D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[AlViking]

Oh! Ref my previous post. I now think I understand how the 4ed MM ogre might situation might have arrisen!

They thought it would be cool with 3 flavors of standard ogres on 350xp, alongside the weakling 150xp minion and the 1200 elite. One that is just smash stuff, one that has has a scary ability, and one that actually has some brains. Cool idea, right?

Trouble was that the just smash stuff ogre hence became minion-simple to run in practice.
Some guidelines regarding minion designation based on ability complexity came (blindly) into play, and hence it got demoted to minion for set piece battles building purposes. The xp budget was not changed tough, so the stats were just reworked to match the relevant level/xp math.

I didn't care for minions, even if I did understand what they were going for. But it just made no sense in the fiction. Take Grr, the dragonborn. Grr has a breath weapon, something barely useful unless facing the weakest of foes. At low levels Grr faces ogre and they're tough, no way he's going to bother using breath weapon on them. As he goes up levels, the ogre get tougher and tougher.

But then one day because he has nothing better to do with his minor action he breathes fire at the pair of big brutish ogre and he takes them both out. Next encounter he does it again but the ogres laugh at the wasted attempt.

Now, from a game mechanic point of view I know what's happening. From an in-world point of view it makes no sense that some ogres are tough to kill and others are apparently giant animated balloons that look, weigh and hit like ogres.

That may be fine with you but to me it changed the very essence and in world reality of the monster in a way that was illogical.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I am confused. My argument in defence of the minion concept is that this is exactly how I read the minion concept?

That is minions are creatures that is substantially weaker and with less interesting abilities than "normal" monsters. This makes them easier to handle in larger groups.

the concept of the minion template/category to my understanding is not 'here is a weaker variant of the same monster that exists alongside the original' but 'these are the same monsters and you have all become so strong as to be able to dispatch them with a single blow'

 

[Enrahim]

the concept of the minion template/category to my understanding is not 'here is a weaker variant of the same monster that exists alongside the original' but 'these are the same monsters and you have all become so strong as to be able to dispatch them with a single blow'

Where is this understanding from? I have now digged deep in the source material, and find absolutely nothing to support that in the actual 4ed books. Rather the opposite.

I suspect this is a misunderstanding that has been spread as part of the anti-4ed frensy back in the day. Enough people complaining about something, and suddently, people start thinking this must have been the intention..

 

[AlViking]

the concept of the minion template/category to my understanding is not 'here is a weaker variant of the same monster that exists alongside the original' but 'these are the same monsters and you have all become so strong as to be able to dispatch them with a single blow'

I understand the concept. That doesn't mean I like it or that I think it makes sense. They were trying to mimic cinematic action where the protagonist takes out low level enemies without taking a scratch.

But then they tried to combine that with the monsters still being a threat. This is a narrative approach to gaming which, like many things 4e, didn't really fit the pattern of previous editions. It was just one more thing that pushed the game (particularly combat) into feeling like a complex board game.

 

[AlViking]

Where is this understanding from? I have now digged deep in the source material, and find absolutely nothing to support that in the actual 4ed books. Rather the opposite.

I suspect this is a misunderstanding that has been spread as part of the anti-4ed frensy back in the day. Enough people complaining about something, and suddently, people start thinking this must have been the intention..

Or people just didn't like the concept and it didn't fit what they wanted out of the game. But what would I know, I only played the edition for a few years.

 

[TwoSix]

Where is this understanding from? I have now digged deep in the source material, and find absolutely nothing to support that in the actual 4ed books. Rather the opposite.

I suspect this is a misunderstanding that has been spread as part of the anti-4ed frensy back in the day. Enough people complaining about something, and suddently, people start thinking this must have been the intention..

Both concepts exist within the 4e monster manuals. There are a lot of minions that are meant to be "cannon fodder" for a more organized pack of monsters. There are also cases where a monster is presented as a standard in one case, and a minion in a second, higher level arrangement. Although this is often across books, not usually within the same book, and I can't think of a case where the same MM entry shows both a standard and a higher-level minion block for an individual monster.

I think the initial concept might have been presented in "Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters", which isn't technically a 4e book (it's more intended as a long-form advertisement), but is an extremely illuminating book on exactly the thought processes behind 4e's design choices.

 

[Enrahim]

Both concepts exist within the 4e monster manuals. There are a lot of minions that are meant to be "cannon fodder" for a more organized pack of monsters. There are also cases where a monster is presented as a standard in one case, and a minion in a second, higher level arrangement. Although this is often across books, not usually within the same book, and I can't think of a case where the same MM entry shows both a standard and a higher-level minion block for an individual monster.

I think the initial concept might have been presented in "Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters", which isn't technically a 4e book (it's more intended as a long-form advertisement), but is an extremely illuminating book on exactly the thought processes behind 4e's design choices.

If you need to go across books to find evidence of the design, that doesn't make it seem like they were pushing that design particularly hard?

If that had been the intention, why didn't they present "goblin skirmisher - elite (Level 1)", "goblin skirmisher(level 2)", and "goblin skirmisher - minion (level 3)"?

Instead you get "goblin cutter - minion (level 1)", "goblin sharpshooter (Level 2)", "goblin under boss - Elite (Level 4)"

It seem like the intepretation that minions were supposed to represent the same monster for higher level context, that would mean they both made a design choice I have seen noone actually arguing they like for themselves, and fully botched the execution of that design idea.

My interpretation involve they made a design choice that formalised the observation that certain monsters tend to be more complex than others to run. They also had the really bright observation that not having to track HP is a major simplification, and followed the design implications of this to a fault. Unfortunately they failed in aproperiately recognise the full consequences of the complex design web they spun before it was too late given tight deadlines. (Edit: That this unraveled late in the process I think can be seen from monsters being sorted by xp, not by level or minion/normal/elite. This make me think the level based encounter building system might have come in so late, basic layouting was already done)

I find the second intepretation a lot more likely and cherritable.

Another indication that minions was in flux was that the DMG did not include guidance for making them, DMG 2 included guidelines that in no way matched what they seemed to have been doing in the MM, and that the most problematic minions are gone from Monster Vault.

However I have not read "Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters". Didn't know it existed. Seem interesting, so I will probably pick it up. Thank you for the tip!

 

[Enrahim]

I didn't care for minions, even if I did understand what they were going for. But it just made no sense in the fiction. Take Grr, the dragonborn. Grr has a breath weapon, something barely useful unless facing the weakest of foes. At low levels Grr faces ogre and they're tough, no way he's going to bother using breath weapon on them. As he goes up levels, the ogre get tougher and tougher.

But then one day because he has nothing better to do with his minor action he breathes fire at the pair of big brutish ogre and he takes them both out. Next encounter he does it again but the ogres laugh at the wasted attempt.

Now, from a game mechanic point of view I know what's happening. From an in-world point of view it makes no sense that some ogres are tough to kill and others are apparently giant animated balloons that look, weigh and hit like ogres.

That may be fine with you but to me it changed the very essence and in world reality of the monster in a way that was illogical.

What do you think the idea was?

I think the idea was: "With only 1 hp, we don't have to track hp". This was meant to fix the hp tracking problem for insignificant goons - a staple of the genre.

As such I would think pure game consideration in terms of limiting complexity might have been just as much a motivation (or even more) as any narrative motivation.

Unfortunately this solution was too extreme with D&D 4ed big numbers philosophy. The gap between a minion and non minion in terms of HP became too big at higher levels - further compounded by their math for ordinary high level creatures was off as well - in the bag of HP direction. This caused this solution to fall completely apart in a "sim" perspective.

As such it might be that Dagger heart with it's flat, low HP math can get away with it? It is nice to not have to track HP at all.

Meanwhile D&D 2024 and Draw Steel try to dial it one step down by not getting rid of HP tracking completely, but simplify it to one track per group.

 

[AnotherGuy]

If you need to go across books to find evidence of the design, that doesn't make it seem like they were pushing that design particularly hard?

Particularly hard is subjective.
Skill Challenges were formalised in DMG2. Half the usual playable races and classes were in PHB2.
The issue of how things were released in 4e is not new, but I do not think you can draw the conclusion you have drawn.

If that had been the intention, why didn't they present "goblin skirmisher - elite (Level 1)", "goblin skirmisher(level 2)", and "goblin skirmisher - minion (level 3)"?

Instead you get "goblin cutter - minion (level 1)", "goblin sharpshooter (Level 2)", "goblin under boss - Elite (Level 4)"

Let's move past the goblins shall we?
The issue is not goblin minions but minions of monsters that are historically tougher.

My interpretation involve they made a design choice that formalised the observation that certain monsters tend to be more complex than others to run.

Do you find ogres complex to run?

Another indication that minions was in flux was that the DMG did not include guidance for making them, DMG 2 included guidelines that in no way matched what they seemed to have been doing in the MM, and that the most problematic minions are gone from Monster Vault.

You mentioned tight deadlines...

 

[AnotherGuy]

Unfortunately this solution was too extreme with D&D 4ed big numbers philosophy. The gap between a minion and non minion in terms of HP became too big at higher levels - further compounded by their math for ordinary high level creatures was off as well - in the bag of HP direction.

I do not think the disparity of hit points between minions and others was an issue for 4e.

This caused this solution to fall completely apart in a "sim" perspective.

I'm not sure sim was a concern given math of the game.

Meanwhile D&D 2024 and Draw Steel try to dial it one step down by not getting rid of HP tracking completely, but simplify it to one track per group.

What do you mean by groups?