Paper Minions - WT?

[tomBitonti]

Kobolds and skeletons make perfect sense for low-level minions. Other stuff makes sense for high-level minions.

That's why throwing a level 22 minion against a low-level party is almost nonsensical. If a creature is that powerful, relative to the PCs, it should no longer be treated as a minion.
-O

I was just thinking the about the same thing. Minions seem to be an abbreviation of a game mechanic. The game has an "expected" amount of damage from an attack made at a given level, and monsters have an "expected" amount of hit points at another given level. When the chance of an "average" attack takes away all of the "expected" hit points at a given level (attacker) - level (defender) combination, the game dispenses with the detailed mechanics and declares that the attack automatically defeats the defender.

This means that "minion-ness" is definitely a property of a monster only in the context of a given attacker level - defender level combination. With any other combination, a monster should not be a minion.

This gets us back to the "minions have 1 hp" statement, which I still think is very misleading, since it allows the minion to be used in a context (read, as a foe against level inappropriate attackers), and then a wackiness where a first level character can take out a level 22 minion with a single lucky hit.

Also, that suggests that for an "attack" to take out a minion, the attack must be doing the "average" amount for an attack at the attackers level. That would preclude cleave from dropping minions. (Here, the idea of having a minion save against the damage makes sense, and seems to be an effective and accurate mechanic.)

As a test, what is the experience value of a level 22 minion, and how does that compare with the amount of experience needed to level a first level character? Can you imagine taking you first level character out to the "devil" observatory and taking pot-shots at the level 22 minion devels? Any lucky hit takes one out and, presto! lots of cheap experience. I very much don't think that is an intended use of minions and I do think that an attacker level - defender level restriction (even if currently unstated) must be observed.

 

[Cadfan]

That's only metagaming if you assume that PCs should not be able to look at a foe and visually estimate how tough he is.

 

[hong]

I can think of other exploits.

The DM throws 10 foes at the PCs. The players pretty much know that some of the foes are minions (either that, or the DM is throwing lower level oppoents at the PCs or is trying for a TPK which typically won't happen in most games).

So, since there are 10 foes, all 5 PCs throw a dagger (or other ranged attack) at 5 different NPCs. 3 hit and 2 of the 3 foes drop. Not only do the players gain the exploit of knowing that the one foe that did not drop is not a minion and can have encounter / daily powers thrown at him (as you state), they have also gotten some fairly cheap XP and changed the odds from 10 to 5, to 8 to 5.

You have very strange players.

 

[Obryn]

So, since there are 10 foes, all 5 PCs throw a dagger (or other ranged attack) at 5 different NPCs. 3 hit and 2 of the 3 foes drop. Not only do the players gain the exploit of knowing that the one foe that did not drop is not a minion and can have encounter / daily powers thrown at him (as you state), they have also gotten some fairly cheap XP and changed the odds from 10 to 5, to 8 to 5.

They are using a tactic that they typically would not use if there were 4 foes coming at the PCs during the encounter.

While I think your variable-toughness minions have some merit on their own, I really disagree that this is an exploit.

In context, I think it's always been easy for players to tell which opponents are "minions" even back when there weren't any minion rules. It's just formalized now. The players use this knowledge in their strategy. Since lots of their powers are specifically-designed as minion-killers (and killing minions is fun), I don't see a loss.

I mean, when they see "12 goblins, all of whom have spears and leather armor; but one guy has better armor and a longsword," it's kind of self-evident, no matter the system. I know I never bothered differentiating the nameless hordes from each other.

In rare circumstances when you want to keep them guessing... well, do so or just don't use the minion rules.

-O

 

[Obryn]

This means that "minion-ness" is definitely a property of a monster only in the context of a given attacker level - defender level combination. With any other combination, a monster should not be a minion.

Exactly.

As a test, what is the experience value of a level 22 minion, and how does that compare with the amount of experience needed to level a first level character? Can you imagine taking you first level character out to the "devil" observatory and taking pot-shots at the level 22 minion devels? Any lucky hit takes one out and, presto! lots of cheap experience. I very much don't think that is an intended use of minions and I do think that an attacker level - defender level restriction (even if currently unstated) must be observed.

Well, I see no circumstances under which I'd ever award XP for random pot-shots at creatures who pose zero threat.

(I give session XP, not monster XP anyways - but even if I were giving monster XP, there's not a chance.)

But, in answer to your question, a level 22 minion is worth a quirky 1,038 xp.

-O

 

[tomBitonti]

Exactly.

Well, I see no circumstances under which I'd ever award XP for random pot-shots at creatures who pose zero threat.

(I give session XP, not monster XP anyways - but even if I were giving monster XP, there's not a chance.)

But, in answer to your question, a level 22 minion is worth a quirky 1,038 xp.

-O

Ya, that is clearly a contrived circumstance. I was trying to point out the consequences of ignoring the attacker level - minion level restrictions. Having a level 22 minion attack a town, where the first lucky sling shot takes it out and instantly levels the attacker seems broken.

 

[KarinsDad]

While I think your variable-toughness minions have some merit on their own, I really disagree that this is an exploit.

In context, I think it's always been easy for players to tell which opponents are "minions" even back when there weren't any minion rules. It's just formalized now. The players use this knowledge in their strategy. Since lots of their powers are specifically-designed as minion-killers (and killing minions is fun), I don't see a loss.

Actually, very few powers are specifically minion killers. Most powers are designed to work better against non-minions.

And even though players often knew who the mooks were in earlier versions, there was never a guarantee that a successful melee attack would auto-kill a mook. Mooks were not made of cardboard.


I consider this rule similar to the 3E Take 20 rule or the 3E Auto-Tumble rule (once a PC got to skill total 14) or the 3E/4E Aid Another rule.

I just dislike auto-x rules that automatically work every single time (and yes, I realize that there is a to hit roll, but that's not the point). I think they detract from the challenges and interactions of the game, and spoon feed players and result in forced player behaviors. I think the challenges in the game are more fun and more spontaneous when players do not think any given scenario or situation will automatically be successful. JMO.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I can think of other exploits.

The DM throws 10 foes at the PCs. The players pretty much know that some of the foes are minions (either that, or the DM is throwing lower level oppoents at the PCs or is trying for a TPK which typically won't happen in most games).

So, since there are 10 foes, all 5 PCs throw a dagger (or other ranged attack) at 5 different NPCs. 3 hit and 2 of the 3 foes drop. Not only do the players gain the exploit of knowing that the one foe that did not drop is not a minion and can have encounter / daily powers thrown at him (as you state), they have also gotten some fairly cheap XP and changed the odds from 10 to 5, to 8 to 5.

They are using a tactic that they typically would not use if there were 4 foes coming at the PCs during the encounter.

The tactic should work the same regardless of number of foes, but the tactic works better against the larger group not because it is a good tactic in combat, but because the players can exploit the metagaming knowledge that minions exist in the game system and when minions are typically used in the game and how those minions are easily defeated.

Against 4 foes, the players can pretty much be sure that there probably are not any minions in the group, so they exploit that knowledge to use the different superior tactic of concentrating most of their attacks against a single foe (if their goal is to change the odds more into the PCs favor). And even if there were minions in the 4 foe encounter, the first PC who hits kills one, so the other PCs can concentrate on the rest of the foes. No gain, but no loss of using this tactic.


Another exploit. The player of the Fighter knows that Cleave works better when fighting 2 foes in the 10 foe case over the 4 foe case. The Fighter is still fighting 2 foes in both cases and there should be no differences, but the player knows that because of how the game is designed, his Cleave will often be more productive in that encounter type. That's an exploit.


Ditto for area effect attacks that might in the game system, be much more effective against groups of minions than groups without, even though the caster is using it against the same number of foes.


Knowledge is power. In this case, knowing that there are probably minions and knowing which are not minions is a great deal of metagaming power.

From a personal perspective, I don't see this being unrealistic. Back when I studied martial arts, I could size up an opponent pretty quickly, by the time the first few punches were thrown if not before. You can see it in their eyes, their stance, the way they attack. It's a necessary skill if you intend to do well when sparring (assuming one hasn't been burdened with an overabundence of natural talent in which case it's simply helpful). And I'm no adventurer.

That 5 dagger tactic seems to me like it would be sub-par. In return for a full round of the PCs attacks they dropped 2 minions and did minimal damage to a non-minion? If I'm running the combat the remaining 8 will take up tactical flanking positions on the PCs (preferrably the less armored ones) and proceed to beat them senseless. It's almost as good as giving the enemy a surprise round.

Most characters should be using their at-will abilities on the first round, inflicting a reasonable amount of damage/ debuffs on them while feeling the enemy out. The defenders should be getting in the grill of the biggest, meanest looking enemy they can see and marking them. It's the wizard who should be trying to play "guess the minions" so they can burst their bubbles. I admit that I haven't seen it attempted, but I can't see the 5 dagger opener being especially effective.

Of course the characters won't use it against the group of 4. One of the assumptions of D&D (even moreso than in the past, it seems, in 4e) is that parties fight monsters that aren't too dangerous or too easy. If anything, I'd say the metagame assumption is that when the party comes across 20 bandits or a BFD (big frikkin dragon) they initially assume they can win the fight, assuming the DM isn't dropping hints to make them think otherwise. It's almost silly that, after stopping the BBEG's plans, he doesn't send some uber-monster to destroy the PCs (something 10 levels above them). But, since it's a game and that wouldn't be fun, we assume that the BBEG is busy with other matters, or mortally incompetent/ arrogant, or what have you.

It's your game and I'm not trying to tell you how to play it. I'm just somewhat doubtful that your "fix" will remedy the "problem".

 

[hong]

Ya, that is clearly a contrived circumstance. I was trying to point out the consequences of ignoring the attacker level - minion level restrictions. Having a level 22 minion attack a town, where the first lucky sling shot takes it out and instantly levels the attacker seems broken.

The DM has full control over when and where minions appear. Quibbling about a level 22 minion attacking a town is like quibbling over 3E letting you build half-fiend vampire beholder barbarians. If you don't like the result when you push the system into a corner, don't push it there.

 

[Lacyon]

I can think of other exploits.

The DM throws 10 foes at the PCs. The players pretty much know that some of the foes are minions (either that, or the DM is throwing lower level oppoents at the PCs or is trying for a TPK which typically won't happen in most games).

So, since there are 10 foes, all 5 PCs throw a dagger (or other ranged attack) at 5 different NPCs. 3 hit and 2 of the 3 foes drop. Not only do the players gain the exploit of knowing that the one foe that did not drop is not a minion and can have encounter / daily powers thrown at him (as you state), they have also gotten some fairly cheap XP and changed the odds from 10 to 5, to 8 to 5.

This is a non-exploit. Compare to Twin Attack, Cleave, or Scorching Burst.

They are using a tactic that they typically would not use if there were 4 foes coming at the PCs during the encounter.

It is not a bad thing that tactics change when fighting different numbers of enemies. Rather, it is natural.

The tactic should work the same regardless of number of foes, but the tactic works better against the larger group not because it is a good tactic in combat, but because the players can exploit the metagaming knowledge that minions exist in the game system and when minions are typically used in the game and how those minions are easily defeated.

The tactic works against the larger group less well than using the powers the characters have that are specifically designed to be used against multiple foes. It's a non-exploit.

Against 4 foes, the players can pretty much be sure that there probably are not any minions in the group, so they exploit that knowledge to use the different superior tactic of concentrating most of their attacks against a single foe (if their goal is to change the odds more into the PCs favor). And even if there were minions in the 4 foe encounter, the first PC who hits kills one, so the other PCs can concentrate on the rest of the foes. No gain, but no loss of using this tactic.

The PCs are still penalized in the 4-foe encounter if they use a Daily ability without doing a minion-check first.

Another exploit. The player of the Fighter knows that Cleave works better when fighting 2 foes in the 10 foe case over the 4 foe case. The Fighter is still fighting 2 foes in both cases and there should be no differences, but the player knows that because of how the game is designed, his Cleave will often be more productive in that encounter type. That's an exploit.

Another non-exploit. The entire point of Cleave is to mow down minions.

Ditto for area effect attacks that might in the game system, be much more effective against groups of minions than groups without, even though the caster is using it against the same number of foes.

Except that a) the caster is very unlikely to be using it against the same number of foes when twice as many are on the board and b) characters that have a lot AoEs tend to be better off using them over single-target attacks as soon as they can get even 2 guys into range anyway.

Knowledge is power. In this case, knowing that there are probably minions and knowing which are not minions is a great deal of metagaming power.

It's only metagaming if a) you believe characters should be unable to estimate the relative strength of their opponents and b) you always follow the encounter guidelines strictly (never a horde of normal monsters nor a small group of minions).