D&D General What does the mundane high level fighter look like? [+]

[Micah Sweet]

What happens diegetically for the fighter to go from level 16 to 17?

It represents them having gotten a little better at avoiding harm, perhaps perfecting a technique or spell they've been practicing during their downtime. I would also prefer training to be a thing in a game I run for experienced players.

The one thing it isn't is a narrative conceit designed to push the "story" in a particular direction, or to validate some "class fantasy".

 

[pemerton]

Ok. so you think the ogre minions are dietetically representing weaker ogres. But then you said earlier as response to why the commoners don't kill the minion ogre:

So now it is no longer a weaker ogre whose on HP diegetically represents it's status as a weakling? What gives?

Represented as a diagram, where ">" means "is notably more powerful than", we have PCs > minion Ogre > commoners.

To put some candidate numbers on this for 4e D&D, the commoners might be level 2 minions (human rabble), worth 31 XP each; the Ogre a level 8 standard (Ogre Thug) or level 16 minion (Ogre Bludgeoneer), worth 350 XP; and the PCs level 17 (so upper Paragon).

Mort the notably powerful Ogre is, in this scenario, probably a levelled-up Ogre Warhulk (so let's say 15th rather than 11th level elite brute, worth 2400 XP).

 

[Micah Sweet]

This claim is very controversial to me.

For instance, in the last session of Torchbearer that I GMed, the PCs piled scrap metal onto a magically-conjured floating disc. Presumably this falls under the metaphor of the players "interacting with" the scrap metal. But the scrap metal had no statistical description.

The PCs also drank water (no statistical description required), lit a fire (no statistical description required), and journeyed from a ruined tower to a forgotten temple complex (no statistical description required). Their journey was hindered by blustery winds, whose relevant statistical characterisation was +1 toll. The PC with a cloak was able to reduce the toll for the journey, based not on anything statistical but on common sense reasoning about the fiction.

In general, the way we assign physical properties to things in the fiction is by describing them. And those descriptions then provide the context for the players to declare actions for their PCs. Only in some contexts of action resolution do we need game mechanical statistics, and those statistics are generally relative to a particular game play context (like penalty to the toll from a journey).

Does it? Have you done the maths for every instance of minionisation?

In 4e D&D, a 1st level standard NPC has AC around 15, hp around 30, around +5 to hit for around 9 damage. A 9th level minion NPC has AC around 23, and around +13 to hit for around 9 damage. Whether that minion is easier or harder to defeat is not obvious at all. For a 9th level ranger with +13 to hit (+5 stat, +4 level, +2 enhancement,+2 proficiency) and AC 24 (Hide +2, +4 DEX, +4 level, +1 sundry), it will take two attacks on average to hit (and kill) the minion. The minion may get in one attack, with an expected damage of 4 to 5.

Assuming the ranger does d10+2 on a hit (weapon +2 enhancement), it will take around three hits to kill the 1st level standard NPC: 16.5 (weapon dice) +6 (3 hits) +7 (two lots of Hunter's Quarry). In that time, the NPC will get in (say) two attacks, with an expected damage of about 1 per attack, or 2 overall.

Of course other examples will come out a bit differently, as the possible variety is pretty significant, and the level of the PC relative to the NPCs will affect the maths quite a bit. But I think this illustrates that the general effect of minionisation is not to make an enemy easier to defeat, but to make the maths of the game more workable. (Ie the exact opposite of your "kludge" claim.)


Actually, in 4e D&D how tough a creature is and how hard they are to kill is represented, statistically, by the combination of AC (or other defence) and hp. And these are adjusted relative to the power of the PCs, in order to make the maths work smoothly. If all you know of a 4e stat block is the number of hp, but not the level of the creature (and hence its AC and attack bonus), you don't know how hard that thing is to kill, how tough it is.

This is a very obvious feature of 4e D&D.

I'm not sure if you ever played 4e D&D, but it sounds like maybe you missed the rules for level scaling of to hit, AC, damage etc. You seem to be assuming that "minionisation" leaves the stat block unchanged but for the creature hit points. But that's not the case (as my example just above illustrates).

Mechanics do matter. Changing the stats of the creature/NPC, to reflect the relative power of it and the PC, so as to make the maths of the game work smoothly, does affect the feel. In my experience, that is a good effect. Just as one instance, it tends to reduce spike damage from weaker foes - the scaling of minion attack bonuses together with the flattening of their damage numbers makes them more "even" in their contribution to the combat. (Whereas using a lower level standard means they mostly whiff, but very occasionally hit or crit for less "flat" damage.)

This helps support the Conan-vs-pack-of-were-hyenas feel.

It's not confused. Nor confusing, at least in my experience. It is one solution to the problem of using a relatively uniform mechanical resolution framework, and a reasonably linearly scaling PC build framework, to handle both a hardy young squire fighting off a bandit or two and a demi-god fighting off a flight of Vrock demons. I don't know of any other version of D&D that handles these things particularly well.


Assuming the players understand the rules of the game, they know that the Ogre's stats reflect its power relative to their PCs. Being immersed in the fiction (presumably, if we're successfully playing a RPG) they will appreciate that the Ogre would kill commoner's willy-nilly.

The same reasoning applies to the Ogre who steps on the cat's tail.

No one is arguing that 4e doesn't work the way you say, or even that it doesn't work well for what it sets out to accomplish. We are saying we understand it but do not want it. This is a preference argument, not a rules dispute.

Sometimes it seems like 4e fans are just not ok with anyone not liking their game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For a start, in 4e D&D two NPCs/creatures of the same level are not of equal power if one is a minion and the other not! The constant measure of power, in 4e D&D, is XP value. And there is nothing that says a PC has to attack someone to perceive their power. That is entirely on the GM's narration.

I've pointed that out. I totally /do/ get the desirability of having a statistical measure to point to, to say 'same monster,' and I find holding XP the same while changing level/group role to fulfill that.

(Think of it as the analogue to the space-time interval in special relativity.)

I appreciate the proffered analogy, but I prefer to understand it.

The one thing it isn't is a narrative conceit designed to push the "story" in a particular direction, or to validate some "class fantasy".

Leveling does exactly those things.
And it can open up concrete new abilities, like casting a new, higher level spells, or increment highly abstract numerical things, like hp.

Damn, that is a versatile, foundational mechanic - and I'm pretty down on the concept of level, in general.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Represented as a diagram, where ">" means "is notably more powerful than", we have PCs > minion Ogre > commoners.

To put some candidate numbers on this for 4e D&D, the commoners might be level 2 minions (human rabble), worth 31 XP each; the Ogre a level 8 standard (Ogre Thug) or level 16 minion (Ogre Bludgeoneer), worth 350 XP; and the PCs level 17 (so upper Paragon).

Mort the notably powerful Ogre is, in this scenario, probably a levelled-up Ogre Warhulk (so let's say 15th rather than 11th level elite brute, worth 2400 XP).

Right. So Mort the Warhulk here is diegetically different from the lesser ogres, but you seem to imply that the ogre thug and the ogre bludgeoneer are basically representing the same thing, the statblock being used just depends on whom they're fighting, right? Thus there is no diegetic difference between these two, just like I was saying, the status as a minion or as a normal monster is merely a game conceit.

So you seem to be agreeing with me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've been DM'ing FAR too long to really pretend there isn't a man behind the curtain anymore. That dragon that lasts 3 rounds at 8th level is no more powerful than the large frog that lasts 3 rounds at 2nd. It's all an illusion. One shotting ogres adds a bit to the illusion without the hassle.

What I don't want, is a hassle on pointless busywork, which is what tracking non-boss hit points is and I feel the game as a whole would be better off without it.

So you want to play a different game? Great! Lots of options out there.

 

[pemerton]

To be clear, that battle lasts over an hour and a half? (1 min rounds)

Yes.

and that's one round of spellcasting?

and that's in 30 rounds? (3 minutes)

and that's one round of spellcasting?

Yes to all this.

I think that part of the issue is action economy. This also relates to this post:

Good analysis, and these are what seemed the salient bits to me. Being able to solo 30 ogres seems pretty damn badass to me! And as comparison it is important the wizard isn't that great at this. So this actually seems pretty fine to me.

The fact that the fighter's demonstration of power (in fiction) is not easily achieved at the table (in play) because of the action economy and the real time required to resolve it, is a problem.

Imagine if we slowed down the wizard casting so they could drop only one or two fireballs (or whatever) in the time it takes the fighter to solo the 30 (or 100 or however many) Ogres.

In 4e D&D, this is achieved via Swarm mechanics: it's by statting the Hobgoblin phalanx as a swarm that it becomes possible for the fighter to cut through dozens of soldiers as the wizard blow up a similar number with their spells. I don't know what a solution would look like in 5e D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't understand this claim.

For a start, in 4e D&D two NPCs/creatures of the same level are not of equal power if one is a minion and the other not! The constant measure of power, in 4e D&D, is XP value. (Think of it as the analogue to the space-time interval in special relativity.)

And there is nothing that says a PC has to attack someone to perceive their power. That is entirely on the GM's narration.

I don't understand this either. The fact that a creature is statted as a 9th level minion tells us plenty about it outside of these particular PCs' current fight with it. It tells us that that creature is notably less powerful than near-Paragon heroes. It tells us that it is around about as powerful as a heroic villager or wizard's apprentice (or similar sort of 1st level PC archetype).

Then why does it have attack bonuses and AC far in excess of a 1st level PC archetype?

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, it really can't. The DM is the one that calls for rolls. Why are you calling for rolls that you don't want? The Ogre minion never dies to a house cat unless you decide to let it die to one. It kills town guards without rolls, and gets to shrug off their attacks, just like you don't need to roll for the ogre's boss to tell him to go kill the town guard.

NPC's just do stuff unless it impacts the PC's and it is in question. Ever had a murder mystery? No one rolled to see if the victim died before the PC's got on the scene.

Not in my game. At the very least stuff like that gets abstracted out to see what happens based on the capabilities of the creatures involved.

 

[Oofta]

This claim is very controversial to me.

For instance, in the last session of Torchbearer that I GMed, the PCs piled scrap metal onto a magically-conjured floating disc. Presumably this falls under the metaphor of the players "interacting with" the scrap metal. But the scrap metal had no statistical description.

The PCs also drank water (no statistical description required), lit a fire (no statistical description required), and journeyed from a ruined tower to a forgotten temple complex (no statistical description required). Their journey was hindered by blustery winds, whose relevant statistical characterisation was +1 toll. The PC with a cloak was able to reduce the toll for the journey, based not on anything statistical but on common sense reasoning about the fiction.

In general, the way we assign physical properties to things in the fiction is by describing them. And those descriptions then provide the context for the players to declare actions for their PCs. Only in some contexts of action resolution do we need game mechanical statistics, and those statistics are generally relative to a particular game play context (like penalty to the toll from a journey).

Does it? Have you done the maths for every instance of minionisation?

In 4e D&D, a 1st level standard NPC has AC around 15, hp around 30, around +5 to hit for around 9 damage. A 9th level minion NPC has AC around 23, and around +13 to hit for around 9 damage. Whether that minion is easier or harder to defeat is not obvious at all. For a 9th level ranger with +13 to hit (+5 stat, +4 level, +2 enhancement,+2 proficiency) and AC 24 (Hide +2, +4 DEX, +4 level, +1 sundry), it will take two attacks on average to hit (and kill) the minion. The minion may get in one attack, with an expected damage of 4 to 5.

Assuming the ranger does d10+2 on a hit (weapon +2 enhancement), it will take around three hits to kill the 1st level standard NPC: 16.5 (weapon dice) +6 (3 hits) +7 (two lots of Hunter's Quarry). In that time, the NPC will get in (say) two attacks, with an expected damage of about 1 per attack, or 2 overall.

Of course other examples will come out a bit differently, as the possible variety is pretty significant, and the level of the PC relative to the NPCs will affect the maths quite a bit. But I think this illustrates that the general effect of minionisation is not to make an enemy easier to defeat, but to make the maths of the game more workable. (Ie the exact opposite of your "kludge" claim.)


Actually, in 4e D&D how tough a creature is and how hard they are to kill is represented, statistically, by the combination of AC (or other defence) and hp. And these are adjusted relative to the power of the PCs, in order to make the maths work smoothly. If all you know of a 4e stat block is the number of hp, but not the level of the creature (and hence its AC and attack bonus), you don't know how hard that thing is to kill, how tough it is.

This is a very obvious feature of 4e D&D.

I'm not sure if you ever played 4e D&D, but it sounds like maybe you missed the rules for level scaling of to hit, AC, damage etc. You seem to be assuming that "minionisation" leaves the stat block unchanged but for the creature hit points. But that's not the case (as my example just above illustrates).

Mechanics do matter. Changing the stats of the creature/NPC, to reflect the relative power of it and the PC, so as to make the maths of the game work smoothly, does affect the feel. In my experience, that is a good effect. Just as one instance, it tends to reduce spike damage from weaker foes - the scaling of minion attack bonuses together with the flattening of their damage numbers makes them more "even" in their contribution to the combat. (Whereas using a lower level standard means they mostly whiff, but very occasionally hit or crit for less "flat" damage.)

This helps support the Conan-vs-pack-of-were-hyenas feel.

It's not confused. Nor confusing, at least in my experience. It is one solution to the problem of using a relatively uniform mechanical resolution framework, and a reasonably linearly scaling PC build framework, to handle both a hardy young squire fighting off a bandit or two and a demi-god fighting off a flight of Vrock demons. I don't know of any other version of D&D that handles these things particularly well.


Assuming the players understand the rules of the game, they know that the Ogre's stats reflect its power relative to their PCs. Being immersed in the fiction (presumably, if we're successfully playing a RPG) they will appreciate that the Ogre would kill commoner's willy-nilly.

The same reasoning applies to the Ogre who steps on the cat's tail.

IMHO, 4E took in world logic, ripped it up, burned it, buried the ashes and then spit on the grave.

There was no way to otherwise accept that this ogre that was supposedly level 11 could die from slipping on a banana peel. It didn't matter who was fighting that CR 11 ogre minion, it always had 1 HP. Good I guess if you're a level 1 commoner named David fighting that level 11 Ogre named Goliath. It obviously didn't bother some people but I want the fantasy world and the rules that we use to interact with that fantasy world to have some grounding.

HP is total crap, but at least it represents something in 5E. Vastly oversimplified, far too simple for some people but it means something. That, and minions destroyed much of that sense of growth. If I'm in a level 1 group, a single ogre is kind of terrifying (and it should be). If I'm in a higher level group, taking out an ogre or 10 may take a bit of work but when we're done we can look at each other and say "Remember when we were terrified of these things?" A minion? A minion will always be a cardboard cutout no matter what level you encounter it.

Anyway ... back to prepping for an actual D&D game with people who actually enjoy the game and accept it for what it is.