Excerpt: Minions. Go forth mine minions! Bring havoc with your 1 hp [merged]

[Cadfan]

For the record, skip the coup de gras for a maximized 1d4-1=3 points of damage, and shoot the target with a magic missile that does 2d4+4=6 to 12 points of damage.

 

[frankthedm]

Really read the excerpt. I think it illustrates quite well when you use minions. You fight ogres at level 5. Those are normal mobs. However, 10 levels later, those ogres would be a joke to fight. You'd one shot them anyway, and they'd never hit you. .

5% hit rate is not never when used in large enough numbers. Also don’t be too sure on one-shotting to much other than minions in 4E.

Instead of making a worthless encounter, they are giving you rules to make those ogres actually have a small chance to do something while still keeping the feel of "these are just the small guys."

They have more than a small chance from what their ‘to hit’ bonuses looked like to me. They just don’t deal a lot of damage unless they pile up on you.

I don't know about you, but I find fighting things that aren't a threat in any way, shape, or form kinda pointless.

To me it is visceral proof that my character has risen above previous foes. It tells me I’m not just earning XP for my enemies benefit. I like mowing foes by the dozens with a high level character as their blows bounce off my armor.

 

[shadowlance]

various comments about lucky hits and high level minions

Revelation ->> Smaug was a minion!!


I kid

 

[Knightlord]

Furthermore, when you have 5 types of kobolds in a room, and 4 can take 20 to 30 times they damage of the other, there is a verisimilitude issue that isn't even vaguely corner case. Its really that 1 out of 5 kobolds will die to a dagger thrust, while the other 4 *won't die* if hit with a greatsword. Maybe that doesn't bother you. It does bother me, and it certainly isn't more or less intelligent to ignore it than to point it out. Its a matter of playstyle preference. I enjoy games more if they are internally consistent, and if they stand up to a little thoughtful analysis.

Again, one must remember that HP are an abstraction. The kobolds are not really being hit by a greatsword until the final blow when their HP drops to or below zero. So in role-playing terms, the one kobold that died was just either unlucky and failed to dodge that greatsword or it was your character that landed a solid, skillful blow on the kobold, despite his dodging and weaving, thus killing him.

 

[Thasmodious]

The problem is, this isn't a corner case. All minions die when they take at least 1 point of damage from a direct hit. It doesn't matter what the source is, or anything else, just that attack hits and does measurable damage. There aren't any exceptions involved- the attacker doesn't have to be of an appropriate level, a PC or be wearing a blue scarf under the moon- the attacker just has to hit it with a damaging attack.

I don't see the problem with that.

Furthermore, when you have 5 types of kobolds in a room, and 4 can take 20 to 30 times they damage of the other, there is a verisimilitude issue that isn't even vaguely corner case. Its really that 1 out of 5 kobolds will die to a dagger thrust, while the other 4 *won't die* if hit with a greatsword. Maybe that doesn't bother you.

It doesn't bother me because that isn't what the system represents. Someone else used the example of a high level fighter standing in front of a class at Merc College and telling a student to hit him repeatedly in the head with a greataxe to show it doesn't hurt much. Is that how you see things? I would think not. HPs are not direct damage. Never have been. Those other 4 aren't being struck a mortal blow by the greatsword, they are fighting back, getting worn down, nicked, cut, injured, but not dealt a mortal blow. The minion system says some creatures can be taken out of the fight with one hit. Those are the guys who take the greatsword to the face, whereas the more skilled and powerful kobold would have turned it aside, ducked and had the flat ring his helm, parried it at the last second and have the blow dislocate his shoulder.

If you want to insist that every HP represents actual damage, then that is fine for your games. But you can't claim that is the truth of the system. It never has been. They are an abstraction. But what you can't do is insist on interpreting HPs differently than the system does then arguing that the system fails because it doesn't answer the call of verisimilitude within the bounds of your own unsupported interpretation of the rules. And that is what you are trying to do if you are claiming that minions are killed by a rock while others can take greatswords to the face and live.

I enjoy games more if they are internally consistent, and if they stand up to a little thoughtful analysis.

If you mean the consistency of the rocks and greatswords, then that's not inconsistency at all. But if you mean this in the way the guy who started the aliens thread means (that minions being the exception levels makes you tougher) then there is at least a point to that one. It's not one I'm concerned about. I prefer the 1e/2e days where internal consistency wasn't a requirement of the system to the 3e experiment of a complete above the board framework. It was a great idea and would have been great if it worked. The problem was in the level of complexity it created. To actually maintain that internal consistency, every monster, every NPC, every monster with a class had to be as fully statted out as a PC. Considering PCs are necessarily built on the most complex and heavy section of any RPG ruleset, that turned into a bit of a nightmare for beleaguered Dms who insisted on internal consistency. Most DMs just winged a lot of it and hoped the players didn't notice and complain about this guy having one too many feats or that guy's init mod being too high.

I don't have a problem with exception based design. Creatures improve in the areas attack, damage, defense, "toughness" with level EXCEPT minions, who just don't get tougher. I am fine with that bit of "inconsistency" because it leads to a mechanic that allows for a lot of fun and flair in combat encounters. I don't want my DM tombstone to some day read "Was Always Internally Consistent" but rather "We'll Always Remember the Great Kobold Horde". Which would be much better than what it would read now, if up to my players - "30 Feet is Not a Chasm".

 

[Blackeagle]

Furthermore, when you have 5 types of kobolds in a room, and 4 can take 20 to 30 times they damage of the other, there is a verisimilitude issue that isn't even vaguely corner case. Its really that 1 out of 5 kobolds will die to a dagger thrust, while the other 4 *won't die* if hit with a greatsword.

All of the Kobolds die if they're hit by a dagger thrust in the right place. All of the Kobolds die if they're hit by a greatsword in the right place. 4 of the 5 Kobolds are skilled combatants and you have to try a couple of times (wearing down their hit points) before you get a solid hit. 1 of the 5 is either unskilled or unlucky and you tag him solidly with your first hit or he's such a wimp that he stops fighting even though you didn't wound him very badly. I don't see any verisimilitude problem here.

I enjoy games more if they are internally consistent, and if they stand up to a little thoughtful analysis.

I find that most of 4e does stand up better to thoughtful analysis than 3e does. However, there are specific subsystems, like this one, that do not stand up well to analysis.

I think the minion rule stand up to thoughtful analysis perfectly well if you think about hit points in the right way. If you want to think about hit points as representing something different than they represent in 4e, then I hardly see how that's a flaw in the minion rules.

 

[D'karr]

Actually, I do. Because thats what the rules say. If you do one point of damage to any of those things, they are dead or destroyed. Its an absurdity, but its the games absurdity, not mine. But can we go back to the minion rules, because I was certainly never criticizing it based on 3e. I was criticizing it based on the fact that its internally inconsistent with other parts of 4e.

This discussion is funny. If you don't use the rules as intended, what do you really have to complain about? How can you say they are bad?

If I took a dirt bike and tried to race in the Indy 500, and did not perform well, then I can't complain about the dirt bike and say how bad it is because it does not perform as well as the Indy cars.

I would have to look at my premise (the dirt bike is designed for the Indy 500) and figure out that it was ridiculous.

The same applies here.

 

[Dausuul]

The problem is, this isn't a corner case. All minions die when they take at least 1 point of damage from a direct hit. It doesn't matter what the source is, or anything else, just that attack hits and does measurable damage. There aren't any exceptions involved- the attacker doesn't have to be of an appropriate level, a PC or be wearing a blue scarf under the moon- the attacker just has to hit it with a damaging attack.

Furthermore, when you have 5 types of kobolds in a room, and 4 can take 20 to 30 times they damage of the other, there is a verisimilitude issue that isn't even vaguely corner case. Its really that 1 out of 5 kobolds will die to a dagger thrust, while the other 4 *won't die* if hit with a greatsword.

The problem is that you're thinking of hit points in "pure physical toughness" terms. I used to do that, and the 3.X and previous rules supported it pretty well. But in 4E, it just plain doesn't work any more. Forget minions--what about the warlord's healing abilities? Those make no sense at all if hit points = physical toughness. Not to mention recovering all hit points after a rest.

In this case, minion kobolds are "regular fighters," easy enough to take out with a single solid hit. Non-minion kobolds are the PCs of the kobold world, the elite warriors. Solid hits on them are much harder to land, fortune tends to smile on them, and they have the strength of will to soldier on with much more serious wounds than most kobolds can take.

Furthermore, the situations you're talking about are corner cases. When is a 4E wizard ever going to be fighting with a dagger? He'll be shooting magic missiles. When are kids with slingshots going to be fighting legion devils? And frankly, I have no problem with the idea that a gang of peasants with spears can kill a legion devil; legion devils are tough customers but not invulnerable.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Again, one must remember that HP are an abstraction. The kobolds are not really being hit by a greatsword until the final blow when their HP drops to or below zero. So in role-playing terms, the one kobold that died was just either unlucky and failed to dodge that greatsword or it was your character that landed a solid, skillful blow on the kobold, despite his dodging and weaving, thus killing him.

Well, for some reason, this is never entirely accepted with people that don't like Minions. Which is why I tend to assume there isn't really much I can do to help them the wisdom and innate superiority of D&D 4E. If people don't like it, they don't like it, and you can't change it.

I think I can only remember one occasion where I've personally witnessed the contrary. I wasn't a fan of Deep Space Nine early seasons, but I read the "Making Of" book to Deep Space Nine, and after having read that, I got a new appreciation for the series (and that was before I got to see the later Dominion War seasons...)
I wonder if the writers did also write a Making of to Voyager and can make me change my stance on that series, too?

 

[keterys]

Someone else used the example of a high level fighter standing in front of a class at Merc College and telling a student to hit him repeatedly in the head

Now I have this vision of telling someone with a greatsword to 'Stab me in the jimmies!'. After all, it's all just hit points, and not like there are hit locations or 'loss of limb' rules.

I love when simulation is touted as a route to better realism but actually leads to less.