Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Any minion is a balloon or a pinata not a monster. Minions are constructed ego generation machines so that PC's have something to mow through quickly so that controllers can feel like they are making a meaningful contribution to the party.

But they _are_ making a meaningful contribution to the party. Because that 4 Minions, if left unchecked, can ruin your PCs. And if you have to "check" them without a Controller, then they cost you.

There is no illusion or trick in it. There are 4 guys that deal a small amount of damage to you that can replace 1 guy that deals a moderate amount of damage to you.

Up until 4e, the game was essentially descriptive. "Ah. You have a kobold. These are weak little creatures. Weak little creatures are described with the following statistics:"

Now, 4e is essentially mathmatecal. "Ah. You have a single level 1 monster filling the skirmisher role. Level 1 monsters filling the skirmisher role have the following statistics: (blah). If you'd like it to be special, here is a kobold ability you can add: (blah)."

But isn't this also "narrative"? In the story of the combat, the kobold is the guy running around, backstabbing people and trying to evade combat. That's his purpose in the story, and the rules provide you to give that outcome when running the combat.

The same is true for those bare-chested pirate with AC 21 comapred to that plate armor clad Anti-Paladin with AC 21. Their story focus is to be a threat to the PCs. A bare-chested pirate needs an AC 21 to do it in the game system against your PCs, so that's what he gets.

If you want the bare-chested pirate to be a weakling that the PCs kill inconsequential, by all means make him a Minion or a lower level AC 15 guy. But if your story goal is to have someone that makes the fight scene look dangerous and challenging to the PCs, you need to give him the right stats for it.

And it is not as if 4E was the first edition to create an AC 21 Pirate. If you wanted one in D&D 3E, you could have him - just give him a decent Dex and Bracers of Armor or some fancy Prestige Class in 3E. 4E just doesn't tell us how the Pirate achieves this, because it is basically irrelevant to the outcome.

 

[AllisterH]

Who said I have a problem with escalating defenses?

Ok colour me confused.

You don't have a problem with escalating defenses, but you DO have a problem with the half-level escalating AC?

Can you explain why you have a problem with the latter?

re: Minions
I like the minion concept (there _ARE_ some mechanical issues at times - but the concept is sound) as I personally used to do the same thing in 3e. I mean, how else do you replicate action scenes where the hero takes out hordes of nameless mooks yet you know the hero actually has to expend effort since the mooks ARE dangerous to him.

Then again, I originally stole the idea from Feng Shui where I remember the designers explicitly mentioning the idea of action scenes from books and movies.

re: 3e as a rules-limiter
I think the issue with 3e is that many DMs felt unconfident that you couldn't decouple HP from the CR of the monster as the WOTC designers themselves seemed unwilling to provide examples.

I think that's the biggest failing for 3.x. It wasn't a failing of the system per se but of the designers. There weren't enough examples of the actual WOTC designers going "I want a CR X monster to have these STATS. I don't give to figs as to how I get there"

EDIT: Heh..I think Mustrum just ninjaed me about the comments about stats and monsters

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Exactly the same function a level 1 monster vs a 9th level party does in earlier editions. Same thing.

No, it's not exactly the same. A level 1 monster in earlier editions is a level 1 monster in the reality of that game world. It's a threat to other level 1 creatures and, in numbers, to somewhat higher level ones. Depending on the situation, the name-level PCs can judge that they should or should not take out the orc lair based on how much of a threat those orcs pose to the rest of the game world (local towns, passing caravans, etc.). The orcs are assumed to have an existence "off-screen" that is much the same as their existence "on-screen."

On the other hand, we are not supposed to assume that the 1-hp minion is some pathetically inferior class of being relative to the rest of its species and that, if it gets by the PCs, it will easily be slain by the town beggar with a rock. No, the case is that minions are weakened to the brink of death by facing PCs.

Minions certainly allow for some kinds of cinematic action, and they can speed gameplay. But minions are not just like low-HD monsters.

 

[Hairfoot]

And it is not as if 4E was the first edition to create an AC 21 Pirate. If you wanted one in D&D, you could have him - just give him a decent Dex and Bracers of Armor or some fancy Prestige Class in 3E. 4E just doesn't tell us how the Pirate achieves this, because it is basically irrelevant to the outcome.

It's relevant, unless you want to be the one to tell the players that an unarmoured pirate was Godzilla because of his bracers, and not hand out the items when he's dead!

Previous editions had the internal consistency to account for things like boosted stats and healing magics, which is why 4E is sometimes considered, re the OP, nonsensical.

 

[Rechan]

No, it's not exactly the same. A level 1 monster in earlier editions is a level 1 monster in the reality of that game world.

Why does the game have to represent the reality of the game world?

 

[I'm A Banana]

But isn't this also "narrative"? But isn't this also "narrative"? In the story of the combat, the kobold is the guy running around, backstabbing people and trying to evade combat. That's his purpose in the story, and the rules provide you to give that outcome when running the combat.

Well, that's true in 3e or 4e or any edition. I was just drawing the distinction between starting points: 4e starts with the numbers you need, while every other edition starts with the idea you have.

The math isn't any more or less the story than the ideas, of course, but that's where 4e's issue with verisimilitude comes in: if I can't suspend disbelief that a bare-chested pirate is as difficult to hit as a fully armored paladin, then it's a problem, even if the numbers say that's the way it should be.

And it is not as if 4E was the first edition to create an AC 21 Pirate. If you wanted one in D&D, you could have him - just give him a decent Dex and Bracers of Armor or some fancy Prestige Class in 3E. 4E just doesn't tell us how the Pirate achieves this, because it is basically irrelevant to the outcome.

You're right, but that level of abstraction can be mind-breaking for a lot of people. It is important how the pirate got to be so hard to hit. It is key to describing it as a DM, it is key to comparing it with the paladin the party fought earlier, it is key to guiding player choice about what they want out of the experience, and how they view the workings of the world.

It's not enough for the pirate just to have an arbitrarily determined numerical AC. The story and meaning behind that number is very important to a lot of players (myself included, though I'm more flexible than some. )

 

[Ariosto]

Silverblade the Ench, in post #72, seems completely to have missed my point.

There's a reason besides layout that the 4E combat chapter alone is more pages than (e.g.) the entirety of 1st ed. Metamorphosis Alpha or (accounting for the half-size format) Traveller Book 1 Characters and Combat, and almost twice as many as D&D Volume 1 Men & Magic. There's a reason the Character Classes chapter alone is longer than the whole rule-book for 1st ed. RuneQuest.

Top Secret, plenty "simulationist" (and fairly "complex" by my lights), is only 62 pages.

The reason is that, relative to many earlier designs, 4E is a bloody complicated set of rules.

That makes the "role-players, not roll-players" line to laud 4E versus "simulationist" (i.e., preferring rules that make some sense in a world/character context) gaming absurd to me. The heavy weight of "roll-playing" in 4E is just what turns off some people!

Different strokes, etc., again. But let's not confuse the preferences by hiding them behind false dichotomies.

 

[BryonD]

The same is true for those bare-chested pirate with AC 21 comapred to that plate armor clad Anti-Paladin with AC 21. Their story focus is to be a threat to the PCs. A bare-chested pirate needs an AC 21 to do it in the game system against your PCs, so that's what he gets.

But this is despite the narrative. His armor class is based on making the combat mechanics work. It is all about "the math".

If it was about the narrative then his AC should be what his ability and equipment provide. If he is supposed to be a challenge to the party then there should be some in story reason that he is a challenge. A plate clad anti-paladin, bare chested pirate, and thick scaled lizard man are all completely different from a narrative point of view. But the mechanics of 4E throw that out the window so that the math works.

In 3E a monk gets AC bonuses purely from level and can be a high AC without armor. But the concept drives that.

The pirate isn't a pirate. The pirate is a "threat to the PCs" within the "game mechanics".
The anti-paladin isn't an anti-paladin. The anti-paladin is a "threat to the PCs" within the "game mechanics".
The lizard man isn't a lizard man. The lizard man is a "threat to the PCs" within the "game mechanics".

There is a window of variability. And of course there are variations in "special" features. But everything remains constrained to this small space of mathematically approved conflict resolution.

Yes, you can role play the pirate vastly differently than the anti-paladin. So can I. But I don't buy games for the role play. Me and my friends provide that. I pay money for good game systems that mechanically realize anti-paladins as anti-paladins and pirates as pirates. I want the rules to put making the pirate be a pirate up front and center. Making fun and challenging encounters is easy, just give me the pieces that model the elements they are expected to.

 

[cangrejoide]

Not really. A first level monster vs a 9th level party was indeed a scrub but the function mechanically speaking was a bit different.

In AD&D hit points were hit points (no matter if you viewed them as abstract or not). A creature had X hit points and that was that.

A 4E minion has one hit point but that one hit point is subjective. When is a hit point not a hit point? When a minion gets caught in a fireball from a 9th level caster who rolls a miss.

In older editions a "miss" with such a spell was equal to the monster making a save. It is hilarious when minions and regular mooks are in a mixed group and the battered/damaged mooks die from a "missed" fireball attack but the minion who has perhaps 1/8 the hit points is just fine.

Special rules for interacting with the universe make minions a joke rather than monsters.

To me thats just an overcomplication and uneeded extra bookeeping.

If I place 1st level opponents against a 9th level party I just expect them to die, its their main reason. I agree that minions are there to die. Yeah thats their whole shindig, same way you placed low level monsters against a high level party.

As for normal monsters dying when minions stayed alive? well you said it, they made their save or the nomal mook where too batterted while the minions had some fight in them. You describe it as you see fit.

The only difference is that the minion concept did away with alll the nonsensical bookeeping. They die on a hit, done. To me its a very simple an elegant way to achieve the same result and reduces the work of the GM, freeing up space for other mor eimportant tasks.

Let me ask you this from another POV:

Whats the point of having a pc group face against 50 oppents 8 levels lower than them and keep a hit point tally for each one? Is it effcient for the DM running this? Is it fun?

 

[Rechan]

but that level of abstraction can be mind-breaking for a lot of people.

And for some people (myself included), that level of accounting is mind breaking. It feels soul numbing.

It is important how the pirate got to be so hard to hit.

Your players expect you to show your math?

If it was about the narrative then his AC should be what his ability and equipment provide.

No, if it was about the narrative, his AC should be what is relevant to his role in the story. If he is meant to be a threat and hard to kill, and yet his AC is 16, then he has an AC because of "the math". Whether his AC comes from Bracers of Armor or an obscure PrC to get there is inconsequential if it has no baring on the story.

3e has its own math. It's just "how do I milk every source to account for the number I want" rather than "what number do I want? I'll use that."