Community

Keithric wrote:

I wonder how many modules would be notably harmed by not having minions - it probably wouldn't be _that_ onerous to put together a DME guide for removing minions from all modules. Just list the encounters with things like 'Replace with an additional Gnoll Marauder'

I'm glad to pull specific suggestions into the DME guide.

But, in general, most mods should be pretty easy to convert. Often, you have some pretty easy math involved. Take the number of minions and multiply by their XP value in their stat block. Now pick some other critter in the mod (doesn't even have to be that encounter, though that is often best) that has a similar XP value. Substitute. Ideally, you keep in mind that the total doesn't have to be the same, but it should not change the overall level of the encounter (see the DMG, p 57, using the XP shown at the beginning of the encounter and adding/subtracting the delta).

Also, you can consider leaving the minions, but leveling one or more of the non-minions. For example, if player tactics are making the XP of four 4th level minions meaningless, you have roughly the equivalent of a 4th level monster to add (175 XP). If the monster had the four minions and three 4th level non-minions, you could increase the non-minions from 4th to 5th at an XP cost of 25XP each (DMG, p56) and from 5th to 6th for 50XP each. Personally, I would look at their roles, as increasing brutes can be un-fun due to the HPs causing a grinding battle. But, increasing other roles can be a lot of fun (watch soldier defenses, though, making sure the party will still hit them). In general, err towards a minor change. In this case, keeping the minions in, a 1-level bump to the other 3 monsters should be ok. You end up with 100 extra XP, but I wouldn't increase the monsters further unless you were pretty confident in how that encounter runs.

Another option that works well is to add a trap or hazard. Minions often have the effect of slowing down the party. You could take the 175xp and buy yourself a Spear Gauntlet trap or put down two False-Floor pits. Both can achieve the same effect in a level 4 encounter and are not overly strong. It is pretty easy to drop these in on round 2 as the party closes in on the main guy, giving passive perception and other checks as they get close to the protective traps.

The end goal is for everyone to win. The DM should, instead of winning an argument, end up being able to have the mod play out at the right difficulty level for the benefit of the table.

Keithric wrote:

As a reminder, pact boons are not necessarily triggered by the warlock. This event could happen when the warlock's ranger buddy kills the target that starts the chain just as well, in which case he has no target for an attack - just the pact boon triggering, and spreading. It simply happens every time a cursed target dies, no matter how it dies.

And when the warlock's ranger buddy kills the cursed target, that target is by definition the original target of said action, and the victims the curse is transferred to are defined as the secondary targets. No where I can find or shown to me does it say within the same action a secondary target becomes an original target, although some gamers apparently want to assume so.

To have the property work the way some think it does, I think it should be worded along the lines of: "...to each enemy within 5 squares of another, spreading out from the original target." But it does not say that.

I still disagree. Obviously there is no point in further discussion so I will cease posting on this thread.

Keith

Keith53 wrote:

And when the warlock's ranger buddy kills the cursed target, that target is by definition the original target of said action, and the victims the curse is transferred to are defined as the secondary targets.  No where I can find or shown to me does it say within the same action a secondary target becomes an original target, although some gamers apparently want to assume so.

"Property: Whenever your pact boon is triggered, instead of taking its normal benefit you can transfer your Warlock’s Curse to each enemy within 5 squares of the original target."

The property should be self-contained in terms of its definition. The text should apply each time the condition is met, not retaining definition from a prior use (no matter how soon it happened). There isn't a strict rule on this, but it would cause a lot of problems to say otherwise. "Original" is just trying to clarify your starting point for moving the curse.

But, don't get disheartened, Keith! I like the way you are looking at the issue and the community loves what you are doing in LFR!

Keithric wrote:

See... at the point where you start making decisions for how to DM the game based off gut impressions of the balance of the class, that's the point where it starts to get a little iffy for me.

That's far from a fair interpretaion of what I am saying. I'm just mentioning it isn't broken. That's all. I've said a number of times that it doesn't matter if you like something or do like something, the core rules are what you must use for the RPGA.

Yes, the combo has the potential to kill all minions in an encounter. For most encounters, there should still be a significant challenge, even without the minions.

Another point that some people seem, to be missing:
In order to use the Corruption property, the Warlock is not getting the benefit of his pact boon.

So, the Warlock is, definitely, going to get less benefit from his boon than if he took the boon effect at each cursed creature's death.

And, as another point, since he has to choose to forgo the Pact boon in order to use the rod's property, he might wind up not activating it when needed, or activating it when there is no one to transfer the curse from.

Firing "blind" is something that the Warlock will have to decide on, at some point. Are there any more creatures in the area of effect?

So, I can fully see placing creatures on the map only when and as they become visible, as a legal deterrent to using the combo, but there appears to be no true rules-based way to deny that the combo exists and works.