D&D 5E Simulation vs Game - Where should D&D 5e aim?

[Imaro]

Meh. It was close enough to be true most of the time. Base damage goes up as characters gain levels. Either through equipment or later feats and whatnot.

Many monsters become effective minions over time. Heck why do you thing the Improved Cleave feat got included? If monsters never go down in one hit it wily be a pretty pointless feat.

Ah... another "close enough" argument... I guess that's the new way of dismissing the fact that your stated truth doesn't hold up...

I know base damage goes up but it doesn't change the fact that some creatures in pre-4e editions will never become minions in the 4e sense.

Uhm... are you talking about Great Cleave? Also you realize you don't have to drop them in your first round of attacks... with iterative attacks you could reduce more than one foe simultaneously and use Great Cleave once one or more start to drop.

 

[pemerton]

Guidelines are just that guidelines, not rules... and even then they do not give precise instruction on exactly when each monster should become a minion and so it falls on the judgement and will of the individual DM to make that decision

The GM who is in doubt can of course just use a Monster Manual, which are full of minions at appropriate levels.

On another note when you speak to minions and the coherence of fiction and the ensuring of "objective reality"... this seems to only apply if I play in the exact play style that 4e pushes... one in which the challenges are carefully tailored to party level. It seems to breakdown however for other play styles such as a sandbox where the threats aren't specifically tailored to the party

Well, if you choose to run a system in a style that it is not written to support, you're going to have to do some work. That doesn't seem a great shock to me. (Eg perhaps you stat up two versions of the ogre lair, with and without minions, and you pull out the one appropriate to the tier of the party when they venture into it.)
[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] is the only 4e GM around here who I know runs a sandbox (maybe [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION] too?). Maybe they can tell us how they use minions (if at all).

 

[pemerton]

Is that actually within the rules? I'm skeptical.

You can be as sceptical as you like. Nevertheless I did it, and it seemed well within the rules to me.

What happens when PCs start trying to circumvent the combat rules for other monsters.

The PCs don't circumvent any rules.

So I guess the question is, "What happens when the players want to frame a confrontation as a skill challenge rather than a combat, for resolution purposes?" The answer to that question is - that can be sorted out on a case-by-case basis. Most of the time it is not going to come up, because it is obvious what is within the scope of the skill and skill-challenge mechanics, and what is within the scope of the combat mechanics.

In cases of disagreement, being D&D, it is ultimately the GM who is in charge of establishing the mechanical framing (along with the fictional framing).

In other words, there are three sets of rules. There's reality, there's the PHB, and then there's your shared mindset. Which begs two questions: one, what if you try playing with someone who doesn't just intuitively agree with your conception of the world, and two, if you already have that shared understanding, what are the game rules really adding to the mix?

Neither reality nor shared genre conceptions are rules. So I would say there is one set of rules - the game mechanics - plus there are other considerations that actually guide the creation of the shared fiction.

Two of the players in my 4e group I hadn't played D&D with for about 10 years prior, and even then only a handful of sessions. No clashes of expectations have arisen. I think this is because the 4e rulebooks do a pretty good job of establishing the basic foundation of play, for instance with the discussion of tiers (reference upthread), the descriptions of paragon paths and epic destinies, the default cosmological backstory, etc. Points of detail get worked out along the way - typically, if a player wants his/her PC to do something my approach is to say yes and set an appropriate DC for an appropriate skill check.

As a general rule, the game is not going to break because a player's PC got to do what the player wanted, and the game has pretty clear rules for setting DCs and for adjudicating the consequences (both good and bad) of checks that are made.

 

[Imaro]

The GM who is in doubt can of course just use a Monster Manual, which are full of minions at appropriate levels.

So how does that work... are level 1 minions appropriate for level 1 characters? Are level 4?

The DMG says to replace one standard monster with 4 minions of the same level... now looking at the encounter guidelines a standard monster in a fight can be anywhere from 4 levels below the PC's to 4 levels above the PC's... at 1st level we've got PC's one-shot'ing orcs, devils and even duergar... and when I look at the AC for these minions it's well withing range for the 1st level characters ( I checked defenders and strikers) to hit...

Well, if you choose to run a system in a style that it is not written to support, you're going to have to do some work. That doesn't seem a great shock to me. (Eg perhaps you stat up two versions of the ogre lair, with and without minions, and you pull out the one appropriate to the tier of the party when they venture into it.)

@LostSoul is the only 4e GM around here who I know runs a sandbox (maybe @the Jester too?). Maybe they can tell us how they use minions (if at all).

Wasn't implying it should be shocking... just pointing out some of the inherent limitations that exist in the system, especially for sim players, since they seem to get glossed over in the discussion. Though I would be curious in hearing from people who have used this Schrodinger's monster style in sandbox play...

 

[Obryn]

Personally, I'm arguing for the abstractions to meld with the physics as far as they can (while knowing they never fully will) so as to produce an internally consistent and believeable game world. Is that such a bad thing?

No, and like I said I can understand that drive. It's not my preferred - I like the rules to generate a cinematic narrative - but I get it.

I'm arguing with a weird inversion that Ahnehnois and Saelorn are pushing where, after you've settled on your abstractions, you turn around and declare that those abstractions must also be directly observable physics of the universe. This goes to Fighter Bob knowing exactly how many arrows Ranger Jeff can shoot at him before he keels over. (As opposed to this information being known only by their players, Beth and Jenny.)

 

[pemerton]

just pointing out some of the inherent limitations that exist in the system, especially for sim players, since they seem to get glossed over in the discussion.

Who has EVER glossed over that 4e is a non-sim-oriented system? There must have been thousands of posts on that topic on these boards alone over the past 6 years. It's just about the most widely-recognised feature of 4e out there!

So how does that work... are level 1 minions appropriate for level 1 characters? Are level 4?

As per the DMG, level 1 minions are appropriate for level 1 characters. Level 4 minions will be more challenging, as per the encounter building guidelines. The exact page references were cited upthread.

The DMG says to replace one standard monster with 4 minions of the same level... now looking at the encounter guidelines a standard monster in a fight can be anywhere from 4 levels below the PC's to 4 levels above the PC's... at 1st level we've got PC's one-shot'ing orcs, devils and even duergar... and when I look at the AC for these minions it's well withing range for the 1st level characters ( I checked defenders and strikers) to hit...

I'm not familiar with 4th level duergar minions, but that might just be my ignorance or forgetfulness. I'm not seeing what your bigger picture is here.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The PCs don't circumvent any rules.

So I guess the question is, "What happens when the players want to frame a confrontation as a skill challenge rather than a combat, for resolution purposes?" The answer to that question is - that can be sorted out on a case-by-case basis. Most of the time it is not going to come up, because it is obvious what is within the scope of the skill and skill-challenge mechanics, and what is within the scope of the combat mechanics.

If two completely disparate mechanical frameworks could conceivably be applied to the same situation, that isn't a very well-designed set of rules.

In cases of disagreement, being D&D, it is ultimately the GM who is in charge of establishing the mechanical framing (along with the fictional framing).

Whoa there, tiger! That sounds like some DM fiat to me.

Neither reality nor shared genre conceptions are rules. So I would say there is one set of rules - the game mechanics - plus there are other considerations that actually guide the creation of the shared fiction.

I'm not sure what the point of that semantic distinction is. In all three cases, there are boundaries that demarcate what can and cannot occur. In one case, those boundaries are physical laws, in another, they are game mechanics, and in a third, they are apparently some kind of hivemind. They're all rules in the pertinent sense.

As a general rule, the game is not going to break because a player's PC got to do what the player wanted

If that's really the case, we ought to throw out the rulebook.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Who has EVER glossed over that 4e is a non-sim-oriented system? There must have been thousands of posts on that topic on these boards alone over the past 6 years. It's just about the most widely-recognised feature of 4e out there!

Being fair I've said in the past and will say again that 4e, despite not being sim oriented, is a better sim of ... just about any non-D&D fictional universe (and even many D&D novels explicitly based on prior D&D rules) than any other edition of D&D.

I'm not familiar with 4th level duergar minions, but that might just be my ignorance or forgetfulness. I'm not seeing what your bigger picture is here.

I think his point is that PCs should not be able to one-shot poorly trained, armed, and equipped dwarves (Duergar Thugs). Or possibly that well armed, armoured, and trained Duergar Guard shouldn't be worth about four thugs?

 

[Imaro]

Who has EVER glossed over that 4e is a non-sim-oriented system? There must have been thousands of posts on that topic on these boards alone over the past 6 years. It's just about the most widely-recognised feature of 4e out there!

I am talking about in this thread, the fact that sim/gamist systems and specifically older editions of D&D can't produce certain dramatic/thematic results in play has been brought up more than once in this thread (though there have been numerous threads where this has been brought up before) so I figured I'd also point out some of the limitations of

As per the DMG, level 1 minions are appropriate for level 1 characters. Level 4 minions will be more challenging, as per the encounter building guidelines. The exact page references were cited upthread.

I'm not familiar with 4th level duergar minions, but that might just be my ignorance or forgetfulness. I'm not seeing what your bigger picture is here.

They are Duergar Thugs...


The bigger picture relates to the fact that the rules aren't actually doing what people are claiming. they are saying a minion is supposed to be for when you get to a higher level and the relative version of that creature becomes weaker for your character... but that's not actually what is promoted in the rules as shown by the Duergar example... a 4th level Duergar Thug minion is perfectly appropriate for a 1st level PC... as is a 4th level Duergar Guard standard. The rules say these are both appropriate encounters for first level characters, not that the standard is for characters of 1st level and the minion for characters that have advanced more...

 

[Imaro]

I think his point is that PCs should not be able to one-shot poorly trained, armed, and equipped dwarves (Duergar Thugs). Or possibly that well armed, armoured, and trained Duergar Guard shouldn't be worth about four thugs?

No that's not my point (though in all honesty I don't think 1st level characters should be one-shot'ing Duergar and Devils)... but by this description it seems you are asserting that Duergar minions aren't there to be used as relative versions of standard Duergar that represent a character hitting a level where Duergar or Devil's aren't a major threat... because that's been the prevailing wisdom from the 4e side in this thread. Are you saying that minions are just level 4 monsters that happen to have equipment and training that is so bad it is represented by them having 1 hit point and going down after 1 hit? and if so are you asserting this for all minions, say something like fire giants or ogres?