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

[Lanefan]

And, finally, note that roles are COMBAT roles. These are not meant as anything other than combat rules. They are not meant as any sort of commentary on the greater world. That's a connection that you have added. A skirmisher, or an elite, or a lurker isn't some sort of in game world thing. It's purely an abstract term for game mechanics. It's this bizarre insistence on connecting game terminology to in world reality that is causing the problem.

Given that the purpose of game terminology is in large part to describe the in-world reality in ways that make sense to us, such an insistence doesn't seem bizarre at all. The terminology serves the in-world reality, not the other way around.

 

[clearstream]

Wait, what? Where is the "aside from minions" coming from? I didn't see any exceptions for them in the knock out rules?

Look at the knock out RAW and the minions RAW and consider how they interact.

 

[clearstream]

I find it a very peculiar interpretation that "destroyed" here is supposed to be taken literary. The only monster type I can think of that traditionally has been referred to as being "destroyed" in the more literal sense are undead. I hence file this formulation under an unfortunate use of "flowerily" language, rather than actual rules content. (Wouldn't surprise me if it was written by someone that was making an unconscious slip into wargame terminology where units are "destroyed" upon defeat)

Edit - for reference this is what i consider to be the actual rules text for minions:
"HP 1; a missed attack never damages a minion."
This formulation is present both in monster manual, and monster vault - so I consider that the stable definition of a 4ed minion. Not the fluff in DMG 1.

"Destroyed" is also in the wording in the MM Glossary entry on minions, page 282.

Understanding destroyed to mean destroyed is scarcely a peculiar interpretation!

 

[Enrahim]

"Destroyed" is also in the wording in the MM Glossary entry on minions, page 282.

Understanding destroyed to mean destroyed is scarcely a peculiar interpretation!

Let me say it like this: I can sort of buy killing a goblin (or an ogre) with one stab of a dagger. However destroying them with a dagger stab just hasn't any credibility with me.

It appear to me absolutely obvious from context that "destroy" here is not meant in the everyday meaning of the word. It make a lot more sense to me that it is meant as a catch all short phrase for rendering the combatant irrelevant for the rest of the combat/game.

Indeed looking a bit more around I am surprised it is not established as a key-word, as that phrase is used in certain abilities as if it would be. The only clear rule I could find associated with the keyword in the rules compendium was that under structure of a turn "Of course, if a creature is destroyed, it has no turns!". I would indeed not be surprised if this was intended as a keyword with this meaning along possibly something like not being healable, but at some point they found it problematic (maybe because so many other conditions had the same effect, and it was hard to precisely define it?).

Edit: Though I grant you that I missed the MM glossary. Monster Vault glossary also preserve similar language. As such my dismissal of it as DMG fluff was wrong. "Destroyed" is used in rules text. I still maintain it cannot be interpreted literarily in an everyday sense, though I do consider the choice of words deeply problematic.

 

[Lanefan]

Let me say it like this: I can sort of buy killing a goblin (or an ogre) with one stab of a dagger. However destroying them with a dagger stab just hasn't any credibility with me.

It appear to me absolutely obvious from context that "destroy" here is not meant in the everyday meaning of the word. It make a lot more sense to me that it is meant as a catch all short phrase for rendering the combatant irrelevant for the rest of the combat/game.

I'd say it's more a catch-all term intended to include undead, constructs, and the like which aren't "killed" on losing their one hit point as they're not alive to begin with. Having to say "killed or destroyed" every time would get awkward.

 

[Hussar]

Given that the purpose of game terminology is in large part to describe the in-world reality in ways that make sense to us, such an insistence doesn't seem bizarre at all. The terminology serves the in-world reality, not the other way around.

See, again, this is the whole 6 impossible things before breakfast.

HP make zero sense. AC is an abstraction that makes virtually no sense. Rounds, turns, all make no sense. Stop motion combat makes no sense. Classes do not exist in the game world. Skills do not exist in the game world - one does not train "athletics" so that they are equally good (or bad) at jumping, swimming and climbing - all of which are completely different skill sets. Space/reach or 5 foot squares make very little sense. Terminology serves the game. Full stop. You accept a shed load of completely non-sensical terms that describe nothing in the game world.

The only reason that this one (whatever this one happens to be) trips people up and "doesn't make sense" is because of a personal dislike of whatever this one happens to be. It's justifying preference in reverse. It's not that it doesn't make sense therefore I don't like it. It's "I don't like this, so, it must not make sense."

 

[Hussar]

To be fair, I just checked the 4e PHB, and it appears that you can choose not to kill things with energy attacks. I stand corrected. Page 295 says you can knock creatures unconscious when you reduce it to 0 or less HP.

Which is the rule that over rules the Minions description, as it is an option for the player. There is nowhere that states that this option is not an option when fighting minions. The "Minions are destroyed at 0" is simply a shortcut description that also means that you shouldn't bother with death saves for minions.

But, again, at no point are the players forced to kill minions.

 

[AlViking]

See, again, this is the whole 6 impossible things before breakfast.

HP make zero sense. AC is an abstraction that makes virtually no sense. Rounds, turns, all make no sense. Stop motion combat makes no sense. Classes do not exist in the game world. Skills do not exist in the game world - one does not train "athletics" so that they are equally good (or bad) at jumping, swimming and climbing - all of which are completely different skill sets. Space/reach or 5 foot squares make very little sense. Terminology serves the game. Full stop. You accept a shed load of completely non-sensical terms that describe nothing in the game world.

The only reason that this one (whatever this one happens to be) trips people up and "doesn't make sense" is because of a personal dislike of whatever this one happens to be. It's justifying preference in reverse. It's not that it doesn't make sense therefore I don't like it. It's "I don't like this, so, it must not make sense."

That's assuming you don't accept the difference between simplified abstractions and reality. People do, indeed fall unconscious or die after taking damage. A person wearing armor is more difficult to damage with melee weapons. One way to handle combat is to have rounds, again a simplification since truly simultaneous actions would be complicated.

You may not care for that level of simplification and abstraction, that's fine. Just like @Lanefan doesn't care for some terminology.

 

[Hussar]

That's assuming you don't accept the difference between simplified abstractions and reality. People do, indeed fall unconscious or die after taking damage. A person wearing armor is more difficult to damage with melee weapons. One way to handle combat is to have rounds, again a simplification since truly simultaneous actions would be complicated.

You may not care for that level of simplification and abstraction, that's fine. Just like @Lanefan doesn't care for some terminology.

Again, you're insisting that I'm stating a preference. I have zero problems with the mechanic. The mechanics are perfectly fine. Good grief, I have and do play D&D for a very, very long time. I obviously don't have a problem with the mechanics.

My problem is this interpretation of the mechanics where people are insisting on deigetics where none exist. HP don't mean anything. Yes, dropping below zero does, but, taking 5 points of damage, 15 points of damage or a 105 points of damage doesn't tell us anything so long as the character still has 1 hp.

You are completely free to interpret these results in any manner you choose. That's why the mechanics have no actual connection to the game world. Any and all interpretations are equally valid so long as they do not violate the "falls unconcious at 0" rule.

 

[Maxperson]

That's an interesting thought, abeit it doesn't work under 4e RAW. "When you reduce a creature to 0 hit points or fewer, you can choose to knock it unconscious rather than kill it " but "A minion is destroyed when it takes any amount of damage."

What's the difference between destroyed and killed? I've looked through the first three books and I don't see destroyed defined anywhere.