Judicious use and description of Minions [Edit-Now asking for stat analysis]

[Jasperak]

Please forgive me if this has been discussed before.

First off, I like the idea of using minions. I think their proper use can enliven a session by making a party feel powerful. There in no feeling like a 4th-level Fighter mowing down a group of four kobolds that surround him. I like having the rules support a massive battle like found in 300 or Lord of the Rings.

But. I have a problem. I am not sure how to describe them to the players, or even if they should be described differently than the other opponents. After reading another thread about having 25 minions and a few regular monsters in an encounter area, I began thinking about how I would describe them differently, and then wondering even if I should.

There is a part of me that thinks that the use of minions should be used clearly as cannon fodder surrounding a few brutes or skirmishers that the party has to fight through to get to the BBGs; just like the old days.

Although there is another part that thinks putting a few regular brutes or skirmishers within the minions is a low down dirty trick. The party maneuvers a few rounds, wading through the minions then all of a sudden the players are bogged down trying to figure out who the BBGs are, possibly wasting encounter or daily abilities on 1 hp badites.

In older editions the party would often face a group of goblins/orcs/kobolds that were surrounding a mean/caster-looking hobgoblin/bugbear/kobold shaman. The party would be able to determine who was the greater threat and act accordingly. Now I wonder how I describe an encounter area without using gamist terms.

I do like the idea of minions; I am not sure how to properly use them without disrupting the suspension of disbelief. I have a vague feeling of how to use them, but I think I need some other viewpoints to clarify my own position. Thanks for your responses.

 

[IanB]

I intend to make it pretty obvious who is and who is not a minion under most circumstances. Doing otherwise gets on to what I consider a fairly slippery slope towards actively trying to trick players into wasting abilities, which I think usually is going to foster DM vs. player antagonism. I've never liked that kind of play (the sort of thing that resulted in the ear seeker and other such 'player punishment' monsters).

The only time I might do otherwise is under certain specific circumstances, like a body double type situation and such that has an actual story reason to exist.

 

[Kraydak]

Imagine two groups of mooks:
Group One is simply lower level than everyone else, but uses standard monster values (maybe the defining characteristic of this set of monsters is unbelievable resilience, so minions rules would be inappropriate, or maybe you only want a single, not that powerful, BBEG)
Group Two are minions.

Against Group One, blowing high damage/half on miss effects is a good idea. Using low damage AoEs is somewhat of a waste of damage. Against Group Two, blowing high damage/half on miss effects is a waste, while low damage AoEs are perfect. The difference between the groups? A metagame choice of what monster rule set to follow.

Players should know what rule set is being followed, and hence should be told explicitly what is a minion and what isn't. Even being very explicit in monster description can be misleading.

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

I intend to make it pretty obvious who is and who is not a minion under most circumstances. Doing otherwise gets on to what I consider a fairly slippery slope towards actively trying to trick players into wasting abilities, which I think usually is going to foster DM vs. player antagonism. I've never liked that kind of play (the sort of thing that resulted in the ear seeker and other such 'player punishment' monsters).

The only time I might do otherwise is under certain specific circumstances, like a body double type situation and such that has an actual story reason to exist.

What exactly is an ear seeker? I've never heard of it before and it has my curious that a monster was created to piss off the PC's.

 

[IanB]

What exactly is an ear seeker? I've never heard of it before and it has my curious that a monster was created to piss off the PC's.

A monster from the first edition Monster Manual that basically existed entirely to attack PCs who listened at doors excessively.

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

A monster from the first edition Monster Manual that basically existed entirely to attack PCs who listened at doors excessively.

Ah, yeah that is a little dumb. Thanks for the 1e lesson.

 

[2eBladeSinger]

The DM I have now makes it very clear – he even uses different color markers to indicate minions. To be honest, as a player, I don’t like this very much; it turns the whole encounter into a meta-game exercise. If I wanted to play Warhammer Quest, I would have brought it over.

I’m going to be running the group in a couple of weeks and I asked myself this very question, so thanks for putting it on the boards so I don’t have to. I think using minions to intentionally deceive players into using their dailies is bad form, but, as I said above, I’m not going to spell it out for them either. Think of an encounter with some undead including 2 skeleton minions, 4 zombie minions, 2 zombie brutes and a skeleton soldier. As undead, they’re going to be a rag tag bunch with no clear leader and an assortment of rusty gear (though the MM describes them as all wielding the same thing). I don’t see a reason to say, this one is a mook and that one is a PBD. Now if there is a clear leader barking orders or a guy in shinier armor, I’ll describe that appropriately. But overall, I think it will be more fun if they figure it out in combat. It helps to describe the action: they’re cleaving heads in two and slicing off arms then all of a sudden one opponent grabs an incoming blade with his bare hand and pushes it away… obviously not a mook.

 

[Mengu]

I asked this very question to Mike Mearls at Origins this weekend. His answer was that yes, the minions should be made obvious to the players. For instance you could describe them as goblins wearing ragged leathers and wielding rusty old short swords. Cheap or worthless equipment is the hallmark of minions. You can also make them obvious by having the commanders order them around like the minions they are.

I think this is fair, since such a large portion of the game mechanics are based on dealing with minions, or dealing with BBG's, that the players should be able to make informed decissions. You could occasionally be evil, and have the lich dress up a few of his skeletal minions in identical robes, to be decoys, but this should be the exception, and not the norm. Even then, I might allow a Perception or Insight check to spot the decoys if the players get suspicious.

 

[Dormain1]

Our group wont be immediatly able to tell the difference between minions and named other than by description (ie this one carries a staff)

Certain knowledge checks will enable characters to distinguish between them

It all depends on your groups playing style, if you like to use your best powers early then telling the difference between mooks and named is very important, if you prefer to find out via trial and error or with a slow methodology ie whack him.....what it doesn't go down, aright i will use an encounter.

discuss it with your group remembering that some players will want one way and others may want it the other

 

[IanB]

The DM I have now makes it very clear – he even uses different color markers to indicate minions. To be honest, as a player, I don’t like this very much; it turns the whole encounter into a meta-game exercise. If I wanted to play Warhammer Quest, I would have brought it over.

I’m going to be running the group in a couple of weeks and I asked myself this very question, so thanks for putting it on the boards so I don’t have to. I think using minions to intentionally deceive players into using their dailies is bad form, but, as I said above, I’m not going to spell it out for them either. Think of an encounter with some undead including 2 skeleton minions, 4 zombie minions, 2 zombie brutes and a skeleton soldier. As undead, they’re going to be a rag tag bunch with no clear leader and an assortment of rusty gear (though the MM describes them as all wielding the same thing). I don’t see a reason to say, this one is a mook and that one is a PBD. Now if there is a clear leader barking orders or a guy in shinier armor, I’ll describe that appropriately. But overall, I think it will be more fun if they figure it out in combat. It helps to describe the action: they’re cleaving heads in two and slicing off arms then all of a sudden one opponent grabs an incoming blade with his bare hand and pushes it away… obviously not a mook.

Note that the skeleton and zombie minions in the MM are pretty explicitly called out as being more decayed/rotted whatever than the regular kind.