Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Scribble]

AAs an aside, Aunt Harriet might not be able to hit the minions since unless I missed something, there's no natural 20 hit rule in 4e.

There is Page 276: Automatic Hit: If you roll a natural 20 (the die shows a 20), your attack automatically hits.

It's just not a crit unless you can also hit with that result. So technically the farmers could kill the ogre minion. They have a 5% chance if they get a swing off which is as it should be in my opinion.

More then likely though they will miss, and then the ogre will not.

Smush.

 

[Fifth Element]

More then likely though they will miss, and then the ogre will not.

Smush.

I'd say it's more like a 'splat' with large dose of 'crunch'.

(Hey, it's a D&D supplement!)

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Again I call foul.

I pointed out quite easily how a 7th level heavy armoured PC is easily hitting an AC of -5 meaning you need at least 20 2nd level bandits to even hit the PCs since you are going to need a natural 20.

With the PC able to choose his magic items as in 3E's ridiculous expectation, sure. But looking at the sample level 6-9 PCs in my Expert modules (X4 and X9), none of them had magic gear worth more than a 2-point improvement over 1st level, and X9's fighter-types are at AC 2, 2, and 4.

These are the values the system was designed for. While it could be broken by Monty Haul DMs, the expectation was that HP, not AC, would provide the majority of improvement in defense at higher levels.

 

[AllisterH]

I

As opposed to normal monsters, even in 4e. You can do some rough calculations and figure the 60hp Ogre can survive for X number of rounds against the villagers. If they have a 60% chance of hitting the Ogre, and do 5 points of damage each, that is an effective damage of 3 per round, so they would defeat the Ogre in 20 rounds. Conversely, the Ogre will hit the villagers 80% of the time and do 5 points of damage, for an effective damage per round of 4pts. Villagers have 5hp each, so unless the Ogre can split an attack between two villagers, that would be 16 villagers before he is defeated. If the evil wizard that is behind all this is casting spells also, then you can calculate the damage based on their percentages of being able to save to get the effective damage for the spells.

Unless the villagers are minions, in which case, the numbers start getting wonky. Miss effects are canceled, so the wizard is instantly less effective against the minions than they would be against villagers with hit points. The minions are more threatening than regular peasants because of that.

Theoretical exercise, you may be thinking? What if the PCs have to defend this village? Sure, you can just pull a number out of a hat for the number of villagers that are killed. But you will have no idea how long the PCs have until the villagers are all killed or the enemies are driven off. Arbitrarily picking a number of rounds is the same as tripping a flag in a video game; ie, it has nothing to do with the PCs actions other than clearing a stage or surviving for a certain number of minutes.

Which is fine, if a given group likes that kind of thing. But it demonstrates that minions are problematic for building a world, and that these 'weaker' opponents are more dangerous than regular monsters, depending on who you are. A serious problem when trying to simulate an independent world.

?????

You do realize that the above scenario doesn't work in ANY edition by RAW.

Ogres in every edition since the game of D&D has been created will, assuming they actually hit the farmer, will obliterate a 1st level NPC

2nd edition : Farmers had 1d6 hp while ogres did damage by weapon with a +8 bonus to damage.

3rd edition : Farmers have 1d4 hp while ogres do damage again by weapon (either 2d8 + 7 - melee or 1d8 + 5 ranged).

Where's this splitting damage idea coming from.....

 

[Raven Crowking]

Indeed. Bearing in mind that the DM isn't the only one at the table.

If the DM doesn't bear that in mind, he soon will be.




RC

 

[Fifth Element]

?????

You do realize that the above scenario doesn't work in ANY edition by RAW.

Agreed. This is one of my patented "That's not an issue with 4E, it's an issue with D&D" posts.

 

[AllisterH]

With the PC able to choose his magic items as in 3E's ridiculous expectation, sure. But looking at the sample level 6-9 PCs in my Expert modules (X4 and X9), none of them had magic gear worth more than a 2-point improvement over 1st level, and X9's fighter-types are at AC 2, 2, and 4.

Taken from the black cover 2nd edition PHB. Follower (a.k.a, the guy who actually looks up to your PC at 9th level)

7th level follower - plate mail + 1, shield + 1 (AC of 0), broad sword + 2

To me anyway, that clearly is an example of the system showing what a PC should have by that level and that's not even getting into anything like high dex or rings of protection etc.

These are the values the system was designed for. While it could be broken by Monty Haul DMs, the expectation was that HP, not AC, would provide the majority of improvement in defense at higher levels.

Monty Haul DM - Heh....so basically anyone that actually uses the modules as is? Remember, a poster on these selfsame boards had the posts detailing how the typical BD&D adventure module blows the doors off the 3rd edition version in terms of treasure.

Thanks Scribble, I've been looking all over for that section and I couldn't find it.

 

[Fifth Element]

If the DM doesn't bear that in mind, he soon will be.

Indeed again. Would you care to post that in the other thread?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Again I call foul.

I pointed out quite easily how a 7th level heavy armoured PC is easily hitting an AC of -5 meaning you need at least 20 2nd level bandits to even hit the PCs since you are going to need a natural 20.)

You call foul? Lets look into some numbers. A 7th level fighter with decent exceptional strength and a +1 weapon hits AC -5 on a 16 in AD&D barring situational modifiers. I don't call that easily hitting. As for AC values I present you with various pre gen PC's and some NPC's from classic TSR AD&D products:
Module I2-Pregens

Jubelo F7 AC 2
Azure C6 AC 0
Perin T7 AC 7

Module A1-4 Slave Lords

Eanwulf F10 AC-1
Stalman Klim C11 AC 3
Slippery Ketta T10 AC 2

Now lets look at those 20 2nd level bandits shall we. Lets be generous and say they attack as 1 HD monsters so as not to overwhelm the poor PC's.
An AD&D 1HD monster without a single pitiful +1 bonus to his name will hit AC 2 on a 17. The only sample character needing a natural 20 to hit is Eanwulf and he is 10th level.

My AD&D data is taken from the source rules and modules does not include broken crap from UA (the beginning of superbloat) or assume PC's will be strutting around with multiple 18's and magical gear suitable for a character of twice thier level or more.

If the group from I2 were ambushed by 20 of these guys Perin would be toast and the other two would probably have to flee. If the bandits actually attacked as the 2 HD creatures they are then forget it. It's full on TPK with Azure getting hit on a 16.

Minions were not needed in AD&D because lower level monsters worked just fine.

[/quote]

 

[Mad Mac]

You're assuming the pregens are particularly representative of actual characters...

Simply put, you can hit AC 0 in AD&D with just the nonmagical plate and sheild combo, which was available to most characters who weren't magic users or thieves. All you need is a single +1 armor or sheild or ring or protection or whatever to hit AC -1.

I really can't think of any old D&D modules that weren't littered with magic weapons, armors, and sheilds. Wonderous items, wands, rings, sure, they weren't so easy to come by. But +1 or +2 stuff was everywhere.