At what point do players know they're fighting Minions?

[RigaMortus2]

At what point do players know they're fighting Minions?

The player's would know they are fighting minions as soon as they realize one of several things:

1) A hit dealing minimum damage took one out.
2) Damage from a Missed attack from a Daily Attack Power actually dealt no damage.
3) The player's are familiar with that particular monsters from reading it in the Monster Manual, or fighting them in the past.

Now, at what point would their character's know they are fighting minions? IMHO, character's shouldn't know the difference between a minion, a solo, or an elite, other than the fact that one is tougher to take down than the other. There should never be that moment during combat where a player (or their character) says, "Oh, these monsters are just minions."

That irks me just as much as when an NPC is travelling with a party, and the NPc goes down in combat, and the player's saying "Oh, he's just an NPC, heal me instead..." (I don't play with that group anymore FWIW...)

 

[RigaMortus2]

At some point during the encounter, the PC might notice something (Perception: you notice that the creature's wounds are slowly healing, Perception: you notice that the creature's wounds are not healing anymore, Wow: that foe fell in a single hit).

How is a Perception check any different than a Knowledge/Monster Lore check in this situation? They are both checks that give the players some sort of information.

You are also giving an advantage to a player that chose to Train in Perception, and taking away from the player that chose to Train in Knowledge (Arcana/Dungeoneering/whatever).

If I am playing a book-smart Wizard, why should I not gain some benefit out of my Knowledge checks?

 

[Hellzon]

KD, please point out where someone actually recommended we spoon feed players.

It's KarinsDad. He won't, he just likes insulting people.

 

[Flipguarder]

It's KarinsDad. He won't, he just likes insulting people.

I'd like to point out that not only is that not an insult, He didn't even say it. He said something along the lines of "If you plan on telling your pcs everything about their foes you might as well spoon feed them the entire combat"

I tend to agree.

 

[Hellzon]

"If you plan on telling your pcs everything about their foes you might as well spoon feed them the entire combat"

a) No-one's actually saying that. Even I don't hand out everything, and I seem to be the most liberal DM here.
b) It is obviously false. You know it, he knows it. The obvious conclusion is that he's trolling and you're helping him.
c) The badwrongfun accusation is right there in your rewrite.

 

[Flipguarder]

a) No-one's actually saying that. Even I don't hand out everything, and I seem to be the most liberal DM here.
b) It is obviously false. You know it, he knows it. The obvious conclusion is that he's trolling and you're helping him.
c) The badwrongfun accusation is right there in your rewrite.

Call me a troll all you want, the fact of the matter is you and I disagree and you are unhappy about it.

KD and I think that telling the players which enemies are minions and which are not is near enough to telling the players "this guy is weak to fire". I believe that's information best left for them to glean themselves.

And yes, I believe that if you are willing to tell players about either of these things, you might as well spoon-feed the entire combat to them. Its not name-calling, its not insulting. It's my opinion on what an action means to the game.

Now stop taking offense to everything said in the thread and get back to the matter at hand.


Do you think telling players about which enemies are minions and which are not is the same as telling the players about the vulnerabilities of the enemies? And why (or why not?)

If you don't think that it's the same thing, where do you draw that line of telling the Players and not telling them?

And if you do think it is the same thing, do you think it is detrimental to the game as a whole to do so? (Again, why or why not?)

 

[KarinsDad]

How is a Perception check any different than a Knowledge/Monster Lore check in this situation? They are both checks that give the players some sort of information.

You are also giving an advantage to a player that chose to Train in Perception, and taking away from the player that chose to Train in Knowledge (Arcana/Dungeoneering/whatever).

If I am playing a book-smart Wizard, why should I not gain some benefit out of my Knowledge checks?

You should.

You just should not be told the name of the creature is "Kobold Minion" or "Gnoll Minion" (or for that matter "Goblin Cutter").

Who picked those names for creatures???

The creatures didn't.

One should no more be told that a foe is a minion as one says that a foe is an elite or a solo. The PCs might figure it out and possibly quickly, but a knowledge check shouldn't tell the players this type of information.

Racial information? Sure. Nearly all Goblins have "Goblin Tactics", so that is a power that is racial in nature and the Knowledge check should let the PC (and hence the player) know about it.

If the PC meets a Human spellcaster, until that caster pulls out an implement and starting casting spells, how exactly do you know what that Human is capable of? This should be the same for monsters.

Now, there might be some exceptions to this like undead where different undead have different origins and can be considered different races for all intents and purposes.

Anything that can be considered a racial ability or power can be supplied. Anything that can be considered a "class or profession" ability or power should be found out via the encounter. A Human or Pirate Thug with Mob Rule should be discovered during the encounter, not via knowledge checks. Otherwise, all Humans in a group should hand out the information to a knowledge check that yes, these humans might have Mob Rule.

 

[Hellzon]

And yes, I believe that if you are willing to tell players about either of these things, you might as well spoon-feed the entire combat to them. Its not name-calling, its not insulting. It's my opinion on what an action means to the game.

"Spoon-feeding" is not a pejorative on Planet Flipguarder. Check.

Now stop taking offense to everything said in the thread and get back to the matter at hand.

I won't stop being irritated at obvious trolls, but sure:

Do you think telling players about which enemies are minions and which are not is the same as telling the players about the vulnerabilities of the enemies? And why (or why not?)

Close enough. Both should be obvious from the creature description. (Minion: Badly trained, or appears in hordes. Resistance: Elemental/undead/poisonous theme in all but a few specific cases (I want to say Remorhaz - are those fire or cold resistant?))

I, as already stated, do both for expediency.

If you don't think that it's the same thing, where do you draw that line of telling the Players and not telling them?

I tell my players what they need to handle attacks/OA:s on their own. Not non-basic attacks.

And if you do think it is the same thing, do you think it is detrimental to the game as a whole to do so? (Again, why or why not?)

No. And you're the one claiming it is, so you justify it.

 

[Blackbrrd]

...
My take on it is, if you are going to tell the players everything important about their foes, you might as well just tell them which powers to use and where to move, and a bunch of other lamo spoon feeding suggestions every round as well.
...

My take on it is that a minion is such an inferior unit compared to a normal mob that it should be visually obvious.

You can of course have a mob trying to look like a minion and it would probably be a bluff vs perception if it did.

I think the knowledge checks gives too much information to the players. If my players started rolling knowledge checks for every mob every encounter it would probably slow down to a crawl.

I like giving my players info that is visually quite apparent, but I usually give the information after the first or second time they see it in action. For instance: you do a fire-attack vs a fire resistant mob and I will tell you it took a bit less than full damage. If you damage it with fire a second time I will tell you it has fire resistance 5. One of the first time for instance a goblin uses the shifty ability I describe the game technical details of it. There is after all less than 6 seconds from you are aware of the creatures until you actually have to decide what to do. Knowledge checks is something I would let the players use in advance, or if scouting mobs out.

I will tell my players what mobs are heavily armored (good ac), which ones are barely standing still (good reflex) and which ones are hulking brutes (good fort). I am not quite sure if a good will defense has any visual clues. I will give clues about Elites - about how tough they look, or higher level mobs. Solo's usually have their own distinct look and no additional information from me have been necessary.

Giving players information about what their characters can percept isn't the same as telling the players what abilities to use. It's quite the opposite. The players need to react and exploit the weaknesses and avoid their strengths. A tactical player* will do this, while a less tactical player will just ignore the feedback his character is getting.

*It might be worthwhile to mention that there are plenty of role playing reasons not to act on what the DM has described. Your character might be less perceptive than others or so focused on a single goal that he will ignore anything else. This usually enhances the game a lot and makes it easier for me as a DM to give out information without unbalancing the game.

Personally I dislike it strongly when there is some game-mechanical effect that isn't described. There is no way to react intelligently to it - neither as a player or character. With the information as a player I can decide what my character knows.

[offtopic]
I think that using sentences like "other lamo spoon feeding suggestions" that KarinsDad is using, and words like "BadWrongFun" that Hellzon is using is just going to take this discussion right down the drain. It is not constructive at all. I am getting a bit tired when people ridicules somebody for having another opinion. Respect others opinions. Dnd is a game and there is certainly more than one way to play it and no "right" way to play it.
[/offtopic]

 

[Infiniti2000]

Do you think telling players about which enemies are minions and which are not is the same as telling the players about the vulnerabilities of the enemies? And why (or why not?)

If you don't think that it's the same thing, where do you draw that line of telling the Players and not telling them?

And if you do think it is the same thing, do you think it is detrimental to the game as a whole to do so? (Again, why or why not?)

This is why I commented to KD as I did. My opinion is that this topic, and indeed the OP confirms it, has nothing to do with vulnerabilities. Yet, KD went off on a tangent about it being spoon feeding (and RAW spoon feeding at that) and yet this topic has nothing to do with that. You're continuing that digression, unfortunately. So, to respond to your questions...

No, I don't think they are the same thing.

Yes, I do tell my players which are minions and which aren't. This is not detrimental to the game. In fact, I think the opposite. I think it's detrimental to the game NOT to let the players in on the special rules-construction. Minions are an abstract that totally breaks the fundamental rules of the game. Whether or not you think that's a good thing or bad thing (different thread), it's a fact that exists. This abstract minions is something therefore I think the players (not the PC's per se) need to be made aware of because it's at the players' level of thought, not the PC. I can't justify minions in game terms, thus I don't dictate them to the players as such.

Of course, neither option is badwrongfun, but I'm sure it totally depends on the DM. I would guarantee that if you sat at my table you would have a lot of fun, even knowing which are minions and which aren't. One thing's for sure, you wouldn't blow a daily on a minion because the DM "cleverly tricked you."