Minion Fist Fights

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I give up. Communication is clearly impossible. *ahem*

4e cures cancer and brings world peace while 3e kills puppys and feeds on the tears of children.

Happy now? *facepalm*

Not entirely. You forget to mention that 4E is also a far better system then 3E. Please stay until you understood and accepted this truth, too.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Before I begin, don't take any of this as applying to you personally. I don't know if you hold any of the views I refer to. Most of it is general argument using your points as a springboard.

I am not a big fan of the bolded part, either. But I think the reasoning goes something like this:
So, you prefer 3E over 4E(, and might even think the designers are not doing good work). But 3E didn't have X. You tell me I can houserule X, if I want it.
SO, if Y is something you don't like in 4E, just houserule it. See, 4E is just as great as 3E.

Except that is backwards. From the first information about Golden Wyverns, the proffered solution was always "change/houserule it".*

Off course, there is also the matter of how difficult it is to houserule something. Taking out magical +X items from 3E while preserving game balance? Very hard. Taking out magical +X items from 4E while preserving game balance? Astoundingly easy.

Conversely, taking out at-will powers from 3.x? Astoundingly easy.

But the point is this: You claim taking out magical weapon bonuses from 3.x is very difficult. Except, the article previews state you can do this in 4e by giving players a boost to the attack every few levels. Well, again, this isn't unique to 4e. Do the same thing in 3.x, and miracle of miracles, you get the same outcome.

There were no minions in 3.x because nobody needed them. Those that did had a system in place. As I, and others, have demonstrated, you can drop a 3.x monster to 1hp, quarter the CR and amazingly, you have a 4e style minion.

I haven't had the time to scour the forums, but here is what I am getting at: There was no outcry for the things 4e is 'fixing' until the previews at the first of the year. For example, with all the open content, and the millions of players out there, I would have expected dozens of systems for creating minions/mooks in D&D. There were what, two? Three? Where was the clamour for 'easily dispatched but still dangerous monsters'? Where are the endless flamewars over diagonal movement? Why were most of these things unheard of until recently?

I contend that nearly everything that 4e promises to improve on is based almost entirely on fictitious claims about 3.x.

But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be mechanics that allow me to easily replicate certain aspects of books or movies. Mooks (lower level NPCs & monsters) in 3E are pretty pointless. You roll a lot of dice and the end result - you win - is still obvious. (The worst thing possibly is that the best way to handle mook fights is to send your melee warriors to deal with them, since this will most likely not cost you any important resources, while the quick way, a area effect spell, can hurt you in a later encounter that day)

Minion Fights in 4E are no pointless. You roll a lot of dice, but you actually risk death or at least serious resource expenditure.

How is "You roll a lot of dice and the end result - you win" any less obvious in 4e? Minions have one hit point, but otherwise, the same stats as a similarly leveled monster. It's the exact same in 3.x, when you drop a monster down to 1hp. They still have a good chance to injure the characters, and they go down in one hit. In a previous post, I listed a statblock for an Ogre Mage minion. 1hp, 2CR, otherwise, the same as any other Ogre Mage. How is that different than 4e?

Additionally, you contradict yourself. In the 3.x example, you list "while the quick way, a area effect spell, can hurt you in a later encounter that day" as a detriment, but in 4e, "you actually risk death or at least serious resource expenditure" as a benefit. If resource expenditure is a detriment, it is a detriment in both. As well, if it is a benefit, it is a benefit for both.

The fact that you can die in combat at all is off course an important difference from books or movies. But playing smart (good teamplay, tactics, and possibly using metagame resources like action points) can minimize the risks, and leads to a satisfactory experience - just as the protagonist in the novel, you outsmarted (or at least outfought) your adversaries.

Which is excellent advice for any game.

Unfortunately, minions undermine that idea. You aren't outsmarting or outfighting them. They aren't individually a threat, because they are too fragile. They are paper targets. They are training wheels. They are toddlers with foam bats. Mechanically, they are no different than Wandering Damage. They don't even have a mechanical damage threshold to surpass, just a simple attack roll. I don't see how to derive a sense of accomplishment from rolling 12 or better on a d20. It's not like everyone has to work together to overcome them. Everyone will put one down per hit. In fact, it discourages teamwork, because concentrating more than one person on a minion is a terrible tactic. The Wizard will plink at least one per round with Magic Missile. The Eldarin Rogue will drop one, teleport and drop another. Finish off the minions, take your healing surges and get to the real fight. I can't think of much that is less tactically interesting, or has a greater sense of 'obligatory fight scene'.

I have heard theories that the new edition aims to challenge the character and not the player, where previous editions were the opposite. I don't see how minions even really challenge the characters.


*Which is problematic when fluff gets entangled in the rules. I can give everyone a static +1 to saves every five levels, and the only thing it skews is a bit of math at higher levels. But if I don't want tieflings to have such goofy names, or hail from the forgotten empire... I'm kind of stuck, because new players to my table will have expectations for tieflings.

 

[Mallus]

Finish off the minions, take your healing surges and get to the real fight.

This of course neatly ignores that minions are intended to be part of the 'real fight', ie used simultaneously along with non-minion opponents. In which case a class of opponents that goes down easy and yet is fully capable of damaging the PC's represents an interesting addition to tactical play.

I can't think of much that is less tactically interesting...

Note that you can use any games rules the wrong way to generate boring and/or undesirable results. This proves what, exactly?

 

[LostSoul]

How is "You roll a lot of dice and the end result - you win" any less obvious in 4e? Minions have one hit point, but otherwise, the same stats as a similarly leveled monster. It's the exact same in 3.x, when you drop a monster down to 1hp. They still have a good chance to injure the characters, and they go down in one hit. In a previous post, I listed a statblock for an Ogre Mage minion. 1hp, 2CR, otherwise, the same as any other Ogre Mage. How is that different than 4e?

(The CR should be normal monster's CR - 4, not quartered.)

It doesn't work because the rest of the system doesn't expect a group of monsters that can challenge a party to only have 1hp. In order for it to work, you need to have attack rolls for spells like Magic Missile and Fireball.

 

[Dausuul]

Except that is backwards. From the first information about Golden Wyverns, the proffered solution was always "change/houserule it".*

Of course, Golden Wyvern has been excised from the 4E Player's Handbook... thank God.

But the point is this: You claim taking out magical weapon bonuses from 3.x is very difficult. Except, the article previews state you can do this in 4e by giving players a boost to the attack every few levels. Well, again, this isn't unique to 4e. Do the same thing in 3.x, and miracle of miracles, you get the same outcome.

Except for one thing: In 3.X, what level are you supposed to get a +3 weapon?

There's no answer, because 3.X doesn't have fixed expectations of "this is how much of a weapon bonus you're supposed to have at this level." It just has a flat "this is how many gold pieces' worth of Magic Stuff you're supposed to have." Depending on the character and build, you might have nearly all of that wealth sunk into your weapon, or some of it, or none.

Now, you can put together some reasonable assumptions. My experience, for example, has been that most weapon-using characters put from 1/4 to 1/2 of their total net worth toward having a kick-ass weapon. So you could take the wealth-by-level guidelines, determine an "appropriate fraction" to put toward your weapon, and adjust accordingly.

But that still leaves a lot of questions. For one thing, a lot of the money people spend on their weapons goes toward getting cool special powers like Wounding, rather than on getting flat bonuses. Should you consider that element? Then, too, some parties have a caster who is willing and able to buff everyone's gear with greater magic weapon, which means investment in flat bonuses goes way down. Other parties lack such a caster.

And then there are the casters themselves, who generally don't use weapons at all. Are you going to give casters a higher WBL than non-casters, in order to compensate for the fact that the non-casters no longer have to pay for their weapons? If so, how do you plan to enforce treasure distribution to reflect this? Or will you just let weapon-users get an effective WBL boost and call it partial compensation for the overall superiority of caster classes in 3.X?

Decisions, decisions... all these issues can be addressed if you're willing to take the time, but it's far from trivial.

There were no minions in 3.x because nobody needed them. Those that did had a system in place. As I, and others, have demonstrated, you can drop a 3.x monster to 1hp, quarter the CR and amazingly, you have a 4e style minion.

I didn't have minions in 3.X. You know why? I just never thought of it. I was always vaguely annoyed by the amount of time it took to run big fights with lots of mooks, and tended to avoid such scenarios for that reason, but it never occurred to me to sit down and really address the issue. Now the 4E designers have come up with the idea, it looks absolutely frickin' brilliant to me, and I'm champing at the bit to run encounters with big heaps o' minions.

And as others have pointed out, minionizing 3.X monsters is a kludge at best, with a number of problems (like AoE spells that don't have an attack roll or a saving throw involved). I'd probably still do it if I were sticking with 3.X, but 4E is being built with minions in mind, which means they should be much better integrated into the system.

I haven't had the time to scour the forums, but here is what I am getting at: There was no outcry for the things 4e is 'fixing' until the previews at the first of the year.

On the contrary. Many of the things 4E is fixing, like casters ruling the roost at high levels, characters being unreasonably fragile at low levels, excessive save-or-lose effects, and so forth, are things that a lot of people have been complaining about for a long time.

Now, I agree that there has not been a general outcry for minions. That doesn't make it a bad idea. It's a new concept rather than a fix for an old one; it's showing people something cool they can do with their game that they just might never have thought of before. If you don't like minions, you don't have to use 'em, but the system and the support are there for those of us who like the concept.

 

[Scribble]

Except that is backwards. From the first information about Golden Wyverns, the proffered solution was always "change/houserule it".

For some things like names of things? I think this IS the preffered solution. Names are pretty relative. It's impossible to make a name EVERYONE will agree is good.

For rules, I'm with you that the preffered solution shouldn't just be house rule it. Eventually though, if you're in the minority, you have to accept the fact that the rule works for the majority and won't be changed... So you only have 2 solutions at that point really...

But the point is this: You claim taking out magical weapon bonuses from 3.x is very difficult. Except, the article previews state you can do this in 4e by giving players a boost to the attack every few levels. Well, again, this isn't unique to 4e. Do the same thing in 3.x, and miracle of miracles, you get the same outcome.

Eh... I would argue it's not quite that easy. The types and kinds of bonuses vary so much and effect things in different ways. Certain characters would probably need bigger bonuses, while others would need a different type of bonus all together... It can be done sure... But so far it looks much easier in 4e. (and as a DM with not so much time on my hands for side projects... easier is better.)

There were no minions in 3.x because nobody needed them. Those that did had a system in place. As I, and others, have demonstrated, you can drop a 3.x monster to 1hp, quarter the CR and amazingly, you have a 4e style minion.

Chicken or the egg? I used minions, but they never seemed to play out so well. Either it was too much of a challange and I had to fudge to reduce TPKs or too little of a challange, and I had to fudge to prevent premature gameoverulation.

Also an official rule on it makes it easier/possible to include them in things like official adventures, and settings and such. Doing this means more adventure options. More options means more fans being catered too. This is not a bad thing at all. More fans means more good for D&D.

I haven't had the time to scour the forums, but here is what I am getting at: There was no outcry for the things 4e is 'fixing' until the previews at the first of the year. For example, with all the open content, and the millions of players out there, I would have expected dozens of systems for creating minions/mooks in D&D. There were what, two? Three? Where was the clamour for 'easily dispatched but still dangerous monsters'? Where are the endless flamewars over diagonal movement? Why were most of these things unheard of until recently?

Selective memory? Talk about wanting this stuff I would say led to patches like mob rules and swarms. It was just an alien way of thinking to 3e with it's you fight x number of monsters in x number of encounters...

I contend that nearly everything that 4e promises to improve on is based almost entirely on fictitious claims about 3.x.

Easier to prepair and run. I've seen a TON of threads on enworld a lone complaining about the amount of time it takes to prep for 3e. Usually people asking for solutions and such.

Quicker battles. man I know I had an issue with that, and I KNOW a lot of hreads on enword were about battle length.

Plus there's also the "it's what we got so why complain" mindset. I played AD&D. It was fun. There were issues I had with the system, but I didn't spend all my time complaining about it. Had someone asked, I would have mentioned them, but still it was a game, it was fun, if I felt the need to bitch that much why would I play it???

3e is/was fun. It still had issues, many of which I find 4e to be fixing.

How is "You roll a lot of dice and the end result - you win" any less obvious in 4e? Minions have one hit point, but otherwise, the same stats as a similarly leveled monster. It's the exact same in 3.x, when you drop a monster down to 1hp. They still have a good chance to injure the characters, and they go down in one hit. In a previous post, I listed a statblock for an Ogre Mage minion. 1hp, 2CR, otherwise, the same as any other Ogre Mage. How is that different than 4e?

It's not, but it fits the system better in 4e then the above would. I think in my eyes, they've fixed the overall issue I've had with monsters for a while. Minions are simply an outcome of that.

Additionally, you contradict yourself. In the 3.x example, you list "while the quick way, a area effect spell, can hurt you in a later encounter that day" as a detriment, but in 4e, "you actually risk death or at least serious resource expenditure" as a benefit. If resource expenditure is a detriment, it is a detriment in both. As well, if it is a benefit, it is a benefit for both.

I don't understand this paragraph.

Unfortunately, minions undermine that idea. You aren't outsmarting or outfighting them. They aren't individually a threat, because they are too fragile. They are paper targets. They are training wheels. They are toddlers with foam bats.

Yes they are. They can still harm you. They ahve the ability to hit you and do damage. (Which also is average damage so they're never going to do that oh... he only did a point of damage" shtick.)

Calling them insulting names will not change this. They might be less of a threat then say the BBEG controlling them, but they are still a threat to your character.

How is this hard to understand?

Mechanically, they are no different than Wandering Damage. They don't even have a mechanical damage threshold to surpass, just a simple attack roll. I don't see how to derive a sense of accomplishment from rolling 12 or better on a d20. It's not like everyone has to work together to overcome them. Everyone will put one down per hit. In fact, it discourages teamwork, because concentrating more than one person on a minion is a terrible tactic. The Wizard will plink at least one per round with Magic Missile. The Eldarin Rogue will drop one, teleport and drop another. Finish off the minions, take your healing surges and get to the real fight. I can't think of much that is less tactically interesting, or has a greater sense of 'obligatory fight scene'.

Except there is also the BBEG in the background doing fun things like dropping AOE powers on you, or ranged attacks.

Sure, one goes down per hit. But they still take damage from the ones that didn't go down. Now the BBEG has one less healing surge to contend with.

They give DMs options. Why are options a bad thing???

I have heard theories that the new edition aims to challenge the character and not the player, where previous editions were the opposite. I don't see how minions even really challenge the characters.

I'm not sure what this means either. What do you mean by challange the character and not the player?

Which is problematic when fluff gets entangled in the rules. I can give everyone a static +1 to saves every five levels, and the only thing it skews is a bit of math at higher levels. But if I don't want tieflings to have such goofy names, or hail from the forgotten empire... I'm kind of stuck, because new players to my table will have expectations for tieflings.

Not so much difefrent for just about any edition fot eh game? There's always been people wanting to play something that I might not find "right" for my game.

Oh you want to play a CE anti-paladin vampire 1/2 dragon drider with wings?

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Of course, Golden Wyvern has been excised from the 4E Player's Handbook... thank God.

I hadn't heard that. I agree, thank God.

Except for one thing: In 3.X, what level are you supposed to get a +3 weapon?

<snip>

Decisions, decisions... all these issues can be addressed if you're willing to take the time, but it's far from trivial.

I will grant that it isn't necessarily simple, but I hold that is the price for flexibility. I understand not everyone enjoys that, but then arguing that simplicity is the ultimate goal rather presumes that it is the highest 'good' (not that you are doing that here).

I didn't have minions in 3.X. You know why? I just never thought of it. I was always vaguely annoyed by the amount of time it took to run big fights with lots of mooks, and tended to avoid such scenarios for that reason, but it never occurred to me to sit down and really address the issue. Now the 4E designers have come up with the idea, it looks absolutely frickin' brilliant to me, and I'm champing at the bit to run encounters with big heaps o' minions.

I will cede the point that it may not have been considered by most. However, there were enough that would have or did think about it that there should have been comprehensive rules by now. I understand Mutants and Masterminds has minion/mook rules. While I wouldn't expect everyone to keep current on every RPG release available (the gods know I don't), it has been available in d20 form for some time. Until pretty recently, however, no one seems to have really had a problem with them being absent. Other genres had them, but sword and sorcery didn't seem to need them. I hear claims about how they are integral to genre fiction, but I seem to recall that Aragorn and company knocked a few orcs around while Merry and Pippin were being kidnapped, then stalled. Using minion rules, they should have caught up then slaughtered the whole troop of orcs and goblins. Even the running count between Gimli and Legolas occurred across three books. Conan, that I can recall, was not mobbed by dozens of guards. I certainly don't have the depth of reading some have, but I am curious as to which specific books are being used as evidence to support the inclusion of minions.

And as others have pointed out, minionizing 3.X monsters is a kludge at best, with a number of problems (like AoE spells that don't have an attack roll or a saving throw involved). I'd probably still do it if I were sticking with 3.X, but 4E is being built with minions in mind, which means they should be much better integrated into the system.

It may be somewhat kludgy, but the end effect is about the same. Take a monster, drop it to 1hp, and you have a minion. A few fiddly bits need to be resolved, as you mentioned, but that really is the basic mechanic here. In 4e, the damage output is flattened and lowered somewhat, but essentially, a 20th level minion is a standard 20th level monster with 1hp.

On the contrary. Many of the things 4E is fixing, like casters ruling the roost at high levels, characters being unreasonably fragile at low levels, excessive save-or-lose effects, and so forth, are things that a lot of people have been complaining about for a long time.

I would say those are arguably not objective problems, but I can understand that some have had problems with them. That is a play style issue that 4e could have addressed without necessarily overhauling the entire system. I don't agree, for example, that re-distributing the choice of powers Wizards had previously to all classes is the most elegant or best choice, from a design standpoint. But not an opinion that needs to de-rail this thread.

Now, I agree that there has not been a general outcry for minions. That doesn't make it a bad idea. It's a new concept rather than a fix for an old one; it's showing people something cool they can do with their game that they just might never have thought of before. If you don't like minions, you don't have to use 'em, but the system and the support are there for those of us who like the concept.

I will grant it can reasonably called a new concept rather than my characterization of fixing the problem of 'no minions' in previous editions. I would also argue that the solution 4e offers isn't particularly elegant, and more or less as much a kludge as the solution I have suggested for 3.x.

 

[pemerton]

taking out at-will powers from 3.x? Astoundingly easy.

I assume this is sarcasm, but I don't quite get its point. If it's intended literally, then I don't quite get it either. Wouldn't most 3E non-spellcasters be hosed if their at-will abilities were taken away?

As I, and others, have demonstrated, you can drop a 3.x monster to 1hp, quarter the CR and amazingly, you have a 4e style minion.

Not really, because it dies automatically to fireball.

In the 3.x example, you list "while the quick way, a area effect spell, can hurt you in a later encounter that day" as a detriment, but in 4e, "you actually risk death or at least serious resource expenditure" as a benefit. If resource expenditure is a detriment, it is a detriment in both. As well, if it is a benefit, it is a benefit for both.

The difference is contained in the phrase "can hurt you in a later encounter that day". Resource expenditure in 4e will frequently affect the tactics of a given encounter, but not the viability of future encounters that day.

How is "You roll a lot of dice and the end result - you win" any less obvious in 4e? Minions have one hit point, but otherwise, the same stats as a similarly leveled monster.

<snip>

Unfortunately, minions undermine that idea. You aren't outsmarting or outfighting them. They aren't individually a threat, because they are too fragile.

<snip>

It's not like everyone has to work together to overcome them. Everyone will put one down per hit. In fact, it discourages teamwork, because concentrating more than one person on a minion is a terrible tactic.

<snip>

I don't see how minions even really challenge the characters.

You seem to be ignoring several things here. One is, as others have said, that the minions won't be the only foes on the table. A few others are (i) that optimising one's attacks against the minions may itself be a tactical matter, (ii) that part of this tactical optimisation may involve such things as getting to damage multiple minions per PC per round (eg via Cleave, or via the Rogue power that makes the monsters damage one another), (iii) that teamwork in 4e clearly involves much more than multiple PCs vs one foe, and includes the effective use of positioning abilities, battlefield control and the like, (iv) that doing all of the above things seems fairly well described as "outsmarting" or "outfighting".

There was no outcry for the things 4e is 'fixing' until the previews at the first of the year.

<snip>

I contend that nearly everything that 4e promises to improve on is based almost entirely on fictitious claims about 3.x.

Leaving aside the fact that many of the rules changed were the subject matter of complaints, there is also the fact that 4e has been self-consciously designed to take into account the best of contemporary non-simulationist RPG design. We know this because Rob Heinsoo has told us so:

No other RPG’s are in this boat. 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.

So 4e isn't just promising fixes. It is promising a better game. Integrated minion rules are part of that.

I wouldn't expect everyone to keep current on every RPG release available (the gods know I don't)

Again I have to ask - Are you familiar with any of the contemporary RPGs that Rob Heinsoo has expressly said are similar to 4e? Because you frequently make assertions such a "An RPG with feature X is not a game at all", when in fact many of those RPGs do have features more or less resembling X. And they are clearly games, with players playing them.

 

[Hussar]

Conan, that I can recall, was not mobbed by dozens of guards. I certainly don't have the depth of reading some have, but I am curious as to which specific books are being used as evidence to support the inclusion of minions.[\quote]

Have you read a lot of Conan? I have and I can say that getting mobbed by all sorts of stuff is pretty part and parcel. Cut your way through the temple guards, grab the comely sacrifice, and then wade your way back out. Pretty much stock S&S.

Moorcock also features numerous minion style battles particularly in the Corum books and the War Hound and the World's Pain series. Star Wars is replete with minions. Granted not specifically fantasy, but, bloody close. Boromir's death scene features scads of minions. Steven Erikson's fight scenes frequently use single heroes cutting swaths through the enemy. Even The Princess Bride shows a fight between Inigo Montoya and minions when he cuts down the four before pursuing Count Rugen.

In any case, I would actually turn the question around. What fantasy novels or movies DON'T feature minion battles?

 

[Family]

What fantasy novels or movies DON'T feature minion battles?

Pretty Woman.