RPG Philosphy: What is a minion? What is minionmancy?

[SangoProduction]

If you had to boil "What is a minion" down to its most basic definition, what would it be?

A first thought would be "A creature you summon." But that's inadequate as that would exclude several non-summoning methods like animate object. So... "A creature you control"? That makes logical sense, in both plain English and game logic - although at some tables, you don't have direct control, but at that point, we're cutting hairs. They are subservient.

Sooo... What is a creature? Well, it's an entity that interacts with the world, usually having HP, AC and all that stuff. (But at DM's discretion, effectively doesn't.) Importantly, creatures have creature types, and in having a type, we know it's a creature, and not an object.

So, if you were to create a magical effect that has those stats, and can be targeted as any other creature or object, and interacts with the world by applying effects / damage... but it doesn't have a creature type, so isn't a creature, and thus no matter how many such effects you create, it wouldn't be minionmancy?

It kinda feels a bit off to say a guy with 50 Hands of Fireball floating around him isn't using some form of minionmancy, just because it lacks an explicitly defined creature type.
But also, that sounds a bit like Necklace of Fireballs, and no one even questions if it's a minion or not. Likely because you have to use your action to use it.

-------

So, maybe we should get at what the of summoning a minions is.
1) "To add to the action economy by creating another semi-autonomous entity to do things while you do something else."
2) "To act as an extra body that is more sacrificial than a PC (or NPC that is cared about).

So, if you have the drawback to materialize your long term buffs as targetable, semi-corporeal objects... That fits the second definition, but... it's arguable on the first one. It's just a persistent buff, rather than "doing" something. But with it destroyed, the buff disappears, so it could be argued that the object is actively providing the buff. I think we could get into a very deep discussion on that bit. But it doesn't quite feel like a minion.

Meanwhile Destruction Affliction fits the first definition, of continuously reapplying the effects and damage each turn to your target, but cannot be targeted with normal attacks, so also doesn't really feel like a minion, as much as it's a finicky debuff. Or perhaps a debuff that deals damage and occasionally inflicts effects, while you do other stuff. Semantics can be argued.
Regardless, lacking a body, and being unable to be conventionally attacked, it doesn't feel like a minion.

So what about Energetic Tether? It creates a link between you and the target. It can be targeted and destroyed prematurely. Each turn, this link does damage and inflicts debuffs as though casting a Destructive Blast (at reduced damage), and ties the two of you together.
It does undoubtedly interact with the world on an active basis. At least as much as Destructive Affliction does. And can be targeted. And in fact, unless you metamagic the heck out of it, it's super desirable for it to be targeted.
Is this a minion?
Feels a bit off, but I think it's arguable.

---

Obviously, as a community-made term, there are no official definitions. And there are obviously degrees of minionmancy. The term tends to indicate an inordinate focus on minions, as opposed to simply having an animal companion, even if they, at base, out class a fighter.

----

FINAL NOTE: I am very tired. It is 3 am. I am going insane, and I basically came into this with only the opening question in mind. This is all just flow of consciousness. I am not trying to push a view onto anyone, and actually asking.

[Crake]

Importantly, creatures have creature types, and in having a type, we know it's a creature, and not an object.

Actually, the defacto definition of "what is a creature" is having a wis and cha score. That is the bare minimum to being a creature. The ability to percieve the world, and the ability to differentiate yourself from the world. I'll see if I can dig up the exact quote that specifies that, but that is where the game draws the line at "creature vs not creature".

[Beni-Kujaku]

My definition is : A minion is any player-friendly game item, separated from the players themselves, that requires any amount of choice and slows combat beyond the regular number of actions of said player.

In general, they are controlled by the players themselves, but a Planar Ally doing their own thing but still contributing, as well as arguably a DMPC can be considered minions. The summoned creatures, dominated and enchanted NPCs, Undead and Leadership followers, as well as Animated Objects and Trees are obviously minions. More largely, a familiar that does anything besides staying on the master's shoulder, a mount that attacks on its own and an Unseen Servant become minions as long as they are actively controlled by the player. On the other hand, a Flaming Sphere and a Spiritual Weapon require a move action, and don't require more choice than a regular move action would, thus they do not slow combat beyond normal for the player (but they would if they only required free actions to control). A swarm of locust from Insect Plague and an area of Black Tentacles do not require any choice on either the player or the DM's part to define their behavior, thus are not minions. An army fighting in the background does not slow combat, thus isn't a minion, even if said army is friendly to the party RP-wise. A horde of enemies are obviously not the player's minions since they're not friendly.
The weird edge cases: an Elemental monolith, by this definition, is not quite a minion, since it requires a standard action to control, while enemies technically become minions for a round when affected by Death Urge.

[SangoProduction]

Actually, the defacto definition of "what is a creature" is having a wis and cha score. That is the bare minimum to being a creature. The ability to percieve the world, and the ability to differentiate yourself from the world. I'll see if I can dig up the exact quote that specifies that, but that is where the game draws the line at "creature vs not creature".

It's actually under the stat definitions. Pathfinder goes differently says that if it without: Int, Wis, and Cha scores, it's an object, not a creature.
So spell effects that do not create an entity with specific, or at least implied, stats are objects.

That statement then proves one of 2 things
1) Said spell effect does not create a minion, no matter how minion-like it may be.
2) The definition of minion in this context may be incorrect.


My definition is : A minion is any player-friendly game item, separated from the players themselves, that requires any amount of choice and slows combat beyond the regular number of actions of said player.

In general, they are controlled by the players themselves, but a Planar Ally doing their own thing but still contributing, as well as arguably a DMPC can be considered minions. The summoned creatures, dominated and enchanted NPCs, Undead and Leadership followers, as well as Animated Objects and Trees are obviously minions. More largely, a familiar that does anything besides staying on the master's shoulder, a mount that attacks on its own and an Unseen Servant become minions as long as they are actively controlled by the player. On the other hand, a Flaming Sphere and a Spiritual Weapon require a move action, and don't require more choice than a regular move action would, thus they do not slow combat beyond normal for the player (but they would if they only required free actions to control). A swarm of locust from Insect Plague and an area of Black Tentacles do not require any choice on either the player or the DM's part to define their behavior, thus are not minions. An army fighting in the background does not slow combat, thus isn't a minion, even if said army is friendly to the party RP-wise. A horde of enemies are obviously not the player's minions since they're not friendly.
The weird edge cases: an Elemental monolith, by this definition, is not quite a minion, since it requires a standard action to control, while enemies technically become minions for a round when affected by Death Urge.

I do... actually find that definition wholly inclusive of what I would call minions, while explicitly excluding those that use up actions (even if in a manner that is more action-efficient, which barring the explicit call-out, would include them as minions).

I like that.

[Crake]

It's actually under the stat definitions. Pathfinder goes differently says that if it without: Int, Wis, and Cha scores, it's an object, not a creature.

That's... kinda dumb. Are mindless undead objects then? What about vermin? :smallconfused: Considering "mindless" is a full on creature and even type ability, that seems a bit silly, I'll stick with the original 3.5 version.

[Beni-Kujaku]

That's... kinda dumb. Are mindless undead objects then? What about vermin? :smallconfused: Considering "mindless" is a full on creature and even type ability, that seems a bit silly, I'll stick with the original 3.5 version.

I think Sango got confused somewhere, or just wasn't clear. I read "Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.". However, we have "Regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields, lack Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores; even though plants are alive, they are objects, not creatures.", which is a specific example and doesn't imply anything for creatures with Wis and Cha but no Int. However, it does mean that regular plants have Con scores in Pathfinder, and maybe Str and Dex.

[Telonius]

I'd put it as: a creature that the player characters have some degree of control over, granted by a spell, feat, class feature, or other feature. Leadership's "Followers" and an Artificer's army of clanks would count; regular NPCs convinced or made friendly by good diplomacy checks wouldn't.

There's overlap between minionmancy and diplomancy. Would somebody made Fanatic by an absurdly-DC'd Diplomacy check count as a minion? Maybe.

[Akal Saris]

Beni-Kujaku's definition is the most sensible one that I've seen in this thread so far. A minion doesn't have to be a creature - it could include a Dancing Sword, or a Chain Devil's Animated Chains, or a Fiery Sphere. All of these are non-creature objects/effects which are present on the battlefield and act as force/action multipliers for their allies, and which I would argue should qualify as minions.

[arkieNork]

not sure if my answer is going to useful in this discussion, but perhaps.
this question is directly relevant to my campaign because there is a homebrew ability that I have made about 'siphoning exp' that was tailored toward a smaller than normal party, where they do not get any exp from encounters if anyone other than the PCs and their minions participate. (it sounds like its made to screw the players, but its actually meant to compensate for another bit of homebrew that would make it too easy to exploit hirelings)

For the purpose of this ability, I defined a 'minion' as: any creature over whom you exercise such a level of control or influence that it would
a) routinely hold your goals and ambitions above most of its own (exception allowed for conflicts of interest that are highly unlikely such as the minion suddenly having to choose between you and its long lost mother)
and
b) would follow your orders into high mortal danger (not necessarily suicidal)

With above definitions I wanted to include: Animal Companions, Cohorts/Followers (people who have devoted themselves to serving you specifically), Summoned creatures, creatures magically compelled to obey you whether by a direct spell such as Dominate line or by a magically sealed contract such as of Planar Ally/Binding.

But exclude hirelings, mercenaries or anyone convinced or intimidated to assist them via diplomacy and or Charm effects, people who are merely helping you to progress some other cause

That last one is iffy - if a follower of a deity follows the PC because they believe that the PC is in direct service to the deity, than technically the deity is a higher ambition but at the same time, in the moment the follower believes PC's goals and the deity's are one and the same. I think I would include that under minion but not sure - I don't want to open a loophole in the 'convinced to assist via diplomacy' restrictions.

From gameplay perspective:

the question comes down to 'who is in control of the piece' - if its a 'minion' by above definition, than the PCs control / command them without question and as a DM I could only interfere with that control via direct domination magic.

If its not a minion, than I am the one in the 'final' control of that game piece, even if said game piece at the moment is cooperating with PC's orders. I could re-assert that control with DM-fiat without violating the rules we have set, if the world-building is in favor of that.

ie. a hireling or mercenary could refuse to follow even relatively routine orders simply out of belief that doing so might be unprofitable for them in the long term, such is if they find out that they've been hired to act against a more powerful entity than they want to risk angering. A non-minion could thus refuse to help PCs attack a caravan of the local sultan, but a minion never would.

[Fero]

I would say that a "minion" is anything that:

A) Has at least some game statistics;
B) takes actions; and
C) uses those actions at the instruction of, or for the benefit of another.

Consequently, I would define Minionomancy as the strategy of obtaining, directing, and improving minions to take advantage of their statistics and actions.

[noob]

My definition is : A minion is any player-friendly game item, separated from the players themselves, that requires any amount of choice and slows combat beyond the regular number of actions of said player.

In general, they are controlled by the players themselves, but a Planar Ally doing their own thing but still contributing, as well as arguably a DMPC can be considered minions. The summoned creatures, dominated and enchanted NPCs, Undead and Leadership followers, as well as Animated Objects and Trees are obviously minions. More largely, a familiar that does anything besides staying on the master's shoulder, a mount that attacks on its own and an Unseen Servant become minions as long as they are actively controlled by the player. On the other hand, a Flaming Sphere and a Spiritual Weapon require a move action, and don't require more choice than a regular move action would, thus they do not slow combat beyond normal for the player (but they would if they only required free actions to control). A swarm of locust from Insect Plague and an area of Black Tentacles do not require any choice on either the player or the DM's part to define their behavior, thus are not minions. An army fighting in the background does not slow combat, thus isn't a minion, even if said army is friendly to the party RP-wise. A horde of enemies are obviously not the player's minions since they're not friendly.
The weird edge cases: an Elemental monolith, by this definition, is not quite a minion, since it requires a standard action to control, while enemies technically become minions for a round when affected by Death Urge.

So the belt of battle is a minion?

[SangoProduction]

That's... kinda dumb. Are mindless undead objects then? What about vermin? :smallconfused: Considering "mindless" is a full on creature and even type ability, that seems a bit silly, I'll stick with the original 3.5 version.

Inclusive And. If it lacks all of them, they are objects, rather than just lacking wis, cha.

[rel]

So the belt of battle is a minion?

I'll allow it.

[Crake]

Inclusive And. If it lacks all of them, they are objects, rather than just lacking wis, cha.

Well, i struggle to imagine a creature with intelligence that also lacks wis and cha? Seems like being able to differentiate yourself from not yourself would be necessary for sentience, at the very least, which means having a cha score, and having a cha score thus necessitates having a wis score, since they are two sides of the same coin. You need to know the world exists to be able to differentiate yourself from it.

I guess its not TECHNICALLY wrong if you look at it from an And perspective, just.. redundant?

[SangoProduction]

Well, i struggle to imagine a creature with intelligence that also lacks wis and cha? Seems like being able to differentiate yourself from not yourself would be necessary for sentience, at the very least, which means having a cha score, and having a cha score thus necessitates having a wis score, since they are two sides of the same coin. You need to know the world exists to be able to differentiate yourself from it.

I guess its not TECHNICALLY wrong if you look at it from an And perspective, just.. redundant?

Working backwards, it would be equally redundant to say that it needs a Wisdom score to be missing, since just lacking a charisma score is a non-creature. There isn't a wisdom-having creature without charisma.
I don't actually have a dog in the race. I'm just conveying what was put in Pathfinder.

[icefractal]

Hmm, I'm not sure whether I agree with the action-economy-based definition. There are several uses of minions - powerful, effective uses - that don't interact with it.

For example, having minions that cast buffs on you each morning, but don't travel with you. This allows a considerably larger and more diverse buff-stack than would be practical to maintain without them.

For another, Planar Binding for utility. A caster doing that can access a much wider pool of abilities than their spells alone would provide - particularly if they're a Sorcerer-type with limited spells known.

Are those really not minion-mancy? They literally rely on having control of other creatures.

[Crake]

Working backwards, it would be equally redundant to say that it needs a Wisdom score to be missing, since just lacking a charisma score is a non-creature. There isn't a wisdom-having creature without charisma.
I don't actually have a dog in the race. I'm just conveying what was put in Pathfinder.

Right, but thats because wisdom and charisma are defined as being two sides of the same coin, having one necessitates having the other. Int on the other hand is just an added bonus. Cha needs wis, wis needs cha, int needs wis and cha, but neither cha nor wis need int, ergo, saying that a creature must have at least one of int, wis and cha is redundant, because to have int, you need wis and cha to begin with.

Its sort of like how, to have a strength score, a creature must have a dex score (ie, to be able to manipulate the world, you need to be able to move), but having a dex score does not require a strength score (ie, incorporeal creatures lack the ability to manipulate the world, but can still move)

I SUPPOSE one could imagine a creature with int that lives entirely within a microcosm, has never experienced the world at large, and cannot comprehend anything outside of its own consciousness… but i would hesitate to call that a creature…

[SangoProduction]

Hmm, I'm not sure whether I agree with the action-economy-based definition. There are several uses of minions - powerful, effective uses - that don't interact with it.

For example, having minions that cast buffs on you each morning, but don't travel with you. This allows a considerably larger and more diverse buff-stack than would be practical to maintain without them.

For another, Planar Binding for utility. A caster doing that can access a much wider pool of abilities than their spells alone would provide - particularly if they're a Sorcerer-type with limited spells known.

Are those really not minion-mancy? They literally rely on having control of other creatures.

Whether or not they'd be -mancy would be a matter of degrees.
But do you argue that they don't count as action economy, because it's out of combat? It's typically a moot point, because there are so many actions within narrative time vs combat time, but it's still a thing. So they would still count as minions under Beni's definition.

Under my original, late-night rambling of a proposal, it would not fit, if the minions are not (at least intended to be) expendable. And I do, in large part, believe that to be somewhat core to what a minion is. At least in rerferrence to what I think of with minionmancy.

If it's a buff dispenser, then it's little different from just having a spell that gives you a buff (or several as the case may be) - an incredibly efficient buff, and so might be too good for its cost, but basically the same effect as if it came directly from you. And no one would argue that a flying carpet is a minion, so why would using a minion for the purpose of a flying carpet, and only for that purpose (or similar utility), be in the same realm as minionmancy?

Minions can definitely be used for non-minionmancy purposes. Like summoning a unicorn after combat to heal up. But if not used as an action-economy booster, and relatively disposable sack of hit points, I don't think it's being used in the realm of minionmancy, regardless of being a minion or not.

[Vahnavoi]

What exactly was insufficient about the ordinary definitions of "obedient follower" and "servile agent"? For roleplaying game purposes, "obedient secondary character" and "servile secondary character" fit just as well.

As for "minionmancy", that is just a hobby-specific way of saying "strategies based on using minions". Means and methods vary, but that is constant.

[SangoProduction]

What exactly was insufficient about the ordinary definitions of "obedient follower" and "servile agent"? For roleplaying game purposes, "obedient secondary character" and "servile secondary character" fit just as well.

As for "minionmancy", that is just a hobby-specific way of saying "strategies based on using minions". Means and methods vary, but that is constant.

In all honesty? It's not particularly insufficient, especially for common usage. Just a late night ramble. But the sufficient definition is somewhat imprecise and doesn't necessarily get at what is "meant" by the terms.

Particularly as it pertains to edge cases, or less definite cases, such as semi-autonomous spell effects that aren't necessarily summoning a "creature," or character, by game definitions.

[Satinavian]

Whether or not they'd be -mancy would be a matter of degrees.
But do you argue that they don't count as action economy, because it's out of combat? It's typically a moot point, because there are so many actions within narrative time vs combat time, but it's still a thing. So they would still count as minions under Beni's definition.

Under my original, late-night rambling of a proposal, it would not fit, if the minions are not (at least intended to be) expendable. And I do, in large part, believe that to be somewhat core to what a minion is. At least in rerferrence to what I think of with minionmancy.

If it's a buff dispenser, then it's little different from just having a spell that gives you a buff (or several as the case may be) - an incredibly efficient buff, and so might be too good for its cost, but basically the same effect as if it came directly from you. And no one would argue that a flying carpet is a minion, so why would using a minion for the purpose of a flying carpet, and only for that purpose (or similar utility), be in the same realm as minionmancy?

Minions can definitely be used for non-minionmancy purposes. Like summoning a unicorn after combat to heal up. But if not used as an action-economy booster, and relatively disposable sack of hit points, I don't think it's being used in the realm of minionmancy, regardless of being a minion or not.
I think that is where your idea of minions and minionmancy starts to diverge.

For most people, non-combat, non-expendable, utility focused minions are a thing and very well do fall under minionmancy. And those action boosting spells that don't provide a creature do not.

[Serafina]

To me, a "minion" is something that executes actions for you.

In many cases, "minionmancy" outright provides additional actions. A PC may have three actions, and the minion provides a fourth.

However, even if no additional actions are provided, there is still the benefit of executing the aciton remotely. You are here, your Mage Hand is over there and does things for you - it too acts as a minion.

Note further that in D&D Combat, taking damage is also an action. Not only is it part of an enemies actions, but it is why you choose to position yourself tactically so that the enemy can only target certain player characters - so it is a result of your actions.
Why then are defensive spells - whether Stone Skin or a Resilient Sphere - not minions? Because they do not execute actions - no further decision are made with them once they are cast. They also lack a presence on the battlefield, not occupying any space and not being able to move. I could however buy an argument that a movable Wall of some sort counts as a minion.

Indeed, D&D 4E had Shaman Spirits which were a combination of Auras and remotely executable attacks, which were typically considered to be minions.
Those were movable, executed actions for you, and had a presence on the battlefield.

This leaves us with the question of whether a Flaming Sphere can be considered a minion.
It occupies space, it is movable, and it remotely executes actions for you - ramming into other creatures and dealing fire damage.
Yet it is not typically considered a minion. Why?
Well, I would wager that if, rather than summining a sphere, it summoned a small elemental under your control, that mechanically behaved the same, it would be considered a minion.
So we can conclude this to be a case of aesthetics.

Indeed, this neatly demonstrates the Chair-Problem - the difficulty in philosophy to logically define linguistic use without clearly going against actual use. As per Wittgenstein, we must instead look at the language game being played, and understand the moves being made.

However, I rather like my definition of "minion" and "minionmancy" as moves within the language game as well. People typically use those to refer to effects that allow their player character to remotely execute actions. We can add that typically, those effects will take the appearance of other creatures, and that some people only use such definitions if game-mechanically additional actions are provided by such effects.