Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[jgbrowning]

So, basically, you're saying that you're only simulationist to a point. You take the rules to simulate your world to a point you feel comfortable with and then arbitrarily cut it off any further than that.

That is what everyone does. The only difference is where the cut off is. They are all arbitrary based upon preference.

In other words, you rewrite the rules to suit your tastes. 1st level commoners and any 1 hit die (or lower) monster NEVER has 1 hit point. They, as you say, die off.

I said rarely. Please actually respond to what I say, the fact that you translated "I rarely had 1hp creatures in my worlds in prior editions and at a much lower % than indicated by the raw dice. I'd just kinda assumed most of the 1hpers in the world had already died off, resulting in only a few 1hpers being around" into a response based around NEVER makes me think you're not really talking to me, because you're surely not responding to what I'm saying.

The problem I'm having with this is it's so illogical. You have no problems fiating over the rules to ignore the minion like status of 25% of the population of your entire world (at least the humanoid parts of it) but, the fact that there is a specific minion type for some monsters makes you balk?

I don't fiat them to ignore them, I fiat them because I assume most of them have suffered 1hp of damage and therefore they're dead.

The fact that the rules in every edition specifically HAD minions doesn't bother you though.

First: since I fiated out most 1hp humanoids, doesn't that mean I was bothered by them?

Second: You're confusing 1hp creatures with minions, that is not the case. Minions are explicit mechanical constructions that exist outside the normal scale of creature toughness for the explicit purpose of dying quickly and making player's feel tough while providing a mechanical role in combat. A creature with 1 hp in 4e isnt like a creature with 1hp in prior editions because having 1hp in one edition is different in design than having 1hp in others. I've already gone over this, but since you don't seem to be reading what I'm posting, I'll repeat it here, "I suspect the major difference is one of scale. In 1e, hp varied from 1 to about 100 for normal creatures (not uniques). In 4e that has increased from 1 (only minions) to the weakest creature in the world (outside a minion) having around 20hp while the strongest reaching close to 1,400hp. A minion, is about 1/20th as tough as the next weakest creature in the world. The difference of scale is dramatically larger, and that increase results in it being increasingly harder to ignore an issue, IMO.

In more words, a 1hp bandit in a pre-4e editiion (where bandits had 1-6hp - 1e) would have the equivalent of around 4-6hp in 4e, if that bandit was not a minion were one to scale creature strength across editions and if one assumes the listed bandit in the 4eMM is the strongest. If you assume the listed 4eMM bandit as being average instead of strongest, a 1e bandit with 1 hp would then scale into a 4e bandit with about 12hp.

Minions are not like 1hp creatures in other editions.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Methinks you should just talk to me as opposed to be snooty. I'm a real human person. Talk to me like you'd talk to someone sitting next to you on the bus.

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.

Your statement is based upon the belief that minions existed in prior editions. I believe they didn't as minions are more than only 1hp creatures - they are 1 hp creatures in context with all the other creatures in the game. A 1hp creature in 1e non-4e D&D is different than a minion because of the relation between a 1hp creatures and the toughness of non-1hp creatures.

Also, your statements are based upon the faulty assumption that I didn't seem to have problems with 1hp creatures in prior rules, even though I explicitly fiated most of them away because I did have problems with them.

joe b.

 

[AllisterH]

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?

????

When the party is fighting kobolds, I personally like the fact that the Kobolds aren't screwed to hit the PCs.

When the party advances past dealing with kobolds, I personally like the fact that their defences increase without the use of equipment.

Not seeing the contradiction here...

 

[ExploderWizard]

????

When the party is fighting kobolds, I personally like the fact that the Kobolds aren't screwed to hit the PCs.

When the party advances past dealing with kobolds, I personally like the fact that their defences increase without the use of equipment.

Not seeing the contradiction here...

I'm not seeing contradiction so to speak, but rather I see the use of minions as a solution to a problem created by the scaling of the base system. Using a patchy solution such as minion rules to fix a problem created by the design of a system in need of such a fix is hardly praiseworthy.

In other words, the fundamental design flaws were concealed by the superficial design flaws.

 

[BryonD]

????

When the party is fighting kobolds, I personally like the fact that the Kobolds aren't screwed to hit the PCs.

When the party advances past dealing with kobolds, I personally like the fact that their defences increase without the use of equipment.

Not seeing the contradiction here...

Have you not read all the many posts in this thread praising the fact that minions remain threats as the party increases?

Yes, defenses increase. But attacks increase at an equal rate and cancel it out.

The contradiction is you are praising an increase in defense when 4E character have less true ability to defend themselves, despite that fact that they happen to have a higher number after AC on their character sheet.

If you throw L1 minions at a L10 party, then yes. In this pointlessly trivial case they are less likely to be hit. But even then it is not better than the "need a 20" to hit situation in 3E.

I'm not saying the party won't still roll right over the kobolds. But the better defense is just an illusion. Everything scales equally in both attack and defense so that the bigger numbers are just window dressing.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm not seeing contradiction so to speak, but rather I see the use of minions as a solution to a problem created by the scaling of the base system. Using a patchy solution such as minion rules to fix a problem created by the design of a system in need of such a fix is hardly praiseworthy.

In other words, the fundamental design flaws were concealed by the superficial design flaws.

So you would remove all bonuses? Most bonuses?

Maybe that would work, too. Maybe 4E is still to married to 3Es idea of BAB, level based max skill ranks and saving throws increasing by level.

But make no mistake - people will also dislike a solution where most bonuses are gone. It removes the "meaning" of level or ability scores. People already say that the 3-18 stat range is superflous considering the fact that only even numbers grant modifiers.
People are complaining about the fact the skills only have three or four "competency" status - untrained, trained, focussed, and maybe "get special bonus". If you limit your attainable bonuses, you keep that "problem" and even expand it to new areas.

I think Minions are a good approach to this "problem". It achieves the desired goals.

 

[BryonD]

When the party is fighting kobolds, I personally like the fact that the Kobolds aren't screwed to hit the PCs.

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.....

Are the kobolds attacks mundane?

Is the party getting better at avoiding the kobold's mundane attacks, thus making the kobolds screwed to hit them?

Or are the kobolds not screwed to hit them, thus demonstrating that the party has become no better at avoiding their mundane attacks?

 

[AllisterH]

Have you not read all the many posts in this thread praising the fact that minions remain threats as the party increases?

Because people want to use appropriate level minions at various points in the character's life

Yes, defenses increase. But attacks increase at an equal rate and cancel it out.

The contradiction is you are praising an increase in defense when 4E character have less true ability to defend themselves, despite that fact that they happen to have a higher number after AC on their character sheet.

Perhaps you didn't notice in this thread that I as a DM make regular use of lower level foes? I thought we went over the fallacy that 4e *requires* equal level opponents. In fact, using widely differing level opponents in the same encounter is a really great feature of 4e and easily prevents the boring/grindness of combat that some people complain about.

Is this one of those "The book says you HAVE to do this" but the book actually says "hey, try this method" arguments?

I'm not saying the party won't still roll right over the kobolds. But the better defense is just an illusion. Everything scales equally in both attack and defense so that the bigger numbers are just window dressing.

???? Again, unless you ONLY use foes of the same level EVERY single combat, this argument makes no sense.

EDIT: What contradiction are you talking about BryonD (can anyone help me out here?)

At low levels, I like the fact that kobolds aren't screwed to hit me just because somebody got lucky and has plate armour.

At higher levels, I like the fact that kobolds no longer have as good a chance to hit me as they did at the earlier stage and NOT because I found plate armour.

How am I contradicting myself here?

 

[BryonD]

Because people want to use appropriate level minions at various points in the character's life


Perhaps you didn't notice in this thread that I as a DM make regular use of lower level foes? I thought we went over the fallacy that 4e *requires* equal level opponents.

???? Again, unless you ONLY use foes of the same level EVERY single combat, this argument makes no sense.

I'm completely with you here.

But, why then do you praise that they are not screwed to hit, when your low level kobolds are screwed to hit?

4E requires nothing. But if you praise minions not being screwed to hit at the same time as praising increased defenses, then it is a contradiction.

It is one or the other, but not both.

You said that the kobolds were not screwed. That very implicitly pushes the reader to reasonably conclude you are using level appropriate minions. Don't get upset when your reader takes you at your word.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So you would remove all bonuses? Most bonuses?

Maybe that would work, too. Maybe 4E is still to married to 3Es idea of BAB, level based max skill ranks and saving throws increasing by level.

But make no mistake - people will also dislike a solution where most bonuses are gone. It removes the "meaning" of level or ability scores. People already say that the 3-18 stat range is superflous considering the fact that only even numbers grant modifiers.
People are complaining about the fact the skills only have three or four "competency" status - untrained, trained, focussed, and maybe "get special bonus". If you limit your attainable bonuses, you keep that "problem" and even expand it to new areas.

I think Minions are a good approach to this "problem". It achieves the desired goals.

Not all bonuses of course but the vast majority of the ones that exist simply to scale up everything yes. Byron D was right in his assessment that all the higher numbers are just window dressing.

If attacks, defenses, and hit points scale more or less equally for PC's and monsters then there isn't really much noticeable improvement in terms of actually improving as an adventurer against a worthy foe of equal level.
You end up with a base level of competence at 1st level that stays on a roughly even track. In 1E defenses didn't scale anywhere near as fast resulting in an actual increase in hit percentage as levels increased providing more actual improvement.

All the character build choices and escalating bonuses do is provide fodder for the character tweaking mini game. This can be a lot of fun for some people on it's own but after all is said and done, at the actual table the result of all that tweaking is a wash if the world scales along with you.

 

[AllisterH]

You said that the kobolds were not screwed. That very implicitly pushes the reader to reasonably conclude you are using level appropriate minions. Don't get upset when your reader takes you at your word.

???

Not upset but I think you might've jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Kobolds do NOT necessarily mean appropriate level minion.

If I caused confusion, my apologies.

Let's try this one more time.

1. I like at early levels (1-3), kobolds (the regular and minion versions) have roughly a 50/50 chance to hit the PCs and this doesn't get vastly affected because the DM was a monty haul DM and gave out great armour.

2. I like as I increase levels, those kobolds start to drop off in effectiveness BECAUSE I get more effective at simply ignoring their attack. I like the fact that there comes a point in the PC's career where they only have to worry about the natural 20 rule. Much more importantly is the fact that this is NOT_ gear dependant.

Clearer?

re: Gear and level.
Using that as an opener, and regarding the half-level aspect of 4e, again personally it suits me.

Whenever we did the classic "strip the party of the gear" scenario, I don't mind the loss of power in the classes (which was the point of the scenario), I just didn't like HOW MUCH gear meant to the character.

Remember vaguely once that our 1e DM did that scenario and we ran into the people that were wearing our gear and we absolutely got stomped of course, finding out that they were vastly lower than us was a true kick in the pants.

re: Solos

With regard to the metagame nature of minions, do people have as much problem with Solos (and elites to a lesser extent). Yeah, I mentioned it before, but perhaps it got lost in the flood of the minion wars.