D&D General What does the mundane high level fighter look like? [+]

[pemerton]

Instead of "gamifying" monsters into minions, why not enhance the Fighter? Just give them feats or whatever?

Like when you kill s monster with CR half your level of lower, make a free extra attack? Or gain bonus damage against foes ten levels lower then you? Or a furry of blows like ability when they need to spam??

So instead of "gamifying" monsters we "gamify" the fighter?

The idea that adjusting monster AC, hp, to hit and damage to reflect relative power levels is "gamifying"; but changing PC action economy and/or damage bonus to reflect relative power levels is merely "enhancing"; is utterly bizarre.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Instead of "gamifying" monsters into minions, why not enhance the Fighter? Just give them feats or whatever?

Like when you kill s monster with CR half your level of lower, make a free extra attack? Or gain bonus damage against foes ten levels lower then you? Or a furry of blows like ability when they need to spam??

IDK, like I've pointed out, the 4e minion mechanics actually highlighted the Role of Controller, which was not only not the Fighter, but not any purely Martial class.
A battle with scads of minions in 4e was a chance for the Wizard to shine.

So instead of "gamifying" monsters we "gamify" the fighter?

"The fighter is the same fighter, there's no diegetic change, yet he's doing more damage just because of the enemy he's facing?"

But, of course, it probably is OK. That's how 1e handled rangers damage bonus vs 'giant class' enemies, and the 1e fighter's already discussed extra attacks vs less-than-1HD monsters. While minionization is something 4e did.
(not to give an edition of D&D any credit, minions are something 4e did, like 12 to 20 years after other games had done 'mooks' or 'popcorn' or whatever, there had been a number of similar mechanics through the years)

 

[pemerton]

"The fighter is the same fighter, there's no diegetic change, yet he's doing more damage just because of the enemy he's facing?"

Right, absolutely bonkers!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's not what you said. I'm not going to trawl back through, but you said the minion doesn't represent anything in the fiction.

I think you should read the whole context in which things are said. @hawkeyefan gave an example of dietetically different ogres (ogre boss and ogre goons.) Discussion was whether minionisation reflects such diegetic difference. It does not, and you agreed. Still not sure what Hawkeyefan thinks as to me it seemed in different post they seemed to argue it different way.

It's trivially obvious that in 4e D&D a given creature can be statted multiple ways.

Well glad that we are finally on the same page.

That's the whole point of having minion as an option for stats. That was the point of @Manbearcat's comparison to temperature or climbing scales - which also represent the same thing in multiple ways.

Yes. But that is flawed comparison, as here the choice of rules actually affects how the thing behaves.

You also asserted that the choice of representation is arbitrary. That may be true for temperature scales, but is not true for 4e stat blocks. There is a best choice, namely, the one that is closest in level to the PCs. This best choice is driven by considerations of mathematical game play, and the chosen stat block will represent something about the fiction:. Eg if the chosen stat block is a minion, then that represents the relatively greater power of the PCs compared to the NPC/creature.

That may be, but it is still up to the GM, and it just gets weird when allies are involved.

 

[pemerton]

Because it doesn't matter which opponent is fighting the ogre. Level 1? Level 30? The minion ogre still has 1 HP vs a PC or a squirrel.

It didn't matter who was fighting that CR 11 ogre minion, it always had 1 HP.

This is obviously not how 4e D&D stat blocks are meant to be used. The DMG advice on encounter building is very clear. For anyone familiar with D&D, the way the Monster Manual stat blocks represent the "story" of D&D - that first level PCs can be threatened by Goblins, whereas higher level PCs are comparably threatened only by Ogres or Giants - is also very clear.

IMHO, 4E took in world logic, ripped it up, burned it, buried the ashes and then spit on the grave.

I feel you are reporting something about your play of 4e here, rather than 4e as such.

I can tell you that I GMed hundreds of hours of 4e D&D, and the world logic was phenomenal. If you're curious as to why I say that, you can review any of my many actual play posts.

There was no way to otherwise accept that this ogre that was supposedly level 11 could die from slipping on a banana peel.

<snip>

Anyway ... back to prepping for an actual D&D game with people who actually enjoy the game and accept it for what it is.

Well, I prepped a lot of 4e stat blocks, and I and those I played with enjoyed the game and accepted it for what it was. You are the one who seem to have that problem.

But then your game also apparently includes Ogres (and 1st level PCs?) who die from slipping on banana peels, so it is already so far away from any of my D&D experiences that I can't really form a mental picture of what your game is like.

 

[JAMUMU]

[+]

[+]

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is obviously not how 4e D&D stat blocks are meant to be used. The DMG advice on encounter building is very clear. For anyone familiar with D&D, the way the Monster Manual stat blocks represent the "story" of D&D - that first level PCs can be threatened by Goblins, whereas higher level PCs are comparably threatened only by Ogres or Giants - is also very clear.

But the criticism is completely true. If we have pretty normal situation that commoners and/or town guard are trying to fend off monsters that are serious threat to them but minions to the PCs that arrive to help them, then those commoners/guard can still oneshot the monsters. To get around that you need to ignore the rules. No other edition of D&D has issues with such a simple basic scenario. You can just plug the stats from the MM and roll the dice, no issue.

Well, I prepped a lot of 4e stat blocks, and I and those I played with enjoyed the game and accepted it for what it was. You are the one who seem to have that problem.

I mean them and all the millions of people who abandoned the edition causing it to be a flop.

 

[pemerton]

I think you should read the whole context in which things are said. @hawkeyefan gave an example of dietetically different ogres (ogre boss and ogre goons.) Discussion was whether minionisation reflects such diegetic difference. It does not, and you agreed. Still not sure what Hawkeyefan thinks as to me it seemed in different post they seemed to argue it different way.

I fully agree with @hawkeyefan.

I mean, "boss" and "goon" are themselves relative. When Grolantor or Erythnul shows up, with their troop of "Ogre bosses", it would make perfect sense to stat those bosses as minions. (Eg upthread I posited my 15th level elite Ogre Warhulk, who could easily be statted as a 27th level minion.)

That's the whole point of having minion as an option for stats. That was the point of @Manbearcat's comparison to temperature or climbing scales - which also represent the same thing in multiple ways.

Yes. But that is flawed comparison, as here the choice of rules actually affects how the thing behaves.

But the "behaviour" here is abstract mechanical matters such as attacks, damage, action economy etc. These are all purely conventional. Which I think is a key part of @Manbearcat's point.

You seem to be advocating some sort of "reification" of AC, hp, action economy etc. But as Gygax explained in his PHB and DMG, that way lies madness - for instance, it implies that Conan is physically tougher than a warhorse; that a sword fight consists of a metronomic exchange of unparried blows; etc.

It's all abstract; and once the abstraction is recognised, conventionality follows.

That may be, but it is still up to the GM, and it just gets weird when allies are involved.

I have no general antipathy to GM judgement; and I never found it weird. The player whose PC was in command of the squad of handcrossbowmen found it pretty cool, I think.

 

[pemerton]

But the criticism is completely true. If we have pretty normal situation that commoners and/or town guard are trying to fend off monsters that are serious threat to them but minions to the PCs that arrive to help them, then those commoners/guard can still oneshot the monsters. To get around that you need to ignore the rules.

No, you need to follow the rules.

This is from the 4e D&D DMG, p 40:

D&D is a game about adventuring parties fighting groups of monsters, not the clash of armies. A warlord’s power might, read strictly, be able to give a hundred “allies” a free basic attack, but that doesn’t mean that warlord characters should assemble armies to march before them into the dungeon. In general, a power’s effect should be limited to a squad-sized group - the size of your player character group plus perhaps one or two friendly NPCs - not hired soldiers or lantern-bearers.​

If the paragon tier PCs are leading commoners in defence of their town against Ogres, that sounds like a skill challenge, at least initially. When it turns into a fight, the commoners are perhaps some sort of buff to the PCs; or they are imagined to do their stuff "off to the side" while we resolve the real action, which is the PCs vs the Ogres.

To me this all seems obvious stuff that follows from the basic design and presentation of the game.

I mean them and all the millions of people who abandoned the edition causing it to be a flop.

I judge the game by my experience of it, not the experiences of those who seem not to be familiar with its basic rules principles and who worry about their Ogre NPCs slipping on banana peels. But I fully agree that 4e will not easily support Clouseau-esque fiction.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I’m pretty sure with more optimization and better gear an 11th level fighter could bump that to taking down 3.5 ogres in a single round. Which is pretty good. But I’m a naive forever GM so I’m constantly surprised by the depravities and depths of character optimization

Maybe. Breakpoints seem pretty difficult to get around but if you could get to 30 reliably and had a bonus action in the back pocket. I could see where there might be a chance.

In either case, the solution seems unlikely to be representative of common fighter usage.