Solving all minion issues (long)

[keterys]

This is a silly new gaming community cultural element added for 4E due to the introduction of MMORPGs. One plays an MMORPG, one finds out the level of their foe instantly. Ok for a computer game, lousy for a pen and paper RPG.

Actually, 7th Sea and Feng Shui were doing minions before any of this MMO craze and if you squint hard you can see a minion rule in 1st edition AD&D for cleaving through several goblins, kobolds, etc at once.

But, it's cool, it's in fashion to blame logical game design elements on MMOs now.

Minions should NOT have the word Minion stamped on their foreheads.

Why not? They're a narrative element to let people know they're cool - they should know which guys they can casually dispatch in hordes to show off their prowess.

To a PC, the opponent with a short sword is an opponent with a short sword.

So an epic PC can't tell the difference between a level 1 goblin with a shortsword and artemis entreri with a shortsword?

Until they actually duke it out for a few rounds, the PC should have ZERO knowledge about whether this is the worst swordsman in the world or the best swordsman in the world.

Why? Should they also have no idea that one magma creature has an aura 5 that deals fire damage, while another has an aura 1 that deals fire damage, and yet another has no aura at all? Remember, the PCs are subject to a _lot_ more intense information than the players - they can see the poor combat stance, the fear in the minion's eyes, trembling hands, the rough formation of a militia hastily trained and forced to work together, or the cyclops that was once threatening back in the day but is now far too slow and clumsy and whose head flies off with a casual near-demigod backhand of your sword.

Our gaming community has been brainwashed by WotC to rationalize the concept of minions with the concept that they are immediately recognizable as such. I call the BS rule on that.

Play how you want, but it's not brainwash or BS. It's a good narrative element.

How does a PC know a Medium sized Spider the size of a donkey is a minion? Answer, he should not. Does the Spider only have 3 legs instead of 8? How do you know that the spider is gimped? You've been duped by this metagaming concept which should not be in the game system.

Maybe the player knows it, and not the PC, or maybe it realizes that it's far less threatening in appearance than a non-minion version - after all, if it's _not_ far less threatening why is it a minion at all?

Why can a minion not be in nice armor with a nice weapon?

Go for it - it can still not hold its weapon well, has a rookie combat stance, is slower or more slovenly than another goblin, or scrawnier, or timid, or in some other way obviously less effective because otherwise it shouldn't be a minion. The game trap is not that you describe them as minions, but that you make them minions without there being an in game backing for the idea.

The myth was only introduced to make larger encounters easier for the DM, not for any in game reason.

Plenty of game reason, and it helps players at least as much as DMs.

Players shouldn't know they are fighting a minion until the minion falls over dead. Until that point in time, the player should perceive the minion as a threat, just like any other threat.

Completely disagree.

And that's why some DMs also introduced the concept of "tough minions", ones that might not fall over in one hit, but maybe in two or three.

That's actually not why I'd do it, but I'd do it because of certain abilities not interacting well with the rules of minions.

 

[evilbob]

Thanks for the efforts but no it doesn't IMO make a workable solution.

The "fix" for minions shouldn't be more complicated than the creatures are currently or it isn't a fix.

Seconded.

If anything, you've made me believe that minion damage at paragon and epic levels could be doubled. But that's still almost more work than I'm willing to do for this issue.

In my opinion, the best solution is to just use higher level minions if you're worried about non-controllers taking them down easier, and otherwise just let a controller be a controller. To paraphrase Sigourney Weaver a la Gwen DeMarco: they have one job in this party, and it's stupid, but they're gonna do it!

 

[KarinsDad]

Why not? They're a narrative element to let people know they're cool - they should know which guys they can casually dispatch in hordes to show off their prowess.

You have that backwards.

In order to entitle players to know that a given foe has exactly these game mechanic properties, a DM is forced to come up with a narrative element.

He has to explain the situation based on the rules as opposed to explaining the situation based on the known situation.

The player should never know that the PC can casually dispatch in hordes. If the PC accomplishes that, great. But knowing ahead of time that this will happen is like knowing ahead of time which day an asteroid is going to strike your house. The PC might have a clue that foes are lesser foes, but not that they are "minions". He might try his "anti-lesser foes" (i.e. anti-minion) attack on them and find out that opps, they are not so easy to beat.

Where does all of this "player knowledge entitlement" come from?

So an epic PC can't tell the difference between a level 1 goblin with a shortsword and artemis entreri with a shortsword?

How does the epic PC KNOW that it is a level 1 goblin and not a level 30 goblin?


I have no problem with the DM handing out racial information for a foe. Creatures of this race have these properties (such as the fire aura you mentioned) if a Knowledge check is made.

But, where is the mystery in the game system if the players know the exact game mechanic capabilities of every single foe?

Will you tell the players that the foe has Str 22? Will you tell the players that the foe has Level 14? Will you tell the players that the foe is wearing a Cloak of Protection (as opposed to some other cloak)?

This is not a narrative element, the narrative element is used to hand wave away the fact that some game designer wanted to have every player know a bunch of stuff about all of his foes.

 

[keterys]

You have that backwards.

Minions in Feng Shui and 7th Sea support the narrative element - much like in cinema where you have red shirts and mooks - so do they too work (albeit, with some serious flaws) in 4th edition.

I would encourage you to dig out of the pit of bias you've attached to the minion concept and explore this other angle, since it invalidates several of the problems you're discussing. It is very much not a simulationist approach of course, but it's extremely true to cinema and stories.

The player should never know that the PC can casually dispatch in hordes.

The player should _absolutely_ know that he can. That's almost the entire point.

If the PC accomplishes that, great. But knowing ahead of time that this will happen is like knowing ahead of time which day an asteroid is going to strike your house.

No, it's a lot more like knowing that the Tarrasque or Orcus are extremely powerful monsters so don't describe your at-will as a powerful strike sure to behead them, because it really isn't.

Where does all of this "player knowledge entitlement" come from?

Well, for starters where does the "lack of player knowledge entitlement" come from? It's literally impossible for a DM to effectively describe all of the information that the PCs are getting, and the degree of expertise and knowledge the PCs have, so the players are getting the information they need to effectively describe a story with their PCs. By denying them information, you make it more gamist with 'hah, gotcha, his flames scorch you when he gets close'.

How does the epic PC KNOW that it is a level 1 goblin and not a level 30 goblin?

How does he _not_? One of them has eyes that reflect the astral dominion of his god, walks on air, is a head taller, his voice echoes with power, and bears a flaming staff, and the other is a scrawny near comical enemy.

I have no problem with the DM handing out racial information for a foe. Creatures of this race have these properties (such as the fire aura you mentioned) if a Knowledge check is made.

What if they don't make a knowledge check - how about what they see and feel? To take it a step further, assuming it's a serious game about heroes, why not assist the characters in being heroes rather than screwups?

But, where is the mystery in the game system if the players know the exact game mechanic capabilities of every single foe?

How does knowing something is a minion make it the exact mechanics? Does the DM not have fun, even though he knows the exact mechanics?

Will you tell the players that the foe has Str 22? Will you tell the players that the foe has Level 14? Will you tell the players that the foe is wearing a Cloak of Protection (as opposed to some other cloak)?

Don't see how any of that has any bearing on them actually playing the game - it doesn't affect the narrative flow of combat. Now, telling them a foe has threatening reach or an aura of fire? Sure, that affects things. Telling them an enemy is a solo or a minion? Big difference.

This is not a narrative element, the narrative element is used to hand wave away the fact that some game designer wanted to have every player know a bunch of stuff about all of his foes.

No, it absolutely is. You're mistaking simulation elements (what's realistic) with narrative (how does this tell a story)... and yeah, 4e is pretty much crap for simulating realism. If you let it, though, you can tell some great stories.

 

[KarinsDad]

Minions in Feng Shui and 7th Sea support the narrative element - much like in cinema where you have red shirts and mooks - so do they too work (albeit, with some serious flaws) in 4th edition.

I would encourage you to dig out of the pit of bias you've attached to the minion concept and explore this other angle, since it invalidates several of the problems you're discussing. It is very much not a simulationist approach of course, but it's extremely true to cinema and stories.


Don't see how any of that has any bearing on them actually playing the game - it doesn't affect the narrative flow of combat. Now, telling them a foe has threatening reach or an aura of fire? Sure, that affects things. Telling them an enemy is a solo or a minion? Big difference.

First off, other game systems do not matter. I don't have Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon filmed on the moon flying through the air without magic PC events in my DND games either. There are no red shirts. There are NPCs.

Secondly, one should not tell a player that a creature is a solo either. Or an elite.

The creature looks tough. The creature has a nasty looking flaming sword. The creature has 2 foot long fangs with smoking saliva dripping off of them. The DM describes that. What the PCs know from perception and what the PCs know from knowledge. Not what the players know, what the PCs know. It does not mean that the DM should tell the players the GAME MECHANIC role information that the monster is an elite or a solo or a minion.

The DM shouldn't tell the players that the monster is Artillery or Brute. Sure, the minotaur is probably a Brute and is big and nasty looking, but the DM does not explicitly hand out that GAME MECHANIC information. The minotaur might be a Controller Wizard with an Axe.

The PCs do not know about game mechanics. There is no Elite label on the creature's forehead for the PCs to see. The players might figure out quickly that the creature might be an elite or a minion or a brute or a controller, but the PCs have no knowledge of that. That guy over there is shooting a bow. The player might think it is an artillery foe. It might not be.

Automatically giving the players the metagaming knowledge is NOT narrative. You are totally mistaken on that. One could give the metagaming information via narration, but that is not the same thing.

Automatically giving the players the metagaming knowledge is metagaming. The moment you automatically give this metagaming information to the players is the moment you automatically give this metagaming information to the PCs since the players make the decisions for the PCs. The moment you automatically give this metagaming information to the players is the moment you remove the mystery from an encounter.


Let's take this from a rules perspective:

Monster Knowledge Check:

Name, type, and keywords
Powers
Resistances and vulnerabilities

Minion is none of these. Brute is none of these. Solo is none of these. Role is none of these.

The game rules disagree with your POV with the exception of creatures whose name includes Minion (which I consider an oversight since the rules are not consistent here and the vast majority of minions do not have the word Minion in their name).

I would encourage you to dig out of the pit of bias you've attached to the player game mechanic entitlement.

 

[keterys]

First off, other game systems do not matter.

You're the one who brought up other gaming systems by mentioning, incorrectly, MMOs.

Secondly, one should not tell a player that a creature is a solo either. Or an elite.

Not necessarily using those exact words, sure - but you _should_ tell them somehow. Perhaps because it smashes open the door and roars at the room at large while lesser creatures channel around its knees to attack, or through warnings received beforehand, or some other way of narrating it.

It does not mean that the DM should tell the players the GAME MECHANIC role information that the monster is an elite or a solo or a minion.

What's wrong with giving them enough information to infer it?

The DM shouldn't tell the players that the monster is Artillery or Brute.

Sure, not using those words - heck, they should be meaningless for a stunning number of players.

The PCs do not know about game mechanics. There is no Elite label on the creature's forehead for the PCs to see. The players might figure out quickly that the creature might be an elite or a minion or a brute or a controller, but the PCs have no knowledge of that.

Which is why you can give the players the information they need to figure it out. Much like the PCs have probably already figured out a lot of things the players aren't paying attention to, either.

Automatically giving the players the metagaming knowledge is NOT narrative. You are totally mistaken on that. One could give the metagaming information via narration, but that is not the same thing.

And yet, describing the horde of ill-equipped goblins so the players know they're minions _is_ giving the information via narration... so what is it you're objecting to?

Automatically giving the players the metagaming knowledge is metagaming.

Giving the players information they can use to play the game is not metagaming. It's just gaming.

The players deriving more from that information than is what available (say because they have the monster manual memorized) is metagaming.

The moment you automatically give this metagaming information to the players is the moment you remove the mystery from an encounter.

You'd have to prove that there is some gain from it being a mystery that there are minions in an encounter, or which ones are minions.

Let's take this from a rules perspective:

p26 DMG 'Dispensing Information', p26-27 'Providing Information', p40 'Describing the Circumstances'

 

[im_robertb]

So, uh, yeah, how about those, uh, mechanics for the er, minions there?

 

[KarinsDad]

What's wrong with giving them enough information to infer it?

There is a difference between inferring and knowing.

p26 DMG 'Dispensing Information', p26-27 'Providing Information', p40 'Describing the Circumstances'

Precisely. Thanks for pointing out some more rules on this:

"Therefore, within the rules of the game and the limits of PC knowledge, Insight, and Perception, tell players everything they need to know.

There is no such thing as a Minion in the PC knowledge base. Roles are not part of the Monster knowledge checks. Metagaming knowledge is outside the limits of PC knowledge.

Players do not need to know which ones are minions. Like to know, sure. Want to know, sure. Need to know in order to play the game, no.


Do you tell the players that a given NPC is a Controller, or do you let them infer it from the fact that the creature webbed an area or based on a knowledge check that told them of its powers?

Do you tell the players "Hey Frank, these 3 are minions, you had best use your area effect attack on them"? The DM might as well not even have players at his table if he is going to do that or if he is going to be so blatant with his descriptions that it's a sure bet for the players. No inferring, just knowing.


I have no problem with the players inferring whatever they want. I have no problem with them inferring information from the description of the monster that I give and the monster knowledge checks they make.

I will describe the creature based on the information that the PCs know, not the information the players know. PCs know conditions. PCs know effects of powers affecting them. PCs know nothing of roles.

Big difference. And, it is a difference directly supported by the rules.

The difference is giving the players so much information that they cannot NOT infer it. If one limits it to what the DMG suggests, within the limits of PC knowledge, then role is not information handed out. They can infer it, but it is not handed out.

 

[Garthanos]

meta knowledge availability may be related to the handling of minions...but is a bit of a divergence. I do mix non-minions of the same type with my minions...
Strategically don't clump people in a world known to have wizards or bombs. (whether the people are minions or not), People fighting in tight formation are unwise.

Tolkein image of the day Legalos and Glimli casually counting kills... movie image Glimli saying after legalos acrobatically kills a monster... it still counts as one.

I need minion rules to be simple giving them a bloodied status so that misses which damage them bloody them or kill them if they are already bloodied seems enough to me.

Most any creature could be a minion if it fits within your story, I made a bunch of hypogriff mounts minions, a hero or significant villain shoots em with an arrow they go down a minion hits them with an arrow they get bloodied... second time they go down. If a hero is riding one.. they quit being minions at least temporarily ;-).

 

[Ceraus]

Wow... aren't we starying away from the topic?

For the record, I'm firmly in the camp of telling players which enemies are minions once they've engaged them. I've sent small armies at my players, and they know by now that the foot soldiers are minions. Why not give them a little "minion" tag?

Look at the Lord of the Rings... say, just the part where Boromir dies at the end of the first movie. The difference between the mooks and their leader is apparent... but just because the camera frames him as a menace. Also, his arrows obviously deal high damage; again a camera trick.

I think players are expected to "feel" the difference in the same way regardless of realism. 4E is cinematic if anything.

The same tricks should apply to Elites and Solos. Again, compare with Lord of the Rings: when the troll enters the Moria tomb, there is not a second of doubt he's at least an elite.

Goblin Cutter. D6+2 damage averages 5.5, not 4.
Kobold Minion. D6 damage averages 3.5, not 4.
Giant Rat. D4+1 damage averages 3.5, not 3.
Decrepit Skeleton. D8+2 damage averages 6.5, not 4.

Sure, some of these average a little more damage. But, they won't "obviously obliterate any party".

Okay, they won't all do so, but...

The Decrepit Skeleton will. It almost did in my campaign on repeated occasions. Boosting its average damage by 62% makes it way too deadly, not to mention how often minions roll 20's... in this case, for 10 damage.

Please consider switching to the 4E mindset of not caring about "shortsword damage".

Spells deal whatever damage, same as psychic attacks and dragon breath. Some player weapon attacks deal 1[W] + Str, some 1[W], some just deal plain Str damage. And players can add feat and enhancement bonuses to that. Or Power Attack.

Please consider lowering the Decrepit Skeleton's damage in the name of balance.

If anything, you've made me believe that minion damage at paragon and epic levels could be doubled. But that's still almost more work than I'm willing to do for this issue.

In my opinion, the best solution is to just use higher level minions if you're worried about non-controllers taking them down easier, and otherwise just let a controller be a controller. To paraphrase Sigourney Weaver a la Gwen DeMarco: they have one job in this party, and it's stupid, but they're gonna do it!

I read "more work than I'm willing to do" when talking about doubling minion damage at Paragon and Epic.

How could that possibly be too much work?

And... if you just want to boost minion damage, my second post outlines an easy and balanced way to do it that requires about 10 seconds for each minion.

I'll sum it up: to modify an existing minion, add half its level to its damage, +1 at Paragon, +1 at Epic.

Again, how could that possibly be too much work?

Lastly, my campaign's controller is a Wizard and shines a whole lot with Scorching Burst against my HP-minions. I wouldn't worry about him. At least Cleave and Twin Strike aren't stealing away his glory, and his Fireball is always used to good effect.