My thoughts after 1st look at 4E

TLG d20, Necromancer Games and general. Discuss any game not covered in another forum.
User avatar
Jackal
Ulthal
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Jackal »

The Highway Man wrote:
Yup, I can see how you can feel that way. It's not for every CK out there, obviously.

Oddly enough, I really liked the concept when I read about it in True20. I had visions of LotR style battles where a character might get to slay a couple dozen enemies at once.

In the end, that's exactly what I got. And I figured out quickly that movie combat belongs in movies. Basically, the players started to feel like they were in a video game (long before 4e was even announced) battling "mobs" of worthless enemies while waiting to get to the "mid-level boss" and/or "end-game boss."

No matter how I mixed up minions vs standards it gave that same feel which my players didn't enjoy (neither did I for that matter). On the other hand, I can see how other gamers might find this interesting and even a great roleplaying tool. Especially if the CK is able to come up with better ways to use it than I did.

The Highway Man

Post by The Highway Man »

It worries me when I'm reading your feedback, Jackal, because your enthusiasm when reading True20 mirrors almost exactly the one I feel right now with the minion rules.

All I'll have to do is give it a try. Then I'll know for sure if it's for us or not.

What I want to avoid is the meta-game thinking, the feeling of entitlement from the players that "this monster should have been a mook. Why was he so hard to beat?" *whine*

I've never had that kind of player at my tables, though. I think that has to do with my very upfront, inclusive way of running games while still making it clear I have the final word as referee (the iron hand in a velvet glove, so to speak). But again, you never know. This minion thing could backlash in my face and lead to poor sessions.

We'll see! I'll keep you guys posted, alright?

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Post by Treebore »

I have always done minions. They just had very low HP's and low AC's so they were hit easier and went down with one or two average damage hits.

I think putting them at 1 HP makes it too extreme and too obvious. Just look at your best fighters average damage with a hit. Thats how many HP's they have. Or I double it.

So my mooks have (depending on level and the fighters damage potential), say 4 HP's, or multiples thereof, depending on how many times I want them to be hit before going down. The key bad guys have high HP's, high AC, etc...

Like my Minotaur Fighter has an 18 STR and uses a bearded axe, so his average damage is 9 HP per hit. So if I were to make mooks for him to encounter I would give them 9 to 14 HP's, depending on how likely I want him to take the Mook down in one hit. If I want it to be very likely then I give 9 HP's, If I want it to likely take two hits I give them 14 HP's.

Now in a group, like my minotaurs, where the other fighter doesn't deal out that kind of damage, I have two sets of mooks. One set, that has 9 to 14 HP's, tend to attack my minotaur. The other set, that has 3 to 5 HP, tend to go after the other fighter.

Set one will have full suits of chainmail (AC 16) because my minotaurs to hit is +9 with his axe.

Set two will have chain shirts (AC 14), since the rest of the parties BtH ranges from +3 to +6.

Then the bad guys will be as tough as I want them to be as well.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by Fiffergrund »

I'm not sure I have a use for the 4E or True 20 method. I think the nature of monster ecology accomplishes this for me without needing a special mechanic. With humanoids, weaker races are ruled by the stronger. I can just use a weaker humanoid race as "minions" and have them ruled by a stronger specimen or a stronger race of humanoid. I can keep them all full stat and not have to worry about metagame explanations.

Say, 20 full stat goblins to 10 full stat hobgoblins to a +2 HD hobgoblin chieftain. That's the way it's always been done until now, and I guess I'm unclear as to why that's no longer adequate, and why something else is needed that makes less sense and requires more metagame thinking.

Definitely post your experience, Highway Man. I naturally haven't tried this approach, but I'd bet my experience would be similar to Jackal's, and I'm curious as to what you discover when you try it.

Edit: Treebore's description, above, works as well. Anything that doesn't drastically alter the stats of a typical specimen of monster seems more logical to me.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 14094
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Post by serleran »

I absolutely hate the concept that a 12+ HD monster, say, a dragon, can have 1 HP and get killed even if you miss it.... that just... nevermind. Enjoy your game.

When I need to cut a swath through 458763459 million creatures to feel my character is powerful and "heroic,' I'll play 4e. Until then, I'll just craft my own 9th level spells.

The Highway Man

Post by The Highway Man »

serleran wrote:
I absolutely hate the concept that a 12+ HD monster, say, a dragon, can have 1 HP and get killed even if you miss it.... that just... nevermind. Enjoy your game.

Oh I feel your pain on this one! I for one would never come up with the "1 HP Dragon". That would completely run against the very concept of what a dragon is supposed to be in the game. Fearsome, legendary, powerful, cunning!

That's something I'd use in appropriate circumstances, and the dragon with 1 HP certainly is NOT one of those.

The Highway Man

Post by The Highway Man »

Fiffergrund wrote:
I can just use a weaker humanoid race as "minions" and have them ruled by a stronger specimen or a stronger race of humanoid. I can keep them all full stat and not have to worry about metagame explanations.

Say, 20 full stat goblins to 10 full stat hobgoblins to a +2 HD hobgoblin chieftain.

That sure is one perfectly valid way to do it. I don't think there's anything wrong with that - at all. Now, imagine the "fighting through ranks of Uruk-Hai" scenario. I personally would have problems using simple orc stats for Uruk-Hai. The minions make the use of Uruk Hai in bigger numbers possible. They're still a threat. Although not so much individually, like you noted above.

The interest here on a game play point of view is that the goblins in some scenarios will never have a chance in hell to hit a melee-inclined PC with armor/dex etc. With the minion concept, you have opponents that can still hit and hurt. Badly. So it's different, tactically speaking.

I'd alternate different situations to make the game more enjoyable. At least that's the theory. Variety is good!

User avatar
Jackal
Ulthal
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Jackal »

The Highway Man wrote:
It worries me when I'm reading your feedback, Jackal, because your enthusiasm when reading True20 mirrors almost exactly the one I feel right now with the minion rules.

All I'll have to do is give it a try. Then I'll know for sure if it's for us or not.

What I want to avoid is the meta-game thinking, the feeling of entitlement from the players that "this monster should have been a mook. Why was he so hard to beat?" *whine*

I've never had that kind of player at my tables, though. I think that has to do with my very upfront, inclusive way of running games while still making it clear I have the final word as referee (the iron hand in a velvet glove, so to speak). But again, you never know. This minion thing could backlash in my face and lead to poor sessions.

We'll see! I'll keep you guys posted, alright?

Don't worry over my experiences. As you said, the best thing you can do is try out the house rule and see how it works for your group. Your style may be different enough to make it work or, for that matter, you may just be a better CK than me and come up with something brilliant I missed. lol

As for myself, I do things more like Treebore and Fiffergrund. I'll certainly fiddle with hit die type and number along with fixed hit points to make certain encounters easier but the "minion" concept bothers me.

The biggest reason was what you mentioned above; meta-game thinking. My players have always been very good about not meta-thinking but the concept of minions is one that is hard to get around. Unless I made it clear to them up front (which I hated) then they were always wondering whether X creature was a minion and not whether X creature should be feared for what it is or what it can do in game. Basically the player point of view took over from the character point of view for the initial tactical assessment of every battle. And that's a pace breaker that's a pain to recover from.

But, as noted, I'd warn you against dropping an idea because someone else had a bad experience with it. Try it out and let us know how it worked for you.

User avatar
nwelte1
Lore Drake
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 7:00 am

Post by nwelte1 »

serleran wrote:
I absolutely hate the concept that a 12+ HD monster, say, a dragon, can have 1 HP and get killed even if you miss it.... that just... nevermind. Enjoy your game.

When I need to cut a swath through 458763459 million creatures to feel my character is powerful and "heroic,' I'll play 4e. Until then, I'll just craft my own 9th level spells.

Minions are not killed by misses. The rule is a minion dies if it is hit and takes damage. A miss that has collateral damage does not kill the minion.

Also, minions does not have all the ability a typical monster of its type would have. Generally, they have one type of attack.

Montague

Post by Montague »

nwelte1 wrote:
Minions are not killed by misses. The rule is a minion dies if it is hit and takes damage. A miss that has collateral damage does not kill the minion.

Also, minions does not have all the ability a typical monster of its type would have. Generally, they have one type of attack.

Yep, minions represent creatures that one-on-one are no match for the party or even one character, but en masse can be a good challenge. So the 12 hd dragon would most definitely not be a minion (in fact it would be a solo creature, much tougher than normal), but its several dozen hatchlings in the nursery would be.

After a month's worth of games, my group is smitten with 4th edition. The melee guys love the combat options, the spellcasters love the "no memorization" aspect. Now I still loves me C&C and will still be running it from time to time for an old-school feel, but yeah at least with our group WOTC hit a home run with 4E. And I was one of the most vocal detractors before release, go figure.

User avatar
Jackal
Ulthal
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Jackal »

Montague wrote:
Yep, minions represent creatures that one-on-one are no match for the party or even one character, but en masse can be a good challenge. So the 12 hd dragon would most definitely not be a minion (in fact it would be a solo creature, much tougher than normal), but its several dozen hatchlings in the nursery would be.

After a month's worth of games, my group is smitten with 4th edition. The melee guys love the combat options, the spellcasters love the "no memorization" aspect. Now I still loves me C&C and will still be running it from time to time for an old-school feel, but yeah at least with our group WOTC hit a home run with 4E. And I was one of the most vocal detractors before release, go figure.

Nothing wrong with that. Even I found 4e to be interesting...just not my style. Still, I'd even run a few games with it for a little something different now and again if it didn't require miniatures (or markers of some kind) and a battle-mat. I'm more the "describe the combat" type of CK.

User avatar
moriarty777
Renegade Mage
Posts: 3739
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by moriarty777 »

I finally got a chance to sit down and play a game since I still wanted to give it a fair shake. The minion rules are very interesting IMO and I can see the intent ... think Star Wars and your typical stormtroopers. One blaster shot and they go down. Same kind of thing here.

On the positive, once I got myself in the right 'frame of mind' and saw various powers as descriptive or roleplay opportunities, I found myself enjoying parts of this game. There were a couple of things I had some trouble getting used to while playing but that's more to do with new ideas and ways to do things. I chose to play a Dwarven Fighter and one of the at will powers I chose was Cleave which allows you to hit a target adjacent to you and the target for your Strength Mod in damage. In other words, it will take down a minion. However, there are potentially SOOO many of them that you risk getting overwhelmed, flanked, and killed pretty quickly because aside from the 1 HP, they are in all respects like the regular creature.

I also see how easy it was to run and that is perhaps the biggest improvement in the edition.

On the negative side, I found myself getting bored with the overly tactical aspect of combat exactly the same way I would playing a 3.x game. 4th Edition does handle this a lot better and there wasn't an argument or debate but it still came down to squares...attacks of opportunities...and various phases in each round. The kind of stuff I largely do without in my C&C game.

Ironically, the classes seem a lot more restrictive as they are set in their various party support roles but I don't see the same kind of power gaming that would lead to abuse that was apparent in 3.x

Bottom line... it's a pretty good game. It's also very tactical and miniature heavy -- too much for my tastes. I'll take C&C as my game of choice any day.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com
Image

The Highway Man

Post by The Highway Man »

moriarty777 wrote:
However, there are potentially SOOO many of them that you risk getting overwhelmed, flanked, and killed pretty quickly because aside from the 1 HP, they are in all respects like the regular creature.

That's it. That's what I was trying to convey when I was saying that minions, compared to hordes of kobolds/goblins etc had this advantage of potential lethality. It is STILL dangerous to make your way through a mob of minions. That's the whole point of it.

I also agree with the tactical aspects of 4E. If I love 3rd ed's tactical game play as far as fighters are concerned, and if I love the Book of Seven Swords for that very reason, minus the "anime" tone of the fluff (which I could get rid of pretty easily), what I dislike about 4e is that... this tactical aspect is the whole point of the system's interest. And that sucks for those who do not like it.

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by Fiffergrund »

I still don't understand the logical difference between minions and regular creatures of the same species. I understand the mechanical difference in how they are treated, but not the logical reason why this is the case, in game.

For example, in battle A, one orc attacks. He has full stats.

In battle B, let's say that 50 orcs are minion-ized. Why are these orcs different from the one in battle A? Shouldn't all orcs be consistent within some sort of natural variance?

I can't understand why 50x the number of orcs shouldn't represent 50x the threat level.

I can see age being a factor, as in the example mentioned earlier (young offspring used as minions). Surely, this isn't always the rationale, though.

How do I look a player in the face when he fights a solo hobgoblin and explain why this hobgoblin has full HP while the twenty he fought in a huge melee three days ago folded like thin paper?
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

User avatar
moriarty777
Renegade Mage
Posts: 3739
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by moriarty777 »

Fiffergrund wrote:
I still don't understand the logical difference between minions and regular creatures of the same species. I understand the mechanical difference in how they are treated, but not the logical reason why this is the case, in game.

I'm not sure there is a solid logical difference. It might feed more into the stereotypical as opposed to the archetypal though. With those 50 orc minions you mentioned ... they are just that They are not supposed to be a match for the hero one-on-one. But that one who is of 'regular' toughness would be the tribe leader... the lead warrior... the orcish here/villain. Or if you rather the end-boss of that particular level.

It's possibly a bit backwards in logic too. If I want a horde of goblins... I use a horde of goblins. But if I want one particular goblin to stand out, a goblin spellcaster or leader for instance, I don't weaken all the other goblins, I just modify and 'buff-up' the one.

At the same time, I also remember taking a party of adventurers in the ruins of Phlan in the classic Pool of Radiance (SSI Gold Box) video game and have the warriors in the party 'sweep' through opponents like Kobolds killing several per attack.

Not sure if that made much sense either but I think something like that should be more attributed to skill or a warrior as opposed to very weak opponents.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com
Image

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Post by Treebore »

The only logic about minions is that you want them to go down pretty fast. So whether you do that by giving 1 HP, 5 HP, 10 HP, etc... really doesn't matter as long as it gets the minion to drop as fast as you want them to.

I just do it the way I do because I have been "calculating the averages" for so long I do it without really even thinking.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by Fiffergrund »

Ok, I follow that - but I lose the logic when I consider that the only creatures with 1 HP should be weak, young, or be on the unlucky end of 1 HD.

I think my perspective is that I need to keep my campaigns logically consistent and plausible. Yes, there are fantasy elements, but there's an explanation for everything, in-game, even if that explanation is that it's "just magic."

My bottom line: Characters should be able to discover the reasons for things if they look hard enough.

I don't think this rule (minions) is logically consistent or keeps a campaign plausible. It offers no in-game rationale for why the creatures are treated differently from others.

Putting on my player hat for a moment, it would be nice to be able to figure out why my party had no problem with a large group of minions but the smaller groups of full-stat creatures keep kicking our asses. It seems to me the only explanation I can get with this rule is a metagame explanation, as a player. The character will never figure it out, because there's no reasoning behind it in the game world.

My feeling is that rules need to be backed up with in-game rationales that comply with the campaign setting's particulars.

----

Just for clarity, I will agree that minions CAN certainly be used with a logical explanation behind them. Perhaps an entire section or room contains sickly creatures that suffer from some sort of disease. In this case, there's an explanation for why the creatures are different than the other healthy specimens, and this justifies the use of the rule. The characters can figure out the reason why these sickly creatures were pushovers.

My impression, though, is that the rule is presented without any descriptive text, and is intended for widespread use. The rule doesn't logically hold up under widespread use.

----

For years, detractors of pre-3E D&D complained about inconsistent DMing. 3E was hailed as the resolution to that problem, but it simply replaced inconsistent ad-hoc DMing with inconsistent mandated DMing. Instead of the inconsistencies being the fault of the DM, they became the fault of the rules.

Facing was 3E's huge metagame inconsistency, and this seems like a continuation of that trend in 4E.

----

My intent here isn't to convince anyone that "4E is bad" or that using the rule is "bad." It just doesn't work for my style. I like to discuss rules, especially new ones, and ESPECIALLY when I think that the creators of those rules haven't really considered all of the ramifications.

Maybe my style of gaming is so archaic now, and most people just don't need to have in-game explanations for why things are inconsistent. Maybe it's more about rule-playing than role-playing now.

In any case, if this is something folks are comfortable with, it's not my place to say they should be otherwise. I'm just explaining why it doesn't wash from my point of view.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

Matthew
Unkbartig
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Matthew »

Minions are actually one of the concepts of 4e that bothers me the least. I do not consider Hit Points to measure the health of a creature, they are an abstract concept for determining when and whether they die in combat. A Goblin with 1 HP can do anything and everything that a Goblin with 34 HP can, except survive something that reduces them by 1 HP. The character may notice that he dealt with one group of Goblins more easily than another, but since he has no conception of Hit Points all that will register is that one group of Goblins were stronger or luckier opponents than the other (and depending on the course of the combat, even that may not be the case).
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

serleran
Mogrl
Posts: 14094
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:00 am

Post by serleran »

My problem with "minions" is high HD versions -- a 6 or 7 HD monster with 1 HP is just dumb. Fireball will take them all out, and you're left with the ones that had real value -- might as well have just reduced the number encountered, seeing as minions are supposed to represent some kind of threat, but not, at the same time. The concept gives a false sense of heroism -- the guy who can take his ax and wade through thirty or forty goblins until he gets to the "boss guy." Its like playing Double Dragon -- the same reverse elbow will get you through 99% of the encounters, but when you get to th guys who throw you, you need to switch to the kick....

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by Fiffergrund »

serleran wrote:
Fireball will take them all out, and you're left with the ones that had real value

Wow, I hadn't considered that angle, either. Granted, with low HD creatures, fireball might take them out anyway, but in this case it's guaranteed, saving throw or not.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

deimos3428

Post by deimos3428 »

Fiffergrund wrote:
Wow, I hadn't considered that angle, either. Granted, with low HD creatures, fireball might take them out anyway, but in this case it's guaranteed, saving throw or not.

Better yet, research something like:
Minor Inconvenience

2nd level magic-user spell

Description. This spell causes 2hp of damage in a 40' radius, save for half.

sieg

Post by sieg »

Apologies if this was mentioned earlier in the thread; I'm just lazy.
But, does that 1 hp goblin give the same xp as that 20 hp goblin? If not, what kind of sliding scale?

Because OOP A/D&D factored the number of hp the critter had with its xp award... If 4X doesn't do that (or does it insufficiently) I can hear player howls already.
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

Matthew
Unkbartig
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Matthew »

sieg wrote:
Apologies if this was mentioned earlier in the thread; I'm just lazy.
But, does that 1 hp goblin give the same xp as that 20 hp goblin? If not, what kind of sliding scale?

Because OOP A/D&D factored the number of hp the critter had with its xp award... If 4X doesn't do that (or does it insufficiently) I can hear player howls already.

According to my magic eight ball...

...a Ghoul (Level 18 Minion, 1 Hit Point) is worth 500 Experience Points

...a Ghoul (Level 23 Minion, 1 Hit Point) is worth 1,275 Experience Points

...a Ghoul (Level 13 Minion, 1 Hit Point) is worth 200 Experience Points

...a Ghoul (Level 5 Soldier, 63 Hit Points) is worth 200 Experience Points

...and a Ghoul (Level 16 Skirmisher, 156 Hit Points) is worth 1,400 Experience Points

Skimming through the Monster Manual, it seems a Level 5 X is usually worth 200 XP, but a Level Minion is worth 50 XP and a Level 5 Solo X is worth 1,000 XP. A Level 5 X appears to be the most commonly listed entry.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

User avatar
Jackal
Ulthal
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Jackal »

Matthew wrote:
Minions are actually one of the concepts of 4e that bothers me the least. I do not consider Hit Points to measure the health of a creature, they are an abstract concept for determining when and whether they die in combat. A Goblin with 1 HP can do anything and everything that a Goblin with 34 HP can, except survive something that reduces them by 1 HP. The character may notice that he dealt with one group of Goblins more easily than another, but since he has no conception of Hit Points all that will register is that one group of Goblins were stronger or luckier opponents than the other (and depending on the course of the combat, even that may not be the case).

This is where most of us stick when it comes to minions. Abstract or not, most of us consider hit points to measure health of a character. Not health, luck, will, moral, etc. And that is the stance that 4e takes. So if you consider hit points to just represent physical health (as I do) then 4e minions aren't going to make any sense.

True20 minions, on the other hand, don't make any sense at all...regardless of what you think about hit points. They're the way they are so characters can race through all "non-boss" encounters.

But at least the 4e minion makes sense within its own framework. I don't personally agree with using hit points to represent anything beyond abstract physical health...but, agree or not, that's what 4e does.

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by Fiffergrund »

Well, I can agree with HP representing an abstract that includes physical health as a large portion - luck, skill, and other factors making up the rest. That's how D&D has done it since the 1E DMG was written, if not before.

Just saying that HP are abstract isn't good enough to explain the differential, statistically speaking, between minions and their fully-capable brethren. Minions blow out the bell curve.

I'm just ballparking here, but with a given population of goblins, most will have average hp, a few will be above and below average, and very few will have either min HP or max HP. (Note, min HP not necessary = 1 HP) The use of HD models this through the bell curve. (2dX)

1 HD creatures don't use the bell curve, but they are so weak in general as to make it unecessary - the population is evenly distributed. If the HD is a d10, then 10% of the population has 1 HP, and 10% has 10 HP.

This is true abstraction. The variances in a population can be easily explained by health differences, skill differences, or luck differences.

---------

So, suddenly, we have a concentration of creatures and every last one of them is on the extreme negative end of the bell curve. This variance from the normal population cannot easily be explained by the above differences, because....

Assuming there's a "boss" somewhere in that mix, why would the boss surround himself with the weakest examples of his race as bodyguards?

The unfortunate answer seems to be "DM want lot of mooks for players to kill." Nothing more thought provoking or logical than that. I really do think that's a sad development.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

User avatar
Go0gleplex
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4051
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:00 am
Location: Keizer, OR

Post by Go0gleplex »

Simply call it the "RED SHIRT" rule...and set phasers to annhilate.

(I'd never give xp for such ridiculously easy targets)
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.

Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-

High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

Matthew
Unkbartig
Posts: 897
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:00 am

Post by Matthew »

Fiffergrund wrote:
Well, I can agree with HP representing an abstract that includes physical health as a large portion - luck, skill, and other factors making up the rest. That's how D&D has done it since the 1E DMG was written, if not before.

Nah, the DMG is fairly clear that only a handful of Hit Points have anything to do with the health of the character. 4e is going further and saying that Hit Points have nothing to do with the health of the character in any tangible way, which in practice has been exactly how it has always been. A Fighter with 90 Hit Points can lose 89 and still run a marathon, bake a cake, or do literally just about anything that he could when he had 90. Hit Points simply have no effect on the capabilities of a character, they only matter when something happens to cause them to be lost.

Indeed, if we look literally at Hit Points, they may even be described as being not an abstract concept, but as a direct representation of Positive Energy or 'Life Energy' or whatever.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4609
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Post by Julian Grimm »

I consider the monsters in M&T to be the baseline for the creatures. That is, the most common encountered. Now, there are exceptions such as more potent orcs or even weaker Dragons but they are rare. I'm at a loss for how a 1 hp creature meant for nothing more than cannon fodder to yield as much or even any XP as 4e calls it. It just shows that the design team was looking at CRPGS over table top and I feel this will be a downfall of this edition.

I've always said trying to manage and run a table top RPG as a computer game won't work. Now we'll see if that theory holds true.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

User avatar
Fiffergrund
Lore Drake
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by Fiffergrund »

Quote:
Indeed, if we look literally at Hit Points, they may even be described as being not an abstract concept, but as a direct representation of Positive Energy or 'Life Energy' or whatever.

Accepting that premise kind of makes things worse. Instead of the orc chieftain deliberately choosing the weakest specimens to surround him, he just has the unfortunate luck of having done so without realizing. That's even more far-fetched. It's like all of the powerful creatures surrounded by minions lost the lottery of life. According to the bell curve, the odds are pretty heavily stacked against this randomly happening even once, much less for every battle where "minions" are used.

Without an in-game explanation for the relative weakness of the minions, the rule doesn't logically fly with me. I couldn't accept the metagame explanation "that's the way it works when I want lots of cannon fodder" for my games.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back
Marshal Fiffergrund, Knight-Errant of the Castle and Crusade Society

Montague

Post by Montague »

Fiffergrund wrote:
Well, I can agree with HP representing an abstract that includes physical health as a large portion - luck, skill, and other factors making up the rest. That's how D&D has done it since the 1E DMG was written, if not before.

Just saying that HP are abstract isn't good enough to explain the differential, statistically speaking, between minions and their fully-capable brethren. Minions blow out the bell curve.

I'm just ballparking here, but with a given population of goblins, most will have average hp, a few will be above and below average, and very few will have either min HP or max HP. (Note, min HP not necessary = 1 HP) The use of HD models this through the bell curve. (2dX)

1 HD creatures don't use the bell curve, but they are so weak in general as to make it unecessary - the population is evenly distributed. If the HD is a d10, then 10% of the population has 1 HP, and 10% has 10 HP.

This is true abstraction. The variances in a population can be easily explained by health differences, skill differences, or luck differences.

---------

So, suddenly, we have a concentration of creatures and every last one of them is on the extreme negative end of the bell curve. This variance from the normal population cannot easily be explained by the above differences, because....

Assuming there's a "boss" somewhere in that mix, why would the boss surround himself with the weakest examples of his race as bodyguards?

The unfortunate answer seems to be "DM want lot of mooks for players to kill." Nothing more thought provoking or logical than that. I really do think that's a sad development.

It's a cinematic combat option, nothing more nothing less, with the 1 hp rule saving time. It's no different from Luke & Leia one-shotting Stormtroopers in SW, or Mel Gibson going through English footmen in Braveheart. Trying to assign logical or realistic rationale for the rule is pointless, because it's not meant to simulate reality. I seem to recall Mr. Gygax making a similar disclaimer in a certain AD&D book 30 some odd years ago...

Post Reply