Let's talk about minions...

[Obryn]

Since sudual damage was (effectively) removed from the game there is no longer any difference between a poke in the eye, a dagger thrust, or magical fire damage. Everything causes general hp damage and a player can simply decide if the foe is knocked out or killed.

Not everything does HP damage, though. Housecats don't, and thumbs in the eye don't. The situations where those could lead to death are unusual at best.

Either the minion has 1hp or it doesn't. If the DM simply gets to decide if a minion drops depending on how serious he believes the player's intent to be then why roll dice? Have the DM describe all the action and tell the players how things turn out.

Clearly, you have missed an entire realm of differentiation between your two extremes.

-O

 

[Scribble]

Since sudual damage was (effectively) removed from the game there is no longer any difference between a poke in the eye, a dagger thrust, or magical fire damage.

Which is as it should be, unless you want to add the called shots and hit location/effect tables back into the game. Which always in my opinion added only more book searching action pausing to the game.

Everything causes general hp damage and a player can simply decide if the foe is knocked out or killed. This makes capturing enemies an easy mode operation that does not require planning, care or any extra degree of challenge.

When was it ever such a big deal to capture an enemy without killing it?

 

[wally]

Actually, the system 1) hasn't got dragon minions, and 2) doesn't say anywhere that poking someone in the eye with your fighter deals any hit point damage at all.

Criticizing the minion rules because of how they interact with hypothetical dragon minions is like criticizing the power system because of the broken nature of first level fighter powers that deal 15[W]+Str damage on a hit. Yes, that power is broken. Yes, the elder dragon minion is silly. They're also both not real.

Actually, the example I was originally quoting was from someone using a dragon minion as an example.

Regarding number 2, I think they still include unarmed attacks as causing damage, if not, I guess I misread it.

I also might suggest that you don't use the word real as someone may use that as an argument against your stance.

-wally

 

[Fifth Element]

I also might suggest that you don't use the word real as someone may use that as an argument against your stance.

It's clear from the context what the meaning was. Unless someone's being pedantic, it shouldn't be an issue.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Which is as it should be, unless you want to add the called shots and hit location/effect tables back into the game. Which always in my opinion added only more book searching action pausing to the game.?

Hit location/called shots were never required. A simple reduction of attack bonus and reduced damage (except for the monk) made nonlethal attacks suboptimal, hence a little more risky.



When was it ever such a big deal to capture an enemy without killing it?[/quote]

Back when you couldn't toss a fireball into a crowd to subdue. " Roast the dark one and the giant but leave the third alive for questioning"

 

[wally]

It's clear from the context what the meaning was. Unless someone's being pedantic, it shouldn't be an issue.

That is why it is just a mild suggestion. There are those that would easily take it too far....Just my experience in reading here.

-wally

 

[Dausuul]

And this is why minions don't work. When is a hit point not a hit point? When it belongs to a minion of course. Since sudual damage was (effectively) removed from the game there is no longer any difference between a poke in the eye, a dagger thrust, or magical fire damage. Everything causes general hp damage and a player can simply decide if the foe is knocked out or killed. This makes capturing enemies an easy mode operation that does not require planning, care or any extra degree of challenge.

I think you're missing the point. Any attack that does hit point damage is an attack that can kill. It can kill minions and it can kill PCs and it can kill solo monsters. If an ancient dragon normally has 1,500 hit points, and it's been beaten down to 1 hit point, and you do 1 point of damage to it, it dies.

Consequently, if an attack form cannot plausibly be lethal, it should not be able to do hit point damage. Ever. To anything. I don't care how badly beaten up that ancient dragon is, I cannot imagine any circumstance in which a thumb in the eye turns a living dragon into a dead dragon.

(Or, to put it another way, let's say the dragon is fully healthy at 1,500 hit points. You walk up to it, paralyze it somehow, and then poke it in the eye 1,500 times. Does this result in a dead dragon?)

Regarding number 2, I think they still include unarmed attacks as causing damage, if not, I guess I misread it.

You can inflict damage with unarmed attacks, yes. That doesn't mean a poke in the eye counts. You have to apply some common sense here. If I reach out and tap an opponent lightly with the tip of my greatsword, that's not going to inflict 1d10 + Str damage, even though it's an offensive action performed with a greatsword.

(Of course, there are some cases where any unarmed attack doing damage is kind of implausible. I'm not real clear on what kind of martial arts moves you'd use to take down a fifty-foot dragon. But that's a separate concern from minions.)

 

[Scribble]

Hit location/called shots were never required.

I know they weren't, but if you want to start arguing that specific effects or hit locations should be more damaging then others, then they are needed. I agree with the argument 3e made saying that your charactyer is ALWAYS trying to achieve the best effect possible, hence HP being more abstract.

I further agree that HP aren't always a direct hit, or physically damaging effect. Damaging HP means damaging your opponents ability/will to continue the fight. Either by killing him, knocking him out, or just giving the ol, "stay down punk!"

A simple reduction of attack bonus and reduced damage (except for the monk) made nonlethal attacks suboptimal, hence a little more risky.

Still not a huge deal. Yeah there were penalties to attacking for subdual damage, but really did it matter much for anythign but the last shot anyway?

Back when you couldn't toss a fireball into a crowd to subdue. " Roast the dark one and the giant but leave the third alive for questioning"

So that guy managed to shield hismelf just enough to not be incinerated, and instead, while crispy, passes out, or just sees his allies get incinerated and then shouts: "Please I'll do anything you ask don't kill me!" drops his weapons, and curls into the fetal position.

There are a million ways to use your imagination, unless of course you've already determined that you will not under any circumstances imagine a situation to be.

 

[Victim]

Just to bring another sort of minion rule into the discussion, what do people feel about the Mob template that was introduced in the DMG II? Essentially, you take a large group of mooks, turn them into one monster and they all die when they run out of that pooled hit points.

Is that a better way of dealing with mooks?

It's terrible. I hated swarms from the moment they were introduced, knowing that people would apply them to weak people like creatures to create mobs.

Of all the suspension of disbelief issues with minions, magic voltron peasants that combine to fight like a single really tough monster have to be worse.

 

[Cadfan]

Actually, the example I was originally quoting was from someone using a dragon minion as an example.

I know. Its still a silly example no matter who's using it.

If your argument falls into the following form, it is silly:

1. Imagine a hypothetical monster that wouldn't make sense as a minion.
2. Now imagine that it IS a minion!
3. Oh my gosh!

Not only is this sort of logic applicable to many other things,

1. Imagine a hypothetical spell that isn't balanced.
2. Now imagine that this spell actually exists!
3. Oh my gosh!

Its also vulnerable to refutation in kind.

1. Imagine a hypothetical monster that shouldn't be a minion.
2. Now imagine that it IS a minion!
3. And also we all have ponies!
4. Awwww... ponies!

See, I totally saved that one.

Regarding number 2, I think they still include unarmed attacks as causing damage, if not, I guess I misread it.

Oh, they do. If, when you referenced poking the dragon in the eye, you really meant poking him in the eye with the secret pressure-point eye-poking techniques taught to you by the Monks of the Bleeding Lotus when you lived with them for 15 years after you fled your hometown because your sensei was murdered by ninjas, then I apologize for misinterpreting you.

But if you just meant it as a generic poke to the eye a la the Three Stooges, then there's no reason to think it should deal actual damage. While a finger poke is technically an unarmed action, and its an "attack" in the sense that its something you do to someone else that they wish you would not do, I am not convinced that it counts as an unarmed attack for the purpose of dealing damage.

If you feel this is incorrect, meditate upon a hypothetical player who declares that he is using his giant two handed scythe to hook an orc's underwear and give it a wedgie. 'Tis an attack with a scythe, and 'tis unpleasant, should it deal regular scythe damage? Should it kill a minion? Should it kill a monster that has been beaten down to one hit point? If repeated two dozen times, should it kill a first level wizard?

What it really comes down to is a social question- if players have the right to describe their character's acts, what should be done if a player chooses to describe their character's acts in such a way as to create a mismatch between the description and the underlying game mechanics?