D&D General What does the mundane high level fighter look like? [+]

[Vaalingrade]

So... every ogre is a clone or other sort of copy derived from the stat block rather than a different guy of the ogre persuasion?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Scaling with character level represents the character getting broadly better at adventuring, particularly the class's abilities.
Enemies being statted as minions represent them being far below the party in general combat ability, and,

What does it even mean if you no longer have objective measure of combat ability, as the same fictional entity could have whatever stats?

for whatever reason, fighting all-out against them for a shot at slowing them down or harming them in whatever way they can, consequently leaving themselves open to killing blows, having very fragile morale, or whatever, such that they're easily knocked out of the fight. The exact same enemies, facing a much lower-level parties could be fighting them on equal footing, and represented by standard blocks, or against an even less experienced party, could toy with them, pulling off otherwise low-percentage tricks that'd never work against an equal, as represented by a Solo or Elite stat block.

Why do the stats of the enemies change? Characters already get better stats at higher levels, thus they will be relatively better compared to objectively statted enemies. You are double representing the same thing, that is confused. Furthermore, minionisation or elitisation is not based on any actual measurable relation, it is completely up to GM.

None of that is actually unrealistic, counter to genre, or bad at representing the world. It's just designed around the actual focus of the game: the PCs.
A detailed simulation of all the factors that make a monster that gave you a terrifying battle by itself when you were just starting out, but now you mow through hordes of them, would be downright prohibitive. D&D has consistently failed in giving one set of stats that actually deliver a powerful 1-vs-party threat at low level, and a credible threat at mid level, and then a trivially dispatched but not trivial, threat at high level. It's not impossible, it'd just require a lot of detail, different-level combat maneuvers, rules for toying with lesser enemies, or making desperate attack against greater ones, overwhelming situational modifiers, etc, etc....

As above, that might work, in a far more detailed and nuanced simulation. One not, for instance, limited to the flat distribution curve of the d20.

Nah. It works just fine in 5e.

Aside from 'fictional reality' being a bit of an oxymoron,

It's not.

fictional settings aren't that consistent - particularly, not that kind of consistent.

That you cannot be perfectly consistent doesn't mean you should be intentionally inconsistent!

All orcs using the same stat blocks isn't consistency, it's a simplification for playability. A representation of 'the world' where the orcs aren't existentially mooks and the PCs not Heroes, would have each orc unique and modeled in the same level of detail as a PC.

No one is saying all orcs have same stats, merely that the differnce in stats actually represents a diegetic differnce. We just finished a longish arc in my campaign dealing with orc politics (orc politics involve good amount of violence) and I certainly had bunch of differnt orcs with differnt stats. But none of them switched stats to produce a certain narrative I wanted to force!

When the PCs encounter a particularly bad-ass orc leader at first level and he nearly takes them down single-handed, then, later, having undergone rapid leveling, the PCs take him on again, he wouldn't, if the game were faithfully modeling some imaginary objective reality, have the same stats, maybe the orc wouldn't have had as much experience as the PCs in the meantime, but time as passed and he may have gained a level or switched to different gear or picked up a new trick or even have something he's been working on in hopes of a rematch...

Yeah, that could totally happen. And such change is diegetic, and therefore not a problem with representing a consistent fictional reality.

Ultimately, a TTRPG is a game, not a simulation. And whether the DM wants to focus on challenging the players, craft a story that the players hve staring (or secondary) roles in, or present a world for the players to explore, it all happens through the PCs, making them the focal point, if not the focus. Even if the PCs aren't the whole point, they're the point of view.

But I want that world that the PCs experience to be consistent, represented by consistent rules. The NPCs in the world have objective reality and they have objective rules. And the world being like this makes it more predictable and thus more real to the players, as the rules do not just keep changing depending the GM's whims. This desire for consistency it is not just to satisfy my OCD, it is for players' benefit too.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So... every ogre is a clone or other sort of copy derived from the stat block rather than a different guy of the ogre persuasion?

No, not at all. Ogres certainly can have different stats, but I want those differences represent things that are diegetic. And whilst we could imagine a super sickly ogre that's at death's door and thus has just one HP, I doubt that is what minion ogres are generally meant to represent.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ok. Then explain to me what character stats scaling up represent and what do some enemies becoming minions represent? Because don't they both represent the same thing, the characters becoming more powerful? Why use two different methods to represent the same things, the latter of which is not actually codified in any way and is up to GMs whims? And how to handle the foes facing characters and allies of varying levels at the same time? To whom the enemies are scaled?

Why not use two methods? We can use whatever tools are available to get the results we'd like. Powerful heroes are one thing, faceless hordes to be killed are another.

And this is not any more at GM whim than anything else. When minion rules existed, they were a part of the encounter creation system, which included other creatures and challenge rating and XP and all kinds of other rules.

To me it is clear that this is far more convoluted than just having the character stats scale up as they level thus the lower level enemies becoming easier to beat.

Only if you make it more convoluted.

It's not. Minionising not something that exists in the setting. It is just the stats of a monster being arbitrarily changed whilst the fictional entity being represented remaining the same.

No one claimed that minion status is part of the setting. That's silly. The mechanics represent what we want in the setting. What we want, and what minion rules help depict, are faceless hordes that are dangerous, but dispatched when struck.

There are so many things that don't "exist in the setting" as you describe here. Hit points and to hit bonuses and all other kinds of mechanics. They're representative. Same as minion rules.

The purpose of stats is to represent the underlying fictional reality. If we want to pretend that this reality is objective (and I do) then that representation must be objective too. Changing stats depending on the desired narrative role is no objective.

I don't think that's the purpose of stats. Because until there is interaction with another game element, the stats don't matter. We only need stats when the PCs arrive and interact with something.

What you're describing above is a choice. You prefer for the representation to remain persistent and as objective as possible. That's a fine choice. The reasons you have are understandable... but they are yours, not absolute truths. For many, there is no reason that anything "must" remain objective.

No, that would be simulationistic. What is desired is the consistent representation of fictional reality by the mechanics.

I'd think simulationism would only come into it if we were concerned with the model representing the real world in some way.

I don't see how the standard hit point system can be said to be any more simulationist than minion rules.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Up front, I want to assure everyone that I am not "arguing both sides just to argue" ... I'm just, y'know, ambivalent about some issues.

People realize that the Ogre minion isn't literally the regular ogre getting demoted, right?

I mean, it could be the exact same ogre, just out of it's depth.

I do, and always have, liked the comfort level of a monster that makes multiple appearances or has multiple instances, having statistical continuity, even if I'm the only one experiencing said continuity (like using the same monster in two different campaigns, or two different instances of the same monster having similar stats). I get the appeal.

So, like, a bog-standard 4e Ogre is a 6th level standard brute, 250 xp. The exact same ogre could reasonably be statted as a 14th level minion, or a 2nd level elite - both also, 250xp.

There, I've got my continuity.

There's no obligation to do that, I suppose, but I like it for the same reason people are saying they like the exact same stat block for every ogre. It's a mechanical consistency, it adds a sense of 'this is the same ogre.'

But, yes, Ogre Warriors (11th level standards) do not get 'demoted' to Ogre Thugs (11th level minions), those are two very different ogres.

So... every ogre is a clone or other sort of copy derived from the stat block rather than a different guy of the ogre persuasion?

In 3.x you could, like, give each ogre different skills, feats, or NPC (or PC) class levels, if you wanted to.
I suppose you could to an extent in any ed, for that matter, like 1e, you roll their HD, they each have a different hp total, you could give them names, backgrounds, interior lives, personal relationships, etc...
It's just, like, depending on the PCs, they're only going to be around for the few rounds it takes the party to cut them down or blow them up - so is it worth the effort?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why not use two methods? We can use whatever tools are available to get the results we'd like. Powerful heroes are one thing, faceless hordes to be killed are another.

And this is not any more at GM whim than anything else. When minion rules existed, they were a part of the encounter creation system, which included other creatures and challenge rating and XP and all kinds of other rules.

What I mean by GM's whim, is that it is not informed by the fictional reality. Think in the setting is X, but it is at GM's whim whether it uses minion-X, or normal-X or elite-X rules. The GM is not constrained by the fiction, as the rules do not represent the fiction in consistent manner.

Only if you make it more convoluted.

No, I think it is just genuinely more convoluted. Having objective rules-fiction conncetion is just simpler than having to separately decide what rule element to attack to the fictional element every time.

No one claimed that minion status is part of the setting. That's silly.

Yes, agreed. It is silly that it is not part of the setting.

The mechanics represent what we want in the setting. What we want, and what minion rules help depict, are faceless hordes that are dangerous, but dispatched when struck.

There are so many things that don't "exist in the setting" as you describe here. Hit points and to hit bonuses and all other kinds of mechanics. They're representative. Same as minion rules.

No, not in the same way. Hit points and hit bonuses are objective and at least to me they do represent diegetic things in the setting, albeit in rather abstract manner. Minion rules are not diegetic.

I don't think that's the purpose of stats. Because until there is interaction with another game element, the stats don't matter. We only need stats when the PCs arrive and interact with something.

No, that is not only thing the stats do. They also tells us about the setting. If a NPC has low wisdom, that will affect how I portray them, even if no wisdom rolls are made, if NPC has high strength that will affect how I describe their physique, even if no strength rolls are made.

But yes, a big part of what stats do is to resolve interactions like you say. And I want them to do that in consistent manner, thus portraying a consistent reality that is predictable to the players.

What you're describing above is a choice. You prefer for the representation to remain persistent and as objective as possible. That's a fine choice. The reasons you have are understandable... but they are yours, not absolute truths. For many, there is no reason that anything "must" remain objective.

Sure, and I'm pretty sure I said that much in this thread.

I'd think simulationism would only come into it if we were concerned with the model representing the real world in some way.

I don't see how the standard hit point system can be said to be any more simulationist than minion rules.

I have struggled at phrasing this before as well. What I want is not simulation in a sense that we need to be super concerned about realism or accuracy of the representation, but I care about the consistency and objectivity of the representation, and want a robust rules-fiction connection. I think I've called it "broad strokes simulation" before.

 

[Manbearcat]

What does it even mean if you no longer have objective measure of combat ability, as the same fictional entity could have whatever stats?

If something in real life is assigned a statistical value using the metric system and then later using the imperial system, do the observable qualities that someone materially interacts with to build out their internal model suddenly change? No.

Same thing goes for climbing. There are multiple grading systems used around the world, but whether someone uses one or another doesn't change the properties of the climb itself. The grading systems are just a shorthand interface for the climbing community to reference (which indexes difficulty, expected types of holds/distances between/traverses/techniques to be employed/angles of pitch etc).

However, what does change is reference points (just like in martial arts) as someone increases in capability. If someone rises to become an Intermediate climber (someone who comfortably climbs V4s and tops out at V6s in the V-scale) a V2 is going to be a trivial problem to surmount relative to a Beginner climber. Same goes for a high-end Advanced climber who will now look at V4s and V5s much like the Intermediate climber looks at V1, V2s, and some 3s; trivial to surmount.

The features of the climb to surmount don't objectively change in a material since when interacted with whether you're using the V-scale or the Font scale (where a V6 might be a 7a). What does change are the reference points to the obstacles as climbers increase or decrease in various aspects of climbing facility.

These reference points as facility increases/decreases are what generates "mook-gating" whether it be AD&D or D&D 4e (where both systems reference an assigned statistical value of one thing - HD of HP value of monsters - against an assigned statistical quality of another thing - Fighter/Ranger/Paladin/hero or adventurer status).

Climbing is neither more nor less immersive because of the diversity of grade-scaling as a reference point and that diversity of grade-scaling doesn't decrease a user's ability to build out a working mental model of a route/obstacle and their prospective ability to surmount it (both before a prospective climb and during it).

 

[Minigiant]

And he comes a decision of what's more important

Statistical consistency
OR
Fantasy satisfaction

With the high level fighter one of the biggest obstacles with it is that a lot of the fandom will not allow for the fantasy satisfaction to overcome statistical consistency.

The high level fighter should be able to one shot an ogre. But it would require exception-based rules. And for some people they do not want to inject these exception rules as base rules. Only as optional rules that the DM adds based on their own preferences, if they add it at all.

 

[pemerton]

That's not a thing in the world. That's a game state at the table.

That Conan is more powerful than a were-hyena is a thing in the world. One way to model it, in a D&D-esque RPG, is to stat up the were-hyena a minion when confronting Conan. The minion-status of the were-hyena (a mechanical state of affairs) represents the difference in power (a fictional state of affairs).

 

[pemerton]

It is not codified at all, it just completely to whims of the GM. So it is not really relational in any measurable sense, it is about the narrative role of the minions in the story.

I don't understand what codification has to do with anything. 4e is an edition that relies on GM judgement in encounter building, and it has many pages of exposition, advice and instruction on the technical aspects of doing this.

But to present a creature or NPC as a minion is to represent their power relative to the PCs. That's a state of affairs in the fiction.

Presenting such a state of affairs may or may not serve a narrative role in the story; but that's no different from you and @MichaelSomething deciding, in your 5e play, to throw 30 1st level dudes at a high level fighter because you will enjoy the resulting fiction. I am not (in my posts in this thread) expressing any view about the relationship between encounter building and pacing or theme. I'm talking about what the fiction of a mundane high level fighter looks like (using REH's Conan as one touchstone) and have pointed out that minion mechanics are one well-known way of representing that fiction.

To reiterate: what they represent is quite straightforward, namely, the power of the PC relative to the NPC/creature statted as a minion.