Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4383989" data-attributes="member: 2011">Yes, for a few of the monsters that the designers were lazy naming.For the vast majority of monsters (including most minions), the MM does not have the name of the role in the name of the monster.For minions, only 2 out of 39 in the MM have the word Minion in the name. Some have names like Grunt that sound like minions, but many others do not.This is hardly a good rules argument.Silly? What is silly is giving players game mechanics info and pretending it is something they should know.Role is a mechanic. Monster role is a encounter design mechanic.Your POV appears to be "mechanic description" oriented.The Kobold has a bow. Bottom line. Is he artillery or is he a kobold with a bow?To the PCs, he's a kobold with a bow.Giving the former information is fine. Giving the latter is lame. It still doesn't mean that the cowering kobolds are minions. They might just be cowering kobolds. They might be slingers who are cowering because they are not good at melee and the party is approaching.Minion is PURELY a game mechanic term. As such, it should never be given in a monster description. Just like Brute should not be. It's a Minotaur with a Battle Axe. Is that a Brute, or is that a Minion.Answer: Neither. It's a Soldier. But, the players should only know that it's a Minotaur with a Battle Axe and some other minor info depending on Monster Check result.So, it is not ok to try to prove oneself 'right', but it is ok to state that the other POV is trying to trick the players. Hmmm.So I have to ask the question, what is wrong with tricking the players? How boring life would be if the DM gave the players all of the answers and there were no mystery in the game.</blockquote>

Verification