Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[vagabundo]

I ask myself, "Why minions, in the first place?"

Snip

They are low management beasties. They are designed to be run in large amounts and their powers, hp and damage output reflects that.

I've run them and they are fun and don't ruin the game for us, but it as easy to design encounters without them. And there are many ways to avoid the grind, both mechanically and narratively. Very few intelligent creatures have fanatical morale.

I've also run some variants; two hit minions and the like.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Mustrum, hit points points and damage dice do not in my experience constitute a "management nightmare". On top of all the complications in 4E, maybe they could be the straw that breaks the camel's back ... but that is to put things out of proportion!

The real necessity comes from the factors I outlined above, a whole complex of interrelated design choices. I'm not sure what "problems" they were meant to solve, but some they have created are clear enough.

I disagree. 4 minions replace 1 monsters. This means 4 attack rolls and 4 damage rolls. It also means you have to track 4 hit points values and conditions for 4 monsters. That increases management considerably. And you still have 4 other monsters to manage on top of that.

When I DM 4E and use minions in an encounter, I really notice how much more easy it is to keep track of the Minions and to resolve their actions. It is a significant speed up.

Maybe "management nightmare" is hyperbole. But maybe it is not, considering that you could replace every monster in an encounter with 4 minions and tracking hit points, attacks, damage rolls and conditions for 20 monsters certainly will be a nightmare.

Every other approach to Minions that does not used "1 hp" and "fixed damage" will always have this problem. And I think this problem is far more serious then any "simulation" concerns about what a Minion represents in the game world. It will make the experience of a battle against large groups of individual weak foes a long exercise in dice rolling, without adding any more tension and excitement to the battle then if you had used 4E style Minions.

I am of the opinion that the experience at the game table is the most important experience. If you do not have fun during what you do at the game table, you won't remember that session fondly. You remember the tedium, the flaws, the failures. You might also remember a kick ass story, and wish that you'd have a better system to have that story to go with, but no, next week, you are guaranteed using the same flawed game experience.

 

[LostSoul]

I disagree. A minion replaces 4 monsters. This means 4 attack rolls and 4 damage rolls. It also means you have to track 4 hit points values and conditions for 4 monsters. That increases management considerably. And you still have 4 other monsters to manage on top of that.

4 minions replace one normal monster.

I think minions exist so you can run combats with many opponents that 1) are not lethal at the intended level and 2) don't take forever.

I don't think they work but that's only because they are overvalued in terms of XP. It's too easy to wipe them out - unless they have ranged attacks, but none of them ever do!

In gameworld/fictional terms I have no problem with them.

 

[LostSoul]

I confess I didn't read the whole thread. I found this post interesting:

The minion concept is entirely indefensible outside of a meta-game argument designed to promote increased opponent numbers to facilitate a combat system highly-focused upon advantageous movement and multiple variations on movement constraints while providing a illusion to the player of a sense of power and might. The minions concept falls solidly into a type of role-playing in which reality is based upon the PCs power levels.

Let's say that we want as a goal for play to present a game where reality is not based on PC power levels. "Level" is an abstraction of a concept in the game world; it means "power", more or less, on a scale from 1 to whatever.


Here's how I see it working:

To get the real "combat level" of a monster, you adjust for minion/normal/elite/solo status. A level 6 minion = a level 1 normal as a rule of thumb.

You wouldn't change its level to determine out of combat things.

It seems like a handy way to get the playability of minions but to preserve a consistent world.


It seems like the designers might have had the same idea:

Opening up the MM2, there are two entries for Lolthbound Goblins - a level 3 soldier and a level 12 minion skirmisher. Seems like the same basic idea though the level difference is higher (probably because drow are around level 12 in general). I would have made the goblin minions 8th level and given the drow more powerful slaves - troglodytes, probably. And the troglodyte minions in the MM are 12th level! Cool.

 

[BryonD]

See, I'd agree with the both of you if you weren't slathering your pizza with hamburger. Your idea of simulation forces you to change the rules. To selectively apply the rules of the game to create the world that you like. Yet, for some reason, having explicit rules that are exactly the same from a world building stance as the rules of every other edition tips you over.

Again, there's a bit too much protestation going on.

Mr. Senator, when did you stop beating your wife?

I'm sorry but your wild generalization is vastly removed from reality.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why have Minions? They exist so you can fight a large group of monsters without running into a management nightmare. They don't just have one hit point, they also deal a fixed amount of damage. This means while you still have to roll attacks for every monster, you at least don't need to account their hit points or roll their damage rolls.
At the same time, their attack and defense remains "relevant" for their level, making each roll useful (and not just hope for "not a 1" and "only a 20").
Their primary purpose is to provide a different model of "low level" threats without hurting the gameplay experience by requiring too much management or dice rolls and too many "hopeless" dice rolls.

The hopeless die rolls only exist due to the scaling mechanics at the root of the system. The management factor only becomes an issue because tracking attacks and damage is only a burden when combined with having to monitor all sorts of fiddly temporary conditions, buffs, and other miscellaneous status effects in the first place.

As for remaining relevent, a lot of AD&D monsters do remain useful for more levels without a lot of modification. Monsters in the 3+ HD range are terrifying at low level and remain credible opponents up to at least name level in greater numbers without having to fiddle with attack and defense values. As an example check out the large bugbear tribe in module D1. Thier stats were typical but thier numbers made a challenging encounter for characters of level 9+.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

4 minions replace one normal monster.

Oops.

I think minions exist so you can run combats with many opponents that 1) are not lethal at the intended level and 2) don't take forever.

I don't think they work but that's only because they are overvalued in terms of XP. It's too easy to wipe them out - unless they have ranged attacks, but none of them ever do!

I've recently used a "down-sized" Black Pudding in my online campaign. The Minions spawned by him did seem very effective. But then, it's an MM2 figure.

Generally I agree - more Artillery Minions are needed. Or Skirmisher Minions that can do ranged attacks as well as melee attacks.

 

[AllisterH]

re: "the grind"

Um, it takes about 4-6 rounds for a PC to put down an equivalent levelled monster IME.

These 10+ round combats only take place if you're fighting a MM1 Solo that is about 4 to 5 levels above the party...

Personally, when I have run combats involving lots of lower level monsters, (say level -4/-5), it only takes about 2-3 rounds.

Of course, this might be because we actually have 2 wizards in my party who seem to actually know how to get the most out of their class

 

[DaveMage]

Mr. Senator, when did you stop beating your wife?

I'm sorry but your wild generalization is vastly removed from reality.

Yep.

 

[BryonD]

Yet you DON'T get better at avoiding mundane attacks?

Even back when I played 1e/DM 2e I thought there was something very weird going on there.....

Never bothered me.
If there is a reason to get better at hitting something, you get better at it.
If there is a reason to get better at avoiding being hit, you get better at it.

I will agree that in some cases (magic-user / wizard being a prime example to me) the idea of what constitutes a reason to get better at hitting is to liberal.

But it seems quite reasonable to me that gaining a level of fighter makes you more adapt at hitting things, but does not automatically make you better at pure avoidance. AC goes up with level, but much less directly than attack. To me it a reasonable approach.



That said, isn't your problem bigger in 4E than it has ever been in any prior edition?

Yes, your AC goes up with your level. But the attack bonuses of "mundane" attackers also recalculate themselves based on your level. That very fact has been praised multiple times in this thread.
Are we now praising 4E because the kobold minions can more easily attack the party at the same time as we praise 4E because the party can more easily evade the kobold's strikes?