Minions with 1hp - Can anyone justify this?

[Goumindong]

Unless thats what the DM and his or her players want to do, of course. Then it is exactly that. Or a system by which to pretend that they're fairy princesses, or talking broccoli, or in a Conan and Gandalf buddy movie, or whatever else it is that folks want to do.

Thing is, D&D used to be a robust enough system to handle any situation and type of play. I hope it still is.

MrG

First off, you are wrong, DnD was never robust enough to handle a simulation

Second off. Simulations are single player endeavors. They involve no players, only DMs. If you want to pretent you're a fairy princess or talking brocolli or in a conan and gandalf buddy movie you're perfectly welcome to do so. All minions are are another tool that DM's can use to enhance the players roleplaying experience, whatever it is they want to roleplay.

Once you start taking the system and applying it to NPCs acting for/against NPC's it breaks down, just as they all have. Heck, 4e is probably better in this regard than others(at least when simulating large combats). I mean, in 3e fighting a wizard meant he says "i win the game" essentially, so everyone would become wizards or clerics and everyone would go hunting monsters for XP and then living like kings off their WBL and their 1/day travelers feasts...


Sorry, DnD has never been a simulation and never will be. Its always been a roleplaying game where the players job is to roleplay and the DMs job is to facilitate that.

 

[matthewseidl]

In 4th Ed, they don't seem have been implemented as well. Basically, if your class isn't set up for killing mooks then (it seems to me) that you're wasting abilities by attacking them. I played a ranger for 3 games and found that apart from Twin Strike, none of my abilities were of any use when fighting mooks. This sucks if you find yourself under a mook-pile and with the guy you can actually work against on the other side of the room.

Because a ranger isn't designed t deal with mooks, its designed to deal with the big bad. If the ranger is under a mook pile away from the big bad, that seems like a perfect situation for the big bad. Get a wizard over to clear the minions of with AoE, or even a fake controller like a cleric/warlock who have more area powers. Or at least a fighter with cleave. Or get someone with movement powers to move the ranger out of harms way and over to a nice single target.

To me, this is an example of the design of 4e forcing more party composition. The ranger needs help when dealing with piles of minions (although I'd argue the ranger is better able to deal than a rogue).

 

[drothgery]

The answer is that when NPCs are fighting NPCs they do exactly what you want them to.

...

In short, there is only a problem because people have forgotten that DnD is about roleplaying heroic fantasy and not a system by which to simulate a heroic fantasy world.

The thing is that there's plenty heroic about PCs -- particularly warlords -- rallying a town's defenders or leading a nation's army. Or an NPC charge of the PCs (say, a 16-year-old princess) who refuses to stand by and watch while the PCs are trying to protect her from an Evil Horde.

To make it clear, here -- I like minions as a concept. They're a great solution for a lot of situations. But they do create mechanical weirdness in some corner cases.

 

[Goumindong]

The thing is that there's plenty heroic about PCs -- particularly warlords -- rallying a town's defenders or leading a nation's army. Or an NPC charge of the PCs (say, a 16-year-old princess) who refuses to stand by and watch while the PCs are trying to protect her from an Evil Horde.

To make it clear, here -- I like minions as a concept. They're a great solution for a lot of situations. But they do create mechanical weirdness in some corner cases.

How does it not work? I am not seeing these situations. NPCs are there to be roleplaying aides. Minions are there for when you need a bunch of guys who won't kill your party outright but also wont also be total pushovers.

 

[Dausuul]

Unless thats what the DM and his or her players want to do, of course. Then it is exactly that. Or a system by which to pretend that they're fairy princesses, or talking broccoli, or in a Conan and Gandalf buddy movie, or whatever else it is that folks want to do.

Thing is, D&D used to be a robust enough system to handle any situation and type of play. I hope it still is.

MrG

It never was. D&D has always been atrocious for world-simulation - a large part of the humor in "Order of the Stick" comes from treating the D&D rules as if they were literal rules of physics. The economic system is particularly appalling... see for example the trick where you buy a ten-foot ladder, break it apart to get two ten-foot poles, and sell the poles for more than you paid for the ladder. Or the incredible gulf between the listed pay for laborers and the amount you can make with an untrained Profession check.

Now, you can cobble and house-rule and extend the system and come up with a fairish simulation. But that's hardly the point.

 

[Kingskin]

Because a ranger isn't designed t deal with mooks, its designed to deal with the big bad. If the ranger is under a mook pile away from the big bad, that seems like a perfect situation for the big bad. Get a wizard over to clear the minions of with AoE, or even a fake controller like a cleric/warlock who have more area powers. Or at least a fighter with cleave. Or get someone with movement powers to move the ranger out of harms way and over to a nice single target.

To me, this is an example of the design of 4e forcing more party composition. The ranger needs help when dealing with piles of minions (although I'd argue the ranger is better able to deal than a rogue).

Agreed, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got spanked for it. Fair enough. My problem is with the idea that 4th Ed forces you to have a certain party composition which I'm not keen on and the mooks symptomatic of this.
I like the idea of a bunch of players getting together and creating whatever group of characters they want and then the GM running a game for them. It's why I've never gone in for pre-written adventures; they can't really take into account the group you've got and I find it less work to write it myself than to buy one and then alter it to fit. Looking at my collection, pretty much every game can easily support unorthodox groups but I've found that 4th Ed is built from the ground up on the assumption you've got 4-5 players and they're each taking one particular role. If you've only got two players (as our 4th Ed group had) then you're at a severe disadvantage and I can't think of any other game that suffers this same problem. Sure, you can get around it but in the end we found it was more hassle than it was worth and canned it after three sessions. I'm kind of dissapointed with that, I was really looking forward to 4th Ed; the lack of Vancian magic and the idea of mooks had me really interested but it just fell flat for the entire group. Kind of sad. But now we're playing cops in Chicago in Kult so things are looking up.

 

[Regicide]

Minions are there for when you need a bunch of guys who won't kill your party outright but also wont also be total pushovers.

Thats what NPCs are there for, not minions. Minions are there to promote players taking area of effect classes and abilities and reward them with massive amounts of free XP for doing so.

The idea of removing level/HD as a measure of an NPC's survivability by making a "class" of opponent who have 1 HP regardless of level has caused more problems than it will ever solve as shown by these threads. I don't even want to think about what conceptual contortions will need to be gone through in order to add pets, companions and cohorts to the game now. Minions not haveing a relevant HP stat is already cause headaches with terrain that causes damage. I mean, if the party's torch bearer uses caltrops those won't kill a minion, but if the party's ranger drops some in front of himself minions explode on contact... UUUUUUGH.

3.5E had mob rules, I'm not sure if they were from Dragon, but variants showed up in some of the Dungeon adventure paths I think like Shackled City. Anyway, they weren't perfect, but I far prefer them to the minion rules.

 

[Obryn]

Another Point of View: Does the minion know it's a minion?

Possible Encounter: 1 Minion tax gatherer, and 4 Brute mercenaries.
The Minion is the one in charge here. He certainly doesn't regard himself as a minion, as he has the backup of the 4 Brutes. Plus, as a villain he has the potential to make our PC's lives miserable.

I don't think it works that way.

A "minion" isn't a thing that exists, independent of the PCs, anywhere in the world. There are no free-roaming minions wandering around cities - "minion" is just a description of how the NPC or creature interacts with the PCs in combat. That's all. Of course he doesn't know he's a minion. His bodyguards also don't know they're "brutes."

As a DM, you could certainly declare that this tax collector acts as a minion in combat, but again - if you do so, you're doing so for unusual narrative reasons. "This tax collector is completely feeble in combat, and doesn't present any real threat. A good, solid blow to the head should knock him out."

He's not a minion because it's the way the world works, or because of any characteristics inherent to him. He's a minion only because the DM has determined that's how he'll interact in combat with the PCs, should said combat occur.

-O

 

[Dausuul]

Agreed, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got spanked for it. Fair enough. My problem is with the idea that 4th Ed forces you to have a certain party composition which I'm not keen on and the mooks symptomatic of this.
I like the idea of a bunch of players getting together and creating whatever group of characters they want and then the GM running a game for them. It's why I've never gone in for pre-written adventures; they can't really take into account the group you've got and I find it less work to write it myself than to buy one and then alter it to fit. Looking at my collection, pretty much every game can easily support unorthodox groups but I've found that 4th Ed is built from the ground up on the assumption you've got 4-5 players and they're each taking one particular role. If you've only got two players (as our 4th Ed group had) then you're at a severe disadvantage and I can't think of any other game that suffers this same problem. Sure, you can get around it but in the end we found it was more hassle than it was worth and canned it after three sessions. I'm kind of dissapointed with that, I was really looking forward to 4th Ed; the lack of Vancian magic and the idea of mooks had me really interested but it just fell flat for the entire group. Kind of sad. But now we're playing cops in Chicago in Kult so things are looking up.

Well, in small groups the DM does have to tailor the opposition to match the party. I learned that in my very first gaming session when I put the party against three rat swarms, and discovered that a party without a controller is seriously hosed when fighting swarms.

But I don't think it's a major issue. You just have to remember that certain types of monsters are a bit tougher against parties lacking certain capabilities. Solo and elite monsters are harder for parties that lack a striker; minions and swarms are harder for parties that lack a controller; brutes are harder for parties that lack a defender; everything is harder for parties that lack a leader. So up their XP value a little.

I'm not actually aware of any RPG that doesn't work out in similar ways. If a character can be good at X and less good at Y, and if X and Y can vary from one character to another, then a party where nobody is good at dealing with Fragulators is going to have a tougher time when they go up against Fragulators. At least 4E ensures that everyone has a basic level of competence in combat.

 

[Obryn]

The idea of removing level/HD as a measure of an NPC's survivability by making a "class" of opponent who have 1 HP regardless of level has caused more problems than it will ever solve as shown by these threads. I don't even want to think about what conceptual contortions will need to be gone through in order to add pets, companions and cohorts to the game now. Minions not haveing a relevant HP stat is already cause headaches with terrain that causes damage. I mean, if the party's torch bearer uses caltrops those won't kill a minion, but if the party's ranger drops some in front of himself minions explode on contact... UUUUUUGH.

I can understand folks who don't like minions. Just because I do, doesn't mean everyone does. They're a narrative mechanic, and if you hate narrativist gameplay, you'll hate them as well.

I can understand folks who don't understand how minions fit into the gameplay. They're unlike anything in previous editions, and show that 4e is taking a completely new (for D&D) approach to how characters & NPCs interact with each other and with the rules.

What I don't understand is folks who intentionally misunderstand minions, and then use those misunderstandings as a basis for their dislike.

There's a certain zen to minions. You can't shoehorn them into 3.5's mechanical view of the gameworld; they just don't fit.

-O