Zero to Hero!

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

PCs vs. minions isn't really the main comparison though. The post above yours for instance, mentions minions once, in the same sentence that he says "and most level 1 standard opponents can't down a PC in a single attack."

Sure, but the post above that one contains multiple minion-centric paragraphs, which is what I was really responding to.

Which is true. I've never seen a character in 4e drop in a single attack. Earlier editions though, it was not an uncommon occurrence.

As Dice4Hire just said, that's how the game is built. If you consider head-shotting low level characters a feature, you simply aren't going to like 4e as much as other games. 4e characters aren't faceless soldiers or direct descendents of wargame pieces. They have more invested in them and tend therefore to stick around longer. Personally, I wouldn't want to go to the effort necessary to roll up a 4e character and then have it die to the first goblin it bumped into. When that happened in 2e, I laughed and spent 45 seconds rolling up another character. The first time it happened in 3e, I did some mental math of my invested time versus the in-game return on that time and never played a low hp character at 1st level again.

 

[marelion]

I think Skyscraper does have a point when arguing about relative and absolute power. That is what carries the day for the DM in 4E.


Yes, PCs are quite popwerful al level 1, but then again, so are their opponents. Those skinny, little goblins with their shortbows and short swords are frightnening to the farmer in the west of Cormyr because they can kill him with one strike (asuming that by the standards of 4E that farmer is a minion). Thus, the party of beginning adventurers is really compelled to try and engage the goblins, knowing that they are the only ones around who will not fall prey to a warband of 6-7 goblins. And the group will still feel heroic after beating the goblins even if it was easier than the encounter would have neen in previous editions. Noting that the encounter would have been more difficult in 3E is unfair meta-criticism in my opinion. 4E and 3E are entirely independent systems.

In 4E both the characters and their players get the feeling that they are responsible for the welfare of the villagers, whereas in previous editions you would have to apply to the characters` ideals or their greed and hope that the players enjoy the show your NPCs pull off in order to get the party involved in their mess. The villagers could as simply have massed up as the proverbial angry mob armed with torches and clubs and driven the goblins out all by themselves instead of waiting for a group of so called `heroes`.

In 4E a charsmatic character might still try to convince the villagers to pick up their arms and fight for themselves but he will very soon realize just how weak and clumsy they are in comparison to him. If he has any common sense he will disassembly his little militia as quickly as he had gathered it and face the goblins with the rest of the party, knowing that those poor villagers would not have stood the ghost of a chance in any fight that is more serious than a little brawl in the local pub.

IMO, 4E helps improve the heroes self-confidence and closes the gap between players` ambitions and their image of their characters` being heroes and their characters` unabilty to perform as such at the lower levels.

To me, D&D was always about heroic fantasy. If you were only like Joe Doe, then why would you be chosen for the most fatal tasks? It often felt far fetched in campaigns in previous editions I ran why it was me as the character and not the girl from next door to rise to global fame, given that she was just as capable as a wizard´s apprentice as my character was by the time that he left.

A campaign about heroes arising as such has its very own charm, but to me 4E is not a system that encourages this style of gameplay. 4E D&D simply is not the number 1 system for simulatory gameplay with its simplified mechanics.

 

[Klaus]

Like you say: the DM can make the game as deadly as he wants.

I think the question is: assuming the DM is not out to kill the PCs, he's just playing it out with moderately easy encounters, how likely is it that the PCs will die nonetheless?

Again, in 1E-3E, a single basic-attack sword, hand axe, quarterstaff or mace stroke from a run-of-the-mill minion could down one PC. I'm not even talking about stronger opponents or those wielding stronger weapons such as a greataxe or the like.

In 4E, only stronger opponents with relatively powerful encounter powers can one-shot a PC. Minions are far from threatening, and most level 1 standard opponents can't down a PC in a single attack.

To veer the discussion back closer to topic: the OP complained that 4e PCs were heroes from the get-go, with no real threat involved. As myself and others have said, a 4e game can be threatening, just use the tools the system gives. A DM using 4e has greater control over the game's deadliness "dial" (to use a trendy word these days) than in earlier editions.

 

[Raikun]

Sure, but the post above that one contains multiple minion-centric paragraphs, which is what I was really responding to.

That post wasn't about minions as much as it was about the variety in the 4e power structure compared to past editions.

As Dice4Hire just said, that's how the game is built.

So we're in agreement. =)
I'm personally glad 4e is built with the PCs being more survivable than past editions. It'd become a running joke in some campaigns that players wouldn't even name their characters until they'd survived until level 2 because of the high death rate.

 

[Skyscraper]

Man talking about minions on online D&D forums is like putting your hands in a basket full of crabs

Alright, forget about the minions and my view on them. Ignore those passages and take the rest of the message away in my posts.

Peace,

Sky

p.s.: and just to be clear, on the matter of power level: my level 4 warlord is The Most Powerful Creature Ever! And that's an absolute!

 

[MerricB]

(Actually, I think magic missile should never have been added to D&D, way back when. How different would the game look now without that particular spell? )

In actual fact, it was added in Supplement I: Greyhawk, which gave us other dubious benefits such as different dice of damage for weapons (previously, all weapons did d6 damage) and ability score modifiers, and that most dubious of benefits, the thief character class.

Cheers!

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

That post wasn't about minions as much as it was about the variety in the 4e power structure compared to past editions.

So we're in agreement. =)

You and I? More or less, yeah

But what I object to is this:

But assuming that level 1 minions exist galore, I think the level 1 PC is quite the hero because your ordinary townsfolk or farmer is likely to be a level 1 minion. Thus, most people he crosses on the road is a level 1 minion compared to him, which makes him the hero.

This isn't entirely coherent. If you fight a crowd of farmers, for example, they might be a single entity in combat: "Swarm of Farmers." Or they might be 6 minions, two brutes, and a leader. They could be just a pile of minions, but that's not going to be a very fun or interesting bit of gaming and is a poor use of the concept "minion" in 4e.

I'm not explaining myself well...... Saying "most farmers are level 1 minions" is taking the abstractions of hit points and the combat system and trying to give them "real world" analogs. That was a poor idea even in 3e, which actually had some simulationist trappings, but it's worse in 4e.

Minions aren't minions when no one has rolled initiative. They only exist to support the mechanics of combat. Requiring them to have those characteristics all the time is like deciding that actual Bishops are only allowed to walk across their churches on the diagonal because of the game of Chess.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Yep, and thanks to healing surges and the increased number of healing effects, as well as giving PCs the time to live long enough to use them...it gives them a big boost in survivability vs the kobolds/etc. compared to past editions.

Well, I lost track of the goalpoosts are right now, so I'll just stop.

 

[ourchair]

I agree with the idea that a game's lethality is not edition-bound, but DM-determined.

I do not consider 1st level 4E characters as heroes.

I agree with this.

I think these characters may have heroic qualities, heroic power levels when compared to the average Tiefling, Dragonborn and Human but that doesn't make them heroes. To me, 4E characters are heroes when they start pursuing heroic goals.

Spending your first levels -- a range which can depend on the DM from 'first three levels' to 'the entire heroic tier' -- killing kobolds and minor dragons and stealing their stuff, while saving the town from the lizardfolk encampment is merely the 'general education' basics before you start really hero-ing into a major whether that's "Hero of Arts in Deity Serving" or "Hero of Science in Arcane Discoveries"

Which is why it bothers me when DMs assume otherwise, simply so they can have an excuse to foist their 'epic plot of mega awesomeness' and start throwing gods, destiny and The Fate of the World upon players who are still trying to get a handle on their characters.

 

[Grabuto138]

And since monsters are not just relative but also PC-centric, a goblic may be a minion when fighting a PC, but would become a level-appropriate monster if he was fighting a farmer. (Which, I suppose, could happen if a DM did some sort of cut-away encounter during a dream sequence, or wanted to run a "meanwhile, back on your family's farm, B-plot.)