Minions are alien visitors from another kind of game

[JohnSnow]

Wrong. Full stop. Minions (effectively) have null HP and take null damage. They only register a hit or a miss. The threshold factors are retained but the ablative factors are entirely lost on it. Ergo, there are only two factors.

Ah, I misunderstood which two-factors you felt remained in play. Partially, I think that's because minion damage escalates alongside their ability to hit and avoid being hit. The only thing that does not escalate is their ability to take damage. In essence, minions are creatures that don't obey the ablative nature of hit points.

Solo Monsters obey all the rules of a 4FS. Minions do not. That is a difference in kind, not degree. The scale for 4FS opponents is Normal --> Elite --> Solo. Minions aren't on it.

I see. So you would have been totally happy with a "minion template" that you could apply to a given creature. Such a template would, say, cut said creature's hit points to 1/4 of normal, halve the damage (and normalize the result to a constant number).

As I pointed out with the orc examples, with the exception of the hit point situation, this is, effectively, all a minion is.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but I think I've made clear that I don't find these to be satisfying answers. For my mind, there needs to be more than that. The parts should compliment the whole, and the whole should achieve the desired ends without ugly kludges. We get by with "good enough" design all the time, but why not try to puzzle it out and perhaps find a more elegant solution? Hence, the thread.

Ah. But see, here's the thing. I already know what the more elegant solution is.* The problem with it is that it introduces ugly kludges that hurt the game's ability to properly model other areas.

Luckily JohnSnow I've always found you to be a close reader and fair poster, and you don't disappoint once more.

...and we arrive at our destination. This was my point. Or, a part of it, at any rate.

So your point is that minions are created by altering the rules. Okay. I assume the second part is that there is a more elegant solution to characters that provide a reasonable threat but can still be taken out in one hit. You're right. But it involves changing the hit point system.

Of course, but why settle for only fun? Aesthetics matter too.

FWIW, I have also found this discussion to be fun. I hope a few others have as well. And if by means of this thread a more elegant solution is found for "the Stormtrooper problem", and the fun of the system is either maintained (or even improved!), wouldn't that be nice?

The more "elegant" solution to the "stormtrooper problem" has already been done. You get it by replacing the hit point system with another system for tracking damage, such as the one from Mutants & Masterminds. Then minions are creatures which automatically fail their damage save.

That's because the aesthetic gap here is one that not everyone sees. Again, you seem bothered by the game's interpretation of how "hit points" work. Characterizing them as "an abstract measure of one's ability to avoid taking serious injury" seems to bother you, and many others, who still seem insistent on the fact that metagame constructs like hit points must be observable to a character in the game world. The contention is that Bob can tell or observe the hit point damage a particular type of attack does. This is, again, predicated on the notion that "hit points" are quantifiable in the game world, as opposed to in the game.

Let me explain again. Most of the time, in hand-to-hand combat, the result is death or serious injury, and there's no way to predict who will win. The master swordsman is just as dead when an apprentice stabs him in the lung as when his fellow master does it. The former is less likely to happen, but it can happen.

There are games that model this well. Riddle of Steel is one. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is another. Heck, Shadowrun isn't too bad at it, nor is 1st-level in Third Edition D&D. The problem is that, like the real world, systems like this are very hard on characters (read: lethal). They tend to die - unless they get lucky. Moreover, these systems are fairly bad at making characters who are tough enough to face monsters like dragons, giants, beholders and the like, and still have a decent chance of survival.

Hit points are a way of systematizing the "luck" or "good fortune" of characters in the game world. As such, they aren't "quantifiable" or "measurable" by people in the game world any more than "lucky" or "fortunate" is to us.

That minion who died from one sword blow - well, that was tough luck. The hero who's been through several dozen battles and is unscathed - he must enjoy the favor of the gods. Or he has some greater destiny. He most certainly does not let people shoot him full of arrows as a parlor trick.

Some people have a problem with this discrepancy between PC and "supporting character" being directly hard-coded into the rules. To them, the D&D rules represent some kind of alt-universe physics. They NEED this to be the case. If you are one of them, sorry, but I really don't think Fourth Edition is the game for you.



*As I've alluded to since, the "elegant solution" is to ditch the hit point system entirely. Many of the current game "fixes" people are complaining about are bandaids to make the hit point system work properly in the context of the game. The routine argument is, "if the hit point system necessitates so many bandaids, why preserve it at all?"

Easy. Any time your results depend on the result of a die roll, you introduce variability. If the variability is a binary condition (on/off), you create the possibility of a series of results that go nowhere. By contrast, ablative values produce more predictable results than binary conditions. Over time, your ablative values will drop, and the potentially swingy results of one die roll matter less. With a hit point system, you're able to predict, with reasonable accuracy, the mean number of rounds someone will last in combat. By contrast, binary conditions (like M&M's toughness saves) can leave someone dead in a few rounds or uninjured after 20+. They introduce a swinginess to the game that makes it mathematically hard to predict. And games that are mathematically hard to predict are hard to design for, except in a handwavey kind of way.

Sure, over time, everything will average out. But you can get some pretty swingy results in the timeframe of a typical game.

So instead, D&D opts to keep the predictable hit point system, and introduces the Minion rules, and others, as exceptions that offer new in-game options. Assuming you adhere to the "narrative" interpretation of hit points, the rules don't impact on SoD.

I should point out that by "narrative," I don't mean "the DM lays out a story and the PCs walk through it." I mean, instead, that the rules of the game create situations similar to heroic narratives - with the rules intentionally biased in favor of the PCs so that they might fulfill the role of the protagonists, but without pre-determining what the results will be. Thus, we can still have a "game" where no one knows how it will turn out, but we can be pretty sure we won't lose half the party in the first scene. Similarly, the various NPCs (including monsters) in the "narrative" fill different roles, and as such, are governed by different rules. Sometimes, you want an NPC to last, but other times, you just want to threaten the characters with a whole squad of stormtroopers that poses a risk - but could possibly be wiped out.

 

[Ulthwithian]

To borrow a phrase from failure analysis (and engineering in general), hit points and other ablative effects fail gracefully (at least mechanically), while binary effects fail catastrophically.

In general, minions are a superset of exception-based design, in some ways. That seems to be the issue. I don't detect any inherent issues in the OP about exception-based design in general, but surely 'minion' is simply an exception 'set' rather than an individual exception? Note that in 4E's exception-based design, the exceptions are very rarely individual. All Orcs have a similar theme running through their abilities, as do Kobolds, Gnolls, and (presumably) Goblins. Minions are on a different axis from the above exception-based 'classes', but certainly the same logic applies?

If you find the solution inelegant, that is your decision, but others (including myself) find the implementation of minions quite elegant.

As far as Kraydak's concern about replacing minions in products, I believe the math analysis I did on page 9 is fairly telling; 4 minions do about the same damage as one mob. Replace on an as-needed basis. Note that you definitely weaken AoE powers (and by extension, Controllers) when you do so. What is ironic is that if your party contains no Wizard, you can punish them by sending waves of minions at them. XP for XP, minions do damage faster to opponents than 'normal' mobs, apparently.

 

[Jim Williams]

You still have the more basic problem of explaining what the heck a Minion IS within the context of the game. Why does he have Xth level BAB, AC and Dmg but only 1st level HP? How does a creature arrive at such an unbalanced state? It's a highly unstable configuration, not unlike being attacked by a highly poisonous soap bubble.

Similar to the question of a tree falling in the woods, what is a Minion when there aren't any PC's around? Does he exist, or is he merely the quantum possibilty of an particular kind of encounter that only materializes when a PC walks into the room? I don't like the second possibility.

To state the monster/NPC arrives at an unbalanced state implies a journey. Most NPCs do not evolve. They merely exist in statis until the PCs come on stage. Even the recurring villain grows only when he shares the stage with the PCs. After his great escape (again!) he is placed back in the DM folder and perhaps leveled up or modified as needed for his next encounter with the PCs.

I think viewing the pool of NPCs as some sort of ant-farm that one manages when the group isn't at the table is creates an awful lot of work for minimal in-game gain. If one has the free time and desire, there should still be plenty of other NPCs in the stable that can be advanced off-camera as desired.

I am curious, though why the shrink-wrapped monster is disagreeable with you Irda. I look forward to hearing your opinion.

 

[Irda Ranger]

That's because the aesthetic gap here is one that not everyone sees.

You've been reading this thread too, eh?

Again, you seem bothered by the game's interpretation of how "hit points" work. Characterizing them as "an abstract measure of one's ability to avoid taking serious injury" seems to bother you, and many others, who still seem insistent on the fact that metagame constructs like hit points must be observable to a character in the game world.

Not at all! Actually, my only problem with them right now is that they're called Hit Points. I think they should be called Awesome Points or perhaps Badass Tokens, as that would be more accurate. Moreover, I plan on explaining to my PCs next month that "bloodied" can also be understood as "first blood" - that's what duels are fought to. Until you lose half your Mojo Markers you don't even have a bloody nose or scraped knee.

As I've alluded to since, the "elegant solution" is to ditch the hit point system entirely.

Ho ho, John Snow, watch where you go! You're in the strawberry patch now!

Actually, that is just one of two possible elegant solutions! And your solutions is, as you so adroitly describe (and I admitted right in the OP!) results in a very swingy, "gritty" game (my jargon was "2FS-Gr"). Although I do like the occasional Riddle of Steel, my favorite player (and wife) is not a fan. I have no intention of running a gritty campaign at this time.

As for what that second (non-gritty) solution is, why don't you go re-read the last paragraph of the OP and think on it. I enjoy our discussions and would appreciate any fresh insight you can bring to the table (which I might spoil if I spell it out for you).

But once you've thought about that, don't you think this allows for "effective Minions" for narrativist and gamist purposes without doing harm to world-sim or the aesthetics of the system?

I should point out that by "narrative," I don't mean "the DM lays out a story and the PCs walk through it." I mean, instead, that the rules of the game create situations similar to heroic narratives - with the rules intentionally biased in favor of the PCs so that they might fulfill the role of the protagonists, but without pre-determining what the results will be. Thus, we can still have a "game" where no one knows how it will turn out, but we can be pretty sure we won't lose half the party in the first scene.

I swear to God as my witness that this is exactly the end which I wish to achieve, so now that we're on the same team: got any ideas about elegant solution #2?

Uthwithian and all others should also feel free to explore this little avenue. I can tell who's been thinking hard about the arguments, but no one has quite cleared the lid of the box yet.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

So are minions immune to AoE spells and abilities?

If they are not then. It's not elegant or tactically challenging all the minion rule will do is ensure that during any encounter that players suspect contains minions, it guarantees that those who have PCs with effective area attack abilities will spam them until the groups true enemies (non minions) are revealed. Wow thats exciting, and that or something very similar will be the default approach.

Well, duh.

This should really be the approach all the time. If you have an attack that can be lethal to a group of enemies and the enemies are set out in a way that you can use the attack, then use the attack.

Minions are there so that these area attacks (and other attacks) remain lethal attacks. A few opponents are wily, or lucky enough, that they can avoid the expected lethality of an attack. This is just what happens in the standard fantasy novel or action movie.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Not at all! Actually, my only problem with them right now is that they're called Hit Points. I think they should be called Awesome Points or perhaps Badass Tokens, as that would be more accurate. Moreover, I plan on explaining to my PCs next month that "bloodied" can also be understood as "first blood" - that's what duels are fought to. Until you lose half your Mojo Markers you don't even have a bloody nose or scraped knee.

How many times does it have to be said on these boards that a character can be seriously injured and yet have full hit points?

 

[Irda Ranger]

I am curious, though why the shrink-wrapped monster is disagreeable with you Irda. I look forward to hearing your opinion.

Because this is D&D not Diablo II. For me, as the DM, the campaign world is a living, breathing, organic whole. There is nothing shrink-wrapped about it, but rather it stretches far to the east and west, and further into ancient epochs and distant futures than even I am really aware of. As I mentioned it another thread, it's an immersion thing, and if I feel like I'm a cheap movie set I can't really enjoy myself. I'd rather "waste my time" on some other game, like basketball.

But for that to work there needs to be a set of assumptions that the world works by, one that is points of view independent. "Narrativist" explanations and other justifications that depend on a PC being in the room to observe events simply don't hold up to this kind of scrutiny, they collapse like an empty tent once this single justification is removed. Moreover, they don't explain all other similar phenomena in the campaign world's "universe", and therefore fail.

It's "the real Occam's Razor" at work, to hearken to an earlier post in the thread.

I think viewing the pool of NPCs as some sort of ant-farm that one manages when the group isn't at the table is creates an awful lot of work for minimal in-game gain.

Well, I don't "manage" it so much as I try to understand it (I'm not a details man like Ed Greenwood). Once I do that stuff just flows naturally. And it's not work; this is my hobby as much as running adventures is. I realize that many (most?) DMs put in the minimum amount of prep time possible before running an adventure, but this is what I think about when I'm on the bus and don't have anything to read, or while I'm waiting for the elevator. Not watching much TV or following sports in the least frees up a lot of mental cycles.

 

[Irda Ranger]

How many times does it have to be said on these boards that a character can be seriously injured and yet have full hit points?

I think most would agree I'm a regular here, and I have never heard this contention before.

Since there is NO mechanism in 4E that I'm aware of to model long-term injuries, I'd be interested in hearing how this is supposed to work. I can have multiple gaping wounds and a broken leg but be at full HP and have no penalties?

EDIT: I take it back. I don't want to derail my one thread. Got a link?

 

[Aria Silverhands]

How many times does it have to be said on these boards that a character can be seriously injured and yet have full hit points?

Yet cure light wounds, healing surges, and potions all talk about healing wounds as well. You think someone is going to waste a potion because the dm says they're "injured" at full hp?

 

[AZRogue]

Due to concerns raised in this thread I created an entire Orc tribe the other night consisting only of minions. I checked back on them this evening and, when I opened my notebook, I found them all still alive. Further studies will be needed, of course, but this initial test bodes well.