Orcs preview

[I'm A Banana]

The complaint about monsters being more powerful than PCs

I haven't been paying the closest of attention, here, but here's something...

That's not all bad but it is wierd.

....do you see a real complaint there?

It's not all bad. PC's can be challenged. It might be a little bad (if it leads to insanely off-base NPC's like the Chosen of Mystra). It is wierd, given D&D's goals of being a heroic fantasy game, to have lots of fairly common NPC's (as opposed to rare monsters) that are quite a bit powerful. It kind of makes sense with Points of Light, but it's still kind of wierd.

I wasn't aware that anyone was really complaining, just pointing out something that was odd to them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I believe the excerpt is the complete Orc entry from the MM.

Fo' real? Well, that's totally pathetic, if you'll forgive my saying so. I like the background of the monsters more than having a few different flavours, most of which are dull. Hmph.

 

[Wormwood]

Hit Points aren't a measure of health. It's easy enough to imagine that the minion was hurt by the miss, but not enough to drop it.

That's the point. You can't really "hurt" a 1 HP minion without killing it, so it only makes sense that they survive a miss.

So sure, minions are "hurt" by your missed fireball---as much as the system will allow while still maintaining their one-hit-kill goodness.

 

[Mort_Q]

That's the point. You can't really "hurt" a 1 HP minion without killing it, so it only makes sense that they survive a miss.

So sure, minions are "hurt" by your missed fireball---as much as the system will allow while still maintaining their one-hit-kill goodness.

Then we're in agreement. Most excellent.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I wasn't aware that anyone was really complaining, just pointing out something that was odd to them.

Fair enough, "complaint" was a poor word choice. My mistake.

Still, it is a rather strange thing to mention, considering the legacy of the game is based around this paradigm, 4th edition aside.

 

[Wormwood]

Then we're in agreement. Most excellent.

But of course!

 

[I'm A Banana]

The POINT of a minion is that they succumb to any attack a player makes that doesn't miss.

Close. The they're there to fall down and go blargh whenever the player makes them do that. 90% of the time, that'll likely be when they hit them.

Rewarding missing is silly.

4e disagress with this statement. 4e rewards missing ALL THE TIME (reliable abilities, half or modifier damage, whatever). It rewards hitting more, but a miss is still rewarded. I happen to think that this accomplishes a few nice goals. It lets the PC's be bad ass, it lets the PC's have SOMETHING when they're spending their resources, and it causes the players to enjoy whupping ass a little more, and be a little more bold.

These are all wonderful reasons to reward missing.

Minions, as written, jack with this. They suck all the FUN out of missing, because suddenly, nothing happens to them. They are immune!

That's lame. Especially for a critter whose entire purpose is to die horribly, that's REALLY lame. I can just imagine the cries out outrage around the table as I tell the PC's "I'm sorry, but while your uber-fireball, which you can only release once per day, was powerful enough to slightly injure that ancient wyrm over there, this orc underling went "owie" and continued on his way."

If a minion is supposed to be there to die, they should DIE, DIE, DIE. All the time! Fall like wheat before the thresher! And not just on a high d20 roll!

Now, I can see the reason they did it. And it's not because of this:

Hit Points aren't a measure of health.

No, that doesn't really matter here.

The motive behind this little exception is pretty simple to find: Wiping out an entire platoon of minions with a fireball isn't a challenge, and giving the PC's the full reward for something they didn't really earn is lame, too. Minions, the theory goes, have to be immune to misses, because otherwise they're too easy to kill.

I will poo on that idea's grave.

Because minions are supposed to be easy to kill. And, IMC, they will be. Of course, this still means that it's not a challenge. Which is why the XP goes back to me, the DM, to use either in more minions, or in some more powerful monster.

The drudges are 44 XP. I just need 5 of them -- 5! -- to give me the XP for, say, an Eye of Gruumsh (with some to spare!). Let the party wizard wipe out the platoon. Let the fighter Tide of Iron the mooks. What do I care? Each one they kill with a miss lets me rain down more destruction on them later.

That's why "No XP for minions killed on a miss" is awesome.

And why "Minions take no damage on a miss" is a flaccid plazebo.

It's easy enough to imagine that the minion was hurt by the miss, but not enough to drop it.

Easy? Sure.

But, because minions are supposed to be easy to drop, it sucks more.

IMO, YMMV, HTH.

 

[Wormwood]

And why "Minions take no damage on a miss" is a flaccid plazebo.

I disagree with your premise, but I fully endorse the popularization of 'plazebo'.

Carry on.

 

[Celebrim]

Of course, he is arguing that if you find these things problematic then, yes, all level based RPGs are problematic.

I'm well aware what he is arguing.

Since all your points about monsters being more powerful than 1st level PCs can be applied to all previous editions of D&D

Can they? That is, can you as a general rule claim that the vast majority of assumed inhabitants of any prior edition had characteristics superior to 1st level PCs? Did a 1 HD orc have any attributes superior to a 1st level fighter? Did a 1st level orc warrior have any attributes superior to a 1st level fighter? Sure we can point to specific settings like Dark Sun or Planescape where 1st level characters were assumed to be well below the average power level of thier surroundings, but those are hardly settings with default assumptions.

Do you think my observation that something has change is really dismissable by noting that ancient red dragons have always existed, and as such, for example, that ordinary orc warriors have +14 base attack bonus is nothing new to the game? Lets leave aside a judgment of whether thats good or bad (I have), I'm just noting that its new. Do you agree or not?

...and if you find those points problematic, then the only possible assumption to make is that you find all prior editions of D&D problematic.

Do you really think that is the only possible conclusion?

 

[keterys]

Missed minions earn no XP, and if possible are replaced as reinforcements, does seem a pretty decent house rule for dodging complications with that rule.

You could also have a general rule that no creature is _ever_ killed by an attack that misses, which potentially makes it more fair, and has some interesting effects on other situations.

The rule doesn't actually bother me at all, but I might do the reinforcements angle some fights anyways just cause I like the flavor of it. I don't normally use XP (folks level at certain milestones), so the no XP house rule doesn't do much for me. I will say that it's a little silly for turn undead to autokill undead minions, especially high level ones.

Which I guess is one reason to avoid it - using a half damage daily on a minion 20 levels higher than you to kill it is a bit silly.