Minions with 1hp - Can anyone justify this?

[Goumindong]

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.

Man what? NPCs are there for you to roleplay against they are not there to be fodder. Where in the nine hells did you get the idea that NPCs are there to take the place of numerous enemies that still pose a threat but will not utterly destroy you due to hit point scaling?

There are no headaches regarding terrain that does damage. If the terrain does not require a to-hit roll, the minion dies. Its very plain and simple in the rules. The minion dies whenever it would take damage, but a minion never takes damage from a missed attack. Does the terrain do damage? Yes, you said it does? Well does it make an attack roll or is it automatic? Its automatic? The minion dies, no attack was missed and it took damage. Blammo, its really easy.

Pets, Companions, and Cohorts will only be in the game in the form of Powers. They will only be in the game in the form of powers because pets, companions, and cohorts fundamentally break any game they are put into. They cannot be simultaneously useful in combat and balanced. They break economy of action. They were broken in 3.5(where every truly optimal build took leadership and had a wizard along with them), unless their operation takes up your own actions then they will be really and truly forever broken.

There is no problem with a parties torch bearer(assuming this in an NPC you hired) dropping caltrops. Whatever happens with those caltrops is the DMs decision. It an attack by an NPC against and NPC. Unless the DM is arguing with himself there is no need for conflict resolution by way of dice rolling. And if the DM is arguing with himself you have many many many more problems than any any system could throw at you.

Here is the deal. NPCs only need survivability when the players take a swing at them. If not, then everything is the DM deciding how powerful he wants the NPC to be and then describing it.

Caltrops again: Caltrops will not explode anything on target, it simply takes the minion out of the fight. Hell, you can voluntarily not do lethal damage with no penalty when bringing an enemy to 0 hit points, thus making them unconscious instead of dead. Just say the minion falls over in pain, clutching his leg and cant get up/passes out from the pain/falls on the caltrops in a violent and painful manner.

Regards to "free XP" Clearly you have not fought a good minion encounter if you are saying that they are free XP. Minions are tough. And you get 4 per every normal monster. This mean minions are doing around 3 times as much damage, can flank and create effects, can block three times more squares and are less vulnerable to status effects that weaken them.(since you have to hit them all). They are, in return, weak to AoEs. E.G. in my group I am playing in now we have a wizard, artful dodger rogue, ranger, fighter, and cleric. Minions are the hardest part of the fight because they gang up and rip into the fighter/ranger/rogue and don't care about his mark(there are 4-8 of them, what do they care?). The Wizard has to AoE his friends to get them off. The Rogue does 19.5 average damage/hit with sly flourish(or something equally disgusting), enough to kill a level 2 skirmisher in two hits. Throw a bunch of standard enemies at us and the wizard is going to keep one or two out of the fight while the rogue, ranger, and fighter, kill 2 enemies every 3 rounds.(or faster)

Mob rules were terrible compared to minion rules. Minion rules are simple, elegant, reduce book keeping, allow them to have tactical options instead of being swarms...

 

[Switchback]

The reason the local militia should have trouble felling minions is because the expectation is they are piddly and weaker than the PC's and could not deal out enough damage do to that in one hit.

Yet, is there a difference between when the militia does 2 damage to a minion and a level 10 character does 2 damage to a minion? Is the player really doing a blow that is 10 times stronger even though both are read as 2 damage?

This is the new concept that can be hard to wrap around sometimes. It makes the players into incredible hulks such that they couldn't crack an egg without crushing it into bits because their damage is somehow multiplied beyond the commoner to the point where the actual combat numbers that usually order the world are made fuzzy and unreliable in what they represent.

If I try to break a bottle on a stand and it has 5 HP and I do 2, I did a pathetic blow and it doesn't break right? Even at level 20.

People will say of course that happens, because minion’s HP is an abstraction. But that in turn, forces you to accept all damage in the world as an abstraction.

Even still, that does not always save us. Because what if that 2 damage I did to both the bottle and Angel, both were splash damage from the same spell? Obviously some kind of rare and bizarre situation. But it could happen and then you would be forced to confront that 2 damage really was just 2 damage, and yet it killed this incredibly tough creature anyway.

 

[Obryn]

This is the new concept that can be hard to wrap around sometimes. It makes the players into incredible hulks such that they couldn't crack an egg without crushing it into bits because their damage is somehow multiplied beyond the commoner to the point where the actual combat numbers that usually order the world are made fuzzy and unreliable in what they represent.

The thing is, they're not fuzzy and unreliable - they're extremely precise when detailing an NPC or monster's interactions with the PCs.

It's the zen of minions.

-O

 

[Regicide]

There are no headaches regarding terrain that does damage. If the terrain does not require a to-hit roll, the minion dies.

You do realize hazardous terrain is an isomorphism with the house cat, right? And yes, you can say the DM can decide how NPCs interact with NPCs all you want, but you can also say the DM can tell players to not bother rolling dice because he's just going to decide everything too. It's a simulation system, the fact that it breaks down at certain points and the DM has to hand wave is the problem we're talking about, not the solution.

Pets, Companions, and Cohorts will only be in the game in the form of Powers. They will only be in the game in the form of powers because pets, companions, and cohorts fundamentally break any game they are put into. They cannot be simultaneously useful in combat and balanced. They break economy of action. They were broken in 3.5(where every truly optimal build took leadership and had a wizard along with them), unless their operation takes up your own actions then they will be really and truly forever broken.

Waaaait, wait, wait. You're saying on one hand lower level NPCs are useless because they'll never hit so minions fix that problem, then on the other you say they're broken when the PCs have them with their "truely optimal build". You have to pick one, it's not both, it can't be both.

There is no problem with a parties torch bearer(assuming this in an NPC you hired) dropping caltrops.

AGAIN, you're going to have to pick a side here, you can't argue both. You've gone to claim that torch bearers don't break 4E, then you claim any game with companions is broken. Sorry, buzzer.

Also claiming any game with pets etc. is broken because of it pretty much is claiming most games are broken since most games support them. A clearly incorrect claim.

I know nonsense like "exception based design" and "economy of action" sounds cool and technical and it's fun to say them, but it isn't, it's marketing. Exception based design is how EVERYTHING is designed, not just games, but every single RPG ever made has been made that way. Likewise "economy of action" is another way of saying constraint, and every system has constraints, complex ones like RPGs have lots of them. 4E has chosen actions as a constraint, some other games have, some haven't, it's not necessary for a balanced game.

Most games balance having companions by having a cost associated with them. Spending a feat when you're level 20 in 3.5E is a fairly small cost, getting a level 15 or so wizard ally from it (which you then use your epic diplomacy to make fanatically loyal) is probably not very balanced, but it has nothing to do with "economy of action." Giving druids companions was fine in 3.5E, but having one of them at level 1 being a trained war dog that is effectively as strong as level 2 creature wasn't. Again, economy of action isn't at fault there.

 

[Switchback]

The thing is, they're not fuzzy and unreliable - they're extremely precise when detailing an NPC or monster's interactions with the PCs.

It's the zen of minions.

-O

I get it. But I'm saying you could confront a situation where you do equal damage in the same attack, to a minion and something else at the same time, an area attack or the rogue throwing stars, and the whole system can become exposed.

Minions are supposed to take the place of mooks or underleveled hordes right, but what if a DM's story calls for those foes to be used again? For whatever reason.

Say we have a common kobold slinger standing next to a level 11 Ogre Bludgeoneer. Now our level 10 fighter uses a cleave attack on the Kobold. The Kobold is hit for 15 damage but still standing, and the weak secondary blow that follows through and hits the Ogre for 3 damage suddenly becomes his deathblow. This might seem strange to the fighter, since for all his life as a hero that secondary attack on a cleave has always been a piddly weak attack that is just a glancing blow on his follow through beyond the real target he attacked.

As far as the numbers are concerned the adjacent attack on a cleave can never be stronger than the regular attack, since both get the fighters STR bonus but the initial attack gets a dice roll as well.

This time for the sake of the game, we say it pierced the Ogre's heart or whatever and instantly slays him. But it won't be long before the fighter realizes that the adjacent follow through on cleave, *always* strikes a minion through its heart and kills them, no matter that the attack is never a strong one against any other normal creature in the world. It's icky and can be hard to resist thinking about.

 

[GoLu]

Say we have a common kobold slinger standing next to a level 11 Ogre Bludgeoneer. Now our level 10 fighter uses a cleave attack on the Kobold. The Kobold is hit for 15 damage but still standing, and the weak secondary blow that follows through and hits the Ogre for 3 damage suddenly becomes his deathblow. This might seem strange to the fighter, since for all his life as a hero that secondary attack on a cleave has always been a piddly weak attack that is just a glancing blow on his follow through beyond the real target he attacked.

As far as the numbers are concerned the adjacent attack on a cleave can never be stronger than the regular attack, since both get the fighters STR bonus but the initial attack gets a dice roll as well.

The damage numbers are lower, but that doesn't mean the result has to be. If I attack a 25 hitpoint creature for 30 damage, it falls down and is dead or dying, felled by one mighty blow. If I attack a 50 hitpoint creature with the same attack, it is bloodied and looking worried. If I attack a 350 hitpoint creature with the same attack, it shrugs it off, barely looking concerned. So is that 30 damage attack a mighty swing, capable of slaying things in one hit, or is it a scratch that, while presumably unpleasant, doesn't even deserve to be called dangerous?

For that matter, the example concerns an attack that is good against minions. If the secondary cleave attack has never hit anything other than a minion, then it will never have failed to kill anything that it has it. It is 100% lethal. Not so piddly now, eh?

Anyway, the idea of combining a level 11 minion with a level 1 (or whatever; don't have the MM on me at the moment) non-minion is stretching so far past what the system intends that it isn't surprising that you end up with weird results. If the kobold is an important part of the encounter, the ogre would be better represented as a lower level elite or solo. If the kobold isn't an important part of the encounter, why not make it a minion as well?

 

[Obryn]

Say we have a common kobold slinger standing next to a level 11 Ogre Bludgeoneer.

You see, this is where the example goes wrong. Why was there a kobold slinger standing next to an Ogre Bludgeoneer?

A minion should never be used in a situation where they should be a powerful opponent. If the party is of a low enough level that the kobold slinger is a credible threat, any ogres should instead be actual monsters. If the party is of a level where ogres should be easy kills, why is there a non-minion kobold there, too?

It's the zen of minions. You want "minion" to be a canonical category, but there are no ogre minions in the wild. An ogre is only a minion when the situation is appropriate for the ogre to be a minion. Your example above doesn't satisfy this requirement.

-O

 

[Dausuul]

Say we have a common kobold slinger standing next to a level 11 Ogre Bludgeoneer. Now our level 10 fighter uses a cleave attack on the Kobold. The Kobold is hit for 15 damage but still standing, and the weak secondary blow that follows through and hits the Ogre for 3 damage suddenly becomes his deathblow. This might seem strange to the fighter, since for all his life as a hero that secondary attack on a cleave has always been a piddly weak attack that is just a glancing blow on his follow through beyond the real target he attacked.

In this situation, the kobold should also be a minion. A kobold slinger is a 1st-level monster; it should not be going up against a 10th-level party. The DM should either make it a 9th-level minion (same XP value) or not even bother with it.

 

[GoLu]

Ultimately, minions are just a tool the DM has that can help represent a certain type of fight scene. If that kind of scene (the one where a bunch of faceless mooks with no plot protection go down in one hit) isn't what you're into, minions aren't going to be a particularly useful part of the DM toolkit.

 

[Goumindong]

You do realize hazardous terrain is an isomorphism with the house cat, right? And yes, you can say the DM can decide how NPCs interact with NPCs all you want, but you can also say the DM can tell players to not bother rolling dice because he's just going to decide everything too. It's a simulation system, the fact that it breaks down at certain points and the DM has to hand wave is the problem we're talking about, not the solution.

1. I was not aware that house cats were burning walls of fire and ice and pure necrotic energy conjured from the very depths of hell and heights of heaven and the deep inner reserve of personal arcane energy by heroes on a quest to save the world. And/or Lava/pits/etc that would kill them anyway. My bad.

2. No you cannot. See the rules are a method of conflict resolution between the players and the DM. The players naturally want their attacks to hit and the DM usually wants them to miss. So instead of everyone leaving the table in a hissy fit because nothing gets resolved, you roll dice to see what is resolved.

This mechanic is the core mechanic of all role playing games. You are playing a role and that role has limitations. In order to determine where those are and whether or not you suceed in your actions a random number generator is compared with bonuses against a target number.

DM's do not have arguments with themselves. Anything that is not in conflict with the PC's is there at the behest of the DM to do the DM's bidding so that the players can better roleplay. Its not a simulationist system, its never been a simulationist system, it will never be a simulationist system. Its a system that governs player/DM interaction not a system that covers DM/DM interaction.

Waaaait, wait, wait. You're saying on one hand lower level NPCs are useless because they'll never hit so minions fix that problem, then on the other you say they're broken when the PCs have them with their "truely optimal build". You have to pick one, it's not both, it can't be both.

There is a level of fudge in all systems. The very low level NPCs that a player had were more or less useless. The level -3 wizard they had tagging along was more or less really awesome.

AGAIN, you're going to have to pick a side here, you can't argue both. You've gone to claim that torch bearers don't break 4E, then you claim any game with companions is broken. Sorry, buzzer.

A torchbearer isn't a companion. He is played by the DM, he dies when the DM says he dies, he is an entity in the game world for you to interact with. He is not a pet, companion, or cohort. He is exactly as strong and useful as is thematically apropriate for the DM because he is an NPC.

Also claiming any game with pets etc. is broken because of it pretty much is claiming most games are broken since most games support them. A clearly incorrect claim.

I know nonsense like "exception based design" and "economy of action" sounds cool and technical and it's fun to say them, but it isn't, it's marketing.

1. Its not marketing, its an understanding haven been gleaned from studying games about what happens when there are wide divergences in the amount of actions players take.

E.G. Take every turn based AP based game ever(Arcanum, SPECIAL, etc etc). Unless there are very very very tight controls on how many APs characters get then the single best attribute in any game was the attribute that increased the number of AP you had to go around.

Ditto exception based design, except that instead of worrying about balance its worrying about people understanding it. If the game is nothing but exceptions with no core rule then no one will understand what is going on. No one will be able to make rational decisions about play, meta play will be more or less impossible. Now you aren't playing a game anymore(which is defined by those choices), you're guessing a game. There is a reason that nearly every game pays close attention to exceptions and economy of actions. Its because its good game design.

Pets/Cohorts/Companions are broken if they are not implemented as powers and require action on the part of the player to use each round. This is why nearly all the current summoning powers require sustaining, anything that makes more attacks requires another standard action, anything that moves requires a move action.

Its just that simple, you do not break the economy of actions and get away with it.

Most games balance having companions by having a cost associated with them. Spending a feat when you're level 20 in 3.5E is a fairly small cost, getting a level 15 or so wizard ally from it (which you then use your epic diplomacy to make fanatically loyal) is probably not very balanced, but it has nothing to do with "economy of action." Giving druids companions was fine in 3.5E, but having one of them at level 1 being a trained war dog that is effectively as strong as level 2 creature wasn't. Again, economy of action isn't at fault there.

Yes it is. The companion would have to be as valuable as any other class ability, power, or feat. Which is to say not very useful at all.

Most games balance companions laughibly. 3.5 is the perfect example. An companion at the begining of the game was terribly strong. An animal companion at the end of the game was more or less useless(iirc). A familiar was a liability nearly the entire game. A cohort was completely and utterly broken. There was no reasonable middle ground and there really never is in a multi-player game.

I suppose the one exception to that would be Diablo II and other action RPGs. But they play significantly differently are balanced as powers and their other powers are severely scaled back.

There is no way to do something like that in a turn based game, especially one like DnD.