Let's talk about minions...

[Cadfan]

So why do dragons not make sense as minions, but giants do? The whole point that the dragon example was making was that giants don't make sense as minions, to them.

And dragons would make sense as minions in a "War of the Lance"-style setting, so I don't see how it's some absurd example.

Dragons make perfect sense as minions in any setting in which player character power makes it logical for a player to be able to drop a dragon in one hit.

I guess its up to you to decide whether there is any level at which any published character class could plausibly down any published dragon in one hit.

 

[Henry]

EXCEPT for one point. It DOESNT affect gameplay.

Is there EVER a scenario where the PCs fight an enemy and can only hit it with a natural 20 and is NOT a TPK situation.

It happens to us in 3.5 all the time. If one of our group is playing a wizard, he might have at most a +4 to +15 attack bonus; by contrast our fighter-types can have anywhere from +7 to +40 to hit, depending on the level we're playing at. Now, in 4e, the bonuses are a bit closer between classes, but you'll still have some instances where one of the party can only hit something on a nat 20, and the rest just have a harder time but maybe a hit range of 13 to 20, or something like that.

Dragons make perfect sense as minions in any setting in which player character power makes it logical for a player to be able to drop a dragon in one hit.

See my sig.

 

[Spatula]

Dragons make perfect sense as minions in any setting in which player character power makes it logical for a player to be able to drop a dragon in one hit.

I guess its up to you to decide whether there is any level at which any published character class could plausibly down any published dragon in one hit.

What level do you have to be to deal 141 HP of damage (a non-minion cyclops) in one hit?

Minions are a plot device, a story construct. What is and isn't a minion is determined by the needs of the story (as Henry's sig quote implies), not its dragon-ness. If the story needs legions of X that the players are expected to mow down with ease, then X are minions.

 

[Ourph]

As long as not all the PCs have to hit on a Nat 20, it is perfectly okay to use that scenario.

I disagree. This scenario gets us back to the situation where some of the players are having fun playing the game, while another player is sitting around being useless and hoping that in the 6-8 turns he'll get in an encounter, he'll be lucky enough to roll a nat 20 at least once. I agree with Allister, the hit on a nat 20 rule causes more problems than it solves. Any encounter that forces one or more PCs (or opponents) to depend on this rule in order to contribute is a poorly designed encounter.

 

[Henry]

I agree with Allister, the hit on a nat 20 rule causes more problems than it solves. Any encounter that forces one or more PCs (or opponents) to depend on this rule in order to contribute is a poorly designed encounter.

There are other situations besides standard encounters that this rule affects, though. What about difficult situations where a player accepts a penalty to try something really difficult?

Let's say a level 1 ranger player wants to hit a small lever (AC 18, the DM rules, because it's around 3 inches tall) from across a room (-2 penalty) when it's behind cover (-2 to hit) and he's running to get closer into range (-5 to hit)? He's got next to no chance usually, and without the "20 auto hits" rule, he has literally NO chance. How many groups have success stories told around the table years after about him making that lucky 20? Or about the equally-famous story of a guy who had no chance to miss an important roll and still rolled a 1?

If one wanted to remove the auto-20 hit rule because of problems in their game, it's well and dandy, but were it my game I'd question why the DM wanted to do it to fix a problem that I've never seen make a difference during game play? All to stop unevenly matched minions from killing one another in one blow?

Then again, I'm also the guy who doesn't create the town blacksmith until the PCs or I need him for game purposes. If the PCs don't directly or indirectly interact with it, I'm not a fan of laying down hard rules on how they interact with one another.

 

[D'karr]

If one wanted to remove the auto-20 hit rule because of problems in their game, it's well and dandy, but were it my game I'd question why the DM wanted to do it to fix a problem that I've never seen make a difference during game play? All to stop unevenly matched minions from killing one another in one blow?

This ^.

 

[Ourph]

There are other situations besides standard encounters that this rule affects, though. What about difficult situations where a player accepts a penalty to try something really difficult?

Let's say a level 1 ranger player wants to hit a small lever (AC 18, the DM rules, because it's around 3 inches tall) from across a room (-2 penalty) when it's behind cover (-2 to hit) and he's running to get closer into range (-5 to hit)? He's got next to no chance usually, and without the "20 auto hits" rule, he has literally NO chance. How many groups have success stories told around the table years after about him making that lucky 20? Or about the equally-famous story of a guy who had no chance to miss an important roll and still rolled a 1?

I still don't believe the VERY few times it actually adds to the excitement of the game make up for the instances where an encounter becomes an exercise in tedium for a player who has to depend on the Nat 20 rule to contribute. I agree that there are trade-offs, but I think the trade-off is well worth it in this case.

If one wanted to remove the auto-20 hit rule because of problems in their game, it's well and dandy, but were it my game I'd question why the DM wanted to do it to fix a problem that I've never seen make a difference during game play? All to stop unevenly matched minions from killing one another in one blow?

If I were complaining about unevenly matched minions killing each other in one blow you'd have a point. But that's not my complaint about the Nat 20 rule.

Then again, I'm also the guy who doesn't create the town blacksmith until the PCs or I need him for game purposes. If the PCs don't directly or indirectly interact with it, I'm not a fan of laying down hard rules on how they interact with one another.

I'm 100% with you on this. Personally, I love minions and the way they work in 4e. My hatred of the Nat 20 rule doesn't stem from concerns about how it interacts with minions, it comes from concerns about how it interacts with encounter design and active PC involvement. One of the things that I think 4e got very right is making sure that every player has a fairly strong chance to contribute to an encounter every time they take an action, there are few "you suck, deal with it"-moments. To me, encounters where PCs are forced to depend on the nat 20 rule to do anything useful are the quintessential "you suck, deal with it"-moments.

 

[D'karr]

If I were complaining about unevenly matched minions killing each other in one blow you'd have a point. But that's not my complaint about the Nat 20 rule.

It might not be what you were complaining about but it is what the discussion has been concentrating on.

 

[Cadfan]

My fiance, who had never played any edition other than 4e, asked me when I mentioned the auto-hit on a 20 rule: "But if the game is set up so that you hit when you roll an 8 or a 12 or something, doesn't that mean that anything you can only hit on a 20 is probably going to kill you anyway?"

 

[frankthedm]

So why do dragons not make sense as minions, but giants do?

Hatchlings would make fine minions. They could offer some really good tactical conundrums too if the parent dragon gets combat bonuses for watching it's babies die. Kill the hatchling and mommy will be pissed, don't kill the hatching and it will be zipping across the battlefield harassing whoever it can.