D&D 5E (2014) Have shared actions returned in 5e?

[RotGrub]

If this is your only problem with it, I have some simple house rules to sell you as an add-on.

Please do

 

[MarkB]

Now if you want to argue that beastmaster rangers and chain pact warlocks should have companions with independent actions because conjurer wizards don't have to take actions to control monsters summoned with the "conjure" series of spells that is a very valid point.

I'd argue that a single player directing two characters is no more a violation of the action economy than a single player making an attack that targets a large group of opponents, or making multiple attacks with their action and then taking a bonus action.

 

[Li Shenron]

D&D is not a simulationist game, never has been. It is a combination of many playstyles to be attractive to the most people. Shared actions are a gamist conceit, purely there for game balance/action economy reasons, so arguing it doesn't make sense is what doesn't make sense. HP, AC, Hit Dice, halflings with 20 strengths, falling 20 miles from the sky rolling 20d6 and taking only 20 points of damage, making a save vs fireball centered on you in a empty room, tons of things in D&D don't make sense because it is a game.

This is your own view, and not universal truth.

All those other things you mention (HP, AC...) are models and as such they are intrinsically imperfect, but they do make sense because they almost always begin as a representation of something. Only that "sense" is relative, and in fact there are even people who can't stand basic HP and AC. I am sure you have something yourself across editions that you don't find sensible enough for your tastes. Sometimes, a rule can indeed be an afterthough, introduce for balance reasons, and perhaps this may be the case with companions shared actions.

My general idea is that a "rule" or "model" can fail, and not just objectively fail because it doesn't work from a mechanical perspective, but it can also fail from a "sense" point of view. That this failure is (more) subjective, doesn't make it any less legitimate. A RPG is not the same as a card game or board game, and the vast majority of RPG players see it as a combination of narrative + mechanics, and if the mechanical rule jams the narrative of a (fantasy) reality, then it's the rule's fault, not reality's fault. Hence it's legitimate to ignore/modify the RAW, just as it's legitimate to ignore/modify the NAW "narrative as written".

IMO, this rule is asinine. It's an example of over balance and it isn't applied in a consistent manner throughout the system.

Now, you might think that it should take time to direct the familiar to attack each round, but the problem I have with that argument is that Page 190 allows for communication and a single free action (some of which are far more complicated). If those actions don't require you to waste an attack why should your trusted familiar? In addition, the find familiar spell allows you communicate telepathically with your familiar making that argument even less convincing. Even the animate dead spell allows you to use a bonus action or issue general commands. Lastly, an independent mount doesn't need to share its actions with a rider, so why should an independent familiar need to share its attacks with a master?

I don't know the exact wording and presentation of these rules, but I've read other discussions about them here at ENWorld, and I feel like the main reason behind this is possibly that the designers do NOT want a player's turn to last twice as long as everybody else's because of running essentially 2 characters rather than 1.

There might also be a balance purpose, such as considering the companion's attacks or spells as an integral part of the PC, and then thinking in terms "with a companion, this PC is essentially casting 2 spells per round / attacking twice as often this turn, so we'd better prohibit this case".

This is only my best guess. They still wanted "pets" for characters because a lot of gamers love them, but essentially they were very afraid that they can drag the game down and be too beneficial, but indeed from a functional/mechanical point of view this kind of rule makes pets near-worthless in combat.

----------------------------------

I have my own way of dealing with the subject, but this is not something that I expect most people to like: simply put, to let the DM completely control the companions. That's how I've usually always done (except on PbP games). It doesn't slow the game down more than having one additional monster in the encounter. It won't be perceived as doubling a PC's actions per round. Instead, that companion will be perceived as a party benefit rather than an individual PC's benefit. Then, you can still reinstate the "requires a PC's action" whenever the player really wants to choose exactly what action the pet is going to take, overtaking the DM's initiative but giving up her own action as a cost.

 

[RotGrub]

Turn duration is a reason I did not consider, but I really don't think an imp's turn is all that hard or complicated to resolve.

Still, I think it's rather strange that a trusted familiar can't attack in defense of his master when he goes down.

I totally reject the argument that such rules exist for the sake of balance. IMO, having a familiar, mount, or a pet should grant an advantage. The rules should simply ensure that the advantage isn't greater than a fighters extra attack. From the looks of it special familiars don't do that much damage anyway.

 

[Zaran]

Just make it so the Pet Owner gets Advantage on one attack roll be done with it.

 

[Boarstorm]

I have my own way of dealing with the subject, but this is not something that I expect most people to like: simply put, to let the DM completely control the companions. That's how I've usually always done (except on PbP games). It doesn't slow the game down more than having one additional monster in the encounter. It won't be perceived as doubling a PC's actions per round. Instead, that companion will be perceived as a party benefit rather than an individual PC's benefit. Then, you can still reinstate the "requires a PC's action" whenever the player really wants to choose exactly what action the pet is going to take, overtaking the DM's initiative but giving up her own action as a cost.

Maybe I have more OSR in my soul than I thought, because I really like that idea.

(I'm not sure why I associate it with OSR, but I do. So there you go.)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have to say, I don´t like shared actions too. My requiring is just not having such a class at all. The original plan for the beasts was just have them as a special kind of hireling. Just a beastly kind, and this is what I will do at my table. The summoned familiar however is not a creature as the original one in its own sense. It is a magical construct which has to be directed by you. I don´t even like it to have its own initiative, when the ranger pet shares its initiative with the ranger...

I could also see the familiar requiring concentration to attack as the cost you pay. Maybe you just have to direct it mentally. The ranger pet should just need a single action to be set at a target, maybe even just a bonus action and maybe also requiring your concentration. If your concentration breaks, there just should be a chance that your beast goes wild or flees.
Other mechanics, still balanced, as a pet ranger can´t use hunter´s mark in conjunction with his pet.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I presume the shared actions were due to trying to keep a lid on the action economy. While RotGrub is right that a single familiar should be able to act independently and not cause any additional difficulty over other types of creatures that get actions... it's the idea that you can have a party of several different PCs ALL having these additional creatures that could cause rounds to just expand into overblown messes with every player controlling two or more figures.

Thankfully... the game is such that if a table has just like a single familiar or ranger's animal companion amongst the entire party... a player and DM can easily try to expand the creature's autonomous abilities to see if it causes any issues at the table (and if it ultimately does, the DM and player can agree to remove them.)

Thus... some options would be to let a PC use their Bonus Action to let the familiar/animal companion take an Action... give the creature its own Action, but no move (so that if the creatures needs to move around the battlefield, it has to use Dash-- resulting in it only getting to make attacks when not deciding to move in a particular round)... or even treat the creature as a full-on member of the party and allow it a complete suite of move, Action, and on the off-chance it ever gets a feature that would use it-- Bonus Action.

Try them out, see if they cause issues, and if not then let them go with it. After all... the only two things that might result in a problem are the one PC taking too much time having to manipulate two figures, and the DM having to slightly re-align encounter strength to compensate for the additional "party member".

 

[Agamon]

Maybe I have more OSR in my soul than I thought, because I really like that idea.

(I'm not sure why I associate it with OSR, but I do. So there you go.)

That is odd. When I was playing ACKS and my players had a bunch of henchmen, they ran them in combat. Otherwise, I'd pretty much be playing the game myself with occasional input from the players.

 

[Mistwell]

Balance at the expense of believability will be rebuked at my table.

Will it? We're going to start naming things until you cry uncle on that claim I will start. Tell me, how does the rogue dodge the fireball with evasion?