4e Minions are not 3e Mooks

[nagora]

Seriously, you can think of 50 ways to turn "the monsters have a magic item" into a plot hook, but you can't think of 50 ways to justify "these enemies are stronger" or turn it into a plothook?
I can think of lots of ways to make kobolds dangerous in 1ed at least, but I don't do it by making the kobolds into something drastically different. Magic items, allies, witch-doctors, a plan etc. can all do it without having to resort to making something that was a small rather weak monster on the individual level into a raging cauldron of hit points and damage bonuses, which aside from being lazy writing is very unrealistic. Sharks are nasty vicious animals whether you are some bloke out for a swim or Tarzan of the apes. They don't get more teeth if you happen to be trained in underwater combat.


You know what? That's a good question! Why ARE these kobolds so much tougher? This shouldn't be possible! By god, we need some adventurers who are willing to risk their lives and find out what's going on before we get swarmed by kobolds!

I'm writing a kobold scenario at the moment and I have to say that that's probably going to be said by an NPC at some point. :smallsmile:


They don't. See, *adventurers* typically go to the *monsters*.
I'd say it was about 50/50 in my games, especially at high levels when the PCs have reputations and have made enemies.


You forgot:

5) At lower levels, the pain of dropping 200ft off the side of a cliff would have incapacitated you. Unable to move, you would bleed to death. However, now that you have been around the block and taken many more wounds, you are capable of pushing through the pain of the fall to get back up and defend yourself.
That's a good one too.

[FoE]

OK, fine, the Minion rules are inconsistent. You guys are right. From a purely logical standpoint, it doesn't make that the kobold you faced in the last adventure is still dangerous despite the fact you advanced beyond him, even if he does go down in one hit.

But I would argue that the Minion rules are acceptable if they make the game more fun. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfFun)

That's a decision everybody has to make for themself. If the inconsistency bothers you, then the Minion rules suck, and you shouldn't use them. But if you're like me and eager to stand at the top of a pile of corpses, covered in wounds and drenched in the blood of your enemies as well as your own ...

... well, they rock. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) :smallbiggrin:

[nagora]

But if you're like me and eager to stand at the top of a pile of corpses, covered in wounds and drenched in the blood of your enemies as well as your own ...

... well, they rock. :smallbiggrin:
Well, naturally. Who doesn't? I just think it could have been done without special rules that alter the fabric of reality in the game world. Less rules to learn/get wrong/forget is good, isn't it?

[AKA_Bait]

That's a decision everybody has to make for themself. If the inconsistency bothers you, then the Minion rules suck, and you shouldn't use them. But if you're like me and eager to stand at the top of a pile of corpses, covered in wounds and drenched in the blood of your enemies as well as your own ...

... well, they rock. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) :smallbiggrin:

Agreed, mostly. However, I'll say this: there is something fundimentally awesome that gets lost with the minion ihp mechanic. It is this conversation:

DM: What's the minimum damage you can do?
Player: Um... 15.
DM: **exasperated sigh (a put on most of the time)** Don't even bother to roll damage against these guys. Just tell me if you hit.
Player: Nice.

[Jorkens]

A kobold which is challenging to someone just starting his hero career should not be challenging to someone who is a good ways along it. This example is exactly an example of being 'inexplicably really hard'. Somehow, a group of kobolds rather than being adventurer fodder, became adventurer-killers. Why?
Because there are lots and lots and lots of them and they've got some more powerful monsters on their side as well.

It is inconsistant, but very slightly in that it's changing them from being essentially zero threat to very nearly zero threat, and a lot of very nearly zeroes add up to a proper threat whereas a lot of zeroes don't. It's not transforming a lone kobold into a PC killing pumped up beast.

[JaxGaret]

... well, they rock. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) :smallbiggrin:

The Rule of Cool is the design philosophy behind 4e.

Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that in and of itself.

[Rutee]

Agreed, mostly. However, I'll say this: there is something fundimentally awesome that gets lost with the minion ihp mechanic. It is this conversation:

DM: What's the minimum damage you can do?
Player: Um... 15.
DM: **exasperated sigh (a put on most of the time)** Don't even bother to roll damage against these guys. Just tell me if you hit.
Player: Nice.

That's.. just rewarding the build, really. I don't see anything fundamentally awesome about checking HP vs. damage.

[Morty]

The Rule of Cool is the design philosophy behind 4e.

Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that in and of itself.

The problems start when WoTC's definition of "cool" diverges from their audience's. Which is the main problem with "Rule of Cool"(something that generally annoys me)- "cool" is subjective as heck.

[Rutee]

The problems start when WoTC's definition of "cool" diverges from their audience's. Which is the main problem with "Rule of Cool"(something that generally annoys me)- "cool" is subjective as heck.

Wouldn't the sales be the most indicative thing of whether their definition strayed that far?

And yeah, ti's subjective. So what? Use the rule of cool for whatever value your group likes.

[Morty]

Wouldn't the sales be the most indicative thing of whether their definition strayed that far?

I guess I should've been more clear- I meant part of WoTC's audience, not all of it.


And yeah, ti's subjective. So what? Use the rule of cool for whatever value your group likes.

Hard to do when the whole game doesn't really support things my group finds cool in D&D and that 3ed supported better.

[AKA_Bait]

That's.. just rewarding the build, really. I don't see anything fundamentally awesome about checking HP vs. damage.

You, madam, have clearly never seen the look of joy on a player who loves playing the Guy with Axe when he's told his character is badass enough that he can just mow through the bad guys this time.


Wouldn't the sales be the most indicative thing of whether their definition strayed that far?

And yeah, ti's subjective. So what? Use the rule of cool for whatever value your group likes.

Not the inital sales I'd think. Sales of the supplemental material would be a better indicator.

[Rutee]

I guess I should've been more clear- I meant part of WoTC's audience, not all of it.
And? Its' not like all of WotC's audience likes 3rd ed either. Or 2nd ed, or 1st ed, lest one think I intend to say that.


Hard to do when the whole game doesn't really support things my group finds cool in D&D and that 3ed supported better.

What does 3e support better, aside from Mages dominating the game utterly and nearly irrevocably?


You, madam, have clearly never seen the look of joy on a player who loves playing the Guy with Axe when he's told his character is badass enough that he can just mow through the bad guys this time.

*Blinks* I must be missing the difference, since Instant Kill is Instant Kill.


Supplemental Sales
I'm unsure. Given the age this is, I suspect that the sales of the initial product will be a good indicator. People who aren't fans will check the SRD or pirate it. People who /are/ fans will in fact buy it.

[RukiTanuki]

Well, Ruki: By losing the ability to deal out damage I was referring to losing my magic sword and girdle of strength. Without them, my 13th level AD&D fighter does the same damage per blow as the average man at arms (12 Str), although he will do it more often, of course. No special rules were involved.

But, again, we're discussing 4e. It doesn't matter how things worked in previous editions. Notably, magic items don't enhance strength, the PC gains more powerful attacks as he levels, and everyday humans aren't statted out. Repeat: there's no stat block for the "average" human.

I reiterate my point: It's far less effort to stop treating "1HP" literally, and completely avoid treating it as literally 1hp in all these lunatic fringe cases, than it's taking to come up with these theoretical cases in the first place. :)

Is anyone seriously arguing that if a high-level minion rampages a village, and a child throws a shoe at it, that they're going to roll for it and kill the minion on a natural, 20, and that they feel their hand is being forced by the rules?!

[Morty]

And? Its' not like all of WotC's audience likes 3rd ed either.

Again I seem to have made myself unclear. By "audience" I meant "those who play 3ed and/or are interested in what WotC can come up with".



What does 3e support better, aside from Mages dominating the game utterly and nearly irrevocably?

So far, it seems to support better less cinematic and less heroic -but still not "girm and gritty"- playstyle where PCs are simply skilled individuals instead of dashing heroes chosen by destiny. Because that's what I liked in 3ed D&D- it was heroic, but not too much. There's also the fact that I liked 3ed's opportunity for immersion in a world where PCs while extraordinary aren't special and unique. I also liked the fact that I wasn't expected to face "villains". I say "so far", as I could very well be wrong.

[AKA_Bait]

*Blinks* I must be missing the difference, since Instant Kill is Instant Kill.

It's the difference bettween there being instakill all the time (i.e. with minions), or it being something that you start being able to do beyond a particular level. It doesn't mean anything if it's not a sign of sucess.


I'm unsure. Given the age this is, I suspect that the sales of the initial product will be a good indicator. People who aren't fans will check the SRD or pirate it. People who /are/ fans will in fact buy it.

I dunno. I think a fair amount of the initial sales will be folks wanting to check out the system. I'm picking up the hardcovers for that reason. It's those the ratio of sales of additional material from 3.x to 4e that I feel would better indicate if the fan base has walked down a different path of cool.


Repeat: there's no stat block for the "average" human.

You sir, are wrong. Please see page 162 of the 4e MM. Also, oddly, note that a Human Rabble is CR 2...

[Rutee]

Again I seem to have made myself unclear. By "audience" I meant "those who play 3ed and/or are interested in what WotC can come up with".
How is that /not/ people who like 4e? 4e is what WotC came up with. You seem to be trying to argue that "The only audience that counts are the ones who like 3rd ed"


So far, it seems to support better less cinematic and less heroic -but still not "girm and gritty"- playstyle where PCs are simply skilled individuals instead of dashing heroes chosen by destiny. Because that's what I liked in 3ed D&D- it was heroic, but not too much. There's also the fact that I liked 3ed's opportunity for immersion in a world where PCs while extraordinary aren't special and unique. I also liked the fact that I wasn't expected to face "villains". I say "so far", as I could very well be wrong.

Oh for gods sakes. PCs are only special-er at first level because you can, if you wish, have 1st level minions, and because /nobody/ dies from one sword to the gut.

And seriously, what? DnD 3rd ed core pretty much only has support for fighting evil people. There's.. like a couple Good Dragons, and a tiny number of Celestials that were outnumbered by just Demons.


It's the difference bettween there being instakill all the time (i.e. with minions), or it being something that you start being able to do beyond a particular level. It doesn't mean anything if it's not a sign of sucess
....
So, the fact that they'll always instakill weak monsters in 3rd ed gets a free pass, but minions don't because some people want to be rewarded for their build? Wat? If all he cared about was the visceral thrill of the instakill, /he's going to get it/


Sales
Again, all things considered, I doubt it. The SRD should be enough to do most of it, if it's like 3rd ed in this regard. If you're being forced into playing somehow (I doubt it, on a personal level) then you'll probably be able to get necessary details out of someone else's PHB after doing most of it through the SRD.

[Morty]

How is that /not/ people who like 4e? 4e is what WotC came up with. You seem to be trying to argue that "The only audience that counts are the ones who like 3rd ed"

I'm not trying to "argue" anything. My only intention was to say that not all of those for whom 4ed was aimed like all what WoTC have done with it. Geez.


Oh for gods sakes. PCs are only special-er at first level because you can, if you wish, have 1st level minions, and because /nobody/ dies from one sword to the gut.

Are you talking about 3ed or 4ed here?


And seriously, what? DnD 3rd ed core pretty much only has support for fighting evil people. There's.. like a couple Good Dragons, and a tiny number of Celestials that were outnumbered by just Demons.

Possibly. It might be because when playing 3ed I was mostly operating on SRD(only consulting DMG for WBL and XP tables) and FRCS, disregarding fluff text. But still, 3ed didn't dismiss the option to worship evil gods and have evil alignment. My neutral-leaning-towards-evil campaign worked smoothly.

[Rutee]

Are you talking about 3ed or 4ed here?
4th. PCs aren't significantly more capable then even level monsters from what I've seen (But I've only skimmed the MM, to be fair). PCs are /more/ vulnerable to some realistic damage (You know how 3rd ed falling damage caps? Yeah, they stopped doing that. ..Not sure why.) Monsters have 1 Second Wind per encounter (More, as you go up in level), just as PCs do. Seriously, the only thing that by default makes PCs more special right off the bat is that Minions can be made as first level.



Possibly. It might be because when playing 3ed I was mostly operating on SRD(only consulting DMG for WBL and XP tables) and FRCS, disregarding fluff text. But still, 3ed didn't dismiss the option to worship evil gods and have evil alignment. My neutral-leaning-towards-evil campaign worked smoothly.

FRCS? That'd be Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting? And the third ed book did in fact dismiss it to the same extent. "In general, Evil Alignments are for villains and monsters" 4e just has shorter descriptions of the Evil Gods. Seriously, they are in the PHB, they just don't get a crest and have slightly less explanation.

[AKA_Bait]

So, the fact that they'll always instakill weak monsters in 3rd ed gets a free pass, but minions don't because some people want to be rewarded for their build? Wat? If all he cared about was the visceral thrill of the instakill, /he's going to get it/

No, see, it's having that moment of 'Damn I'm cool, now I can instakill things.' In 3.x, even though a PC could regularly instakill a monster way below CR they didn't face monsters way below CR very often, at least not in my games. So, when they got to a point where they could regularly kill things way below CR, and actually had that become clear in the course of play, it was a moment of badassness.

In 4e, players will be instakilling things from the get-go. Heck, there are minions in the very first encounter of KoS. The "Wow, I'm cool enough to one shot things now!" moment will never happen, since the character has always been that cool.


Sales.

Possiblty, but the books are out long before the SRD will be released if I recall correctly. Also, we dont' know what the GSL is going to look like and how much content will really be included.

[Rutee]

No, see, it's having that moment of 'Damn I'm cool, now I can instakill things.' In 4.0, even though a PC could regularly instakill an even level minion, they didn't face minions very often, at least not in my games. So, when they got to a point where they could regularly kill minions, and actually had that become clear in the course of play, it was a moment of badassness.
This illustrates why I don't grok the difference, at all, I think.


In 4e, players will be instakilling things from the get-go. Heck, there are minions in the very first encounter of KoS. The "Wow, I'm cool enough to one shot things now!" moment will never happen, since the character has always been that cool.
Only if you choose to have minions from the get go, and only if your player needed to feel they grew. I had a "Damn, that was awesome" reaction in the first session of my WotG game, when I trotted out a group of minions (Because I need to test the system >.>)


Possiblty, but the books are out long before the SRD will be released if I recall correctly. Also, we dont' know what the GSL is going to look like and how much content will really be included.
The altter is the most relevant, I think. There's always piracy and more relevantly, scrounging off other's books in the beginning.

[Myatar_Panwar]

It's the difference bettween there being instakill all the time (i.e. with minions), or it being something that you start being able to do beyond a particular level. It doesn't mean anything if it's not a sign of sucess.

Wait, you have to be a high level to 1-hit everything? Someone should tell the level-1 Orc Barbarian in my game that. :smallsmile:

[FoE]

I'm not trying to "argue" anything. My only intention was to say that not all of those for whom 4ed was aimed like all what WoTC have done with it. Geez.

You hit the nail on the head, Mort. It's accurate to say that 4th Edition isn't all things to all people. Those who like evil PCs got left out, and everyone who likes gnomes got left out (for the most part). And I guess it's prejudiced against people who don't like their games to be "PC-centric," though I have difficulty seeing their point, to be honest. But it's also streamlined in the hopes of achieving a greater appeal.

But hey, we're not here to solely discuss the strengths and weaknesses of 4E, we're here to talk about Minions. As I said before, I'm ready to agree the logic is inconsistent. But having listened to the points made above, here's my argument:

1) Throwing your party at hordes of foes is cool, but there is no reward in victory, even over huge numbers of foes, unless there is a challenge. True, Minions go down in one hit when they used to go down in two or three. But in exchange for sacrificing durability, they've been upgraded in terms of offence. They hit the PCs more readily instead of relying on natural 20s to deal damage. While it isn't logical, for those who can wrap their heads around it, it's the Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) applies. Unfortunately, everyone has different definitions of the rule, which TV Tropes itself states implicitly.

2) When we're talking about the "logic" of minions, let's remember that it's not exactly logical to throw mooks at the party who can't touch them either, as in the case of 3E mooks. Even Bond villains have the expectation of their henchman capturing or killing 007. And even if the local BBEG has no concern for the wellbeing of his followers, isn't he wasting manpower? It's really timeconsuming for him to slaughter a village by himself, after all. Fun, but there's a lot of villages in the world, and unless you're Cthulhu, it's going to take some time to take them all down singlehandedly. :smalltongue:

3) Yes, Minions are "made to die." So are most monsters, but that's besides the point. The fact is Minions are only as stupid and disposable as you make them. They aren't exempt from using tactics against the PCs, such as surrounding the PCs or luring them into a choke point. There's no rule against Minions being Tucker's Kobolds. Alternately, Minions can run if they're clearly outgunned.

4) I know it's some extra rules, but it's not that much more learning material to absorb. You've got a new system to learn anyways. And since the Minion rules are a tool to make a DM's life easier ... I would argue the extra workload is a moot point.

[Helgraf]

Agreed, mostly. However, I'll say this: there is something fundimentally awesome that gets lost with the minion ihp mechanic. It is this conversation:

DM: What's the minimum damage you can do?
Player: Um... 15.
DM: **exasperated sigh (a put on most of the time)** Don't even bother to roll damage against these guys. Just tell me if you hit.
Player: Nice.

Only, ya know, since you designed him from the core up to do this, where's the sudden surprise value in that it works?


Because your still made of flesh, and their weapons are still made of metal.
I always thought it was odd how an orc falchion crit at level one could drop you, but at level 20 the same blow will hardly drop you 1/20th your hit points.

I know its like, the foundation of rpg's to get tougher as you level up. But come on, that orc just slashed open your stomach, and somehow your still up.

It's the foundation to get _better_ as you level up. HP have _always_ been an abstraction. At lower levels, you're less able to turn aside deadly blows, so a single crit from said orc is far more likely to, in fact, kill you outright. At higher levels, though said orc can still hit you with his weapon, you know how to twist and turn to keep the blade out of your vital innards more effectively. Yes, some of it is additional 'pure tough', but you're heroes - a certain degree of additional tolerance to pain and wounds is generally presumed to come with the territory; but a lot of it is ephemerialzed benefits of having been doing what you do for so long that you sort of instinctively learn how to roll with blows to avoid the worst of them.

The biggest difference in 4th ed is that you start out with more of that instinct, based on the higher starting HP totals of the characters in KotS, for example. Not tons more, and there's enough additional danger and damage sources that you're still at reasonable risk at 1st level, but yeah, some.

And no, it's not a perfect system - but it never was. It's _always_ been an abstract on purpose - to try and keep things simple.


Sure, but that's okay once. When do the characters realise that all these tough monsters are following them around.

I mean, if we take the rate of evolution to be such that it's #2 on that list then the commoners should kill all adventurers before they make all the nasties stronger. (Paradox: that would just make the next group of adventurers tougher, which accelerates the evolution of the monsters...! Oh no!).

It's all part of this idea that the entire world exists only for the benefit of some special people called "player characters". I think it just breaks the illusion of playing a real person.

But the fact of the matter is that to some extent it does - or else we wouldn't focus on the actions of those player characters almost exclusively. You can say all you want about how it's not realistic, but the fact is, the PCs are special because you devote attention to them. For better or worse, they become larger writ in the world's stories precisely because that is the nature of a scalar game - that which is focused on, thrives (unless, of course, it's a killing focus, but that's an entirely different DMing style).

We, as people, only have a limited time to devote to these worlds and these games. Therefore, no matter how 'unfair' it may seem, we have to focus on what we have to work with - and that means the players' characters and the things they do and the people they do them to and with.

It is, frankly, simple to prove however that this focus doesn't make them the perfect immovable center. After all, characters die. Sometime nobly, epically and dramatically - and sometimes ignobly, alone and uncelebrated - and yes, sometimes even in manners though tragic for being death that are still, let's face it, damn funny in retrospect.

The characters are the focus because that's the way our limited time for investing in these worlds with one another works. But you as the DM _always_ have the tools to demonstrate that the world, though they can change it, is, in the end, a bigger place, a place which is not theirs alone.

It's as simple as stories in taverns and villages of other heroes, ones the players have never met (or, if you use the same world for multiple campaigns, it could just as easily be the stories of one of your other gaming groups, and their heroics). So what that they're NPCs? That doesn't stop them from doing heroic deeds, even if the system as written suggests they won't be quite as 'efficent' at it. Heck, if it _were_ somehow in character knowledge that some people have this PC destiny advantage, that means those heroes who succeed without it might be all the more lauded for succeeding without the special bonuses.

It is not difficult to do this. I've been doing this for decades now (well, okay, almost 2 decades, and playing for about 2 and a half). It's just being able to adapt your mindset. The system is there, but it's only as limiting on you as you permit it to be.

[nagora]

But the fact of the matter is that to some extent it does - or else we wouldn't focus on the actions of those player characters almost exclusively. You can say all you want about how it's not realistic, but the fact is, the PCs are special because you devote attention to them.

I don't know if you intended to specifically put it that way but you've put your finger on the difference. For me, we devote attention to the PCs because they are special - they're the heroes/villains, not the other people. I don't make the PCs special by looking at them and the world around them does not change because they are there. That's the exact problem I have with a lot of the post-1ed changes and minion rules.

[Helgraf]

I don't know if you intended to specifically put it that way but you've put your finger on the difference. For me, we devote attention to the PCs because they are special - they're the heroes/villains, not the other people. I don't make the PCs special by looking at them and the world around them does not change because they are there. That's the exact problem I have with a lot of the post-1ed changes and minion rules.

To me the difference is semantics. They're the 'heroes' (or villians, as I'm sure someone is already running an 'Evil' game just because they can even if WotC is leaning against that style) because we're taking the time as you and me and Jim and Sarah to play the game and represent them. If we weren't, there would be no game, nobody being focused on. Nothing happening. Storytelling instead of roleplaying, at best. The PCs are special because the players are taking those roles and boring your players is a sure way to make your game fail/end. People don't generally play in a game that's boring and promises to remain boring without change, or that's only exciting so very rarely out of the most of the time.

Maybe someone plays a game of "Complete Commoner" D&D once in a while as a one shot or short-lived campaign precisely to be different - but it sure ain't the spirit in which the game was generally designed. The PCs will always be special in the sense that they'll just about always be the actors on camera, and thus it makes sense that important things will occur to and around them.

Yes, I know there's the other school of thought, but when you boil it down, you don't play D&D to spend hours watching passively the actions of the rest of the world.

Also, if the world around your heroes doesn't change because of the actions they're taking, then it would seem they're failing at their efforts.

[Raum]

To me the difference is semantics. They're the 'heroes' (or villians, as I'm sure someone is already running an 'Evil' game just because they can even if WotC is leaning against that style) because we're taking the time as you and me and Jim and Sarah to play the game and represent them. If we weren't, there would be no game, nobody being focused on. Nothing happening. Storytelling instead of roleplaying, at best. The PCs are special because the players are taking those roles and boring your players is a sure way to make your game fail/end. People don't generally play in a game that's boring and promises to remain boring without change, or that's only exciting so very rarely out of the most of the time.It's not necessarily just semantics. Consider the settings where many of the NPCs were as powerful or possibly more powerful than the PCs - Planescape and even Faerun come to mind. The PCs don't necessarily stand out from NPCs in terms of power, they may even be eclipsed. They're simply the focus of events which may (or may not) be able to affect some of the larger events happening around them. It's still a game and may have role playing even if they can't stop the war between demons and devils. The PCs don't need to be 'special' to be interesting.

-----
From what I've seen, many of the arguments may revolve around play style preferences. Fourth edition seems to be headed for a pulpier over the top style. It's hard to play a gritty game when opponents can be mowed through and combats are extended into additional rounds.

That doesn't make the game bad for everything, just makes it less of a choice for certain play styles.

[Realms of Chaos]

A bit surprisingly, the seemingly opposed nature of minions with 1 hp and other creatures with more HP makes sense to me. In encounters against one larger creature, the math was already uncomplicated so Wizards tried to make the battles last longer. In encounters against minor, insignificant foes, the amount of math needed to tally several HP counts was deemed unnecessary, leading to the development of the Minion.

At one level, it seems completely nonsensical that two creatures of about the same power (both the normal and the minion) could have such varying degrees of hit points.

At another level, it is still fully possible to use mooks if you want them. Nobody is stopping you from making level 1 orc figthers and lining them up in a hallway. If you are still using these orcs when the party gets to the point where they can off them in one shot anyway, just replace them with minions.

If you really want to keep your players from killing your minions with random pebbles (in other words, give them a "stoopid shield"), simply grant them DR 1/- or DR 1/magic (or whatever the equivalent is in 4e). If you want, up this to DR 2/- or DR 2/magic Simple fix.

If you want to keep away the chore of tallying hp totals but want your minions to stay tough, try adding this ability to some or all of your minions, adapted from castle ravenloft.

Hard to Kill (Ex): Whenever a - would take damage from a melee or ranged attack, roll 1d20. On a result of 11 or higher, the - ignores all damage.

If you add this ability to minions that appear in smaller groups (like the two minions that may be guarding a door), the battle actually continues longer while not taking forever to tally hp scores. I don't recommend this approach for mass groups of minions as it will take forever for your party to win and your party will take a beating in the mean time.

[Jorkens]

At one level, it seems completely nonsensical that two creatures of about the same power (both the normal and the minion) could have such varying degrees of hit points.

At another level, it is still fully possible to use mooks if you want them. Nobody is stopping you from making level 1 orc figthers and lining them up in a hallway. If you are still using these orcs when the party gets to the point where they can off them in one shot anyway, just replace them with minions.

I thought the whole idea was that a minion version of a monster should only be used if the party would probably one-shot the normal version anyway?

[Indon]

If your characters keep hanging around places where there are only level 1 kobolds, then they can just keep killing them. You don't even need to roll it out, you can handwave the encounters.
And if they stay there some more, they might get kinda bored, combat-wise.

Now you're ignoring when the game tells you to set encounters to the party's level - and, in mine and Nagora's view, rightly doing so.

That's pretty much all I'm arguing for, really. Calibrating encounters shouldn't be necessary because the party will gravitate towards appropriate encounters. To tell DM's to do it is only going to encourage a poor style of DM'ing.

[Helgraf]

It's not necessarily just semantics. Consider the settings where many of the NPCs were as powerful or possibly more powerful than the PCs - Planescape and even Faerun come to mind. The PCs don't necessarily stand out from NPCs in terms of power, they may even be eclipsed. They're simply the focus of events which may (or may not) be able to affect some of the larger events happening around them. It's still a game and may have role playing even if they can't stop the war between demons and devils. The PCs don't need to be 'special' to be interesting.

Ahh, herein I think lies the difference. The PCs are special because they're the focus of events - they're going to be what's interesting. It was not my intent to imply there's nobody out there more powerful than them; it's a guarantee that there will be creatures and people more powerful than them at first, and a high likelyhood that the trend will continue across the majority of the level axis.

Special, to my mind, does not mean "best in the world". My argument, however, is that the PCs will always be important precisely because they're the media through which your players interact with the world; if things aren't happening to them or they're not causing things to happen, the _players_ are likely to lose interest, at which point the game itself folds. This is the core reasoning behind my statement that the game does, in fact, revolve around the players, and by extension the world will as well. It may well have all sorts of things going on in the background, but central camera is always going to be on them and their exploits.

[Helgraf]

Now you're ignoring when the game tells you to set encounters to the party's level - and, in mine and Nagora's view, rightly doing so.

That's pretty much all I'm arguing for, really. Calibrating encounters shouldn't be necessary because the party will gravitate towards appropriate encounters. To tell DM's to do it is only going to encourage a poor style of DM'ing.

Encounter calibration is a tool, not a straightjacket. It tells you about what kind of monsters you should use _for a level appropriate encounter for your PCs_. I don't believe it explictly states anywhere that you're wrong if your group chooses to remain in an area with creatures that are dead simple for them to kill, and therefore you keep throwing under-levelled encounters at them. After all, eventually they'll get bored of the lack of challenge and the subpar experience - or they'll successfully complete their localized genocide and move on. At which point, you can use encounter calibration if you haven't already decided to get some reasonable ideas about what to face them against when they enter someplace new.

[AKA_Bait]

Only, ya know, since you designed him from the core up to do this, where's the sudden surprise value in that it works?

There is a differnce bettween designing something to do a particular thing and finding out that your design actually works... the latter emotionally justifies the work put into the former.

[nagora]

To me the difference is semantics. They're the 'heroes' (or villians, as I'm sure someone is already running an 'Evil' game just because they can even if WotC is leaning against that style) because we're taking the time as you and me and Jim and Sarah to play the game and represent them.

*Purely 1ed perspective here, some of this is meaningless in later editions*: Most people have no potential to become the great figures at all, no matter what they do or how important it is to them. Such people will always be the peasants looking to hire the samurai. Some others have the potential, and some of course have already achieved that status. The core concept in AD&D as regards the PCs is that they are a group of people with the potential and the game is "about" their path either to greatness or to failure. They are "special" but it is initially a very low level of specialness - it is simply that they may one day become really special.

A lot of the design philosophy in 3ed and now 4ed is that the PCs are very special from the get-go. In fact, whole aspects of reality warp when they are in a place. Nasties get tougher, minions appear, time itself starts to act in very odd ways so that the PCs can do special actions as needed. More and more, the world is designed to revolve around the PCs.

The older style of play was that the world was out there and the PCs had to go and interact with it. If they chose to attack something that they clearly couldn't handle then the DM might hint to them as to what they were doing was foolish but that was as far as they were supposed to go and the dice fell where they might.

The wilderness, for example, was full of pregressively tougher monsters the further one went from civilisation. Those monsters were what they were and if you were a foolish 1st level character poking around the darkest corner of the Great Swamp then you were unlikely ever to come home, CR be damned!


Yes, I know there's the other school of thought, but when you boil it down, you don't play D&D to spend hours watching passively the actions of the rest of the world.
Absolutely. You need to go out and make your mark on the world, not have it tied up in gift-wrap and carefully delvered to your door on a carefully controlled "x encounters per day; y days per level; z minions per Boss" conveyor belt.


Also, if the world around your heroes doesn't change because of the actions they're taking, then it would seem they're failing at their efforts.
But the world we're discussing here does not change because of their actions, it changes because of the mechanical changes that happen to their character sheets. That's not the same thing at all.

[Dervag]

Nintendo Hard is all about arbitrary danger - why exactly does touching the tin opener before I've found the tuna kill me? Early editions of AD&D generally tried to give a much more "just" level of danger - if you think about what you're doing you should be able to work out that it's dangerous; if you don't then it's your own fault.

Tunnels and Trolls was much more into Nintendo Hard, as was the satirical Paranoia.I understand, and I didn't object to the difficulty then and don't now.

But reasonable people could. So while you can say "3rd/4th Edition takes out all the fun be taking out the danger," it makes just as much sense to say "1st/2nd Edition spoiled the fun with arbitrary risks handwaved in by a sadistic uber-DM."

A lot of those risks were arbitrary. Yes, it kinda makes sense that an attempt to resurrect a dead person might fail, and that it would be more likely to fail for someone with lower constitution. But it isn't a priori obvious that it should be that way, as it is that a strong person can carry more weight than a weak person or that a giant can withstand more punishment than an ordinary man.


Sure, but that's okay once. When do the characters realise that all these tough monsters are following them around.

I mean, if we take the rate of evolution to be such that it's #2 on that list then the commoners should kill all adventurers before they make all the nasties stronger. (Paradox: that would just make the next group of adventurers tougher, which accelerates the evolution of the monsters...! Oh no!).

It's all part of this idea that the entire world exists only for the benefit of some special people called "player characters". I think it just breaks the illusion of playing a real person.I don't think that works inevitably.

As a general rule, the DM should not explicitly send you to fight the same monster twice at different levels without changing the monster. If they do, then you should beat the monster easily.

But think about this. Nobody is surprised that at 1st level you can fight street toughs and win with difficulty and still be having a hard time against the human Imperial Guard at 10th level. "But they're still humans! Humans are a challenge only to 1st level adventurers!" would be a silly complaint. Some humans are tougher, better equipped, or more magically enhanced than others.

Why should kobolds be any different? Yes, you fought ordinary kobolds at first level and the Elite Bescaled Dragon Warriors of Krogoth the Malicious at tenth. Why? Because at first level you hadn't ticked off Krogoth the Malicious enough to get him to come gunning for you with his Elite Warriors.

Likewise, you can kill an ordinary black bear at 3rd level and still have trouble with a mutant super-Dire Bear at 7th level, and so on. And that's what we're talking about. When you scale up a monster you're scaling its abilities up for a reason, and that reason is to provide a credible challenge for a more powerful character.

That doesn't mean all the monsters in the universe have gotten tougher, only that the specific monsters the PCs are fighting are tougher because they've gained tougher enemies and taken on tougher assignments. The farmers back in Hamletville still only have to worry about ordinary kobolds (the ones you didn't kill). But because you were brave enough to venture into the Mountains of Terror, you are now facing much tougher kobolds. The ones the farmers tell stories about to scare their children.

[Helgraf]

*Purely 1ed perspective here, some of this is meaningless in later editions*: Most people have no potential to become the great figures at all, no matter what they do or how important it is to them. Such people will always be the peasants looking to hire the samurai. Some others have the potential, and some of course have already achieved that status. The core concept in AD&D as regards the PCs is that they are a group of people with the potential and the game is "about" their path either to greatness or to failure. They are "special" but it is initially a very low level of specialness - it is simply that they may one day become really special.

A lot of the design philosophy in 3ed and now 4ed is that the PCs are very special from the get-go. In fact, whole aspects of reality warp when they are in a place. Nasties get tougher, minions appear, time itself starts to act in very odd ways so that the PCs can do special actions as needed. More and more, the world is designed to revolve around the PCs.

The older style of play was that the world was out there and the PCs had to go and interact with it. If they chose to attack something that they clearly couldn't handle then the DM might hint to them as to what they were doing was foolish but that was as far as they were supposed to go and the dice fell where they might.

The wilderness, for example, was full of pregressively tougher monsters the further one went from civilisation. Those monsters were what they were and if you were a foolish 1st level character poking around the darkest corner of the Great Swamp then you were unlikely ever to come home, CR be damned!


Absolutely. You need to go out and make your mark on the world, not have it tied up in gift-wrap and carefully delvered to your door on a carefully controlled "x encounters per day; y days per level; z minions per Boss" conveyor belt.


But the world we're discussing here does not change because of their actions, it changes because of the mechanical changes that happen to their character sheets. That's not the same thing at all.

Hold up. Recommendations are recommendations, firstly. As I've pointed out in another reply, the encounter optimization stuff is a tool, not a straightjacket. Yes, if your characters are dumb enough to go where they've been told they'll get their asses handed to them (whether directly or through proxy based on rumours and such they've heard), then they will face creatures of higher levels than they can handle and very likely get killed, or at the least, severely injured, humiliated and forced to flee. Also, they wouldn't meet minions (of any level) in a place that dangerous. They'd run into elites or solos who would mash them to goo. So no issues of 'lucky shotting a minion 6 levels above them' because the DM should know better than to use minions in a circumstance _where they don't belong_.

Nothing says "you must make sure to keep player's characters from dying from their own stupidity". Nothing.

The encounter optimization tools are handy for giving you a reasonable idea of what to toss your players way when you want inspiration but don't want to accidentally steamroll them. It's a far more elegant interpretation than the CR/EL system ever was, and you can still use it and a fully versimilituded world together. WotC isn't going to come to your house and burn your copies of the books because of it.

Nothing about the caution inherent in exploring a dark and dangerous wilderness has been lost in this 'points of light' 4th edition idea - hell, the points of light reinforce the whole idea that the farther you get from the few safe places on the map, the harder and more dangerous the world is going to be. Just because monsters have been categorized into minion, 'default', elite, solo, whathaveyou doesn't mean you are at all ever required to suddenly dumb or or remove the monsters that are out there anyway. There is absolutely nothign wrong with putting a tribe of earth giants with x many monsters, y many elites, and maybe a solo or two out in the Dismal Swamp with their alligator allies, and letting them devour utterly the PCs who disregard the warnings of the dangers out there and I'm wagering nothing about how 4th edition is designed says otherwise.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the encounter tools are just that _tools_ you can use to make things easier for yourself or springboard some ideas _while allowing you to maintain a safety net_. You're never obligated to use that safety net - like any other toolkit game system, you can use it or ignore it as best suits your DMing style.

[nagora]

A lot of those risks were arbitrary. Yes, it kinda makes sense that an attempt to resurrect a dead person might fail, and that it would be more likely to fail for someone with lower constitution. But it isn't a priori obvious that it should be that way, as it is that a strong person can carry more weight than a weak person or that a giant can withstand more punishment than an ordinary man.
But it is clear to anyone interested in designing a game with challenges in the vein of heroic fantasy that death has to have some sting; that a role-playing system that allows characters to have "infinite goes" will be about as interesting for long-term play as a video game which has been hacked to allow the same thing.

So, from that point the constitution rules flow fairly naturally, I think.

Mind you, any player who gets their character killed 12+ times probably should try something else :smallwink:

[RukiTanuki]

Personally, I'd be harvesting a lot more entertainment out of all these 4e discussions if they didn't keep devolving to the same tepid de-evolution to the extremes. To wit:

"I don't treat my NPCs and monsters as bundles of XP that exist with the sole purpose of being killed and looted."
No one's claiming they do treat their NPCs that way. Some people just need the mechanics to resolve mechanics-based actions, and roleplay the rest. Some people start with the character, than derive the mechanics. Some people use the mechanics to derive the character. Some people are just not happy unless the steps they take to create the character closely parallel the chronological acquisition of that NPC's power and abilities from his/her own perspective. It's terribly conceited to assume that any of these are better than the others, and it's just plain rude to defend yourself by countering that others aren't roleplaying at all just because they don't like their mechanics with the same simulation-oriented (or -disoriented) bent you prefer.