[4e] Minions, how to use them

[FdL]

I've read two different contrasting opinions on the use of minions in 4e combats by DMs. One side is against letting the players know which monsters/enemies are minions, while the other side thinks the players should know which of the enemies are minions.

I wanted to gauge people's opinions here, to gain more insight of the topic.

Personally I'm with those DMs who are against letting players know. I think it's letting too much metagaming take over your game when you let the players peek into a part of the rules that exists precisely to help the combats flow and also as a pseudo-narrative element in combat.

Now, while minions are statistically fragile, cannon-fodder like enemies, they still are a tangible threat to the PCs, as they can actually inflict considerable damage, and their numbers only help.

I consider telling players which of the enemies are minions to be the same as clearly pointing to them which monsters are solos or elites or whatnot, which combat roles they represent and even how many HPs they have.

The opposite reasoning supports their side with stuff like saying "metagaming is an integral part of the 4e experience", mentioning the importance of players being able to accurately manage their combat resources (and thus not waste them on "cannon fodder"), and a use of minions as a narrative device in combat that I personally see as condescending and shallow (ie, I've been told that one practice is to "put all minions together in an area to let the controller blast them all together").

There's nowhere in the core books that encourages this practice of expliciting which enemies are minions. On the contrary, the spirit of the system and the edition tends to indicate the opposite. Myself I like to interpret that in places like the "Tips from the Pros" sidebar in page 54 of the DMG, though I still think it's fairly obvious.

I've been referred by someone to read how they are used in official published adventures like KotS, which I haven't had the opportunity to DM, play or read yet. Besides the fact that they may be used as a pseudo-narrative device in combat, which they are, I've yet to see just the flow of action and the coherence of the system would benefit from expliciting these monsters' role and nature, because everything points that it would only to contribute precisely to what people criticizes about 4e, that is, videogame-like mechanicity and overemphasis in cold, calculating strategy.

[Saph]

I think it's a moot point, as once the players have a little bit of experience with 4e combat, they'll be able to guess quickly whether they're facing minions just by counting the number of enemies. Also, minions are usually going to look more basic than monsters with special equipment and abilities.

I like to turn it into part of the game. Describe minions in in-universe style, and let the PCs figure out which ones are monsters and which ones are minions. Due to the nature of 4e combat, players will quickly start thinking about monsters in terms of 'minion', 'basic', and 'elite/solo', and will get good at categorising the enemies fast.

- Saph

[Kyeudo]

While I don't think you should go "These goblins are the minions," your players should clue up pretty fast when you say "There are 2 hobgoblins and 8 goblins" and then the goblins go down in one swing.

So long as your minions are consistant, i.e. when they are fighting ogres all the orcs you use are minions (minus a few special characters like the orc chieftan), then you can have both. The players can have an accurate idea of which enemies are worth using an encounter power on while still maintaining verisimilitude.

[Gralamin]

I've read two different contrasting opinions on the use of minions in 4e combats by DMs. One side is against letting the players know which monsters/enemies are minions, while the other side thinks the players should know which of the enemies are minions.

I wanted to gauge people's opinions here, to gain more insight of the topic.

Personally I'm with those DMs who are against letting players know. I think it's letting too much metagaming take over your game when you let the players peek into a part of the rules that exists precisely to help the combats flow and also as a pseudo-narrative element in combat.
To be fair, minions tend to look slightly differently then other creatures. A Kobold minion and a dragonshield are easy to tell apart, and as soon as one dies, it should be relativly easy for the players to know which is which.


Now, while minions are statistically fragile, cannon-fodder like enemies, they still are a tangible threat to the PCs, as they can actually inflict considerable damage, and their numbers only help.

I consider telling players which of the enemies are minions to be the same as clearly pointing to them which monsters are solos or elites or whatnot, which combat roles they represent and even how many HPs they have.

The opposite reasoning supports their side with stuff like saying "metagaming is an integral part of the 4e experience", mentioning the importance of players being able to accurately manage their combat resources (and thus not waste them on "cannon fodder"), and a use of minions as a narrative device in combat that I personally see as condescending and shallow (ie, I've been told that one practice is to "put all minions together in an area to let the controller blast them all together").
I have honestly never heard that "metagaming is an integral part of the 4e experience". However, its possible for a skilled combatant to know how much of a threat a creature is to them based on their looks, thus it makes sense if they know "He'll go down in one hit" or not. Minions will generally follow appropriate tactics, most of which involve surrounding enemies to put their numbers to the best use. (Like Zerglings in Starcraft. This sometimes allows a controller type like say a siege tank, to kill all the minions by hurting an ally.)


There's nowhere in the core books that encourages this practice of expliciting which enemies are minions. On the contrary, the spirit of the system and the edition tends to indicate the opposite. Myself I like to interpret that in places like the "Tips from the Pros" sidebar in page 54 of the DMG, though I still think it's fairly obvious.
The Tips from the Pros sidebar just states some encounters its easy to tell what the big threat is, while others its more difficult. Both have different tactics.


I've been referred by someone to read how they are used in official published adventures like KotS, which I haven't had the opportunity to DM, play or read yet. Besides the fact that they may be used as a pseudo-narrative device in combat, which they are, I've yet to see just the flow of action and the coherence of the system would benefit from expliciting these monsters' role and nature, because everything points that it would only to contribute precisely to what people criticizes about 4e, that is, videogame-like mechanicity and overemphasis in cold, calculating strategy.

It is very easy to find out which are mooks and which isn't by simple analysis. Its only really a waste of time to not tell anyone. Plus strategy and tactics are interesting to some players (such as thinkers), who will just figure out which are the minions quickly anyway.

[Myatar_Panwar]

Does anyone have any advice for playing Minions as the DM? In my experience, they usually all go down before doing much at all, not nearly as much as a normal monster of appropriate experience would do (i.e 1 200xp > 4 50xp). I like the idea, just looking for suggestions on how to run them.

[Edea]

One problem with Minions is that they tend to appear in very large groups...which is kind of the point, but due to the way XP budgets work when the DM creates encounters, you generally are either going to be fighting a smaller (~no. of party members or so) normal enemies, one or two elites with a minion retinue, a Solo, or a fair number of different normal enemies with a horde of virtually identical minions.

This problem is exacerbated by the (pretty much) fact that you need a map with player and enemy counters to play. The only way to stop that from having an effect is to make all the monster counters the same...and that gets confusing, fast.

Due to this, unless you play Monster Roulette when crafting encounters, it's very easy to pick out which enemies are supposed to be minions:

*Note the ones that are the most plentiful.
*Pick one of those and hit it with an at-will power (preferably high-accuracy, low-damage, and at range; CoD is good for this). If the target falls, you have your Minion type for that fight.
*If the target does not fall from being hit the first time, you assess how many monsters there actually are.
*If there's the same number of them as you (+/- 1), stick around and fight.
*If there's 2 or more enemies than you have party members and the most plentiful enemy type isn't a Minion, chances are high you need to retreat, because that probably means either the DM's overspent his XP budget or the Challenge is supposed to be way higher in level than your current party (see: Irontooth fight).

At least that's what I've noticed from playing, so far.

[Totally Guy]

I had an encounter in which I'd described a goblin hexer and his warrior minions. When a player hit one and it didn't die he said "I thought you said it was a minion..." And then I had to explain that I meant minion in a strictly heirachical sense and not the minion mechanic.

I think it should be secret and I don't think all the minions should "look the same" or look like obvious minions else the minions are taken for granted. Minions represent the guy that just happens to drop dead from a lucky fatal blow, the fact that these odds of the unlucky individual are controlled by the DM is by no means an invitation for the player to kill them first.

Best throw an minion or two into a larger group else it just looks like an obvious mechanic.

[DMfromTheAbyss]

Well as far as official sources go, there was the Penny Arcade podcast. It had a WOTC official DM explaining things as he went.

In the Podcast I seem to remember the players basically thinking they were screwed when a ton of skeletons attacked them. Some were described as more damaged looking "dusty" and falling apart than others. They turned out to be minions. Aside from actually explaining the concept of minions AFTER the first one went down, there was no explicit declaration of them being minions as such in their description. That being said a big hint was given by their description, but it was not an "oh these guys are minions don't worry about them" at the begginning of the battle.

I'd say minions should be described by what they look like... not their combat role. If the players (and characters) figure out the guys with the red armbands (or any other descriptive term they have in common)are take downable in one solid hit, hey more power to them.

[ImperiousLeader]

I find my PCs figure out who's a minion and who's not relatively quickly, so I don't put a lot of effort into hiding it. I'm more interested in how DMs use them in encounter design, the party I'm DMing has both a wizard and a dragonborn warlord, I'm finding minions rarely scratch the paint of my PCs anymore.

[Saph]

Does anyone have any advice for playing Minions as the DM? In my experience, they usually all go down before doing much at all, not nearly as much as a normal monster of appropriate experience would do (i.e 1 200xp > 4 50xp). I like the idea, just looking for suggestions on how to run them.

The XP budget rules aren't always balanced. Some monsters are tougher than their XP values indicate, some are easier. Minions are easier. 4 minions are always less dangerous than 1 basic monster, because the minions lose power as they take hits, while the basic monster doesn't.

The best way to handle this is just to bump up the minion numbers; add a few more and let the PCs have the extra XP. Most players enjoy killing minions, so it's not really a problem.

At high levels minions become a joke because of the number of blast and burst effects the party has access too, and there's really nothing you can do about it. The wizard sneezes and a third of the minions die.

- Saph

[DMfromTheAbyss]

Remember with minions they should still be level appropriate, and thus have defenses that the players won't hit "Too" easily. If they're missed they don't go down in one shot. (well they go down in one hit... not one attack)

That and Intermingle the minions with non-minions and have them not move in nicely targetable groups (like soldiers in WW2... spread out a bit... skirmish formation makes it harder for one lucky artillery blast to take out the whole squad).

Instead of taking out your nicely stacked 9 minions with a blast 3, make em only able to hit 3 or four depending on positioning (keep them 5 feet from each other except when they're surrounding an enemy, and even then try to flank and stay on different sides as much as possible.

Just my take on it.

[FdL]

It's not a matter of the players not knowing, because yes, they may eventually learn which ones are minions once they attack them. Or they may not. In any case, that's still metagaming mentality kicking in.

From the point of view of a player, sometimes it could be hard to distinguish whether they've just killed a regular monster with a powerful hit or that it was a minion. I like that idea, because then the minion is fullfilling its role.

On the description side of things, well, I'm not against describing them as a slightly weaker version of the enemies, but it does cheapen it a bit. It makes me think that inasmuch you are basing the description on the fact that they go down in one hit, it's the wrong way to do it. The fact that they have roughly the same damaging potential as a regular low level monster, and thus pose a similar threat should weight more IMHO.

I also think that the fact that players get used to the mechanics is not necessarily a good thing. Everything is more exciting and works better when you find it for the first time, 4e has this advantage. I'm of the opinion that players shouldn't really read the Monster Manual for this very reason, it can spoil the fun that is aimed at them.


I had an encounter in which I'd described a goblin hexer and his warrior minions. When a player hit one and it didn't die he said "I thought you said it was a minion..." And then I had to explain that I meant minion in a strictly heirachical sense and not the minion mechanic.

I think it should be secret and I don't think all the minions should "look the same" or look like obvious minions else the minions are taken for granted. Minions represent the guy that just happens to drop dead from a lucky fatal blow, the fact that these odds of the unlucky individual are controlled by the DM is by no means an invitation for the player to kill them first.

Best throw an minion or two into a larger group else it just looks like an obvious mechanic.

Yours is the post that best reflects my personal position.

[Saph]

It's not a matter of the players not knowing, because yes, they may eventually learn which ones are minions once they attack them. Or they may not. In any case, that's still metagaming mentality kicking in.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way to avoid that. What you call metagaming is too closely tied in to 4e combat.

4e PCs want to use their blast and burst powers on minions; they want to use their encounter powers on basic monsters; they want to use their dailies on elites or solos. The system penalises them for not doing so; a fight where the PCs don't recognise which monsters are which is much harder to win.


From the point of view of a player, sometimes it could be hard to distinguish whether they've just killed a regular monster with a powerful hit or that it was a minion. I like that idea, because then the minion is fullfilling its role.

I'm afraid any player with a little experience under his belt is not going to find it hard to distinguish at all. Minions go down in one hit; regular monsters never do (well, not unless you hit them with one hell of a powerful shot and get a lucky damage roll to boot). If you really want to blur the line between minions and ordinary monsters, you'll probably find it easiest to stick with 3.5.

- Saph

[CarpeGuitarrem]

You could do something like...

Have the minions and regular monsters together. Don't tell them which is which. Roll passive insight or perception checks for the PCs. With high enough successes, they'll realize details about the monsters, including how tough they are.

[Starsinger]

I find minions at high levels to be useless. Maybe it's because a handful of our characters have very large aoe radii attacks but it just seems that there's little point in using them anymore. Maybe if the party were all single target attackers it'd be different, but as it stands minions are apparently useless.

[Starbuck_II]

As soon as a Minion Crits I declare that: it just hit no extra damage, it was a minion.

Otherwise, I don't distinguish them by Role verbally.

Sure, they might figure it out when it hits for non rolled damage, but that is up to Players.

[Skyserpent]

You could do something like...

Have the minions and regular monsters together. Don't tell them which is which. Roll passive insight or perception checks for the PCs. With high enough successes, they'll realize details about the monsters, including how tough they are.

The problem there, I think, is that now you're going to be bogging down combat with rolls that could just as easily be used to... say... attack. At which point with even one success you figure out whether what you're attacking is a minion or not.

[Saph]

As soon as a Minion Crits I declare that: it just hit no extra damage, it was a minion.

Otherwise, I don't distinguish them by Role verbally.

Sure, they might figure it out when it hits for non rolled damage, but that is up to Players.

Not 'might', 'will'. And again, the players really don't need you to point out which ones are minions. As soon as you put 10 enemies on the tabletop they know most are minions - well, either that or they're facing an impossibly difficult encounter. Edea summed it up pretty well earlier.

- Saph

[FdL]

Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way to avoid that. What you call metagaming is too closely tied in to 4e combat.


This seems to be the point of view I'm referring when I quote that some DMs think that "metagaming is an integral part of the 4e experience".



4e PCs want to use their blast and burst powers on minions; they want to use their encounter powers on basic monsters; they want to use their dailies on elites or solos. The system penalises them for not doing so; a fight where the PCs don't recognise which monsters are which is much harder to win.


I don't think this is so much the case, that it doesn't have to be just so calculated.



I'm afraid any player with a little experience under his belt is not going to find it hard to distinguish at all. Minions go down in one hit; regular monsters never do (well, not unless you hit them with one hell of a powerful shot and get a lucky damage roll to boot).

What I'm referring to is precisely the situation when an attack is so powerful that the player wouldn't know whether what he just killed is a minion or a standard monster.



If you really want to blur the line between minions and ordinary monsters, you'll probably find it easiest to stick with 3.5.


Well, no, on the contrary, I'd implement minions on 3.5 too. I've read that some DMs do in some combat scenerys.

By the way, I am writing this from an unequivocal perspective that I prefer 4e to 3.5 and I'd rather play 4e D&D. In the light of this, suggesting me to stick to 3.5 is not an option, sorry.

[Saph]

I don't think this is so much the case, that it doesn't have to be just so calculated.

It doesn't have to be the case. But the system rewards you for distinguishing between monster types and penalises you for not doing so. It's a bit unfair to get unhappy at players just for paying attention to the game rules.


What I'm referring to is precisely the situation when an attack is so powerful that the player wouldn't know whether what he just killed is a minion or a standard monster.

One-shotting a basic monster is very very very unlikely. About the only time it happens is when you target a low-HP monster with a high-damage power and roll a natural 20. That might happen, what, one fight in 10? I've yet to see it, anyway.


Well, no, on the contrary, I'd implement minions on 3.5 too. I've read that some DMs do in some combat scenerys.

By the way, I am writing this from an unequivocal perspective that I prefer 4e to 3.5 and I'd rather play 4e D&D. In the light of this, suggesting me to stick to 3.5 is not an option, sorry.

That's fine, but it's just not realistic to use creatures with 1 HP in a system that has a strong focus on tactical combat and then seriously expect players not to pick up on it. The first few combats, sure. But after that? It's not going to happen unless the players are totally uninterested in combat tactics and the system rules.

- Saph

[Aron Times]

I find that minions are most effective when used to flank with elites or solos. Giving an elite or solo +2 to attacks really hurts.

[Edea]

I find that minions are most effective when used to flank with elites or solos. Giving an elite or solo +2 to attacks really hurts.

Hehe, I don't think you're supposed to have any Minions with Solo monsters :smallyuk:. Elites, sure, and that's one of the expected monster formations.

[ImperiousLeader]

Eh, if you use a lower level solo than your party ... a few minions might work.

I've yet to really use a solo, as I've only got 4 PCs and they just hit level 3. I'm planning a dragon, but adding minions might swamp them.

[Morty]

Hehe, I don't think you're supposed to have any Minions with Solo monsters :smallyuk:. Elites, sure, and that's one of the expected monster formations.

If you're fighting a Solo monster of lower level than you are, it's fine to have some other monsters to fill up target XP reward. It's even in example encounters in MM.

[wodan46]

Remember that encounters can be designed for characters 1-3 levels higher and still be beatable. For players in a well rounded party with good tactics, encounters at the same level are little more than a healing surge tax, so that when they face off vs. the high level encounters, they may not have surges to lean back on.

Also remember that combat against non Solos should be pretty much over at the end of the 3 round, regardless of whose winning, with the only question being how many healing surges get used up (if winning) or how many party members get away (if losing). So minions really don't need that much staying power.

Declare that Minions, if hit by autodamage, instead treat it as though you are making a basic attack on them, with failure equaling death.

You can also add +1-2-3-4-5-6 to their defenses depending on if they are level [1-5][6-10][11-15][16-20][21-25][26-30]. That should make them harder to take down with unconcentrated fire from Controllers.

[Falrin]

Put a decent striker between your minions.

My go the Tank is surrounded!
Don't worry, they're only minions.
Tank goes down by striker blow.

Once or twice at the start of a campaign can keep the players on their toes for a long time. And it's a good striker tactic anyway.

[MartinHarper]

I won't tell my players, because I want my players to have the pleasure of working out which monsters are minions, and thus feel clever.

[wodan46]

As said before, while the Brutes and Soldiers and Casters in the enemy force are going to be pretty obvious, the enemy Skirmishers and especially Lurkers are often NOT. They will seem to have basic equipment until they pull out their dagger/tail spike/acid spit, and they will hang out with the Minions for combat advantage and cover.

Heres a good force to throw at a typical level 1 party of 4:
12 Goblin Cutters(Minions), 2 Goblin Blackblades(Lurkers), and 1 Goblin Hexer(Leader)

That will be 650 experience, equivalent to a typical Level 2 encounter.

The Blackblades can't be distinguished from the Minions, and all the goblins will keep dancing around as you miss them. The Hexer deflects attacks onto allies with Lead from the Rear, uses Vexing Cloud to give -2 to enemies while granting concealment to allies, including the Blackblades and their high Stealth score, Incite Bravery gives his allies extra attacks, and Stinging Hex blinds opponents, granting combat advantage to allies.

[Saph]

Actually, for a level 1 party of 4, that's a level 3 1/2 encounter. Which is rated 'Hard', at least in theory. (In practice, it'll depend on how many AoE attacks the PCs have and who gets off the first shot.)

- Saph

[wodan46]

It'd probably be the encounter at the end of the adventure.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Definitely don't want to go overboard with the minions. Yes, minions are weaker than their experience indicates, but if you have enough tough guys on the field and don't put all the minions in one place, they can be very good filler for the encounter.

As an example, having 4 Goblin Minions mixed in with 2 Blackblades and a Hexer gives the Blackblades plenty of opportunities for flanking maneuvers - more so than adding a 3rd Blackblade would.

Minions also make good filler for "cinematic encounters" - such as a bunch of first level characters driving off a small goblin raid on a farmhouse. Minions are great at picking up loot and running away, but if they swarm the PCs, they won't pose a mortal danger.

I think as a good rule of thumb, you shouldn't use more than one "pack" of minions in an encounter unless you want to make it rather easy.

Oh, and no, don't tell the players which ones are minions, show them.

"You see a pack of goblins. In the back is some goofball in a headdress, shaking a skull-shaped rattle, and he's flanked by two nasty-looking goblins with well worn blades. Scattered in a skirmish formation are 4 scrawny goblins wielding chipped blades."

Even a newbie PC isn't going to waste a Daily on the scrawny guys, and after a few go down, they'll be able to figure out what's up. My PCs still don't know that minions have 1 HP, but they figure they don't have much and so they act accordingly :smallcool:

[Jalor]

My DM just describes them as looking weak/ragged/poorly equipped. We can figure it out.

[nagora]

The players will work it out when the first minion goes down to a single hit and then all the rest look at each other and run for the hills as fast as they can, dropping weapons and shields to allow them to run faster as they go while screaming "Oh no! I've turned into a minion!" while trying to tear off their red shirts :smallbiggrin:

[OneFamiliarFace]

4e PCs want to use their blast and burst powers on minions; they want to use their encounter powers on basic monsters; they want to use their dailies on elites or solos. The system penalises them for not doing so; a fight where the PCs don't recognise which monsters are which is much harder to win.

I think this is the key for minions right here. As 4e is supposed to represent heroic fantasy, I think it is okay to let players go about it in this way so long as they are having fun with it. In the movies and books, heroes rarely end up using their most powerful stuff on the likes of minions. They pull out the big guns on the bosses. Also, if you find that minions aren't worth the XP, then you can always reduce the XP they give so you can include them as you wish.

So I like Oracle's descriptive way of telling PCs what they're up against. You don't want to just say "These are minions," but you don't want to use minions to trick the players into wasting powers on purpose.

(Though a rare smart bad guy might dress up his minions and his elite troops the same so as to sow confusion. This isn't to say he knows who has 1hp, but he sure knows who his elite troops are, so this is a good way to allow lurkers a jump on PCs. This is similar to skaven or dark elf assassins in Warhammer, I s'pose.)