A Question on Minions...

[CodexofRome]

Well of course its good to mix up troop types and not always have a "minion brigade" standing alone. The DM doesn't have to say "don't bother rolling for damage". I agree that doing so would be a bit of a buzzkill.

The biggest issue this thread brings up is the contadiction of the minion concept with regard to hit points.

The game assumes that hit points are abstract and not a measure of actual injury, instead being a measure of fighting effectiveness.

No problem. Self heals simply mean a recharge of fighting effectiveness.

Then we have minions who have 1 hp, which by the defined role of hp have little to no fighting effectiveness.

We are then told that minions are supposed to provide a credible threat without having any fighting effectiveness. The rules come out and say that they are crap foes by giving them 1 hp yet they are supposed to be represent credible threats? This does not compute.

Until they are dead, creatures are a threat.

Minions can do some damage to PCs. It may be limited, but damage is damage. Yes, the one critter in the back with the glowing orb is probably more dangerous than the ones with the javelins. But if all them little javelin throwing critters get surprise or good initiative rolls, someone is going to take some damage; damage that must eventually be healed.

A bunch of minions, acting in their turn, can swarm a PC, granting combat advantage to each other and their more powerful comrades.

Minions can be used by more adept creatures who have various powers that can affect them. Try mixing in a Warlord NPC with some minions, for example.

Minions are the most effective when the DM has had time to consider how the rest of the creatures in the encounter might use them. One leader might throw his minions into the battle hoping only to distract the PCs, while another might use them more tactically. This really isn't any different than, for example, ancient combat. In the Roman system during the Republican era, the poorer armed (and financially poorer!) skirmishers up front weren't meant to defeat the enemy outright, but to harass, confuse and distract the enemy while the more heavily armed and armored troops moved into position. You might not think of a world war 2 sniper as a minion, but consider their mission: to harass, confuse and distract the enemy. Alone, many of them didn't last long either.

 

[Regicide]

Don't tell your players they're facing Minions! That's something a character would never know! The only thing a character would know is that they were facing Kobolds, and some of them fought harder than others. That's it!

This ONLY works if your players are being spoon fed fights they know they'll win. Mine aren't. If they see 20 kobolds and none of them are minions, they better run or there is going to be a TPK. If 18 of them are minions then it's probably a win-able fight. How do the players know the difference? You tell them there are minions. You can fancy it up by describing them in terms that will make it clear they're minions, but however you do it, it should be information conveyed to the player.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Until they are dead, creatures are a threat.

Minions can do some damage to PCs. It may be limited, but damage is damage. Yes, the one critter in the back with the glowing orb is probably more dangerous than the ones with the javelins. But if all them little javelin throwing critters get surprise or good initiative rolls, someone is going to take some damage; damage that must eventually be healed.

A bunch of minions, acting in their turn, can swarm a PC, granting combat advantage to each other and their more powerful comrades.

Minions can be used by more adept creatures who have various powers that can affect them. Try mixing in a Warlord NPC with some minions, for example.

Minions are the most effective when the DM has had time to consider how the rest of the creatures in the encounter might use them. One leader might throw his minions into the battle hoping only to distract the PCs, while another might use them more tactically. This really isn't any different than, for example, ancient combat. In the Roman system during the Republican era, the poorer armed (and financially poorer!) skirmishers up front weren't meant to defeat the enemy outright, but to harass, confuse and distract the enemy while the more heavily armed and armored troops moved into position. You might not think of a world war 2 sniper as a minion, but consider their mission: to harass, confuse and distract the enemy. Alone, many of them didn't last long either.

OK so a party of PC's going into a combat with one of them having 1hp is as credible a threat as if that PC had full hp? That PC can still inflict damage, provide bonues to allies, ect. I somehow doubt that.

 

[Danzauker]

How you choose to play the game is up to you, and is as valid as an opinion. But a DM that tells players, explicitly or implicitly, that they are facing minions is a DM who sucks.

I WILL tell my players who the minions are, and I don't think I suck because you decided so.

Actually, I will not straightforwardly tell that, but I'm sure to give them enough visual and descriptive hints so that they figure out.

Classes are built on their role. Wizards are controllers. Wizards are made to burn out minions. D&D 4e as long as combat is concerned is a cohoperative boardgame. If you keep off tactical informations from the players they will make wrong tactical decisions.

Having wizards play the "guess the minion" game is not funny neither for their players nor for the other players, IMVHO.

And, again, please keep your disdain for DMs that play a style that is not yours off the forum, thanks.

 

[Shabe]

Care to point out the descriptions of Kobold Minions? There is a stat block that includes equipment on page 167, but not one single line of description. That's something left to the DM. You know, the person with the imagination.

The difference being, stat blocks are things DMs manipulate to resolve encounters. Descriptions are what players are told about those they encounter.

So if a kobold with a stat block saying wearing no armour and carrying a spear and light spear would be described the same as a kobold wearing leather armour and carrying two short swords? I don't get your point.

Surely the ones with two shorts swords (skyblades) are described along the lines of

Armed with two short swords and wearing leather armour this wary and agile kobold has a keen eye that is looking for the slightest gap in your guard.

as opposed to the kobold minions

These scrawny kobolds scream challenges in draconic as they cautiously gather round you hurling their javelins in your direction.

I just can't see how you can describe a minion in the exact same way as a normal creature. Its like not saying that the one at the back is carrying a small bone wand (the wyrmpriest) and then surprising the players when he casts a spell.

How you choose to play the game is up to you, and is as valid as an opinion. But a DM that tells players, explicitly or implicitly, that they are facing minions is a DM who sucks.

Whoo I suck, thanks for telling me, you might want to rephrase that as an opinion.
But seriously why can't it come down to the fact that the minions do not look as combat trained or well equiped, the players are going to figure it out, the characters are going to figure it out.
Why does it irk you so much that people (players or characters) can tell who the poor sods are, that aren't going to make it through the battle.

 

[CodexofRome]

This ONLY works if your players are being spoon fed fights they know they'll win. Mine aren't. If they see 20 kobolds and none of them are minions, they better run or there is going to be a TPK. If 18 of them are minions then it's probably a win-able fight. How do the players know the difference? You tell them there are minions. You can fancy it up by describing them in terms that will make it clear they're minions, but however you do it, it should be information conveyed to the player.

Sorry, but I utterly disagree.

A sense of DANGER is a fundamental key to making an encounter enjoyable.

Every combat my players fight is a tense and dangerous situation until it ends. If they choose to stay and fight until the bitter end, they do so for a reason, and that reason is or becomes a major role playing point. Sometimes, they discover that their foes are not the best enemies they've ever fought, and they're glad about it.

My players learned from day one never to make assumptions. They know what anyone who has really been in a fight knows... sometimes it's better to run and fight another day.

 

[CodexofRome]

But seriously why can't it come down to the fact that the minions do not look as combat trained or well equiped, the players are going to figure it out, the characters are going to figure it out.
Why does it irk you so much that people (players or characters) can tell who the poor sods are, that aren't going to make it through the battle.

Sorry... you don't suck. I really don't care how anyone else chooses to play the game; as a DM, I'll do it my way, you do it yours. As a player, I value DMs who create tension in encounters.

As described by several people in this thread, the use of minions does not match mine.

I'm not even supposed to be here. I'm just "Crewman Number Six." I'm expendable. I'm the guy in the episode who dies to prove how serious the situation is. I've gotta get outta here.

In Star Trek, the red shirts were always the minions. Do the red shirts know they're minions? Why would anyone want to be a red shirt? How would a commander get away with sacrificing all his red shirts willy-nilly?

In 4th Edition, why do creatures labeled minions have to wear the figurative red shirts? Because players have to know they're easy to kill? I don't buy it.

 

[Tale]

In Star Trek, the red shirts were always the minions. Do the red shirts know they're minions? Why would anyone want to be a red shirt? How would a commander get away with sacrificing all his red shirts willy-nilly?

In 4th Edition, why do creatures labeled minions have to wear the figurative red shirts? Because players have to know they're easy to kill? I don't buy it.

Here's a better question. How do the PCs know they, themselves, are not minions? Minion behavior is what everyone should be expecting of everything, not the other way around.

 

[CodexofRome]

D&D 4e as long as combat is concerned is a cohoperative boardgame.

Well, there's the source of my confusion.

I'm playing a role-playing game where I provide players with an opportunity to do risky and heroic things. There is danger lurking around every corner, uncertainty behind every door, and tension in every encounter.

You're playing a cooperative boardgame.

 

[Shabe]

Sorry... you don't suck. I really don't care how anyone else chooses to play the game; as a DM, I'll do it my way, you do it yours. As a player, I value DMs who create tension in encounters.

As described by several people in this thread, the use of minions does not match mine.

Fair enough, apology accepted. I also accept you have a different play/dm style.

I suppose I find that a tough balanced fight that you can win is as far as i'll go with 4e.

In 3e i used to just set up the map and place the monsters where it would make sense for them to be and if the players aproached sloppily it could trigger the whole area, which could include an entire fort of Hobgoblins or a warren of kaorti.

I guess I've mellowed out as a dm, i used to take the game world being a real world very seriously, now i'm happy to run a published adventure and go through the adventure with my mates.