|
You could just track one pool of HPs for all the minions and every time a full minions worth of damage is done remove one.
What? No! I did not have a problem with comparing the damage total vs. the HP of the creature.I have a problem with recording damage for 8+ creatures and remembering which one had which damage total.
Thats a good idea! That certainly has promise.
A few questions: Who decides which one to remove? What factors into the decision of which one to remove.
The concept of the minions template etc is that you really shouldn't need to keep track of hit points. MOST of the time about 75%, they should die after one round of being engaged in combat.
Out of 12 (a typical good number of minions), 8 should die after being attacked. The other four you would have to keep track of. If you just write it on the battle-mat, or paper or whatever, it shoudln't be overly difficult.
But ultimately, if your party is 10th level and you're fighting minions that have about 8 - 10 HD, you're dealing with minions that have about 16-32 hit points. They should die quite regularly with a fighters' compliment of attacks.
Robert
You could just track one pool of HPs for all the minions and every time a full minions worth of damage is done remove one.
What? No! I did not have a problem with comparing the damage total vs. the HP of the creature.I have a problem with recording damage for 8+ creatures and remembering which one had which damage total.
Thats a good idea! That certainly has promise.
A few questions: Who decides which one to remove? What factors into the decision of which one to remove.
I'm a fan of the idea also. I would let the players pick any combination of adjacent minis to remove in melee (maybe the player does enough damage to kill 2). If it's ranged combat they should be targeting a specific one due to possible cover. If not pick a random one from the front rank... seems pretty straight forward.
|
|
Hey, Robert, can you post your template again? It is lost somewhere in the billions of posts here and frankly, I'm lazy :) or someone guide me to the page it would be on. lol
Ask and ye shall receive! This is copied verbatim from the 2nd page on this thread:
When this topic came up a month or so ago, I was a big supporter of the idea. I still believe it's a good concept - though I will admit that it does potentially break some verisimilitude of the game being realistic.
For me - I dont need everything realistic - I understand it's high fantasy and can suspend disbelief if it means fun.
One persons fun - may be another person's drudgery, this is also true.
Some of the benefits of "minions" from a DMs perspective is: when you add low level challenge rating creatures (like a goblin) against 10th level characters, they typically only hit with the roll of a 20 and are not a threat at all to be concerned about. Adding a bunch of CRs that are just a couple or three CR lower than the party would easily overcome the party and are too lethal - AND there's simply too much dice rolling, hit point tracking, etc for a DM to worry about while maintaining a good flow, and speed of the combat. So the mininons allows for attacks, saves and AC to be commensurate with a creature capable of being a threat, while not proving too difficult by not having access to all the lethal capability, and the staying power that a creature would have at that CR due to lowered hit points, damage output and reduced special abilities.
That all being said: one of the biggest PROs for the concept of minions that seems to be being missed is the idea of several smaller challenges WITHOUT complicating the combat.
Minions simplify this by removing some of the dice rolls.
I believe Minions could be a template for creatures. This gives the DMs that are okay with the idea the option of using them, and also gives the DMs who abhore the idea the option NOT to use them.
In the other thread I mentioned above, I suggested a template and actually created one. I have been using, playtesting, and tweaking it as I go for my own games. Since it was widely opposed by many myopic close-minded persons on the forum as it was a concept used by 4E, I never bothered to revisit it on the boards. however this thread has re-inspired the conversation topic.
I have to say the use of them has been fun for our group - especially teh fighters who typically get outshined by the higher level spellcasters when it comes to killing creatures. The fighters have been able to use their cleaves, great cleaves and whirlwinds to great effectiveness.
The combats are more action-packed, and very "cinematic" Now, I know not everyone appreciates a cinematic type encounter - but many do - and to those who do, I say this is a good way to help facilitate that. The important thing is - like all things - moderation is good. Dont overuse the concept or it's meaningless. Just like every encounter being "fiendish", or "half-dragon" would get old fast, so too, would a DM who uses too many encounters with minions. But they do work for one or two encounters of an entire module adventure - and never an encounter by themselve - always for the purpose of helping a BBEG.
For those intersted, the template I'm using is described below:
Add this template to creatures - but best if used with ones without special attack options. If you do, remove the special attack abilities: i.e. disease, petrification, poison, energy drain, spell-casting etc.
The best creatures to be "minions" are those that are basic combatants: Gnolls, ogres, orcs, goblins, kobolds, minotaurs, lizardfolk, sahuagin
HD: Creature maintains the same HD total - you can add levels of fighter to the creature and HD would be calculated as normal. Thus 6th level goblin fighter would have 6 HD
HP: minimum hit points for the creature at that level - adjusted appropriately for CON
AC: Remains the same - adjusted appropriately for any character levels that have been added.
Attack: Calculated the same as a standard creature of this type adjusted appropriately for added levels etc.
Damage: Each attack does damage equal to the HD of the creature. No dice are rolled for damage for minions (meant to speed up play).
Saves: Calculate saves for the creature as normal adjusted for character levels etc. Then add +11 to each save total. No dice are rolled during combat for their saves. (this assumes you're rolling 50% on your D20 at the time; no auto-success, no auto failure - and everything else saves at about 50% of what they should save against.) So the save totals assumes you’ve rolled an 11 on each save. This prevents a lot of dice rolling.
Ability scores: remain the same for the creature of this type adjusted for any levels
Special attacks: only makes 1 attack per round regardless of creature stat block.
Special defenses: Takes half-damage from area-effect spells.
CR Base Creature -3
XP: Add all the minions creatures together to figure out the ECL of the "minions" only - award XP based on that ECL as if it were a single creature with a CR = to the ECL of the minions.
Sample creatures with templates that I've used
HD 2d8+6d10 (HP:24) Init: +4 (feat)
AC: 17 (Chain Shirt +4, Hvy Steel Shield +2, Nat Armor +1 )
ATTK: +11 DMG: 8 SAVE: F 21, R 14, W 14 (this makes the assumption they rolled this high - no rolling needed).
Ability: S16, D10, C14, I8, W11, Ch8
FEATS: Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Imp Init, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes
CR: 4
Synopsis: I used 8 of these against my 10th level party while the PCs fought the BBEG which was a Guardian Naga. They had a blast with it. 24 hit points per creature was just enough to be concerned with - but not too much - the fighters typically did that much in a full round attack. The barbarian did that much with each leap attack charge. The avg AC in the party at that point was about 26, so the creatures needed to roll about 15 in order to hit - not a significant threat - but not soemthing to dismiss. The fighter got a good hit in with his great cleave and felled two of them in that attack sequence alone.
Stone Giant
HD: 14d8 (HP: 70), Init: +2
AC: 25
ATTK: +17 DMG: 14 SAVE: F 24, R 17, W 18 (this makes the assumption they rolled this high - no rolling needed).
Ability: S27, D15, C19, I10, W12, Ch11
FEATS: Combat Reflexes, Iron Will, Point Blank Shot, Power Attack, Precise Shot
CR: 5
Synopsis: I used 8 of these in my Shackled City game - against the party of 6 12th level characters. The BBEG was their warlord leader - a 6th level barbarian stone giant. 70 hit points is a lot - but every fighter in the group could do that much damage in one full-attack option. The wizard couldn't seem to do much against them with area affect spells - thanks to the half-damage rule for area-effect spells template. But the will-save spells worked out great and allowed the dwarven fighter, and human paladin to realy lay the wood to these guys for a few rounds, and the archer stood back and killed one per round with her full-attack rapid-shot and haste spell.
6th level fighter Bugbears
HD: 3d8+6d10 (HP: 27), Init: +5
AC: 20 (chain shirt, hvy wooden shield, nat armor +3, Dex+1,)
ATTK: +13 (MW weapon) DMG: 9 SAVE: F 19 , R 17, W 16 (this makes the assumption they rolled this high - no rolling needed).
Ability: S16, D12, C13, I10, W10, Ch9
FEATS: Alertness, Weapon Focus, Weapon specialization, Iron Will, Lightning Reflex, Power Attack, Cleave, Imp Init
CR: 5
Synopsis: I used 12 of these against the same 12th level Shackled City group - they were protecting a "named" ogre Mage. They mowed through them quite easily - loved using their feats of mass destruction (cleave, great cleave). The paladin became enlarged and just pummeled them every time they approached. The wizards area effect spells were much more effective since they had less hit points. Even with 12 of them, they were not hard to control as DM, and the no need to roll damage and saving throws made it easy quick, and painless, and the players had a lot of fun.
I used all three of these encounters without telling my PCs that they were a "minions" template - they thought they were fighting the real deal for the most part - was surprised by the lack of "extra attacks" by the stone giants specifically - but just dismissed it. The fact that they dont have just 1 hit point makes them more believable, and not just killable by the summon monster 1 spell as someone pointed out was a problem; but still not too powerful to TPK the party and not drag combats out forever since their hit points is about 25% of what they should be. A scorching Ray spell did kill a creature most of the time; which is pretty good consider that the party of 12th level characters were utilizing their lower level spells to good efficiency.
Robert
|
|
What would turn a creature into a minion? If you meet an ogre on its own and it escapes thanks to having a fair number of hit points, then it (or its brother) later re-appears as a minion, where did its HP go? Would "becoming minions" apply to creatures the characters summon? Can I develop a spell that reclassifies my enemies as minions? Why not?
to tell the truth, i stpped reading in the 1st page :P
I would give the Ogre experience for "surviving" the PC, when they meet him again, he will be the boss... with "minions" around him
one group i had did this, they lernes NOT to let me get ANY NPC alive, they take every effort to make sure its dead. They remember always the "Bomb Goblin"... we where playing with the Adventure "Sunless Citadel" and one of the first goblins they confronted escaped miraculously, using the fallen dwarf as shield, and running for its life... the experience made him guide the other goblins in run-and-hit tactics... the players suffered at his hands.. specially the rogue... 3 times the "Bomb Goblin" fell him, either by trick (there was a room where the goblins prepared a trap, they let some alcohol fall over the heroes and set it aflame... the rogue fell the first round, luckly he was not the slowest character or he would have died), in the 1st combat a lucky critical fell the poor rogue, and another time a lucky arrow in another ambush did the same... let me tell you... the once simple goblin was feared and hated by the players, they forgot about the mission and hunted the "Bomb goblin"... t no avail, he escape them again and again... and i never tweaked or fumbled the dices... why the name? we played with stratego pieces... casually it was that goblin from the beginning using the "Bomb"... every time the players saw him appear in the Matt... they feared... and they hoped... to bring the hated goblin down... they never got the pleasure... i think
for me minions are just NPCs between 1 to 3 HD (well depending PCs Level) with just standar hip points (HD/2 + Con Mod per level).
i just write a line with ALL NPCs Max HPs, a not with their AC (between 13 to 16), attack bonus (no more of +5) and lets them loose... i only keep track of how many they kill, only making sure to apply damage to the correct enemy per character.
It has worked for me using 20 enemies, with one boss and about 6 players, ok it takes great part of the sesion, but they are happy almost always doing 1 shot one kill, or doing them the enxt round or, almost killing them in the Atack of Opportunity, while they are at that, the Boss is making his job of guiding his men and using them for better effect.
Oh yeah, the 1-3 HD thingie works for low levels, but once the party reaches certain level of protection it's simply not enough to do anything with the PCs unless the monster rolls natural 20... that isn't good
Well, you didn't look for it before, but the others did... Kirth? ^^Yeah, you put the idea in my head, Zmar. Should've quoted you before posting the winter wolf encounter. Props! Because right away when you mentioned it, I was thinking, "perfect!"
Eheh, my post wasn't as nice as you perceived it... I think someone else already suggested the mob rules, I only mentioned that they are not part of the core system and probably the OGL a while ago, so it wasn't me who put it in your head, my appologies for being confusing.
The DMG II is a viable source for those who have it, but the problem starts when you don't. I doubt that there will be any reprints. Most newcomers won't have the option to buy the book within one or two years and even if They will have the possibility (I know, PDFs) they'd wonder why do they need to buy 3.5 books to cover something that could be covered within 3.P. And PRPG rules CAN'T just copy anything that is not within OGL limits. That's part of the reason why we have the need to develope something... different.
The DMG II is a viable source for those who have it, but the problem starts when you don't. And PRPG rules CAN'T just copy anything that is not within OGL limits. That's part of the reason why we have the need to develope something... different.
Yeah, but there's nothing stopping us from having a similar mechanic (multiple guys simulated by a single set of stats and "pool" of hp) in PFRPG.
|
|
seems simple enough. How does that match up with the Mob rules out of DMGII
Sorry I cant help you much. never owned that book, never read it.
If it's anything like the mob rules used in Shackled City for the riot scene - its similar in its mindset, but vastly different in it's utilization.
The riot scene just caused arbitrary damage every round - no individual attack rolls, no tactics, many spells of the mental aspect are just useless, fighters cant really take advantage of their feats like cleave, great cleave, whirlwind, Backhand swing, etc; since the mob isn't specific targets.
Its a different game experience in the implementation - but I can see the theory or purpose of their existence being similar.
To me - the mob makes perfect sense for the "mob" that was there - angry 0 level citizens etc. Other than that it would be a boring encounter or obstacle to run compared to minions if used in the same style.
Robert
The DMG II is a viable source for those who have it, but the problem starts when you don't. And PRPG rules CAN'T just copy anything that is not within OGL limits. That's part of the reason why we have the need to develope something... different.Yeah, but there's nothing stopping us from having a similar mechanic (multiple guys simulated by a single set of stats and "pool" of hp) in PFRPG.
Ideed, common pool is one of possible solutions. But what about fireballs and other area effects? I don't recall how they were handled... and did anyone try the hill giant mob?
I think that the mob (as a concept, not as the rules make it) could actually work if I wanted to create a swarm of anything, including bees, rats and other such innumerable stuff. Just thinking, not actually suggesting anything now.
|
|
I think that the mob (as a concept, not as the rules make it) could actually work if I wanted to create a swarm of anything, including bees, rats and other such innumerable stuff. Just thinking, not actually suggesting anything now.
Well there are Swarm rules for creatures like that.
Think of a mob as a "people" swarm. Kinda like the crowd at an AC/DC concert.
Robert
I think that the mob (as a concept, not as the rules make it) could actually work if I wanted to create a swarm of anything, including bees, rats and other such innumerable stuff. Just thinking, not actually suggesting anything now.
Well there are Swarm rules for creatures like that.
Think of a mob as a "people" swarm. Kinda like the crowd at an AC/DC concert.
Robert
Yeah, I know, I just wondered whether both things can't be combined to one thing...
|
I must have missed this thread before.
I read the arguments above against introduction of minions in PFRPG, but I am still strongly in favour of addition of something similar to PFRPG:
1. It doesn't make 1 hp monsters more survivable, but it gives them more punch which makes these "minions" more challenging and interesting for higher level PCs than usual.
2. I know that there are magical means to achieve the same effect. But why not offering "natural" means to do so?
3. "It can't be, because it shouldn't be" is not argument enough for me. ;-)
Summed up: Please consider adaption of similar rules in PFRPG "gamma".
Cheers,
Günther
I must have missed this thread before.
I read the arguments above against introduction of minions in PFRPG, but I am still strongly in favour of addition of something similar to PFRPG:
1. It doesn't make 1 hp monsters more survivable, but it gives them more punch which makes these "minions" more challenging and interesting for higher level PCs than usual.
2. I know that there are magical means to achieve the same effect. But why not offering "natural" means to do so?
3. "It can't be, because it shouldn't be" is not argument enough for me. ;-)
I don't think any of these arguments have been used against minions. As for #2... arbitrarily reducing hit points by a factor of 4 is "natural" means?
My big problem with minions is
#1 Creatures in the game should be predictable, a hill giant should always be a hill giant. This allows players to plan in a rational way as opposed to meta gaming "Well there are 20 hill giants up there... no way we could survive that... DM must have put a bunch of minions in here for us to kill".
#2 Minions encourage the players to develop minion specific strategies which change the overall game balance. Spells that cause moderate amounts of damage over a large area become disproportionately valuable. Every mid-high level group is going to have 2-3 wands of fireball to handle minion battles.
-- Actually forget about wand of fireball, wands with shaped burning hands are the ultimate anti-minion item. This isn't an issue in 4e because the game system is designed to handle this. 1HP creatures are a particularly egregious example of this.
#3 If a higher level minion is essentially a low level critter which is more capable of hitting characters... why make a significant change in the rules system to accommodate a situation you can already accommodate?
The real question, then, is what you want them for.
|
|
The real question, then, is what you want them for.
If the purpose of introducing minions is to simply bookkeeping in large battles with multiple opponents, then some sort of Mob mechanic is best. If the purpose of minions is to have comparatively smaller numbers of low-powered creatures be a credible threat to PCs, without unduly increasing their toughness (i.e., hp), then either a morale mechanism or some sort of bard-like Inspire Courage mechanic is a simple fix. If the purpose of minions is to trick players into believing their characters have dispatched legions of powerful opponents, when in fact they've done no such thing due to the "gimp" factor, then like Ogre, I'm totally against it. Just make the "giant mooks" be diseased hill giants (low Con) and be done with it, in that case -- that way a clever player can make a Heal check or cast detect disease to determine that these were weakened... which heightens the tension when they encounter a healthy giant later on!
None of the three really - #2 the most; but certainly neither one or three.
The purpose is to make the encounter fun and exciting.
having a morale mechanism such as a bard is a good idea - but the notion of minions increses everything relative to their level with the exception of no iterative attacks, minimum hit points, and only a low-avg amount of damage.
AC, skills, Saves, attacks, equipment etc all increases as you advance the creatures with class levels or HD. A bard-like morale increase seems quite implausible.
The idea, to answer your question - is to have an exciting combat where the minions are still potentially dangerous to not be ignored or taken lightly, but the PCs still have fun cutting their way through them in cinematic conan style, while they serve to be a buffer for the BBG whom the PCs are trying desperately to get to.
Thats it. Not for ease of bookkeeping, not for a morale bonus, and certainly not to trick the players.
Its not any more tricking than 15th level characters meeting a stone giant and thinking it's a "stone giant" and not something a group of 15th level characters needs to really worry about - but then when it attacks it hits AC 50 because its really a 20th level Barbarian stone giant.
If players allow themselves to think in such meta-game fashion, they are doomed to suffer such surprising consequences.
Robert
Robert
|
|
My big problem with minions is
#1 Creatures in the game should be predictable, a hill giant should always be a hill giant. This allows players to plan in a rational way as opposed to meta gaming "Well there are 20 hill giants up there... no way we could survive that... DM must have put a bunch of minions in here for us to kill".
I disagree. See previous post.
I will say there's thing for some consistency - and stereotyping and tendencies - but should never be counted on in a superlative fashion.
Surprising irony is often times quite entertaining.
Robert
If players allow themselves to think in such meta-game fashion, they are doomed to suffer such surprising consequences.
Oh, man, there it is again. Anytime a PC tries to learn something about how the world around them works through experience, it's "metagaming." An unasked-for Perception roll (smell disease) when there's 50 dead minion corpses around, followed by a Heal check or spell is perfectly reasonable and perfectly in-game; it's hardly appropriate to play the "metagaming" card at this point. Yes, an occasional surpise is good for them. But if there are no actual discernable standards, then everything is a surprise to them, and that quickly becomes as dull as if there were no suprises at all. One needs to establish a pattern in order to break it, if you see what I mean.
It's not making monsters wimps so the players can feel like cheap heroes hacking them up, it's "cinematic."
Not my kind of gaming at all.
Right now, Paizo writes adventures that accommodate pretty much all styles of play. From what you describe, people with an interest in a cohesive game world really have no representation, so a mechanic marginalizing them at the expense of the "cinematic" fans is not only justified but laudable. No, thanks. Put me firmly with ogre, in that case.
EDIT: Sorry, Robert, I don't mean to take it out on you. I apologize for the soapbox tone. It just seems like the "in" thing now is to marginalize immersive players -- who learn things IN GAME -- as "metagamers," and it's really starting to get me down.
AC, skills, Saves, attacks, equipment etc all increases as you advance the creatures with class levels or HD. A bard-like morale increase seems quite implausible.
A bard like morale increase is implausible but a having 2 fire giants with completely different game stats and 1/4 the hit points is plausible? Umm... What?
The idea, to answer your question - is to have an exciting combat where the minions are still potentially dangerous to not be ignored or taken lightly, but the PCs still have fun cutting their way through them in cinematic conan style, while they serve to be a buffer for the BBG whom the PCs are trying desperately to get to.
Thats it. Not for ease of bookkeeping, not for a morale bonus, and certainly not to trick the players.
And again... you see a room full of Winter Wolves. How heroic is it when the players do the intelligent thing and get the hell out? Is it more heroic for them to fight their way through a room filled with neutered winter wolves or a room filled with normal wolves? The difference is as Kirth put it "Cheap Cinematics".
If players allow themselves to think in such meta-game fashion, they are doomed to suffer such surprising consequences.
I find it ironic that you would say this since your neutered half monsters FORCE players to metagame. They are constantly asking themselves "Real Giant or Minion Giant?". The players and characters know this because they have fought giants before... plus the fact that they are 12 feet tall. Under the normal rules they know what a giant is and how powerful it is. Minion rules? Where is my wand of shaped burning hands?
If I can think of 'minion' tactics you don't think your players will?
The difference is as Kirth put it "Cheap Cinematics".
Well... not totally. I can understand a lot of what Robert is saying. I mean, I've used threats that characters cut their way through, Conan-style. I once statted up drug-maddened barbarian spearmen bodyguards, raging, with potions of divine favor. They were certainly a credible threat, but the three party fighters cut through them in what was one of the most fun fights in that campaign.
But you know what? Afterward, the PCs could find and drink one of the potions, and therefore know what it did. And they've met barbarians before, and know what kind of things rage can do. Nothing about the encounter violated any aspect of the game world as a whole. Where I draw the line is just straight-out neutering other critters and then pretending I didn't.
You ever see one of those suspense movies where they introduce a "plot twist" at the end that invalidates the entire plot up to that point? Where you sit there and say, "but if X was in on it all along, then he would've known there was no need to steal the loot in scene 2, so the hero would never have caught on!" That kind of thing is taboo at my game table. If the players use in-game clues to learn in-game information, I reward them; I don't vilify them for it and then change the game just so that it won't work anymore.
|
|
A bard like morale increase is implausible but a having 2 fire giants with completely different game stats and 1/4 the hit points is plausible? Umm... What?
Let me ask you this: since the notion of two creatures being vastly different is affront to your myopic views: How do you think you'd fare in a one-on-one game with Shaquile O'Neal or Kobe Bryant?
How would you fare in a wrestling match with Justice from American Gladiators?
How would you fare trying to cover Terrel Owens in scrimmage game of football?
My perception of what you're skoffing at is that all fire giants are built the same - so all humans should be built the same.
I of course do not personally know you - but I'd be willing to bet my annual salary that you in no way compare physically or capably with any of those aforementioned athletes.
I find it ironic that you would say this since your neutered half monsters FORCE players to metagame. They are constantly asking themselves "Real Giant or Minion Giant?". The players and characters know this because they have fought giants before... plus the fact that they are 12 feet tall. Under the normal rules they know what a giant is and how powerful it is. Minion rules? Where is my wand of shaped burning hands?If I can think of 'minion' tactics you don't think your players will?
Well the template I presented was with my opinion that its a concept that should be used sparingly or it loses its impact and unique flavor. Once per 10 encounters or so.
I dont like to think in absolutes. I leave that to the bigots, racists, and other law enforcement agencies.
Sure I think the world around them needs to have some semblance of consistency. I have no problem with that way of thinking. But professional racecar drivers dont hop into any race car and expect them to behave in the exact same way. They understand the fundamentals sure - but they're not always exactly the same. Thats the kind of meta-gaming i'm talking about. To assume that its always exactly the same.
Fire giants - even minions would have a fair amoutn of a challenge - would still hurt more than say an ogre, would still be super strong and not abel to be grappled or bullrushed easily. SO in truth - there is alot of consistency.
Only the number of hits it takes em to go down really is the different. 2 instead of 8; and that could easily be the difference between your score and Kobe's score in a one-on-one game; and yet you're both homo-sapien (AFAIK).
Robert
|
|
EDIT: Sorry, Robert, I don't mean to take it out on you. I apologize for the soapbox tone. It just seems like the "in" thing now is to marginalize immersive players -- who learn things IN GAME -- as "metagamers," and it's really starting to get me down.
No problem Kirth; I know you and I have seen eye-to-eye and a number of varied topics and have shared many of the same opinions. I do not take offense that you disagree so vehemently on this subject.
That being said - to address your concern - as I posted in the previous thread - I do not like to think in absolutes; what I mean by that I do not consider all forms of meta-gaming to be the cross to a vampire. I see it as a valuable tool in many circumstances. To be clear, I also completely understand the pragmatism in having consistency in things to rely on. But in regards to not thinking in absolutes: most things are not 100% reliable. I'd say 'nothing' is 100% reliable, but that would be an absolute.
Most things in fact are not 100% reliable. You can believe in consistency and I agree that for the most part it needs to exist for any semblance of verisimilitude to exist. But is every sword +2 you ever identitied was exacty a sword +2? What about the one that pulls the rug out from under you when you realize it's a backbiting cursed sword.
As I said before, not every single fire giant has to be exactly the same. If there are theoretically physically inferior people who could never hope to try out for the NFL, then there has to be physically inferior fire giants (or lizardfolk, or minotaurs, or whatever). It just seems to be plausible sense that if there was a BBEG who could control and rule over a group of certain individuals, it makes sense that those manipulated and controlled members of that race could very well be those who are physically inferior and didn't get to play all those reindeer games with the others and evern learn to have a chance to rule the tribe.
Regardless - I admit the notion of a minion template does break a portion of the verisimilitude of the game - but no more than a swarm template, or mob, or many other aspects of the game - that alters an encounter for the purpose of simple fun and flavor; as opposed to 100% consistency.
But it's a notion IMO that the potential fun can outweight the loss of believeability for many who wish to use them. Those that feel a "swarm" of bats behaves inconsistent with a real swarm of bats may not choose to use it swarms and feel they're a dumb mechanic - but that not should remove the ability for those who find the mechanic simple, streamlined and a cool encounter to be able to use it.
The very mindset of not agreeing with a concept or mechanic because it's simply a "little unbelievable" - in a game where a hobbit can charge into battle upon a german shepard running across a ceiling due to its paw-worn boots of spider climbing with an acid spitting lance that stores a magical spell that makes him completey invisible, against an animated oak royal banquet table and then die due to a lucky table leg swing only to be reincarnated into a kobold by a cleric who can listen to trees talk to him, is not only laughable but just inane at best.
Your little soapbox about metagaming mirrors my frustration at the insipid mentality that somethings might just be unbeliveable in a game of imagination and make-believe, or that since some DMs can make something up as they go means that all players need to learn to make the same thing up as they go - instead of trying to have some semblance of guidelines to do something in the first place.
Robert
|
|
Cheap cinematics?
Er, minions aren't cinematic. I've seen this argument before...but that's not true whatsoever.
THe HEROES are cinematic. That's what makes a hero vs minions scene cinematic since the HEROES are larger than life while the minion is "regular Joe Blow off the street"
A creature being killed by one slash that penetrates their defences? Yeah, that's kind of how it works in the real world. Not sure why everyone considers that cinematic...
A creature being able to take multiple slashes that penetrate their defenses? That's realistic?
Isn't that the Definition of an action hero?
I'm sure what point you're trying to make here. Cinematic: meaning an artform displayed in cinema (movies). Unless you've seen Conan, Legolas in the Lord of the Rings, Matrix scene in the antechamber of the federal building, Kill Bill's infamous sword duel with dozens of severed limbs, the jedis going to town with their sabres in the newest movies against all those droids, or any other number of countless action movies; you probably wouldn't be able to relate.
You're right, the Heroes are what is cinematic. But It requires something for a hero to battle to make it exciting - so they're not cinematic on their own.
I doubt very strongly that anyone would have been interested in paying $10 admission to the Dark Knight to watch him sit on the floor in his batsuit and play tiddlywinks for 2 and half hours!
Robert
The very mindset of not agreeing with a concept or mechanic because it's simply a "little unbelievable" - in a game where a hobbit can charge into battle upon a german shepard running across a ceiling due to its paw-worn boots of spider climbing with an acid spitting lance that stores a magical spell that makes him completey invisible, against an animated oak royal banquet table and then die due to a lucky table leg swing only to be reincarnated into a kobold by a cleric who can listen to trees talk to him, is not only laughable but just inane at best.
I've failed to clearly express my point, then. It's not that it's "unbelievable"; it's that it's inconsistent with how other things work. The reincarnated dog-rider, boots, acidic lance, spell storing, and animated objects all follow clear-cut rules and guidelines. If the PCs get their hands on the lance, it still spits acid. If they put the boots on their dog, now he, too, can walk on the ceiling. The world has the equivalent of natural laws; things work the same way no matter what scene it is or who's using them. That's my issue with the mook template; it breaks the way things work. Now, there is a payoff, but as I've described, it's one that can be gotten without "cheating" as well. If the DM is consistently willing to violate all established guidelines because it "seems cool," on the one hand it's just sheer laziness of design, and on the other it creates a game world that's arbitrary, that follows no rules (even goofy ones like reincarnation!), and would be better off just told as a story, rather than played as a game. An RPG with no rules isn't a game; it's just a fantasy-themed mad lib.
My quarrel with the Shaquille O'Neal and stone giant barbarian analogies stems from that as well. The PCs know that people can grow in skill and become more powerful; they do it themselves on a regular basis. They know that certain things (poisons, disease) can make creatures weaker, if they've been afflicted by those things themselves. They know that attributes vary--because theirs do--but the variance is within a fairly narrow range. None of this is metagaming, by the way; it can all be determined empirically, in-game. They won't know a "strength score," but they can measure how much people can lift, for example. The 10 hp giants (in game: giants that drop really easily) violate all of this experience, for very little payoff. The damage done to the consistency of the game world far outweighs the benefits.
Now, if the "mook" template were an established fact in the game world, then there would be no problem. But it would have to be applied consistently. The Leadership feat would suddenly suck, because to be consistent, you'd have to apply it to all the PCs' minions, not just the bad guys'. Do it for just one or the other and it's like saying when you throw the ball, it always goes roughly where you throw it, but when Shaq throws the ball, it might spontaneously teleport into his anus. That might be fun in a Roadrunner cartoon sort of way, but it sort of prevents a serious fantasy game. Most people don't mind; they just want to throw dice and kill things, and internal world consistency isn't at the top of their priorities list. But for me, and the people I play with, it robs the game of most of its interest, and the better part of its fun. And I'm vehement about not wanting my fun drained off due to sheer laziness in encounter design -- that's why I've offered so many alternatives, and tried so hard to find consistent, established guidelines. Diseased giants? Yes. Bardic abilities? Yes. Morale effects that make 'em run away? Sure, the PCs can get hit with fear spells; no conflicts. Rules for mobs? OK. Arbitrary "mook" status? No, can't quite do it, unless everyone gets hit with it evenly.
P.S. I'm aware this puts me in a small minority; I was shouted down ruthlessly for having problems with an inconsistency in CotCT. But I have to try.
|
|
I've failed to clearly express my point, then. It's not that it's "unbelievable"; it's that it's inconsistent with how other things work. The reincarnated dog-rider, boots, acidic lance, spell storing, and animated objects all follow clear-cut rules and guidelines.
I too have failed to clearly express my point; those so-called rules that make the unbelieveable consistent and believeable once were not rules - they were an abstract idea that someone while develping the game said, "You know way - lets allow acid on a lance, and a hobbit to ride a dog, and reincarnation spell to exist..etc etc...."
Now - I and others are saying to one day get to that point where someone can argue that "minions" have some consistency and are now in clear-cut rules and guidelines.
But they need to be included first.
If someone hadn't included the dog-riding aspect....it might be debated at some point that it is inconsisten and there's no clear-cut guidelines. But they did - and so there is.
Swarms and mobs and their resolution in combat when they exist dont necessarily seem to follow all logic but they consistently do what they always do everytime you meet a swarm of something. Rats do one thing. Swarms of rats do another.
Orcs do one thing. Minions of orcs do another.
To me you're arguing the super model vs agent arguement. You can't get an agent unless you have had experience as a model. Unfortunately, its hard to get experience as a model unless you have an agent.
You're arguing that concepts that do not have a clear cut rules and guidelines would break the normalcy and consistency of things; but how can they ever do that if they're never included in rules to make them consistent and normal with guidelines and rules.
Imagine the response DaVinci got when he first suggested flight by humans. It must have defied all consistency and normalcy of what people consider believeable, and consistent with their known laws of logic - and look at the skies now.
Is a minions template on par with a helicopter? no of course not - but the mentality is still the same. Nothing can be accepted as norm until someone includes it in the accepted guidelines.
Me personally? I dont really care. I dont care if Paizo includes it or not, really. It's not going to change my gameplay or enjoyment one bit - I've adapted it already sans Paizo's permission for my own campaigns, and it works fine. I can continue to use it regardless of how they ever respond. Me personally: I'm just involved in this thread to help explain my opinion as to why I implemented such a system and how I use it, and its specific mechanics for others who are interested in such a measure so that they can borrow what they like and do with it as they wish. Me: I'm a capable enough DM to come up with such concepts and know my players well enough to know that they are capable of suspending disbelief for the fun - and every new rule book thats released has new rules in it that never existed before - at one point those rules broke the consistency and guidelines of the game: clerics (divine casters in general) casted spells by memorizing spells; so suggest a divine spellcaster that could spontaneously cast spells like a sorcerer would have defied the logic, and known consistencies and rules of the game, but lo and behold a Complete Divine book was subsequently released and suddenly, theres no more argument. The inconsistency became consistent. The lack of guidelines became canon. Action points for instance are seemingly illogical and a trite and arbitrary system, and theres really no way to describe their implementation in a game - but many people use a variation of fate/action/hero points in their game. MANY do. Why? How is this possible? Theres no logic for the sudden increase in dice rolls to succeed what should have failed? We just accept it for what it is: a mechanic to make the game more fun. So what that the dice shows a 14 and we needed a 15 to hit? So what that I should have failed the save and be a toad right now? I have this handy conceptualized action point that exists nowhere in the game world - its not a spell, an ability, its not a feat, or skill, or morale-based bonus - it just is - and it suddenly helped me continue to be a dwarf - i dont look good with warts anyway so I'm glad to still be a dwarf. There are many others out there who are new to the game, or lack the experience or capability to really put a idealized concept into balanced game-terms to make it work; thats why i'm sharing my ideas; Thats why I'm here. If you're not going to use them, its not going to end my world or destroy my sensibilities. Nor am I trying to convince you to like them or try them Sam I Am. On the other hand, i don't believe if such a template existed in the game, it wouldn't destroy your love for the game either.
Somewhere somehow, someone has come up with an explanation in game as to exactly why those action points exists in the game and what they represent, and how it saved me; in fact theres probably dozens of rationalizations from dozens of people. I believe that the same sentiment and intelligence and creativity throughout the gaming industry out there that was capable of justifying action points could find a way to justify 'minions' too. If someone can conceptualize the use of an arbitrary system such as action points, I think they're capable of accepting a system such as minions. The creativity doesn't just suddenly disappear - it just needs to be redirected.
Robert
Let me ask you this: since the notion of two creatures being vastly different is affront to your myopic views: How do you think you'd fare in a one-on-one game with Shaquile O'Neal or Kobe Bryant?
The stats presented in the MM are presented as typical representations of a species not as highly trained superior specimens. A Fire Giant right out of the monster manual would get his butt kicked by a fire giant with 8 levels of barbarian? Why? Because he has training.
Making a low HP weak Fire Giant is not representing me versus Kobe Bryant it's representing me versus a 90 y/o cancer patient.
You put down a lot of words based on a seriously flawed concept.
...being vastly different is affront to your myopic views:...
I dont like to think in absolutes. I leave that to the bigots, racists, and other law enforcement agencies.
Can't put together a ration debate so you are resorting to insults and cheap shots? Please.
Not responding to denis, just in general...
Well, if the party of 12th level characters is just mowing down a group of hill giant minions, then it's not the concept that's flawed. It's your use of it.
The minion mechanic is not meant to make some random creatures easier to kill for the party. It's meant to pick up when a creature fails to represent any real threat to the party. You can either upgrade the monster with a few more HD, or use handful of minions. Once again, Idon't mean the 1 hp ones!
If a giant doesn't work as a meatshield for a sorcerer or it doesn't have any other real function than there is little reason why it should last on the board for too long. Kicking up the offensive capabilities and cuting down book keeping is a nice bonus.
I look upon the minion as a thing that allows me to concentrate the fight a little. If a creature has 120 hp and it's able to hit the party with 18-20 while flanking and being helped, then I think it can have some 40 hp and the ability to hit a bit more regularly. The fight won't take so long and the overall result will be the same except hat it required less rolling and it was more exciting.
The fight won't take so long and the overall result will be the same except (t)hat it required less rolling and it was more exciting.
But you can't use a weaker base creature and give it attack and damage bonuses? The ONLY way to do it is by hamstringing a regular creature?
Robert,
Thanks for your reply. I'm well aware that all rules have to start somewhere -- but read the bit in my post about consistency of application and the Leadership feat.
EDIT: Unless... make them "slaves," not "minions." Their feeble hp are due to being bred in captivity. Then the PCs' followers would be exempt because they're free men. If the PCs capture one of these "mooks," they'll receive a tale of servitude from birth. An ogre that's never had to fight for its life, or survive on its own, would be weaker than his wild kin. Give 'em all slave collars. A very solid game-world reason for their gimpness (a reason the PCs can learn) would potentially sell me on the mechanic. But just a hand-wave and a glib, "it's cooler to kill lots of things fast!" doesn't do it for me.
|
|
Robert,
Thanks for your reply. I'm well aware that all rules have to start somewhere -- but read the bit in my post about consistency of application and the Leadership feat.
EDIT: Unless... make them "slaves," not "minions." Their feeble hp are due to being bred in captivity. Then the PCs' followers would be exempt because they're free men. If the PCs capture one of these "mooks," they'll receive a tale of servitude from birth. An ogre that's never had to fight for its life, or survive on its own, would be weaker than his wild kin. Give 'em all slave collars. A very solid game-world reason for their gimpness (a reason the PCs can learn) would potentially sell me on the mechanic. But just a hand-wave and a glib, "it's cooler to kill lots of things fast!" doesn't do it for me.
Slaves, mooks, minions, meatshields, cannon-fodder - whatever moniker one wishes to use or feel comfortable with.
Your idea of the slaves theme is exactly what I meant when I said, "the intelligent and creative society of roleplayers are capable of justifying anything if they just try."
Thats exactly what I mean. Lets face it, Hit Points are a very abstract and subjective ideal. Many people have different (but similar) theories or explanation as to exactly how they represent a character's lifeforce.
Whichever variation an idividual is most comfortable adapting and feeling comfortable with is the one they then use to 'trick their mind' into accepting it as a believable system.
In truth it isnt; neither are minions; neither are reflex saving throws while you're paralyzed (but its still allowed); the point is - we simply find a way to justify something being the way it is by coming up with an acceptable explanation.
If the idea of making "minions" into collar-wearing, beat-down, down-trodden, red-head-stepchild, low-morale, whipping-boy slaves of a BBEG helps accept the mechanic as justifiabe, thats great, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Me? In my mind, they are lesser, weaker, and more feeble members of a particular race, (the non-Kobe Bryants) and by Darwins' theory the BBEG is the stronger and will survive and bich-slaps the others into serving him as his minions, as they are easier to bully. Just like the the pencil-necked geeks in school that got bullied. Weaker, sicklier, asthmatic, scoliosis, or whatever other malady that affects people that makes them less-than ideal specimens of their particular species.
Robert
|
|
Let me ask you this: since the notion of two creatures being vastly different is affront to your myopic views: How do you think you'd fare in a one-on-one game with Shaquile O'Neal or Kobe Bryant?The stats presented in the MM are presented as typical representations of a species not as highly trained superior specimens. A Fire Giant right out of the monster manual would get his butt kicked by a fire giant with 8 levels of barbarian? Why? Because he has training.
But it makes sense that if that MM is a typical (average) version, and there are those who have superior qualities, there has to be those with inferior qualities to create an average.
Training or not - most professional athletes get 'better' with training - but already have a genetic make-up that makes them "gifted athletes" a more healthy and physically capable example of their race; no different than those who have genetic makeup to make them genetic geniuses or creative minds such as Beethoven.
All the training in the world wouldn't have made Shaquile O'Neal that damn gigantically freakish in size, strength, wingspan with arms, and imposing force. The training just made him better. He was already gifted with size and strength and physique, and physical health - far beyond the average person in our society.
Finally i am fully capable of continuing a rational debate - as has been evident in these posts - the comparison of law enforcement to bigots was an attempt at levity to keep the atmosphere light, in spite of the on-going debate.
Robert
|
Contributor
|
Earlier on I was following this thread, and then I missed a bunch, so apologies all around if I'm retreading old ground.
I'm going to approach this from the Point of View of "If you are interested in house-ruling minions into your game, here's an idea."
I'll add the caveat that I've always liked minions, since before they were called mooks in Feng Shui.
So one of the big complaints about minions is that they break verisimilitude and increase metagaming by having only one hit point. This is a valid complaint.
It has been suggested before that a solution is to give them lower hit points than normal, but not just one. This solution does not work for me, because one advantage of minions that I want to retain is that you don't have to keep track of their HP. They are either up or down.
So, instead, give them a damage threshold, which if they take damage in excess of that amount in one creature's turn, they are defeated.
I like "defeated," because it could just be a small injury to the creature, but that particular creature curls up and cries like a baby. Or runs away. Or whatever. DM fiat.
So how does the other part work and why?
Let's assume we have an ogre minion, with a damage threshold of 12 (totally arbitrary). If a fighter hits it and does 12 or more damage, it is defeated. If he does less than 12 damage, it is unaffected. You don't track them at all.
So then the ranger hits one with two weapon fighting. She hits twice, for a total of 12 HP, defeating it.
Or the mage hits it with4 magic missiles, and does 12 or more damage, it is defeated.
Or the cleric hits it with his mace for 3, his spiritual weapon hits it for another 4 and the two badgers he summoned manage to do a total of 5 hp. It goes down.
Or, the ogre charges, provoking attacks of opportunity from multiple opponents, totaling more than 12 hp, and the ogre is beaten.
But in any of these cases, if the total damage on the active character's round is less than 12, the minion is unharmed. Which is not to say that the DM describes him as unharmed. The injuries have flavour, but no crunch.
Any takers?
|
|
It has been suggested before that a solution is to give them lower hit points than normal, but not just one. This solution does not work for me, because one advantage of minions that I want to retain is that you don't have to keep track of their HP. They are either up or down.
So, instead, give them a damage threshold, which if they take damage in excess of that amount in one creature's turn, they are defeated.
But in any of these cases, if the total damage on the active character's round is less than 12, the minion is unharmed. Which is not to say that the...
I like it. Its very simple. How does one determine the arbitrary "damage thresh-hold" Based on Constitution Score? The number of HD of the creature needs to be taken into consideration. So CON score + # of HD?
Regardless, I can see your point of not keeping track of hit points; and doing so is a bit counter-productive to the use of them.
For the record - reducing them to minimum hit points in my experiences has had them last only in one persons attacks regiment - and rarely if ever lasting more than one round from the time they start taking damage. Regardless, I can see the threshold being a great idea - I can see it justified as that being the "lucky" hit that pierced or slashed something important that put him on the ground out of the fight - slash to the eyes, hamstring injury preventing movement, a lung pierced unable to breath; a gut-wound causing too much pain to go on, a severed hand unable wield a weapon, etc. Maybe not "dead" but certainly out of the fight.
For my take on minions, it isnt just the low hit points that makes them "minions" its that they dont take iterative attacks, dont use special attack features such as disease, poison, spells, petrification capabilities etc. And I use an avg damage and avg roll on saving throws so as to avoid the extra dice rolling during the combat - all of these synergize to making them mangeable and easy to use.
Robert
|
Contributor
|
I'm not sure how to do the HP yet... I'm thinking of a formula based on a % of max HP for the base creature type. I'll need to playtest it to get the number right. I'm thinking something like 10% of maximum, but I'm really just guessing right now.
I also agree that there are other facets to the minion and its purpose; this is just the most contentious one ;-). I think fixed lowered damage is another good one, and no special powers. At most a ranged attack and a melee attack.
Any takers?
I would. Stat blocks stays the same; just put a note in "morale" that says "an ogre minion is defeated if it takes 12+ hp damage in 1 round." No weird templates, no new rules systems, no game inconsistencies; just a note in the block.
|
|
Any takers?I would. Stat blocks stays the same; just put a note in "morale" that says "an ogre minion is defeated if it takes 12+ hp damage in 1 round." No weird templates, no new rules systems, no game inconsistencies; just a note in the block.
Well if you implement the other aspects of "minions" that serve their purpose:
Avg Damage
Avg Saving Throws
No iterative attacks
No use or implementation of spells or special abilities
etc.
Then just that one simple note in the stat-block isnt' enough - there would need to be a universal understanding of how to resolve encounters with such a creature.
But I see the damage threshold to be pretty simple, and cut-&-dry mechanic.
Robert
For my take on minions, it isnt just the low hit points that makes them "minions" its that they dont take iterative attacks, dont use special attack features such as disease, poison, spells, petrification capabilities etc.
My take would be to just not use monsters with those kinds of special attacks as minions. Basilisk minions with no petrifaction? Use monitor lizards or crocodiles instead. For giants, etc. with iterative attacks, give them Vital Strike as a feat. The point is, this can all be done using the existing rules; a template isn't really needed.
|
|
I'm not sure how to do the HP yet... I'm thinking of a formula based on a % of max HP for the base creature type. I'll need to playtest it to get the number right. I'm thinking something like 10% of maximum, but I'm really just guessing right now.
I also agree that there are other facets to the minion and its purpose; this is just the most contentious one ;-). I think fixed lowered damage is another good one, and no special powers. At most a ranged attack and a melee attack.
I've been reworking some of the encounters that I ran using the template I created - and the hit points generated from that:
An abitrary figure I came up with is:
Half Con score + HD.
For example: 6th level fighter ogres. CON: 15, HD: 10. Threshhold: 17.
Considering thats a CR9 creature typically, you're going to use such a creature as one of 8 - 12 minions for 12th level party; most 12th level characters can muster an attack of 17 points of damage.
6th level fighter minotaurs. CON: 15, HD: 12. Threshold: 19.
Seems to be pretty consistent. This has 2 more points of a threshold, but such a creature would normally be a CR 10 instead of 9.
Robert
An abitrary figure I came up with is:
Half Con score + HD.
I'm not clear on why it needs to be fixed? Already, Paizo puts things in the "morale" block like, "If reduced below 30 hp, Jimjax falls to the floor and grovels for his life." (That makes him a minion, more or less.) Instead of a formula set in stone, adjust the threshold based on the needs of your scenario and the likely damage output of the PCs.
But it makes sense that if that MM is a typical (average) version, and there are those who have superior qualities, there has to be those with inferior qualities to create an average.
You make a good argument for physical variance in a race. But the game already has contingencies for that. You also don't not explain why a whole group of incredibly fragile specimens happens to be grouped together where they can all be easily killed. We are not talking about one weak person in a group, we are talking about 20-30 individuals who are the lower 1% of the bell curve as far as physical durability goes... and just as strong and capable of doing harm as anyone else in their race. Even worse, these physically inferior minions are going to most often be those in charge of guarding the BBEG. If I was to have a group of bodyguards they wouldn't be the sort who drop with one hit.
All the training in the world wouldn't have made Shaquile O'Neal that damn gigantically freakish in size, strength, wingspan with arms, and imposing force. The training just made him better. He was already gifted with size and strength and physique, and physical health - far beyond the average person in our society.
No indeed. But again you are talking about the superior specimens which are improvements over the base race. "Minions" as you perceive them are far below the bell curve. Or are you trying to redefine the whole MM so that the individuals stated are the 'superior' ones and minions are the normal ones?
You still don't address the very real issues of metagaming and players developing minion specific strategies.
You could just track one pool of HPs for all the minions and every time a full minions worth of damage is done remove one.Thats a good idea! That certainly has promise.
A few questions: Who decides which one to remove? What factors into the decision of which one to remove.
For simplicity you could just have the one that took the hit drop or whichever one you felt caught the most flak. Either way I'd say it would be the DM's call within reason :)
The concept of the minions template etc is that you really shouldn't need to keep track of hit points. MOST of the time about 75%, they should die after one round of being engaged in combat.Out of 12 (a typical good number of minions), 8 should die after being attacked. The other four you would have to keep track of. If you just write it on the battle-mat, or paper or whatever, it shoudln't be overly difficult.
Would definitely give a nice feel to the fight.
You could also divide the pool up in this fashion say half HPs to 8 and double to the remaining 4
Well if you implement the other aspects of "minions" that serve their purpose:
Avg Damage
Avg Saving Throws
No iterative attacks
No use or implementation of spells or special abilities
Robert,
Special abilities I've already addressed -- monsters with special abilities really shouldn't BE minions: use crocodiles instead of basilisks, Large worgs instead of winter wolves, ogres instead of ogre magi, etc.
Iterative attacks -- use the Vital Strike feat; give it as a bonus feat if BAB is between +6 and +10.
Average damage, saves -- this doesn't need to be "hard-wired" into some kind of template; really, anyone can do this at any time to speed up combat. Put a note in the text, if you feel the need to.
The important thing is, there's nothing in this package so far that predicates a whole new rules system. So far you've got a morale note, a bonus feat (sometimes - only if the minions in question have iterative attacks), and some hints on speeding up play in general. That, to me, doesn't scream "class" or "template." Rather, a paragraph or subsection in the "encounter building" section of the rulebook would cover it nicely.
|
|
I must have missed this thread before.
I read the arguments above against introduction of minions in PFRPG, but I am still strongly in favour of addition of something similar to PFRPG:
1. It doesn't make 1 hp monsters more survivable, but it gives them more punch which makes these "minions" more challenging and interesting for higher level PCs than usual.
2. I know that there are magical means to achieve the same effect. But why not offering "natural" means to do so?
3. "It can't be, because it shouldn't be" is not argument enough for me. ;-)
I don't think any of these arguments have been used against minions. As for #2... arbitrarily reducing hit points by a factor of 4 is "natural" means?
My big problem with minions is
#1 Creatures in the game should be predictable, a hill giant should always be a hill giant. This allows players to plan in a rational way as opposed to meta gaming "Well there are 20 hill giants up there... no way we could survive that... DM must have put a bunch of minions in here for us to kill".#2 Minions encourage the players to develop minion specific strategies which change the overall game balance. Spells that cause moderate amounts of damage over a large area become disproportionately valuable. Every mid-high level group is going to have 2-3 wands of fireball to handle minion battles.
-- Actually forget about wand of fireball, wands with shaped burning hands are the ultimate anti-minion item. This isn't an issue in 4e because the game system is designed to handle this. 1HP creatures are a particularly egregious example of this.
#3 If a higher level minion is essentially a low level critter which is more capable of hitting characters... why make a significant change in the rules system to accommodate a situation you can already accommodate?
Hello Dennis,
I see that in one day such a huge number of replies was posted (mostly by the very same few people) that I restrict my answer to the person who directly addressed my original posting - you:
D&D certainly supports different styles of play and your argument #1 clearly shows such different playing attitudes:
I want monsters to keep a certain degree of unpredictability. The worst for me in older edition was the "It's a [enter monster name]", followed by [enumeration of stats] and [boring slaughtering]. From my point of view one of the biggest advantages of 3e over its predecessors is the upgradability of monsters. The minion concept blends in quite well from my perspective. It gives DMs an easy to use tool to make e.g. 1 hp monsters more challenging. Of course 3e already offers possibilities to add levels to these critters, but can you apply all the changes in a minute? Is application of additional hit dice or class levels feasable for monsters who only last a few rounds? And what about low level monsters who are to stay low level, easy to beat, but aren't to be ignore by the PCs?
Argument #2: I don't see any major unbalancing caused by minions. The purpose of minions is to give otherwise weak monsters some more punch against your average (higher level) PCs. The concept only makes sense as the simplification it is supposed to be when it does simplify game play. Making critters killable by one well placed fire ball who could otherwise withstand such an attack doesn't make sense to me. I don't intend to "weaken" monsters by these minion rules, but to give them some more punch (see above).
About the necessity to change strategies on the player side: Yes, I'd hope so!!
#3: I don't see how the proposals made so far can lead to similar results. Mobs are handled differently, morale boosts usually don't increase hit throws up to the intended level which could make hits by the above mentioned 1 hp monsters possible.
The discussion clearly shows that (at least in this thread) there is no clear majority for inclusion of minion rules in the new PFRPG core rules. It would make a great optional rule, though, and I sincerely hope that it will be included in PFRPG final.
Getting a bit off topic: PFRPG is supposed to stay 3e compatible. I am one of the biggest advocates of this feature. On the other hand I don't see any reason for attacking rule proposals which just add to the existing rules without turning old rules obsolete. These discussions (it's not just about "minions") more and more look like zealots fighting over the only one true rule interpretation. Please consider which rules are really worth fighting over...
- Günther
The fight won't take so long and the overall result will be the same except (t)hat it required less rolling and it was more exciting.But you can't use a weaker base creature and give it attack and damage bonuses? The ONLY way to do it is by hamstringing a regular creature?
In what way I'm hamstiringing regular creature? I suggest using a creature that is already weak if compared to PCs. Is it wrong that I want to make the creature a little bit more short lived and to give it better attacks...wait, didn't you just suggest to do the same? Could you please explain a bit more in detail where did you find what I said wrong?
D&D certainly supports different styles of play and your argument #1 clearly shows such different playing attitudes:
I want monsters to keep a certain degree of unpredictability. The worst for me in older edition was the "It's a [enter monster name]", followed by [enumeration of stats] and [boring slaughtering]. From my point of view one of the biggest advantages of 3e over its predecessors is the upgradability of monsters. The minion concept blends in quite well from my perspective.
I agree. Actually it sounds like you and I are in the same ballpark on this whole concept. More on that in a second. What I mean by predictability is that if a character encounters the same type of creature twice they should be able to know roughly what they are encountering. Maybe it's a bit tougher because it has some class levels or some magic. But it should be the same creature at the core. Having a room full of highly trained ninja kobolds is awesome.
My issue is with the proposals bouncing around that take monsters and neuter them by significantly reducing their hit points and nerfing their saving throws. The suggestions vary but they go everything from having 1HP creatures to 1HP/ HD.
Argument #2: I don't see any major unbalancing caused by minions. The purpose of minions is to give otherwise weak monsters some more punch against your average (higher level) PCs.
I love this idea and have posted some suggestions encouraging this.
The discussion clearly shows that (at least in this thread) there is no clear majority for inclusion of minion rules in the new PFRPG core rules. It would make a great optional rule, though, and I sincerely hope that it will be included in PFRPG final.
I think most people on this thread feel that the entire concept of dangerous, but easy to kill enemies makes for fun encounters. There is a serious disagreement about how to get there. Some of us think the best way is to take weaker creatures and make them more dangerous to the players without increasing their hit points. Others feel that the best way is to take higher level monsters and make them easy to kill.
...
The discussion clearly shows that (at least in this thread) there is no clear majority for inclusion of minion rules in the new PFRPG core rules. It would make a great optional rule, though, and I sincerely hope that it will be included in PFRPG final.I think most people on this thread feel that the entire concept of dangerous, but easy to kill enemies makes for fun encounters. There is a serious disagreement about how to get there. Some of us think the best way is to take weaker creatures and make them more dangerous to the players without increasing their hit points. Others feel that the best way is to take higher level monsters and make them easy to kill.
I'm in aggreement with you two on this. And I'm for increasing weaklings power a little. There is no point in tweaking the monster as long as it's able to threaten the PCs.
|
|
I'm in aggreement with you two on this. And I'm for increasing weaklings power a little. There is no point in tweaking the monster as long as it's able to threaten the PCs....
The discussion clearly shows that (at least in this thread) there is no clear majority for inclusion of minion rules in the new PFRPG core rules. It would make a great optional rule, though, and I sincerely hope that it will be included in PFRPG final.I think most people on this thread feel that the entire concept of dangerous, but easy to kill enemies makes for fun encounters. There is a serious disagreement about how to get there. Some of us think the best way is to take weaker creatures and make them more dangerous to the players without increasing their hit points. Others feel that the best way is to take higher level monsters and make them easy to kill.
True. However, I feel that the actual purpose of minion concept may be getting overlooked in all of this:
3.5 already has clear, concise, and easy to follow guidelines in making creature scaled and advanced to become tougher.
What the concept of the minions is that we're interests us is the capability of having many foes - to make the combat more varied and exciting against a number of targets that CAN threaten the PCs, BUT do not require alot of recordkeeping nor a bunch of time spent adjudicating their turns in the combat.
Thus the 'no iterative attacks' the 'avg damage and saving throws' etc.
The ultimate goal is to have 'larger' scale combats without taking hours to resolve.
All DMs worth their salt can scale and advance a creature using the charts in the MM - this takes a while and they are then not only a credible threat to the PCs, but essentially its own encounter that takes the normal amount of time to adjudicate.
Done correctly, the minions should be as hard to hit, and as easy for them to hit as a creature commensurate of the PCs challenge - but not present an overwhelming threat (as one who can make as many attacks as a true challenge of that level - nor potentially does wracking max damage) and lasts just a couple of rounds for all of them - it just allows for the creatures to be taken seriously for a few rounds while proving to be a buffer for the BBEG.
If all we're doing is looking for ways to increase a creatures challenge and toughness, without addressing the time consumption the encounter would employ, its just reinventing the wheel.
Robert
|
|
An abitrary figure I came up with is:
Half Con score + HD.The important thing is, there's nothing in this package so far that predicates a whole new rules system. So far you've got a morale note, a bonus feat (sometimes - only if the minions in question have iterative attacks), and some hints on speeding up play in general. That, to me, doesn't scream "class" or "template." Rather, a paragraph or subsection in the "encounter building" section of the rulebook would cover it nicely
Kirth, your earlier arguemnts indicated that you wanted consistency with concise rules and guidelines that can be recognized universally and understood.
A creature template does not create new rules and such. A creature template is in fact a universally understood and recognized facet of 3rd edition creature building. Its the easiest way to implement such changes to a creature.
All creature templates indicate what types of creatures can be considered eligible for the template: such as a Half-Fiend can only be applied to "living corporeal creatures with an INT score of 4 or more and of a non-good alignment"
There's your precedence and consitency right there.
Minions Template
"Can be applied to....."
Without a template a stat block that states:
"These minotaura have a damage threshold of 14; once one character does excess of 14 points of damage on his turn, the creature becomes destroyed and is removed from combat. Also the minotaurss always does 7 points of damage with each hit. Despite have a +8 BAB, they only get one attack per round regardless of circumstances. Also, the minotaurs don't roll for saving throws; simply assume they always rolled 11. Also they take half damage from area effect spells, also....."
You're response and many others (who were not privvy to this verbose thread) would say, "Woah? What? HUH? Why? That does't make sense. That breaks consistency with how these creatures should, or how saving throws are done. Why is this encounter arbitrarily being handled this way? I need concise guidelines and rules to comprehend the purpose."
And of course all of that would need to be written in every stat block that used the minions/slaves/mooks/meatshiels/canon-fodder concept.
Option 2
"These are 4th level fighter Minotaurs, however they have been slaves to the <insert BBEG here> and have the Minions Template. Damage Threshold: 14. Attk: +16 Dmg: 7, Saves: F 19, R: 14 W: 12"
response: "Ah - I know that template - it means the creature only gets one attack; thats why theres a threshold mentioned and a damage without a range and explains why saving throws are so high - its' already got the 11 on the die factored in.......etc"
(specifics above are ad-libbed for reference - but the point of it is still made.)
The bottom line - adding a template to the Monster Manual is a one page easy to use and understood mechanic that has concise and universally understood consistency, rules and guidelines.
As a side note: think of how easy the DM can make adjustments on the fly with such a notion. consider DM running a published adventure for 10th level character, and the above example is one of the encounters in the temple, but the PCs that are being used are actually 12th level. To make it slightly more challenging:
"Ah we'll just increase the minions to 6th level fighters; +18 Atk; 16 threshold and 8 dmg. Saves: 21 15 13 Done."
Robert
I'm for increasing weaklings power a little. There is no point in tweaking the monster as long as it's able to threaten the PCs.
That answers my question then, Zmar. I was more addressing the people who want to, for example, take a balor, strip away its supernatural and spell-like abilities, reduce it to 40 hp, give it only one attack, and then send 20 of them after the PCs. After all that, why start with a balor? Giving a gargoyle fighter levels and then indicating it quits fighting after taking 40 hp damage is faster, more efficient, and more honest in the long run.
These are 4th level fighter Minotaurs, however they have been slaves to the <insert BBEG here> and have the Minions Template. Damage Threshold: 14. Attk: +16 Dmg: 7, Saves: F 19, R: 14 W: 12
I feel that using the average saves, damage, etc. need not be unique to "minions," and I strongly feel that it really shouldn't be part of a template, because it's a game play/system consideration and not a monster consideration -- what you're doing is changing the way the game itself is played, in order to streamline things. That's a good idea; I approve; but it's not what monster templates do. There are no templates currently, for example, that say, "all crits against this monster deal exactly 62 points of damage," or something like that. Also, templates never strip away general game mechanics (threatening a crit on a 20, gaining feats every 3 HD as long as it's not mindless, etc.), they only affect that creature's abilities and stats. See what I'm getting at? Templates change the creature, they don't change the fundamental rules of the game; that's not their purpose and that's a huge break from any sort of consistency, and it opens up all kinds of potential abuse and just plain wrongheaded silliness:
"Random Template"
This can be applied to any corporeal monster. It represents no magical property on the part of the monster, but just seems like it would make playing more fun.
"SQ: When in combat with a random template monster, player characters roll 3d10 for attacks, 6d12 for saves, and 1d4 for broken fingernails. NPCs roll 4d4 for everything. Monsters die automatically on any attack roll of 2, 6, 8, or 18. Everyone with the Power Attack feat loses it if they hit, and have it replaced with the Monkey Grip feat."
That's obviously a lot more extreme, but it's meant to illustrate what a mess it is when templates can be loaded with changes to the fundamental D20 rules. So, that having been addressed, I was thinking of something more along the lines of "Option 3:"
Minotaurs (6): MM(page#)
Morale: A minotaur slave throws down its weapon and flees if it takes over 14 points of damage in one round.
(Note again that I'd MUCH rather have a "give up/flee" option than fewer hp; it involves less monkeying with the D20 rules as a whole.)
No new template needed, and no extra page space. If they have class levels and need a stat block, then so be it; your notation above implies that they have no skills, no ability to sense attackers, etc., so it wouldn't really do even if assuming rolls of "10" were part of the template. I'm stongly against a mechanic that forces creatures to be combat-only video-game icons: they should have senses, skills, etc. like all other creatures. If you want average stats noted for minions, they can go in the stat block as usual:
hp 52 (flees at 40)
Fort +5 (15), Ref +6 (16), Will +1 (11)
Melee drinking straw +8 (18) for 1d6+6/18-20 (9)