One trick I have learned as a DM of 4e, is to always let players roll damage, and then announce afterwards if the monster died. Try it.
This would be fine... for about 5 battles. It soon devolves into the same thing though. Why bother rolling?
It used to be that even against some of the lowliest critters you had to roll for damage because *gasp* you might roll a 1 for damage.
There is no pleasure in the kill when there is no chance of failure. Who cares if I did 400 damage, if 1 would have done?
I'm very tempted to be disruptive in the game as follows:
Player: Hmm I recognize that monster token, it's a minion... "I drop my mace and punch the demon on the arm. I got a 24 to hit. It is dead."
DM: "You didn't roll damage."
Player: "I don't need to. It's 1d3 damage for a punch, and it only has one hit point".
DM: "But how do you know you hit?"
Player: "The last 15 of these have all had 20 AC. I got 24. I hit. It's dead"
Seriously. Why bother having exciting weapons when a pointy stick will do the same job? In previous editions this came up. You wore a creature down, or it was way below your level. You couldn't fail to kill it if you scored the hit. But that was few and far between. This is pretty frequent.
As a DM I've created situations where the players roll dice for absolutely no reason. They hate it. I hate it too. I've learned that it is a bad thing, and so your solution is not a worthy one long term. It might fill the gap for a while, but soon it will just be a waste of my time as a player, and as a person in general.
Fifth Element said:
I haven't DMed 4E yet, but I have used minions in 3E. It should be bloody obvious me that you don't tell the players which monsters are the minions. You should be rolling damage with each hit...in fact, isn't there advice to players to roll damage dice at the same time as the attack?
Actually I believe you're right. If the DM didn't blatently state that they were minions I might be less disenchanted with them. On the other hand, as I was saying above, knowing the minion mechanic exists, it won't take long to figure out which ones are which. Minions are the ones that die in one hit while all the others take 4 or 6 hits to kill. That's pretty obvious.
Strangely I've always frowned on rolling damage and attack dice together. I'm not sure why. I'll check with the others on their opinion. We've certainly never done it that way.
LostSoul said:
Why do you feel like killing minions isn't worth it? Minions do suck, but the damage they do adds up over time. If you ignore them, they will take you down.
As above, there is little satisfaction in completing a task that had little or no chance of failure. I'm much happier knowing that I did 5 damage more than I needed, than knowing it doesn't matter what I roll.
Yes, from a tactical stand point it was good to kill the minion. But it doesn't feel like an achievement, because the challenge of doing so was drastically reduced.
I'm sad to say that I would be happier if kobold minions had 10 hit points, and each other kobold creature had their hit points reduced by 9 to compensate.
Ginnel said:
Minions are fine and I think used quite well in the adventure, I think the problem with people saying the monsters are tough is that your thinking in old edition terms if it helps make all the kobolds with hit points into orcs and hobgoblins and have minions as actual kobolds or just pretend that these kobolds have class levels.
Absolutely. Of course I'm thinking in old edition terms. For 4 or more editions (depending on how you count the iterations of 0ed and 3.5) DnD monsters have been standard, with a few classed exceptions to make things interesting. Now classed is normal, and 'standard' is rare and it's value greatly diminished. I don't understand why this had to change, but forgive me for thinking in old edition terms when the situation has been reversed after 4 editions of being the same. Forgive me for thinking that some concepts are fundamental to what makes and RPG 'D&D', and that the changes in a new edition don't feel right or need to be questioned.
cignus_pfaccari said:
Yep. Once people figure out what their powers do, and how to implement them effectively, things go a lot faster.
I sure hope so. An hour and a half to fight 3 dragonshield kobolds and a wyrmpriest is just not cool. Admittedly about 10 minutes of that was spent explaining to the DM that the kobolds 'shifty' at will power does not mean my move action terminates after the first square.
Ooo look, you get to move around the battlefield so much more in this edition. How tactical it has become... Umm. No, actually it's just freaking annoying because the way the DM was trying to run it (at first) is that the players need to be paranoid about their wording or lose their turn.
Player: "I
walk one square towards the kobold"
DM: "Each of the kobolds reacts by shifting one square away from you. You cannot reach them now"
Player: "I said WALK! I did not say SHIFT. I have NOT completed my move action."
He got it for a while. Then he caught out another player with the same trick and the player fell for it. Losing his action needlessly.
Do you get the feeling my DM isn't helping me to like this new edition I am not fond of to begin with? He's looking for us to slip up so that his monsters can get the upper hand. Well I'm fine with that, except that he assumes we've slipped up when we actually haven't, and he tries to respond accordingly, by interrupting what we're saying.
Now feel free to suggest that I find an alternate DM. But the simple fact is, his behaviour did not have this effect on me prior to starting 4E. I have enough gripes with the rules without having them exaggerate such oportunities. Then again, that may just be kobolds. I've yet to fight anything else. Maybe they're the only excruciatingly annoying ones?
[/whine] I know I get whiney on topics like this. I apologize, but ultimately, that's what this thread is about - venting bad feelings brought about by the new system and finding compatriots that feel the same way, in order to share and lessen the burden.
