3.5 "Minions"?

[themourningstar]

As much as I dislike the 4.0 ruleset- and I dislike it a lot- I really did like the idea of the minions. The 1 HP, lower dmg, saves, etc of other monsters, made for heros to slash and smash through. :) Has anyone translated that over to 3.5? Did it work well if so? I like the idea of destroying whole kingdoms of Goblins with a fireball lol. Thanks for the input Playground!

[Blackhawk748]

Honestly? just use goblins and kobolds as written in the MM they're pushovers

[hymer]

A former DM of mine did the minion thing, and we did not like it. It felt like fighting cardboard cutouts. But do you know that annoyed feeling, when you hammer a monster down to 1 hp, and then they attack you back for 20? Just one hp made the difference. You get that feeling every time a minion deals damage. And you gotta wonder how these big beasties seem to fall easier than even kobolds. Or why are these guys so frail, the ones we fought in the other room needed more than an acid splash to die.
As you can probably tell, I dislike the idea. As someone higher up suggested, put some monsters with low hp in there instead and let them be the guys your players can mow down.

[Coidzor]

Someone calculated the Average HP/BAB/Saves of creatures per CR. That'd be a good place to start.

I recall seeing something like this on the Homebrew sub-forum, but can't recall how successful it was, but you might do a google search.

Here's a thread discussion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=250894) that might be of interest.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Minion-ifying a 3.5 monster is fairly simple, just give them minimum HP per HD; that's not even a houserule, really, since while the MMs list average HP for each monster, having minimum or maximum HP per HD is possible after rolling for HP. For example, a minion-ified minotaur (minion-taur?) has 18 HP, and the expected damage per round of a 4th-level rogue with shortswords and TWF, two-handed fighter with Power Attack, or blaster wizard with scorching ray should take that out in one hit.

Note that this doesn't guarantee that they'll die in one hit like giving them 1 HP does, which is good for avoiding the issues hymer pointed out and also for making it less obvious which creatures are minions.

[Zaq]

A critical part of what makes a minion a minion is the whole "a missed attack never damages a minion" rule. Now, in 4e, everything is an attack that can hit or miss, while in 3.5, a lot of good minion-clearing tactics are save-based rather than hit-based. So in effect, you'd want to give them Evasion and Mettle.

But yeah, the essence of a minion is that they're trivial to take down, but they're nontrivial to ignore. If you can just ignore them, they don't matter. What makes them interesting is that if you don't do SOMETHING to get rid of them, they actually will hurt. Maybe not as much as real enemies, but a nontrivial amount. So make sure that they have a fair chance of hitting the PCs, and make sure that they actually do sting when they hit. Not as much as a normal critter, but neither should you just use unmodified CR 1 stuff.

[jedipotter]

It does not work out so well, unless your playing a more 4E mindset. Someone thought it was tons of fun to slaughter minions. So that every fight left a huge pile of bodies. The idea is that it is fun to take out large groups.

But, it's not exactly real. As if you know about the minion rule, then you know most of the foes are weak and made to be taken down easy. And it is only fun to take out an easy target for a second. Then it becomes not so fun. Taking out easy targets just does not have the right feel to it.

And it is not exactly everyone's idea of fun to plow through lots of minions.

[Tvtyrant]

DR= CR (explaining why they do not all die constantly), HP= double their HD, attack = 1.5xHD, damage is equal to HD but does quadruple on a hit. A 20 HD minion has an attack of +30 and does between 20 and 80 damage a round, so you cannot completely ignore it but killing it is fairly trivial.

[RedWarlock]

A big aspect that you guys are missing is that Minions don't need to be tracked for hit points. This makes them a lot easier to run in numbers.

Evasion and Mettle are one part, another is that you should give them a damage-threshold. Something like 1/2 con score plus original CR. If an attack (or total damage per-round) deals less than this, they don't die.

[Slipperychicken]

A former DM of mine did the minion thing, and we did not like it. It felt like fighting cardboard cutouts.

Seconded. It felt like a complete waste of time when I did it.

[ksbsnowowl]

I've used the minion and boss concept a few times in my 3.5 viking game. Minions get minimum hit points, but only award 50% of the XP they normally would. Bosses get max HP's, and award 150% XP for their CR.

[awa]

there not minions per say but when i design monsters i typically design the minion types to have few enough hp that they can be dropped in a single hit from the main melee types.

An important point is to make sure that the minions are plausible. If they kill the minion with a single blow and say wow he was really fragile you are doing it wrong.

I typically send them in waves to keep from bogging down the round and it lets the players use there aoe attacks with out it being a single cast to end the encounter.

And in general my players have enjoyed it.

I use a homebrew system that make this easier but you can do it in the standard rules if you feel like it just have the minions be low level but optimized to have enough accuracy to be a threat. This might mean bard allies or it could mean things that boost aid another its a bit clunky but it can be done.

edit i also don't usually use just minions typically there is a least one tougher guy and the minions usually flee when he/they die.

[MeeposFire]

I had a lot of success with minions actually in 3.5. I had an end of the world scenario going and the bad guys had an army. In a previous adventure I had noticed that most of the non-major enemies were dying in just one to a couple hits. By using minions I was able to cut down on time in the new adventure since it used a lot of generic "soldiers". I gave them suitable defenses (AC and saves) for their level and they only died if they were hit on their AC for damage or they failed a save for damage. It does make the party change tactics a little though. My warriors actually lamented not having things like whirlwind attack and my casters started using blasting spells again.

Minions if used with the design ideas that they used in 4e tend to hit a lot more often (their accuracy reflects their CR so to speak and not their HD) for a non-trivial but small amount of damage. The damage is also static to reduce die rolls which again speeds up the process. Their defenses also tend to be better so they actually may last longer than using low CR mobs that have such low defenses and attacks that they rarely do much and tend to be quick to eliminate (for instance save or die works better on low CR mobs than minions).

Biggest issue for a lot of people is that they need to deal with the idea that yesterday's villain is tomorrow's minion. Some people can't handle having something represented in that way.

[Phelix-Mu]

I find that it also further stresses verisimilitude. The HP system of simulating health is pretty unconvincing as is; when we add in monsters so weak relative to their cousin over there that a stray punch in a bar brawl would have killed them, now it's starting to seem contrived.

Is all of this only so that the pcs can have huge hordes to slash through? Cause the existing rules support that, it just requires a DM that can properly eyeball the hp amount to be dispensing to each One-Hit Mook. As DM I regularly tinker with printed hp amounts as a way to fine-tune CR and draw out fights a little bit (at least at low level/low op). I totally don't see a reason that the game would need monsters guaranteed to go down after one hit from anything.

[MeeposFire]

I find that it also further stresses verisimilitude. The HP system of simulating health is pretty unconvincing as is; when we add in monsters so weak relative to their cousin over there that a stray punch in a bar brawl would have killed them, now it's starting to seem contrived.

Is all of this only so that the pcs can have huge hordes to slash through? Cause the existing rules support that, it just requires a DM that can properly eyeball the hp amount to be dispensing to each One-Hit Mook. As DM I regularly tinker with printed hp amounts as a way to fine-tune CR and draw out fights a little bit (at least at low level/low op). I totally don't see a reason that the game would need monsters guaranteed to go down after one hit from anything.

It is about making the game easier to track and quicker to implement. You don't need enemies that fall in one hit but there are times when such a thing is desirable since it can save you a lot of work for enemies that frankly are not worth the effort.

As for a bar fight or what not you don't use a minion in a situation where such a thing is not needed or does not fit. If the the people in a bar are designed to take a number of hits to bring down then you don't use a minion. However minions could be useful in a bar fight as they could replace the bunch of commoners that you would otherwise stat out and use and in bar scenes one good punch to the jaw is enough to take out most people in a bar fight in most fantasy bar brawls (with non-story important characters). The reason you use a commoner minion is that it allows you to create an enemy that has stats effective to what the encounter wants (rather than having 20 commoners using aid another to get one commoner's attack bonus high enough to hit for 4 damage) while keeping things simple. Minions were designed so you could recreate those scenes in movies where the heroes are being attacked by mobs of creatures and they keep killing them but more keep on coming (think LotR) while keeping things as simple and easy as possible so you can concentrate on more important things than ORC24's HP and pitiful attack and defense bonuses. You can do this with the current rule set but it isn't very good at it as it requires more effort than it is worth, takes more time, and typically they make poor encounters because the LOW HP critters tend to be poor combatants so they are boring,.

Funny that you mention HP as this is the core of the problem. People keep trying to think HP is about physical toughness but most HP (and the higher level you go the more this is true) isn't physical at all (which of course is confusing with CON giving so much HP). Every edition tries to make it clear that this is the case and every edition gets people talking like HP is mostly physical. If you look at old Dragon Magazine it is one of the most common topics brought up in the various letters to the editor type sections of the book. 8 damage at level one by that orc beheads your wizard but that same attack and damage by that same orc on a level 20 wizard must indicate that your neck muscles are so much stronger now (lol not really) or that hit must somehow be different but how can that be if damage is supposed to truly be physical only? Somebody will say that you only hit a finger or something but that is really just their way of rationalizing what the books already said which is HP represents your physical toughness, luck, stamina, magic, etc.

[CRtwenty]

Having large amounts of mooks slows combat in 3.5/PF down to a crawl, so it's usually best to avoid it. Instead you want a smaller number of threatening opponents that are relatively simple to fight, but can't be ignored.

For instance say you're fighting an Evil Wizard at the bottom of his layer. Tossing something like a Golem, some summoned creatures, and maybe a skilled fighter type Lieutenant makes the combat a lot more interesting, while still keeping the Wizard himself as the main player in the fight.

[Phelix-Mu]

Sorry, maybe I should have clarified why I don't believe HP is particularly good at representing things. But, first, we are clearly having a debate about the game as simulation and the game as narrative. I tend to skew simulation, as I can add in elements for narration on my own, but it's hard to retroactively add realism if you've left that bit out from the start. It's all a matter of preference in the end.

My point about HP was that it poorly represents the nature of being "injured." If I'm hurt, it should somehow impact me before I fall unconscious. To me, that's just intuitive. Yes, super awesome people should be affected less, but this is easily represented by some kind of penalty for falling below 20% or some other arbitrary number.

My problem with the minion is that it is literally a creature designed to die. It can't get "hurt," at least excluding non-lethal damage. That just seems weird and awfully self-serving of the game. If the player characters want to be cool, let them earn it. And, given the decidedly pc-centric nature of the 3.x ruleset, there is no reason to further tip things in the direction of the players (except in perhaps a very low-op game).

Plus, where's the fun in mowing through a score of enemies that any well-optimized house cat could have killed?

[Scow2]

Having large amounts of mooks slows combat in 3.5/PF down to a crawl, so it's usually best to avoid it. Instead you want a smaller number of threatening opponents that are relatively simple to fight, but can't be ignored.

For instance say you're fighting an Evil Wizard at the bottom of his layer. Tossing something like a Golem, some summoned creatures, and maybe a skilled fighter type Lieutenant makes the combat a lot more interesting, while still keeping the Wizard himself as the main player in the fight.

Bah. I get by with large amounts of foes all the time. All it takes is remembering that most of them act on the same count and take the same action. You lasso a few, have them take a formation or dogpile, and roll dice all over the place. Gauge damage by feel, not precise number.

[Zaq]

The point is not "oh, look how cool I am by taking out these mooks in one hit!" The point is that minions are a fun way to challenge the party's actions. An action you spend wiping out a minion or two is an action you're not spending on your main objective. Ideal minions are enough of a threat that they can't simply be ignored, so the party does want to get rid of them, but it's in their best interests to do so as efficiently as possible. It adds tactical weight to how the party focuses fire. Do we all unload everything we've got on the full-size monsters (while the minions do a considerable amount of damage every turn until they're gone), or do we take some of the pressure off by diverting attention away from the big bad and onto his cronies?

If you're just looking at it as a way for PCs to feel big and powerful, you're definitely doing minions wrong. Played right, minions are actually really scary, simply because they're a beautiful way for the GM to say "yeah, you know how you wanted this turn to go, what with your perfect plan for spiking the main target? You might still be able to do so, but now it's going to cost you."

[Drachasor]

The biggest problem in 3.X here is that player damage is wildly variable. In 4E it is more consistent from player to player, so if a minion has 1 hp, you can pretend they had more. In 3.X, however, you can still have some people who literally only have a crappy attack. When a 1d3 damage Acid Spray takes out a minion....that's problematic.

So I think you'd have to do something to make player damage a bit more consistent. And for player damage to increase as you level. Then minions are basically a handy tool for saving paperwork since average damage would kill them (or some such). In 4E I found minions worked pretty well, so long as they were not overused -- they can have a good tactical use and make players feel cool when properly employed.

Hmm, might even be able to have a "Tough Minion". Takes 2 hits to kill or one hit if you exceed a damage threshold. I mean, you could go beyond that, but by that point it's just as hard as hit points to track.

[MeeposFire]

The point is not "oh, look how cool I am by taking out these mooks in one hit!" The point is that minions are a fun way to challenge the party's actions. An action you spend wiping out a minion or two is an action you're not spending on your main objective. Ideal minions are enough of a threat that they can't simply be ignored, so the party does want to get rid of them, but it's in their best interests to do so as efficiently as possible. It adds tactical weight to how the party focuses fire. Do we all unload everything we've got on the full-size monsters (while the minions do a considerable amount of damage every turn until they're gone), or do we take some of the pressure off by diverting attention away from the big bad and onto his cronies?

If you're just looking at it as a way for PCs to feel big and powerful, you're definitely doing minions wrong. Played right, minions are actually really scary, simply because they're a beautiful way for the GM to say "yeah, you know how you wanted this turn to go, what with your perfect plan for spiking the main target? You might still be able to do so, but now it's going to cost you."

It is true well designed encounters with a lot of minions can be very deadly. Minions in mass in 4e are credible threats particularly if you lack AOE. They don't deal a lot by themselves but they can swarm you and you will take hits because unlike low CR mooks they actually have an attack bonus that can hit you. Some minions are designed with special abilities that combo with each other or with the main threat which enables them to be a real tactical problem. In a lot of fights the most important tactic was to blast the minions early so that your melee types could effectively close with the main enemy. Otherwise your melee guys get stuck attacking minions (a horrible waste of action economy) or they get pounded getting to the enemy by the minions which adds up fast. This is unlike most low CR mooks that tend to have little chance of hitting and deal so little damage that you can effectively ignore them.

[Phelix-Mu]

It is true well designed encounters with a lot of minions can be very deadly. Minions in mass in 4e are credible threats particularly if you lack AOE. They don't deal a lot by themselves but they can swarm you and you will take hits because unlike low CR mooks they actually have an attack bonus that can hit you. Some minions are designed with special abilities that combo with each other or with the main threat which enables them to be a real tactical problem. In a lot of fights the most important tactic was to blast the minions early so that your melee types could effectively close with the main enemy. Otherwise your melee guys get stuck attacking minions (a horrible waste of action economy) or they get pounded getting to the enemy by the minions which adds up fast. This is unlike most low CR mooks that tend to have little chance of hitting and deal so little damage that you can effectively ignore them.

I still sense that the minion concept can probably be covered by existing mechanics. A template might be useful, but if the enemies need to be high enough to be providing a threat, but need to be weak enough to slay easily, then this sounds like a bit of a dichotomy that can probably be covered by some item or other (and should be, since part of not sucking at mundane is knowing that, absent houserules, you need magic items to cover gaps). Necklace of fireballs comes to mind.

Likewise, as DM I can turn a tribe of lowly goblins into quite the nightmare with a handful of potions and skull talismans, some alchemical items, and clever tactics. If I really want them to be nasty, have them buffed to the gills by whatever spellcaster is likely behind the BBEG (or otherwise kitted to the gills in magic items along with variant #387 of how to eliminate the accompanying WBL concerns).

[Slipperychicken]

My point about HP was that it poorly represents the nature of being "injured." If I'm hurt, it should somehow impact me before I fall unconscious. To me, that's just intuitive. Yes, super awesome people should be affected less, but this is easily represented by some kind of penalty for falling below 20% or some other arbitrary number.


Personally, I like the way Shadowrun did it. Basically, each character has roughly 8-14 hit points total, and every 3 damage one takes imposes a -1 would penalty on every roll one makes, including defense and other things. It helps represent a more gradual wearing-down of one's abilities, as opposed to 3.5's use of critical existence failure (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure).

Maybe for 3.5, every time you take your Constitution score (and if you don't have a Constitution score, treat it as 10) in hit point damage, you get a cumulative -1 Wound penalty to rolls until those hp are recovered? If your Con score is greater than your maximum hit points (assuming both are low), then you take a -2 while at half hit points or less.

[Phelix-Mu]

Personally, I like the way Shadowrun did it. Basically, each character has roughly 8-14 hit points total, and every 3 damage one takes imposes a -1 would penalty on every roll one makes, including defense and other things. It helps represent a more gradual wearing-down of one's abilities, as opposed to 3.5's use of critical existence failure (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure).


I just recently started playing Exalted, and I rather like the way they did it. Avoiding damage altogether is where it's at, because getting injured sucks big time. You have a very limited number of "health level" (less than ten, generally), and as you take more of them, you take increasing levels of penalties to all rolls (made in the form of subtracting dice from your dice pools). And since healing is so much harder to do, getting hurt substantially increases the likelihood of subsequent death.

The problem in D&D is that, except at the lowest levels of optimization, healing oneself is pretty easy, and can even be done at close to negligible action cost with the right build (or be rendered irrelevant until you can afford the action cost). The tricks are legion, and someone determined to avoid death can really be a pain in the neck to kill (aside from "rocks fall" and similar fiat).

I generally find that my system mastery is up to some pretty huge-scale combats (involving a score to two score lower-ranking enemies). It will take time, but I can pre-roll or generalize damage results based on a sample roll or other such tricks to keep the pace moving.

If others think that minions can serve a needed role at their table, who am I to judge? If it's fun and makes for memorable, less-migraine-inducing battles, then go for it.:smallsmile:

[Zaq]

The biggest problem in 3.X here is that player damage is wildly variable. In 4E it is more consistent from player to player, so if a minion has 1 hp, you can pretend they had more. In 3.X, however, you can still have some people who literally only have a crappy attack. When a 1d3 damage Acid Spray takes out a minion....that's problematic.

So I think you'd have to do something to make player damage a bit more consistent. And for player damage to increase as you level. Then minions are basically a handy tool for saving paperwork since average damage would kill them (or some such). In 4E I found minions worked pretty well, so long as they were not overused -- they can have a good tactical use and make players feel cool when properly employed.

Hmm, might even be able to have a "Tough Minion". Takes 2 hits to kill or one hit if you exceed a damage threshold. I mean, you could go beyond that, but by that point it's just as hard as hit points to track.

Again, the point is not how much damage they take, nor is it how much damage you deal. The point is how many actions they suck up from the party. Nobody ever "pretends the minion had more HP." We all know it's a minion, at least after the fact. That's the point. (How obvious it is that something's a minion before it takes damage is up to the GM, really.) The amount of HP you're doing is really not relevant. At all. What's relevant is how many turns it takes you to kill a given enemy, and on a larger scale, how many turns it takes you to end the encounter. Those are the numbers that matter. Those are the numbers that minions let you play with.

Don't get hung up on the fact that minions have one HP. Focus on the fact that they take one hit (so to speak, since in 3.5, not every offensive action is a "hit"). It's all about player actions.

A 1d3 Acid Splash taking out a minion is the exact opposite of "problematic." Because that 1d3 Acid Splash still took up someone's standard action (unless it was Quickened or something, in which case it takes up a 4th level spell slot). Who cares what the damage is? A turn that the Sorcerer spends Acid Splashing a minion is a turn that they didn't spend Orb of Acid-ing the real threat. A turn the Rogue spends UMDing a wand of Acid Splash at a minion is a turn that they're not making a full attack, or Acid Splash Sneak Attacking someone whose HP is relevant, or UMDing something more useful. (Let's not even get into the fact that they just might not know who is and who isn't a minion beforehand.) Most combats only last a few rounds, after all, and if one of your precious few turns is spent just clearing out a minion or two, then that's a big cost, regardless of how much or how little damage your minion-clearing attack would do to a non-minion target.

[Koury]

Someone calculated the Average HP/BAB/Saves of creatures per CR. That'd be a good place to start.

I'm late to the party on this one but I think this is what you're talking about (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172050).

[BWR]

When I want minion type monsters I make great use of wussy opponents and the Aid Another rules, slightly house ruled.
1. AA works on ranged attacks as well as melee - suddenly a hundred goblins firing arrows at you hurts a bit more than 5d4 damage.
2. Need not roll vs. AC 10. Just add +2 to attack or AC per mook using AA.

Speeds up combat and most of the mooks are squishy enough that the chances of them surviving attacks is minimal.

[hymer]

@ Zaq: It may not matter to you, but I do think it's important that there is an attack which, if succesful
A: may or may not fell a peasant
B: will certainly slay one giant
C: and also do nothing of importance to another giant which looks exactly the same.

It can't be all three, I just don't believe that.

There are also more economies in 3.5 than action economy (which you touch on with your swift-action example). It gets exceedingly meta-gamey when you target one giant with the aforementioned peasant-survivable acid splash (and it dies), but throw out a third level orb spell against the other one, (and it doesn't go down from that). Why are you wasting third level slots, when they won't do the job? Just use a 0-level.
How did your character know which one was on death's door, by the way? Didn't the giant know that himself? He should've gone to see the medicine giant. Why are these big boss monsters surrounding themselves with weaklings, anyway? If I were a boss monster, I'd gather a bodyguard of some of my most capable warriors to protect me, and so I could keep an eye on them in case they start plotting against me.

It's a matter of taste, of course, but I can't easily immerse myself in a world with minion-style contradictions. One moment I'm a heroic adventurer, the next I'm just a guy playing a game. I was having a lot more fun while I was immersed.

[Dr. Cliché]

@ Zaq: It may not matter to you, but I do think it's important that there is an attack which, if succesful
A: may or may not fell a peasant
B: will certainly slay one giant
C: and also do nothing of importance to another giant which looks exactly the same.

It can't be all three, I just don't believe that.

There are also more economies in 3.5 than action economy (which you touch on with your swift-action example). It gets exceedingly meta-gamey when you target one giant with the aforementioned peasant-survivable acid splash (and it dies), but throw out a third level orb spell against the other one, (and it doesn't go down from that). Why are you wasting third level slots, when they won't do the job? Just use a 0-level.
How did your character know which one was on death's door, by the way? Didn't the giant know that himself? He should've gone to see the medicine giant. Why are these big boss monsters surrounding themselves with weaklings, anyway? If I were a boss monster, I'd gather a bodyguard of some of my most capable warriors to protect me, and so I could keep an eye on them in case they start plotting against me.

It's a matter of taste, of course, but I can't easily immerse myself in a world with minion-style contradictions. One moment I'm a heroic adventurer, the next I'm just a guy playing a game. I was having a lot more fun while I was immersed.

This sums it up pretty well for me.


The biggest problem in 3.X here is that player damage is wildly variable. In 4E it is more consistent from player to player, so if a minion has 1 hp, you can pretend they had more.

Thing is, even in 4e it quickly breaks down once you get above goblins and such. I mean, a giant in 4e has, what, ~300hp? And players are doing maybe 3d6+10, if that. Even if minion giant has a fifth that, and the player rolls max damage, that giant still isn't dying in one hit.

Also, why are these giants even a threat? Did none of the town guard notice that they suffer from brittle-bone disease, and die is someone so much as coughs at them?

[TuggyNE]

Also, why are these giants even a threat? Did none of the town guard notice that they suffer from brittle-bone disease, and die is someone so much as coughs at them?

Only if the cough is sufficiently accurate, you see. :smallyuk:

[Slipperychicken]

This sums it up pretty well for me.


Same here. It also shatters immersion that a 1hp creature would be anywhere near combat in the first place.

[awa]

if the party is fighting giants then the minions should not also be giants of the same type. They should be orcs or wolves or something.

For 3.5 i prefer the pseudo minions where they have few enough hp to be killed by the primary melee combatants in a single hit but don't break suspension of disbelief by allowing acid splash and so on to kill them

[Drachasor]

Again, the point is not how much damage they take, nor is it how much damage you deal. The point is how many actions they suck up from the party. Nobody ever "pretends the minion had more HP." We all know it's a minion, at least after the fact. That's the point. (How obvious it is that something's a minion before it takes damage is up to the GM, really.) The amount of HP you're doing is really not relevant. At all. What's relevant is how many turns it takes you to kill a given enemy, and on a larger scale, how many turns it takes you to end the encounter. Those are the numbers that matter. Those are the numbers that minions let you play with.

Obviously damage matters, because verisimilitude matters. This is at the core of why minions bother some people.

I'm not sure why you are trying to convince me minions have a purpose in making tactical combat more intersting/fun. I've already said that they do. But a game requires more to come to life than interesting mechanics. Those mechanics need to make sense.


Thing is, even in 4e it quickly breaks down once you get above goblins and such. I mean, a giant in 4e has, what, ~300hp? And players are doing maybe 3d6+10, if that. Even if minion giant has a fifth that, and the player rolls max damage, that giant still isn't dying in one hit.

Also, why are these giants even a threat? Did none of the town guard notice that they suffer from brittle-bone disease, and die is someone so much as coughs at them?

It's not as bad as you make it out when you consider that PCs are pretty similar. A normal human is going to get taken out in one hit...how are these people taking so many? (Part of it is that "Hit Points" aren't actually about just getting hit, but ability to avoid significant hits). But some care in what you use as minions is probably in order.

That said, it's not something you can unthinkingly port over to 3.5 without careful thinking.

I do think it could be used to revamp the summon spells so they are a bit more balanced, however.

[Dr. Cliché]

It's not as bad as you make it out when you consider that PCs are pretty similar. A normal human is going to get taken out in one hit...how are these people taking so many? (Part of it is that "Hit Points" aren't actually about just getting hit, but ability to avoid significant hits). But some care in what you use as minions is probably in order.

Are we talking about minions in 3.5 or 4th here?

[Drachasor]

Are we talking about minions in 3.5 or 4th here?

In the sense of one member of a species having wildly different hit points than another....does it matter? Both editions have that happen.

Given how damage scales in 4th, minions as a lower hit point bound works better there. Especially if you view combat at a given level as being tangentially related to combat at another level (e.g. each level is meant to be a simulation of combat at that level, but level to level increases don't correspond to power increases as one might naively think). Actually a lot of 4th edition makes more sense like that...it's a weird system.

[Actana]

Given how damage scales in 4th, minions as a lower hit point bound works better there. Especially if you view combat at a given level as being tangentially related to combat at another level (e.g. each level is meant to be a simulation of combat at that level, but level to level increases don't correspond to power increases as one might naively think). Actually a lot of 4th edition makes more sense like that...it's a weird system.

Expanding upon this, as far as minions go 4e isn't so much a weird system, but just a different one trying to do different things. In 4e, the power levels of the monsters are relative to the people fighting them. 4e doesn't try simulating a world like 3.5, and as a consequence if you look at it in that way of course it falls apart, because it's not even trying to portray an accurate world.
A level 15 minion is only a minion to a group around that power level. For a level 5 character that minion would likely be equivalent to a level 10 elite: it's more powerful than the character by far. But for a level 15 character, that same creature isn't that much of a threat anymore, and the system notes that by making it fall from a single well placed (ie not a miss) blow.
It should also be a bit wrong to say that it has 1 hit point, but rather that it has HP equal to the damage dealt by a single attack, which technically could be 1, but at that level it would be unheard of and incredibly difficult to practically deal 1 damage to an enemy with an attack (outside effects, which would work, but that's a tangent). While I do disagree with putting giants as minions (at least at levels where regular giants are still a threat), that's the general idea of minions as far as I understand it. A relative power level, not an absolute one.


On topic, porting minions to 3.5 does mess a bit with the overall mechanical core of the system which ties everything into HD. I do like the idea presented that you just pick the lowest HD of each level and work from there, and maybe lower the stats somewhat to represent how not quite up to par these "minions" are. That should result in a less tough and deadly enemy that can be placed more in an area. Maybe lower the HD one or two too.