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

[W'rkncacnter]

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.

...could just add a swarm template to 5e. i mean, level up did it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I clicked "love" rather than "like" because of these two points.

The first complements my reply to @Micah Sweet not far upthread: the notion that the PCs can't tell how powerful a foe is, by observation, is highly contentious. You provide a perfect example of how they can do so.

The second complements some of my replies to @Crimson Longinus over several pages of this thread: the assertion that it is easier to use complex damage multiplication etc rules, than to use minion rules, is not obvious to me at all, and actually seems somewhat implausible:

For instance:
The notion of "narrative intent" of the monster is in my view a red herring: I mean, by placing an Ogre (with 59 hp) rather than a Goblin (with 7 hp), is the 5e DM manifesting a "narrative intent" for the foe (to not be one-shottable, killable by fireballs, etc?). This notion that 4e D&D encounter building involves some distinctive element of "narrative intent" seems like nonsense to me.

But turning to the suggested mechanic, how is this easier to use than minions? Instead of putting the work up front, during the GM's encounter design, it makes it matter during play, requiring the GM to share hp totals and requiring the player to make a choice. It also causes weirdness in the play: either the fighter is getting an additional action (their "finishing move") outside the normal action economy; or the fighter player is getting to retcon their attack into a finishing move ("dissociated mechanics"!).

I don't see how jumping through all these hoops in order to preserve invariance of monster statblocks relative to the PC statblocks makes for a better game.

That's why this is a preference argument. You understand that not everyone like the same kinds of games you do, right? It's not that we just don't get it.

 

[pemerton]

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.

You asserted that representing an Ogre as a minion reflects nothing in the fiction. But representing an Ogre as a 16th level minion - which one would do if the PCs are mid-Paragon, but not if they are Heroic - does represent something in the fiction, namely, that a mid-Paragon hero is notably more powerful than the Ogre.

You could, if you wanted to, represent the same state of affairs by using the standard 8th level Ogre. But that would be contrary to the precepts of the game (as per my post not far upthread about the mathematical purpose of minion stats).

This is @Manbearcat's point, as I understand it: 4e D&D has multiple ways of representing a given creature, just as there are multiple temperature or climbing scales. Unlike the temperature scales, though, the choice of representation is not purely conventional: it is also connected to making the maths of the game work, with the goal of supporting play. For instance, precisely because it is anticipated that the PCs are likely to encounter larger groups of weaker foes, it improves game play to use stats for those foes that reduce spike damage from them.

Now one could disagree with that, and think that spike damage makes for better play. That would be an aesthetic disagreement with the 4e design. I'm not defending the 4e aesthetics here - though I can report I found them pretty satisfactory. I'm refuting the point that being a minion does not represent anything. It uses game states to represent a power relationship.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

I mean, who they're fighting is a thing in the fiction that everyone imagined to be part of the scene is also imagined to be aware of. The 350 exp Ogre fighting a mid-high Heroic adventurer is a tough foe that will take time and effort to defeat. It likely at least starts the fight confident. The 350 xp Ogre facing a 16th level party is facing near-certain death in the next few moments, fighting desperately, perhaps out of even greater fear of some horrific master. They could be the literally same ogre (assuming it survives one of those encounters and goes on to the next at some later date), but how they appear in the fiction is very different.
Modeling them differently is perfectly valid.

And, the need that they be statistically 'the same,' which, I totally get - well, they're both 350 xp ogres. Sure, that's even more abstract than 59 hp, but, hey, 59 hp is awfully abstract, as we already know.

You could, if you wanted to, represent the same state of affairs by using the standard 8th level Ogre. But that would be contrary to the precepts of the game (as per my post not far upthread about the mathematical purpose of minion stats).

I mean, you could, but you'd run into the same issue you do in other editions - the resolution would be forgone and tedious/trivial.

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.

No reason it couldn't be the same Swarm mechanic. I couldn't readily google a swarm of medium humanoids in 5e, but they were in both 3e and 4e, and the swarm mechanics are not that dissimilar in 5e.

 

[pemerton]

Both analyses appear to rely on two incoming attacks per turn.

<snip>

But every incremental attack brings a significant decrease in survivability

Correct. I was imagining a fighter who can stand in a corner (say of a ruined masonry of the sort Conan might fight in, or a dungeon room in more conventional D&D).

If you got for more than two attacks per turn the AD&D maths get ugly in two ways: first a host of modifiers need to be accounted for, and I didn't have the patience for that; and second, the fighter is going to find they go down much more quickly.

This number would very easily get surpassed in play. Heck it's probably not that appropriate for the sim, considering that ogres have a ranged attack on their statblock, and even in melee, all that would need to happen to get more attacks in would be for the ogres in front to get out of the way of the ogres behind them.

AD&D Ogres don't normally attack at range, at least in my memory of them, so I used melee as my framework.

I think the fact that the 5e Ogres are better off throwing their javelins than charging into melee shows another feature of 5e that is a bit of a departure from the inspirational material.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You asserted that representing an Ogre as a minion reflects nothing in the fiction. But representing an Ogre as a 16th level minion - which one would do if the PCs are mid-Paragon, but not if they are Heroic - does represent something in the fiction, namely, that a mid-Paragon hero is notably more powerful than the Ogre.

You could, if you wanted to, represent the same state of affairs by using the standard 8th level Ogre. But that would be contrary to the precepts of the game (as per my post not far upthread about the mathematical purpose of minion stats).

You are still just agreeing with me. This still is not a diegetic difference of the sort I mean. You say you can represent the same ogre with different stats depending on the situation. Same ogre, different stats.

 

[pemerton]

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.

@Crimson Longinus is asserting that minion status does not represent anything in the fiction. That's not a statement of preference. @Sacrosanct asserted that a minion Ogre can be killed by commoners, or a housecat. That's not a statement of preference.

In another post of yours I replied to not too long ago, you asserted that "a minion version of a creature is distinguishable from a normal version of equal power (level) only when one attempts to hit it with something." Neither your equation of power with level (false for 4e D&D), nor your statement about distinguishability, are statements of preference.

I don't care what you do or don't prefer. But as you can see from my posts, I'm inclined to rebut false claims about the rules and play of 4e D&D.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Crimson Longinus is asserting that minion status does not represent anything in the fiction.

No, I said it doesn't represent a diegetically different creature in the fictional world. Or at least that's what I meant. And you have agreed with me on that twice now.

That's not a statement of preference. @Sacrosanct asserted that a minion Ogre can be killed by commoners, or a housecat. That's not a statement of preference.

Sure. It also is true.

 

[Micah Sweet]

@Crimson Longinus is asserting that minion status does not represent anything in the fiction. That's not a statement of preference. @Sacrosanct asserted that a minion Ogre can be killed by commoners, or a housecat. That's not a statement of preference.

In another post of yours I replied to not too long ago, you asserted that "a minion version of a creature is distinguishable from a normal version of equal power (level) only when one attempts to hit it with something." Neither your equation of power with level (false for 4e D&D), nor your statement about distinguishability, are statements of preference.

I don't care what you do or don't prefer. But as you can see from my posts, I'm inclined to rebut false claims about the rules and play of 4e D&D.

The differences you are describing are related to their narrative role in the story, not their existence in the setting. No one I think is disputing the former, but the latter is what I and I think @Crimson Longinus and @Oofta want. 4e works with the former, and does it well, but we don't want that.

 

[pemerton]

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?

Because it is being represented as a 9th level minion rather than a 1st level standard. The numbers for AC, hit points, to hit and to damage are all just conventions, that taken together and as a whole express (in some rough fashion) the combat prowess of the creature/NPC.

We can hold the toughness of a creature constant, but step up its to hit while dropping its damage. Or vice versa. Or by stepping up its AC while dropping its hp. Or vice versa. (Again, this is @Manbearcat's point about the purely conventional nature of using one or another mode of representation.)

This is why I regard 4e D&D as the pinnacle of Gygax's mechanical design: it fully embraces the abstract and often metagame nature of AC, hp, to hit, to damage, the action economy, etc, and in doing so produces full-blooded D&D-esque fantasy that works from village heroes fighting Goblins up to demigods confronting Orcus. I regard it as a remarkable technical achievement in game design.