D&D is not a supers game.

[jadrax]

Minions were a by product of the relentless scaling of 4e. You couldn't really use lower level creatures as opponents as in earlier editions as there chance of hitting was lamentable. So Minions where introduced to fit that void.

With bounded accuracy, they will not be necessary.

 

[Argyle King]

Minions didn't make me feel like a super-hero.

Being part of a party which crushed Strahd so badly that he didn't even have a chance to consider turning into mist form to flee before dying sort of did. (Note: he was not by himself)

Dominating Orcus to the extent that the DM found it reasonable he would surrender in response to my Warlord's intimidate attempt pushed me closer, but I thought maybe it was a fluke; lucky dice. Plus, monster math was later changed.

Then, the last campaign from 1-30 ended with the party dismantling a level [36 or 37, I cannot remember exactly what we figured out the XP budget to be] encounter so badly that the DM saw no point in doing the second part of the final battle. (His initial plan was to have two back-to-back encounters as an epic fight to wrap up the campaign; he went so overboard with it due to how easily we had won earlier encounters.)


I think super hero is a poor term though. I'd say that a more appropriate term would be to say that 4E PCs tend toward being Mythic Heroes. I don't mind that so much if that's what I know I'm going into. I've played and highly enjoyed games of that style. What threw me off was that -to me- the preview material and the default campaign fluff of 4E made me expect something closer to a sword & sorcery experience.

 

[Hussar]

It's really amusing about this whole "super hero" thing if you advance the levels about ten. A 10th level 4e character is still fighting roughly the same sorts of opponents as he was at 1st. Not a hugely big gap.

1e characters at 10th level are killing GODS.

Which edition is superheroic?

 

[rounser]

Tabletop gaming is not the movies. Things that will fly on screen will not necessarily when you see screwy mechanics which enable it. D&D is not a Pirates of the Carribbean or Lord of the Rings movie, nor is it a book, nor a computer game, and nor should it seek to be. D&D has a realism of it's own that hinges on die rolls and mechanics that the players can see. If they seem screwy, then the game seems screwy.

 

[Obryn]

Not sure what this was suppose to prove... He's high-level, and it's still not most of the fantasy literature out there...

It's that he and his buddy Gellor take down literally thousands of demons which would be a challenge to others. Very minion-y. Maybe swarms, even.

Also, if you're looking for a superheroic feel ... Gary invented the munchkin character!

-O

 

[MichaelSomething]

See now what level was this at, because I agree that would feel super heroic. The thing is, (and this is utilizing just one of the mechanics I feel gives the same type of feel to 4e at lower levels) using minions... a 4e tempest fighter could easily kill 4 hobgoblins in a round... at first level. Now yes we understand the minion mechanic but it can give the same feel, at a much earlier level as what you described above.

Well the lowest level was 5 with the killing of 8 hobgoblins in round. Though it could be done at as low as level two since all you really need is four feats and a great strength score! Spike Chain proficiency, Power attack, Cleave, Great Cleave and you're good to go!

While a level one tempest fighter could kill 4 minions in one round, chances are they won't be hobgoblins since aren't the default hobgoblins above level 5? Although that may be nitpicking.

Now that I think about, killing 4-8 guys in a round may simply not be that super heroic. Sure killing 4 minions in a round is good but the average encounter isn't even remotely done by killing 4 minions. In 3.5, 4 hobgoblins are a speed bump to most parties with a couple of levels. However, in 3.5 that depends heavily on the optimization and tactics of both the PCs and the monsters. Simply by changing the feat selection, you can drastically alter a monster's combat power.

Well honestly, 4e WAS designed so that a first level adventurer would be more like a fifth level 3.5 guy then a first level 3.5 guy. This was done in the name of the 5ish-10ish "sweet spot" of D&D adventure. While it may not be the favorite of everyone player, it did seem to have a lot of fans.

At the very least, it seems to be the easiest level range to write adventures for. An old Dungeon magazine had a letter response that more or less said that the majority of adventure submission they receive are from the "sweet spot" range. That is because PCs are too weak beforehand and too powerful afterwords for the average published adventure (or at least the average writer).

However, I do think it's wrong to say D&D isn't a super hero. It very well can be at higher levels (or earlier with the right rules). It's also not just a superhero game. In general, low level D&D is frakin' fantasy Vietnam. While some people enjoyed it, many also did NOT enjoy it...

 

[jadrax]

Tabletop gaming is not the movies. Things that will fly on screen will not necessarily when you see screwy mechanics which enable it. D&D is not a Pirates of the Carribbean or Lord of the Rings movie, nor is it a book, nor a computer game, and nor should it seek to be. D&D has a realism of it's own that hinges on die rolls and mechanics that the players can see. If they seem screwy, then the game seems screwy.

Apparently you have said to many wise things in to short a period of time for me to reward you with XP.

 

[Doug McCrae]

An old Dungeon magazine had a letter response that more or less said that the majority of adventure submission they receive are from the "sweet spot" range. That is because PCs are too weak beforehand and too powerful afterwords for the average published adventure (or at least the average writer).

Yeah, this feature of D&D has been noted for some time.

D&D is most fun for third to sixth level characters, who are strong enough to adventure without fear of immediate death, strong enough to have more combat options than flight, melee and sleep spells, but not so strong that they can laugh at monsters​

- Lew Pulsipher, Introduction to Dungeons & Dragons, White Dwarf #24, 1981

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Agreed 100%, TrippyHippy.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Tabletop gaming is not the movies. Things that will fly on screen will not necessarily when you see screwy mechanics which enable it. D&D is not a Pirates of the Carribbean or Lord of the Rings movie, nor is it a book, nor a computer game, and nor should it seek to be. D&D has a realism of it's own that hinges on die rolls and mechanics that the players can see. If they seem screwy, then the game seems screwy.

In the late 90s, looking at the rules of 2e AD&D my friends all assumed that, because they were so unrealistic, D&D must be a fiction-simulationist game like Feng Shui, James Bond 007, or Champions.

I used to argue with them, because I knew that wasn't D&D's original aim, though I didn't have the understanding then that I do now regarding why D&D's mechanics are so unrealistic - a mixture of happenstance, tradition, and aiming to support a play style which has a huge number of fights over a short space of time.