D&D General Why is D&D 4E a "tactical" game?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Those are all fine, and I can see a lot of great stories coming from that idea, but they're not the only alternatives. Plenty of people played D&D beyond "heroic tier" in the past and continue to do so today without making the martial types demigods (at least not without gear). Unless you're just talking about 4e? If so, then that is entirely in keeping with the design philosophy.

My thing is, I don't distinguish versions of D&D that much... I started in 1975, playing the LBB's (what they call 'OD&D' nowadays). I've played with that, the supplements, Holme's Basic, 1e, 2e, a bit of 3.5, and 4e and 5e. I won't fight the someone saying there are big differences; OTOH I drew a map in maybe 1976, and I can play all editions on that. I don't really see them as different things, just slightly different toolkits for basically the same sort of fantasy. There is at least one character in my 4e campaign that started life in Holmes Basic. Its an NPC now, but only because the person who played it has other characters they want to play. 4e does a perfectly OK job of depicting all these characters. 5e would do it too, though I am more interested in the higher level kind of action that 4e handles well, and I've gone on ahead and made rules that will even focus better on that than 4e, hopefully.

But my central point is, I don't think there's all that much difference.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, honestly among D&D-oids I think I prefer the take in 13th Age. Its just not something I intrinsically miss outside of supers games.

It's a worthy iteration on the 4e rules. But what it doesn't do is enable the "minionizing" that the 4e rules make possible and that Oofta so detests. Essentially they have a fifth of expected hit points and no benefit for people who probably don't belong in this fight; the minionisation being talked about also involves going up eight levels to keep the XP and expected threat the same without the grind-fest of a 708 hit point fight against a dozen ogres.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My thing is, I don't distinguish versions of D&D that much... I started in 1975, playing the LBB's (what they call 'OD&D' nowadays). I've played with that, the supplements, Holme's Basic, 1e, 2e, a bit of 3.5, and 4e and 5e. I won't fight the someone saying there are big differences; OTOH I drew a map in maybe 1976, and I can play all editions on that. I don't really see them as different things, just slightly different toolkits for basically the same sort of fantasy. There is at least one character in my 4e campaign that started life in Holmes Basic. Its an NPC now, but only because the person who played it has other characters they want to play. 4e does a perfectly OK job of depicting all these characters. 5e would do it too, though I am more interested in the higher level kind of action that 4e handles well, and I've gone on ahead and made rules that will even focus better on that than 4e, hopefully.

But my central point is, I don't think there's all that much difference.

It depends on what you focus on. They absolutely show their line of descent, and as you say, they're overall covering the same sort of fantasy (though that can get fraught depending on how you view the avoid combat/seek combat dynamic some OSR people harp on), but there are elements that have changed enough that depending on how important to you those elements are. OD&D had a great degree of mechanical blandness and sameness among characters of the same class (a little better with magic-users because of spell selection, but only some) that almost no modern version of it suffers from, for example, and that's extremely important to some of us.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's worse than that. He's not even suggesting to do things badly. I don't believe that 4e actually suggests minionising ogres anywhere. It is something most of us on this board would do because most of us have the sense to know that ten levels after first meeting ogres it would be a tedious and boring grindfest to use them as they were when they were a threat ten levels ago.

It's like his criticism of variable difficulty classes that relies on him taking the interpretation he likes the least and then railing against that.

I think its common rhetorical tactics, but yeah. TBH you are totally correct, 'minionization' is not anywhere in the 4e rules! You CAN extrapolate though. A level 1 standard monster has the same XP cost as (IIRC) a level 7 minion. Minions are a thing, and making new stat blocks is also a thing. So when I make a level 7 goblin cutthroat minion stat block, and give it fiction similar to a level 1 Goblin Cutthroat, its just PLAYING 4e. If I turn Gorkle the Hex Hurler, a specific level 3 goblin, into a level 10 minion that hurls a hex, and state this is Gorkle, its just playing the game, right? What's to criticize?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, the big question there is "Is having a whole lot of low level opponents a virtue". Its not self-evident that its the case to the degree of the numbers needed before mook rules are a particular virtue.

Well, sure, we can question our mastery of game narrative. I am the last to suggest mine is superior to anyone else's (probably more the opposite, lol). So, maybe I should eschew minions entirely because there are no circumstances where that makes a good story. OTOH my personal experience and preferences fly in a different direction, though I honestly don't generally use a ton of minions, I do use them.

 

[Oofta]

It's worse than that. He's not even suggesting to do things badly. I don't believe that 4e actually suggests minionising ogres anywhere. It is something most of us on this board would do because most of us have the sense to know that ten levels after first meeting ogres it would be a tedious and boring grindfest to use them as they were when they were a threat ten levels ago.

It's like his criticism of variable difficulty classes that relies on him taking the interpretation he likes the least and then railing against that.

Huh? Are you saying there are no minions in 4E?

I've run combats similar to a dozen ogres against a 10th level party, I did not find it "grindy". Had to run it as something other than the ogres showing up in fireball formation and have actual goals and some tactics and if I had more than a dozen of anything I'd start using mob rules, but it can make for interesting encounters for me. YMMV of course, if you just stand there and stab each other until dead and all.

I'm not "railing against" anything. Just explaining a preference. You do know that people can have preferences without making naughty word up, right?

 

[Neonchameleon]

In 4E? I use a different stat block if the PCs have advanced more than a few levels. If Kersh is such a low level that he's no longer a big threat he loses all his HP while increasing his defenses and attack roll modifier.

The big question here is what has Kersh been doing while the PCs have advanced about ten levels? Remember that from normal to minion is an eight level gap in XP.

• If Kersh has done nothing but sat on his thumb while the PCs have advanced ten levels then he is going to be a joke in literally any edition. A ten level gap is huge.
• If Kersh hasn't just sat on his thumb but has learned or grown then you're going to have to use a different statblock anyway.

So your entire issue here is that 4e gives two ways of handling monsters that are reduced to jokes because they have been outlevelled.

There are pluses an minuses to either approach. But to me the connection between Kersh the Ogre Savage and Kersh the Ogre Thug are nebulous at best because they are built differently; he went from being a brute to a minion.

OK. There are two things here:

• If you don't like doing this then don't do it. Your entire whine here is "4e gives me this option it doesn't force me to use. I don't like that people have options in 4e".
• You are misrepresenting the rules. The Solo/Elite/Normal/Minion scale is entirely independent from the Brute/Solo/Artillery/Skirmisher/Lurker scale. There are solo lurkers and brute minions. So he did not go from being a brute to a minion. He went from being a normal or possibly even elite brute to a minion brute. Because he's no longer elite when compared to the PCs.

Now please (a) stop misrepresenting rules that it's very obvious you don't understand and (b) taking the approach to the rules you like least and pretending that it's the only approach to doing things.

Why are you so obsessed with 4e? Me I think it's an excellent game. What is it that draws you to all the 4e threads?

 

[Oofta]

It's a worthy iteration on the 4e rules. But what it doesn't do is enable the "minionizing" that the 4e rules make possible and that Oofta so detests. Essentially they have a fifth of expected hit points and no benefit for people who probably don't belong in this fight; the minionisation being talked about also involves going up eight levels to keep the XP and expected threat the same without the grind-fest of a 708 hit point fight against a dozen ogres.

When, exactly, did I say I detest minions? What I said was that I prefer 5E's method of handling it. Stop making naughty word up, please.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Huh? Are you saying there are no minions in 4E?

No. I'm suggesting that 4e doesn't suggest minionising the same ogres. Please try not to strawman.

I've run combats similar to a dozen ogres against a 10th level party, I did not find it "grindy".

Try talking to your players. As a DM you always have a lot to do when you have a lot of monsters with a lot of hit points. As a player? Not so much.

I'm not "railing against" anything. Just explaining a preference. You do know that people can have preferences without making naughty word up, right?

Your preference has been explained in interminable detail. And it seems to rely on taking the least sensible interpretation of the rules and then saying that's how it must be done.

 

[Neonchameleon]

When, exactly, did I say I detest minions? What I said was that I prefer 5E's method of handling it. Stop making naughty word up, please.

At this point I am pretty sure I am being trolled.

Minionizing is the process of turning something into a minion. Not a minion actually existing. And it's that that you are objecting to.

But I can't be bothered with this. Goodbye.