GM Prep Time - Cognitive Dissonance in Encounter Design?

[FireLance]

What about stuff like Ogre minions?

You know, I've been toying with something along the lines of a "Kill Defense" for monsters which, as a general rule of thumb, would be about 10 points higher than the regular "Hit Defense". If an attacker equals or exceeds this number on his attack roll, he hits a vital area and incapacitates or kills the monster outright.

This allows PCs to effectively "minionize" monsters that they fought at lower levels when they encounter them again at higher levels. When a PC's attack bonus is +8 and the monster's Kill AC (say) is 30, he will just have to go through all of its hit points the hard way. However, when he encounters the same monster again when his attack bonus is +18, he has a good chance of dropping it with a single attack. (As a side effect, such monsters can also be killed by missed attacks, if they deal enough hit point damage.)

It's the other side of the equation that's giving me some trouble. Such monsters will not present a credible threat to high-level PCs if they don't have a high enough attack bonus, but they might be too deadly to low-level PCs if their attack bonus is too high. My interim solution requires the PCs to make a defence roll against the monster's attack (converting the "attacker rolls the dice" convention to one where the "player rolls the dice") and having graduated results, as follows (say)

Defence roll 19 or less: Monster hits for 1d10+4 damage
Defence roll 20-29: Monster hits for 4 damage
Defence roll 30+: Monster misses

 

[Dannager]

Yet again 4E is defended by saying that it is good at things that apply to any system, rather than saying it is better at something on its own merits.

Occasionally it is necessary to point out to certain individuals that 4e is capable of the same things that any other roleplaying system is capable of.

There are plenty of things I could list that I believe 4e to be better at than system X, but that isn't the topic. What I'm interested in showing, at the moment, is that the concept of minions is an accepted conceit in the genre that works well from both a mechanical and story perspective.

Thus, for someone who wants the actual game mechanics to live up to the expectations of the storytelling, there are other systems which (literally) bring more to the table.

If you are interested in having the mechanics work the storytelling for you, I can certainly see other systems giving you an edge. If you're interested in having a firm (but flexible) grip of the story you're running, 4e is the system for you.

 

[Hussar]

I finally waded through the last ten or so pages of this. Wow. Some ... interesting stuff here.

Just a point about minions. This is hardly a new concept. In Savage Worlds, for example, EVERY non-PC or "Named" NPC has exactly one hit point. Hit them once and they go down. Doesn't matter if they're an elephant or a poodle. Now, hitting the elephant is significantly more difficult, but, if you get through to a success, that elephant is now a large pile of steaks.

SW has no problems handling status-quo or sandbox games whatsoever.

/edit to add

I find it rather strange that people seem to be claiming that HIT POINTS are the best way to model in game realities. Because, y'know, it makes perfect sense that Queen Victoria would be a 15th level Aristocrat with a hundred hit points.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I find it rather strange that people seem to be claiming that HIT POINTS are the best way to model in game realities. Because, y'know, it makes perfect sense that Queen Victoria would be a 15th level Aristocrat with a hundred hit points.

Only when dealing with combat issues. D&D doesn't have any character worth measurement for status. So Queen Victoria:

(AC 9, NM, hp:3, Att: 1,Dmg; by weapon, MV; 60' ,AL: L, Save as; NM)

Her status as Queen won't show up in the combat statblock. If skills were being used then they would be.

 

[Dannager]

Her status as Queen won't show up in the combat statblock.

It will if the name at the top of the stat block is "Queen Victoria".

 

[AllisterH]

The funny thing is...minions are arguably the most "real-world" way to handle injury.

If you get a high enough attack roll that punches through defence, most things in life will be dropped DEAD.

Personally, I think minions are a long overdue mechanical concept for D&D. D&D is supposed to be able to model Conan and in most people's minds, Conan is capable of mowing down the mooks but the mooks still are supposed to be a "credible" threat a.k.a (at least able to HIT the hero).

Unless you're going for the Stormtrooper effect which is represented by simply having lower level opponents.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It will if the name at the top of the stat block is "Queen Victoria".

Quite true.

The funny thing is...minions are arguably the most "real-world" way to handle injury.

If you get a high enough attack roll that punches through defence, most things in life will be dropped DEAD.

Personally, I think minions are a long overdue mechanical concept for D&D. D&D is supposed to be able to model Conan and in most people's minds, Conan is capable of mowing down the mooks but the mooks still are supposed to be a "credible" threat a.k.a (at least able to HIT the hero).

Unless you're going for the Stormtrooper effect which is represented by simply having lower level opponents.

I wouldn't say "real world" really. Mixed martial arts fighters trade real blows and don't (hopefully) drop after a single hit. Damage is damage in D&D. Being hit with a greataxe is no different than being hit with a fist apart from the damage roll.

The mook issue only needs such a heavy handed fix because of the bloated scaling defenses in the system. Hit points represent both physical damage and general awesomeness. If defenses didn't rocket up so high, and damage scaled with level/training better, then those monsters that were tough at 1st level with 20 hit points will effectively become minions at higher level because an average damage roll will take them out. This can happen without having specially constructed balloons. Taking out an opponent in a single hit is great. It is a hollow feeling though when that enemy is essentially a training dummy built sprcifically for that to happen.

Get rid of the "unhittable" problem and the minion problem will work itself out.

 

[Imaro]

And this is for the most part why I like it. Since, as you say my ability to story-tell doesn't rely on the rules- I choose a game because I feel the the rules are fun, and work well.

4e for me is a set of rules that work well, feel consistent (rules wise) are fun in their own right, while at the same time for the most part get out of the way as quickly as possible.

Can you also see how this may not be true for others... and for some 4e may actively get in the way.

In all honesty I am starting to find, in 4e, the need to call out of what power is being used, slightly annoying. Even moreso though, I also find the subsequent reading of the powers effect and then the implementing of the power to be immersion breaking as well. But that's just me.

I also am finding even low level combats are taking longer than I or my players really want them too... but that's a whole other can of worms that has been brought up numerous times.

(And yes I realize one had to announce a feat or spell being used in 3e.. but for some reason for me and my group it seemed to flow with immersion better than the powers do in 4e).

 

[KidSnide]

You know, I've been toying with something along the lines of a "Kill Defense" for monsters which, as a general rule of thumb, would be about 10 points higher than the regular "Hit Defense". If an attacker equals or exceeds this number on his attack roll, he hits a vital area and incapacitates or kills the monster outright.

...

It's the other side of the equation that's giving me some trouble. Such monsters will not present a credible threat to high-level PCs if they don't have a high enough attack bonus, but they might be too deadly to low-level PCs if their attack bonus is too high.

I have a similar conception, but don't change the mechanics. IMG, characters and monsters fight in different ways depending on the opponent. Against weaker foes, PCs don't bother trying to wound or exhaust the enemy -- they just go for a killing blow. Similarly, against stronger enemies, the minion does don't try for a complicated strategy -- they just want to land a blow, even if it does less damage.

Personally, I find this realistic. You use a different strategy when rough-housing with an 8-year-old than you do when wrestling someone your own size. My experience boffer-sword fighting suggests a similar dynamic. There are tricks I'd use on a less skilled opponent that I wouldn't attempt in an even fight.

The implication of this is that the characters should be able to identify minions. I think this is probably a plus (so they don't waste attacks), but it's not the practice of every GM.

-KS

 

[Garthanos]

(And yes I realize one had to announce a feat or spell being used in 3e.. but for some reason for me and my group it seemed to flow with immersion better than the powers do in 4e).

We describe how we are doing what we are doing... and use a card for the specific hardware or just use one of our classics like one character describes his weapon splattering boiling blood on nearby enemies to the target of the attack mechanically its a green flame blade.