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

[Lanefan]

And, finally, note that roles are COMBAT roles. These are not meant as anything other than combat rules. They are not meant as any sort of commentary on the greater world. That's a connection that you have added. A skirmisher, or an elite, or a lurker isn't some sort of in game world thing. It's purely an abstract term for game mechanics. It's this bizarre insistence on connecting game terminology to in world reality that is causing the problem.

Given that the purpose of game terminology is in large part to describe the in-world reality in ways that make sense to us, such an insistence doesn't seem bizarre at all. The terminology serves the in-world reality, not the other way around.

 

[clearstream]

Wait, what? Where is the "aside from minions" coming from? I didn't see any exceptions for them in the knock out rules?

Look at the knock out RAW and the minions RAW and consider how they interact.

 

[clearstream]

I find it a very peculiar interpretation that "destroyed" here is supposed to be taken literary. The only monster type I can think of that traditionally has been referred to as being "destroyed" in the more literal sense are undead. I hence file this formulation under an unfortunate use of "flowerily" language, rather than actual rules content. (Wouldn't surprise me if it was written by someone that was making an unconscious slip into wargame terminology where units are "destroyed" upon defeat)

Edit - for reference this is what i consider to be the actual rules text for minions:
"HP 1; a missed attack never damages a minion."
This formulation is present both in monster manual, and monster vault - so I consider that the stable definition of a 4ed minion. Not the fluff in DMG 1.

"Destroyed" is also in the wording in the MM Glossary entry on minions, page 282.

Understanding destroyed to mean destroyed is scarcely a peculiar interpretation!

 

[Enrahim]

"Destroyed" is also in the wording in the MM Glossary entry on minions, page 282.

Understanding destroyed to mean destroyed is scarcely a peculiar interpretation!

Let me say it like this: I can sort of buy killing a goblin (or an ogre) with one stab of a dagger. However destroying them with a dagger stab just hasn't any credibility with me.

It appear to me absolutely obvious from context that "destroy" here is not meant in the everyday meaning of the word. It make a lot more sense to me that it is meant as a catch all short phrase for rendering the combatant irrelevant for the rest of the combat/game.

Indeed looking a bit more around I am surprised it is not established as a key-word, as that phrase is used in certain abilities as if it would be. The only clear rule I could find associated with the keyword in the rules compendium was that under structure of a turn "Of course, if a creature is destroyed, it has no turns!". I would indeed not be surprised if this was intended as a keyword with this meaning along possibly something like not being healable, but at some point they found it problematic (maybe because so many other conditions had the same effect, and it was hard to precisely define it?).

Edit: Though I grant you that I missed the MM glossary. Monster Vault glossary also preserve similar language. As such my dismissal of it as DMG fluff was wrong. "Destroyed" is used in rules text. I still maintain it cannot be interpreted literarily in an everyday sense, though I do consider the choice of words deeply problematic.