D&D 4E "Mook" rules for 4E monsters?

[Irda Ranger]

I don't see why you need a special "Minion" designation, unless you're just trying to do some "thinking" for the DM (not a pejorative; I buy the DMG so I don't have to write my own system).

The easiest way to have a horde of mooks that are still a threat to the PC's is to just take a regular "level appropriate" baddy and fiddle with HP and damage output while leaving BAB, AC and Saves untouched.

With a high-ish BAB and AC they can hit the PC's and are somewhat challenging to hit. But with only 1/2 or 1/3 HP and damage they don't stay up long and don't do a lot of damage (individually).

Of course, you can make "Elite" and "Solo" monsters the same way, just by doubling or trebling HP and/or damage output. They still have the same 70% chance of hitting the PC's that a "normal" monster of the level do (and have the same chance of being hit), but when they hit they hit hard, and they don't go down easy.

That's how I do it anyway, and it works quite well.

 

[WyzardWhately]

I think the problem with mooks is that even if they are wussy, if there are twenty of them you still more or less have to roll twenty attacks. Is there any way to mitigate THAT, other than saying only some proportion of them are allowed to take an attack action in a round? Because that would be a slightly odd solution?

 

[frankthedm]

The DMG2 mob template is a glorious example of horrific game design. (It makes geriatric naked halfling commoners the equivalent of well geared, trained warriors and it completely negates anti-mook fighting feats, such as cleave and whirlwind attack. Sucks to be the fighter who trained to fight against mobs...)

Agreed.

Problem is with mooks is untill they stop being worth any XP, theyalmost seem to give out too much XP per head, going from 100 XP each for a CR1 at 8th level to 0 XP each for a CR1 at 9th level.

 

[frankthedm]

I don't see why you need a special "Minion" designation, unless you're just trying to do some "thinking" for the DM (not a pejorative; I buy the DMG so I don't have to write my own system).

Sometimes it is useful for a small reminder of "Keep pouring these guy onto the PCs!". Plus these monster roles are supposed to be an overcorrection for the slightly haphazard 3E Encounter level system.

The easiest way to have a horde of mooks that are still a threat to the PC's is to just take a regular "level appropriate" baddy and fiddle with HP and damage output while leaving BAB, AC and Saves untouched.....

Of course, you can make "Elite" and "Solo" monsters the same way, just by doubling or trebling HP and/or damage output. They still have the same 70% chance of hitting the PC's that a "normal" monster of the level do (and have the same chance of being hit), but when they hit they hit hard, and they don't go down easy.

That's how I do it anyway, and it works quite well.

You can do this in 3E, but some players expect the math to add up and may start whining when the numbers don't add up.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

It seems to me as if this podcast quote is actually talking about the opposite of Mook rules as most people understand them. As described by many excellent posts in this thread, mooks are foes that go down quickly - wheat before the scythe if you like.

This podcast quote seems to be saying the opposite, in the sense that large numbers of low level foes can still be a viable threat to higher level parties (in the way that mere mooks can't).

Minions sounds like a way of providing a large number of relatively weaker threats which still count.

Do you see what I mean?

I see what you mean, but the fact that a party of 8th level PCs can easily sweep through hundreds of 1st level warriors, while fun for a while, eventually strains credibility...
Even the 300 spartans got killed in the end.

What we need is rules that, while allowing heroes to smash the heads of two mooks together (or mowing a lawn of battledroids with a lightsaber), also allows the DM to threaten the PCs if they get over their heads in a sea of goblins.

I know I once tried to have 8 kobolds grapple a 4th level half-orc... I did not succeed :\

 

[Baby Samurai]

The easiest way to have a horde of mooks that are still a threat to the PC's is to just take a regular "level appropriate" baddy and fiddle with HP and damage output while leaving BAB, AC and Saves untouched.

With a high-ish BAB and AC they can hit the PC's and are somewhat challenging to hit. But with only 1/2 or 1/3 HP and damage they don't stay up long and don't do a lot of damage (individually).

Of course, you can make "Elite" and "Solo" monsters the same way, just by doubling or trebling HP and/or damage output. They still have the same 70% chance of hitting the PC's that a "normal" monster of the level do (and have the same chance of being hit), but when they hit they hit hard, and they don't go down easy.

Like it centurion, like it.

 

[Baby Samurai]

The concept of mook rules generally means being able to throw a lot of weak opposition against the PC's whose main purpose is to serve as a way for the PC's to shine. This varies from systems where they have very little health to ones where they are literally nothing more than scenery to be stunted around.

Yes, we know this – that's part of the concept.

Another great aspect of mooks is movement hampering of the party; even if one of them is only there for a round, he/she could be occupying that key square that someone needs to charge through or retreat to or what have you.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Wunderbar.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't see why you need a special "Minion" designation, unless you're just trying to do some "thinking" for the DM (not a pejorative; I buy the DMG so I don't have to write my own system).

Sticking with the known 'minion' term for a moment,

I'm really pleased with the monster designations they are coming up with. If the monster designation is something like 'brute', skirmisher' or 'minion' it gives you a great out-of-the-box idea about how you might normally want to use them to play to their strengths. Nothing prevents us from using a monster 'against type', but having a strong baseline to vary from is a very positive thing IMO.

I think that 'minion' will not turn out to much like 'mook' at all, I think it will be mostly a designation that effectively means "expect to use a horde of these".

Cheers

 

[nerfherder]

Sticking with the known 'minion' term for a moment,

I'm really pleased with the monster designations they are coming up with. If the monster designation is something like 'brute', skirmisher' or 'minion' it gives you a great out-of-the-box idea about how you might normally want to use them to play to their strengths. Nothing prevents us from using a monster 'against type', but having a strong baseline to vary from is a very positive thing IMO.

I think that 'minion' will not turn out to much like 'mook' at all, I think it will be mostly a designation that effectively means "expect to use a horde of these".

Cheers

Interesting analysis. The way I interpreted this quote was that there would either be specific rules applied to monsters designated as "minion" during combat, or during design that meant they worked like mooks during combat: "You can get that sort of epic battle feeling going then, and that's in addition to using rules we have for minion monsters which lets you do that to an even greater degree"