Paper Minions - WT?

[KarinsDad]

First of all, 30 years of D&D experience might only serve to put up preconceptions that impair your ability to see how a new set of rules might operate quite well. This is evident in your use of "exploitable" as a negative, undesirable adjective. As well as your categorization of certain information as metagame knowledge you don't want your players to have.

It is supposed to be used in play that way. Players and the GMs are supposed to use these characteristics and how they interact. There's not exploitation going on at all because it's not negative. It's a good thing. They're simply using it, not exploiting it.

I find the concept that just because someone does not agree with the designer's solution for a given design goal, that they should play another game, or that they don't know what they are talking about, or that they don't understand, or that they have preconceived notions that are wrong, or that their ability to see how new rules work together is impaired, etc. to be offensive.

This fan boy crap of WotC can do no wrong in 4E is getting older than dirt.

This forum is for discussion, not insults. Go insult somebody else.

 

[Jack Colby]

All I can say is minions work in play. I loved the way they worked in the game we ran. They let the DM make battles interesting, in terms of amount of enemies, and by the time PCs can actually hit high-level minions it will be believable for them to die in one hit. Look past the one hit point and see the huge barrier that high-level minion AC, etc. poses to low-level PCs. Minion does not necessarily equal pushover.

The whole system for encounters is just amazing to me. It all balances out in play, just the way the books say it will. I'm impressed with what the design team did.

 

[hong]

In other words, Cleave becomes a no brainer power once people understand how useful it is against minions. One of the design goals of 4E was to get rid of no brainer abilities.

So what if 4E Cleave is designed to kill minions. This is no different to Cleave in 3E. It is only a "no brainer" if the only thing you expect to fight is minions.

 

[KarinsDad]

The problem I have with your post is that the same could be said if you replace minion with any other form of monster. Certain attacks are better against certain monsters. Its sort of a rock-paper-scissors type of deal, and it applies for every class and role, and its one of the features of 4ed. It adds a nice tactical element to the game that wasn't as apparent before.

I have no problem with rock paper scissors of monsters. In fact, that stuff is fun for players.

I have a problem with "The DM did not roll dice, or I took the same 4 points of damage that I did last round, so this guy is a minion, or all of the guys with clubs are minions" type stuff.

I have a problem with PC metgaming decisions made off of such obvious clues. Sure, the DM can go out of his way to change this up every once in a while, but he shouldn't have to. The rules should not be this blatant.

I have a problem with "I'm not taking this At Will power because my other At Will power doesn't help against minions, so I cannot afford two such At Will powers, and the new WotC paradigm is to throw minions in most of the encounters".

It's one thing to know that a given opponent is an archer. It's another to know that you never need to blow an Encounter or Daily on this guy because he is made of cardboard.


Bottom line, I think the mechanic sucks as written for a number of reasons. Simplicity Ad Nauseum. It's like playing Tic Tac Toe instead of Chess. Not much of a challenge.

 

[Zogmo]

This fan boy crap of WotC can do no wrong in 4E is getting older than dirt.

This forum is for discussion, not insults. Go insult somebody else.

Yes, it is for discussion. Not for insults like your's here.

So, I've been DMing as long as you and I think the minion rules are excellent. My players are going to love them. My players will know who the minions are and who aren't because of their characters experience in sizing up bad guys. They won't be wasting powers and such that they will obviously need to fight the big bad guy being protected by minions. Minions will delay, confound and preoccupy the characters in whatever way I deem the Big Bad Guy needs to further his agenda, be it escaping or final preparations to a ritual or spell or whatever.
Minions will be slaughted in en masse and clog route's and tunnels. Minions with powers will be not ignored since some may be casting spells to heal the Big Bad Guy or releasing a monster from a hidden wall panel. My players won't know for sure what the minions will be doing but they will find they shouldn't ignore them if they are smart. But, they will know exactly who the minions are.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

I have no problem with rock paper scissors of monsters. In fact, that stuff is fun for players.

I have a problem with "The DM did not roll dice, or I took the same 4 points of damage that I did last round, so this guy is a minion, or all of the guys with clubs are minions" type stuff.

I have a problem with PC metgaming decisions made off of such obvious clues. Sure, the DM can go out of his way to change this up every once in a while, but he shouldn't have to. The rules should not be this blatant.

But the same is true for every single other aspect of D&D. Once the players have enough info, usualy after one round of combat, they know the monsters stats. They have a general knowledge of its AC after 4-6 attacks against it. They know its general amount of damage after about two rounds. They know its tactics by its opening moves. And anything that doesnt apply to that in general can also apply to minions. So again, not a minion problem, but a game problem (if you see it as one).

I have a problem with "I'm not taking this At Will power because my other At Will power doesn't help against minions, so I cannot afford two such At Will powers, and the new WotC paradigm is to throw minions in most of the encounters".

And how is that different then a Wizard choosing to not take only ranged area attacks and choosing to also take close attacks so that he is not vulnerable?

It's one thing to know that a given opponent is an archer. It's another to know that you never need to blow an Encounter or Daily on this guy because he is made of cardboard.

Again, I see no difference between this and other situations not involving minions.

Bottom line, I think the mechanic sucks as written for a number of reasons. Simplicity Ad Nauseum. It's like playing Tic Tac Toe instead of Chess. Not much of a challenge.

Going by that I am going to guess that you have never played with minions because that is not the impression that I, nor most people have gotten out of them.

True, minions by themselves are not challenging. However in 3.x if you used a monster with a CR of 4 below the party and sent it up against them all by itself it wasnt very challenging either. But if you used 4 monsters with a CR of 4 below the party then the EL would be equal to the party. The same rules apply, except that instead of calculating towards an EL you are calculating either towards an XP total or toward replacing a number of monsters. The execution is different, the concept is the same, and in the end it all adds up to the same thing. Trying to make an encounter with more monsters, yet have it equally challenging. Minions do that unequivocally.

 

[Blackeagle]

Because I've been playing DND for over 30 years (and have written a 3rd party rule book) and think I am capable of understanding rules that are exploitable.

Tell that to all the experienced players who swore the monk was overpowered when 3e first came out.

I predict that future optimal or even just average builds on the Internet (and in games around the world) will always if possible have an anti-minion component which means that other character options will be ignored.

Oh, everybody will certainly want some anti-minion ability, but unless all your DM ever throws at you are minions, there will be a need for single target damage abilities too. In fact, given how huge a bag of hit points brutes, elites, and solos have I wouldn't be surprised if those end up influencing builds a lot more than minions. In the end, I think the trick of character design in 4e is not going to be turning your character into a minion killing machine, or a single target damage monster, it's going to be building a character that works well against a wide variety of threats and with abilities that synergize with the other members of your party.

The incentive for that will not happen as much with a house rule like the one I posted.

Actually, wouldn't the house rule presented just encourage the use of many of these abilities? Cleave wouldn't autokill one of your upgraded minions, but it would still knock a hit off them, so it's better than the other single-target attacks you mentioned. Same with low damage AoE spells. Requiring two hits doesn't change the fact that the amount of damage you do doesn't matter.

You could rule that the damage from stuff like cleave doesn't knock a hit off a minion, of course, but that just creates the opposite incentive, making cleave a lot less useful than Reaping Strike.

 

[ryryguy]

Hey KarinsDad, please, I was not trying to attack you at all.

As for suggesting that you just use a regular monster instead of a tough minion: It just seems that if your Tough minion no longer goes down in one hit, and you have to roll damage for them like a regular monster, you've taken two big steps back towards it being a regular monster. It seemed your main goal was to hide the "minionness" of the standard minions which I think you could do equally well with a regular monster. Thus my inquiry about what the Tough minion adds because I honestly though a regular monster would serve just as well. No snark intended.

As to my suggestion that you try the minions as written first, I did intend that as a constructive suggestion, not a slam on your experience, rules judgement or understanding. I just feel that the pieces of a new system should be tested at the table before tweaking, because no matter what your experience and judgement, it's nearly impossible to fully predict how it will turn out until you try it in play. Even if it does turn out to have the problems you fear, it's likely that your tweaks will be better informed for having some data.

You are of course free to disagree with and ignore this suggestion, but it was sincerely offered. Also, I mean when we are talking about a piece of a brand new system like in this case - if we're talking about a random feat in a splatbook for a system we've been playing for years, that is a different story.

The only thing I'd add is that if you're primarily concerned about players exploiting the rule, as your last post seems to suggest, then a pre-emptive change may be more warranted. Here it's your knowledge of your own players and their particular tendencies that becomes important. If this is the kind of thing they'd find and take advantage of, then maybe it is better to nip that in the bud.

Anyway, sorry if you were pissed off by my comments as that was not my intent. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'll not bother you further if you think I am not adding to the conversation.

(edit) One other thing after reading some of the further conversation. There is a disagreement about whether it is desirable to hide the fact that minions are minions, which would impact whether players waste Daily powers on them and so forth. For now I'm leaning towards thinking it's okay and probably desirable not to hide the minions --though I'm taking my own advice and reserving full judgement until I see how it plays out at the table.

However, I'm not arguing about that point. But I think that if you do decide you don't want obvious minions, you may be able to achieve that goal without having to mess directly with the minion rules. You can largely do it with encounter design. Don't make minions "the ones with the clubs" - give them all the same weapons, describe them the same way as the regulars, etc. Don't always send them in first - they could stay hidden and pop out behind the PC's after the standards and elites draw the PC's out of position. Once in a blue moon the BBEG might even use a minion as a "body double" while he blends in with the "rabble" to get up close and personal with the PC's. (The BBEG does not have to use "metagame" knowledge for this, it's a classic villain trick for which using a minion for the decoy seems perfect.)

 

[Zogmo]

Anyway, sorry if you were pissed off by my comments as that was not my intent. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'll not bother you further if you think I am not adding to the conversation.

I know your talking to Karinsdad but...

It's always nice to say sorry, but your cool.
There is nothing wrong/bad in anything you posted. I read it as you explained and didn't take it as even an ounce of being argumentative.

 

[ryryguy]

Thanks Zogmo.

I can sympathize with KD, sometimes if there are a couple of critical comments in a thread like this it starts to seem like everyone is ganging up and attacking...