Should players know minions are minions from a rules/tactics PoV?

[Switchback]

To tag a bit on what Wedgeski said, I do think this problem of confusion will likely lessen as a group rises in level.

If you look at the Monster Manual encounter suggestions, most of the groups do not mix minions with others of their kind at higher levels. Some do, but it seems not common.

So that when minions appear it is likely to be as predictable lackeys, thug fodder, or waves of hordes.

This was always the impression I received of their purpose from since the first pre-release excerpt I read of them, where it gives several examples of them being used in always the most obvious, sort of cinematic grunt roles, falling upon the arms of the heroes, while being commanded by much more powerful creatures or commanders.

Outside of KotSF, it seems there is likely to be far less instances of single race type encounters where minions are all mixed in with even level creatures of the same race in a way that can be greatly or even worse, purposely confusing to the PC's.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

There are no capital "M"s stamped on the foreheads of minions.

You do mean lowercase "m"s, right?

 

[Danzauker]

Well, it's obvious who the minions are: they're the ones wearing a red jacket!

Jokes aside, IMHO minions should not have a "M" floating over them, but players should in most cases be able to discern them, because they are supposed to look and act like minions, and because of some good reasons.

- Verisimilitude: in RW commanders and leaders were easily identifiable by means of pennants and standards not because they were fond of drawing enemy fire, but because allied troops knew who to look at to get orders and coordinate their actions on the battlefield.

Also, I expect orcish warchiefs to get the best weapons and armor from their loot, and to be equipped visibly better than his subordinates.

Even in animal / low intelligence packs of monsters the pack leader would be most probably the biggest and best fed individual, and the one to launch the attack.

So overall, I expect it would be easy to spot the real bead gays from the mooks just by good DM fluff.

- Mechanics: roles expect minions to be identified as such to some extent, in some way. A wizard is most effective against minions, while a rogue would not like to waste his sneak attack on a 1hp minion.

Making combat become a "guess the minion" thing I think cheapens good tactics and is not that funny.

It's for the same reason players should know which enemies are bloodied. If they didn't, some of their powers would be crippled.

- Narrative: in classic fantasy I expect the BBEG vampire to say something cheesy like "attact those puny mortals, my slaves, while I complete the ritual that will make me invincible!" to his spawn.

This because it makes clear what the objectives of the player are. Mooks and grunt level opponents are supposed to be obstacles the heroes must beat in order to get to the real deal. Heroes should not waste time trying to guess out who the minions are, but trying to get to the mean guy for the real showdown.

They are not much better than a trap, in a way.

So, yes, I think im most cases the DM should give clear clues to the players to who is a minion and who is not. Like for other monster roles. After all, I gues any adventurer with a minimum of experience can tell that the chest punching and charging ogre is a Brute, the gobling staying in the back pointing a bow is Artillery and the shaking kobolds sent in the front line by the yelling warchief are Minions.

As I expect intelligent monster to be easily able to tell that the PC with the big sword and armor that steps ahead to block his way is a Defender, and the one trying to circle him from behind is a Striker.

They would not use those terms, of course, but I guess an intelligent leader would use the best tactics depending on what he sees.

That is not to say he has to use minions stupidly. I don't think that minions should move all together in group waiting for that fireball to incinerate them. Nor that the DM should have tham spread out around the party in order to negate area attacks.

Metagame works both ways. The DM should remember that minions don't know thay are minions, and use them logically, like he would do for any monster. I think it would be best to use minions together with "regular" monsters, let's say have some orc minions lead by an orc "sergeant" that guides them attack the party, so that a nice area attack will hopefully leave only the standard orc to fight.

Just my 2c of course.

 

[empty_other]

Quotezilla strikes

Just had to do a few quote to point out how to define minions.

• What is a minion? Here is an example:
  "Easy peasy, lemon-squeasy. What, is this your first day on the job or something? Look, this is how it goes; You try to attack me, one at a time, and I knock you both out with a single punch. Ready? Go!"
• How to spot a minion:
  "I mean, look at you. You don't even have a name tag. You've got no chance. Why don't you just fall down?"

You'd probably remember the source, if you ever saw the whole movie.

 

[KarinsDad]

We can't seem to go beyond a fundamental difference of understanding how monster races have been drastically redesigned in 4e and its effect on the world. In your way of thinking its more like we never left 3e. All Kobolds are kobolds are kobolds and thus weak, and indistinguishable from each other. But in 4e they are no longer similar or homogeneous in role or ability.

Kobolds (or other creeps) in the 4e world that have minions, are listed as unique monsters with separate names for a reason. The MM stipulates that a hobgoblin archer is a separate monster from a hobgoblin soldier. They are related monsters, but nonetheless different. They are no longer like in 3e, just the same stat package, but one with a bow one with a sword.

In such a world where some Kobolds are vastly more powerful, the equal of low level players practically, and others are just common grunts or cannon fodder (kind of like all kobolds previously) I believe adventurers would naturally come to be able to point out and differentiate these foes on the battlefield. Indeed, their very lives might depend on it!

Very likely, the monsters themselves would differentiate these ranks by giving the minion's or weakest among them, worse weapons, worse clothing, trophies, etc. And this is exactly what is suggested for them. It does not take one being a special monster like Irontooth to be different from another.

I would rate a DM pretty poorly on creativity if I asked him to describe three monsters in front of me and one was a Orge Thug, one a Ogre Savage, and one a Ogre Warhulk, and he said simply, "Eh, they all look the same." Nevermind that the MM has one with Hide armor, one with a Flail and whatnot. A DM with enough reason can always change that stuff, but even apart from it, I would think these creatures would not look 'the same' just like a level 10 Paladin is noticeably less impressive looking than a level 1 in most all cases.

Here is where you and I have the disconnect.

I am all for the DM giving different descriptions for different similar creatures.

Where I have the problem is when this leads to the players knowing more game mechanics than they should.

Giving a player a clue is fine. Giving a player the answer is not, especially if it is done every time. IMO.

All descriptions of opponents in crappy armor means minion. To me, that's a yawn. That's the "DM that I would rate pretty poorly on creativity". I'm not playing the game to be spoon fed the answers so that I know exactly which opponents to attack with which attack each round. I'm playing the game to have fun and for me, having fun is by exploring and finding new things all of the time. Exploring the map, exploring different tactics in combat, exploring my PCs personality, etc. If the DM tells me that an opponent is a minion, that's not fun. If the DM tells me that there are two secret doors to the right and left, even though my Wizard cannot search for squat, that's not fun. I want to earn what I gain, I don't want stuff handed to me.

It's still a play style difference, not a rules difference.


With regard to the rules, role is still not something that the rules state to give to the players as monster knowledge. Name is something the rules supply and name often gives a big hint. But, not role.

 

[Regicide]

mental difference of understanding how monster races have been drastically redesigned in 4e and its effect on the world. In your way of thinking its more like we never left 3e. All Kobolds are kobolds are kobolds and thus weak, and indistinguishable from each other. But in 4e they are no longer similar or homogeneous in role or ability.

Um... what? Kobolds in 3.5E were very different, ever hear of Pun-Pun? They could have class levels, boosts as gifts from dragons etc. etc. and they were distinguishable from each other via a sense motive check which would give you a rough estimate of their level. Their level, or HD, gave a rough estimate of how tough they are. In 4E though you can have high HD creatures with no HP... HUH?

As to the general question, PCs should be given an idea that if they swing their sword at minion X, he'll fall over dead because it can't fight very well.
This should be something that can be perceived easily once having seen the minion in combat, or out of combat with a more difficult check. In other words, a system just like 3.5E had, although I wasn't wild about restricting the check to be only doable with sense motive.

 

[LokiDR]

Where is the fun and challenge in that? Might as well be playing City of Villains with the little Minion nametag above the creatures name.

That is exactly what it is and has been added to D&D for the same reason it was in City of Villains: people like it. Remember, a lot of the MMO concepts were WILLFULLY put into 4e. They are intended to run along the same lines.