D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Faolyn]

From previous posts you like narrative conceits driving play for more than I do. If I want enemies that they can kill left and right I can still do that in 5e, they just aren't going to be minions.

As far as Bard killing Smaug that was a narrative contrivance. Tolkien needed some way to kill off a legendary dragon.

Different approaches to game design are going to appeal to different people.

As others have pointed out, once you get to the level where ogres are actually minions (in the normal sense of the word), they're not only not actually a real threat, but you're doing enough damage regularly that you're going to be wiping them out in one or two rounds anyway.

Like, I just did the math here. My current 5.14 character is a rogue (swashbuckler) 9/fighter 1 with a +1 rapier (with an extra +1 to damage from other sources) who acts as a front-line fighter most of the time. When I get sneak attack (which I can do a lot, since swashbucklers get them in 1v1 as well as the normal ways), I'm doing an average of 27-28 damage. A D&D 5.14 ogre has, on average, 59 hit points. Which means that, if it were just me and that ogre, I'd be killing them in two rounds. The fighter, monk, and casters we have do a lot of damage on their own. Most of the party has much better Dex scores than the ogres and so it's far more likely we go first in initiative, and while a greatclub can do a lot of damage, we can generally soak it if we get hit in the first place.

(According to WotC, 16th level in 4e, which is what that adventure's adventure was apparently for, can be converted to level 10-11 in 5e, so we're about equal, although I have no idea how to convert those ogres' AC of 26~.)

So really, what's the difference between these ogres and minion ogres with 1 hp? They barely last longer in 5e with 59 hp than they would have in 4e as 1 hp minions, and they're going to hit just as hard if they do manage to hit.

 

[Faolyn]

One reason minions exist is to mechanically support the narrative of the lone badass (or small group of badasses) wading through wave after wave of enemies. My totally obvious bias doesn't affect that reason. It's there either way.

And another reason is that depending on the game and edition and the number of opponents on each side, combat can take a long time, and be very boring when it's not your turn. Using minions so you don't have to slog your way through multiple hours or even sessions just on the faceless hordes is an incredible time saver. Especially if the game allows you to attack multiple minions in a turn. Like AD&D2e and Daggerheart.

The fact that minions are also a narrative tool to support the idea of a group of badasses is a bonus.

 

[AlViking]

As others have pointed out, once you get to the level where ogres are actually minions (in the normal sense of the word), they're not only not actually a real threat, but you're doing enough damage regularly that you're going to be wiping them out in one or two rounds anyway.

Like, I just did the math here. My current 5.14 character is a rogue (swashbuckler) 9/fighter 1 with a +1 rapier (with an extra +1 to damage from other sources) who acts as a front-line fighter most of the time. When I get sneak attack (which I can do a lot, since swashbucklers get them in 1v1 as well as the normal ways), I'm doing an average of 27-28 damage. A D&D 5.14 ogre has, on average, 59 hit points. Which means that, if it were just me and that ogre, I'd be killing them in two rounds. The fighter, monk, and casters we have do a lot of damage on their own. Most of the party has much better Dex scores than the ogres and so it's far more likely we go first in initiative, and while a greatclub can do a lot of damage, we can generally soak it if we get hit in the first place.

(According to WotC, 16th level in 4e, which is what that adventure's adventure was apparently for, can be converted to level 10-11 in 5e, so we're about equal, although I have no idea how to convert those ogres' AC of 26~.)

So really, what's the difference between these ogres and minion ogres with 1 hp? They barely last longer in 5e with 59 hp than they would have in 4e as 1 hp minions, and they're going to hit just as hard if they do manage to hit.

The difference is that suddenly we have ogres made out of the world's most fragile glass. It makes no sense from an immersive in-world point of view to me or the majority of people I played with.

 

[Eric V]

I still have no idea what this has to do with minions. Seems like you're just back to the "5e sucks because it's not what I want" repertoire.

Man, there's no reading of what he wrote that could lead to this conclusion. Come on.

 

[gban007]

The difference is that suddenly we have ogres made out of the world's most fragile glass. It makes no sense from an immersive in-world point of view to me or the majority of people I played with.

We played 4e for a couple of years before ultimately bouncing off it, but minions was one of the things I liked.
Yes, if try and treat statblock as universally true, it will create that disconnect and so can understand it breaking immersion for some people, but for us it meant we could within system readily have a large group of monsters that could still be a threat but relatively easily taken down.
I think 5e achieves this with bounded accuracy, but in some respects creates opposite problem- it is a lot easier for a crowd of commoners to take down a high level dragon in 5e than 4e, which can stretch immersion as well, but I guess ultimately within our group we treat the statblocks as mostly game mechanic to support challenges PCs will face, and not necessarily describing those creatures and their place in the world as a whole, so if they work for the pc encounters we are happy.
Minions in 4e supported that for us, as does bounded accuracy in 5e.

 

[AlViking]

Man, there's no reading of what he wrote that could lead to this conclusion. Come on.

He stated that he "absolutely believes" the game is poorly designed. That, even after praising the Superman movie for how well it's doing at the box office, the sales and continued success of the edition is apparently meaningless. Their dislike of the game is hardly news.

Most important though is that none of it has anything to do with the topic of minions that was being discussed.

 

[Faolyn]

"Most people who've had the same favorite movie, book, actor, cuisine, restaurant, ttrpg, character class, type of pet, sandwich, style of beer, theory of games, subject in school, vacation place, or etc... for any extended period of time, have likely only stuck with it because they're scared, lazy, and/or have sunk-costs." ?

If someone only engaged in a certain activity and refused to try new ones, or continually pooh-poohed new activities, I'd certainly raise an eyebrow or two at them.

And I say that as someone who is autistic and very much only engages with certain types of things and has little interest in things outside them.

 

[Faolyn]

So you've ruled out the possibility that a person may prefer their way of doing things because it is better for them, or they believe the newer way is worse? That is an extremely bleak and uncharitable way to look at other human beings, as it assumes that right-thinking people would look at the situation "rationally" and of course agree with you that the newer method is superior, and if they don't, it must be because of one of your four very petty and fearful reasons, right?

I addressed that: "I've found it fairly uncommon that people have other reasons than those." I don't see people showing data as to why they don't like a thing. And a lot of the time, when they do show data, they are objectively misunderstanding it, or are doing things like ignoring the fact that their favored game has the same thing or that they play the same way but with a different name.

Why is a new thing worse? Sure, (generic) you can say "Meh, it's not for me" or even "I just prefer the way it used to be done," but then (generic) you wouldn't be making hundreds of posts about why it's not for you, because why would you?

Like, you don't like narrative games for whatever reasons. OK. So why are you still talking about them? Nobody is actually forcing you to play one. Nobody is turning your favored edition of your game of choice into a narrative game. Worst scenario you'll ever have to face in reality is a potentially incompatible game preferences with someone else at your table.

 

[AlViking]

If someone only engaged in a certain activity and refused to try new ones, or continually pooh-poohed new activities, I'd certainly raise an eyebrow or two at them.

And I say that as someone who is autistic and very much only engages with certain types of things and has little interest in things outside them.

Many of us do not have the luxury of time or desire from our friends to try new games. We also don't have much reason to do so when we already enjoy what we are doing.

It sure sounds like you're shaming people who don't do things your way or enjoy the games you enjoy. I may not want to do things your way or play the games you enjoy but I will never tell you you're wrong to choose your own path. Maybe you should return the favor.

 

[Faolyn]

This comes off as really insulting "If you don't like something new, it's your fault ". I have no issues with change but see no value in change for the sake of change.

Why can't we just accept that some people have different preferences? Because saying "Change is scary!" makes it sound like you're talking to a toddler.

If you don't like something, it's the things fault? So everything you like is good and everything you don't like deserves to be disliked?

And why would you assume that something is changed purely for the sake of change? See, this is exactly what I meant. You're not assuming that things were changed for actual reasons, such as an attempt, however well or poorly done it was, to make things better or faster or more useful. No, you're acting like it was some sort of lolrandom shakeup.