At what point do players know they're fighting Minions?

[Nytmare]

For instance, the Rod of Reaving doesn't work against minions. Presumably, a character would be able to observe that the RoR works against some monsters, but not others. And with sufficient observation, he might also discover that the monsters the RoR doesn't work against are precisely those that always go down in one hit.

I always like to believe that it's in pretty much everyone's best interest to not make the mistake of treating a battlemat like it's a science laboratory. The balancing act of a magic item's game mechanics and the way they interact with a creature's role is a lot of metagaming to try to rationalize away as deductive reasoning.

In a completely different vein, aimed at people who dislike monster knowledge rolls, what were your feelings in previous editions where players who memorized monsters out of the books had an advantage over players who didn't?

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't understand what's "metagamey" about knowing something is a minion.

"Minion" is a role. It's totally a game mechanic, no different than Leader, Brute, AC, Will, Level, Alignment, Hit Points, Speed, etc.

From a RAW perspective, the Monster Knowledge Check does not hand out roles, just like it does not hand out defenses and some other monster knowledge. The DMs who hand this out are not really following RAW.

So there is nothing wrong with players discovering information not included within a Monster Knowledge Check over the course of the encounter. It's "metagamey" to hand game mechanic information out for free at the start of the encounter.

Is it ok to tell your players "This is a Brute" or "This is an Elite" or "This foe looks like it has tough skin, it probably has a high AC but a low Reflex" right away? I don't think it is. How is that different than saying "This is a Minion" (and note: saying it indirectly by describing inferior armor and weapons is just a copout, you might as well save time and just say it)? You are explicitly telling the players the number of hit points and the approximate amount of damage the foe does without the foe even swinging a weapon yet.

Note: There are 8 minions out of ~328 that have the word Minion in their name. 3 which have the word Decrepit. 10 that have Thug (course, there are 5 standard monsters with the word Thug in their name). So there are a tiny percentage where some designer thought it was a good idea to shout it out right away (course, if your players do not read up on monsters, they still might not know a Thug is probably a minion). 90% or so of Minions do not have such clues in their names.

 

[DracoSuave]

"Minion" is a role. It's totally a game mechanic, no different than Leader, Brute, AC, Will, Level, Alignment, Hit Points, Speed, etc.

From a RAW perspective, the Monster Knowledge Check does not hand out roles, just like it does not hand out defenses and some other monster knowledge. The DMs who hand this out are not really following RAW.

Metagame.

The concept of a game outside the game, where there is a larger game that encapsulates each individual game.

So, for example, the playbook in Football is part of the metagame.

Game mechanics are not 'metagamey'. In fact, hps are a direct measure of things that happen in game at the immediate front. AC, Hit Points, Speed, are no more metagamey than the football is in the game of football.

I don't think the word means what you think it means.

I think what you're trying to call 'metagame' you really mean 'hidden knowledge' at which point you need a better argument than a malapropism.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't think the word means what you think it means.

I think what you're trying to call 'metagame' you really mean 'hidden knowledge' at which point you need a better argument than a malapropism.

If you do not understand what I meant, then say so. If you did, why did you find the lame need to attempt to "correct me".

This crap about talking about how people present their posts and what words they use is just crap and shows what kind of person you really are. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand and doesn't support your POV in any way.

Admin here. This sort of over-reaction, particularly after you've already been cautioned, gets you booted from the thread. Folks, use this as an object lesson on how not to respond when someone disagrees with you. ~ PCat

You just don't like the fact that the Monster Knowledge Check rules do not support your POV and you aren't following RAW in this case.

 

[DracoSuave]

If you do not understand what I meant, then say so. If you did, why did you find the lame need to attempt to "correct me".

This crap about talking about how people present their posts and what words they use is just crap and shows what kind of person you really are. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand and doesn't support your POV in any way.

You just don't like the fact that the Monster Knowledge Check rules do not support your POV and you aren't following RAW in this case.

My point was that you need a better reason than 'It's metagamey' to justify hidden information, when the information you expose is equally as 'metagamey.'

'It's not RAW' doesn't even apply; the DMG suggests that you play your encounters as an open book. That much information should be made available, and that hidden information should be things that are -actual- hidden items. Traps are hidden. A brute is generally not.

So, as I said... you need a reason for hidden information other than "I don't like minions" and "I don't like monster knowledge checks" and "I don't like the suggestions given to me by the DMG or the designers of the game itself" in order to justify it.

"It's metagamey" does not fly in 4th.

 

[Flipguarder]

Dracosuave, I would ask what is the reason to justify giving information about things that aren't readily apparent (imo).

 

[DracoSuave]

Dracosuave, I would ask what is the reason to justify giving information about things that aren't readily apparent (imo).

To which I reply, how is it not readily apparent that normal monsters have some sort of additional threat value that puts them above and beyond the rank and file soldiers of their team?

In fact, taken in the further direction...

Look at solos. Dragons in particular.

Are you saying that a dragon's ability to take on entire parties shouldn't be readily apparant to the party?

To which I reply... is that party insane or stupid?

Elites are just tougher than normal monsters, it should be perceptible some how. And so-on. The PCs should be able to clue in on that information pretty quick, it's not implausible that PCs should have the skill to do so in character.

 

[Flipguarder]

Claiming its not implausible is not nearly the same as claiming the opposition requires justification for it's viewpoint.

 

[DracoSuave]

Claiming its not implausible is not nearly the same as claiming the opposition requires justification for it's viewpoint.

When the opposing view point is a statement of implausibility:

Dracosuave, I would ask what is the reason to justify giving information about things that aren't readily apparent (imo).

Then saying something is plausible is a reasonable counter argument.

'That doesn't happen!' can be countered by 'It can, and this is why it can.'

Further, it includes an example in the opposite direction, extrapolating the minion/normal monster difference and showing that you CAN tell solos from normal monsters, and then goes on to claim PCs should develop the skills to do so as a matter of survival.

 

[Flipguarder]

"You require an argument"
"So do you"
"my idea isn't crazy"
"how does that mean i require an argument?"
"You said I require an argument."

I believe thats what we just did.

I meant "so do you" in the sense that I don't understand why I need one, and it seems just as likely that you need one.