Friendly reminder that 4e's vaunted "balanced tactical combat" is horseshit when even the monsters have no sense of...

Corrupting Mind will rip a party apart.

At that level? Seems unlikely.

Will it?
It's charm, illusion and disease, and there's a lot of easy ways to rack up defenses against those. Plus you just hit them and they can save again.

It's not as if there's meant to be five of these things in an encounter, either.

It sounds like you need to GIT GUD

it very easily mind-controls whoever's doing the most damage in a party (usually a fighter/warlord/etc with low mental resistance) and forces them to beat the shit out of their friends, literally turning all meenlocks invisible to them (so you can't just be like "well they look scarier so i'll hit them!). also, even if you succeed, the meenlock corruption makes it so they have -4 to Will saves, so they can just fucking do it again and succeed next time since they have no limit on how often they can use this ability or implication that they can only control one character at a time.

In 5e the fighter is raining down shortsword attacks at lvl 20, probably 5 a turn since he's using a FUCKING SHORTSWORD and thus using two weapons. 10 with an action surge.

Without the save for half that the monsters at 20th level are routinely making at that CR.

Unless you mean a rogue, in which case they are stabbing for 8 quadrillion d6's, with zero spell cost.

But why bother complaining about games you clearly haven't tried in the first place?

>literally turning all meenlocks invisible to them
It just turns the corruptor invisible to them.

Abilities /= Magic

If you are so assblasted over this, go make a homebrew for Fighters that buffs them up to your liking.

And no using ToB. If you want to use magic that badly be a wizard.

Ive played both thanks.
Level 20 CR creatures are nothing to fuck around with and you cant just run up to one or even cast a spell very easily on one as far as damage goes,
but a level 20 fighter doing 5 or six sword attacks implying he has 20 strength hits every time and rolls max damage each swing would tottal out to 60 base damage for 5 attacks (implying he gets to add his STR or dex from the dual wielding feat/class ability) OR 120 Using one of his action surges,Now a wizard at a level lower than 20 can cast touch of death or power word kill and instantly AT BASE without rolling do more damage then 5 attacks with 20 str or dex THEN gets to roll damage ontop of the base damage and add his int.
Rouges are nice but you cant hide everywhere and you cant always surprise everything.
Also I wasn't complaining,I was comparing the two which I like the qualities of so eat a dick kike.
TLDR A high level mage obviously outclasses a high level fighter but that wasnt the argument the argument was "I wish fighters had some more unf to them".

>TLDR A high level mage obviously outclasses a high level fighter but that wasnt the argument the argument was "I wish fighters had some more unf to them".

Then stop trying to make DnD into something else. Its established in the setting that Wizards and Fighters have advancement paths like this. If you don't like it play another game, full stop.

>it very easily mind-controls
+14 to will isn't all that hot, honestly, and no, it's a lurk, it won't be going after the frontliner (fighter defenses are built towards buffing will), it will go after shit like rogues, rangers, barbarians.

Is there something wrong with you?
"I wish 5th edition fighters had 4th edition shit because wizards stayed cool and got better"
>HOW DAAAAAARE YEEEEEW!!!!!!!
calm down m8

>Its established in the setting that Wizards and Fighters have advancement paths like this
And even Gygax said it was bullshit because it goes against the meaning of having "levels" in the game as a measure of power if one class' levels are better than another.

>also, even if you succeed, the meenlock corruption makes it so they have -4 to Will saves
When you're exposed to a disease, doesn't it only start if you fail a saving throw at the end of the encounter? So they won't have the -4 for that battle.

Dont bother arguing with him he will just "REEEEEEEEE" some more.

>u mad bro

Great argument, champ. You shore showed me with your 'wit' and 'humor'.

>stop trying to make DnD into something else

That's some hardcore anal retention right there. The spirit of DnD has always been invention and adaptation. In no way are you bound by RAW unless you're the worst kind of rollplay powergamer who wants to 'beat' DnD campaigns using netbuilds.

I'm mad op is mad user is mad we are all mad,and so are you or you wouldn't have posted here.
All joking aside I feel like this thread turned into like five 300LB MLP T-shirt wearing, neckbeards flailing around and having asthma attacks

> where you only get 20% better at hitting between 1st level and 20th

It's funny because it's not true.

A 1st level character can be reasonably expected to have a +5 to attack (+2 proficiency, +3 STR/DEX). A 20th level character will have at least a +11 (+6 profieicny, +5 STR/DEX), not including any magical effects, items, or class features.

That would in fact be about 45% better.

>they were better than 15 hp orcs.

...the Hell is the problem with 15 hp orcs? Swing a longsword or rapier at them, average damage from a 1st-level character's longsword or rapier is 7 (4 on a d8 plus +3 STR/DEX). A single character takes them down in 3 swings at most, and that's assuming that they are the only character fighting them, and that damage isn't being boosted in any way.

An orc reduced to just 1 hit point is probably gonna try to cut and run, anyway (or he should if you don't have a shit DM). You get XP from overcoming foes, not necessarily killing them, so there's nothing wrong with letting the orc escape; you'll get the same XP either way.

I always figured orcs where to savage primal and pridefull to run away especially to something smaller especially if the orcs outnumber them Dont half orcs that get reduced to exactly 0 hp come back to 1 hp so wouldn't orcs also? Also orcs are also damn near mindlessly aggressive so aggressive they can move their full movement toward something as a bonus action but I guess thats not your point

Then how does it feel to be wrong when the majority of the fanbase, the developers of 5e and even Pathfinder themselves disagree with you?

More people in this thread have disagreed with you than have agreed so the burden to prove that falls on you also who the fuck is dumb enough to disagree that wizards are more powerfull than fighters? who the fuck is dumb enough to say "its noda bug its a feetcha" in regards to the leveling system?

The problem is that those Orcs are supposed to be both standard enemies and minion enemies with the exact same stat block.

Which is basically impossible. (This is why video game, when bosses are demoted to regular enemies, often have less complicated moves, despite having their stats scaled up.)

Orcs are standard enemies...for mid-level adventurers. You're level 1, son. You fight rats and kobolds.

Orcs dont fuck around if they swarm you you are fucked and you cat out run them.

And how does the DM know this from the games material?

4e has enemies have levels, which gives you a sense for what level characters they have stats close enough to have fights not take forever.

Just working of a translation of XP budget into neat units isn't going to tell a DM the intent.

Which is why orcs aren't standard enemies for level 1 characters. The 5E MM gives their challenge rating as 1/2. I'm not quite up-to-date with what this means in 5E terms, but back in 3E this would mean that a party of 4 1st-level adventurers should consume about 20% of their total resources fighting just two of them. Four such encounters (8 orcs total, spread across multiple encounters of 2 at a time) was the limit of what 1st-level adventurers should face between rests; the 9th and 10th orcs would almost certainly kill them.

Like I said, the issue with 15 hp orcs seems to be the misunderstanding on the part of folk like . They are not meant to be faced en masse by 1st-level parties.

>And how does the DM know this from the games material?

Understanding what the "challenge rating" line in a monster's stat block springs immediately to mind; SEE .

Using the 4e monster statblocks is a bit easier because of a few things like that. However, a pack of weak level 5 monsters can't even touch a level 15 4e party. That's why bounded accuracy is nice. The players can get in over their heads from a large volume of enemies, even if they are high level. Granted, they have more options, such as more/larger area effects and multiple attacks, which are still useful against this horde.
I just find it silly when adventurers 'outlevel' standard kobolds and goblins, so then you get to fight...standard orcs! Which are just another 1 hp minion statblock with bigger attack numbers.

In fifth edition encounters are based on the CR and how much XP the monster gives,there is set brackets on a table if i recall so its like
say there is a level one party of 3 adventurers a challenge appropriate to them is 300XP (not really) so if there is a bunch of CR1/4-CR1 creatures you can mix and match to get to 300XP and thats supposed to be a balanced encounter
so it could be 1 creature CR1 that gives 300 xp OR 10 CR1/4 cratures that give 30 xp each
I dont use this cause its kind of lame

>...the Hell is the problem with 15 hp orcs?
They're unimporant fodder monsters that exist to slow down but not really threaten mid-level heroes, so tracking HP is a waste of time.

But some of the best moments in games that I've both run and played is when an otherwise ordinary opponent, like a Stormtrooper or Orc, would get absurdly lucky and kick everyone's ass even though they should have been wildly outclassed.

That Stormtrooper was impressive enough that my character spared his life, and later when she had become Mandalore the Forge, he showed up and joined the Crusade!

That would never have happened if he'd only had 1 hit point total.

If you're a representative sample then it feels pretty good to be doing something different to you, considering how retarded and rump-ravaged everything you've said so far has been.

I'm not bound by majority opinion anyway. If you personally feel that you are, then on top of 'angry' and 'stupid' we can add 'gutless' to the list of your most salient personality traits.

Why? Getting absurdly lucky and kicking everyone's ass is independent of the orc's HP if the PCs keep missing him and all of his rolls keep critting.

>Meenlock Corrupter
>Imbalanced

...How?

> 10 CR1/4 cratures that give 30 xp each

Wouldn't that be times 2.5 - a 750 XP budget?

>Warlord
>Low mental resistance
>Against a +14 against Will attack at level 11

What the fuck am I reading.

>Turning all meenlocks invisible to them

Scratch that, what the fuck are YOU reading?

>Meenlock corruption makes it so they have -4 to Will saves
>Saves
>A disease effecting defense in combat when it will only take effect after the combat is over

>All this about an attack that grants a save literally every time the dominated target takes damage if they manage to fail the first save

I happen to be an idiot on the subject!
it was just an example but hey there is the table I was talking about.

>That would never have happened if he'd only had 1 hit point total.

You've obviously never dealt with 4e minions. Some of those fuckers are brutal. Enough lich vestiges come to mind.

I think a lot of GMs just wing it instead of using the multiplier anyway.

I had a player once that convinced the GM to let him fight a lich vestige before we had reached paragon in a dream sequence in case he failed. His wizard went down hilariously fast.

Well, Pathfinder is unbalanced garbage, so I don't think that helps your argument.

>fight a lich vestige before we had reached paragon
Did he...did he change the attack or defense values at all?

Nope. Said player was flipping through the Monster Manual for shits and giggles, found out that there was a level 27 or so minion, and for some reason wanted to fight it. He was notorious for having stupidly good luck and felt he could pull off a nat 20 before it managed to kill us all. The rest of the party was less than enthused and we managed to downgrade "Put a lich vestige in the next dungeon" to "Make him fight it alone in a dream sequence."

>+5 to +11
>That would in fact be about 45% better.
Shouldn't a +6 be +30%? Since on a d20 each increase is +5%?

what's wrong with the meenlock? I've used 'em a couple of times.

>literally turning all meenlocks invisible to them

No, just the one that dominated them.

The neat thing about that progression is that at level 1, average monster AC is 13 (so you hit on an 8), at level 20, average monster AC is 19 (so you hit on an 8), but you'll hit AC 13 on a 2. If you rolled a 1, you'd miss anyway. Odd how that lines up.

Yes, that's correct.

Yeah, hilariously minions (especially ranged ones) can totally fuck a party that's not ready for them. Much more so than most solo bosses, elites, etc.

>10 with an action surge.
Actually, 9 times, since you don't get to attack with your off hand twice, even at level 20.

>Without the save for half that the monsters at 20th level are routinely making at that CR.

Their saves are about as much higher as their AC.

Except their bad saves are at fucking 0 or so.

>Unless you mean a rogue, in which case they are stabbing for 8 quadrillion d6's, with zero spell cost.

You mean... 10 d6? + a shortsword so 11d6. You know a fireball from a 5th or 6th level slot does that in a huge AoE. Or just, you know, warlock doing comparable damage with eldritch blast without even trying.

But 5e isn't going for that "epic untouchable heroes " thing that 4e did. An orc is still a threat because an orc can still hit you. And swarms of orcs can hit you a lot.

A fighter is on average going to do 48 dmg
A wizard will do 26 with a firebolt

>An orc is still a threat because an orc can still hit you. And swarms of orcs can hit you a lot.
And a minion can do all that *and* cut down on the bookkeeping because now you need to only track one number -- the amount of orcs still alive -- as opposed to individual HP tracks for every unimporant copy-pasta'd orc in the mob.

So a jizz wiz with no spellslots and not even trying can do half the damage a fighter can do when he gives it his all
noice

It's a fucking lie tho.

That's the "no resource expenditure" for both.

Fighter can action surge for double damage (and if Battlemaster, also gets to nova some more).

Of course, wizard expending resources will be on a similar level, although probably not in single target damage.

But minions don't scale up, so you need constantly new minions or you need to change higher level ones to be more like the lower level ones.
And it means that one hit won't always kill them.

No, because a fighter has several other abilities that add damage, which recharge faster than wizard spells can more often.

Not that it's super balanced and it's pretty easy to see how the fighter can still get outclassed, but it's not 3.p level unbalanced because a fighter can always feel and act kinda usefull

>But minions don't scale up, so you need constantly new minions or you need to change higher level ones to be more like the lower level ones.
>And it means that one hit won't always kill them.
Nigger what?

Sorry, I see the confusion.
A level 1 monster, minion or not, in 4e won't be able to do much to a level 20 character, while a level 1 monster in 5e can. So in 5e you can use any creature in the book in enough numbers to be a challenge.

I was talking about 5e orcs not always dying.

>An orc is still a threat because an orc can still hit you. And swarms of orcs can hit you a lot.

This is exactly what minions in 4e did. And they did it quite well.

Yeah, but a level 1 orc minion isn't going to do that to a level 20 character.
Along with the 4e minion having the whole 1 hp deal that has it's pros and cons

>But minions don't scale up

Dude what

Scaling minions from 1-30 is easy as piss in 4e. Just use the updated MM3 math. Or the Sly Flourish Chart.

Beyond that there are rules for leveling monsters in the first DM guide.

But why would you use level 1 orc minions against a party that isn't in that level range?

(I don't even think level 1 orc minions exist in 4e, orcs are kinda really brutal IIRC).

>Yeah, but a level 1 orc minion isn't going to do that to a level 20 character.

Add 19 levels to the orc minion.

>Along with the 4e minion having the whole 1 hp deal that has it's pros and cons

I struggle to think of a con for this but I know some people do so I leave it up to personal taste.

They don't, orcs are srs bznz in the mid-heroic tier.

But if you scale them up you lose something else.
There's a limit to how many minions there can be against a party that will be challenging.
If you add more and weaken them they'll become more and more useless exceptionally, while if you add more without making them easier all your doing is making the encounter harder. Bounded accuracy and such circumvents this

Well you wouldn't, that's my point. In 4e you either use a different minion meaning you can't have them fight orcs, or you make a new one, which requires some time. In 5e if you want a level 20 character to fight an orc army you just throw a bunch of orcs at them.
Also it's pretty easy to make minions in 5e, but you really can't make a lot of low level enemies be a threat in 4e.

>In 5e if you want a level 20 character to fight an orc army you just throw a bunch of orcs at them.

To be fireballed before they can do anything.

"Hordes of low level enemies totally work in 5e as a challenge" is a lie until you get into silly high numbers (like hundreds).

>In 4e you either use a different minion meaning you can't have them fight orcs, or you make a new one
Alternatively
>Grab stats for any given minion around their level
>Describe them as Orcs to your players

Also
>Implying minions take long to make

That was the response your post warranted.

That's true, but that's kinda AoE's shtick.
Besides on average a fireball at level won't kill on a miss.
Though yeah, AoE's do at a certain point end those hordes pretty fast.

Plus it was kinda weird that minions could just no sell fireballs, imho (That was a thing right, where if it missed it did no damage? It's been a while)

>Plus it was kinda weird that minions could just no sell fireballs, imho (That was a thing right, where if it missed it did no damage? It's been a while)

In effects it's the same as the orcs not getting killed when they get half damage in 5e.

Except an orc not killed when they get half damage is weakened, while a minion isn't, which makes a difference in the event that an other AoE fails, or if the DM wants to play the monsters as non-suicidal so the moment they get hurt they retreat.

>Except an orc not killed when they get half damage is weakened, while a minion isn't, which makes a difference in the event that an other AoE fails

The chance of that in 4e is somewhere around 5% (assuming typical characters in a ypical encounter). So 95% of the time, it's the same.

>or if the DM wants to play the monsters as non-suicidal so the moment they get hurt they retreat.

1.) Not being knocked out by a spell doesn't mean they didn't get hurt by it.
2.) If the DM wanted to play them "intelligently" so they retreat, half their troops being burnt to death in an instant would be enough even if 1st point wasn't true.

>But if you scale them up you lose something else.

...No you don't?

>There's a limit to how many minions there can be against a party that will be challenging.
>If you add more and weaken them they'll become more and more useless exceptionally, while if you add more without making them easier all your doing is making the encounter harder. Bounded accuracy and such circumvents this

You don't have to weaken them. Or strengthen them. That's not how minion scaling works. They stay level-appropriate if you use the MM3 math. Which fits on a little card, dude.

I think he means you can't add 100 minions to an encounter, because a minion is always equal about 4 encounter appropriate monsters.

Of course, the whole thing falls apart in 5e as well, so I'm not sure how strong of a point that is.

I mean in 4e or 5e if you add 100 minions or 100 low level orcs to an encounter and the players fight them they're going to get crushed, yeah.

Friendly reminder that people who were born when 4E came out are now old enough to play it.

It's time to move on and stop being triggered.

Lalalala I can't hear haters, 5e is good I swear

God damn haven't seen a burn that bad in a while. #roasted

>yfw 3/5e are less RP friendly than 4e but people still give it shit because skill challenges

CR is a translation of the EXP budget, it doesn't tell you appropriate level directly.

The idea that a monster requires a certain amount of character power to be a good fight. (I.e. Likely damage amounts are interesting and will happen enough that there is tension between a hit or a miss happening) independent of the monsters in an encounter, but it just seems weird to add a 1.5 exp modifier when you should just assume monsters will appear in clumps and point out that a single orc against a 4 man party isn't going to be a good fight ever.

Couldn't be saved fast enough. Cheers.

>Only the DMG is allowed to be used to improve how 4e plays! 5e must be played as I deem it should!
This is why I had the 4e loving group around here.

>>Only the DMG is allowed to be used to improve how 4e plays! 5e must be played as I deem it should!

That isn't anything even approaching a sketch of what I said. I didn't even mention how 5e must be played at all.

Are you drunk?

In 5e it means a four-man level 1 party would fight 2-3 orcs as a hard encounter, 4-5 as a potentially deadly one, and could face a total of 30 orcs in a single day with 2 short rests.

>minions are better because you track number of creatures and not health
>a response
>your post using outside material and the DMG as a counter argument
Concersing is not difficult, the argument about 15HP orcs being used as an unmanageable horde ignores the 5e DMG advice for handling hordes which is intuitive and quick.

You pool a hordes HP into a single pool, and an Orc dies each 15HP chunk falls off. Their attack lands based on the number of orcs attacking the player and not by rolling attacks.

I'm not even sure what my phone did with that first word.

>>your post using outside material and the DMG as a counter argument

>The MM3
>Outside material

And are you seriously trying to argue that using rules in the DMG for leveling creatures is inapplicable?

I didn't even mention managing hordes, let alone 5e's ability or inability to do so.

All I did was correct that user's misunderstanding about how minions 'scale'. And don't worry about the phone thing, I understood what you meant.

>100 minions to an encounter
And that's what swarms are for.