Minion Fist Fights

[Aust Diamondew]

Could have minions immune to damage on misses only from characters lower than its level.

I don't really see it as being a big issue though.

 

[WhatGravitas]

What about: if it takes damage from a miss, it is bloodied.
Bloodied minion: any damage kills it.

This is a pretty good idea. I suspect that the 4E development hasn't implemented something like to simplify the tracking (we can see a previous step of the development on the DDMs, where they had more than one hit point and could be bloodied), but for those who are bothered by things like that - nice.

Cheers, LT.

 

[pemerton]

So D&D is now officially a Forge game?

If so, it is a sad day.

Well some of us have been saying something like this for a while. And we're not all sad about it!

(Rob Heinsoo also said something similar in his D&D XP interview):

There might not be anyone else out there who would publish this kind of game. They usually get entrenched in the simulation aspect.

Indie games are similar in that they emphasize the gameplay aspect, but they’re super-focused, like a narrow laser. D&D has to be more general to accommodate a wide range of play.

 

[rugbyman]

Here's my feeble logic at work:

One of the 4e design goals is to speed up play and make the bookkeeping less tedious. 1 hp minions certainly does this.

But if minions really do have a half-damage AOE or similar exception, that creates an extra rule to employ which flys in the face of the simplified goal. An extra rule might be easier to use over the course of an encounter than hp bookkeeping for 20 mooks but, for those of us that suffer epic-tier rule memory laspes, its not.

If mooks ignore half-damage AOE, I can certainly envision a limited case where a mid-level boss monster dies from multiple AOE saved/half damage attacks, but his minions miraculously survive. I suppose a another minion-only rule is "the boss is dead and so, by extension, are the mooks." But that's yet another rule to remember.

If so, combat moves closer to the "speed of plot" style of gaming than the roll of the dice.

Ultimately, the DMG will be the arbiter of this aruguement. Until then, we're just debating the of color of god's hair.

 

[AZRogue]

The way 4e works the rules only work on the assumption that one of the participants in the action is a PC.

The implication of this is that they tell you nothing about what happens when an NPC fights an NPC, and as such you must either use different rules or wing it.

The 4e edition rule for what happens when minions get in a fist fight is 'what ever you want'.

The corrolary is, 'If you care what happens, then the NPC isn't a minion.'

The corrolary of that is that giving an NPC a name transforms them from a minion into something else, possibly with accompanying loss of level but at least now they have hit points.

I think this is exactly right, thankfully. I don't see a need for anything more.

The standard rule for resolving actions that the PCs aren't involved in should be: roll dice, make a doodle on a piece of scrap paper so the PCs think you're doing something, then describe the result that you want for your game. Or, if you simply must interject randomness for some reason, flip a coin and have that rule your outcome. Since the PCs aren't involved, who really cares?

 

[Celebrim]

But what's the average hit bonus of a character of a level where fighting minions is appropriate?

As far as I can tell, appropriate for an orc soldier is going to be somewhere between 4th and 14th level, with occassional forays slightly to other that if you are careful. That implies attack bonuses for defenders in the range of +8 to about +17 if I understand the math right. For a considerable portion of that, the orc soldier actually has a better to hit than the hero. Further, the orc soldier is always a better axe wielder than an orc chieftain. He just dies to a hornet sting or a 0th level commoner girl with a steak knife if you try to abide by the rules for PC's.

That's what exception based design means. It means you don't get to ask questions because the answers are 'just because'. Why is it that the PCs no matter how heroic they will become will always have less hitpoints than thier foes? Just because they need a monster that lives for a while against the combined forces of the party without actually being a significant threat to them. There isn't any in game reason and you shouldn't bother looking for one. 4e says, "Oh screw this. It's a game. Nobody asks what happens to the soldiers in Settlers of Cataan after you play one. It's just a game."

 

[JesterOC]

Is that your professional opinion?

Because it isn't mine.

No it is not my professional opionion. As I am not a D&D designer, nor am I currently working on a game for D&D 4E. I was just making a point that some aspects of 4E do require the DM to make sure he uses the right system for the job needed. Like don't use minons in a bar fight. 3E did not have such limitations. Thus more universal, thus easier to program. But since you brought it up...

I worked at Interplay when 3E was being made. And had access to early material. I had no direct contact with the designers, but the Interplay game designers, Chris Taylor who worked on Fallout did say that 3E was being designed to be better integrated into video games. Edit: At least I assume it was him, it has been many years..

So that is a bit of hersay and experience talking. I just meant that 4E, while the powers are very specific and well thought out, does have some mechanics that are not universal. Take for instance the goblin harpoon dude. That is a special case rule made just for that monster. That kind of stuff did not happen much in 3E which means it is easier to make monsters for video games for 3E.

JesterOC

 

[Celebrim]

I was just making a point that some aspects of 4E do require the DM to make sure he uses the right system for the job needed. Like don't use minons in a bar fight. 3E did not have such limitations.

Uhhh... isn't this a design issue? That isn't the sort of thing that would make a system hard to turn into a cRPG. You establish those kind of things at design time. Humans can make those decisions. The things that are hard to code for are things that require interpretation at run time, and 4e's design is designed to be clean at run time.

The only real difficulty in interpretation (and I don't want to minimize this one because it was for example huge in porting SFB to real time) is going to be moving from turn based to continious play. But thats a challenge for any turn based game. I don't see that 4e brings alot that is difficult at that level that you didn't have to deal with in 3e except the Warlord - who has alot of powers that are specifically written for turn based and not designed with UI's in mind. So you'd have to do some changes in how the Warlord buffs opponents in terms of the movement he grants, but other than that 4e is easy.

So that is a bit of heresay and experience talking. I just meant that 4E, while the powers are very specific and well thought out, does have some mechanics that are not universal. Take for instance the goblin harpoon dude. That is a special case rule made just for that monster. That kind of stuff did not happen much in 3E which means it is easier to make monsters for video games for 3E.

But computer programs don't mind special cases. In fact, until recently everything in a game was treated as a special case. It's only recently that we are starting to see 'universal' game physics where everything is a 3D object modeled by the same rules, or universally morphable terrain rather than (for example) specific walls or objects flaged as DestroyOK. Having special cases presents no real challenge to a programmer. Trying to make everything universal - now that's hard. In fact, its so hard that no one does it.

Next time you see Chris, ask him if he knows who Celebrim is.

 

[hong]

As far as I can tell, appropriate for an orc soldier is going to be somewhere between 4th and 14th level, with occassional forays slightly to other that if you are careful. That implies attack bonuses for defenders in the range of +8 to about +17 if I understand the math right. For a considerable portion of that, the orc soldier actually has a better to hit than the hero. Further, the orc soldier is always a better axe wielder than an orc chieftain. He just dies to a hornet sting or a 0th level commoner girl with a steak knife if you try to abide by the rules for PC's.

Which is why you don't apply the rules for the PCs. Silly Celebrim.

That's what exception based design means. It means you don't get to ask questions because the answers are 'just because'.

The answers are "because the NPCs have different roles to play".

Why is it that the PCs no matter how heroic they will become will always have less hitpoints than thier foes?

Because the DM doesn't know how to design encounters.

Just because they need a monster that lives for a while against the combined forces of the party without actually being a significant threat to them.

This is for those moments when the DM knows how to design encounters.

There isn't any in game reason and you shouldn't bother looking for one.

The in-game reason is "the extras and antagonists get different mechanics than the protagonists".

4e says, "Oh screw this. It's a game. Nobody asks what happens to the soldiers in Settlers of Cataan after you play one. It's just a game."

4E says "screw this, it's a story".

 

[I'm A Banana]

Y'know, further consideration has me leaning toward "no one dies on a miss."

It's a SIMPLE fix that's also in in line with these rules.

I might have to give the guys who waste their daily missing minions a little something, because wasting one of your most powerful resources on someone's footsoldier is ALWAYS going to be a buzzkill, but maybe it won't even be an issue.

I sill like reinforcements, so I might just use those instead of having all the minions present at the start of the battle, only start with 1/2...the other 1/2 arrive in a round or two.

....just because it's a cool image.

Thanks for the suggestion, d00ds.