4e / GSL Minions: What Bugs You?

[ExploderWizard]

Minions are just not Snickers. They really don't satisfy.

[Somebloke]

I love them- once ran a battle with 5x4th level characters vs. 80 zombie rotters. Absolutely wonderful (What...there's more?!) Although the whole 4=1 normal monster is rubbish, in my opinion...8 at least.

[Dausuul]

My big problem with minions is the ease with which players can exploit automatic damage effects to slaughter them en masse. Minions are a great concept, but I don't think the designers thought through all the ramifications.

I also find that minions do insufficient damage to pose a threat commensurate with their XP values, even when players aren't nuking them with auto-damage. My rule of thumb is to take the damage listed for a minion in the Monster Manual and double it.

[Obryn]

I love minions, but have done one of two things every time I use them.

(1) Most of the time, I halve their XP and therefore double their numbers. This gets their value about right, IMO - or at least a lot closer than 1/4 does.

(2) Other times, I give them a DR rating (I haven't formalized the amount), and give them two hits before death (the first one bloodying them). Alternately, if a single attack does a ton of damage, the minion dies right away. For a group of level 10 minions I used, they had 10 DR, and 20 was the auto-kill.

Otherwise, I love the concept. I've played or read quite a few games with minions, and I think they fill a great niche in D&D's design space.

-O

[Jhaelen]

I don't have much new to add. The two potential problems I see are
- automatic damage by pcs shouldn't completely negate minions
- mid/high level minions should have ways to deal automatic damage, cause conditions or boost allies

[avin]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

- Why should that orc go down in one hit whereas that other "identical" one takes at least 3 rounds of team effort?

Because they're not identical. I like to think minions as well trained combat n00bs and normal antagonists as more seasoned combatants. Not a perfect thought, but it's functional.

The DR idea for auto damage is interesting. Low auto damage means no minion kill, or at least two rounds of auto damage to kill... but, to be honest, I have no problem with auto damage killing them.

[Bold or Stupid]

I like minions but in my high level game they last exactly one round due to the Feypact warlock with twin curse and the feat that allows him to curse after killing a cursed victim. This allows him to flit around the battlefield leaving a trail of bodies. I'm definitely considering instituting the save mechanic suggested here.

[Mallus]

I don't have a problem w/the current implementation of Minions. My group finds that they work as advertised.

Then again, I don't have a problem, on the conceptual level, of describing the same monster using different descriptive mechanics, depending on the situation. That is, the same ogre can be Minion when a PC is swinging at it with his mighty magic sword Cloud-caller, but a great big sack of HP when an NPC villager is trying to drive it away with a rusty pitchfork.

No imaginary reality is made less real in the above example. The ogre is one tough cookie to the dirt-farmer, but markedly less so to the PC. The fact that two different descriptive 'languages' were used for the same ogre has no impact on whether the game world seems persistent or believable.

Probably because I don't find the mechanical underpinning of the game world have much to do with whether it seems persistent or believable. Persistence and believability are laudable goals, but I think they're achieved through other means.

[Halivar]

4 PC's surrounded by 250 zombie minions of their level. They felt like bad-asses for the first 3 rounds. Once they were down to At-Will's and no AoE powers, the pucker factor kicked in. Serious fun.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Mallus

No imaginary reality is made less real in the above example. The ogre is one tough cookie to the dirt-farmer, but markedly less so to the PC. The fact that two different descriptive 'languages' were used for the same ogre has no impact on whether the game world seems persistent or believable.

Others might disagree with this assessment (including me), but I see where you are coming from.

I'm currently re-reading The Hobbit for the nth time, and it occurs to me that within 4e terms, Smaug might be described as a minion (but only to Bard), and that this could be described as a testiment to Bard's skill, or luck, or the potency of the black arrow, etc.

But Tolkein is writing a story. He knows what he wants to have happen. Indeed, what must happen to tell the story he wishes to tell. IMHO, minions seem to be a tool for crafting a story out of a rpg, where the DM determines aforehand what must happen to tell the story he wishes to tell.

That is not what I enjoy about rpgs. And it does make the imaginary world less real, for me.


RC

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

- Why should that orc go down in one hit whereas that other "identical" one takes at least 3 rounds of team effort?

Because one of the orcs is a better combatant that the other? Why should one AD&D orc have 1HP and another 8HP?

It takes away from the achievement of a higher level character having earned the right to take down a bevy of weaker but legitimate foes.

'Earned the right'? D&D is, at its core, a power fantasy. I seem to recall butchering a lot of (usually sleeping) orcs and rats and such with my low-level PC's back in the day. The butchery-at-low-levels we have always had with us (haven't we?).

They feel false and contrived to me in play.

How do you feel about dungeons?

(I'm not knocking you, I suppose one man's contrivance is another man's cherished tradition.)

- The 1hp Balor! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Things like this, I admit, need some work to make work. But I have some ideas...

[doctorhook]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

Put me in the group that really doesn't like the 4E rules for minions (or mooks or plebs or whatever they've been called throughout the ages). They give the PCs a perceived power that they have no right to. The feel they give a campaign is the complete and utter antithesis of what it is I enjoy about our hobby and the games I play in.

I understand that you don't enjoy minions, and that you've got no desire to use them. However, based on your post, I suspect you don't totally understand them, either.

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

To expand:
- Why should that orc go down in one hit whereas that other "identical" one takes at least 3 rounds of team effort?

As avin pointed out, they aren't identical. They aren't supposed to be identical. Minions represent the guys who just aren't capable of standing up against you.

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

- Why can my low level character mow through all these creatures that are physically bigger and stronger than he? If he is so damn skillful, why does not this skill exhibit itself more dramatically against non-minions?

It does exhibit itself dramatically, except that it's not visible. The skills that make you so tough against minions are the same skills that make you PCs, and that make you gain levels. Minion rules wouldn't be appropriate for a game starring 1st-level Commoners, for example, because in that case your characters aren't supposed to be "good" at anything, including combat.

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

- It takes away from the achievement of a higher level character having earned the right to take down a bevy of weaker but legitimate foes.

No, because in theory, minions as a group still provide a significant threat to characters of the same level. This thread is based upon the desire to ultimately make this more consistently true in practice, as well.

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

- To my mind, it is the ultimate in metagaming which is a style I do not prefer. The expectation of possible minions amongst the enemy shifts the tactical focus and direction of the group when by rights it should not.

This problem solves itself when you vary your usage of minions; using them sparingly or not at all in every other battle can alleviate this "expectation" of minions. Staggering their arrival time, and varying their location is always helpful, as is using a variety of different miniatures/tokens to hide the fact that the stats of each creature is identical. Finally, the DM doesn't have to let the players know that the creatures they're killing are dying from only 1 damage, nor does any source of 1 damage need to kill a minion. (This is another of the major points of discussion regarding making minions more effective.)

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

- In player terms, I can't stand minions (or 1hp balloons). They feel false and contrived to me in play. They are a simple band-aid to some of the issues in previous editions of the game... and one that simply does not stick for me.

I can't help you with your opinions. That said, isn't that "metagaming" to be, as a player, so opposed to creatures on such a mechanical basis?

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

- The 1hp Balor! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As hilarious as this example is, in reality it won't happen in any official 4E products. Why not? Because Balors are already high Epic-level threats, and Elite ones at that; Balors wouldn't become minions until well beyond the maximum level of the game. (It's worth point out that a lot of creatures never become minions, even as the players climb in levels -- dragons, for example. As a general rule, solo creatures never become horde-mooks, regardless of how outclassed they may be.)

As an aside, why do minions bother you, but "elite" and "solo" monsters don't? Or do they? Why or why not, if you don't mind me asking?

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

However, I can understand that others love this type of play and more power to them... I just don't.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Best regards to you as well! Thanks for being a good sport.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

Others might disagree with this assessment (including me), but I see where you are coming from.

It's the relationship between things in game world that's important to me, not the specific mechanics used to represent them. I realize some people want something a little more concrete.

I'm currently re-reading The Hobbit for the nth time, and it occurs to me that within 4e terms, Smaug might be described as a minion (but only to Bard), and that this could be described as a testiment to Bard's skill, or luck, or the potency of the black arrow, etc.

Sure, designating Smaug as a Minion would be one way of representing him (not one I would chose, though...).

IMHO, minions seem to be a tool for crafting a story out of a rpg, where the DM determines aforehand what must happen to tell the story he wishes to tell.

I think this would only be the case if a DM made the chief antagonists Minions (to ensure the protagonists could perform an epic one-shot on them). That's not the suggested use for Minions. They're mooks. Moderately dangerous extras in the fight scenes.

And it does make the imaginary world less real, for me.

Used like that they'd do the same for me.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Mallus

That's not the suggested use for Minions. They're mooks. Moderately dangerous extras in the fight scenes.

That presupposes a "fight scene". Scripts have "fight scenes". Novels and books have "fight scenes". Setting up "fight scenes" is part of crafting a story. From what you are saying, minions seem to be a tool for crafting a story out of a rpg, where the DM determines aforehand what must happen to tell the story he wishes to tell.

I prefer a game with encounters that may or may not be resolved with violence. I prefer a game where the GM determines what is within a given area, and then the interaction between the world and players occurs with greater spontenaity.

Within such a structure, of course, the GM can and should make notes about likely courses of action. But the GM should not be wedded to deciding what the "fight scenes" are, and what the "role-playing scenes" are.

(Mind you, I have the same problem with "Adventure Paths"! )

As a good example of the type of adventure/setting design I think is optimal, see "Balmorphos: The Upper Levels" in Dragon Roots #3 (DRAGON ROOTS). (I plug this because I wrote it!)

RC

[ExploderWizard]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

That presupposes a "fight scene". Scripts have "fight scenes". Novels and books have "fight scenes". Setting up "fight scenes" is part of crafting a story. From what you are saying, minions seem to be a tool for crafting a story out of a rpg, where the DM determines aforehand what must happen to tell the story he wishes to tell.

DING! .......And the nail on the head award goes to...........RC!!!

Someone cover me for XP.

[Hjorimir]

I love minions, but I should say up front that I don't track experience points in my game (characters level at the speed of plot). I think doubling their numbers is fine (for xp value).

I used to not really care for them due to their weak attacks and vulerability to automatic death. However, these days, I find they can really make things difficult for the players when used in other ways.

Instead of just using them to attack, try these first:

• Aid a more powerful monster's attacks (this is probably their best function; a flanking minion who is aiding is providing +4 to hit...that's 8 levels of attack bonuses!)
• Bull Rush (to move PCs into bad situations)
• Grab (especially effective on melee characters, but good for pinning down ranged PCs as well)
• Move a Grabbed Target (a GREAT action if a PC failed to escape...players may be inclined to ignore being grabbed by a minion to focus their attacks elsewhere, but once you start draggin them around the battlefield [like out of the healer's range] they will really come to respect the danger of the situation)

If none of those seems good for the situation, sure, attack (damage is still damage after all).

I treat a minion's single hit point as a narrative construct. What I mean is that they only have a single hit point as far as the attacks of the PCs are concerned. But if they hop off a 10 foot wall, they don't automatically die.

[Doug McCrae]

There have always been minions in D&D. One hit point is code for 'dies in one hit from a PC' or 'has hit points equal to a PC's minimum damage'. It's entirely possible in earlier editions for a PC's minimum damage to be quite substantial, a magic weapon plus percentile strength or a magic missile volley could easily be automatically fatal to any 1 HD monster. So to that party orcs and skeletons and goblins and so forth are all minions.

2e with the Savage Humanoids book and 3e also allow for much more powerful humanoids if desired. One could have a 10th level orc or whatever. 1e and BD&D had humanoid chiefs that were quite a bit tougher than the basic variety. So the issue of some orcs being 'pinatas' while others take 3 rounds to kill has always existed in D&D.

[Doug McCrae]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

That presupposes a "fight scene". Scripts have "fight scenes". Novels and books have "fight scenes". Setting up "fight scenes" is part of crafting a story. From what you are saying, minions seem to be a tool for crafting a story out of a rpg, where the DM determines aforehand what must happen to tell the story he wishes to tell.

If, as a 1e DM, I present an encounter with a bunch of 1 hit point orcs, am I now telling a story rather than running a roleplaying game?

[Doug McCrae]

Originally Posted by ExploderWizard

Minions are just not Snickers. They really don't satisfy.

That's why they're sold in packs of four.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

That presupposes a "fight scene".

Yes it does. Bound to happen sooner or later in D&D. And mind you, I play an extraordinarily talky kind of D&D...

Scripts have "fight scenes". Novels and books have "fight scenes".

D&D has combat encounters. They're a lot like fight scenes.

Setting up "fight scenes" is part of crafting a story.

Or it's a part of adventure design. And use the terms 'adventure' and 'design' loosely...

From what you are saying, minions seem to be a tool for crafting a story out of a rpg, where the DM determines aforehand what must happen to tell the story he wishes to tell.

I'm saying Minions are a tool for describing combatants. Whether non-combat options exist is entirely up to the DM. Minions themselves don't imply there is a specific story being told any more than the monster stats found in classic AD&D modules do.

I prefer a game with encounters that may or may not be resolved with violence.

You're preaching to the choir here...

In our 4e campaign set in the Port our group tried to settle a feud by writing and then putting on a musical (FYI, it was called "Porky and Bless'd" - about our pig-god). We spent one whole session staging of it. Admittedly, there was some combat as our rival playwright hired some doppelganger assassins who had infiltrated our chorus...

I wrote the outline of the play. My buddy Steve wrote out one of the songs. It sounded a bit like something from the The Music Man...

I prefer a game where the GM determines what is within a given area, and then the interaction between the world and players occurs with greater spontenaity.

I tend to send an area as a series of potential scenes (though I always have a rough idea about what's in the broader location).

But the GM should not be wedded to deciding what the "fight scenes" are, and what the "role-playing scenes" are.

Not 'wedded to'. Prepared for. They should be prepared for one to morph into the other at a moment's notice.

(Mind you, I have the same problem with "Adventure Paths"! )

See, I'm not sure I'd ever play in a Adventure Path, let alone run one, or something like one.

(DRAGON ROOTS). (I plug this because I wrote it!)

I'll check it out!