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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4231376" data-attributes="member: 63272">I don't see the problem with that. 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.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".</blockquote>

Verification