Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 2331299" data-attributes="member: 30001">That was my first impression, too.&nbsp;However, some of the powers of a barbarian who has fought alot of battles are pretty ridiculous also.&nbsp; Experience in battle appears to translate into an ability to resist charm spells, fall off of cliffs, and a whole bunch of other things.&nbsp; If you can accept the game logic that says that experience translates into all of these heroic things, then why not accept that a large group of persons with determination can achieve great things collectively?&nbsp;&nbsp;According to what theory though?&nbsp; According to DnD without mobs.&nbsp; Mobs certainly don't make sense as simply a &quot;record-keeping&quot; technique for lots of characters - I would see them as an entirely new thing - an advantage to large groups of creatures banding together where, due to morale or whatever, the group of creatures becomes greater than the sum of it's parts.&nbsp;&nbsp;Can you attack individuals within a mob?&nbsp; In this post some mention was made of killing individuals being equivalent to negative energy levels.&nbsp; And also double damage from area spells?&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;Taking a look at the &quot;mass combat&quot; thread on this board, there's some reasonable arguments that low-level mooks are such a joke that they wouldn't even factor into wars in DnD.&nbsp; Calling it &quot;chaos&quot; might be overstating it somewhat - in fact, your post sounds strangely reasonable to me that there would be an effective use for followers.&nbsp; Keep in mind that normal supply and deployment logic would have to be considered before you marched 500 followers into a dungeon.&nbsp; And IMO there were plenty of reasons to want 500 people in the front rank to set off traps -&nbsp; before there was Mob template&nbsp; If you didn't have to deal with this issue before as a DM, I'm not sure why anything would change now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 2331299, member: 30001"] That was my first impression, too. However, some of the powers of a barbarian who has fought alot of battles are pretty ridiculous also. Experience in battle appears to translate into an ability to resist charm spells, fall off of cliffs, and a whole bunch of other things. If you can accept the game logic that says that experience translates into all of these heroic things, then why not accept that a large group of persons with determination can achieve great things collectively? According to what theory though? According to DnD without mobs. Mobs certainly don't make sense as simply a "record-keeping" technique for lots of characters - I would see them as an entirely new thing - an advantage to large groups of creatures banding together where, due to morale or whatever, the group of creatures becomes greater than the sum of it's parts. Can you attack individuals within a mob? In this post some mention was made of killing individuals being equivalent to negative energy levels. And also double damage from area spells? Taking a look at the "mass combat" thread on this board, there's some reasonable arguments that low-level mooks are such a joke that they wouldn't even factor into wars in DnD. Calling it "chaos" might be overstating it somewhat - in fact, your post sounds strangely reasonable to me that there would be an effective use for followers. Keep in mind that normal supply and deployment logic would have to be considered before you marched 500 followers into a dungeon. And IMO there were plenty of reasons to want 500 people in the front rank to set off traps - before there was Mob template If you didn't have to deal with this issue before as a DM, I'm not sure why anything would change now. [/QUOTE]

Verification