Whither Summoners and Animal Companions?

[ptolemy18]

When I first heard about the idea of getting rid of multiple attacks in D&D4e, I thought it was an awesome idea (for PCs, that is -- as a DM, getting to hit the players with some claw-claw-bite monster attack is just too fun to lose). But upon reflection this made me worry/wonder about an aspect of D&D4e which I haven't heard of:

What, if any, role is there going to be for "monster summoners" (the Summon Monster spell in general) and animal companions (previously one of the Druid's main powers, although the Druid won't be in the 4e PHB) and, for that matter, familiars? (And, for that matter, the Leadership feat?)

I hope that these kinds of characters will still be possible -- i.e., characters whose powers involve getting other creatures to fight for them. (At least in part -- obviously this isn't a catch-all strategic solution.) These are some of my favorite character types. But -- and maybe I'm just guessing blindly -- those character types automatically eat up more time than a regular PC because you have one player controlling multiple characters. In the case of familiars they usually end up getting forgotten half the time, and in the case of summoned monsters they can kick a lot of ass (although they already nerfed summoned monsters between 3.0 and 3.5, evidently realizing this).

In either case, *I* think that these kinds of characters and strategies are awesome, and I hope that they stay in the game. If the summoned monsters become weaker, that's... sort of fine... but if they are eliminated altogether or replaced by some sort of Final Fantasy "fake summoned monster that just shows up and attacks your opponent and is basically no different from a lightning bolt" effect, then that would suck. So I just want to say, I hope that summoner/conjurer characters are still plausible in 4e, as well as druids and spellcasters with at least the option of having familiars and animal companions. I hope the mechanics for these things aren't drastically changed in 4e as part of the "make every class of equal complexity, make everyone's round take equal time" thing which seems to be one of guiding principles of the new edition, potentially at the cost of the complexity of the classes which are already complicated.

-- Jason "Evokers are my least favorite type of wizards" Thompson

 

[IceFractal]

Definitely agree - Summoners are a fun type of character, and their loss to "streamlining" wouldn't be worth it in the slightest. And yes, those FF "summons" are just lame.

 

[FireLance]

Heh. I've played FFIX and FFXXII and while the FFIX summons are not very much different from an ordinary attack spell, the FFXII summons actually bring a new creature into the game (but it replaces the other two party members that did not summon it).

Streamlining summons could involve one or more of the following:

1. A spellcaster can only have one summoned creature at a time. This was how Complete Psionic changed astral construct.

2. A spellcaster's actions are restricted while his summoned creature is present, e.g. he may be required to spend a standard or move action to maintain his summoned creature.

3. A spellcaster who wishes to act in the same round as his summoned creature imposes a penalty on the actions of both himself and his summoned creature. This should be consistent with the penalty for attacking with two weapons or attacking twice in a round.

 

[Exen Trik]

When I first heard about the idea of getting rid of multiple attacks in D&D4e, I thought it was an awesome idea (for PCs, that is -- as a DM, getting to hit the players with some claw-claw-bite monster attack is just too fun to lose).

Multiple attacks aren't gone, it's just the iterative attacks from high BAB that's out. Any multiple attacks will be the result of special actions, and I'm sure the good ol' claw-claw-bite is somewhere in there.

And yes, those FF "summons" are just lame.

I don't know, I could see room for something like it along with the traditional kind of summons. Short duration or one round summons of creatures normally too powerful to summon, like getting a young dragon to use it's breath weapon and claw attacks and then be off.

But that would basically just be an odd form of evocation with different flavor text, so the main point still stands.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I'm very pro-summoning themed classes.

And I hope that the Controller role and mix of activation based abilities and Vancian stuff makes such a class more viable if not necessary.

 

[erf_beto]

so, is it possible that, while the wizard is a controller, the wizard summoner will be a... leader? I mean, with all the bossing around his minions and stuff...
Or could it be that he is both a leader and a controller?
It would be the same with druid: leader/controller...
Maybe this is why he was left out of the first 4E PHB: cross roles would be too much for a start.

 

[ptolemy18]

so, is it possible that, while the wizard is a controller, the wizard summoner will be a... leader? I mean, with all the bossing around his minions and stuff...
Or could it be that he is both a leader and a controller?
It would be the same with druid: leader/controller...
Maybe this is why he was left out of the first 4E PHB: cross roles would be too much for a start.

Sucks (for me as a wizard lover who played spellcasters 9 out of 10 of my last characters) that we're apparently not going to get the "8 specialist wizard types" in the 4E PHB.

In a way, it seems like a step back that several different types of roles which used to be supported by one class (Wizard = Conjurer, Illusionist, Evoker, Transmuter, Necromancer, etc.) are now going to be split into multiple classes. Although I suppose that all WotC has to do to please me on this is come out with some supplement featuring the Illusionist and Conjurer and Necromancer classes... then they'll have sold me on the 4E PHB *and* some supplement containing stuff which used to be included in the 3E PHB. Diabolically clever! :/

Oh well! You better be frickin' exciting to make up for my missing specialist wizards, Warlord!

 

[ptolemy18]

Heh. I've played FFIX and FFXXII and while the FFIX summons are not very much different from an ordinary attack spell, the FFXII summons actually bring a new creature into the game (but it replaces the other two party members that did not summon it).

Streamlining summons could involve one or more of the following:

1. A spellcaster can only have one summoned creature at a time. This was how Complete Psionic changed astral construct.

2. A spellcaster's actions are restricted while his summoned creature is present, e.g. he may be required to spend a standard or move action to maintain his summoned creature.

3. A spellcaster who wishes to act in the same round as his summoned creature imposes a penalty on the actions of both himself and his summoned creature. This should be consistent with the penalty for attacking with two weapons or attacking twice in a round.

These are all very valid and good suggestions for how to make Summoning spells more suited for 4E (i.e., to make them weaker, I'm guessing, without eliminating their core appeal).

Although first-level summoned monsters really *do* seem to only last long enough to deliver a single attack and then go away (like in Final Fantasy), the real appeal of using summoned creatures is to use them in a creative fashion; whether it's "fly over there and pick up the key" or "hold this gap in the defensive line for a few rounds" or just "break down this door" or whatever. Or just the idea of playing some wimp who is protected by a living wall of monsters. Or, the best summoning thing that ever happened in a game I played in, when I summoned a Small water elemental which communicated in Aquan with a Huge water elemental and convinced it not to attack us.

I wonder what they'll do with Familiars, Animal Companions, and Leadership, though. All of these pretty much straight-up grant the player control of two (or more) characters. I don't think this is a bad thing, so I hope it remains supported by the game mechanics in some fashion. Heck, even the Handle Animal feat grants control of two characters, albeit in a clunky way.

 

[FourthBear]

I suspect that in this, PC conjurer, druid and necromancer classes will be rebuilt. It's easy for a DM to fill a dungeon with undead creatures, make the villain behind it a necromancer and handwave that he somehow is responsible for them all. However, in a party, having one character with a platoon of monsters at his command can be a real drag on things. "OK, now it's Eric the Necromancer's turn. Everyone else take five while he resolves the movements and actions for his seven monsters, then his own."

The way 3e worked this was to have monster summoning take a full round and to have monsters be pretty weak relative to your casting level. This still could result in the issues where one player gets 10 action resolutions for every other characters one. I definitely agree that something like Firelance's suggestions is likely to be in the cards.

1) Single, powerful summons and restricted actions for the summoner during this time.
2) Summoned monsters are somehow stripped down to elements that make them simpler to resolve actions and movement for. Perhaps summoned monsters use mook rules and whatever tricks the DM will have for resolving multiple monsters in 4e.
3) Summoned monsters are an extreme example of 2 above and are basically special effects for an immediate effect (e.g., you summon a fire imp that breathes fire on your enemies and disappears)

My current guess is number 1, but it's certainly a tricky issue.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

(for PCs, that is -- as a DM, getting to hit the players with some claw-claw-bite monster attack is just too fun to lose)

I beg to differ on the fun of claw/claw/bite/gore/tail/horn, but you're in luck, I guess -- the stats for the Spined Devil/Spinagon clearly show two claw attacks (at -2 each, just like for a character using two weapons).