But having 20-40 monsters currently in 3.5 slows down combat incredibly. I've run several battles with a large number (more than 20) of enemies and in both cases I wished that I had at least done them differently because they those extra creatures just took too much time to run for the benefit they had on the session.
All those extra attack rolls and turns just take up time.
The masses of monsters end up getting in the way of each other in such a way that few can contribute the battle and then the battle becomes trivial for the PCs.
It is often the case in my experience that while area of effect spells are most effective against these creatures, these spells don't kill them with one casting, leaving me trying to keep track of the hit points and special conditions for many creatures.
While I believe using weak minions in battles is a option for 3.5, I certainly believe that it can be better.
|
Please no minions.
Want minions ?
Take first level orc barbarian with 1hp.
Give them 20 str for +5 then rage to +7 then bull's strength to +9
Then give them those famous drow made items from 1e which rot after a few hours in the sun to +5. Let's say they just have a few minutes left ...
Here you are : 1 hp orc with +14 hit and damage
You don't need rules for everything, get out of the straightjacket, and give your monsters whatever you want.
Another vote against minion rules in Pathfinder...
The reasons already have been exposed by a lot of previous posters.
The minion rule is just another thing that made me cringe about 4E when I read it. Well, one among many things that made me cringe. The whole rational behind the concept seems to be to provide the appearance of danger without the substance and to burn some of the players time. Don't really need a special "minion" template to do that. Any DM can manage that with a little thought...
The minion rule is just another thing that made me cringe about 4E when I read it. Well, one among many things that made me cringe. The whole rational behind the concept seems to be to provide the appearance of danger without the substance and to burn some of the players time. Don't really need a special "minion" template to do that. Any DM can manage that with a little thought...
What? I'm not sure how you managed to get to that conclusion about the "rational." It just seems to be the same as having many kobolds attacking you at low levels, only at all levels.
|
20 to 30 monsters does slow down combat which is why the minions concept is such a welcome addition, it gives DMs the option to use that number of opponents to create more diversified encounters without bogging down the combat.
A lot of people are against it purely based on the concept that mob rules do the job, as pointed out by a number of people the mob rules offer a different encounter entirely to what minions do. Mobs are perfect for handling encounters of the same creature and in the case of more than 25 opponents I would recommend using the mob rules instead of minions.
As for those simply saying be inventive and make up rules yourself while that may work for the experienced DMs, newer DMs would probably not even know about modifying the rules in such a way. I'll admit, I myself (a DM for 20 years) haven't actually considered this concept before now, it is just one of those things that you dont really think about until someone else suggests it.
Now that I have heard about it however I can see hundreds of uses for this concept and would see it bringing much more interest to the game. To see it included in pathfinder would help new and old DMs alike (and as a side note it would be a nice way of handling the leadership feat).
Because minions die in one hit.The solution is already built into the system...
If you wanted to simulate minions for higher level characters, say hill giants for instance, why not just give them the minimum hps that they could possibly get?
The difference between hill giants that abstractly "die in one hit" (which would require a new rule) and hill giants with 12 hp (which would not require a new rule; just give them a low Con and roll badly) is pretty minor.
The minion rules for 4e look kind of interesting, but I agree with the sentiment: "If you want to play 4e, play 4e."
|
|
I been chatting with a friend and we have considered a number of useful situations for a minion template...
use minion templates on summoned creatures both through abilities (demons and devils) and the summon spells, on npcs from the leadership feat for players, for mounts or other beasts of burden, and perhaps even as part of living traps or spells (living wall?)?
The minion rule is just another thing that made me cringe about 4E when I read it. Well, one among many things that made me cringe. The whole rational behind the concept seems to be to provide the appearance of danger without the substance and to burn some of the players time. Don't really need a special "minion" template to do that. Any DM can manage that with a little thought...What? I'm not sure how you managed to get to that conclusion about the "rational." It just seems to be the same as having many kobolds attacking you at low levels, only at all levels.
Oops, left off an "e". There are plenty of monsters which can be a nuisance at different PC levels. That's the point.
|
What I am curious about with minion rules is what happens when you get monsters with strange abilities:
Medusa Minions: no petrification?
Minotaur Minions: no gore attack?
Will all minions be bland, stale cookie-cutter meatshields?
Also, to respond to those who say running 20-30 monsters is time consuming, as far as I know minions still have an AC and a to-hit roll, so there is basically the same amount of rolling, they are just individually more effective.
The "death in one hit" thing might work in 4th edition rules, but in 3rd edition it becomes trivial. The Sorcerer says "I fireball the room" and every minion dies, because in 3rd Edition the Sorcerer knows that everything takes damage from fireball, unless you give all minions Improved Evasion.
4th Edition does a lot of suggesting to just pick numbers that are level appropriate. If your players tolerate this, then you can do that in 3rd edition anyway. Just roll the dice and say "They hit." (Not that I do this, or recommend doing it to any group).
|
|
A lot of people are against it purely based on the concept that mob rules do the job, as pointed out by a number of people the mob rules offer a different encounter entirely to what minions do. Mobs are perfect for handling encounters of the same creature and in the case of more than 25 opponents I would recommend using the mob rules instead of minions.
Actually, the majority of the posts are against the mechanic because they state it doesn't fit 3.x and is not needed as an official rule. The mob mechanic has only been used as a suggested alternative.
Thus the argument is not "do not use minions because we have mobs", its "do not use minions. IF you really need to, try using mobs instead. But do not use minions"
|
What I am curious about with minion rules is what happens when you get monsters with strange abilities:
Medusa Minions: no petrification?
Minotaur Minions: no gore attack?
Will all minions be bland, stale cookie-cutter meatshields?
Also, to respond to those who say running 20-30 monsters is time consuming, as far as I know minions still have an AC and a to-hit roll, so there is basically the same amount of rolling, they are just individually more effective.
The "death in one hit" thing might work in 4th edition rules, but in 3rd edition it becomes trivial. The Sorcerer says "I fireball the room" and every minion dies, because in 3rd Edition the Sorcerer knows that everything takes damage from fireball, unless you give all minions Improved Evasion.
4th Edition does a lot of suggesting to just pick numbers that are level appropriate. If your players tolerate this, then you can do that in 3rd edition anyway. Just roll the dice and say "They hit." (Not that I do this, or recommend doing it to any group).
Never used a minotaur as a minion. But if the PCs are about to fight something that can keep dozens of CR4 Chaotic Evil beasties as minions they had better be kick ass powerful. Seriously I don't see any problem with gore or their charge. Just another type of attack. Mass of minions of this power would be a challenge.
The Medusa on the other hand is not suited for minion work. First I can't see them working in groups no matter how powerful the boss creature is. And special attacks like petrification are best saved for more epic encounters.
Minions are the old standby badguys. Humans (soldiers or massed members of the thieves guild), Orcs, Goblins, Kobolds etc that without a minion mechanic force the GM to advance smaller groups of these enemies to higher level just to give the PCs a challenge. I like the idea of cutting through a tide of lesser critters to get to the boss. So far no complaints from players on these mechanics.
|
|
Also, to respond to those who say running 20-30 monsters is time consuming, as far as I know minions still have an AC and a to-hit roll, so there is basically the same amount of rolling, they are just individually more effective.
Minions have fixed damage (4 instead of 1d6 for example) which eliminates a damage roll and 4e uses attack rolls with spells so no rolling 20-30 saves.
Trimming the unnecessary dice rolls is the main effort of the minion concept but eliminating them entirely isn't a good idea. the idea of the 1 hp rule is something that should definitely be changed if this system was to work for 3.5 simply because at higher levels the 1 hp rule makes no sense what-so-ever, yeah it may work in 4e but I think we are all in agreement that 4e is a different game.
I still cant see why so many people universally hate everything that 4e is doing though, I personally see good things in 4e but as a whole the concept just doesn't fit D&D for me.
I wonder if people would react in the same way if someone mentioned we incorporate an idea from Warhammer FRP? would they turn round and say if you want to play WFRP go play WFRP? perhaps they would, just seems a little short sighted to me.
4e isn't perfect but its not totally flawed either but then again neither is 3.5 perfect or we wouldn't be here right now helping pathfinder improve it.
|
|
Minions have fixed damage (4 instead of 1d6 for example) which eliminates a damage roll and 4e uses attack rolls with spells so no rolling 20-30 saves.
Trimming the unnecessary dice rolls is the main effort of the minion concept but eliminating them entirely isn't a good idea. the idea of the 1 hp rule is something that should definitely be changed if this system was to work for 3.5 simply because at higher levels the 1 hp rule makes no sense what-so-ever, yeah it may work in 4e but I think we are all in agreement that 4e is a different game.
Funny that I stumbled upon this thread today. I just learned about "minions" as it pertains to 4E yesterday while speaking to my closest friend whom I've gamed with since 94. He and I are very similar in all aspects of taste and flavor of the games. He is very excited about 4E, and just got the new module and says it looks great. My choice to stay 3rd edition was originally just as much for fiscal sense (as I have invested so much money in it) as it was for having negative opinions about much of what I've heard of 4E; later simply throwing in the towel with WotC and not wanting to support them anymore., - Paizo opting for staying and making PF-RPG made the decision that much easier. He likes PF too, he just has more disposable income than I do, so he can switch and try out 4E where I chose not to. That all being said - although I'm sticking with 3.5 and PF - that doesn't mean that all things I've heard of 4E are terrible. I wont spend money on it - but i'm not closed minded enough not to consider an idea is a good one or not.
Nonetheless, as he told me about the 'minions' I really saw how cool of a concept that was. As DM - if you want "kobolds" to be challenging to 8th level characters, you have to give them a bunch of class levels in order to have a chance to do any damage to them. But having 10 6th level warrior kobolds plus the BBEG in the combat can be TOO challenging - mainly because the "minions" in this scenario can hang around for several rounds as they have enough hit points to.
The minions concept allows them to have all potential to hurt the PCs (slightly) and be a thorn, and get in the way and be meatshields for the BBEG, without having to really be a truly deadly factor, and not spend so much time on tedious or supurfluous dice-rolling - in theory speeding up combat. They have the AC, the saves, and skills of a creature commensurate of a tougher creature so as to be a legitimate danger and not one to simply ignore, but hit points are lacking and their damage output is reduced in order to simply not hang around round after round making the combats go into "garbage time" as I like to call it (where things just get tedious and repetitive) and that they dont pose an overbearing threat since they can be dispatched easily enough - in a round or two. I can truly see the merit of things like this in 3.X ed of D&D as well and during the phone conversation that he mentioned this, I said to him that this is something that can be borrowed and made playable for 3rd edition and has a level of appeal to it. Someone mentioned the concept of giants as minions and the PCs having to fight through them to get to the BBEG - which would be a very lengthy combat and devastating to a party - but the prospect of doing so in a quicker and more cinematic style just sounded awesome!
True the Mob rules are similar in nature - but not the same thing; and one could modify the mob rules to make this feasible. I can. Many DMs can. Many can't. I never even thought of the concept of Minions and I've been playing D&D for over 25 years. So clearly, providing these kinds of concepts and ideas for mechanics if valuable beyond just general musings.
Now I know in 4E, the spell system is going to be vastly different and have truly no idea how it will work out, and in 3rd ed I admit it would be a problem (or not be a problem in this case) for the PCs as they have access to simply using an 8HD fireball - truly destroying all minions in one fell swoop - probably NOT what the design mentality of minions was in the first place.
As I read through this thread I began to wonder how I would make such a thing. Someone suggested a template (for backwards compatibility) and I think that is a good starting point.
Aspects of the template include: AC, Skills, Saves, HD same as base creature (after levels applied). Hit points equals MINIMUM hit points for creature. Attacks: Same as creature - but only one attack allowed. Damage: set a finite amount of fixed damage. Either "Half-Maximum" (avg). OR 2 x the CR of the base creature (I lean more towards this). So a 10th level fighter minion would do 20 points of damage with a successful hit - but can only make one attack a round. As for being recipients of spells: takes half damage from all spells. (Save for half spells do 1/4 w/ successful saves).
As a template - we can suspend disbelief since most templates do break the normal rules of a creatures that we come to rely on. (such as a vampiric dragon, a ghost beholder, a Tauric Salamandar, a Half-Fiend Pegasus)
As for the numbers for Giant minions:
Hill Giant: CR7 minion; Hit Points: 60, Damage (shown with ideas: half Max: 13 or 2x CR: 14) One attack per round at +16
Stone Giant: CR8 minion; HP: 70, Damage 14 or 16, one attack per round at +17
Frost Giant: CR9 minion; HP: 84, Damage 16 or 18, one attack per round at +18
Fire Giant: CR10 minion; HP: 90, Damage 17 or 20, one attack per round at +20
Cloud Giant: CR11 minion; HP: 119, Damage 21 or 22, one attack per round at +22
Now the hit point seem high for a 'minion' but that is minimum and for a party to fight 10 of these as minions, they're going to be pretty bad-ass party and I'll bet most of the time a fighter or barbarian of equal level could dispatch one such minion in one full-attack round.
For more standard minion - imagine a 10th level Orc Fighter w/ Greataxe and weapon specialization: 22STR, 14 CON. CR10 minion; HP 30; Damage 12 or 20 one attack per round at +19
Here the damage dealt by minion is the most diparity between the examples - which is why i favor the 2xCR as 12 points to a party that will be fighting 10th fighters as a minion would barely feel 12 points of damage. Either way 30 points of damage from a PC commensurate of a level to be fighting said minions is not that hard to attain - killing a minion in one round - possibly one single attack.
All in all, I think it has merit and certainly a practical and fun application to the game.
Robert
|
|
I thought minions might be interesting, but then I saw the WoTC stats for the Legion Devil.
Why would you create a Level 21 creature with Fie Resistance, Teleport, AC 37, High Saves and only 1 hp? It just doesn't make sense to me.
What is to stop a player from recognizing a minion for what it is and just slaping out of the way? I mean a good B!tchslap does at least 1 hp damage, right?
In the Wicked Fantasy Factory adventures from Goodman Games, some creatures are designated "Mooks". When you face them, every PC is considered to have the Cleave feat (Improved Cleave if you already have it) and all Crits are automatic.
I have toyed around with mooks (minions) before. Typically if a creature can survive only one or two hits by a PC, I will turn them into mooks. They may still be capable of inflicting harm, but they drop easily. This allows me to set up big fights where the PCs carve through grunt troops to get to the BBG. Some guidelines may be useful for new DMs and players, but I don't think a template is needed.
I do find that minions work best when the players have faced the same creatures at different levels (in larger number), until they are really no longer a challenge. A that point they become great minions.
|
|
Just a general please, please, NO. Minions is just another name for a 1-hp creature. It's more 4e marketing to make you think it is somehow innovative or solving a problem you didn't have.
At this point, let 4e be 4e. We've got Pathfinder over here and the last thing my players and I want is to integrate anything from 4E.
Minions. Minionions. Sheesh!
-DM Jeff
Why would you create a Level 21 creature with Fie Resistance, Teleport, AC 37, High Saves and only 1 hp? It just doesn't make sense to me.
What is to stop a player from recognizing a minion for what it is and just slaping out of the way? I mean a good B!tchslap does at least 1 hp damage, right?
I believe part of the point is that you will only really send it against level 21 groups. It is not 3rd edition, where you might be able to use several CR 12 monsters against a level 16 party and then use a single one of those monsters against a level 8 party. In 4th edition I think that you would just build a different set of stats for each of those encounters.
Just a general please, please, NO. Minions is just another name for a 1-hp creature. It's more 4e marketing to make you think it is somehow innovative or solving a problem you didn't have.
But ... I did have that problem. I ran several encounters that put the party against 20+ creatures and it just slowed the combat to a crawl.
---
I would like to say to everyone. Don't ignore things WotC does for 4E just because they are doing it for 4E. This might not work well in 3.5 rules, but most of the comments against it have taken the form "Don't do it, anything from 4E sucks!"
I'm not saying that adding in generic minion templates is appropriate, but I would prefer if ideas were not just shot down just because they are in 4E.
|
|
I would like to say to everyone. Don't ignore things WotC does for 4E just because they are doing it for 4E. This might not work well in 3.5 rules, but most of the comments against it have taken the form "Don't do it, anything from 4E sucks!"
I don't think 4e sucks, I think if you want stuff from 4e, play 4e.
-DM Jeff
I would like to say to everyone. Don't ignore things WotC does for 4E just because they are doing it for 4E. This might not work well in 3.5 rules, but most of the comments against it have taken the form "Don't do it, anything from 4E sucks!"I don't think 4e sucks, I think if you want stuff from 4e, play 4e.
-DM Jeff
But can't there be some overlap between stuff in 3.5 and stuff from 4e?
Edit: I'm not in favor of adding something to PRPG just because it is in 4E. It is just because some "problem" was addressed in 4e I don't want it to be ignored in PRPG.
Minions have fixed damage (4 instead of 1d6 for example) which eliminates a damage roll and 4e uses attack rolls with spells so no rolling 20-30 saves.
Trimming the unnecessary dice rolls is the main effort of the minion concept but eliminating them entirely isn't a good idea. the idea of the 1 hp rule is something that should definitely be changed if this system was to work for 3.5 simply because at higher levels the 1 hp rule makes no sense what-so-ever, yeah it may work in 4e but I think we are all in agreement that 4e is a different game.
Funny that I stumbled upon this thread today. I just learned about "minions" as it pertains to 4E yesterday while speaking to my closest friend whom I've gamed with since 94. He and I are very similar in all aspects of taste and flavor of the games. He is very excited about 4E, and just got the new module and says it looks great. My choice to stay 3rd edition was originally just as much for fiscal sense (as I have invested so much money in it) as it was for having negative opinions about much of what I've heard of 4E; later simply throwing in the towel with WotC and not wanting to support them anymore., - Paizo opting for staying and making PF-RPG made the decision that much easier. He likes PF too, he just has more disposable income than I do, so he can switch and try out 4E where I chose not to. That all being said - although I'm sticking with 3.5 and PF - that doesn't mean that all things I've heard of 4E are terrible. I wont spend money on it - but i'm not closed minded enough not to consider an idea is a good one or not.
Nonetheless, as he told me about the 'minions' I really saw how cool of a concept that was. As DM - if you want "kobolds" to be challenging to 8th level characters, you have to give them a bunch of class levels in order to have a chance to do any damage to them. But having 10 6th level warrior kobolds plus the BBEG in the combat can be TOO challenging - mainly because the "minions" in this scenario...
It may have been me who suggested giant minions. I'll be trying a concept similar to this this weekend... in a city of giants! Basically, I'm going to use the absolute minimum hps that the giants could have. I've looked at their statistics (Dungeon 133) and while they hit very well, their damage isn't that great in relation to my player's PCs. I predict the 2 fighter's and ranger in the group will have a blast. They've been cajolling me for a huge battle royal for a while... they're gonna get one :)
|
|
Just a general please, please, NO. Minions is just another name for a 1-hp creature. It's more 4e marketing to make you think it is somehow innovative or solving a problem you didn't have.
At this point, let 4e be 4e. We've got Pathfinder over here and the last thing my players and I want is to integrate anything from 4E.
Minions. Minionions. Sheesh!
-DM Jeff
So if you're uncomfortable with idea of using the word "minion" becasue 4E used it. Well, you're in luck, because I'm sure that WotC will not allow it to be used in conjunction with earlier editions.
So we can change the name to Mook, Meatshield, Fodder, or whatever else seems to fit the bill.
And my suggestion was far from 1 hit point - thus the concerns for b!tch-slapping aside, and town guard helping out is not a big problem.
At this point, to be technical - most of the PF game is going to be based on 3rd edition rules - which were originally established by WotC; so what is the difference if you take an applicable and interesting concept from them again?
I've seen people on these boards try to integrate concepts from TrueD20, Iron Kingdoms, Gurps, Warhammer, Mutants&Masterminds, StarWars RPG and others - are are never told - "Nothing that so-and-so game. If you want to play so-and-so, then go play so-and-so.
I'm not advocating that rules or systems be put in place to change the dynamics of the game, but what is the harm or foul of offering and considering a sensible idea that is practical and worth doing that provides an OPTION to use as DM for an encounter. Hey if a DM doesn't like Slaads in his campaign, he doesn't use them.
This is not the same thing as suggesting we change major game-related concepts like swapping out Paladins for Swashbucklers, or changing the attack rolls to rolling 5d4 instead of a d20 or making spells 20 levels of spells instead of 9; this is an option template suggestion for adding a DM option for encounters - not unlike adding a new creature to the bestiary; and ultimately will not affect a PC or the game as a whole for that matter.
I am by no means a supporter of 4E. I have no desire to switch, and I have no love for WotC at all (anymore), but I have seen some pretty close-minded comments from people during these discussions that are not productive in any ways.
Hey if you don't like something and have a legitimate game-reason concern for mechanical, flavor, balance etc, then by all means mention that, lets discuss that and lets explore the ramifications of it and be part of a solution. Someone pointed out that the problem could be that town-guards can kill the mooks/meatshields/fodder or that can easily be ignored and slapped away for 1 point of damage. Thats a legitimate concern and certainly holds a lot more water for why not to try something than just a predjudiced mentality of "If it's in 4E then it's not for me!" Such close-mindedness isn't complimentary of a game founded on using creativity and imagination. However, as I pointed out above, my brainstormings on how to make it applicable to the 3.5 arena makes it much more unlikely for this to be a valid concern.
No one is trying to turn PF into 4E. No one is suggesting to adopt 4E rules verbatim. My suggestion for a mooks/meatshields/fodder I'm sure is nothing like the minions of 4th edition from a mechanics standpoint. In flavor and theory, yes. But if were wanting to rule out anything of PF-RPG simply because it's flavor and theory are similar to something in 4th E, you'd have to remove most of what D&D is founded on. Wizards and Sorcerers for instance are already getting "per round abilities" in Pathfinder that gives them that little advantage being given to them in 4E. So lets not pretend this is the first thing to be suggested, considered, or adapted that resembles a concept in 4E.
|
|
It may have been me who suggested giant minions. I'll be trying a concept similar to this this weekend... in a city of giants! Basically, I'm going to use the absolute minimum hps that the giants could have. I've looked at their statistics (Dungeon 133) and while they hit very well, their damage isn't that great in relation to my player's PCs. I predict the 2 fighter's and ranger in the group will have a blast. They've been cajolling me for a huge battle royal for a while... they're gonna get one :)
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. I think it adds a flavor and element that could be a lot of fun (in moderation), and I thought your idea of Fire Giant mooks/meatshields/fodder to be fantastic.
Did you look at my suggested write-up in the Spoiler for all the giants? I listed them with minimum hit points. (1 point per HD, plus CON mod * HD) Thoughts? 70 hit points may still be high but as a CR8 creature serving as a mook/meatshield/fodder, one would assume that the party is 10-12 level - and most fighters, barbarians, archer rangers, and tactical rogues can do 70 points of damage in a single round by that level.
I'm thinking warriors with the seldom seen/used feats like Whirlwind attack will have a blast using these kinds of combat scenarios. It makes cleave and great cleave very highlighted as well.
Its a published adventure you're going to run? Whats it called? Let us know how it turns out; I'm really interested.
Robert
|
|
So if you're uncomfortable with idea of using the word "minion" becasue 4E used it. Well, you're in luck, because I'm sure that WotC will not allow it to be used in conjunction with earlier editions.
No, minionions is just an old D&D joke I couldn't resist. Just for fun.
Thats a legitimate concern and certainly holds a lot more water for why not to try something than just a predjudiced mentality of "If it's in 4E then it's not for me!"
Forgive my personal preference, I am frequently misunderstood as I seem to have none of the difficulties or problems many folks seem to have running 3.5. So, in other words if the minions mechanic came from Gurps, Shadowrun, Toon or whatever, I still wouldn't think it's necessary. I feel there is no situation is 3.5 that requires such a thing. I just down-number whatever mook (or, 'minion')I need to and keep playing getting the same overall effect. Adding the minion stuff seems to me to be a patch for something I personally don't find broken. A DM can very simply adjust what he needs to get the same effect.
-DM Jeff
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. I think it adds a flavor and element that could be a lot of fun (in moderation), and I thought your idea of Fire Giant mooks/meatshields/fodder to be fantastic.
Did you look at my suggested write-up in the Spoiler for all the giants? I listed them with minimum hit points. (1 point per HD, plus CON mod * HD) Thoughts? 70 hit points may still be high but as a CR8 creature serving as a mook/meatshield/fodder, one would assume that the party is 10-12 level - and most fighters, barbarians, archer rangers, and tactical rogues can do 70 points of damage in a single round by that level.
I'm thinking warriors with the seldom seen/used feats like Whirlwind attack will have a blast using these kinds of combat scenarios. It makes cleave and great cleave very highlighted as well.
Its a published adventure you're going to run? Whats it called? Let us know how it turns out; I'm really interested.
Robert
It's an Age of Worms adventure: "Kings of the Rift," set for 4 18th level PCs. There are anywhere from 4 to 7 15 & 16th level PCs in it right now. The fighter types have ACs in the high 20s, low 30s and boat loads of hps, backed up by spells from a cleric and wizard.
A typical foe modified into a "mook" would be based off an actual foe from the magazine (Dungeon 133):
Rift Giant Fighter- it's a hill giant with 5 levels of fighter
Hp: 85
AC: 26
Melee: +20
Dmg: 2d6+13
Ranged: +12
Dmg: 2d6+8
They can bull rush, overrun, sunder and power attack (w/ warhammers)
I will be happy to post results.
Adding the minion stuff seems to me to be a patch for something I personally don't find broken. A DM can very simply adjust what he needs to get the same effect.
But wouldn't it be nice for some rules to be written to tell the DM what he needs to adjust rather than force them to guess what might need to be adjusted.
I'd like to add my name to the "please God no" list.
Regarding mooks in a city of giants: one classic solution can be found here.
More generally, you can add lower-CR, rules-simple critters to your encounters already, without cluttering up monster design with another rules subsystem.
|
|
I'd like to add my name to the "please God no" list.
Regarding mooks in a city of giants: one classic solution can be found here.
More generally, you can add lower-CR, rules-simple critters to your encounters already, without cluttering up monster design with another rules subsystem.
The problem with simply adding a bunch of lower CR "mooks" is two fold - in comparison.
1) lower CR doesn't generally have the threat of able to hit PCs of that level. Lets just take a Troll for instance CR5 with a +9 to hit - using them as mooks for 12th level party - most 10th level characters have mid 20s - to high 20s AC - and well into the 30s capability by the more armored folks. The trolls need to roll 18s or more just to hit generally - so most PCs can simply ignore them for the most part - take the AoO as they walk on by etc. Furthermore their Ref an Will saves of +4 and +3 means that they are no match fo the 12 level casters. And an AC of 16 means that the fighter can power attack to his hearts content and never worry about missing.
2) you still have all the extra die rolling for damage - multiple attacks etc. Just adding in a bunch of low level low CR mooks with low attacks and damage output etc just means its a bunch of meaningless fodder that no one would care about in the long run. Now these suggestions aren't meant that you also or instead CANT use this - the premis and mechanics are still present to set a bunch of low CR minotaurs against the 12th level group, but it just seems like a lot of time and energy for a lot of wasted die rolls and game time spent on 'fodder'. The alternate idea presented here just gives another option of how to do this - and quicker and with more panache!
The template description ideas that I presented fixes both of those isses. The creatures wind up having generally the same amount of hit points, but their immediate offesive numbers allows for being an actual threat for about the same amount of time, and with less dice rolling for the number of mooks/meatshields/fodder. Not to mention - a party laying waste to a family of fire giants on their way to destroying the red wyrm BBEG will be forever monumentally discussed battle for those same 12th level characters in comparsion to the 6 trolls and the Vrock.
EDIT: and no one is suggesting that this idea be the rule and not the exception to the combat design. We're not suggesting that this template being utilized every turn of the way; neither is the mob-creature mentality as seen in the TAX RIOT encounter of Shackled City an overwhelmingly frequent occurence. (once in a 20 level campaign); but as an encounter for the ages to happen now and again I think it add lots of flavor and potential.
Robert
|
|
Forgive my personal preference, I am frequently misunderstood as I seem to have none of the difficulties or problems many folks seem to have running 3.5. So, in other words if the minions mechanic came from Gurps, Shadowrun, Toon or whatever, I still wouldn't think it's necessary. I feel there is no situation is 3.5 that requires such a thing. I just down-number whatever mook (or, 'minion')I need to and keep playing getting the same overall effect. Adding the minion stuff seems to me to be a patch for something I personally don't find broken. A DM can very simply adjust what he needs to get the same effect.
-DM Jeff
Fair enough, Jeff. And I frequently have no difficulty either - having been a player of D&D since 1982 and been a full time DM since 87! However, not everyone that is going to play this game and be seduced by its win-win goodness will have the level of knowledge, understanding, or the veteran experience that you or I have with the game to be as comfortable or creative to come up with such notions.
Try and step out of your own box of understanding and see it from a larger picture - and how others could benefit from there already being a rule in place to help newbies.
A lot of older 1st and 2nd ed grognards gave 3rd edition a bad rap because it was too much rules and too arbitrary - where-as previous editions left most of the adjudications to the whims, flair and subjectivity of the DM. While this is great for many - 3rd edition helped open the hobby to a lot of new customer base because although there is a lot of rules - its a helluva lot more concise, and precise in its definitions, and adjudications. They argue that theres a "rule for everything" But from a new players' perspective that did wonders for helping a group of young and inexperienced players learn how to play the game - without needing their proverbial older brother or cousin teach them how to do it.
Why not follow in those footsteps and be cognizant that the likes of you and I are not going to be the only demographic that this could and should cater to.
Robert
I don't like the idea of minions in 3.5, but I would like to see pathfinder to play with mob rules and make them their own. Because I think they have done a great job so far.
|
|
I would like to see pathfinder to play with mob rules and make them their own. Because I think they have done a great job so far.
I agree with this, too. aren't mobs indicative of scores or even hundreds of people?
What about just a dozen individual mooks? I dont think Mobs are really capable of fitting that bill.
Robert
On the subject of mobs, 7th Sea had something called a brute squad. The brute squad was treated as a single attacker, having its attack and damage rolls based on the number of members. Each time the squad took damage, it lost a set number of members (based on damage) and reduced its attack and damage accordingly.
On the subject of mobs, 7th Sea had something called a brute squad. The brute squad was treated as a single attacker, having its attack and damage rolls based on the number of members. Each time the squad took damage, it lost a set number of members (based on damage) and reduced its attack and damage accordingly.
I've been thinking about trying to do something along those lines when doing a large scale (20-ish enemies) combat next time.
I've been thinking about trying to do something along those lines when doing a large scale (20-ish enemies) combat next time.On the subject of mobs, 7th Sea had something called a brute squad. The brute squad was treated as a single attacker, having its attack and damage rolls based on the number of members. Each time the squad took damage, it lost a set number of members (based on damage) and reduced its attack and damage accordingly.
One way to handle large combats is a miniatures system. Swords and Spells (the first D&D miniatures system) had a 10:1 scale with each figure representing (for example) 10 orcs, taking 45 hit points (averaging 10 8-sided dice), with proportionate attack damage. I used it back in the day for several battles. First Ed AD&D had the Battle System and 2nd Ed AD&D had a variation on it. 3rd Ed. has a skirmish oriented miniatures system (which I have not used) although several 3PP took a stab at mass combat rules. The mob rules I've seen seem to have picked up their core idea from these types of rules. Not suprising because they work and simplify large scale combat with lots of grunt enemies.
If the combat isn't that large or you want to stick to more of a role playing feel and avoid the table top miniatures bit, the easiest way is to stock up on pre-rolled die rolls. I usually have several sheets of the common dice results pre-rolled and written down -- any number of computer programs will do it for you -- I just like rolling dice :) In regular encounters I roll the die as usual, when it gets too hectic I use the pre-rolls and just start crossing them off as used. My players generally don't mind, they understand just how hectic / time consuming rolling large numbers of dice can get. It's surprising just how much time little things like that can shave off a combat.
As for the minions, I think it's an extra rules system that is basically unneccesary. The DM should be able to set up an encounter to accomplish the same result without referring to rules / guidelines on it. I know it's a matter of where to draw the line on too much / too little rules and simulation vs. game but I think this is on the wrong side of both those lines. As for the complexity of designing encounters / adventures, it's never been a simple game. It takes experience and imagination in varying proportions to run a game. Most people who DM are, I think, the types who dive into the rules, play with them and learn to use them. Most have played for a while before DMing. I started playing / DMing in 1975. There were no experienced DMs. I had the time, willpower and desire to do it. And I was drafted by the rest of the group :) The rules were, let's say, minimal. You learn.
|
|
Gods no. Please no minion rules.....gods How I hate that.Like the poster above use 1 HP kobold,goblins or small children might as well.
I agree. I found nothing exciting about the 4e minion rule. I don't see how it's any different than grabbing a clutch of baseline monsters from MM, adding various levels to each, or alternatively as someone suggested - simply use the mob template - and throw 'em at the PCs.
Hecks, that's what I've been doing for years and it's been working just fine.
Gods no. Please no minion rules.....gods How I hate that.Like the poster above use 1 HP kobold,goblins or small children might as well.I agree. I found nothing exciting about the 4e minion rule. I don't see how it's any different than grabbing a clutch of baseline monsters from MM, adding various levels to each, or alternatively as someone suggested - simply use the mob template - and throw 'em at the PCs.
Hecks, that's what I've been doing for years and it's been working just fine.
They seem to have less recording of the damage each creature has taken and the mob template tends to handle a larger number of creatures.
|
|
On the subject of mobs, 7th Sea had something called a brute squad. The brute squad was treated as a single attacker, having its attack and damage rolls based on the number of members. Each time the squad took damage, it lost a set number of members (based on damage) and reduced its attack and damage accordingly.
I actually prefer this abstraction more than the minion idea, because it incorporates and abstracts the current rules, rather than make an arbitrary new rule. It gives the DM the average deaths per round, the average damage of a group of creatures, and best of all, there is only one thing to keep track of and one set of dice to roll. Minions don't create much less dice rolling (other than damage, which I dislike), they just make the rolls more effective.
On a related note, what happens when a PC asks for a horde of minions using the leadership feat? What level are they considered? I can see this being a problem if the DM denies them the advantage of their enemies.
On the subject of mobs, 7th Sea had something called a brute squad. The brute squad was treated as a single attacker, having its attack and damage rolls based on the number of members. Each time the squad took damage, it lost a set number of members (based on damage) and reduced its attack and damage accordingly.
I actually prefer this abstraction more than the minion idea, because it incorporates and abstracts the current rules, rather than make an arbitrary new rule. It gives the DM the average deaths per round, the average damage of a group of creatures, and best of all, there is only one thing to keep track of and one set of dice to roll. Minions don't create much less dice rolling (other than damage, which I dislike), they just make the rolls more effective.
On a related note, what happens when a PC asks for a horde of minions using the leadership feat? What level are they considered? I can see this being a problem if the DM denies them the advantage of their enemies.
I like this idea too, but I have one problem with it. When the mob does damage, it's one roll, correct? So who gets the damage? It's unrealistic to say all the damage goes to one target. If this can be fixed easily (perhaps dividing the damage evenly between all current targets?), then this is what I would use.
No mook rules in my D&D, please. I see my powergaming sorcerer eying his staff of mook blasting (casts magic missile and quickened magic missile) again.
Just a general please, please, NO. Minions is just another name for a 1-hp creature. It's more 4e marketing to make you think it is somehow innovative or solving a problem you didn't have.
At this point, let 4e be 4e. We've got Pathfinder over here and the last thing my players and I want is to integrate anything from 4E.
Minions. Minionions. Sheesh!
-DM Jeff
I'm with DM Jeff.
I ran Keep on the Shadowfell last night and the minions added a ton of work (from minis to bookkeeping) for what I felt was nothing more than an illusion that the battle was bigger than it was. I cast Dispel Minions.
|
|
Not to mention - a party laying waste to a family of fire giants on their way to destroying the red wyrm BBEG will be forever monumentally discussed battle for those same 12th level characters...
No, it won't.
Unless you mean 'forever discussed as that session where the DM cheated to make all the opposition really feeble, and let us win'.
"Hey, Joe, remember when your rat familiar nibbled the giant's toe, and he dropped down dead?"
"Yeah, and that emaciated prisoner with the rusty penknife took down the other giant in one hit?"
"Yeah, WTF was going on there? Was the DM just not in the mood or something? He should have asked to play a boardgame or something if he didn't want to put in any effort..."
"Yeah, what a crock of shit that game was, it was totally stupid. I'm glad we don't play in his game anymore"
|
|
No, it won't.Unless you mean 'forever discussed as that session where the DM cheated to make all the opposition really feeble, and let us win'.
"Hey, Joe, remember when your rat familiar nibbled the giant's toe, and he dropped down dead?"
"Yeah, and that emaciated prisoner with the rusty penknife took down the other giant in one hit?"
"Yeah, WTF was going on there? Was the DM just not in the mood or something? He should have asked to play a boardgame or something if he didn't want to put in any effort..."
"Yeah, what a crock of s~@@ that game was, it was totally stupid. I'm glad we don't play in his game anymore"
Obviously you didnt read the specifics and mechanics of my proposed template. Originally this was a call out to try to come up with feasible mechanics to apply to 3.5 and it turned into another bash 4e forum.
I was hoping to share ideas of specific mechanics and getting feedback on the actual viability of those suggestions already made - which is certainly not ever going to happen with inane and uninformed responses like these.
Please read the actual suggestions and thoughts on the idea before chiming in with criticism.
Robert
|
|
Apologies; I was referring to the 4E 'high-level, but 1 hit point minions', and not your proposals. That should have been made more clear.
The WotC designers state that fighting larger numbers of crippled oppponents, who are almost at death's door, will make fights more exciting. I disagree with that. If a DM is going to imply that the PCs are in danger from a room full of scary opponents, then they need to actually be what they purport to be, otherwise I will feel cheated by the inevitable hollow victory.
I will make time to check out your own ideas later, and give them a fair hearing.
|
|
Apologies; I was referring to the 4E 'high-level, but 1 hit point minions', and not your proposals. That should have been made more clear.
The WotC designers state that fighting larger numbers of crippled oppponents, who are almost at death's door, will make fights more exciting. I disagree with that. If a DM is going to imply that the PCs are in danger from a room full of scary opponents, then they need to actually be what they purport to be, otherwise I will feel cheated by the inevitable hollow victory.
I will make time to check out your own ideas later, and give them a fair hearing.
No worries. I agree with your sentiments - that a large number of crippled opponents will not necessarily make fights more exciting.
Ultimately my suggestion was for a template to add to creatures; it gives bare minimum hit points - just have minimum hit points. (but a 10th level fighter w/ 14 CON still would have 30 - not the crippled 1 hit point that could be felled by a peasants rolling pin) and giants as minions would still have about 70 hit points. Other aspects of the template - creature keeps AC, Attack bonuses, Saves, Skills, etc - creature can only make one attack per round regardless of BAB or number of appendages, and does a set number of damage - equal to the normal CR of the creature (so 10 for the 10th level fighters) They take have damage from area effect spells (full damage from targeted spells), so that sorcerers can't just easily eliminate all mooks in one moment.
Giving a finite fixed amount of damage is just for the sake of speeding up the 12 or so mooks.
But the cool part is - most partys facing 10the level fighter mooks will be about 12th level. Most warriors of a 12th level party can do 30 points of damage in a round - many can do so in one attack! Such combats provide a threat (since their attack bonuses are still based on standard 10th level creature), but they dont hang around for too long making the PCs take too much damage; it allows for cleave, great cleave, whirlwind etc and should make for a great memorable combat - if the idea is used sparingly.
Ultimately its fun for the PCs to fight creatures they can mow down and use all their cool feats, abilities, spells etc - and its fun to put a bunch of low CR mooks once in a while to let them do this - the problem is - 1) its usually time consuming and a bookkeeping nightmare, and 2) low CR like 5 creatures are not usually much of a threat to hurt many 12th level PCs. By making the template do a fixed damage, and have the attacks etc of a CR much higher, it does make the mooks something that simply can't be ignored, the speed of getting their damage rolled and added is quicker, and they last a number of rounds that a CR5 creature would against such a group, too.
Robert