Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Mad Mac]

Well, this is a nice example - most of the time, the 23 lvl minion will win.

I would upgrade "most of the time" to very nearly always. Commoner vs lvl 23 minion would be along the lines of:

Angel minion has +19 Init, Commoner has+0. Minion always wins initiative, even if it rolls a 1 and commoner rolls a 20. (Higher Dex breaks the tie)

Minion hits and kills commoner on anything other than a 1.

Commoner can only hit minion by rolling a 20.

And that is of course you are allowing a commoner to hurt an angel minion in the first place, which is against the spirt of the minion rules. You would need to be able to roll a +15 vs the angels lowest defense to land a blow on anything less than a 20. The angel in turn can hit AC 30 by rolling a 2.

 

[Ariosto]

In the original D&D set, every monster's AC is (barring special circumstances) one of 8 literal Armor Classes. Extending the chart to account for penalties to hit, I think the best possible "effective" AC is -3 (Plate Armor, Shield +3, Ring of Protection, long-range missile from shooter with poor dexterity). Considering the armor and shield alone, that would give -1 -- which is hittable on a roll of 20 by even the weakest monster or character.

Supplement I introduces monsters with ACs beyond the literal range (notably the will-o-wisp with -8!). It also adds multiple factors that, by stacking, could theoretically give a character an effective AC as good as -22 ... (AC 2, -4 for dexterity, -5 for magic armor, -5 for magic shield, -2 for ring of protection, -7 for long range fire from weak bow, -1 for shooter's poor dexterity) ... or maybe even better (if I've forgotten something).

Cover or other factors could add penalties to hit. Note that rings of protection don't stack with armor for AC purposes in AD&D. Keeping that anyhow; setting aside the shooting factors (leaving AC -14); and treating old AC 9 as WotC AC 10, that would give a new AC of 33. (Call it 34 if you start from AD&D AC 10).

That would probably be considered ludicrous in most old D&D campaigns. It's not exactly un-hittable (21+ for a level 16+ fighter in OD&D, and the +1 could come from strength or magic; 18+ for level 17+ in 1E AD&D, or 20+ for as low as level 11, or optionally 10, by the standard table with repeating 20s). However, AD&D gave Indra only -12, and even if that is not the best among the gods it is pretty well up there. Even Odin (a common yardstick for "godlike" power) gets only -6.

 

[Mad Mac]

When looking at 4th edition monsters, it's also worth remembering that their HP's and damage don't scale very quickly. A 1st level monster may have 26 HP's, which is a big change from prior edition, but a 10th level monster will only have 2-3x as many HP's as a 1st level monster. A 20th level monster may have less than twice as many HP's as a 10th level monster. The numbers are bigger overall only because they start higher.

 

[Ariosto]

The numbers are bigger overall only because they start higher.

Hence the difficulty with putting the smack-down on 1st-level foes even when you're 8th or higher.

 

[LostSoul]

This is more easily conceptualized when comparing the 23 lvl minion against a squirrel or a bat or a commoner, rather than comparing commoner to commoner.

I think it's fair to assume - in the game world - that the angel is a powerful being, just by virtue of being level 23.

One way to look at it (mine, maybe some of the designers) is to look at "minion status" as one possible way of representing the angel mechanically in combat resolution. You could also say that he's a level 18 soldier or whatever. It's kludgy, I admit, but you need to do that in order to have a consistent game world.

Another way to look at it is that the level 23 angel minion really does only have 1 HP; that is to say, in the game world, the angel is a powerful creature but will collapse like a house of cards if anyone can land a telling blow. You can still have a consistent game world with this view, I guess, but it's a very strange world.

Either way is valid.

 

[Mad Mac]

Hence the difficulty with putting the smack-down on 1st-level foes even when you're 8th or higher.

More or less, even if the problem is a bit overstated. An 8th level fighter with 20 St, a +2 Bastard Sword, and a +1 feat bonus to damage (all pretty reasonable for the level) would be doing 1d10+8 or 13.5 average damage per attack. He wouldn't be one shotting 1st level monsters without rolling a crit or using an encounter power, but he could be killing one every other round, easy, and that's just using At-wills.

Strikers would be dropping them even faster, and a controller could be putting out enough area damage to greatly speed up the fight. An 8th level party against 1st level monsters would last 2-3 rounds, tops. It would just be an utterly boring fight, whereas minions could at least gets some hits in and still go down fast enough not to be annoying.

 

[AllisterH]

Ok, I'll ask again to the 1e/2e fans.

What then is your explanation for the table in the fighter's followers which clearly shows an increasing level of magic items for each more powerful level of follower?

How is that NOT an indication you were supposed to get more and more powerful magic items as you level?

 

[Ourph]

An idea that I had for a quick minion house-rule "fix" (for those who would like one) while thinking about this thread...

Minion is a special template for a monster that includes three important characteristics...
1. A minion has 1hp. A missed attack never damages a minion.
2. Minions have resistance to all damage equal to their level.
3. Creatures fighting a minion gain a bonus to damage equal to their level on an attack that hits.

So a level 23 minion, with resist all 23, is nigh indestructible to a low level party (unless they get lucky with a daily power or something), but still presents the same level of threat to an equal level party and requires no additional bookkeeping for the DM. This also explains why high level minions don't die when a butterfly lands on them. They are still treated as a special case by the rules (i.e. they follow rules that other creatures don't), but at least the exceptional mechanics are more congruent with simulationist sensibilities.

Just a thought.

 

[Ariosto]

Ok, I'll ask again to the 1e/2e fans.

What then is your explanation for the table in the fighter's followers which clearly shows an increasing level of magic items for each more powerful level of follower?

How is that NOT an indication you were supposed to get more and more powerful magic items as you level?

(A) 1E DMG, p. 16 shows:
5th level, +2 battle axe
6th level, +1 spear, +1 dagger , +1 shield
6th level, +1 spear, +1 dagger, +1 armor (lieut. 3rd, crossbow of distance)
7th level, +2 sword (no specials), +1 armor, +1 shield (hvy. warhorse, horseshoes of speed)

I think it's fair enough to say that the spread is on average more magic items (not necessarily more powerful ones) at higher levels -- which is of course what one might expect from DMG pp. 175-176 and (in later printings) Appendix P at pp. 225-227. Or just from the presence of magic in the treasure tables, so one wonders ...

(B) Whence do you expect to hear that adventurers in AD&D were supposed NOT to acquire magic items in the course of their adventures???! They're in a fraction of treasure hoards (perhaps as much as 30% in deep levels if you're using OD&D Vol. 3); do you really think anyone expects them to be left behind when the gold and gems are carried off?

 

[AngryMojo]

The anti-minion argument always puzzles me, considering 4e isn't the first RPG to use that concept.