4e / GSL Minions: What Bugs You?

[Dykstrav]

I've been using minions ever since I've been playing 4E, and they haven't been satisfying as written.

The single biggest issue is that my players don't often see them as a credible threat. When the ranger uses twin strike or the wizard uses scorching burst to take out some minions, their reaction is generally that they have wasted an attack roll--not that they are mighty heroes defeating monsters with a single blow. But then again, my group particularly enjoys being challenged. I could see how minions as written might work in someone's game, it just doesn't seem right for mine.

I tweaked a new minion system for my homebrew and it's been working well so far. Here's how it works.

1) Pick a standard monster.

2) Reduce hit points to 25% of their normal value. Don't worry about a bloodied value. For the purposes of effects that depend on the target being bloodied, consider the minion bloodied after being hit once by a player character's attack.

3) Reduce all defenses by 1. Pick a particular defense that you'd like to be weak and subtract another 1 from that defense.

4) Reduce damage from their basic attack to a flat die value (1d6+2 or 2d6+5 becomes just 1d6 or 2d6, for example). Minions should be one-trick ponies, so take away all other attacks they may have. If they have a cool ability (like extra damage from combat advantage or something similar), leave that ability as-is.

5) When actually running minions in combat, there's no need to track individual hit points for each minion. Just track the total damage inflicted against all minions of the same type in a single "damage pool." Whenever the characters do an amount of damage equal to or greater than the value of the damage pool, the minion that was hit last dies. "Leftover" damage may or may not carry over, depending on how dangerous you want the fight to be.

[Obryn]

Originally Posted by Doug McCrae

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?

I think that's a bit disingenuous.

Very few folks who don't like minions for simulation reasons take issue with the low-powered ones like kobolds, goblins, or even maybe orcs. I agree, in most respects, those are basically identical to goblins and kobolds from previous editions, and fill the same role in a game. What most have problems with is the minion-izing of more powerful creatures - ogres, devils, etc.

I think it's a fair distinction, though I think there's a definite place in my game for both. And, I love 'em. I think almost any fight can be improved by adding a few more movie ninjas.

-O

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Doug McCrae

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?

Do you seriously imagine that a 1e DM cannot run the game as a predetermined story? Have you never heard of DragonLance?

Do you seriously imagine that one cannot be both running a roleplaying game and telling a story? Again: DragonLance, Adventure Path.

Are you seriously unable to tell the difference between an encounter with 6 orcs (regardless of thier hp) which is open-ended, and setting up a fight scene with those same orcs (again regardless of their hp)?

RC

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Mallus

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

IMHO, D&D has encounters, which are not really discrete entities, and which may or may not include combat. Moreover, IMHO, those encounters should not be scripted into combat encounters, rp encounters, etc. IOW, I disagree that an encounter that ends up involving combat should be thought of as a "combat encounter". That's the path to the Dark Side......

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 disagree vehemently.

I'll check it out!

My work here is done. :Lol:


RC

[Nebulous]

Originally Posted by thecasualoblivion

The solution is this:

Minions get a saving throw in response to auto-damage. If they succeed, they live.

I fixed this issue with Improved Minions in my campaign; 1st hit bloodied, 2nd hit dead. Works for us, although i mix them in with regular minions.

[amysrevenge]

Others have said it, but I'll add my voice to the choir.

I have no beef with minions other than their XP value. 4:1 isn't right, and 8:1 might be better.

Sure, sometimes an encounter with minions gets trivialized by the abilities of one PC or another. Other times, though, and just about as often, a party is short on area damage and gets brutalized. Especially since DMs around here have started using some of the suggested tactics (especially aid and grab) with minions more regularly.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I checked all but the last 3, but some bother me more than others. The automatic damage bothers me a little, but it seems like that's meant to make controllers more sweome, and removing that would hurt the already arguably weakest role more. ...How do controllers fare if you don't use minions at all in your game?

What bothers me the most of the listed choices is high levle monsters dying in one hit. On a rare super powerful critical, maybe. Everytime? Just dumb.

Also, never hurting them on a miss. the whole point of hurting on a miss powers is to...do something on a miss. Why can't the fighter auto-kill one stinking minion with reaping strike, but the wizard can kill a cluster of them with automatic damage? He spent his major action slaying a single minion, isn't that punishment enough?

A lot of other bad things though. For example, minions swing wildly in annoyance/chalenge depending on whether the party can recognize them as such or not. It seems silly that these guys die from any attack at all and yet look "normal."

Also, that they're actually worth xp. They die so easily, more luck is involved in norml to determine how badly they'll rough up the party -- how long it takes to roll well enough ot hit thm, if you have a controller, etc...
If I ever used minions, I'd award roleplaying xp for the encounter, not a fixed amount per minion like they were legitimate kills.

[Obryn]

Originally Posted by StreamOfTheSky

The automatic damage bothers me a little, but it seems like that's meant to make controllers more sweome, and removing that would hurt the already arguably weakest role more. ...How do controllers fare if you don't use minions at all in your game?

Actually, controllers have really come into their own since the initial reactions to the Wizard class. Even the Wizard is better at being a Wizard nowadays - not just because of Arcane Power, but because people have started looking at the class in terms of what it can and can't do, as opposed to what it should or shouldn't do.

While area effects are definitely part of a controller's shtick, I'd say the penalties, zones, and general "debuffs" are still pretty strong. Spells like Bigby's Icy Hand and Flaming Sphere can be encounter-winners, minions or no.

Getting rid of minions doesn't render controllers useless, or even seriously make them a worse choice. They'd probably just concentrate less on area attacks and more on field-changing and debuffs, and still do a good job at it.

-O

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

IOW, I disagree that an encounter that ends up involving combat should be thought of as a "combat encounter". That's the path to the Dark Side......

It's just terminology, RC. I can spend a lot of time prepping the stats for a 'combat encounter' only to end up running it as long, dice-less conversation, instead of a fight. Happened fairly often when I ran 3e.

[Herremann the Wise]

Originally Posted by doctorhook

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.

The style of game I play isn't suited to minions but heh, I'd like to think I understand them as well as everyone else here.

Originally Posted by doctorhook

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.

In which case then, they should not hit as well or as hard as the "real thing", and defensively, they should be less adept. They should have less hp than the "real thing" but not 1hp. Not a contrivance from the DM that says "look, as long as you hit this guy, he's going down". This then has the further contrivance of needing a rule so that "misses" don't kill them. The gross simplification of reducing their hit points to 1 to encompass their inferiority just does not jive with how I like the mechanics to represent the creature, rather than presenting just a facade.

Originally Posted by doctorhook

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.

Again, this aspect of 1st level heroes does not jive with my style of play. However, it is in the specific comparison of PC vs Monster and PC vs Minion that I was making. The gulf between the two bothers me. The subtlety of being able to gain levels is not a compensation for this in my opinion.

Originally Posted by doctorhook

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.

I thought the thread was about describing what personally bugs each of us about minions? I agree that minions can still be a threat (much moreso than the mooks of previous editions). This threat represents a higher degree of skill that is contradicted by them being a 1hp cream-puff. To expand with an example perhaps might help explain a little better.

Let's say you have 4 evil guards doing their best guarding "The" door. The low level fighter PC comes up to them and starts swinging. He can deal some damage but not enough to kill any of them in a single hit. And by then one of them has got to the bell and called for help. If he had of been able to do "hit = kill" (as with the minion rules), then he would have been successful.

Let's now look at the high level fighter PC. With a big power attack and some nice great cleaving; he can wipe these 4 "minions" out in a round through agressive skill. He's earned the right to do this. For the low level guy, this is what he is aspires to - and will hopefully one day achieve.

Originally Posted by doctorhook

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.)

This is the question though, do you hide the fact that it was a minion or do you make it obvious. On one of the D&D podcasts with Mike and Dave, they had interesting arguments for both views.

Originally Posted by doctorhook

I can't help you with your opinions.

That's cool because I'm not really looking for someone to change my mind on this.

Originally Posted by doctorhook

That said, isn't that "metagaming" to be, as a player, so opposed to creatures on such a mechanical basis?

Can you expand on this? I'm not comprehending what you're saying here.

Originally Posted by doctorhook

As hilarious as this example is, in reality it won't happen in any official 4E products.

I thought Jack99 mentioned this from an official adventure - that is the only reason why I was using it as a tragic example of minion-ness taken way too far.

Originally Posted by doctorhook

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?

I never mentioned anything about elites and solos. However, they don't bother me as much - although mechanically speaking, I have some issues how damage, hps, and defenses are structured in D&D in general (all editions) - a factor emphasised by elites and solos in 4E . But on the whole no, I don't have as many hang-ups.

Originally Posted by doctorhook

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

You too. I really didn't want anyone to take my post the wrong way as an attack on 4E or something like that. I just don't like the minion rules in terms of how I like to play the game, how I like to view the fantasy world and the roles I like PCs to play in all of this.

As for my own "fix", minions are a wart on the arse of 4E that as a DM, I'm more than happy to cut and staunch the blood. A lower number of hps and ability than the real thing is cool; I'm more than happy to adjust and track these during combat. I just treat them as how they are, rather than sending them out with only a single hp as an un-needed and un-warranted simplification - black boxes be damned I say.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[Herremann the Wise]

Originally Posted by Mallus

Because one of the orcs is a better combatant that the other?

I just don't like this being represented by simplifying this lack of skill by reducing a creatures hp to 1.

Originally Posted by Mallus

Why should one AD&D orc have 1HP and another 8HP?

I'm not a fan of hps in this way as you may or may not know from other threads. I prefer hps to represent something a little less abstract. Actually I prefer a dual hit point / combat point system but heh... that's for another thread.

Originally Posted by Mallus

'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?).

Sort of. The games I've played in have been more where if the DM says "roll initiative" and :

"Thirty orcs run at the group": Oh crap! Fall back guys, lock the door and damn well hope it holds long enough for us to get the hell out of here!

Rather than:

"Thirty orcs run at the group": Woohoo! Minion fiends, taste my sword you heap of ****! Rarghhhhhhh!!!

Originally Posted by Mallus

How do you feel about dungeons?

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

I think perhaps more than anything, this hits the nail on the head [XP coming your way]. My group has lackeys and from a meta perspective hp filler, but never swathes of minions to be mown as so much wheat. Dungeons on the other hand like at the start of Raiders of the Lost Ark! Well that just gloriously pushes my buttons.

We all look for different things out of an RPG game. I have my "world" in my head and I've been trying to get D&D in all its editions to fit that by basically basing it into the shape I want (unfortunately for me 4E requires even more bashing than 3E did - which was quite a bit). Minion rules are obviously one of the first things to go for me.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[Dice4Hire]

For me minions are an excellnt addition tothe rules, but too fragile, especially at higher levels, where abilities to target larger areas are more common, and there are a lot mroe 1-10 point auras or special tricks out there, like the warlock curse trick that can kill multiple minions in a single round without a singe dice roll.

For my games, you need an attack roll to dmaage minions, though they still only have one hit point. It can be a blast or a burst,m but auto damage does not hurt minions, jsut weaken stronger opponents.

Second, xp is halved in paragon and halved again in epic. 1/4 is n\too much ion paragon or epec, so effectivelyt 1/6 in paragon and 1/8 in epic, though I ahve not actually done epic yet.

[Doug McCrae]

Originally Posted by Herremann the Wise

"Thirty orcs run at the group": Oh crap! Fall back guys, lock the door and damn well hope it holds long enough for us to get the hell out of here!

No web or fireball? Thirty orcs are a speed-bump to most D&D parties.

[Ariosto]

When is a monster a minion?

Reading the DMG, it appears that the answer is whenever one replaces a standard monster (fitting into a target XP total) with "several" -- alternatively "four" -- minions of that level. So, theoretically, a level 9 encounter for five PCs (2,000 XP) could be made up of two level 14 standard monsters ... or several level 14 minions (half as many of level 18 being too hard for a "level 10" or lower party, and eight times as many of level 2 being too easy for a party of "level 7" or higher).

It does not appear that a monster is simultaneously a standard monster to one character (taking normal hit point damage and so on) and a minion to another.

The way some people write about them, though, is confusing in light of that.

Whence, for instance, come such ideas as that certain monsters are always minions when met by characters of a certain (which??) level -- or that certain (which??) others are never minions?

How does one determine the stats for a minion? For instance, I see that they are supposed to do a fixed amount of damage ... but standard monsters do rolled amounts.

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Ariosto

Whence, for instance, come such ideas as that certain monsters are always minions when met by characters of a certain (which??) level -- or that certain (which??) others are never minions?

Well, I'll take a stab at the last one first. Some monsters are almost never given the minion "template" (to borrow a 3e ism) because you generally don't meet that many of them, or, the base monster is so powerful that you will never be powerful enough to "minionize" them. The Balor is a good example of both. You probably shouldn't ever meet 4 balors (yikes!) and, unless you're doing some really creative things with the level system, you are not going to be powerful enough to lord it over them.

The first part of your question, when are minions minions is best answered by, "Whenever the DM feels like it." If the DM feels that the encounter would be made more interesting by having a small horde of baddies coming at you, then break out the minions. Since the minions can hit you, and can hurt you, they are a credible enough threat in numbers that they have to be dealt with. It simply adds another tactical element to the encounter.

It's really no different from the Mob rules in PHB 2 (3e) where you could could take large numbers of creatures that individually would not be a threat to the PC's and turn them into a very credible threat. It's no less gamist really. Why are 14 humanoids not a mob, but, 15 are? (I think that's the numbers, I could be misremembering, just work with me on this). Because the mechanics need some number and that's the number they picked.

Why is that critter a minion in this particular encounter? Because it makes sense from a thematic and feel perspective.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Mallus

It's just terminology, RC. I can spend a lot of time prepping the stats for a 'combat encounter' only to end up running it as long, dice-less conversation, instead of a fight. Happened fairly often when I ran 3e.

Terminology shapes expectations, IME.


RC

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Doug McCrae

No web or fireball? Thirty orcs are a speed-bump to most D&D parties.

In your experience, do you mean? Or do you have some mystical connection that tells you what the play experience of most D&D parties is?

I've played many, many games in which parties fled from 30 orcs. I've played many, many games in which parties were not simply having a power fantasy. I've done so in several US states and 2 countries (US and Canada), with literally hundreds of players.

I've never run or played in an encounter in which 30 orcs were a speed-bump. Of course, per RAW in older editions, fireball was a monumentally bad idea in a dungeon....very likely to toast the party. Web is likewise only moderately useful in a situation like this -- not even half the orcs are likely to be caught in the web -- being more useful as a means to ensure they don't get through the door than anything else.

In one RCFG playtest, I ran G1 using RCFG rules (which make PCs tougher than 1e PCs), and the masses of bugbears, troglodytes, and orcs certainly came across as more than speed bumps.

3e is a bit different, because of the steep power curve. I've run battles between lvl 3-6 3e parties and 30+ goblins, but they were not speed bumps either. I imagine that high-level 3e characters might find 30 orcs to be a speed bump.


RC

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by Hussar

It's really no different from the Mob rules in PHB 2 (3e) where you could could take large numbers of creatures that individually would not be a threat to the PC's and turn them into a very credible threat. It's no less gamist really. Why are 14 humanoids not a mob, but, 15 are? (I think that's the numbers, I could be misremembering, just work with me on this). Because the mechanics need some number and that's the number they picked.

I'm no fan of mob rules, either (even though I like swarms, so take that bias for what it is worth!). Mob rules come about because of two factors: (1) individual insignificance of members, and (2) time required to resolve combat.

(1) is a function of a steep power curve, ala 3e. 4e, IMHO, took a step in the right direction by offering a less steep curve. So, while I can easily see ants, wasps, tiny arachnids, or even mice or rats as being individually insignificant, I have a much harder time applying that to goblins, orcs, etc. Call it a handicap, if you will. In this respect, at least, I give preference to minion rules over mob rules.

(2) is a function of numbers bloat, combined with combat/character rules that are (literally, as WotC has said as much) designed to extend combat (so you can show off your cool stuff) and reinforce the use of minis (as Scott Rouse was good enough to admit 3e does, and 4e moreso).

If you remove these two factors, it is easy enough to run a combat with 30 opponents. Neither minion nor mob rules are needed, and (IMHO and IME) once these basic problems are removed from a combat system, they add nothing of value.

YMMV, of course.


RC

[Somebloke]

Originally Posted by Doug McCrae

No web or fireball? Thirty orcs are a speed-bump to most MID-LEVEL OR HIGHER D&D parties WITHOUT A GREAT DEAL OF DM CRUELTY AND/OR SNEAKINESS.

Fixed for accuracy.

I like the minions system- while it is not internally consistent, it is a simple and elegant means for resolving a) the complexity in mass numbers of enemies in regards to status, condition tracks etc. and b) level increase- those soldiers you fought in fours and fives at level 5 will be much better represented by minions at level 15 than the same block of stats from 5.

[Hussar]

Originally Posted by Somebloke

Fixed for accuracy.

I like the minions system- while it is not internally consistent, it is a simple and elegant means for resolving a) the complexity in mass numbers of enemies in regards to status, condition tracks etc. and b) level increase- those soldiers you fought in fours and fives at level 5 will be much better represented by minions at level 15 than the same block of stats from 5.

I'm not sure how accurate it is to call 3rd level (when you get web) a mid to high level campaign.

Sure, 30 orcs vs a 1st level party is going to smoosh the party. Two levels later, they're a speed bump, and probably so even without area of effect spells. The fighter's AC is likely in the negatives as is the cleric's. The orcs are hitting on a 20 while the fighter types and cleric blat orcs every round.