Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Raven Crowking]

Indeed again. Would you care to post that in the other thread?

Happily.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4865103-post123.html


RC

 

[fanboy2000]

I asked for the RAW answer; he failed to supply it.

Do you think I supplied a RAW answer in my previous post?

FWIW, NPCs (or DM PCs) can kill minions just like any PC can. If one NPC is fighting another NPC, all the typical 4e combat rules apply. If an NPC is there, but not fighting, they will often have no stats (pre 4e DMG I) and thus not kill any minions (or anyone else, for that matter).

I don't have the book accessible, but the guidelines for creating NPCs in 4e can be found in the DM's Toolbox chapter, after the sections containing encounter and monster templates. One of the first things said on the subject of creating NPCs is that they typically don't need much in the way of stats, almost certainly don't need the fleshing-out PCs need except in rare circumstances.

I don't see that as creating any weirdness. I also see it as consistent with MrMyth's statements on the subject:

Is it a combat encounter? Has the DM statted out NPCs that are explicitly designed to be relevant to the combat? Then yes, they can certainly kill minions, if he is essentially treating them as backup characters.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You're assuming the pregens are particularly representative of actual characters...

Simply put, you can hit AC 0 in AD&D with just the nonmagical plate and sheild combo, which was available to most characters who weren't magic users or thieves. All you need is a single +1 armor or sheild or ring or protection or whatever to hit AC -1.

I really can't think of any old D&D modules that weren't littered with magic weapons, armors, and sheilds. Wonderous items, wands, rings, sure, they weren't so easy to come by. But +1 or +2 stuff was everywhere.

Plate is AC 3, a shield gives +1 for AC 2. Dex or magic is needed to get an AC of 0. This is AD&D not Unearthed Bloat.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Monty Haul DM - Heh....so basically anyone that actually uses the modules as is? Remember, a poster on these selfsame boards had the posts detailing how the typical BD&D adventure module blows the doors off the 3rd edition version in terms of treasure.

Based on what? 3E's useless gp values of treasure? AC-boosting items look pretty sparse to me in X9 (none) and X1 (1 item). If you finished X4 and X5, you could equip all your fighters with plate +1 and shield +1, for a whopping 2point increase over their first-level AC. MAYBE you'd get a set of +2 plate from X4 if you were lucky.

What matters is not the GP value of treasure, but 3E's assumption that PCs can buy or easily create the specific items they want.

 

[AllisterH]

3e DEFENDERS, UNITE

I will point out this insightful post Treasure and leveling comparisons: AD&D1, B/ED&D, and D&D3 - updated 11-17-08 (Q1)

Notice that at the end of the village of Hommlet, the PCs are only level 3 and ALREADY they have plate mail +1. Same goes for the keep where after the adventure, the PCs could have picked up 2 suits of plate mail +1 and they're level only level 3.

After the 1st level of the ToEE, the PCs actually have a shield +2 and they're only level 4. Now, I can see the wizard being in trouble since their AC would suck royally (I don't see Bracers until the PCs hit around level 8) but even the rogue looks like they could be rocking an AC close to 0.

Clerics and other heavy armour wearing classes though? Should be well under AC 0 by level 5.

Similarly, the 7th level follower you get as a 9th level fighter ALSO has an AC of 0.

Not to pick on pre 3e "guidelines" but there's a huge disconnect between the sample characters and what the other hints of the system we're showing.


http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...ns-ad-d1-b-ed-d-d-d3-updated-11-17-08-q1.html

 

[Mad Mac]

Plate is AC 3, a shield gives +1 for AC 2. Dex or magic is needed to get an AC of 0. This is AD&D not Unearthed Bloat.

I stand corrected. Even so, you are really mantaining that an additional +2 or more AC is unreasonable for a 7th to 9th level character? Having +1 armor and weapons by the time you start collecting followers is Monty Haul? You're using a very different interpretation of the term that I ever heard.

Just using treasure tables and modules I know my groups had heaps of +1 items by 7th level or so.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Notice that at the end of the village of Hommlet, the PCs are only level 3 and ALREADY they have plate mail +1. Same goes for the keep where after the adventure, the PCs could have picked up 2 suits of plate mail +1 and they're level only level 3.

Ok, if the Pc's are fortunate and successful, they will have won a suit of +1 plate from Lareth. This is part of the spoils of war and will be a trophy for whomever wears it.

A 3E character by 3rd level should by the guidelines given have 2700gp worth of gear. This means that every character should have the resources to walk into town and buy a suit of +1 full plate if desired and have that armor be available if the population center is large enough. Not permitting this is cheating the players and requires adjusting the challenges to compensate for the PC's not being properly outfitted.

Not to pick on pre 3e "guidelines" but there's a huge disconnect between the sample characters and what the other hints of the system we're showing.

There was indeed a disconnect between the treasures listed in modules and the advice about the placement of magic treasure in the DMG. IIRC there was a piece in Dragon Magazine where Gary said as much.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Just using treasure tables and modules I know my groups had heaps of +1 items by 7th level or so.

Fine, so your AC is 2 points better than it was at 1st level. Monsters that used to hit you on a 16+ now need an 18+, or something like that. It's nowhere near the AC advancement offered in 3E through the combination of stacking bonus types, buffing spells, class abilities, and getting to pick your magic items.

The need for minions came about because, in 3E, PC's AC increase so fast that low-level monsters very quickly ceased to be a threat. While AC in earlier editions did increase with level due to magic items, it was not so rapid a rise.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I stand corrected. Even so, you are really mantaining that an additional +2 or more AC is unreasonable for a 7th to 9th level character? Having +1 armor and weapons by the time you start collecting followers is Monty Haul? You're using a very different interpretation of the term that I ever heard.

Just using treasure tables and modules I know my groups had heaps of +1 items by 7th level or so.

I'm not suggesting that having magic items is Monty Haul , but rather that having a -5 or lower AC is not common at or below name level for a campaign with carefully placed magical treasure.

It isn't like the PC's were being outclassed by the monsters. Lets look at the AC values of some heavy hitters:

Storm Giant AC 1
Ancient Red Dragon AC -1
Pit Fiend AC -3
Iron Golem AC 3

There are some exceptions:

Malebranche (horned devil) AC -5

This is a very tough AC for a 5+5 HD devil. The unusually high AC had little to do with scaling and was all about thier nature and status as a devil. Compare this with the -3AC of the 13 HD pit fiend. If level were the greatest indication of defense values this would be way off.

In AD&D the level gap was represented by hit points and attack values rather than scaling defenses.
This is also the reason why lower level monsters can be used with more success than they can in 3E or 4E.

 

[Oni]

Totality? OK a mountain of 150 "little girls". No change.

Except the hero would probably be dead fighting 150 minions. I'm not sure the hyperbole helps the conversation.

Soft hit in this case refers to causing very little (1hp) damage on a successful hit. A soft hit is still a hit in game terms. It's no different than saying "the axe cleaves through bone and brain, take 1 point of damage".
Remember that hp are abstract and forcing an opponent to use vital energy defending against a glancing blow can still be a " hit" and deal "damage".

I would think it would be quite a bit different. Hit points are not just the ability to stand there and soak up damage. It's more about the ability to endure pain, skill at rolling with or avoiding blows, and even just luck. Minions just don't have the combat skill to avoid killing blows like more highly trained individuals. You attack that does 50 damage does 50 damage whether the target has 1HP or 100HP, it's just the 100HP creature has the wherewithal to avoid being killed by the blow. You yourself say that HP are an abstraction so why treat them as the physics of of the game world? So while having your HP loss represent a glancing "hit" and dealing "damage" it also doesn't have to either.


Anyway it's pretty obvious you don't like the execution of minions in 4e, so how would you have done it instead?