D&D 4E Bag of Tricks seems to be a look into 4E summoning

[jaelis]

Don't overlook that this is a level 8 cat, quite capable of single-handedly killing a 1st level hero.

Your concern that it is not a substantial threat that could realistically flank is still valid, I suppose, since it doesn't do a lot of damage compared to typical hp at level 8. But the same could be said for a fighter's basic longsword attack.

 

[theNater]

I have a hard time envisioning this being anything but a novelty item to impress young children at carnivals.

For years I've houseruled that you cannot get flanking unless your ally is a credible threat to the target. If a deadly rogue is fighting an ogre, and a kitty cat gets behind that ogre to give the rogue flanking, the ogre will not even bother with the cat. Instead, it will keep its attention firmly focused on the rogue. Sometimes, if the non-threatening critter can get into position without being seen, but making enough noise to be heard, then the flanked bad guy has to spend some time finiding out what is behind him, which will give flanking that first round. But then that's the end of the flanking once he finds out it's just a puny weasel.

Are you and I looking at the same bag of tricks? An 8th-level cleric with a spear will have a +10 or +11 to hit(4 level, 2 prof., 4 or 5 str) and do 5-13 damage. The critter is at the low end of the damage, but if it's not a threat, why is the cleric? Heck, depending on the particular creature, it may have some advantages over the cleric.

And as for giving up my own actions in D&D, actions that could do real damage to one or more enemies, just so I can run Francis around the battlefield - not a chance. I'd just be doing less damage, being ineffective in combat, and making the fight take longer with more risk to the party since the monsters get to beat on us more.

Seems to me to make this item worthwhile, the user must be able to remain active in combat, to take his own actions so he doesn't cripple his own team by removing himself as a useful combatant.

Is it clear that you don't have to spend all of your actions controlling the critter? It takes a standard action to summon it, but on subsequent rounds you can use a minor to make it attack, a standard to make yourself attack, and a move(possibly converted to a minor) to move one or the other of you.

Yeah, I know, economy of actions. I've heard the chanting, the voices raised on high praising the economy of actions. I've smelled the acrid smoke as summoning has been burned in 43 effigy.

But really, is it really all that bad? Honestly?

So your buddy finds one of these bags. For the next few fights he amuses himself summing cats and bats and badgers and scorpions. He takes his action, casts his spell, move his bat, rolls one die. Damage is not even rolled, so hit or miss, it's just one move, one die roll. That can't take more than a few seconds each round.

Economy of actions is about game balance, not just turn speed. It's why beholders get to fire an eye ray at every target in range every round, so that the beholder doesn't lose just by virtue of not being able to attack as much as the party can. This post is the one I think of when I think of economy of actions. Note that it does not mention turn length at all.

 

[Ahglock]

It is basically what I expected to see with summoning. A feat or class feature for summoning based classes that allows a minor action to command multiple creatures at once would round it out for me. It doesn't have to be army level but a summoner controlling 3ish creatures without crippling there own actions would be cool.

 

[doctorhook]

Crap, there's an error here. I've passed it to the necessary parties, but I thought I'd correct it in the quote.

Bwahahaha!

Very clever, and thanks for posting, Peter!

 

[MeMeMeMe]

Herein resides Francis the badger: Francis the badger That gnome is awesome too. Because he's a monster, of course.

Haha, thanks.

 

[Oldtimer]

Me: Aha, I summon a kitty (std), have the kitty attack (minor), and then move myself somewhere safe.
Rogue: Well, now I'm flanking, that's easy... sneak attack!

As a Tiny creature the kitty can't attack adjacent enemies, so how can the rogue get a flank from the kitty?

 

[jaelis]

As a Tiny creature the kitty can't attack adjacent enemies, so how can the rogue get a flank from the kitty?

Yes, I overlooked that. I'm afraid that having the critters be Tiny makes them very much less useful.

 

[Caliber]

So, OT but, can a creature with 0 reach never give flanking?

 

[Oldtimer]

So, OT but, can a creature with 0 reach never give flanking?

It has to be adjacent and able to attack, so I suppose it needs a ranged attack to give flanking.