Minions: What Bugs You?

[Dykstrav]

I've been using minions ever since I've been playing 4E, and they haven't been satisfying as written.

The single biggest issue is that my players don't often see them as a credible threat. When the ranger uses twin strike or the wizard uses scorching burst to take out some minions, their reaction is generally that they have wasted an attack roll--not that they are mighty heroes defeating monsters with a single blow. But then again, my group particularly enjoys being challenged. I could see how minions as written might work in someone's game, it just doesn't seem right for mine.

I tweaked a new minion system for my homebrew and it's been working well so far. Here's how it works.

1) Pick a standard monster.

2) Reduce hit points to 25% of their normal value. Don't worry about a bloodied value. For the purposes of effects that depend on the target being bloodied, consider the minion bloodied after being hit once by a player character's attack.

3) Reduce all defenses by 1. Pick a particular defense that you'd like to be weak and subtract another 1 from that defense.

4) Reduce damage from their basic attack to a flat die value (1d6+2 or 2d6+5 becomes just 1d6 or 2d6, for example). Minions should be one-trick ponies, so take away all other attacks they may have. If they have a cool ability (like extra damage from combat advantage or something similar), leave that ability as-is.

5) When actually running minions in combat, there's no need to track individual hit points for each minion. Just track the total damage inflicted against all minions of the same type in a single "damage pool." Whenever the characters do an amount of damage equal to or greater than the value of the damage pool, the minion that was hit last dies. "Leftover" damage may or may not carry over, depending on how dangerous you want the fight to be.

 

[Obryn]

If, as a 1e DM, I present an encounter with a bunch of 1 hit point orcs, am I now telling a story rather than running a roleplaying game?

I think that's a bit disingenuous.

Very few folks who don't like minions for simulation reasons take issue with the low-powered ones like kobolds, goblins, or even maybe orcs. I agree, in most respects, those are basically identical to goblins and kobolds from previous editions, and fill the same role in a game. What most have problems with is the minion-izing of more powerful creatures - ogres, devils, etc.

I think it's a fair distinction, though I think there's a definite place in my game for both. And, I love 'em. I think almost any fight can be improved by adding a few more movie ninjas.

-O

 

[Raven Crowking]

If, as a 1e DM, I present an encounter with a bunch of 1 hit point orcs, am I now telling a story rather than running a roleplaying game?

Do you seriously imagine that a 1e DM cannot run the game as a predetermined story? Have you never heard of DragonLance?

Do you seriously imagine that one cannot be both running a roleplaying game and telling a story? Again: DragonLance, Adventure Path.

Are you seriously unable to tell the difference between an encounter with 6 orcs (regardless of thier hp) which is open-ended, and setting up a fight scene with those same orcs (again regardless of their hp)?

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

D&D has combat encounters. They're a lot like fight scenes.

IMHO, D&D has encounters, which are not really discrete entities, and which may or may not include combat. Moreover, IMHO, those encounters should not be scripted into combat encounters, rp encounters, etc. IOW, I disagree that an encounter that ends up involving combat should be thought of as a "combat encounter". That's the path to the Dark Side......

Minions themselves don't imply there is a specific story being told any more than the monster stats found in classic AD&D modules do.

I disagree vehemently.

I'll check it out!

My work here is done. :Lol:


RC

 

[Nebulous]

The solution is this:

Minions get a saving throw in response to auto-damage. If they succeed, they live.

I fixed this issue with Improved Minions in my campaign; 1st hit bloodied, 2nd hit dead. Works for us, although i mix them in with regular minions.

 

[amysrevenge]

Others have said it, but I'll add my voice to the choir.

I have no beef with minions other than their XP value. 4:1 isn't right, and 8:1 might be better.

Sure, sometimes an encounter with minions gets trivialized by the abilities of one PC or another. Other times, though, and just about as often, a party is short on area damage and gets brutalized. Especially since DMs around here have started using some of the suggested tactics (especially aid and grab) with minions more regularly.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I checked all but the last 3, but some bother me more than others. The automatic damage bothers me a little, but it seems like that's meant to make controllers more sweome, and removing that would hurt the already arguably weakest role more. ...How do controllers fare if you don't use minions at all in your game?

What bothers me the most of the listed choices is high levle monsters dying in one hit. On a rare super powerful critical, maybe. Everytime? Just dumb.

Also, never hurting them on a miss. the whole point of hurting on a miss powers is to...do something on a miss. Why can't the fighter auto-kill one stinking minion with reaping strike, but the wizard can kill a cluster of them with automatic damage? He spent his major action slaying a single minion, isn't that punishment enough?

A lot of other bad things though. For example, minions swing wildly in annoyance/chalenge depending on whether the party can recognize them as such or not. It seems silly that these guys die from any attack at all and yet look "normal."

Also, that they're actually worth xp. They die so easily, more luck is involved in norml to determine how badly they'll rough up the party -- how long it takes to roll well enough ot hit thm, if you have a controller, etc...
If I ever used minions, I'd award roleplaying xp for the encounter, not a fixed amount per minion like they were legitimate kills.

 

[Obryn]

The automatic damage bothers me a little, but it seems like that's meant to make controllers more sweome, and removing that would hurt the already arguably weakest role more. ...How do controllers fare if you don't use minions at all in your game?

Actually, controllers have really come into their own since the initial reactions to the Wizard class. Even the Wizard is better at being a Wizard nowadays - not just because of Arcane Power, but because people have started looking at the class in terms of what it can and can't do, as opposed to what it should or shouldn't do.

While area effects are definitely part of a controller's shtick, I'd say the penalties, zones, and general "debuffs" are still pretty strong. Spells like Bigby's Icy Hand and Flaming Sphere can be encounter-winners, minions or no.

Getting rid of minions doesn't render controllers useless, or even seriously make them a worse choice. They'd probably just concentrate less on area attacks and more on field-changing and debuffs, and still do a good job at it.

-O

 

[Mallus]

IOW, I disagree that an encounter that ends up involving combat should be thought of as a "combat encounter". That's the path to the Dark Side......

It's just terminology, RC. I can spend a lot of time prepping the stats for a 'combat encounter' only to end up running it as long, dice-less conversation, instead of a fight. Happened fairly often when I ran 3e.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I understand that you don't enjoy minions, and that you've got no desire to use them. However, based on your post, I suspect you don't totally understand them, either.

The style of game I play isn't suited to minions but heh, I'd like to think I understand them as well as everyone else here.

As avin pointed out, they aren't identical. They aren't supposed to be identical. Minions represent the guys who just aren't capable of standing up against you.

In which case then, they should not hit as well or as hard as the "real thing", and defensively, they should be less adept. They should have less hp than the "real thing" but not 1hp. Not a contrivance from the DM that says "look, as long as you hit this guy, he's going down". This then has the further contrivance of needing a rule so that "misses" don't kill them. The gross simplification of reducing their hit points to 1 to encompass their inferiority just does not jive with how I like the mechanics to represent the creature, rather than presenting just a facade.

Why can my low level character mow through all these creatures that are physically bigger and stronger than he? If he is so damn skillful, why does not this skill exhibit itself more dramatically against non-minions?

It does exhibit itself dramatically, except that it's not visible. The skills that make you so tough against minions are the same skills that make you PCs, and that make you gain levels. Minion rules wouldn't be appropriate for a game starring 1st-level Commoners, for example, because in that case your characters aren't supposed to be "good" at anything, including combat.

Again, this aspect of 1st level heroes does not jive with my style of play. However, it is in the specific comparison of PC vs Monster and PC vs Minion that I was making. The gulf between the two bothers me. The subtlety of being able to gain levels is not a compensation for this in my opinion.

It takes away from the achievement of a higher level character having earned the right to take down a bevy of weaker but legitimate foes.

No, because in theory, minions as a group still provide a significant threat to characters of the same level. This thread is based upon the desire to ultimately make this more consistently true in practice, as well.

I thought the thread was about describing what personally bugs each of us about minions? I agree that minions can still be a threat (much moreso than the mooks of previous editions). This threat represents a higher degree of skill that is contradicted by them being a 1hp cream-puff. To expand with an example perhaps might help explain a little better.

Let's say you have 4 evil guards doing their best guarding "The" door. The low level fighter PC comes up to them and starts swinging. He can deal some damage but not enough to kill any of them in a single hit. And by then one of them has got to the bell and called for help. If he had of been able to do "hit = kill" (as with the minion rules), then he would have been successful.

Let's now look at the high level fighter PC. With a big power attack and some nice great cleaving; he can wipe these 4 "minions" out in a round through agressive skill. He's earned the right to do this. For the low level guy, this is what he is aspires to - and will hopefully one day achieve.

This problem solves itself when you vary your usage of minions; using them sparingly or not at all in every other battle can alleviate this "expectation" of minions. Staggering their arrival time, and varying their location is always helpful, as is using a variety of different miniatures/tokens to hide the fact that the stats of each creature is identical. Finally, the DM doesn't have to let the players know that the creatures they're killing are dying from only 1 damage, nor does any source of 1 damage need to kill a minion. (This is another of the major points of discussion regarding making minions more effective.)

This is the question though, do you hide the fact that it was a minion or do you make it obvious. On one of the D&D podcasts with Mike and Dave, they had interesting arguments for both views.

I can't help you with your opinions.

That's cool because I'm not really looking for someone to change my mind on this.

In player terms, I can't stand minions (or 1hp balloons). They feel false and contrived to me in play. They are a simple band-aid to some of the issues in previous editions of the game... and one that simply does not stick for me.

That said, isn't that "metagaming" to be, as a player, so opposed to creatures on such a mechanical basis?

Can you expand on this? I'm not comprehending what you're saying here.

As hilarious as this example is, in reality it won't happen in any official 4E products.

I thought Jack99 mentioned this from an official adventure - that is the only reason why I was using it as a tragic example of minion-ness taken way too far.

Why not? Because Balors are already high Epic-level threats, and Elite ones at that; Balors wouldn't become minions until well beyond the maximum level of the game. (It's worth point out that a lot of creatures never become minions, even as the players climb in levels -- dragons, for example. As a general rule, solo creatures never become horde-mooks, regardless of how outclassed they may be.)

As an aside, why do minions bother you, but "elite" and "solo" monsters don't? Or do they? Why or why not, if you don't mind me asking?

I never mentioned anything about elites and solos. However, they don't bother me as much - although mechanically speaking, I have some issues how damage, hps, and defenses are structured in D&D in general (all editions) - a factor emphasised by elites and solos in 4E . But on the whole no, I don't have as many hang-ups.

Best regards to you as well! Thanks for being a good sport.

You too. I really didn't want anyone to take my post the wrong way as an attack on 4E or something like that. I just don't like the minion rules in terms of how I like to play the game, how I like to view the fantasy world and the roles I like PCs to play in all of this.

As for my own "fix", minions are a wart on the arse of 4E that as a DM, I'm more than happy to cut and staunch the blood. A lower number of hps and ability than the real thing is cool; I'm more than happy to adjust and track these during combat. I just treat them as how they are, rather than sending them out with only a single hp as an un-needed and un-warranted simplification - black boxes be damned I say.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise