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

[Lanefan]

Is there an inherent value in creating one-to-one (or even approximation thereof) relation between the rules and the fiction?

Yes. Otherwise, why bother?

All design is compromises, sometimes you have to have a specific rule that doesn't make in-universe sense on its own but is a part of a larger model congruent with the theming.

You don't have to have that rule; there's nearly always ways to tweak or re-do it such that it does make in-fiction sense, and if that can't be done then it's probably a bad rule to begin with (which playability might demand that you accept anyway, but that doesn't mean you have to like it ).

 

[Micah Sweet]

See, you read that as gamist, I read as simulationist. The importance of opponents simulates that to me. It just goes to show how unclear and useless these designations are.

The relative importance of a character is not a matter of process sim. It might be a matter of genre sim, but honestly I see that as a misnamed concept (or the other one is; either way, they shouldn't IMO both have sim in the common name for the term). Process sim and genre sim are IMO far more different than they are alike.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I tend to think of minions as the 3.5e templates

I always saw templates as mechanics adjusting to the changed in-fiction concept. In other words, process sim.

 

[Faolyn]

Not for the first time, I wish this site had a facepalm emoji as a 'like' option.

Then there was that whole "see invisible spell doesn't actually let you see invisible things" debacle from 5e.

(See invisible doesn't remove the invisibility condition; ergo, the person you want to see is still invisible, and you can't see them. Or something inane to that effect.)

 

[Lanefan]

Then there was that whole "see invisible spell doesn't actually let you see invisible things" debacle from 5e.

(See invisible doesn't remove the invisibility condition; ergo, the person you want to see is still invisible, and you can't see them. Or something inane to that effect.)

facepalm.......

 

[Faolyn]

My main objection to minions is that in many cases they're out of play too quickly, e.g. when the minion is a big creature (a Giant, a Dragon, etc.) that would otherwise have lots of hit points, or when the minion is fighting something other than the high-powered PCs and yet still goes down on one hit.

An easy-to-imagine example of the latter is if someone charms or dominiates one minion (maybe without even realizing it's just a minion!) and tells it to fight another.

Yeah, but if you're at a level where giants are being used as minions, then those minions likely would be going down in one hit anyway.

Remember, those ogre minions were balanced for something like level 25 characters (the math was something like monster CR + 11), which is the equivalent of like level 17 or so in 5e (I don't know the AD&D/5e conversion, but it's similar). For the weakest kind of fire giant, you'd have to be level 28, or level 19 in 5e. One fire giant is considered a low-deadliness encounter for four level 7 PCs in 5e, but 5 fire giants is considered a trivial encounter for four level 20 PCs. (At least according to Kobold Fight Club, which says you need to have 27 fire giants to be deadly to a party of four level 20 PCs.)

And, of course, you're never required to have giant minions. If your level 20 party goes up against one, ten, or a hundred fire giants, you can have them all have full hp if you want. But at the same time, Your level 20 party is not going to be challenged by a group of orc raiders.

 

[Warnavick]

Then there was that whole "see invisible spell doesn't actually let you see invisible things" debacle from 5e.

(See invisible doesn't remove the invisibility condition; ergo, the person you want to see is still invisible, and you can't see them. Or something inane to that effect.)

Specifically the interaction was that the invisible condition did 2 things seperated by bullet points.

1. Be invisible.

2. You have advantage to attack others and others have disadvantage to attack you.

See invisibility specifically only negates the first point rather than the whole condition. So by RAW, you would see the invisible creature but it still would have all its advantages. Besides potentially some spells/effects that require you to see the target such as counterspell.

 

[Maxperson]

Skeletons and zombies are types of creatures in the setting. Minions are a type of creature in the game. Apples and oranges.

It's not apples and oranges. At worst it's gala apples and granny smith apples, because destroyed applies to all of them. Further, minions can also be those types of creatures.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not apples and oranges. At worst it's gala apples and granny smith apples, because destroyed applies to all of them. Further, minions can also be those types of creatures.

Please name an in-fiction minion, that's supposed to be fragile as glass like minions are mechanically.

 

[Thomas Shey]

See, you read that as gamist, I read as simulationist. The importance of opponents simulates that to me. It just goes to show how unclear and useless these designations are.

There's been an ongoing argument whether process simulation and genre simulation are even close to the same thing for quite some time.