You Never Pit 9th Lvl Minions Against 1st Lvl PCs.

[pawsplay]

In a situation where that Orc is more powerful than what he is fighting, the DM would simply remove the "Minion" designation and restore his actual HP value.

Which is... what?

The thread concerning Orc Minions slapping one another to death is rediculous because the Orcs would not be designated "Minions" in a scenario where they were fighting each other; rather, the DM would simply give them HP appropriate to their level and then let them go at it.

Alas, players are rarely so cooperative.

 

[Eyada]

Which is... what?

IIRC, the previewed Orc "Minion" was 9th level, so I'll use that as a baseline for my examples below.

(1.) Scenario where Orc Warriors are not "Minions", and should be given appropriate HP values by the DM.

A small trio of frightened villagers huddle together on the old, crumbled remains of what used to be the Kings' Head Fort. They desperately scan their small, tattered map for any clues to help them find their way back to the Northern Road. Suddenly, five ferocious Orcish warriors burst from the surrounding overgrowth and surround the horrified farmers. The three men draw out what few weapons they have with trembling hands, knowing that they stand no real chance in this battle.

In this scenario, the Orc Warriors would all be given HP appropriate for a 9th Level Soldier because they are vastly superior combatants.

(2.) Scenario where Orc Warriors are "Minions", and should be considered to have 1 HP.

The three lost villagers abandon their map and cry out in relief as a retinue of mounted knights appear from the overgrowth surrounding Kings' Head. One of the villagers recognizes the knights' leader as none other than Sir Alaric d'Tvoul, master swordsman and renowned general. Just as the two parties approach to exchange greetings, an Orcish raiding party bursts from the surrounding trees.

In this scenario, the Orc Warriors would be "Minions" because Lord Alaric and his personal vanguard greatly outclass their combat abilities. The two Orcish Bloodragers that are leading the charge, however, are most certainly not "Minions", and will probably cause a lot of pain before they fall.


It's all in the presentation, really. Monsters are only "Minions" if it suits the story for them to be referred to as such.

 

[MortalPlague]

...narrative stuff...

Well posted.

I really don't know why so many people seem to be having trouble with the concept of a minion. They don't really have a single hit point; if they cut themselves shaving, they will not die. They are simply treated as a monster that will go down with one solid blow, no matter how much damage that does for the purpose of keeping the game moving.

If you can't accept a monster that goes down in one shot, just substitute some low level orcs, or give the minions some hit points and bump the xp value up.

 

[Gort]

Yep. There isn't actually anything forcing people to use minions at all. If it's such a dealbreaker for you, just use the normal monsters.

It's just nice to be able to pit your first level party against thirty goblins and have a huge brawl.

 

[Aria Silverhands]

Yep. There isn't actually anything forcing people to use minions at all. If it's such a dealbreaker for you, just use the normal monsters.

It's just nice to be able to pit your first level party against thirty goblins and have a huge brawl.

Yup! I've run some 3.5 combats with minion style npc's thrown into the mix and it really made the combats a lot more interesting and entertaining for both the players and myself.

 

[pemerton]

IIRC, the previewed Orc "Minion" was 9th level, so I'll use that as a baseline for my examples below.

(1.) Scenario where Orc Warriors are not "Minions", and should be given appropriate HP values by the DM.

<snip>

In this scenario, the Orc Warriors would all be given HP appropriate for a 9th Level Soldier because they are vastly superior combatants.

(2.) Scenario where Orc Warriors are "Minions", and should be considered to have 1 HP.

In this scenario, the Orc Warriors would be "Minions" because Lord Alaric and his personal vanguard greatly outclass their combat abilities. The two Orcish Bloodragers that are leading the charge, however, are most certainly not "Minions", and will probably cause a lot of pain before they fall.

I think I prefer Fallen Seraph's approach: it is not a question of simplifying play in response to relative character power. Rather, minion status is a narrative decision by the GM to cede a certain type of opportunity for excitement/glory/massacre to the PCs. In your scenarios above, which seem to be NPC vs NPC, whether the orcs should be treated as minions or not would depend on what narrative goal the GM had in mind. Does he want the huddling villagers to unexpectedly triumph? Or the shining knights (at least some of them) to have their heads handed to them on a stick? If so, maybe your suggestions should be reversed.

 

[hong]

I think I prefer Fallen Seraph's approach: it is not a question of simplifying play in response to relative character power. Rather, minion status is a narrative decision by the GM to cede a certain type of opportunity for excitement/glory/massacre to the PCs.

YES. Minions are an opportunity for the PCs to showboat. I'm glad somone said it.

Just like the eladrin's fey step. Jeez louise ppl, why do you want to take away a PC's ability to showboat?

 

[pemerton]

Alas, players are rarely so cooperative.

I think the notion that D&D is a suitable vehicle for any style of play is one that is due for abandonment. And it seems that 4e may well produce this result.

If players want to play hardcore simulationism in which fistfights between orc NPCs are modelled down to the last bruised knuckle, there is RQ (now available as an Open Game, I understand) or RM (recently released as RM Classic by ICE) or (a certain interpretation of) 3E. For elegant and simple gameplay I think that RQ is the best of these, but for metagaming of character build it is hard to go past RM. 3E seems to me to have the complexity of RM without the flexibility. (I don't know the points-buy options, like GURPS or Fantasy Hero, well enough to comment on them.)

My guess is that WoTC agree with Ron Edwards that hardcore simulationism is not the best way to attract new players to RPGs, and hence that going with a ruleset that supports game play over simulationism (whether that be narrativist or gamist play, or a somewhat incoherent mix of both) is a better bet.

 

[Wolfspider]

I really don't know why so many people seem to be having trouble with the concept of a minion. They don't really have a single hit point....

I've read this claim several times from different posters, and I really don't know how people are able to make it considering the previews we have seen. Minions (at least the ones we've seen in the various D&D previews) DO have a single hit point. Let me quote from the Orc excerpt:

"HP 1"

Seems pretty clear to me....

 

[pemerton]

YES. Minions are an opportunity for the PCs to showboat. I'm glad somone said it.

I'm pleased to have pleased! But if you read the rest of my post, you'll see that I was embedding the opportunity to showboat within a broader and more sophisticated context of narrative development. The showboatin means something.

why do you want to take away a PC's ability to showboat?

I don't understand why those who like gritty simulationism aren't playing the games that do it well, like RQ and RM.