kid style orc killing D&D.
> 
> In 2E I became unsatisfied and left for better systems.




And 3e?  Which I know is your preferred edition and I also know that you are heavily into world building with?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Not all bonuses of course but the vast majority of the ones that exist simply to scale up everything yes. Byron D was right in his assessment that all the higher numbers are just window dressing.
> 
> If attacks, defenses, and hit points scale more or less equally for PC's and monsters then there isn't really much noticeable improvement in terms of actually improving as an adventurer against a worthy foe of equal level.
> You end up with a base level of competence at 1st level that stays on a roughly even track. In 1E defenses didn't scale anywhere near as fast resulting in an actual increase in hit percentage as levels increased providing more actual improvement.
> ...




Considering that we now have "spell-like" effects for everyone - powers - it makes more sense then ever to remove most "level scaling" bonuses. 

Of course, some scaling still exists, but it is found in the amount of damage you can inflict. The rest of scaling is based on conditions inflicted by powers. 

Maybe a Modern 2.0 or D&D 5 will actually do that. (And then, just to annoy everyone, it will also remove the to-hit roll and use a similar role just to determine a damage multiplier or modifier.)


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Not all bonuses of course but the vast majority of the ones that exist simply to scale up everything yes. Byron D was right in his assessment that all the higher numbers are just window dressing.
> 
> If attacks, defenses, and hit points scale more or less equally for PC's and monsters then there isn't really much noticeable improvement in terms of actually improving as an adventurer against a worthy foe of equal level.
> You end up with a base level of competence at 1st level that stays on a roughly even track. In 1E defenses didn't scale anywhere near as fast resulting in an actual increase in hit percentage as levels increased providing more actual improvement.
> ...




Yes and no.

Yes, if everything the PC's interact with in the world scales with them perfectly, then the bonuses will be a was.  That's 100% true.  However, in play, that's not going to happen.  Or at least, it probably shouldn't.  You (and I mean this in the non-specific you, not you personally) would design adventures using opponents and challenges that are going to run a range of levels both above and below the party's level.

IIRC, the DMG actually talks about challenges in an adventure should range from about -5 to +5 of the party level (or am I misremembering that?  It could have been something I read on the boards).  Which means the scaling is going to matter a great deal.  It's only a wash when opponents are equal leveled.

And, again, this was fairly true in other editions as well.  A CR 10 opponent in 3e is going to have an AC around 20-25, probably about 100 hit points and is likely going to have a +15 attack bonus.  Give or take a few, but, that's probably pretty close.  The reason you can peg a creature at a given CR is because of scaling.  Earlier editions were perhaps not so rigorous as this in determining challenge level, but, the basic idea was certainly there.

Yes, if you only use equivalent challenges, then the scaling is a net wash.  But, since in play that's extremely unlikely (and very, very boring), not to mention very limiting, it's not going to come up.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I'm just not seeing it.




That's obvious. I suggest you just ignore me. Your posts have made it clear that I should ignore you.

If it makes you feel better, just think of me as an idiot. As someone just can't see how correct you are and can't see how incorrect I am. Someone who has many major mental stumbling blocks because I fundamentally misunderstand gaming systems.

joe b.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 15, 2009)

> But make no mistake - people will also dislike a solution where most bonuses are gone. It removes the "meaning" of level or ability scores.



Ah, but to remove that meaning is a direct consequence of WotC's scaling of offense and defense. For the same level +/- X, there is always about the same chance of a hit (dependent now on the monster's "role"). In old D&D, creatures with more levels (thus more hit points) scored hits more often. Yet they were hit as often as ever by lower-level combatants.

Do you begin to see the purposes hit points were designed to serve? If one has several times as many as a foe, then even with equal rates of damage dealing one has an advantage.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> If attacks, defenses, and hit points scale more or less equally for PC's and monsters then there isn't really much noticeable improvement in terms of actually improving as an adventurer against a worthy foe of equal level.






> This can be a lot of fun for some people on it's own but after all is said and done, at the actual table the result of all that tweaking is a wash if the world scales along with you.



In previous editions, PC's got more hit points, better to-hit bonuses, better AC's (from gear) and more 'special' ie, magical abilities as they advanced in level.

In order to fight monsters with more hit points, better to-hit bonuses, better AC's, and more special ie, magical abilities.

It seems to me this has _always_ been the case during the 20 or so years I've run D&D. It's not new.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> 25% of all humans in 1e have 1 hit point.




Are you sure about that?  If memory serves, normal men in 1e have different types of hit die depending upon their occupation, even though they are all 1 HD.  So, it might be more accurate to say that 1/6th of all non-adventuring types per 1e RAW have approximately 1 hp.

The 3e fix of giving normal men a sliding scale was a good one (although AFAICT it first appeared in 1e, in Dragon Magazine, in an article by Ed Greenwood statting up the blacksmith as the first "normal man NPC class").

But that still doesn't make them minions.



BryonD said:


> If you honestly think that my standard has anything to do with what you have described, then you don't grasp the debate well enough to merit my time.
> If not, you are being intentionally deceitful.




Two great tastes that taste great together!

(This has been my experience as well.)


RC


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> That's obvious. I suggest you just ignore me. Your posts have made it clear that I should ignore you.
> 
> If it makes you feel better, just think of me as an idiot. As someone just can't see how correct you are and can't see how incorrect I am. Someone who has many major mental stumbling blocks because I fundamentally misunderstand gaming systems.
> 
> joe b.




Hang on.  Where is all this aggro coming from?  Wow.  First I get accused of beating my wife, and now this?  Jeez.  

Look, you claim that the difference is because there is now such a huge gulf between what hit points represent between editions.  Again, I'm not sure how you can really say that.  Just because the top got higher, why does that change the starting line?

You claim that you actively accounted for 1 hit point humanoids when you design your worlds.  I have to accept that.  You remove all 1 hit point humanoids from your world and ignore all the 1 hit point creatures and animals as not important enough to hurt your sense of verisimilitude.

Ok, fair enough.

My question to you is, why can you not simply do the same thing with minions?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 15, 2009)

Mallus said:


> In previous editions, PC's got more hit points, better to-hit bonuses, better AC's (from gear) and more 'special' ie, magical abilities as they advanced in level.
> 
> In order to fight monsters with more hit points, better to-hit bonuses, better AC's, and more special ie, magical abilities.
> 
> It seems to me this has _always_ been the case during the 20 or so years I've run D&D. It's not new.




"You need to ensure that the DM understand how fundamentally everything has changed.  And if he is unhappy with that, tell him nothing has changed!"

I am _*soooooo*_ tired of that "reasoning".


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> Yes, if everything the PC's interact with in the world scales with them perfectly, then the bonuses will be a was. That's 100% true. However, in play, that's not going to happen. Or at least, it probably shouldn't. You (and I mean this in the non-specific you, not you personally) would design adventures using opponents and challenges that are going to run a range of levels both above and below the party's level.




I completely agree that it is a good thing for adventures to feature a variety of challenge levels. This helps keep adventures more unpredictable and less likely to become flat and boring (this applies to all editions).

This has nothing to do with actual improvement or a lack thereof. Facing lower level threats isn't a real measure of improvement, its picking on the little kids. Dealing more efficiently with threats on par with your ability is a better measure of overall improvement. Think of it like a batting average. If Joe the slugger has a .265 major league average and works hard to try and improve, facing single A pitchers and bragging about his new .375 average doesn't carry any weight in a major league game.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 15, 2009)

> It seems to me this has _always_ been the case during the 20 or so years I've run D&D.



In AD&D, it was entirely a matter of your (Mallus's) choice to ensure that all 10th-level characters were going around with +5 magic, much less that all the monsters they met were likewise equipped -- a mighty unusual circumstance in my experience! Of course, to get the full 4E effect would have required basically ignoring the monster ratings and combat matrices.

I suppose I could likewise ignore the guidelines and procedures in 4E and substitute the 1E rulebooks ... but then, when I wrote of how I played, I would not really be addressing 4E design features, would I?


----------



## BryonD (Jul 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> First I get accused of beating my wife, and now this?  Jeez.



Obviously you were not familiar with the reference I was making.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 15, 2009)

Just taking a quick moment to apologize to the minions.

Earlier in this thread, in exasperation over how many folks (with overlap in this thread) seemed to be arguing that common sense shouldn't be used when adjudicating 4e rules, I simply eschewed all common sense in adjudicating minion rules.

It was a lame, and ultimately futile, gesture, so I apologize.


RC


----------



## BryonD (Jul 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> And 3e?  Which I know is your preferred edition and I also know that you are heavily into world building with?



The term "preferred edition" still presumes D&D.  3E is one of my preferred systems.  Or you could say D20 is.  The fact that it is an edition of the D&D line is coincidental.   

3E works great for me.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 15, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am _*soooooo*_ tired of that "reasoning".



Putting quotes around the word "reasoning" doesn't invalidate my point, RC.  Nor the observations from over 20+ years of play that informed it. It's not, alas, much of a refutation, either .

I've noticed that D&D traditionally scales. The PC's go up in character level so that they can venture down into the lower dungeon levels, so to speak. I've noticed the classic old-school modules were clearly marked as to what character level they were appropriate for. That they, in fact, frequently contained monsters that were commensurate with those levels. 

Of course things have changed --implementation and methods of abstracting things, each with their own benefits and drawbacks. But others have stayed the same.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2009)

Mallus said:


> In previous editions, PC's got more hit points, better to-hit bonuses, better AC's (from gear) and more 'special' ie, magical abilities as they advanced in level.
> 
> In order to fight monsters with more hit points, better to-hit bonuses, better AC's, and more special ie, magical abilities.
> 
> It seems to me this has _always_ been the case during the 20 or so years I've run D&D. It's not new.






Ariosto said:


> In AD&D, it was entirely a matter of your (Mallus's) choice to ensure that all 10th-level characters were going around with +5 magic, much less that all the monsters they met were likewise equipped -- a mighty unusual circumstance in my experience! Of course, to get the full 4E effect would have required basically ignoring the monster ratings and combat matrices.
> 
> I suppose I could likewise ignore the guidelines and procedures in 4E and substitute the 1E rulebooks ... but then, when I wrote of how I played, I would not really be addressing 4E design features, would I?




I'm not sure how "getting more stuff as I gain levels" equates with every 10th level character having +5 equipment.

Getting more stuff as I gain levels does, OTOH, sound pretty much like every single D&D campaign I've ever played in.

Never minding all the rules in 1e that specifically assume you will gain access to magic items - things like needing +1 weapons to hit and the like.  But, this conversation has been beaten to death way too many times for me to try again.



ExploderWizard said:


> I completely agree that it is a good thing for adventures to feature a variety of challenge levels. This helps keep adventures more unpredictable and less likely to become flat and boring (this applies to all editions).
> 
> This has nothing to do with actual improvement or a lack thereof. Facing lower level threats isn't a real measure of improvement, its picking on the little kids. Dealing more efficiently with threats on par with your ability is a better measure of overall improvement. Think of it like a batting average. If Joe the slugger has a .265 major league average and works hard to try and improve, facing single A pitchers and bragging about his new .375 average doesn't carry any weight in a major league game.




This one, otoh, is much more interesting.  

Yes and no on the lower level threats isn't a real measure of improvement.  Let's not forget, if I use lower level threats, my xp budget lets me use a lot more of them.  And, because the scaling isn't THAT far out of line, I can use a whole bunch of say, -3 opponents and still make a good enough challenge.

But, again, this isn't what 4e encounter design is about.  The DMG is pretty specific, as well as the Monster Manual, in showing that every encounter should include opponents from both sides of the fence.  In other words, Joe the Slugger should face both Major and minor league pitchers in every single game he plays.

If you look at the suggested groups in the Monster manual, you see exactly that.  Other than the solo's (obviously) you have mixed groups that run a fairly broad level range.  Because the scaling in 4e is linear, it doesn't hurt so much to drop 4 levels with an opponent.  You just use more of them.    Conversely, it doesn't wind up being a binary alive/dead encounter if you go above the par either.

Like I said, I think you are absolutely right that the scaling would make for very boring encounters if you always used par monsters.  Fortunately, the designers also agree with you and specifically tell us not to do that.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2009)

BryonD said:


> The term "preferred edition" still presumes D&D.  3E is one of my preferred systems.  Or you could say D20 is.  The fact that it is an edition of the D&D line is coincidental.
> 
> 3E works great for me.




Me too.

Would you care to actually answer the question?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 15, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Just taking a quick moment to apologize to the minions.
> 
> Earlier in this thread, in exasperation over how many folks (with overlap in this thread) seemed to be arguing that common sense shouldn't be used when adjudicating 4e rules, I simply eschewed all common sense in adjudicating minion rules.
> 
> It was a lame, and ultimately futile, gesture, so I apologize.



I've given you XP too recently to give you another, but this is appreciated.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 15, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> In AD&D, it was entirely a matter of your (Mallus's) choice to ensure that all 10th-level characters were going around with +5 magic, much less that all the monsters they met were likewise equipped -- a mighty unusual circumstance in my experience!



Note that I didn't say anything about +5 items in the hands of 10th level AD&D characters. This sounds an awful lot like a deliberate misreading of what I posted designed to cast me in a uncharitable light... 

But anyway... my point has nothing to with my 'choice', other than in the broadest sense that I chose my friends and had some say in our recreational activities. This is what I observed over several years of play. It was commonplace. Largely, it was the result of stringing old AD&D tournament modules together and calling it a 'campaign'. 

I ran games... differently once I transitioned from player to (mostly) full-time DM. 



> I suppose I could likewise ignore the guidelines and procedures in 4E and substitute the 1E rulebooks ... but then, when I wrote of how I played, I would not really be addressing 4E design features, would I?



In a few years time I believe we absolutely should evaluate 4e on how people actually played it. Heck, we should do that _now_, it's been out almost a year.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 15, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Note that I didn't say anything about +5 items in the hands of 10th level AD&D characters. This sounds an awful lot like a deliberate misreading of what I posted designed to cast me in a uncharitable light...
> 
> But anyway... my point has nothing to with my 'choice', other than in the broadest sense that I chose my friends and had some say in our recreational activities. This is what I observed over several years of play. It was commonplace. Largely, it was the result of stringing old AD&D tournament modules together and calling it a 'campaign'.
> 
> ...



That's an interesting topic indeed!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 15, 2009)

Mallus said:


> In previous editions, PC's got more hit points, better to-hit bonuses, better AC's (from gear) and more 'special' ie, magical abilities as they advanced in level.
> 
> In order to fight monsters with more hit points, better to-hit bonuses, better AC's, and more special ie, magical abilities.
> 
> It seems to me this has _always_ been the case during the 20 or so years I've run D&D. It's not new.




As a basic principle of gaining levels you are correct but the devil is in the more precise implementation of those principles.

Magical equipment was available in 1E but the nature and power level of such gear varied a lot. Monster statistics were not designed assuming gear of a particular power level was available to the PC's. If the PC's did have powerful gear it afforded them a real advantage. WOTC D&D assumes a certain level of gear is present and the monster stats reflect this. This really means that all the magic goodies are not providing a real advantage. They are merely keeping the PC's from being SOL against competent foes. This is yet another effect of rigid scaling. X and Y will always balance out resulting in a net no gain/loss.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> As a basic principle of gaining levels you are correct but the devil is in the more precise implementation of those principles.
> 
> Magical equipment was available in 1E but the nature and power level of such gear varied a lot. Monster statistics were not designed assuming gear of a particular power level was available to the PC's. If the PC's did have powerful gear it afforded them a real advantage. WOTC D&D assumes a certain level of gear is present and the monster stats reflect this. This really means that all the magic goodies are not providing a real advantage. They are merely keeping the PC's from being SOL against competent foes. This is yet another effect of rigid scaling. X and Y will always balance out resulting in a net no gain/loss.




I will 100% agree with you that pre-3e D&D did not worry overmuch about the math.    That's certainly true.  And it had advantages and disadvantages.  The advantage was, you had a great deal of freedom.  The disadvantage was largely the same.  

I do think there was some nod to PC's having access to some magical equipment - you don't see "needs +3 weapons to be hit" on 4 hit die creatures.  You do, however, see "Needs +1 weapons to be hit" on 4 hit die creatures (The gargoyle and hte wight IIRC) which certainly implies that you are going to have those kinds of equipment when you are around 4th level.

By disengaging the challenge assumptions from the wealth system you basically hand the whole problem to the DM.  The DM has to determine the challenges of the adventure pretty much based entirely on his gut feeling, rather than any help from the books.  IMO, this resulted in a lot of Monte Haul games where DM's over estimated what the players needed in order to face certain challenges.  Or, it resulted in the opposite where groups were fighting over +1 Sporks at 7th level because it was the first magic item they found.

It becomes extremely difficult, at least without a great deal of trial and error, to find the balance.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 15, 2009)

It is fatuous to claim that matters of degree and precise implementations do not matter, when those are _just what matters_ in a mathematical construct! A cup of tea is wet, and so is Lake Superior -- so there's no difference?

Monsters in fact *did not* get better ACs by level. The ACs remained, regardless of level, overwhelmingly in the same range as literal armor classes (and even more within the range of those plus dexterity bonus, applicable from 1st level) except for exceptional types such as demons, devils, certain dragons, and ki-rin. 

Here are ACs for some of the toughest monsters (those in the Monster Level X table, along with Demon Princes and Arch-Devils):
Beholder: 0/2/7
Red Dragon: -1 (regardless of age)
Iron Golem: 3
Lich: 0
Elder Titan: -3
Vampire: 1

A 1st-level character with plate mail and shield would have AC 2; dexterity 18 would improve that to -2. The original tournament characters (level 7-13) in D1-2 have ACs ranging from 1 to -4.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> This one, otoh, is much more interesting.
> 
> Yes and no on the lower level threats isn't a real measure of improvement. Let's not forget, if I use lower level threats, my xp budget lets me use a lot more of them. And, because the scaling isn't THAT far out of line, I can use a whole bunch of say, -3 opponents and still make a good enough challenge.
> 
> But, again, this isn't what 4e encounter design is about. The DMG is pretty specific, as well as the Monster Manual, in showing that every encounter should include opponents from both sides of the fence. In other words, Joe the Slugger should face both Major and minor league pitchers in every single game he plays.




I think it can be mixed up depending on campaign events. Some sessions might be chock full of tough guys and others with smaller threats. It's all good if it balances out and makes sense in the context of the campaign. 




Hussar said:


> Like I said, I think you are absolutely right that the scaling would make for very boring encounters if you always used par monsters. Fortunately, the designers also agree with you and specifically tell us not to do that.




The improvement that I was speaking of comes from a much different scaling rate between attacks and AC. A 1E fighter might get +4 to hit after gaining 4 levels, but the average AC of his foes will not be 4 higher (or lower as the case may be). This means that the fighter will actually be hitting more often vs a par opponent (unless the dice hate him).


----------



## Oni (Jul 15, 2009)

Mallus said:


> In a few years time I believe we absolutely should evaluate 4e on how people actually played it. Heck, we should do that _now_, it's been out almost a year.




That seems to be how every other edition of D&D is judged, so I think it is probably a more fair comparison.  

I think how something works in practice is much more informative than suppositions of how something should work in theory based on its structure. 

Though a direct comparison on intent to result within same system definitely has a great deal to offer regarding success or failure of implementation.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 15, 2009)

re: 1e/2e magic item levels

I as a 2e DM used to go by two things.

1. The list of equipment that the followers of the fighter could have. If a 5th level follower had a +1 sword and +1 armour, the PCs would have at least something compareable.

2. The fact that the limitation on the paladin was 10 magic items. It obviously was supposed to be a drawback so I always assumed that a PC had to have at least 10 items by the time a paladin could cast priest spells.


----------



## ST (Jul 15, 2009)

I think people may have exhausted themselves on this topic at last (whew). 

Any thoughts as to fruitful forks of the topic, or is it best to go with detente?


----------



## Mallus (Jul 15, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> Monsters in fact *did not* get better ACs by level.



My mistake. The increased defenses of AD&D monsters were usually represented by their immunity to damage from non-magical weaponry of ever-increasing caliber (in addition to other immunities) and not by decreasing AC's.  

Which leaves my basic point intact: as PC's hit harder and got harder to hurt, so did the monsters they faced. 



> Beholder: 0/2/7
> Red Dragon: -1 (regardless of age)
> Iron Golem: 3
> Lich: 0
> ...



All of these creature are "+1 magic weapon --or more-- required to hit", yes? Which would mean their defenses are better than those lesser monsters, yes? 

(Really, who is being fatuous here? You zeroed in on one _technical_ inaccuracy in my post while ignoring the larger point being made.)


----------



## Dragonblade (Jul 15, 2009)

I think I see where the disconnect is coming from. Hussar is arguing from a discrete perspective. That logically the only difference between a 1 hp commoner and a 1 hp minion is semantic. I see his point.

jgb and others are arguing from the perspective that it is different because a commoner has 1 hp regardless of whether they are in combat or not. A 4e minion is specifically undefined as to their existence or durability outside of combat. That is the rub for them. Its the fact that their stats are defined only in relation to combat.

I think the 3e fans like to have that concrete determination of hps as a foundation that can inform world building. The 4e fans don't think its relevant because its really only the end result that matters. For them a monster is simply a construct, its existence only relevant in its ability to challenge the PCs or the needs of the story.

For example, in 3e, if I wanted foe to challenge my PCs, I would have a power level in mind, and have a general target AC, HP, damage etc, that I feel that foe should have. Then I would build them according to the rules. Adding in class levels, templates, factoring in spell buffs etc. The 3e fans feel comfortable in having these layers defined and calculated so that if necessary they can deconstruct their villain as needed. They also use this building process as a way to round out their villain. Even if his 9 ranks of rope use never ever comes into play, they feel comfortable knowing its there in case it does come into play.

The 4e fans, have a different mindset. They also pick target numbers, but rather than feeling enabled by the system that 3e used, they view it as an obstacle to getting the result they want. In that sense 4e is completely different than 3e. In 4e, if I want to create a foe of a given power level, the system just flat out tells me what numbers they should have. From the perspective of a 4e DM, this is all I care about. Feats, skill ranks, none of that matters to a 4e and having to pick it is a time consuming burden.

One way isn't better than the other. Its simply a matter of preference.

For a 4e fan, being unconstrained by a system when creating NPCs or monsters is a liberating experience. For them its like they can get to the story without the drudge work. For them it doesn't matter how many hps an NPC has. NPCs don't exist outside the narrative framework. They are mind boggled when 3e fans try to articulate why they prefer the 3e system. They logically point out that no matter how detailed your world, no matter how many rules subsystems you use, ultimately its all just made up anyway. Better to use a rule system that makes it easier to make stuff up rather than one that constrains you with endless rules and systems. Speaking as a 4e fan myself. This is my personal feeling as well.

But I understand the 3e perspective. For a 3e fan, the 4e method would probably feel wishy-wash, nebulous, and incomplete. The system probably feels adrift, like its missing a solid foundation. The rules and subsystems aren't obstacles, but guideposts aiding them in their game prep and world building.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 15, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Me too.
> 
> Would you care to actually answer the question?



No.  

I don't see any substance in the question.

I'd prefer not to start over with you in yet another debate that requires me to accept your notions as truth in my games.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> As a basic principle of gaining levels you are correct but the devil is in the more precise implementation of those principles.



Oh sure, and different people will prefer different implementations. 



> Magical equipment was available in 1E but the nature and power level of such gear varied a lot.



Generally true, with one notable exception: magic weapons. 



> Monster statistics were not designed assuming gear of a particular power level was available to the PC's. If the PC's did have powerful gear it afforded them a real advantage.



Seeing as characters couldn't damage a significant number of mid-to-high monsters at all _without_ magic weapons, it's safe to say it was a basic assumption of the system that characters would posses them. 

Find me a classic AD&D module intended for mid-to-high level PC's that didn't tacitly assume the PC's had enchanted ironmongery.


----------



## BryonD (Jul 15, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> But I understand the 3e perspective. For a 3e fan, the 4e method would probably feel wishy-wash, nebulous, and incomplete. The system probably feels adrift, like its missing a solid foundation. The rules and subsystems aren't obstacles, but guideposts aiding them in their game prep and world building.



I could have just as much of a rewarding experience making up every single thing on the fly as I could playing 4E.

(I'd say "reference points" rather than "guideposts", just to be hyper picky)

- edit - I don't agree with a lot of the points you made.  But in big round approximations this line had a ring of accuracy to it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 15, 2009)

Dragonblade said:


> I think I see where the disconnect is coming from. Hussar is arguing from a discrete perspective. That logically the only difference between a 1 hp commoner and a 1 hp minion is semantic. I see his point.




There is also, perhaps, a distinction to be drawn between a commoner -- or a squirrel -- with 1 hp and an ogre minion?  At least, I hope there is!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 15, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Which leaves my basic point intact: as PC's hit harder and got harder to hurt, so did the monsters they faced.
> 
> All of these creature are "+1 magic weapon --or more-- required to hit", yes? Which would mean their defenses are better than those lesser monsters, yes?




No.

If memory serves, neither the Red Dragon nor the Beholder require magic items to hit them.  

Moreover, "Magic to hit" was a yes/no switch (well, three yes/no switches of differing values), which is not the same thing at all as the sort of numbers creep one sees in 3.X+.

In 1e, the need for magic to hit was eliminated by not using specific monsters, or by adjusting them to remove this property.  Easy to make a low-magic game, because that +1 was an on/off switch rather than a neccessary bump to power level.  But, failing to understand this, it could cause problems.  Sometimes, adventurers had to rely on spells or stealth, for example.

I do think that WotC employed a good "fix" to this problem in terms of DR; RCFG uses a similar mechanic, while avoiding (IMHO) much (if not all) of the power creep of WotC-D&D.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 15, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Oh sure, and different people will prefer different implementations.




Yes, and thats fine. No problems.



Mallus said:


> Generally true, with one notable exception: magic weapons.
> 
> 
> Seeing as characters couldn't damage a significant number of mid-to-high monsters at all _without_ magic weapons, it's safe to say it was a basic assumption of the system that characters would posses them.




I know for sure that the red dragon didn't require magic weapons. It is also safe to say that if the DM decided not to use a lot of these monsters then magic weapons could be more rare ( a style preference). At a minimum, the bonuses from such weapons were not as important against all foes of a given level range. 



Mallus said:


> Find me a classic AD&D module intended for mid-to-high level PC's that didn't tacitly assume the PC's had enchanted ironmongery.




Module A4. The PC's are 6-7th level and begin the adventure pretty much nekkid and without spellbooks. By the end of the adventure they have to face the BBEG group of slavelords with whatever gear they can cobble together after a daring escape.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 15, 2009)

"Needs magic to hit" is a _qualitatively_ exceptional feature, which would be the same if applied in 4E. (For example, minions are qualitatively exceptional in their invulnerability to damage from a "miss".) The AC range -- and, the ultimate point, the range of chances to hit -- is _quantitatively_ quite another matter.

The arithmetic is very different, as (pretty naturally) are the consequences. This ties in with the range of hit point scores ... and eventually gets us minions as a "patch".


----------



## Mallus (Jul 15, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> .If memory serves, neither the Red Dragon nor the Beholder require magic items to hit them.



But many AD&D monsters _did_, correct?   



> In 1e, the need for magic to hit was eliminated by not using specific monsters, or by adjusting them to remove this property.



Sure. I didn't mean to suggest you couldn't change the requirement. Only that the requirement represented an escalation in the creature's defenses.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 15, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> There is also, perhaps, a distinction to be drawn between a commoner -- or a squirrel -- with 1 hp and an ogre minion?  At least, I hope there is!




And don't forget about the level 23 Angel of Light minion. Limiting the discussion of the minion concept to the weakest of the weak in a world is misleading if one wants to understand the effects of the rule.

And there is also the distinction that, although the same term is used to represent toughness (hp), the *scale *of the toughness is different in different games. This makes a creature with 100hp have very different location on the toughness scale in relation to other creatures in the different rules sets. The term isn't what's important, it's the ratio to all the other creatures in the system that that term represents, that's important.

The meaning of hit points is not the same in the different itinerations of the game - so 1hp of toughness in 1e does not equal 1hp of toughness in 4e (nor does 50hp in 1e = 50hp in 4e, nor 100 hp in 1e= 100 hp in 4e) because the number only has meaning in relation to the totality of the creatures in each system, and is not a separable concept. Equal numbers don't mean equal toughness when scales are radically different.

This is more easily conceptualized when comparing the 23 lvl minion against a squirrel or a bat or a commoner, rather than comparing commoner to commoner.

joe b.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 15, 2009)

Mallus said:


> But many AD&D monsters _did_, correct?




I guess that depends upon what you mean by "many".    I would say that the vast majority did not.   



> Which is true, but also not relevant to my point that the monsters PC's faced tended to get tougher as they went up in level.




No.

It would be true if, say, all the powerful monsters needed magic to hit, but the weak guys did not.  AFAICT, monsters in AD&D need magic to hit only if there is a folkloric/fictional reason for it.  Thus, the wraith needs a magic weapon to hit because the Nazgul did in LotR, and the gargoyle does because it is made of stone.  The werewolf can be hurt by magic _*or*_ silver, because that is in keeping with Gygax's sources.

But a gargoyle is not a lich, by a long shot.  Magic weapons being needed to hit isn't based on monster level.


RC


----------



## Mallus (Jul 15, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I know for sure that the red dragon didn't require magic weapons.



My memory can be a little wonky, I just turned 40 (40 is the new 2X20). I assume it's going to get worse from here... 



> It is also safe to say that if the DM decided not to use a lot of these monsters then magic weapons could be more rare ( a style preference).



This is true, but I think using the term 'style preference' obscures an important point: many DM's used published modules, or at least parts of them. Many of these modules featured monsters that required magic to hit, which in turn carried the assumption that PC's had those weapons. And the decision to use modules wasn't just a stylistic preference, it was a time and work-saving measure.

I'm sure you _could_ remove the need for magic weapons in AD&D modules. I never saw it done. 



> Module A4. The PC's are 6-7th level and begin the adventure pretty much nekkid and without spellbooks.



Is that Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords? It's a good one... but an outlier. It begins with a fiat capture of the PC's, and, more importantly, it contains magic items for them to find/win as they go through it. It rapidly conforms to the expectations that I claim are present.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 15, 2009)

In 4E, a character gets +1 per 2 levels to AC. That is entirely separate from any bonuses for ability score or magic items.
In old D&D, there is no such factor.

In 4E, a monster's AC (if designed per DMG p. 184) is a base of 12, 14 or 16 (depending on role) ... +1 per level.
In old D&D, there is no such formula. Most monsters, regardless of level, have ACs within the range possible to a 1st level character based on (non-magical) armor, shield and dexterity.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 15, 2009)

Mallus said:


> My memory can be a little wonky, I just turned 40 (40 is the new 2X20). I assume it's going to get worse from here...




Ha!  Youngster!



Happy belated.  I'm going to be 43 this year.



> Is that Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords? It's a good one... but an outlier. It begins with a fiat capture of the PC's, and, more importantly, it contains magic items for them to find/win as they go through it. It rapidly conforms to the expectations that I claim are present.




Sorry, but you were specific about expectations that the PCs had magical ironmongery....and this is a good example.  Indeed, any module without creatures that require magic weapons to hit is a good example.....how do you imagine that AASL "rapidly conforms" to your expectations?


RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 15, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> This is more easily conceptualized when comparing the 23 lvl minion against a squirrel or a bat or a commoner, rather than comparing commoner to commoner.



Well, this is a nice example - most of the time, the 23 lvl minion will win. The same can happen if you have a 40 hit point ogre against a 4 hit point Kobold. Most of the time, the Ogre will win. Exception luck can have the Kobold prevail. 

The difference is the number of rounds to get there, but then - with hit points there are a lot of scenarios where I can - regardless of dice rolls - never kill a creature in one round (let alone one hit).


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 15, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, this is a nice example - most of the time, the 23 lvl minion will win. The same can happen if you have a 40 hit point ogre against a 4 hit point Kobold. Most of the time, the Ogre will win. Exception luck can have the Kobold prevail.
> 
> The difference is the number of rounds to get there, but then - with hit points there are a lot of scenarios where I can - regardless of dice rolls - never kill a creature in one round (let alone one hit).




I wasn't comparing creatures in a fight, I was considering their ability to take damage in relation to all other creatures in the game system's abilities to take damage.

joe b.


----------



## Mad Mac (Jul 15, 2009)

> Well, this is a nice example - most of the time, the 23 lvl minion will win.




  I would upgrade "most of the time" to very nearly always. Commoner vs lvl 23 minion would be along the lines of:

Angel minion has +19 Init, Commoner has+0. Minion always wins initiative, even if it rolls a 1 and commoner rolls a 20. (Higher Dex breaks the tie)

  Minion hits and kills commoner on anything other than a 1.

  Commoner can only hit minion by rolling a 20.

  And that is of course you are allowing a commoner to hurt an angel minion in the first place, which is against the spirt of the minion rules. You would need to be able to roll a +15 vs the angels lowest defense to land a blow on anything less than a 20. The angel in turn can hit AC 30 by rolling a 2.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 15, 2009)

In the original D&D set, every monster's AC is (barring special circumstances) one of 8 literal Armor Classes. Extending the chart to account for penalties to hit, I think the best possible "effective" AC is -3 (Plate Armor, Shield +3, Ring of Protection, long-range missile from shooter with poor dexterity). Considering the armor and shield alone, that would give -1 -- which is hittable on a roll of 20 by even the weakest monster or character.

Supplement I introduces monsters with ACs beyond the literal range (notably the will-o-wisp with -8!). It also adds multiple factors that, by stacking, could theoretically give a character an effective AC as good as -22 ... (AC 2, -4 for dexterity, -5 for magic armor, -5 for magic shield, -2 for ring of protection, -7 for long range fire from weak bow, -1 for shooter's poor dexterity) ... or maybe even better (if I've forgotten something).

Cover or other factors could add penalties to hit. Note that rings of protection don't stack with armor for AC purposes in AD&D. Keeping that anyhow; setting aside the shooting factors (leaving AC -14); and treating old AC 9 as WotC AC 10, that would give a new AC of 33. (Call it 34 if you start from AD&D AC 10).

That would probably be considered ludicrous in most old D&D campaigns. It's not exactly un-hittable (21+ for a level 16+ fighter in OD&D, and the +1 could come from strength or magic; 18+ for level 17+ in 1E AD&D, or 20+ for as low as level 11, or optionally 10, by the standard table with repeating 20s). However, AD&D gave Indra only -12, and even if that is not the best among the gods it is pretty well up there. Even Odin (a common yardstick for "godlike" power) gets only -6.


----------



## Mad Mac (Jul 15, 2009)

When looking at 4th edition monsters, it's also worth remembering that their HP's and damage don't scale very quickly. A 1st level monster may have 26 HP's, which is a big change from prior edition, but a 10th level monster will only have 2-3x as many HP's as a 1st level monster. A 20th level monster may have less than twice as many HP's as a 10th level monster. The numbers are bigger overall only because they start higher.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 15, 2009)

> The numbers are bigger overall only because they start higher.



Hence the difficulty with putting the smack-down on 1st-level foes even when you're 8th or higher.


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 15, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> This is more easily conceptualized when comparing the 23 lvl minion against a squirrel or a bat or a commoner, rather than comparing commoner to commoner.




I think it's fair to assume - in the game world - that the angel is a powerful being, just by virtue of being level 23.

One way to look at it (mine, _maybe_ some of the designers) is to look at "minion status" as one possible way of representing the angel mechanically in combat resolution.  You could also say that he's a level 18 soldier or whatever.  It's kludgy, I admit, but you need to do that in order to have a consistent game world.

Another way to look at it is that the level 23 angel minion really does only have 1 HP; that is to say, in the game world, the angel is a powerful creature but will collapse like a house of cards if _anyone_ can land a telling blow.  You can still have a consistent game world with this view, I guess, but it's a very strange world.

Either way is valid.


----------



## Mad Mac (Jul 15, 2009)

> Hence the difficulty with putting the smack-down on 1st-level foes even when you're 8th or higher.




  More or less, even if the problem is a bit overstated. An 8th level fighter with 20 St, a +2 Bastard Sword, and a +1 feat bonus to damage (all pretty reasonable for the level) would be doing 1d10+8 or 13.5 average damage per attack. He wouldn't be one shotting 1st level monsters without rolling a crit or using an encounter power, but he could be killing one every other round, easy, and that's just using At-wills. 

  Strikers would be dropping them even faster, and a controller could be putting out enough area damage to greatly speed up the fight. An 8th level party against 1st level monsters would last 2-3 rounds, tops. It would just be an utterly boring fight, whereas minions could at least gets some hits in and still go down fast enough not to be annoying.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 16, 2009)

Ok, I'll ask again to the 1e/2e fans.

What then is your explanation for the table in the fighter's followers which clearly shows an increasing level of magic items for each more powerful level of follower?

How is that NOT an indication you were supposed to get more and more powerful magic items as you level?


----------



## Ourph (Jul 16, 2009)

An idea that I had for a quick minion house-rule "fix" (for those who would like one) while thinking about this thread...

Minion is a special template for a monster that includes three important characteristics...
1. A minion has 1hp. A missed attack never damages a minion.
2. Minions have resistance to all damage equal to their level.
3. Creatures fighting a minion gain a bonus to damage equal to their level on an attack that hits.

So a level 23 minion, with resist all 23, is nigh indestructible to a low level party (unless they get lucky with a daily power or something), but still presents the same level of threat to an equal level party and requires no additional bookkeeping for the DM. This also explains why high level minions don't die when a butterfly lands on them. They are still treated as a special case by the rules (i.e. they follow rules that other creatures don't), but at least the exceptional mechanics are more congruent with simulationist sensibilities.

Just a thought.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 16, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Ok, I'll ask again to the 1e/2e fans.
> 
> What then is your explanation for the table in the fighter's followers which clearly shows an increasing level of magic items for each more powerful level of follower?
> 
> How is that NOT an indication you were supposed to get more and more powerful magic items as you level?




*(A)* 1E DMG, p. 16 shows:
5th level, +2 battle axe
6th level, +1 spear, +1 dagger , +1 shield
6th level, +1 spear, +1 dagger, +1 armor (lieut. 3rd, crossbow of distance)
7th level, +2 sword (no specials), +1 armor, +1 shield (hvy. warhorse, horseshoes of speed)

I think it's fair enough to say that the spread is *on average* more magic items (not necessarily more powerful ones) at higher levels -- which is of course what one might expect from DMG pp. 175-176 and (in later printings) Appendix P at pp. 225-227. Or just from the presence of magic in the treasure tables, so one wonders ...

*(B)* Whence do you expect to hear that adventurers in AD&D were supposed NOT to acquire magic items in the course of their adventures???! They're in a fraction of treasure hoards (perhaps as much as 30% in deep levels if you're using OD&D Vol. 3); do you *really* think anyone expects them to be left behind when the gold and gems are carried off?


----------



## AngryMojo (Jul 16, 2009)

The anti-minion argument always puzzles me, considering 4e isn't the first RPG to use that concept.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 16, 2009)

AngryMojo said:


> The anti-minion argument always puzzles me, considering 4e isn't the first RPG to use that concept.




*LOL* Not a valid argument I'm afraid.

4e is the first D&D rpg that formally uses the minion concept. What the recent thread has been about is that the only reason 4e has that is because of its scaling issue

(of course, this ignores that 1, 2 and 3HD critters in previous editions make very poor minions as thanks to not factoring in gear, non-magical armour hits 0 which means those selfsame monsters can't act as minions)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 16, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Is that Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords? It's a good one... but an outlier. It begins with a fiat capture of the PC's, and, more importantly, it contains magic items for them to find/win as they go through it. It rapidly conforms to the expectations that I claim are present.




Actually Assault on the Aerie of the Slavelords is A3. The Pc's are equipped as normal in that module. The DM fiat capture takes place at the very end of that module. 

A4-In the Dungeons of the Slavelords begins with the PC's stripped of gear and in timed event to escape before the volcano erupts. 

Since I am home now, I can flip through my copy and see what wonderful magical gear the PC's have the opportunity to get before confronting the Slavelords themselves.

They start out with a few MU and ILL spell scrolls as a gift from a friend. 

A giant ants lair can provide potions of extra healing and delusion.

If the PC's take time to obliterate a tribe of mycanids they may win potions of extra healing, growth, healing, invisibility, speed, and water breathing.

A squad of looters on the island can provide some mundane weapons and armor.

The PC's meet thier mysterious benefactor near the docks and he gives them a cleric scroll: cure serious wounds, cure light wounds x3, and a magic user scroll : sleep, invisibility, strength, dispel magic, hold person. 

Thats it. The Slavelords boat has the PC's equipment and other goodies besides but they must be won. 

There are no creatures requiring magic to hit, and the majority of the adventure must be completed without gear of any kind mundane or magical.



AllisterH said:


> Ok, I'll ask again to the 1e/2e fans.
> 
> What then is your explanation for the table in the fighter's followers which clearly shows an increasing level of magic items for each more powerful level of follower?
> 
> How is that NOT an indication you were supposed to get more and more powerful magic items as you level?




Like everything else it was a guideline. That equipment listing was a suggested typical assortment. Depending on how tough the campaign was, allowing PC's to have magical gear on par with those values wasn't exactly game breaking. 

Remember that gear was almost as easily destroyed as it was easy to acquire. Pc's were constantly losing items to failed saves and getting new stuff. If you were fortunate enough to have spare magical gear it was given to trusted henchmen rather than dumped at the local magical dime store. 

Most monsters of the Pc's power level could be handled by a group of players without much magic gear. Gear made things a bit easier and were not required for the PC's to have a chance to hit a monster based solely on it's level.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 16, 2009)

Not every idea is a good one just because someone had it before. Not every good idea in one context is good in another. Not every instance of a good idea is a good implementation.

<insert Homer Simpson montage>


----------



## AngryMojo (Jul 16, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> 4e is the first D&D rpg that formally uses the minion concept. What the recent thread has been about is that the only reason 4e has that is because of its scaling issue



It's really not.  Several games prior to 4e have used the idea of a horde of monsters using abbreviated mechanics to speed up bookkeeping.  Feng Shui and Savage Worlds come to mind.  And the idea works in both.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 16, 2009)

AngryMojo said:


> It's really not.  Several games prior to 4e have used the idea of a horde of monsters using abbreviated mechanics to speed up bookkeeping.  Feng Shui, Savage Worlds and Mutants and Masterminds all come to mind.  And the idea works in all three games.




Keep in mind I said "D&D".

I personally think D&D should have minions as frankly, the type of thing D&D is supposedly based on (Conan, LotR, Kung-fu) is rife with them. Some people believe this isn't what D&D should have, others have problems based on the actual mechanical way 4e used.

re: Guidelines

Ok, this feels like wishy-washy speak Exploderwizard. Not attacking you personally, but the more I read the pre 3e rulebooks, the more I get the sense that the earlier authors had no overall design goal.

If magic items are not "that useful" can you explain why so many modules were littered with them? At the end of the ToEE for example, multiple people are rocking an AC lower than -5.

So let's see....if you go by what the modules state, you certainly will have an AC lower than 0 (again, AC 0 was all mundane - what happened if the player had gotten lucky and rolled a 17 DEX?)

The followers certainly will be near or just below 0 (Ariosto, there's a big difference between leather +1 and plate mail +1 so just saying , "oh it's only armour + 1 doesn't help).

Yet 1hd-3hd would make good minions in previous editions? Not seeing it personally...

Exploderwizard et al - what do you consider "standard gear" for say PCs at levels 3, 6 and 9 in AD&D (or is the term standard gear only applicable to post 2e D&D?)


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 16, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Keep in mind I said "D&D".
> 
> I personally think D&D should have minions as frankly, the type of thing D&D is supposedly based on (Conan, LotR, Kung-fu) is rife with them. Some people believe this isn't what D&D should have, others have problems based on the actual mechanical way 4e used.
> 
> ...




You really answered your own question. The whole point was that the participants decided what the standard was for thier game. This is the type of game you get when rulings rather than rules decide most of the action. A "standard" level of gear cannot be imposed on a game without intruding on the desires of those playing. 

As far as personal preferences go I prefer to play and run games with less reliance on magical gear. A -5 or lower AC by 8th level is a bit overpowered for my tastes but others may enjoy turning the magic amp up to 11. I don't feel there is anything inherently wrong with such a game but I have already been there and done that-a lot, and power playing no longer provides the joy it did at one time.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 16, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Ok, I'll ask again to the 1e/2e fans.
> 
> What then is your explanation for the table in the fighter's followers which clearly shows an increasing level of magic items for each more powerful level of follower?
> 
> How is that NOT an indication you were supposed to get more and more powerful magic items as you level?



Nobody has denied that.  But the crucial differences from 3E are that a) it isn't assumed you get the optimal items that you want, and b) *AC SCALES MUCH MORE SLOWLY*.  AC might improve by about two points between levels 1 and 8; monsters that used to hit you on a 16 now need an 18.  

In 3E, the default NPC fighter had an AC gain of about 1 per level, and an optimized PC fighter might gain more like 1.5 AC per level.  In prior editions, "normal" was maybe 0.25 points per level, with a lucky fighter gaining 0.5 points per level (+2 plate and +2 shield by 9th if your DM is kind).

The more rapid rise in AC means that monsters in 3E have a very narrow window of viability, as has been said.

And I'm not sure why you portray AC 0 as some mythical benchmark that makes PCs invulnerable even for 3-HD foes.  A bugbear hits AC 0 on a 16 in BECMI.  A hobgoblin hits it on an 18, which is 15% of the time or three times as common as "only on a 20."  So it's some protection, but not absolute.  Did 1E have the modifiers for attacking from the rear or higher ground and so on?  That would make that AC 0 a lot less than impervious.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 16, 2009)

Leather +1? Yeah, that (and even "studded" leather +1) got added in AD&D ... which seems to me sort of silly if I bother to think about it. Before then, magic armor was assumed to start with the same AC as plate (which is what all those followers have).

Note that the leather types combined come up less than 1/4 as often as the suits of enchanted metal armor. Is it so surprising that the sneaky thief types end up with the leather, not the fighters -- who are better off with non-magical mail? Plate is by far the most common magic armor, accounting for fully 1/3 of all suits. It's also the only kind that goes up to +5: 2% (one being "of etherealness"), and a 1% chance of shield +5.

"AC 0 was all mundane"?? One could get AC 2 without a shield if "field plate" were available. Plus a shield would would be AC1. I'm not sure what you're referring to here, unless it's even fancier armor from _Unearthed Arcana_ or 2E or something.

"Yet 1hd-3hd would make good minions in previous editions?" Uh, no. They would make just what they were: creatures so much tougher than normal men as not to be subject to one attack per fighter level (although high-level fighters got 3/2 or even 2 per round anyway).


----------



## BryonD (Jul 16, 2009)

AngryMojo said:


> The anti-minion argument always puzzles me, considering 4e isn't the first RPG to use that concept.




Are we to conclude that you like everything that has ever been in any previous RPG?


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 16, 2009)

If you have come across 20 caches (which usually means worn panoplies, at least in my campaign) of magical armor and/or shield, you have about 1/3 chance of having come across +5 armor and about 1/5 of +5 shield -- or 1/15 of the jackpot combo. Again, that's _if_ you've been in on 20 such scores.

Besides that rarity, there is a very simple reason that higher-level people tend to have more and better magical goodies. To have is not to hold. The weaker you are, the more likely it is that someone (or something) stronger will come along and take your stuff.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 16, 2009)

One thing I think would help in clearing up some of the confusion in this thread would be if people could be very explicit at the top of their posts what edition they are talking about.  We're mishmashing so many editions that a lot of us are talking to cross purposes.  For example, Ariosto is talking about OD&D, Exploder Wizard 1e (I think) and a smattering of 2e and 3e references to boot.

Comparisons across editions are difficult when a reader might not know which edition you are talking about (thus the leather armor/magic armor confusion).

I would also like to thank Dragonblade for restating the discussion in a way that makes sense to me.  I obviously disagree with JG Browning (and I would disagree with BryonD, I think, if he'd bother to actually explain his point without the vitriol) but, at least now I understand better where JG is coming from.  I still think he's trying to have it both ways - Honestly, I'm not sure why you (JG) wouldn't just rule that minions have 2 hit points, same as you did in all other editions.

But hey, to each his own.

I do somewhat agree with Ariosto that AC didn't scale particularly well in earlier editions, but, I consider that a failing, not a feature.  What it meant, at least in my experience, is that you automatically hit every single time.  If baddies (other than unique ones) top out at around AC 0, then by the time a fighter type hits about 5th level, he never misses.  THAC0 of 16, +2 for strength (not unreasonable IME), +1 weapon means you hit pretty much every monster in the book at least 50% and most are much, much easier to hit.  Never mind if you add in things like weapon specialization (either 1e UA or 2e core).

By the time you hit name level, where you are meeting those big monsters, you never miss at all.

What's the point of having AC at all if you never miss?


----------



## BryonD (Jul 16, 2009)

Hussar said:


> and I would disagree with BryonD, I think, if he'd bother to actually explain his point without the vitriol




Dude, my point is explained, it is your imaginary version of my point I'm ignoring.
If you missed it the first time and really care that much, it is still there for you to read again.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, this is a nice example - most of the time, the 23 lvl minion will win. The same can happen if you have a 40 hit point ogre against a 4 hit point Kobold. Most of the time, the Ogre will win. Exception luck can have the Kobold prevail.
> 
> The difference is the number of rounds to get there, but then - with hit points there are a lot of scenarios where I can - regardless of dice rolls - never kill a creature in one round (let alone one hit).




BTW, the difference is in the odds of success, not just the number of rounds to get there.

Rather than comparing a kobold vs an ogre pre-4e and a kobold vs. a lvl 23 minion post 4e, if you take a kobold vs. ogre in each edition, and make the ogre in the 4e a minion, the odds of success change.  Use a 1e kobold vs. a 1e solar and a 4e kobold vs. the 23 lvl minion, and again you can see that the odds have changed (and the solar is not even level 23!)

So, the difference is objectively not merely the number of rounds.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 16, 2009)

Hussar said:


> By the time you hit name level, where you are meeting those big monsters, you never miss at all.
> 
> What's the point of having AC at all if you never miss?




(1)  It is untrue that you never miss at all.  Even the greatest fighter in the world has a 5% chance of missing (natural "1").  However, that doesn't relate to Armour Class, so we move on.

(2)  The point is both that the name level character is objectively better than Mr. Newbie, and that the play experience has changed.  This is something, IMHO, that WotC has failed to grasp about the original game.  

When the numbers keep cranking up, but the odds remain exactly the same, the play experience also remains roughly the same while the work to get there increases exponentially.  

When one talks about a "sweet spot" in TSR-D&D, one is generally talking about a particular play experience one enjoys.....when a character can do X pretty easily, but still cannot do Y.  WotC twigged to that, and tried to make every level conform to the general consensus "sweet spot".  But they tried also to make it seem as though characters were rapidly progressing at the same time (another thing from their market research).  The result is that, in WotC-D&D, when one talks about a "sweet spot", one is often referring to the complexity of the math, and how that affects speed of play.

There are (IMHO) a lot of good things about WotC-D&D, both 3e and 4e.  Especially, I enjoyed the lively debate that WotC's analysis of 3e problems, and proposed 4e fixes, sparked.  There are certainly a lot of lessons learned there which have made my gaming better.  Certainly, those discussions prompted RCFG, and I didn't throw away all of WotC-D&D's ideas.  Many of them are too good to throw out.

But at the same time, it became very clear to me that 3e stepped away from using a linear scale of measurment for character/creature/world features, and (IMHO) nearly all of the problems I've encountered with WotC-D&D stem from that decision, either directly or indirectly.

Coupling ideas from the 3.x SRD with a linear scale of measurment has created the best play experience I have ever had.  I rather wish that WotC had done the same with 4e, which would have allowed (IMHO & IME) many of the same benefits 4e has over 3e without the same numbers creep, and without the same wonky disconnect between rules and common sense.

YMMV.



RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 16, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> (1) It is untrue that you never miss at all. Even the greatest fighter in the world has a 5% chance of missing (natural "1"). However, that doesn't relate to Armour Class, so we move on.



We move on, without addressing the question?

Overly literal interpretation of posts is bad form, and leads to raised tempers and lack of communication. It doesn't help discussion, it just leads to sniping back and forth.

I submit Hussar did not mean "literally _never_ miss", just "miss so infrequently as to be _almost_ never a miss".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 16, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> We move on, without addressing the question?




Didn't read the entire post, did you?  

(1) was pedantry, (2) was the answer to the question quoted.  (2) is also considerably longer than (1), so I wonder how you missed it.

Here:  I'll make it easier for you:

What's the point of having AC at all if you never miss? 

The point is both that the name level character is objectively better than Mr. Newbie, and that the play experience has changed.​

RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 16, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Didn't read the entire post, did you?
> 
> (1) was pedantry



Overly literal interpretation of posts *pendantry* is bad form, and leads to raised tempers and lack of communication. It doesn't help discussion, it just leads to sniping back and forth.

I think you'll find more people will get your point if you leave the pedantic BS out.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 16, 2009)

Why in the world are we pitting a level 1 minion against a level 23 minion for a hypothetical death match?  Didn't we already move past how silly that would be under the 4e rule set?  It's a ludicrous corner-case which treats minion status as part of an objective imagined reality, rather than a rules construct used only in some combats.

If you treat minions as simulationist constructs, you're _definitely_ going to have bizarre results, just like this.  They are inherently non-simulationist, and to pretend otherwise is ... well, kind of bizarre, IMO.

-O


----------



## vagabundo (Jul 16, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> I wasn't comparing creatures in a fight, I was considering their ability to take damage in relation to all other creatures in the game system's abilities to take damage.
> 
> joe b.




In 4e, the damage depends on the level of the PC doing the damage. So the damage dealt at level ten is not comparable to the damage dealt at level three.

Unfortunately you cannot rely on hit-points as a measure of relative toughness. Level is this measure in 4e. You could work around it using house rules, or just hand wave out of combat interactions based on level or whatever other factors you believe relivant.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Jul 16, 2009)

Hussar said:


> By the time you hit name level, where you are meeting those big monsters, you never miss at all.
> 
> What's the point of having AC at all if you never miss?



At least in B/X, attack rolls didn't scale as fast as they did in 3E.  The fighter (and demihumans) gained 2/3 BAB after first (so +2 at 4th, 7th, etc), the cleric and thief 2/4 (+2 at 5th, 9th), and the wizard 2/5 (+2 at 6th, 11th, etc).  Monsters gained 1 BAB every HD.

A 9th level fighter (or cleric or thief) would have a THAC0 of 15, probably around +3 to hit for the fighter, so hitting AC 0 around 45% of the time (and hitting an ordinary AC6 orc 75% of the time).  The Companion Set introduced proto-Power Attack (the Smash option), which let the fighter take a -5 penalty on his attack rolls to do more damage, AND it gave him additional attacks when he moved into that "only miss on a 1" range.  So AC did matter quite a bit to the fighter.  (Incidentally, the Companion Set also introduced proto-PrCs and monster templates.)

But AC wasn't supposed to be the main difference in monster defense as they leveled up any more than it was for PCs; HP were.  And the difference is that HP can be whittled down.  A fire giant could be easily overwhelmed and killed by the Normal Men of the town guard (especially if they had bows).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 16, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Overly literal interpretation of posts *pendantry* is bad form, and leads to raised tempers and lack of communication. It doesn't help discussion, it just leads to sniping back and forth.
> 
> I think you'll find more people will get your point if you leave the pedantic BS out.




I am very happy to hear about your promotion to moderator.    I hope it comes with a benefits package.

In this particular case, though, I believe that the pedantry has actual value.  Hussar's statements imply that there is not only no point behind AC at higher levels, but no point to the attack roll as well.  

Sometimes hyperbole requires correction, lest the unchallenged statement lead to erroneous conclusions.  As a recent example, my hyperbole about minions was challenged.  That led to an apology, if you will recall.

(I might also add that your response was worse form, by far, than what you were responding to.   Especially as it demonstrated that you hadn't even bothered to read before criticizing.)

In older D&D, parties of mixed levels were not uncommon (the combat example in the 1e DMG, for example, uses two such parties).  Moreover, the inclusion of henchmen, hirelings, and followers could mean that while Bob the Name-Level Fighter could easily hit the opponents encountered, AC still had relevance for the party as a whole.

This is in addition to the prior point, of course, that Bob can now actually chart his growth in some objectively measurable fashion.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Jul 16, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am very happy to hear about your promotion to moderator.  I hope it comes with a benefits package.



Hmm...I think we've had this discussion before.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 16, 2009)

> The point is both that the name level character is objectively better than Mr. Newbie, and that the play experience has changed. This is something, IMHO, that WotC has failed to grasp about the original game.



I don't know how it worked in 3.5, but from what I read on the 4E design discussions before the release, they didn't fail to grasp, but decided conciously to move away from it, because people enjoy certain "success chances" the most. In other ways, the play experience is designed to not change in that regard, but always be in the "psychological optimum" range. (Though I think that is assuming "smart play", e.g. using stuff like flanking or buffing powers - which makes sense to me.)

While the theory behind improving actual hit chances with level makes sense, the question is if this is actually what leads to a satisfying play experience overall. It assumes that is okay to have "less fun" at early levels than at later levels. You start feeling incompetent but notice that you get better, and that is something to look forward to and keep you playing.

But doesn't the actual game experience not indicate that most people find their "sweet spot" and try to play within it? Many people do not start campaigns at 1st level again (where a single shot can kill anybody), and many people don't venture in the high level ranges (where you never miss and a lot of "win"-spells are around). 

I think that is strong evidence that people prefer that "sweet spot" of success chance, and that any design not trying to achieve that spot at every time will see parts of it diminished. 

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e is another game that uses the "increasing success" chance concept, very transparent even (due to using percentile roles). I found that the most troubling when it involves skills, not necessarily combat. In combat, it is just "tedious", but regarding skills, one really feels incompetent - and there it also hurts the "simulation" aspect of it, since it's hardly believable that even a starting character is so bad in his speciality skill...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 16, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Why in the world are we pitting a level 1 minion against a level 23 minion for a hypothetical death match?  Didn't we already move past how silly that would be under the 4e rule set?  It's a ludicrous corner-case which treats minion status as part of an objective imagined reality, rather than a rules construct used only in some combats.
> 
> If you treat minions as simulationist constructs, you're _definitely_ going to have bizarre results, just like this.  They are inherently non-simulationist, and to pretend otherwise is ... well, kind of bizarre, IMO.
> 
> -O




I agree.  Thank you.

But the purpose behind the hypothetical death match, from my point of view anyway, is to demonstrate that a prior claim is false.  Minions are a new construct to 4e, and are not the same as kobolds and commoners in previous editions.  If you treat minions as simulationist constructs, you're _definitely_ going to have bizarre results.  If you treat commoners and kobolds as simulationist constructs in earlier editions, not so much.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 16, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Hmm...I think we've had this discussion before.




Do you actually have anything to say re: the content of the post?  I'll include it below for you:

The point is both that the name level character is objectively better than Mr. Newbie, and that the play experience has changed. This is something, IMHO, that WotC has failed to grasp about the original game. 

When the numbers keep cranking up, but the odds remain exactly the same, the play experience also remains roughly the same while the work to get there increases exponentially. 

When one talks about a "sweet spot" in TSR-D&D, one is generally talking about a particular play experience one enjoys.....when a character can do X pretty easily, but still cannot do Y. WotC twigged to that, and tried to make every level conform to the general consensus "sweet spot". But they tried also to make it seem as though characters were rapidly progressing at the same time (another thing from their market research). The result is that, in WotC-D&D, when one talks about a "sweet spot", one is often referring to the complexity of the math, and how that affects speed of play.

There are (IMHO) a lot of good things about WotC-D&D, both 3e and 4e. Especially, I enjoyed the lively debate that WotC's analysis of 3e problems, and proposed 4e fixes, sparked. There are certainly a lot of lessons learned there which have made my gaming better. Certainly, those discussions prompted RCFG, and I didn't throw away all of WotC-D&D's ideas. Many of them are too good to throw out.

But at the same time, it became very clear to me that 3e stepped away from using a linear scale of measurment for character/creature/world features, and (IMHO) nearly all of the problems I've encountered with WotC-D&D stem from that decision, either directly or indirectly.

Coupling ideas from the 3.x SRD with a linear scale of measurment has created the best play experience I have ever had. I rather wish that WotC had done the same with 4e, which would have allowed (IMHO & IME) many of the same benefits 4e has over 3e without the same numbers creep, and without the same wonky disconnect between rules and common sense.

YMMV.

and​
In older D&D, parties of mixed levels were not uncommon (the combat example in the 1e DMG, for example, uses two such parties). Moreover, the inclusion of henchmen, hirelings, and followers could mean that while Bob the Name-Level Fighter could easily hit the opponents encountered, AC still had relevance for the party as a whole.

This is in addition to the prior point, of course, that Bob can now actually chart his growth in some objectively measurable fashion.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 16, 2009)

Mustrum,

I would say that WotC failed to grasp that those success chances are only "sweet" when they exist in contrast to other success chances.  They may have made a "conscious decision", but if so I don't believe they took all the factors they should have into account.  When we were getting snippets of what 4e would be like, I frequently found myself learning why things were not like that earlier.  

But, again, YMMV.  If 4e provides the play experience you want, then rock on.  I imagine that there are folks who frequently find themselves wondering why things were not like 4e earlier.  


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 16, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I do somewhat agree with Ariosto that AC didn't scale particularly well in earlier editions, but, I consider that a failing, not a feature. What it meant, at least in my experience, is that you automatically hit every single time. If baddies (other than unique ones) top out at around AC 0, then by the time a fighter type hits about 5th level, he never misses. THAC0 of 16, +2 for strength (not unreasonable IME), +1 weapon means you hit pretty much every monster in the book at least 50% and most are much, much easier to hit. Never mind if you add in things like weapon specialization (either 1e UA or 2e core).
> 
> By the time you hit name level, where you are meeting those big monsters, you never miss at all.
> 
> What's the point of having AC at all if you never miss?




I think the entire point that I have made several times is that a higher level fighter is supposed to be hitting a lot more often, thats how one measures actual improvement. The fact that the tougher monsters don't go down in one or two hits is a measure of thier skill and danger level.

If Joe the 1st level 1E AD&D fighter is fighting a normal orc in chainmail (AC5) with a STR bonus he scores a hit on a 13. If Joe hits the orc there is fair chance he can put it out of action.

Lets say that Joe is now facing a minotaur also in chain armor (AC5). His chances to hit the minotaur are the same as for the orc. How likely is Joe to win this fight? 

Remember that AD&D core didn't feature crushing critical hits and high impact damage from weapon users (certain magical items in combination being the exception) so a high HP total worked like a combination of vitality and ablative defense. 

A high level fighter hit a lot more often than not because he needed to in order to cut through the ablative defense of the things he was fighting. This is why lower level creatures were effectively minions to the high level fighter.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 16, 2009)

vagabundo said:


> In 4e, the damage depends on the level of the PC doing the damage. So the damage dealt at level ten is not comparable to the damage dealt at level three.
> 
> Unfortunately you cannot rely on hit-points as a measure of relative toughness. Level is this measure in 4e. You could work around it using house rules, or just hand wave out of combat interactions based on level or whatever other factors you believe relivant.




Perhaps I need to be more explicit about what I mean when I say toughness. To me, toughness is the ability to take damage. Not the ability to deal damage, nor the ability to avoid taking damage.

Think as if one were porting the system to another system. I would break down a 4e monster into three questions for ease of translation into a different system: How much damage can a monster take? How much damage can a monster deal? How difficult is it to deal damage to the monster? All of these questions are viewed in relation to all other creatures in the system.

I think that Level is a measure of relative power (the totality of those three questions above), not toughness as how I use it.

joe b.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 16, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I don't know how it worked in 3.5, but from what I read on the 4E design discussions before the release, they didn't fail to grasp, but decided conciously to move away from it, because people enjoy certain "success chances" the most. In other ways, the play experience is designed to not change in that regard, but always be in the "psychological optimum" range. (Though I think that is assuming "smart play", e.g. using stuff like flanking or buffing powers - which makes sense to me.)
> 
> While the theory behind improving actual hit chances with level makes sense, the question is if this is actually what leads to a satisfying play experience overall. It assumes that is okay to have "less fun" at early levels than at later levels. You start feeling incompetent but notice that you get better, and that is something to look forward to and keep you playing.




The bad part about the whole asumption is thinking that progressive improvement over the levels equals less fun. I don't grok the concept of a "psychological optimum" range of play. Does this mean that my character starts out being just OK and stays that way his entire career? In my mind aiming for mediocrity and hitting bullseye every level is a far cry from my own view of a psychological optimum



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But doesn't the actual game experience not indicate that most people find their "sweet spot" and try to play within it? Many people do not start campaigns at 1st level again (where a single shot can kill anybody), and many people don't venture in the high level ranges (where you never miss and a lot of "win"-spells are around). .




Some people love that middle level range. For campaign play I like the full run of low to high level and that the game experience is different.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 16, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I agree.  Thank you.
> 
> But the purpose behind the hypothetical death match, from my point of view anyway, is to demonstrate that a prior claim is false.  Minions are a new construct to 4e, and are not the same as kobolds and commoners in previous editions.  If you treat minions as simulationist constructs, you're _definitely_ going to have bizarre results.  If you treat commoners and kobolds as simulationist constructs in earlier editions, not so much.
> 
> RC



No, minions are IMO absolutely not the same as kobolds and commoners in previous editions.

While a level 1 kobold minion might fit the same game-space as a 1d4 hp kobold in 1e (and in fact I'd say they're virtually indistinguishable from a gameplay standpoint) I wouldn't say that an orc minion, an ogre minion, or a legion devil minion fit into any previously-established game-space.  Those are new to D&D, but carry a fairly rich legacy from other, frequently cinematic, games.

IMO, any discussion of minions which treats their 1-hp-ness or 1-hit-kill-ness as an objective characteristic of the imaginary creature, along the same lines as height or weight or diet, is flawed on some level.

I said earlier in this thread that a 4e DM greatly concerned with simulationism shouldn't use minions at all, and I stick by that.  And I'll also repeat that I don't think it would break the game whatsoever, but that the DM should probably let their players know this ahead of time.

-O


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 16, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Why in the world are we pitting a level 1 minion against a level 23 minion for a hypothetical death match?




I suspect it's because I said comparing the toughness of a level 23 minion with that of a commoner dramatically shows the difference between the minion concept and a creature having 1hp in previous editions.

I think the word toughness wasn't clear enough when I used it and my above post hopefully clarifies what I intended by using that word.

joe b.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 16, 2009)

Obryn,

Whatayaknow?!?!  We agree on something!

RC


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 16, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Mustrum,
> 
> I would say that WotC failed to grasp that those success chances are only "sweet" when they exist in contrast to other success chances.  They may have made a "conscious decision", but if so I don't believe they took all the factors they should have into account.  When we were getting snippets of what 4e would be like, I frequently found myself learning why things were not like that earlier.
> 
> But, again, YMMV.  If 4e provides the play experience you want, then rock on.  I imagine that there are folks who frequently find themselves wondering why things were not like 4e earlier.



I think they did, just not the way you expected - I mentioned "smart play" - stuff like using flanking/combat advantage and similar things. I think they are supposed to remind you of the difference.

And of course, the "sweet spot" success percentage is not fixed. You can fight monsters of different levels, and monsters of different roles also have different defenses. 

But the difference to earlier editions is - you have the same variance at every level. So every level you notice when you are doing good (be it because of smart play or just because a weakness of the monsters you fight) and when you are not doing good. 

It is the same thing as with the "class balance". In early editions, it was considered "balanced" that spellcasters start weaker at low levels and grow stronger at high levels. But it turned out that many people didn't like it - avoiding play of low level casters and switching (if in any way possible) to high level casters at higher levels. Instead of looking at the entirety of the level range, the balance became more important at every distinct level. 

I must admit, I find it a little sad that this approach doesn't work. It has a strong appeal, that's for sure. But play experience overall (painting with broad brushes) seems to suggest it's just not that satisfying. And in the end, the play experience is what matters, not some platonic ideal.  Well, at least that is my opinion. 

What might be interesting is to create a "balanced" game at every level and changing some other ways the individual classes are played. Pre 3E editions introduced followers, basically as a class feature. 3E did away with that mostly - Unless you used the Leadership feat, which was open to anyone and most useful to those characters with a high Charisma (and thus Bards and Sorcerors benefited most from it.)

In such an approach, a "Fighting Man" would turn into a "Fighting Army" - a single commander (the PC) accomponied by a group of mercenaries, and they could achieve similar power in combat than a Wizard or Cleric. 
Balancing this would be difficult (action economy vs spell effects?), but hey, if someone manages to do it, that could be awesome. 
Of course, not everyone wants to see his Fighter become a Warlord, so it's still not a satisfying solution for everyone. But nothing ever is.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 16, 2009)

> THAC0 of 16, +2 for strength (not unreasonable IME), +1 weapon means you hit pretty much every monster in the book at least 50% and most are much, much easier to hit.



That makes THAC0 13, or 40%. AC 10 (Buck Nekkid in 1E) would be 90%. That's analogous to a Master (possibly a Rune Lord candidate) in old RuneQuest; in old D&D, it's one of three steps between Hero and Superhero. In other words, the character is _supposed_ to be hot stuff.

An AD&D Lord (9th), a level beyond Superhero, hits AC 10 on a 2+. Past that point, you're getting into territory in which there is no effective distinction among a growing range of normal armor classes except with weapon versus armor type modifiers. Eventually, damage rolls and number of hit points make all the difference: level 17+ fighters hit AC 2 (plate & shield) on 2+.

At that level, you're in the realm of myth and Marvel Comics. Going one-on-one with the mighty Thor is not a good idea when he's got 399 hit points to your (say) 75 to 110, but you have entered the league in which demigods play. Magic-users are wielding 8th-level spells, for heaven's sake!

Normal men can hit up to AC -4 without a bonus, although they would need a good reason to try. Monsters of 2-3 hit dice need a 20 to hit AC -4 through -9.

Samson in a skin, though, is at best (granting dexterity 18) AC 4. Nobody has better than AC -3 without magic (and even that assumes availability of field plate). A lion has HD 5+2, a tiger 5+5 (the latter hitting AC -3 25% of the time).


----------



## Obryn (Jul 16, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> I suspect it's because I said comparing the toughness of a level 23 minion with that of a commoner dramatically shows the difference between the minion concept and a creature having 1hp in previous editions.
> 
> I think the word toughness wasn't clear enough when I used it and my above post hopefully clarifies what I intended by using that word.
> 
> joe b.



Okeydokey.  FWIW, I agree that higher-level minions are an entirely new thing in 4e.  I think they're a _good_ entirely new thing, and don't hinder the kind of world-building I do (which is all very high-level and abstract, rather than detailed), but they're definitely new.

And because they're new, there's a tendency to treat them like things in previous editions.  You _can't_, though - at least not without getting silly results.  Stuff like commoners with rocks vs. level 29 legion devils, or (in the PC realm of things) a Cloud of Daggers from a level 1 wizard auto-killing a that same legion devil... well, they break the minion system.  I don't think that's how they should be used, and I know they will turn out silly, so my choice as a DM is _never to do that._   It's like throwing my computer out a window - while it might be tempting to try, and it occasionally sounds interesting, I know it can't end well.

Minions require a subtly different way of dealing with creatures.  If you think treating a creature as a minion would do something insane to the system, my suggestion is that you don't do it.  Use common sense and only use minions when they seem like they would be fun, or else add something to a fight.



Raven Crowking said:


> Obryn,
> 
> Whatayaknow?!?!  We agree on something!
> 
> RC



Anyone know the zip code for hell so I can check it in weather.com?

-O


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 16, 2009)

Basically, there seems to be a much wider range of circumstances in old D&D (especially among those commonly expected to arise) in which opponents can mutually hit each other with some frequency. In 4E, it seems at least from early experience that there tends to be roughly 110% to split: if one side has better than 55%, then the other is probably about so much worse. I wonder about Epic Tier, though: would monsters of similar level run rough-shod over characters?

The ratio of hit points to hit points, and of hit points to damage, also seems to me more felicitous in the old game. (The power curve is slightly flattened in AD&D, which was designed with higher levels in mind than in the original game).

The way hit points function in play is also very different, with healing surges radically changing the scheme in 4E.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 16, 2009)

So, again he asks, do people have as much trouble with understanding elites and solos. Both of which are new to 4e?


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 16, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Okeydokey.  FWIW, I agree that higher-level minions are an entirely new thing in 4e.  I think they're a _good_ entirely new thing, and don't hinder the kind of world-building I do (which is all very high-level and abstract, rather than detailed), but they're definitely new.
> 
> And because they're new, there's a tendency to treat them like things in previous editions.  You _can't_, though - at least not without getting silly results.  Stuff like commoners with rocks vs. level 29 legion devils, or (in the PC realm of things) a Cloud of Daggers from a level 1 wizard auto-killing a that same legion devil... well, they break the minion system.  I don't think that's how they should be used, and I know they will turn out silly, so my choice as a DM is _never to do that._   It's like throwing my computer out a window - while it might be tempting to try, and it occasionally sounds interesting, I know it can't end well.
> 
> Minions require a subtly different way of dealing with creatures.  If you think treating a creature as a minion would do something insane to the system, my suggestion is that you don't do it.  Use common sense and only use minions when they seem like they would be fun, or else add something to a fight.




We agree. Using minions is a different style of play than prior editions, which was my basic point way back when in this thread when I said that 4e has moved towards a world that exits in relation to the PC approach unlike the players interact with a separate world approach of prior editions and then moved on to using minions as an example of my postulate.

*I'm struggling hard to phrase this correctly, so instead I'll just ask for you to view what I say below in the best way possible because type isn't always the best to convey intent.*

I do know how to use minions. I know what they're for, and how to use them to increase the fun of the game. My issue with them is not that I don't know what they're for and how to use them properly, it's that I don't prefer the type of gaming that they are designed for and believe that introducing such a different style of gaming into this edition hasn't been a peanut butter/chocolate type mix for a significant portion of the D&D audience. We are nominated for an Ennie for Best Adventure for a 4e adventure that includes minions, after all. 

joe b.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jul 16, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> So, again he asks, do people have as much trouble with understanding elites and solos. Both of which are new to 4e?




I don't, and I don't think most people do because elites and solos are exceptionally tough varieties of a creature type. There's always been tougher than average creatures so I don't find them troublesome at all.

And at least for me, it's not that I don't understand minions, it's that I don't like them. It's a pretty significant difference. 

joe b.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 16, 2009)

Myself said:
			
		

> The power curve is slightly flattened in AD&D.



I would clarify/contrast, though, that fighters generally progress more quickly in "to-hit" chances, although they are on par with their OD&D peers at levels 7-8.

I find 3E overall not quite to my ("old-school", I guess) taste -- but I can appreciate much of the design. Giving everyone a class and level seems to me bizarre at least from a D&D-tradition perspective, but I think it works out pretty well.

It works better if one bears in mind that there's a liminal level between the merely amazing and the utterly superhuman. Memory is vague, but I think that's probably in the neighborhood of 6th. In old D&D, even a 1st-level character is something special; by 4th, we're probably in the land of fable (although that's complicated in AD&D by some NPCs given the equivalent of fighter levels).

In 4E, I think characters are supposed to be of that status from the start (as the name of the Heroic Tier might suggest to one who recalls that a 4th-level fighting man was formerly titled Hero).

A complex of design elements, though, makes them seem to me (and I gather to others) not really all that. They're not quite Normalman (a comicbook character who was the only _non_-superhero in his world), but somehow it's as if they're wearing lead boots and swimming in molasses. They're jacked up, but so is everything else.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 16, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> So, again he asks, do people have as much trouble with understanding elites and solos. Both of which are new to 4e?




I take exception to your word choice.  

Accepting =/= understanding.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 16, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> So, again he asks, do people have as much trouble with understanding elites and solos. Both of which are new to 4e?




Elites have always been around in function if not name. As far back as the "for every 30 goblins there will be sub chief with 2HD" days there have been standouts to the typical monster. The status was not as codified and there wasn't an elite template as such but a note stating that the gnoll chieftain gains a extra +2 to hit and damage because he is just that nasty is in the ball park.

Solos are a bit different. The basic concept of a solo seems to be that of a "boss" that has a mountain of hp just so that an entire party can nuke it for multiple rounds with the heavy guns and it keeps on ticking. This aspect is very MMO boss like with the entire party blowing thier big cooldown abilities trying to down the thing before it TPK's the group.

In this light the solo serves as the anti-minion, being bestowed with excessive HP for the express purpose of surviving for a minimum duration even when hit with the PC's best shots. Much like the minion, outside of being a plot device there is no in gameworld reason for the thing to have quite that many hit points.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 16, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I think the entire point that I have made several times is that a higher level fighter is supposed to be hitting a lot more often, thats how one measures actual improvement. The fact that the tougher monsters don't go down in one or two hits is a measure of thier skill and danger level.
> 
> If Joe the 1st level 1E AD&D fighter is fighting a normal orc in chainmail (AC5) with a STR bonus he scores a hit on a 13. If Joe hits the orc there is fair chance he can put it out of action.
> 
> Lets say that Joe is now facing a minotaur also in chain armor (AC5). His chances to hit the minotaur are the same as for the orc. How likely is Joe to win this fight?




Obviously, he's not.  Not because he can't hit, but because he dies after the first time the minotaur hits him.  In other words, his failure has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with the opponent.  

However, let's take a more realistic situation and a 7th level fighter (1e AD&D) is fighting a minotaur by himself.  A fairly reasonable challenge.  It shouldn't kill the fighter, but, it should give him a bit of a run for his money.

He's no longer hitting on 13 though.  Now, he's hitting on about a 7 or better, between additional magics, possible potions (like Heroism or Super Heroism) and the fact that his THAC0 has jumped.  

Suddenly, he's hitting a whole lot.  Meanwhile, our poor minotaur, who does not gain any bonuses to hit, has to contend with the 7th level fighter's negative AC because he's got a +1 or +2 shield and a +1 suit of plate mail and quite possibly a Dex adjustment in there as well.

Because it works both ways.  The PC's armor classes do certainly start climbing.  Rings of Protection, Cloak of Protection, magic armor and whatnot certainly start to add up in a hurry.  Add a couple more points if you allow Full Plate care of Unearthed Arcana.  

Suddenly, the PC's rarely being hit, while he's hitting very, very often.  The challenges very quickly become a joke.  As Ariosto points out, by name level, we're super heroes.  



> Remember that AD&D core didn't feature crushing critical hits and high impact damage from weapon users (certain magical items in combination being the exception) so a high HP total worked like a combination of vitality and ablative defense.




However, since monsters did not gain any bonuses to their hit points, all their HP came from straight hit dice.  As JG Browning has repeatedly pointed out, hit points max out at about 100 for non-unique monsters.  The poor minotaur, with his 6d8+6 hit points, should have 30 hit points.  The fighter blows through that like tissue paper because he's hitting the majority of his attacks.  



> A high level fighter hit a lot more often than not because he needed to in order to cut through the ablative defense of the things he was fighting. This is why lower level creatures were effectively minions to the high level fighter.




I disagree.  IME, at high levels, the only real challenge to characters became save or die effects.  Straight up combat was a joke.  The fighters had AC's that were so low (-5 is not that hard to reach, particularly if you played modules) that the monsters were missing far more often than they were hitting, and, when they hit, their damage was so low that it wasn't a real threat.  

It became playing on God mode.  You blitzed your way through armies because nothing could hit you and you obliterated everything around you.

Ok, that's hyperbole, but, you get the point.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 16, 2009)

Hussar said:


> However, since monsters did not gain any bonuses to their hit points, all their HP came from straight hit dice.  As JG Browning has repeatedly pointed out, hit points max out at about 100 for non-unique monsters.  The poor minotaur, with his 6d8+6 hit points, should have 30 hit points.  The fighter blows through that like tissue paper because he's hitting the majority of his attacks.




When formulating RCFG, I ran into a similar problem with higher-level play, and decided that RCFG monsters _*do*_ need bonus hit points for Con simply because PC damage output grows.

Running Retro-Clones, though, didn't cause this problem, nor did I have it when I was running AD&D (1e or 2e).


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Jul 16, 2009)

jgbrowning said:


> We agree. Using minions is a different style of play than prior editions, which was my basic point way back when in this thread when I said that 4e has moved towards a world that exits in relation to the PC approach unlike the players interact with a separate world approach of prior editions and then moved on to using minions as an example of my postulate.




I think that's only true if you look at minions and what they represent in the game world in one way.  Look at them another way and it's not true.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 16, 2009)

There seems to have been a sort of "arms race" or "new normal" effect going back perhaps to the 1E _Unearthed Arcana_. (One might even go back to _Gods, Demi-Gods and Heroes_ rating Conan as F15 and Elric as F10/MU19.)

I recall that in the 2E era, a lot of folks figured (for reasons beyond me) that a dragon or giant ought to clean the clock of (or at least give a good workout to) a character in the teens of levels. In 3E, it seemed in some quarters (such as Goodman Games modules, IIRC) that every other Tom, Dick and Goblin was packing levels in two or three classes.


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 16, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Solos are a bit different. The basic concept of a solo seems to be that of a "boss" that has a mountain of hp just so that an entire party can nuke it for multiple rounds with the heavy guns and it keeps on ticking. This aspect is very MMO boss like with the entire party blowing thier big cooldown abilities trying to down the thing before it TPK's the group.
> 
> .




That's half the equation. Simply put, 5 on 1 results in pretty much a dead monster if said monster is a "normal" or "elite" version and is unlucky to go last in the round.

The other half is the simple fact that the PCs have 5 actions to the monster's one (for a normal) and a properly designed solo needs to be able to "cheat" per se by being able to do more with its action compared to the PCs.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 16, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> That's half the equation. Simply put, 5 on 1 results in pretty much a dead monster if said monster is a "normal" or "elite" version and is unlucky to go last in the round.
> 
> The other half is the simple fact that the PCs have 5 actions to the monster's one (for a normal) and a properly designed solo needs to be able to "cheat" per se by being able to do more with its action compared to the PCs.




They cheated a lot in old editions, it was called multiple attacks.


----------



## nightwyrm (Jul 16, 2009)

May I suggest that we keep mentions of MMOs out of this discussion?  Boss monsters are hardly a MMO creation.  The idea of a big, badass dude who can take on your whole group of heroes all by himself has been around forever.  

Now, how you achieve the effect of such a "solo" boss is the problem.  In a system that couples and maintains equal offensive and defensive capabilities, the boss monsters would either die very quickly or starts killing heroes with every blow.  The 4e method of addressing this problem is to decouple offense and defense and give the boss much higher defensive capabilities than offensive capabilities.  This isn't anything new.  CRPGs, comic books, movies etc. all have "bosses" that can take much more than what they can deal out.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 16, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> May I suggest that we keep mentions of MMOs out of this discussion? Boss monsters are hardly a MMO creation. The idea of a big, badass dude who can take on your whole group of heroes all by himself has been around forever.
> 
> Now, how you achieve the effect of such a "solo" boss is the problem. In a system that couples and maintains equal offensive and defensive capabilities, the boss monsters would either die very quickly or starts killing heroes with every blow. The 4e method of addressing this problem is to decouple offense and defense and give the boss much higher defensive capabilities than offensive capabilities. This isn't anything new. CRPGs, comic books, movies etc. all have "bosses" that can take much more than what they can deal out.




I have no problems with big bad guys. Plot device pools of hit points are annoying though. Giving the big bad a large pool of extra HP just to make sure it gets a minimum amount of screen time is kind of lame.

By the way, mentioning that we should leave MMO's out of the discussion then using CRPG's as source of inspiration for the boss concept seems a bit hypocritical.


----------



## nightwyrm (Jul 16, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> I have no problems with big bad guys. Plot device pools of hit points are annoying though. Giving the big bad a large pool of extra HP just to make sure it gets a minimum amount of screen time is kind of lame.
> 
> By the way, mentioning that we should leave MMO's out of the discussion then using CRPG's as source of inspiration for the boss concept seems a bit hypocritical.




It's just the way ppl often uses 4e=MMO=bad to be kinda annoying. CRPGs have been influencing and have been influenced by D&D long before 4e and MMOs showed up. But like I said before, CRPGs aren't the only inspiration for a boss monster. Comics, literature, anime, TV, movies etc. all have the lone, tough antagonists who can stand up to a group of protagonists.

As for bosses, what suggestions do you have for a solitary boss monster who can stand effectively up to 5 PCs but won't kill a PC a turn.


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 16, 2009)

Killing characters along the way is one way a monster can hold out (a la giants in old D&D, with their 2 dice or more of damage per hit). Numbers weigh heavily in most RPGs, and a monster that might give Beowulf or Conan a run for his money probably won't fare so well when the players muster half a dozen heroes of that caliber.

One can easily work out a ballpark number of hit points that should do the trick, given a good estimate of the opposition. If that's too many hp for the monster concept (e.g., number of hit dice), then it should lair somewhere likely to wear down enemies coming after it.

Of course, in old D&D campaign (or "sandbox") play, it's mainly up to the players to decide the terms of engagement. They might bring to bear enough resources to swat Monster X like a fly, or they might come in suicidally unprepared. Depending on the intelligence (in both senses) available to Big Bad, he/she/it might respond in cunning ways.

The dice also have a way of sometimes laying low the best laid plans of monsters and men.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 17, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> It's just the way ppl often uses 4e=MMO=bad to be kinda annoying. CRPGs have been influencing and have been influenced by D&D long before 4e and MMOs showed up. But like I said before, CRPGs aren't the only inspiration for a boss monster. Comics, literature, anime, TV, movies etc. all have the lone, tough antagonists who can stand up to a group of protagonists.
> 
> As for bosses, what suggestions do you have for a solitary boss monster who can stand effectively up to 5 PCs but won't kill a PC a turn.




MMO does not have to carry a negative connotation. It's simply a CRPG played by a lot of people at once. 

When coming up with a solitary threatening monster, think of it's place in the context of the campaign rather than just the scene where the PC's are fighting it. As for not being too lethal, large numbers of attacks from a high HD creature that are individually not highly damaging can work well.
As for standing up to 5 PC's it would depend on how the encounter was handled. If the PC's can come up with a clever plan to minimize risk and defeat the solo without taking a lot of time thats good for them.

I would not feel comfortable designing a creature simply to last X number of rounds just because I want the combat to play out a certain way and last a minimum number of rounds. It really depends on the entire way that you approach the campaign. Are you playing just for the sake of setting up cinematic fight scenes or does combat occur in the campaign as a result of conflict that couldn't be settled in another way?

So, while I will feature powerful NPC's and monsters to serve as important potential opposition, designing them specifically to last for a specified amount of time in a combat encounter is not part of the process.


----------



## Oni (Jul 17, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Are you playing just for the sake of setting up cinematic fight scenes or does combat occur in the campaign as a result of conflict that couldn't be settled in another way?




Couldn't you have a little from column A and a little from column B.  I mean just because one makes an effort to make combat cinematic and exciting, should it occur, does not necessarily mean that it should be the end all be all of the game or necessarily the only solution to a conflict.  

Now I suppose one could make an argument that if combat is more fun the players are more likely to engage in it.  However I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the notion of making a portion of the game less fun than it could be in an effort to guide the decision making process away from it.  That should be more of a decision based on opportunity cost on the part of the characters, than a choice as players to avoid combat just because its not as exciting as it could be.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 17, 2009)

Oni said:


> Couldn't you have a little from column A and a little from column B. I mean just because one makes an effort to make combat cinematic and exciting, should it occur, does not necessarily mean that it should be the end all be all of the game or necessarily the only solution to a conflict.
> 
> Now I suppose one could make an argument that if combat is more fun the players are more likely to engage in it. However I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the notion of making a portion of the game less fun than it could be in an effort to guide the decision making process away from it. That should be more of a decision based on opportunity cost on the part of the characters, than a choice as players to avoid combat just because its not as exciting as it could be.




A lot of what guides these decisions are driven by the in-game rewards the PC's get for engaging or not engaging in certain activity. If lots of fighting produces the best method of advancement through XP then there will be a good chance of a lot of combat happening in that campaign. 

If the bulk of XP comes from treasure then there will be a lot of looting going on with as much combat as it takes to aquire said loot. 

If the bulk of XP comes from quests or completing goals, once again there will be a push to accomplish such goals as soon as possible with as much combat as it takes to get the job done.

The design of the reward system has a large say in how adventuring is approached by the players. If the DM decides beforehand that the party WILL have 4 combat encounters, 2 social/skill based encounters, and 3 trap/ skill based encounters in a given scenario the players approach means very little. The reward or XP for such encounters is already established.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Jul 17, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> A lot of what guides these decisions are driven by the in-game rewards the PC's get for engaging or not engaging in certain activity. If lots of fighting produces the best method of advancement through XP then there will be a good chance of a lot of combat happening in that campaign.



I agree that XP does drive players to do things.  But only so much.  Back when I played a combo 1e/2e game, we got XP for finding magic items.  But we got XP for killing the monsters guarding those items as well.  It only made sense to kill them AND take their stuff.  Yes, we got more XP for the items than we did for killing the monsters...but XP is XP.  We'll take it all.



ExploderWizard said:


> The design of the reward system has a large say in how adventuring is approached by the players. If the DM decides beforehand that the party WILL have 4 combat encounters, 2 social/skill based encounters, and 3 trap/ skill based encounters in a given scenario the players approach means very little. The reward or XP for such encounters is already established.



It still means something.  Their approach is what continues to make it a role playing game.  This isn't a new concept.

In previous editions, most DMs made thinly veiled attempts at pretending they weren't deciding things in advance.  So, you'd create a dungeon, populate it with monsters who were evil, protective of their home, violent, and quick to provoke.  Then you'd seed a plot hook to give the PCs a reason to go down there...possible a reason to want to kill off the monsters.

And sit back and watch the fireworks(mostly consisting of a series of combats).  All the while safe in the knowledge that you didn't PLAN there to be combats...the PCs could certainly come up with alternate ways to get the macguffin out of the chest underneath the Goblin King's bed in the heavily guarded Goblin outpost.  But, the result was all but certain in advance.

The same is true if you plan out the combats in advance.  They CAN be bypassed and you may even write down a couple of possible ways the combat can be bypassed in order to prepare for them.  But you expect there to be combat since that is the most likely outcome.

So, their approach to the combat is just as important as whether they get into one at all.  Plus, their approach to an adventure can make the difference between getting the first shot against the enemies and having them at a distinct tactical disadvantage or getting surprised and killed.  They might be able to stop reinforcements from arriving and make a combat easier, despite being worth the same XP.


----------



## seskis281 (Jul 17, 2009)

Why try 4e?

Beacuse it's always good to try things out.

For that matter,

give OD&D, B/X, Savage Worlds, GURPS, Aces & Eights, Castles & Crusades, Swords & Wizardry a try....

I personally am very anxious to give Jeffrey Talanian' & Matthew Stanham's new RPG "Astonishing Swordsman & Sorcery" a whirl at GenCon..



I play C&C - I don't "hate" other games, I just found the one that matches my personal tastes and wants. I tried 4e twice, bought the PHB when it first came out. I think it's a well-designed system, which follows a different paradigm from my own interests. Nothing wrong with it, just different.... others feel similar to my own brand preference. 

It's all good - try it all and do what E. Gary Gygax said so often:

"Play what you like and just have fun!"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> In previous editions, most DMs made thinly veiled attempts at pretending they weren't deciding things in advance.  So, you'd create a dungeon, populate it with monsters who were evil, protective of their home, violent, and quick to provoke.  Then you'd seed a plot hook to give the PCs a reason to go down there...possible a reason to want to kill off the monsters.
> 
> And sit back and watch the fireworks(mostly consisting of a series of combats).  All the while safe in the knowledge that you didn't PLAN there to be combats...the PCs could certainly come up with alternate ways to get the macguffin out of the chest underneath the Goblin King's bed in the heavily guarded Goblin outpost.  But, the result was all but certain in advance.





Having used the same scenarios with multiple play groups, I have to disagree.  The result was not all but certain in advance.

To take two simple cases from Keep on the Borderlands (and, if you don't want spoilers don't read on), which I have run in Holmes Basic, 1e, 2e, and 3.x:  

[spolier]In KotB, there is an evil temple in one of the caves.  That temple contains a chamber where acolytes can be found.  Depending upon the approach of the players, I have had this scenario turn into a general melee, a chase, a running battle, and a religious debate.  Even when the encounter turned into a combat, there can be tremendous variations in how that combat occurs simply because it isn't predetermined.

Likewise, in one cave there is an owlbear.  The odds are pretty good that this is going to be a "combat encounter", but what type of combat it is depends very much on the group.  I've even run this module where the owlbear was used by players to take out another monster.  Because the surrounding humanoids know that the owlbear is there, the PCs can learn this too.....some groups wait for it to leave the cave to hunt, choosing to avoid the encounter altogether.  Others devise ambushes or traps to lead the critter into, knowing that it is too tough to take on in a straight fight.  

When I ran it in 3.x, the party stumbled into the owlbear while fleeing the grey oozes in a related cave, which created a very different encounter than would have occurred had I planned a "scene" or a "combat encounter" beforehand.[/spoiler]

The more you envision what will happen beforehand, the more you limit what can actually happen in game play.  


RC


----------



## Hussar (Jul 17, 2009)

Keeping with the Keep on the Borderlands then.

How many different ways did the encounter with the Ogre in the cave turn out?

But, I would also point out something here Raven Crowking.  Every single one of your "different encounters" were statted up as a combat encounter.  You knew the combat stats of every single one of those involved, whether combat was the result or not.  How is this any different from 4e design?


----------



## Ariosto (Jul 17, 2009)

Designing a dungeon (or other setting and situation) for TSR-D&D and designing a scenario for WOTC-D&D are, from what I have seen, two different enterprises due to differences in both philosophy and logistics -- 4E being, as often observed, a notable departure even from its predecessor.

Fighting is indeed to be expected in most dungeons (exceptions being largely confined to some tournament scenarios). This is eminently reasonable, considering how much D&D material (character and monster ratings, magic, spot rules, etc.) is oriented toward combat application.

However, the shift to expecting combat _THERE_ and _THEN_ is a significant one. It is of course predicate to anticipating _WITH WHOM, AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES_, so one can do the heavy lifting of calculating "proper balance" beforehand rather than spending time and energy to "fudge" things during play.

The situation in the Caves of Chaos is in my experience likely to produce rather exceptionally combat-heavy expeditions (although strategic negotiations can potentially make those less casualty-heavy among player-characters).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 17, 2009)

Hussar said:


> How many different ways did the encounter with the Ogre in the cave turn out?




Quite a few.  The ogre's behaviour can and does relate to that of its allied orcs.  Sometimes the ogre is nothing more than a pack animal, helping the orcs to carry out their treasure between PC raids!  



> But, I would also point out something here Raven Crowking.  Every single one of your "different encounters" were statted up as a combat encounter.




No.  Every one of my "different encounters" was statted up as an encounter.  There are some notable exceptions, where Gary tells us specifically what the monsters will do.  These encounters are "scenes", if you would, similar to 4e (and many 3e) encounters, where any given group is likely to have relatively similar play experiences.  The orc lookout watching through the skull is a good example here.  The medusa is another "scene" encounter that is likely to go along similar lines no matter who is the DM or who is playing (assuming some level of competence on the DM's part).



> You knew the combat stats of every single one of those involved, whether combat was the result or not.  How is this any different from 4e design?




I knew the stats of the guards at the Keep's gate, too.  Was that a combat encounter?  

The difference is this:

When setting up a "combat encounter" or any other kind of "scene" encounter, how the encounter will play out is largely determined beforehand (as Majoru Oakheart rightly notes).  For instance, in Forge of Fury, when the players encounter the chasm bridge, the DM is given exacting information as to what will occur.  If you, I, or anyone else ran the encounter as written, it will never result in a religious debate.

Barrow of the Forgotten King, as an early example of the Delve format, is even worse.  No longer are the positions of creatures based upon circumstances (noisy or quiet PCs, for example); the DM is told not only where to place the minis, but is given the tactics that the monsters will follow throughout the combat.  The encounter is a fully laid out scene that any number of people can run through in exactly the same manner, often having little or no connection to the scenes preceding or following it to minimize the need for the DM to make decisions as to how A affects B on the fly.

BotFK is also as linear a scenario as ever has appeared in D&D.  The only real player choices are (1) to choose to play in the first place, and (2) tactics in each discrete combat.  Bleh.  The DM is given even less to do.

If you are really interested in seeing the difference between a "combat encounter" and an "encounter", I can think of no module that offers as many repeated firm examples of combat encounters than this.

(Other WotC modules post BotFK might be just as bad, or worse -- this one so put me off WotC modules that I stopped buying them.)


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jul 17, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Quite a few. The ogre's behaviour can and does relate to that of its allied orcs. Sometimes the ogre is nothing more than a pack animal, helping the orcs to carry out their treasure between PC raids!




The ogre is an occasional ally of the goblins in apartment D rather than the orcs across the ravine in apartments B & C. Otherwise good stuff


----------



## qstor (Jul 19, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> My point is that many complaints about 4E also work as complaints about all editions of D&D. However, these days they tend to be framed as things that are wrong with 4E, and only 4E.




Right many but not all. Certainly the complaint that all settings are now 4e (i saw it called hamburger genre or such) settings doesn't work in 3e or 2e. Cause Dragonlance wasn't Greyhawk and Greyhawk wasn't Dragonlance etc

And the mini centric aspect of the game or the use of powers for all classes. I think those are other examples that can only be mentioned of 4e.

Mike


----------

