Forked Thread: Action economy with companions/summons

[Mengu]

Forked from: Summoning and the Hypothetical Battle Reality

No, it's designed that way because the 4E designers have some ideas that are just flat out wrong. They somehow think twin strike and other attacks where you get a bucket of dice and do massive amounts of damage are fine, but oh dear, can't have a summon do an attack AND the wizard do an attack... Same thing, but somehow the wizard getting two attacks on the same target breaks a law. This whole "my standard action your standard action" nonsense makes animal companions and summons feel very artificial, and all to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

I feel this is kind of a valid point. I was imagining ranger companions would work a little differently. For instance I though they might have an at-will power that let both the ranger and the companion attack. Maybe something that lets the companion attack, do damage equal to , and the ranger attacks, doing [W]. This would be closer to twin strike in chances to hit at least once and apply quarry damage.

However I think the role of the class should play into what a companion or summoned creature does. So while this would make a good mechanic for a Ranger, from a controller I expect something a little different. For the Druid, I think the instinctive action mechanic is a good one. It can essentially give the summoner the equivalent of two standard actions, if he can use his powers tactically. For instance if the druid summons a Fierce Boar, he should be working in tandem with the boar, pushing or sliding targets away from the boar before the end of his turn, so the boar is free to charge something. Unlike a ranger, the druid has the tools to arrange the battle field to assist his allies (including the summoned creature), so why not make the druid use those tools?

I think economy of actions can be a bit more flexible, especially with daily powers, as long as the effects don't supercede the capabilities of what other classes of the same role can do with similar powers.

For instance, a Wizard's summons may have something a little different than the druid. Instead of instinctive action, they might have Auras, where they make an attack against any creature that begins its turn in the aura, essentially replacing the automatic damage from flaming sphere, for maybe slightly more damage at the cost of an attack roll.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

You suggest an at-will for beastmasters' that works similar to twin strike so they can catch up.

The question is, should I give everyone "Twin Strike" or should I remove Twin Strike?

Since AV was released Twin Strike has increased its power. I think it was fine with PHB only feats/items/etc....but I haven't done the math with PHB only builds.

Furthermore, we have only one of the power-up books MP. AP, and DP are yet to be released. So we can't figure out how those classes can catch up.

Giving all those classes that add extra allies to the combat no limit on who of them can act and how, what will players of other classes (those without extra allies) think? Especially if all extra allies are meaningful additions to the combat.

 

[Mengu]

The question is, should I give everyone "Twin Strike" or should I remove Twin Strike?

Good question. It allows the ranger to be a striker. It could probably be two [stat]-1 vs AC attacks, and would still have served the same purpose and would have been more balanced, but I don't want to dwell on that too much.

Giving all those classes that add extra allies to the combat no limit on who of them can act and how, what will players of other classes (those without extra allies) think? Especially if all extra allies are meaningful additions to the combat.

That's why it's important to keep the overall balance of powers comparable. All I'm saying is economy of actions shouldn't be a straight jacket for power design, especially for daily powers where we are expecting a little extra umph.

 

[Byronic]

I agree that it's a bit strange to use the economy of actions so strictly with summoning powers while you have powers like "Twin Strike".

If the point of economy of actions is to not give one player more actions then the other then having Twin Strike and AoE powers (especially at-will varients) go against this.

So I believe that summons should increase the amount of actions as well. Especially since they ARE dailies.

Also I'm a bit annoyed that the Wizards Flaming Sphere is so much better then his level 1 summon. Shouldn't the player have to choose between powers equal in strength but different in effect? Maybe I will give the Wizard Summons an aura... I guess I'll wait and see if Arcane Power gives implements that support them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

One observation. You cannot really compare the animal companion of a beast master to a summoning. The summoning is ephemeral and requires the use of a power. The animal companion is ALWAYS there and is gained via a class feature. Granted that class feature replaces another quite good class feature, but it gives a permanent benefit. If the ranger and the animal could attack EVERY round that is going to outweigh any other class feature currently in the game.

So could summoning possibly not be forced into the 'economy of action' trap? Possibly, but then it would have to have a different balance. At that point the summoning might not be strong enough to be worth ANYTHING much at all. There is after all a lower limit on the power of an ally that is worth having. You could have the power to summon a minion, but all it would be good for was flanking someone once before it was splatted.

 

[Mengu]

Also I'm a bit annoyed that the Wizards Flaming Sphere is so much better then his level 1 summon. Shouldn't the player have to choose between powers equal in strength but different in effect? Maybe I will give the Wizard Summons an aura... I guess I'll wait and see if Arcane Power gives implements that support them.

I'm not sure if it's fair to compare a wizard power to a druid power. Comparing the summon (at least for 1st level), to 1st level druid daily attack powers, I don't see a huge difference. Basically it's a weaker Faerie Fire for damage potential and granting combat advantage, but it makes up for the difference by soaking up some damage.

When we see some actual wizard summons, then we can make the comparison, but comparing anything to Flaming Sphere is not exactly a good idea because Flaming Sphere is on the high end of the power curve.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Keep in mind that if a summoned creature acted on their own (ie no regard for economy of actions) they would far and away outstrip the power level of any alternate power.

Say a wizard summons something. Can we now allow the summon to attack while the wizard uses another non-summoning power? Should the wizard be allowed to let the summoning continue attacking while they drop Fireball or some other Encounter or Daily power? Twin Strike doesn't give the ranger two Actions, it gives two attacks, both of which are part of the power.

Now, if you want a wizard power that allows the wizard's pet to attack and the wizard to fire off some effect, that would be fine (assuming of course it is balanced with other equal level powers). However, that isn't a problem with Economy of Actions, it is a reinforcement of the concept that a specific power would be needed for it.

 

[Mengu]

Say a wizard summons something. Can we now allow the summon to attack while the wizard uses another non-summoning power? Should the wizard be allowed to let the summoning continue attacking while they drop Fireball or some other Encounter or Daily power?

It depends on how long the summons will last. Again, boils down to power design. The summoned monsters don't have huge powers, they are at about the level of an at-will power (sometimes worse). So it's not going to make crazy things happen all of a sudden. And if the summoned creature is attacked a few times, it dies. So it's not a long lasting power.

It's feasible to design a daily power that would summon a pair of wolves to attack for free, but last until the end of your next turn. So it would essentially be 4 attacks unless they are killed before they get their second round, the damage output would be less than most daily powers, but the utility for flanking and drawing attacks would make up for the lack in duration.

 

[Regicide]

Keep in mind that if a summoned creature acted on their own (ie no regard for economy of actions) they would far and away outstrip the power level of any alternate power.

No, it wouldn't. A properly balanced creature can take their action along with the caster and wouldn't feel completely artificial like it does now. If the DM adds a couple minions to most encounters it won't break things, likewise if a player could bring in a couple vanilla minions it isn't going to far and away outstrip other powers.

Even if you had "economy of action" and had to give up your action for your summon to act, a 3.5E 17th level wizard would gladly give their action for a gated 34th level Solar to take theirs! "Economy of action" is utter drivel. Balanced companions and summons are the answer.

 

[Wardo]

I think the people complaining about the new focus on the economy of actions haven't had the pleasure of playing at a table with a druid or artificer who has something like 5 minis to keep track of between companions and summons, moving and then attacking with them all on his turn. Comparisons to twin strike are not really valid, since twin strike caps out at 2 identical attacks.

Conversely, if you're going to just summon a pair of critters to perform a series of attacks and then disappear (a balanced summon), then it just sounds like a normal attack spell with a slightly longer duration. It doesn't sound that different from the economy of actions solution.