D&D 5E 5e, Heal Thyself! Is Healing Too Weak in D&D?

[Undrave]

To my recollection the only Martial at-will that gave multiple attacks was the Ranger's Twin Strike (though Cleave does allow damaging a second, adjacent, foe if you hit the first). Casters did get some burst and blast at-wills.

For fighty-types, blasts and bursts were generally Encounter or Daily powers, in part because the designers were trying to avoid them having to make multiple attack rolls every round.

Martial Power later added a two-weapon specialist Fighter and they had their own versions of Twin Strike.

 

[Lyxen]

I might. Depending on the spell. There is a continuum of how difficult it is to come up with a narrative explanation and how much work you need to put in to do so.

On that, I completely agree, it's not black and white, we all have different ideas of what constitutes suspension of disbelief and what is a satisfying explanation (or if we even need one, actually).

Selective mechanics about damaging enemies only are a bit more on the less obvious end of the spectrum than a 1 hp high level minion for me.

It depends. Going back to Spirit Guardians, these are spirits, so it's not silly to have the cleric tell them to spare specifically some creatures when they appear, for example. It's a bit more difficult to understand for a fountain of flame (And don't get me started on the notion of "enemy", how does a spell - especially one like this - understand what an enemy is ?).

 

[James Gasik]

And that types most of these effects as necrotic, which is not the case. I would not have any problem with a necrotic aura, something visible that the players can work with and around. Although, honestly, I would associate it to other creatures than Ghouls, wraiths, for example.



Well, Spirit Guardians does this in 5e, but it's correctly described. The description, the narrative comes first, then the effect which explains what the cool visual effect does. Here, as is often the case in 4e, it's technically interesting, but this is clearly what came first, and there was not even a strapped on narrative, just a name that does not make real sense.

And for minions, there is not even a narrative, they are just there technically so that the players can kill them quickly.

Or more importantly, to give the real enemies time to do their thing while the party is stuck dealing with the minions. Some enemies, like solos, despite being designed to deal with parties, really needed a screen of minions to do their business.

Granted, all that got thrown out the window when beguiling strands was created in Essentials (sure, there was thunderwave, but this spell was a close blast 5 that did Int psychic damage, usable at will, lol).

OTOH, my friend Tim had a personal favorite mechanic that drew my ire every single time. Exploding minions; minions that either did damage to anyone near them when they died, and/or left behind a damage zone or hindering terrain (like a pool of festering acid)!

Anyways, "lose 5 hit points" is far from the most egregious effect I ever saw on a minion, so maybe I'm jaded, lol.

 

[James Gasik]

On that, I completely agree, it's not black and white, we all have different ideas of what constitutes suspension of disbelief and what is a satisfying explanation (or if we even need one, actually).



It depends. Going back to Spirit Guardians, these are spirits, so it's not silly to have the cleric tell them to spare specifically some creatures when they appear, for example. It's a bit more difficult to understand for a fountain of flame (And don't get me started on the notion of "enemy", how does a spell - especially one like this - understand what an enemy is ?).

Yeah, "enemy" spells are a conceit. But personally, I rather liked the idea of "friendly fire" after 15 years of "accidentally" being blasted by the spells of my so-called allies.

 

[Undrave]

So it was once over all the years of gaming ?

I didn't DM that often in 4e and my schedule was hectic back then. It's also in part of my life that's very fuzzy, probably due to depression messing with my memory, so I genuinely can't tell. Sorry for not having a detailed log book of every game I ever played.

And that's the problem, it was just technical. If you try to instantiate it narratively, it's a failure every time as it ends up breaking suspension of disbelief.

I mean, I don't know all the damn monsters by heart. There's probably a block of lore associated with those creatures that explains it, who knows? You picked a random, high level, creature and zeroed in on a specific effect and I don't know the rest of the creature or its lore and act like my improvised lore is somehow canon? I don't have my 4e monster books available to me right now.

And these more highly trained creatures with high defenses just give up that easily whereas much less trained creatures have way more training power ? And it's the same creature ? The more you try to explain it, the more bizarre it is.

Not every soldier in an army has the same amount of courage. A lot of bullies crumble the moment someone fights back. Heck, every Orc having the exact same amount of hit points is just as immersion breaking as some being way easier to end than others. They're not copy pasted machines, they're individual creatures.

 

[James Gasik]

Or all Orcs having the same weapons, the same tactics, the same ability scores...

 

[Lyxen]

I didn't DM that often in 4e and my schedule was hectic back then. It's also in part of my life that's very fuzzy, probably due to depression messing with my memory, so I genuinely can't tell. Sorry for not having a detailed log book of every game I ever played.

I did not need that level of detail, but just the fact that it was a rare occurence.

I mean, I don't know all the damn monsters by heart. There's probably a block of lore associated with those creatures that explains it, who knows?

There is not: "The orc warrior charges into battle, cutting down its enemies with its battleaxe." And that's it. Why is that a minion (and not the orc raider, who has "The orc raider hurls handaxes until it runs out of axes or until its enemies close to melee, at which point it draws its greataxe"), still a mystery to me...

You picked a random, high level, creature and zeroed in on a specific effect and I don't know the rest of the creature or its lore and act like my improvised lore is somehow canon? I don't have my 4e monster books available to me right now.

There is no such thing as "lore" here. Here is everything that is said on them: "Any living creature that enters this chamber and does not make a point of holding its breath breathes in the blood droplets and automatically catches a disease called ghoul rot. Treat it as the disease slimy doom (see page 50 of the Dungeon Master's Guide), but increase all DCs by 3; also, instead of turning into infectious slime when the disease runs its course, the victim becomes an abyssal ghoul."

How does this create an aura of "unending hunger" (whatever that is) is still a mystery to me.

Not every soldier in an army has the same amount of courage. A lot of bullies crumble the moment someone fights back. Heck, every Orc having the exact same amount of hit points is just as immersion breaking as some being way easier to end than others. They're not copy pasted machines, they're individual creatures.

Which is why HPs for creatures are rolled, by my VTT or by hand when relevant. Heck, my VTT even randomly creates nicknames for my orcs, and one can be a bully and the other a coward, which is great for roleplaying them in combat.

 

[Mannahnin]

Martial Power later added a two-weapon specialist Fighter and they had their own versions of Twin Strike.

I remember that book; my brother played one. I'm still pretty certain that it didn't have an at-will power to attack with both weapons.

 

[James Gasik]

Which is why HPs for creatures are rolled, by my VTT or by hand when relevant. Heck, my VTT even randomly creates nicknames for my orcs, and one can be a bully and the other a coward, which is great for roleplaying them in combat.

And that's great, if you have the time and inclination to do that. But you could do that in any system, really. I don't think any version of D&D has really lent itself well to this other than 3e, and very few people liked having to modify and equip their random mooks knowing they wouldn't survive more than 12 seconds of combat if they were lucky.

 

[James Gasik]

I remember that book; my brother played one. I'm still pretty certain that it didn't have an at-will power to attack with both weapons.

I don't think it did, because I played one, and took the most ridiculous Paragon Path in the world to go with it: the Snapping Tetsudo.

 

[Helldritch]

See, on this I agree with many other posters, it's purely technical and does not make sense. I salute your creativity in explaining effects, but it still makes no sense whatsoever if you consider that the PCs are heroes of the highest caliber and not your average peasant thrown in to "Night of the Living Dead" and that these are only minions, not even the main adversary of secondary fights.



It's not even grappling you, it's just standing there and actually attacking someone else, and it's still doing damage to you ?



See, while I completely agree with the first part of your paragraph up to "awesome layer of tactical overhead", I would insist on the "not only easy to map onto the fiction" pursuing that into "actually impossible to map" and therefore for me while it makes perfect sense in the tactical mini-game of 4e combat, it makes no sense in the overall type of play that we like at our tables. But YCMV and to each his own.

For the bolded part...
Spirit Guardians do the same. The cleric is not even attacking, taking the dodge action and guess what? It is 15 feet radius of radiant (or necrotic) damage. And we got that in 5ed. Having a creature with a 5 feet radius effect is not that big of a deal.

 

[Helldritch]

Are there really 'minions' in 5e though? Monsters you can drop with one hit? I ran a game up to 15th level and tried to take advantage of BA for a type of epic "against the horde!" encounter, and...it was a freaking slog. Gnolls have 22 hp, which means most characters don't drop them with one hit, but they still needed 17+ to hit the heroes...it was just loooong. Players begged me not to do that again.

4e minions may not have been easy hits, but they went down when you did.

You should have had the gnolls grapple their opponents. Two at a times. The other attacker would then attack the character with advantage (if they were successful in grappling) and your players would have had a very hard time. Grappling is not level dependant and it would give the "horde" effect quite well. Two grapplers means that the check is made with advantage, giving them a good chance to succeed. With other gnolls striking the grappled character with advantage (as said character is restrained) means that the other gnolls (the non grapplers) are now needing only the equivalent of a "12" to hit. A much higher chance.

 

[Undrave]

I remember that book; my brother played one. I'm still pretty certain that it didn't have an at-will power to attack with both weapons.

Might have been Martial Power 2...hmm...

 

[Helldritch]

Yeah, right, on an open plain against one character who could use his AoE and with minions with basically no effect apart from minor hp damage. Now I wonder how he would have fared in any other circumstance in particular with allies in the way and actually effective minions.



Since someone mentioned E2 (which I've played through) I went and had a look, and quite a few of the minions (those I remembered) have very nasty side effect (in particular the rider on their attacks) that would make such a statement very doubtful.



So, training then ? But then why does the 3rd level standard have 46 hit points and the 9th level minions have 1 ? The answer is not because it makes sense in the world, for sure. It's purely a gamist construct.



And then we agree. My point being that if that's what you're looking for, the minions' mechanic is the right one for you. If you look for world-wide consistency, it's not, because it's purely gamist.



Or you could, you know, use the 5e system without minions that makes a difference of play across the tiers why preserving the consistency of the world without relying on such extremely visible gamist strings.



To a PC of let's say intermediate level.



Except that technically they are completely different for no other reason than "the system requires it to work". My point is that 5e has solved this without requiring such technical juggling, that's all.



And then, my point is that in this domain 5e has the better mechanic because it does not require a number change to run smoothly.



Not necessarily, and at least the overall world consistency will be maintained, there will not be a purely technical quantum leap, and for the players it will be much more satisfying to see their progression.



Because they are not the same creature at all. It's pure artificial tailoring to make the system work. So more work for the DM

Nah... all of the above are wrong.
The minions were there exactly for the thing you want. Cinematic scenes in which the heroes slay "minions" to reach the BBEG or the prize or whatever. They were meant as a nuisance for the heroes but also a threat that the heroes could not simply ignore. As such, they were great. As main enemies? not so.

 

[Mannahnin]

Might have been Martial Power 2...hmm...

I have that one too! My (pretty firm) recollection is that no class got multiple attacks on an at-will other than Twin Strike for Rangers. Casters with some small AOE at-wills aside.

 

[Voadam]

4e Martial Power page 7 Tempest Fighter at will gives two attacks, but at one target.

Dual Strike Fighter Attack 1
You lash out quickly and follow up faster, delivering two small wounds.
At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC (main weapon and off-hand weapon), two attacks
Hit: 1[W] damage per attack.
Increase damage to 2[W] per attack at 21st level.

4e Forgotten Realms Player's Guide page 27 Swordmage at will attacks one target and damages all adjacent targets.

Greenflame Blade Swordmage Attack 1
Each blow ignites your blade in deadly green fire.
At-Will ✦ Arcane, Fire, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Intelligence vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Intelligence modifier fire damage, and you deal fire damage equal to your Strength modifier to all enemies adjacent to the target.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Intelligence modifier at 21st level.

 

[Mannahnin]

Greenflame Blade is more akin to Cleave for this purpose- it's just one attack roll but can damage other creatures as well.

Dual Strike appears to be the one I was forgetting. Thanks!

 

[Voadam]

Found another couple allowing melee PCs to hit multiple minions in a round.

4e Heroes of the Fallen Lands Page 178 Rogue

Tumbling Trick Using a combination of speed and strength, you push your way through your enemies and use your momentum to make a quick, whirling attack that cuts through one enemy and into another. This attack is best used when your enemies press in on all sides.
Tumbling Trick Rogue Utility
You dodge between your foes, slashing to the right and left with such speed that one attack leads into another.
At-Will ✦ Martial
Move Action Personal
Effect: You shift up to 3 squares. The next time you hit an enemy with a melee basic attack this turn, you also deal damage equal to your Strength modifier to a different enemy, which must be adjacent to you.

4e PH Fighter Cleave

Cleave Fighter Attack 1
You hit one enemy, then cleave into another.
At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and an enemy adjacent to you takes damage equal to your Strength modifier.
Increase damage to 2[W] + Strength modifier at 21st level.

 

[Voadam]

Greenflame Blade is more akin to Cleave for this purpose- it's just one attack roll but can damage other creatures as well.

Dual Strike appears to be the one I was forgetting. Thanks!

Isn't this discussion in the context of how many of the horde of minions a PC can take out in a round?

 

[pemerton]

@Lyxen - there are many "auras" in 4e that are not energy fields (like flame or necrotic dread) but that represent, in the fiction, biting or scratching or other physical attacks. Swarms have them, for instance.

Likewise, there are examples of forced movement that do not represent literally being pushed or pulled - for instance, the Dreadlock Wight has a forced movement attack that represents a person recoiling in terror from its horrific visage.

Another interesting feature of that horrific visage is that it is a blast - ie operates on only side of the Wight - ie represents it looking at its victims.

It's a feature of 4e that it doesn't needlessly duplicate mechanics - you don't need facing rule when you've got blasts; you can use aura rules for any effect that is triggered periodically in a radius about a character/creature; you can used forced movement to also cover involuntary movement such as fear or being wrongfooted (Footwork Lure); etc.

So, training then ?

Why would level bonuses equate to training? The PCs in my 4e game never trained.

The real development with level is new powers and abilities. The level bonus is just a device for moving PCs through the "story" of D&D. It's not that first, we assign some measure of "training" to a 10th level PC and second we assign some measure of "toughness" to Demogorgon or a Pit Fiend, and then third we notice that the PC can't beat the demon or devil. Rather, first we decide that Demogorgon and Pit Fiends are epic (and upper epic) adversaries, and then we assign numbers to them, and to the PCs, that will reflect this. The fiction is first, the numbers are second.

With minions, we have a fiction: these are the foes that fall before the swords and spells of the heroes! Then we assign numbers that support this fiction: the minions have 1 hp. Another part of the fiction is: these foes are not unthreatening, or just ignorable. So we assign numbers that support that too: the minions have mechanically meaningful attack bonuses and defences and damage.

The fiction is first, and the numbers support that.

It's not the only viable method of RPG design - it closely resembles (for instance) Robin Laws's brilliant HeroQuest revised, and is also quite close to Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic; but obviously is very different from a classic like Rolemaster, or a contemporary game like Burning Wheel. But there is nothing "inconsistent" about it. The fiction is completely coherent.

why does the 3rd level standard have 46 hit points and the 9th level minions have 1 ? The answer is not because it makes sense in the world, for sure. It's purely a gamist construct.

<snip>

If you look for world-wide consistency, it's not, because it's purely gamist.

<snip>

they are not the same creature at all. It's pure artificial tailoring to make the system work. So more work for the DM

Hit points aren't part of the imagined world, so it makes no sense to say that having X or Y hp does or doesn't make sense in the world. Talking about "world-wide consistency" of hp makes no sense. In the fiction, there are people, and orcs, and devils, and demons, but there are no hit points. There are fights, and some are tough, and some are not; there are people who endure many rounds of back-and-forth with their opponents, and there are those who have the misfortune to fall to a single blow. (Like the were-hyenas who fall to single blows from Conan in REH's story Queen of the Black Coast, or the Uruk-Hai who fall to single blows in JRRT's battle of Helm's Deep.)

In the fiction, there are no attack rolls or defence numbers or tracking of hp tallies. Those are all things that happen in the real world, at the table, as part of the process of finding out what happens next in the fiction. So to say that "they are not the same creature" because there are two different stat blocks with different numbers in them is incoherent. In the fiction there are no numbers.

4e is fiction first, numbers second. The numbers - both the overall framework of level bonuses, hit points and damage per level, etc; and the particular numbers assigned to a particular creature or character - are all in service of the fiction.

And the following fiction makes complete sense: for a relatively inexperienced hero, just learning to make their way in the world, fighting this creature is tough; for a hero how is, or is almost, a paragon, this creature will fall before their determined attacks like wheat to the reaping scythe.

To a PC of let's say intermediate level.

If I am a 4e GM building an encounter for a PC of a given level, I decide whether I think some of the foes are going to fall like wheat before the scythe - in which case I stat them as minions - or whether they are going to put up a determined fight - in which case I stat them as a standard or an elite.

I make this decision based on my conception of the shared fiction - so eg for 6th level PCs ogre minions make no sense; but when I ran my version of G2 for mid-epic PCs, frost giant minions abounded - and also based on my intentions around pacing.

If the stat block I need for my purposes exists in the published books then I use it; if it doesn't then I make it up, relying on the excellent advice to GMs found in the DMG which makes the relationship between level and numbers quite transparent.

There's no such thing as an "objective" orc or an "objective" difficulty for a PC of intermediate level. There's a decision about what the fiction will be.

My point is that 5e has solved this without requiring such technical juggling, that's all.

<snip>

the players it will be much more satisfying to see their progression.

The second remark here makes no sense to me. In 5e the reason a 10th level fighter can more easily defeat a goblin than a 1st level fighter is because of numerical changes on the PC sheet. That is no more or less artificial than the GM making numerical changes on their monster stat block.

In my 4e game, what generated the sense of progression was not fiddling around with numbers - that creates change, which can be interesting, but not progression. The progression took place in the fiction. At low levels the PCs fought individual hobgoblins. At mid-paragon they fought hobgoblin phalanxes (in mechanical terms, swarms of hobgoblins) and fought individual demons. At mid-epic they fought swarms of demons. At high epic they fought individual gods and demon lords.

As far as 5e is concerned, it may have solved a problem for you. There are many reasons I don't play 5e, but one of them is that I think it doesn't do a particularly good job of producing fiction that, for me, is paradigmatic of D&D - starting off with kobolds and ending with Demogorgon. Whereas that is something that 4e D&D achieved effortlessly.