Paper Minions - WT?

[Fanaelialae]

Actually, minion battles will often result in more damage shy of some special PC ability to take out multiple minions in a single round.

As an example, a first level Goblin Minion has AC 16, +5 to hit, and does 4 points of damage. 4 of them do a lot more damage per round than a first level Goblin Lurker (AC 16, +5 to hit, D6+2 damage) or a first level Goblin Skirmisher (AC 17, +6 to hit, D8+2 damage), even though these are consider equivalent encounters based on XP.

As an example, with a 40% chance to hit for the Minion, they average 1.6 points per round (each, including criticals which do not increase the damage), the Lurker averages 2.325 damage, and the Skirmisher averages 3.1 points of damage.

So if there are 4 minions, they will average 6.4 of damage on the first round (assuming they win initiative) whereas the other two average less damage. In a 1 PC vs. either 4 minions or 1 non-minion, the 4 minions will probably average about 30% to 40% more damage overall. Regardless of how quickly the PC can get rid of a given goblin foe, the damage ratio (this is a ratio, not a total of real damage) would be 6.4 + 4.8 + 3.2 + 1.6 vs. 2.325 + 2.325 + 2.325 + 2.325 or 3.1 + 3.1 + 3.1 + 3.1, or 16 vs. 9.3 vs. 12.4.

This is extremely rough estimating of these ratios with minions falling by the wayside quicker than non-minions, but basically valid (of course the skirmisher will take slightly longer to dispose of). And, there will be a lot of factors here, but the bottom line is that it will often take about the same amount of time to dispose of 4 minions as it does 1 non-minion, but there are typically 2 to 3 times as many overall attacks by the 4 minions for 50% to 65% of the damage of a single non-minion.

The counter for this increase in monster damage by minions over same XP non-minions is to have PCs kill multiple minions with a single power such as the Fighter's Cleave power.

You're assuming that all of the minions reach the characters. This isn't necessarily a fair assumption because each player gets to roll an initiative vs one initiative rolled for the minions- the odds favor the PCs, that barring a surprise round at least some of them will get to act first. If even one minion goes down while the rest are closing in, the damage becomes significantly reduced.

I'm assuming 40% chance to hit for the minions, as you did.

The Goblin Warrior (also level 1) has +1 greater to hit, so his chance to hit in melee is 45%, for 2.925 damage each round.

6.4 + 4.8 + 3.2 + 1.6= 16 minion dmg
2.925 x 4= 11.7 goblin warrior dmg

Now if they each take a hit while closing:
4.8 + 3.2 + 1.6= 9.6
2.925 x 3= 8.775

And if it's 2 hits:
3.2 + 1.6= 4.8
2.925 x 2= 5.85

If it's 3:
1.6
2.925

Just like people have been saying, minions are most dangerous when you ignore them. If you can drop even just one or two of them before they close they're approximately the threat of a normal creature. The warrior, on the other hand, remains a valid threat until you deal at least 29 damage to it. Moreover, the warrior's damage value is more swingy than the minions (potentially, he can deal 10 points of damage in any round whereas the minions' damage is fixed). Come to think of it, I also forgot to factor in the fact that the Warrior can crit whereas the minions cannot; since I also failed to factor in the minion advantage in setting up flanking, I'll say it's roughly fair.

Heck, some attacks that can outright kill all 4 minions (like a fireball, although it's statistically unlikely to get all 4) will only deal a reasonable amount of damage to the Warrior. 8.775 vs 0 damage is huge advantage to the Warrior.

Minions have their place, but it seems pretty obvious from the math above that the designers intended them to die early and quickly. Otherwise they give the enemy a decisive advantage regarding damage output. However, if just one or two minions die in the initial charge, their damage is right around what a normal enemy would deal.

Minions deal their damage up front, and together deal a lot of it. From what I'm seeing I'd say that the designers intended a few minions to die in the opening volley.

No one's say you should pack your minions should-to-shoulder to line up like lambs to the AoE slaughter. Space them out. Nonetheless, I would say that early attrition among minions is an intended balancing factor for them.

I think that that's a pretty good reason not to obfuscate your minions from the players too often.

 

[Harr]

each player gets to roll an initiative vs one initiative rolled for the minions-

Sorry for the tangent, but could you point to where you're getting that minions only get one initiative roll, I've been trying to find that rule for a while (rolling for each minion is a PitA) and nothing...

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sorry for the tangent, but could you point to where you're getting that minions only get one initiative roll, I've been trying to find that rule for a while (rolling for each minion is a PitA) and nothing...

It isn't spelled out, but it is what I inferred from pg 17 of the KOTS adventure book, under tactics. It talks about the initiative of the dragonshields and the slingers in relation to that of the minions. Hence, I assume that you roll initiative for each distinct group of enemies (this method also makes the most sense to me). I suppose that there might be other ways of reading it though, and it isn't stated in a way that would make it crystal clear...

 

[Harr]

Yeah it's as you say, I just found the exact same rule in the DMG page 38 (I've been focusing on the PHB for now mostly).

 

[Lizard]

Ok, a pride of dire tigers decends on the party. They have an AC of 17 meaning the PC's pretty much never miss, but, 120 hp's each mean that they manage to stand up to 10th level fighter types for a round or two. Saves range from 13 to 11, meaning the wizard is going to have an absolute field day. However, at +20 attack, they aren't hitting the armored types at 10th level very often. A couple of AC buffs and the armor types are giggling all day long. And this is in an encounter that, by CR, should be overwhelming. The party should be retreating from this. However, because the baddies are so much weaker, not only is the party not running, they're pretty much able to ignore the challenge presented.

All I can say is, where did you get Monty Haul to DM your games?

Our group of 10th/11th level characters would be slaughtered by those tigers, or at least have a hard time of it. I think the highest AC is about 25-26, and that's on the self-buffing ranger/sorcerer. My blood magus is 16 or so, the warlock/cleric/whatever the hybrid PrC is is maybe 20, the ogre mage is low 20s at best (but he regenerates), and there's someone else playing a celestial something whose AC I don't recall, but it might be mid-20s. Assuming all my spells are up, I will lead with a sudden maximized firebrand, doing 75 damage (assuming no one makes their saves), and then they'll be on us, flanking and probably aiding -- typical GM strategy in mook fights is to have one attack while two aid, giving it a useful +4 to hit, +6 if flanked. Both our "tanks" have low hit points -- I think the OM is still at 4HD despite being 11th level, and the ranger/sorc/abjurant champion is obviously gimped there.

Of course, if I'm smart, I'd hold back my biggest nuke spells, because the DM usually has us on time-sensitive missions where we CAN'T sleep after every fight and so I know I'll need the big boys for later. Wasting my top-end nuke on some minions is just what he wants me to do...so I'd be using, most likely, fiery blast (5d6 fire damage, 5'radius spread) to singe 2 at a time, if they're positioned right, the healer will be flying overhead keeping us alive, and the two melee-ish people will be slowly chopping through those hit points.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Not to pick a fight...but you are using heavily houseruled and custom races/classes/monsters that you obviously have spent a great deal of time and effort on to compare to the default rules of a system that is new. I completely understand that you wouldn't want to see that investment lost and would guess that is at least partially the reason for your posts. (Maybe I'm wrong)

I just don't understand the comparison.

Not all of us have the time or inclination to run games like yours. Or gaming groups to go along with it. The minion rules SEEM to do their job of simplifying large combats (for me at least).

No worries, I don't consider it picking a fight. It's not that I've homebrewed here. I've done bigger fights with by-the-books 3.5 characters where they were much more outnumbered. The only reason you see the extensive homebrew in this example is because that's what my current group at MIT wanted to play, so that's the example I have on hand. I'm just weird like that--pick one of the things that 4e makes easier for most people, and I'll probably be equal or better at doing it in 3.5.

In the interest of full disclosure, there is some element involved that 4e said "We're making X easier with minor sacrifices to other aspects" that I already found easy and therefore when I'm the one GMing, I don't appreciate the 'minor' sacrifices for no gain (actually sometimes a loss--they simplify in areas that I am abnormally crazy-good at in exchange for actually making it more complicated in things I am weak at).

But I like 4e a lot because it gets other people to GM, and I like to play too.

However, you didn't see me putting in a bad word about 4e here, do you? I only even posted in this thread to add in my experience--I'm just saying that you can do a great relatively-large-scale battle in 3.5e with no trouble or hitches at all given enough skill. And you can. You can also do it in 4e, and in fact, apparently more people can handle it in 4e than before. Sweet! 4e is something like the best parts of Harrison Bergeron to me (the idea behind the society in HB, not the execution in the short story)--it definitely hobbles me compared to 3.5 because I am a weird outlier, but it lets people who are untalented or incompetent at a number of GM skills that are honestly hard to be good at still be effective GMs. And if that's not a good way to bring in more GMs, I don't know what is. 4e had a set of design goals at which they have clearly succeeded.

 

[gonesailing]

Ah Ha! I understand.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

This was a couple of years ago, so I do not remember all of the details.

24 Ogres, ogres attacked in something like a wave of 6 ogres each round, so yes, it was not until round 4 or so that all of the ogres were there (the ogres were spread out over this complex). And the ogres had to move up to the party, so some threw ranged weapons as they approached and some just ran in.

5 PCs level 7, Wizard, Paladin/Annointed Knight, Favored Soul, Ranger/Fighter, Cleric.

PC AC (for front liners) in mid-20s (I think after Magic Circle of Protection IIRC).

Yeah, this is certainly a reasonable situation. These monsters are within the reasonable range for an encounter. 6 CR 3 creatures is only EL 8, which is pretty reasonable/easy for a level 7 party. Because they come in waves, none of them are ranged specialized, there is enough cover, the PCs know good tactics, and they are defensively focused enough in their characters it works.

However, I can say with 100% certainty that there are groups of reasonably created characters who would die big time from this encounter. I certainly couldn't plan to use this as an encounter without knowing the group I was up against and/or adjusting on the fly to avoid killing some groups.

Some creatures are better suited to this than others as well. It depends heavily on their stats. Also, the higher the level, the more out of whack it gets. If your party was 17th level and you decided to throw 24 Young Adult Red Dragons against them, I imagine the result would be MUCH different.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Yeah, this is certainly a reasonable situation. These monsters are within the reasonable range for an encounter. 6 CR 3 creatures is only EL 8, which is pretty reasonable/easy for a level 7 party. Because they come in waves, none of them are ranged specialized, there is enough cover, the PCs know good tactics, and they are defensively focused enough in their characters it works.

However, I can say with 100% certainty that there are groups of reasonably created characters who would die big time from this encounter. I certainly couldn't plan to use this as an encounter without knowing the group I was up against and/or adjusting on the fly to avoid killing some groups.

Some creatures are better suited to this than others as well. It depends heavily on their stats. Also, the higher the level, the more out of whack it gets. If your party was 17th level and you decided to throw 24 Young Adult Red Dragons against them, I imagine the result would be MUCH different.

I imagine the 17th level party would clean up, though depending on the location, many of the dragons would probably escape due to high speed.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

No worries, I don't consider it picking a fight. It's not that I've homebrewed here. I've done bigger fights with by-the-books 3.5 characters where they were much more outnumbered. The only reason you see the extensive homebrew in this example is because that's what my current group at MIT wanted to play, so that's the example I have on hand. I'm just weird like that--pick one of the things that 4e makes easier for most people, and I'll probably be equal or better at doing it in 3.5.

That really depends on what you consider rules in 3.5e.

Is it possible to find certain creatures in 3.5 who have the right mix of AC and bonuses to hit in order to use a lot of them without causing too big of a problem? Yes. Because AC, to hit bonus, and damage isn't directly tied to CR...you can find some that are in the range you want. Also, since CR is only a guideline, you could probably even use way lower than usual CR monsters and maximize their hitpoints while giving them better armor in order to create the numbers you want.

Ideally, you want creatures who have low hitpoints so the battle doesn't drag on and on. You want them to have an AC that can't be hit on a 2 by the fighter(or the other way around, enough hitpoints to survive a couple of hits by the fighter, but low AC to guarantee they are hit). You want them to have attack bonuses high enough to hit the PCs, but not be overwhelming. Meanwhile, you want them to have damage high enough that the players think twice about ignoring the monsters, but low enough that when 6 monsters attack the same character with a full attack that it won't kill him in one round.

Sure, all of this might be possible to find. Although, I think you'd probably have to settle for SOME of it and rely on luck to make sure you didn't have problems with the rest. And to be fair, if you use a lot of really weak monsters then most of the time the players aren't going to complain, they got to defeat the monsters and they weren't really in any risk of dying except by crits and the like. However, it takes a lot of searching and know how in order to get the exact kind of monster you want. And if you are writing a published adventure, it likely won't come out as a "valid" encounter.

It seems like a lot of work and effort to go through when 4e does all the work for you.