Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rex Blunder" data-source="post: 4231008" data-attributes="member: 60850">In my opinion, minion rules are a logical extension of a good rule of game design:"Complexity should be proportional to the interest of the players."For instance, most mass battle rules do not track hit points of individual soldiers, because no one is interested in the fate of any individual soldier. PCs or important NPCs shouldn't have their fates determined by these rules because the players care about the outcomes: therefore an actual D&D encounter might be in order.Same thing with minions. No one (including the DM) cares much about any of the horde of charging mooks. Therefore, they can be run with simplified rules. This allows a different scale of battle to be run - somewhere between the four-on-four that 3e did well and the hordes of a mass battlesystem.The BBEG and his lieutenants shouldn't be minions, because defeating one should feel like an accomplishment. If anyone particularly cares if an angry child gets lucky and offs one of the demon hordes, then I guess minions are not appropriate for this battle. (although I maintain that CATS, STALE PASTRIES, and A STONE THROWN BY AN ANGRY CHILD do 0 damage).This may mean that minions are never appropriate for Andor, Lizard, Derren, Voss, or El-Remmen, because that side effect bothers them.Personally, I agree with most people on this thread: the believability cost is less than the benefit of being able to expand the scope of possible battles.</blockquote>

Verification