Let's talk about minions...

[ExploderWizard]

The answer to "What doesn't he understand?"
In my view, bringing up questions like "What if two minions are fighting?" as more than a goofy question shows a lack of understanding. There have been a number of posts by other people in here with similar ideas to this. In my book, they don't get it.
For those of you who say, "The world exists outside of the PCs and everything is exactly as powerful as it would be against the PCs.":
How do you play the game? At all? You would have to run your own mock combats for EVERYTHING that happens in the world. Do you roll Stealth checks for thieves to get away from the guards before the PCs ever show up? Or do you handwave it? The little quote about this is "If an NPC climbs a tree, and a PC isn't around, does he make a Climb check?" Of course not. It gets handwaved. "Why did this happen? How did this work?" It did because it needed to.
Minions are the same. HP are much more abstract than some people seem to understand. You can say, "I don't like having my PCs able to 1-hit something." That's fine. You don't like a part of the game. But don't add, "Because it doesn't make sense."

Why don't minions make sense? You answered this yourself in this post actually. NPC's engaging in activities without the PC's is different than the minion issue. Minions interact with the PC's directly and are painfully obvious gamist constructs due to this fact. HP as an abstract concept I understand. A monster with 40 hp doesn't take 40 points of physical damage to drop perhaps. HP represent combative power and is a universal measure of combat effectiveness.

A minion begins an encounter with almost zero combat effectiveness combined with strange BS immunities. The problem is amplified when minions are mixed in with regular troops. Lets say a wizard fireballs a mob of slobbering goblins. Some of the goblins are new minion reinforcements and some are wounded troopers from earlier in the battle. The blast of lands among the goblins. Goblins with 3 or 4 hp die on missed attacks but the 1hp minion ignores the damage. Why?

1) The minions thought that dying before getting to attack would be unfun.

2) The minions used the other goblins as shields.

3) The minion rules were not really thought out.

I gotta go with # 3 FTW.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why don't minions make sense? You answered this yourself in this post actually. NPC's engaging in activities without the PC's is different than the minion issue. Minions interact with the PC's directly and are painfully obvious gamist constructs due to this fact. HP as an abstract concept I understand. A monster with 40 hp doesn't take 40 points of physical damage to drop perhaps. HP represent combative power and is a universal measure of combat effectiveness.

A minion begins an encounter with almost zero combat effectiveness combined with strange BS immunities. The problem is amplified when minions are mixed in with regular troops. Lets say a wizard fireballs a mob of slobbering goblins. Some of the goblins are new minion reinforcements and some are wounded troopers from earlier in the battle. The blast of lands among the goblins. Goblins with 3 or 4 hp die on missed attacks but the 1hp minion ignores the damage. Why?

1) The minions thought that dying before getting to attack would be unfun.

2) The minions used the other goblins as shields.

3) The minion rules were not really thought out.

I gotta go with # 3 FTW.

4) The minions evaded the attacks, took some damage, but weren't killed.
Just because they didn't take any hit point damage doesn't mean that they don't look a little scorched in the game world... (They might even have looked just as bad as those wounded troopers.)

3) is most likely false because the designers thought this true, and decided that it worked "well enough" (and certainly not worse than the alternatives they had created along the way to the final Minion rules).

I am not an expert on the GNS terminology, but from what I understand after the discussions with pemerton, Minions are not "gamist" - at least not completely. They are strongly based on narrativist concerns - the ability to evoke the typical fight against hordes of enemies. The gamist part is that the rules also describe them mechanically in a way that they are still challenging. A "narrative sim" would probably just make all Minions lower level monsters, but these are dissatisfying for gamists, as they pose no threat.

I wonder if someone can come up with a concept for Minions that suites all 3 concerns...

 

[Irda Ranger]

Of course you can say: "But I want a better model - I want one where I don't have to change the representation based on scales or levels". That's what scientist want, too.

Heh. Of course, scientists don't get to use house rules.

But understand (and accept) that for 4E, the designers decided this degree of precision was the degree that would give the best results for their target audience - Which might mean that you were not part of the target audience.

Yeah, but if just don't use minions as part of the game then all these problems (for those whom this is a problem) go away. 4E fixed a lot of 3E's problems (for me), so a quick patch is certainly better than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Cadfan]

4) The minions evaded the attacks, took some damage, but weren't killed.
Just because they didn't take any hit point damage doesn't mean that they don't look a little scorched in the game world... (They might even have looked just as bad as those wounded troopers.)

I'm pretty sure this is exactly what the design intent is. Minions go down on one good hit, where a "good hit" is defined as "successful attack roll on an attack that deals hit point damage." On anything other than a "good hit," they take damage, but don't actually die.

And that emphasizes my objection to the minion rules as they presently stand. I can accept that as a valid definition of "good hit," but it results in situations where a "bad hit" might deal 20 points of damage to a nearby non minion, and a "good hit" that kills a minion only deals 2, because the "bad hit" was from a missed attack roll on a very large power, and the "good hit" was from automatic damage dealt by a small power.

I like the idea of removing foes on a "good hit," I just want a more consistent definition of "good hit."

Another possible way to define "good hit" would be to give them one hit point and Resist All X.

The good part about doing that is that it would clean up details like fey pact teleportation slaughtering minions by dealing 3 damage to everyone nearby without an attack roll, or cloud of daggers auto-killing minions with 2 points of damage, while fireballs fail to kill them on misses even though they do dozens of points of damage to everyone else.

The bad part is that the designers seem to intend certain things to be "good hits," like Cleave, but they don't actually do enough damage to exceed a threshold I might set for damage resistance, or, they exceed the damage resistance at lower levels but stop exceeding it at higher levels, since ability scores scale less quickly than 1/2 level or anything else I might set.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

Legion Devil Legionnaire == Level 3 Solo

IMC, the term "minion" does not define a creature's characteristics in absolute terms. Instead, the minion rules are a way mechanically to express a creature's fighting ability relative to a particular level of PC. In short, a Young White Dragon (Level 3 Solo) and a Legion Devil Legionnaire (Level 21 Minion) are roughly the same in power level (750 XP versus 800 XP). Their mechanical expressions are different only because one Young White Dragon tends to fight several beginning adventurers, while several Legion Devil Legionnaires tend to fight one epic adventurer.

Consider the case of one Szartharrax, a young white dragon who has just slaughtered a band of wannabe heroes on their first adventure. These fools barged into his lair but then froze in their tracks as his frightful roar reverberated through the chamber. The fighter leaned right into his breath weapon, and their puny swords and spells barely scratched his dragon scales. One week later, a power archmage swings by and enslaves Szartharrax, compelling him to fight in his evil army. In the Final Battle, he flies in a squadron of young dragons opposed by a single human warrior floating above the walls of the city. Szartharrax soon learns that this gleaming foe completely ignores his frightful presence, and his claw-claw-bite fury doesn't even make contact with the human's otherworldly glowing plate armor. He quickly finds that if he goes all out on the attack, he has a reasonable chance of striking, but only for a modest (and constant) amount of damage. Alas, this all-out attack leaves him vulnerable, and this 22nd level paladin has slain many dragons in her career. She strikes just so with her +5 vicious greatsword, a single blow neatly severing the head from a dragon that, in this battle, was just a level 21 minion.

IMC, a farmer facing a legion devil legionnaire must fight a level 3 solo, not a level 21 minion. The exact same creature has different stats, depending on whom it's fighting.

Well, I haven't fought just one person for so long. I've been specializing in groups. Battling gangs for local charities, that kind of thing.... You see, you use different moves when you're fighting half a dozen people than when you only have to be worried about one.

 

[D'karr]

1) The minions thought that dying before getting to attack would be unfun.

2) The minions used the other goblins as shields.

3) The minion rules were not really thought out.

I gotta go with # 3 FTW.

Well, when the "rules" are taken out of context any rule could be said to "not really be thought out." I do not think that is the case with the minion rules. However, DM's should probably keep in mind the context for the minion rules.

So what is the thought process behind the minion rules? In other words, what is the existence of minions supposed to provide the DM?

The idea of minions is to make combats more exciting by increasing the number of opponents that the party encounters. So instead of encountering 2 or 3 opponents, all of a sudden they can encounter a heck of a lot more. The DM should probably ask himself, What is more exciting for this particular encounter; two lone goblins or a situation like the Mines of Moria? If what the DM is looking for is the Mines of Moria, then minions are one of the tools in the box he can use. If two goblins is more exciting for this specific combat then minion rules are not what he should be using.

So why are minions designed the way they are? There are probably more, but I'll list 3 reasons.

• Combat is supposed to be exciting.
• The threat should be real.
• Using minions should not put undue burden on the DM.

If combat is supposed to be exciting it loses a lot of its exciting nature if there is little or no risk involved. So minions have to present a real risk, and there have to be many of them. This leads to the second design objective in that the threat must be real. The minion must be a real threat or it can simply be ignored.

If the minions can never hit the defenses of the party then they are not a challenge. By the same token if the party can simply ignore them and not expect any risk, or if the party doesn't even have to make an effort to hit them, then minions are not a challenge either.

So in order for minions to be a real challenge and present a real threat they must be able to hit the party and not be necessarily easy to hit themselves. In addition this threat level needs to scale properly for the level of the encounter. So using minions a few levels above the party (1-4) is still a challenge but using those of 5 or more levels above the party is not appropriate for the encounter.

In order for a DM to use minions effectively they must not impose an undue burden on him due to bookkeeping. So minions are supposed to go away on one hit. Even the smallest amount of damage on a hit kills them. But to keep the level of threat, if you miss them they are simply not affected. Once again that is by design because of their purpose. That doesn't mean that the DM can't describe the effect of a fireball that misses those minions as, "they are smoldering but still in the combat." It's all in the presentation after all.

With those things in mind then it starts making sense why minions that are not hit by an attack, specially one that does half damage on a miss, will still stick around. Because if you remove them under those circumstances, then they are no longer a viable threat. On the other hand if you start giving minions a bunch of hit points, scaling with the level of the party, you run into the situation where a bad roll in damage will not take them out. That situation then makes minions more trouble to keep track of.

Let's use two examples to demonstrate why the inverse does not work so well. For the first example, let's say that minions do take damage on a miss. If that is the case, then area of effect spells will kill minions instantly simply because a miss still does damage. So minions under those circumstances pose no threat at all.

So for the second example, let say that they do take damage on a miss, but they also have a certain amount of hit points based on level. You have 20 minions on an combat and each has 10 hit points. So that area of effect spell that just missed all of them did between 1-6 points of damage on a miss. So now you have minions that pose a bookkeeping problem. Can you imagine keeping track of that?

If you look at it from that perspective the minion rules make perfect sense when used within the context of what they were designed for.

 

[Irda Ranger]

How do you play the game? At all? You would have to run your own mock combats for EVERYTHING that happens in the world.

Are you being thick or insulting?

Do you roll Stealth checks for thieves to get away from the guards before the PCs ever show up?

Maybe, if it's relevant to the PC's quest. I never decide ahead of time if any particular action will succeed or fail. If it's important, the dice decide. I may abstract it way up (one d20 roll to decide an entire battle), but that's the concept.

To take your thief example, suppose the PCs are chasing an NPC rogue through the streets. He ducks into a merchant's palazzo to avoid capture. Do the merchant's NPC guards catch him or does he get away? I dunno, but the answer is certainly relevant to the PCs' quest. A quick d20 roll or two will capture the rogue's attempt to make it through the palazzo grounds and out the back, and the PCs find out almost the same time I do whether he's successful.

This keeps the game interesting for both me and the players - you never know what's going to happen, and quests and plots emerge all over the place. Way more than I could come up with if I used all my mental energy hand-waiving stuff.

HP are much more abstract than some people seem to understand.

There's that accusation again. I think most posters understand HP fine.

You can say, "I don't like having my PCs able to 1-hit something." That's fine. You don't like a part of the game. But don't add, "Because it doesn't make sense."

You think killing things in one hit is a problem? It's not a problem. But your comment here suggests you still don't grasp the real problem (ironic of me to say that, I know, but I do have evidence).

I hesitate to speak for others, but I think when most minion-haters say "It doesn't make sense" they are not vocalizing their belief that game rules should be consistent with each other, and that having some rules that are inconsistent with the rest of the game "doesn't make sense." Minions are really inconsistent. In D&D, not having hit points is like not having height, depth or mass. It causes way more problems than it solves, for people who play D&D in a certain way. Hence, the complaint.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Heh. Of course, scientists don't get to use house rules.

Probably not.

Yeah, but if just don't use minions as part of the game then all these problems (for those whom this is a problem) go away. 4E fixed a lot of 3E's problems (for me), so a quick patch is certainly better than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

That's certainly a possibility. But I am not sure it "helps" talking about Minions.

The good part about doing that is that it would clean up details like fey pact teleportation slaughtering minions by dealing 3 damage to everyone nearby without an attack roll, or cloud of daggers auto-killing minions with 2 points of damage, while fireballs fail to kill them on misses even though they do dozens of points of damage to everyone else.

I think this is a "calculated" risk of the system, and from a narrative point of view, I like it - because this means the character has a game tool to represent how powerful and dangerous he can be. A Fighter using one of those [W] damage to adjacent opponents or a Wizard using Cloud of Daggers are deadly to "normal" people. For many NPCs, a PC that can kill you with a mere look (Tieflings with Rod of Reavings) will be truely intimidating.

 

[The Little Raven]

minion cleavage

You lech!

 

[Wyrmshadows]

I hesitate to speak for others, but I think when most minion-haters say "It doesn't make sense" they are not vocalizing their belief that game rules should be consistent with each other, and that having some rules that are inconsistent with the rest of the game "doesn't make sense." Minions are really inconsistent. In D&D, not having hit points is like not having height, depth or mass. It causes way more problems than it solves, for people who play D&D in a certain way. Hence, the complaint.

This.

It is massively inconsistant that a creature's relative strength is determined by strength of the opposition. Throughout the history of D&D (and its offshoots in the 3.5e era) a 10HD monster with 45hp is consistantly a 10HD monster with 45hp. No matter who was fighting this beast, its stats stayed the same. This is consistancy and believability.

When the heroes encounter this creature it should, no matter what their level, still be a 10HD monster with 45hp. This creature doesn't level up or down because of the level of its enemies. HPs are an abstraction but they have always been a consistant abstraction where one could reliably, at a glance, determine a creature's relative strength against another creature (Wow! This things got 569hp...he's tough) and who would likely win by simply eyeballing the stats.

Now, not so much.

A 20th level minion doesn't have a mechanical reality until PCs engage it and IMO that is the problem. A 20th level minion, a 20th level creature (another abstraction that throughout the history of D&D has been a good barometer of relative objective power) can be one shot killed by a punch in the face, a staff to the ribs, a halfling's dagger in the ankle or any other number of preposterous circumstances that might be explainable as a unique circumstance but are now potentially regular realities.

Minions literally rely on DMs being good narrators to make any sense of their reality whatsoever. Without a good DM narrating them well, especially in the case of gigantic, powerful minions (an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp) would make Kill Bill scenes seem entirely believable.

A 10th level wizard couldn't one shot a 4th level brute with a staff but that same wizard could, if he wanted to, do this to a 10th level minion.

The problem with minions is that though they can certainly be used appropriately... such as a mob of mooks slaughtered by Conan...there are plenty of opportunities for D&D combats to become utter cartoons that are more silly than heroic.



Wyrmshadows