How Much is That Fighter in the Window?

[ruleslawyer]

I do this IMC already. The PC party freed a bunch of half-starved imprisoned paladins a while back; rather than having separate attacks resolved, I just gave the PCs a +2 bonus to attacks (for aid another) and a +6 bonus to grapple checks (for overbearing/piling on).

 

[Imp]

It would be nice to have good mass combat guidelines. I do like to wing big low-level combats when they come up. "Okay, you drive off the bandits; 4 dead, 16 wounded." It would be happier if game designers could use their statistical-analysis-fu to come up with something that approximates playing the whole stupid thing out. But that's a pony.

The odd cohort isn't a problem.

Besides, I like the option of winning low-level build duels by hiring a company of 100 pike to slowly skewer everybody

 

[Stalker0]

I think some "automation" rules for cohorts and companions would be nice. When the druid is throwing spells and getting 3 attacks with the big bear things do start slowing down.

Even with automation though, you still have to consider that your adding another body to the group, one that has an AC and hitpoints that has to be tracked. It takes up space on the board if you use a board, it moves around (which has to be considered) etc. While it maybe a simpler character, its still a lot more than no companion.

The companion thing is a tough call for me. On the other hand, the idea of druid companions has kind of become a solid archetype. On the other, I've been in "pet" parties and combats really do slow down. No matter how "balanced" a companion might be, there's an inherent imbalance to going twice as often as the rest of your party.

Kudos to 4e if it finds a really good way to handle this.

 

[IceFractal]

I think people have become oversensitive to having "extra" creatures around, because of situations where someone is controlling a small army (summoner-type with Leadership, for example, or a necromancer with a huge undead horde).

Player controlling 10 minions - Slows things down, not a good thing.
Player controlling 1 minion - Not a problem, stop complaining.


Several things they've mentioned about 4E:
1) Combat will be faster.
2) The party will face larger groups of monsters.

So if the party is already facing half a dozen trolls, and a giant, and there are six players already, then adding one or two minions is not going to bring the game to a grinding halt.


So by all means, reduce the number of minions in play (a permanent companion and heavy summoning capabilities should not be on the same character), but don't act like the character controlling one minion and also acting normally is going to shatter the gameplay.

[sblock=PS]Also, a note about cohorts. IMC, I let players control cohorts in combat, subject to DM veto over suicidal or out-of-character actions. Usually if someone takes Leadership, they enjoy having that tactical depth in combat, so why would you take that away? Also, the player usually can run the cohort faster than the DM could, which speeds things up.

And about those leadership feats - why do animals have the same upkeep cost as humanoids? Even setting aside the realism issues, animals have significant disadvantages over humanoids such as not being intelligent or having hands, and being harder to take into polite company - less upkeep is the least you can do to balance that, and actually the HD limit for them should probably be higher.

Also, undead do not have upkeep - that's the entire point of having undead minions. Balance them some other way (for that matter, being undead is a balancing factor in most campaigns, try taking a zombie bear into town compared to a human bodyguard).[/sblock]

 

[Aloïsius]

Shouldn't there be some guidelines for how much mercenaries and hirelings are paid before they'll betray you, though? I can't think of a single game I've played that didn't involve hiring at least one NPC adventurer to fill a gap in the party, and in each case there's been a mad hunt for some sort of guideline for doing so in a balanced way. How much is an 8th-level bodyguard worth? More than a shield? Less than a +2 vorpal greatsword? I can see the point that it's a complex subject rife with potential for on-the-spot adjustments, but I think the game would benefit from a baseline mechanic the DM could compare his rulings against.

Sure ! I have nothing against guidelines about how much it costs to hire someone !
What I despise is things like "leadership'" allowing a PC to pop hirelings without any in game reasons. GP are an in-game reason. Feats, level and abstract ability are not.

 

[Gothic_Demon]

Sure ! I have nothing against guidelines about how much it costs to hire someone !
What I despise is things like "leadership'" allowing a PC to pop hirelings without any in game reasons. GP are an in-game reason. Feats, level and abstract ability are not.

Isn't this why Leadership is in the DMG and not the PH? As in, if the player's character hasn't earned it they can't have it?

 

[Aloïsius]

Isn't this why Leadership is in the DMG and not the PH? As in, if the player's character hasn't earned it they can't have it?

And if they earned it, why should they waste a feat on it ? If your character is brillant enough through his actions to win the trust of an army of followers, why should he renounce to learn "great cleave" ?
And why should he have 100 first level mooks rather than 10 2th level buddy ? And why one cohort of level -1 rather than two of level -4 ? You encounter NPC, you interact with them. If you are able to convince them to follow you, they do.
There may be guidelines and advice in the DMG to help the DM keep things balanced, but I really hate the leadership feat and similar stuff.

 

[Plane Sailing]

You seem to have forgotten about the Handle Animal skill (as most people do, IMX). A ranger could always do the 'wild empathy' thing like the druid, or he could max out his Handle Animal and by about 10th level have a pack of trained tyrannosaurs as his attack dogs.

- all depending upon finding the animals, and having the time to train them, of course

 

[Aloïsius]

You seem to have forgotten about the Handle Animal skill (as most people do, IMX). A ranger could always do the 'wild empathy' thing like the druid, or he could max out his Handle Animal and by about 10th level have a pack of trained tyrannosaurs as his attack dogs.

- all depending upon finding the animals, and having the time to train them, of course

I think some creature should not be trained. Let say only beast with 2 Int can be trained. Thus, most reptile/fish/batracian (1 Int) could not be trained. As far as I know, no one has been able to train a shark...

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

But thats just it, they are guidelines! Why does everything have to be spelled out and spooned to us nowadays? 3rd edition quantified everything, and by doing so, some of the "magic" was lost from the game. Look how long it takes to run a simple combat in 3rd edition, and 4th doesnt look much better. The DM's job is to ad lib, to keep the game flowing, to work with his PC's to provide the best experience out there. And yes, sometimes you end up restricting a players choice, but if youdo they should understand why. Followers, cohorts, and even familiars are NPC's. They are not a second character for a player to have and run. If you run your games that way, thats fine too. personally I like to reserve the right for Joe the Cohort to say "no" once in a while. THey are supposed to be your freinds and allies, not your own personal expendable slave you gained just because you took a feat.

I disagree that is how it needs to be done. The reason that things need to be spelled out in 3rd edition is because of the problems that NOT spelling things out caused in previous editions.

When we used to play older editions and followed the rule of "roleplay everything", it ended up with one game where we all had 3 or 4 +5 items(in addition to 20 other magic items) at level 12 and another game where we still hadn't seen more than a +1 item at 15th level. Sometimes it created games where one person had 30 magic items and another person had 1 or 2, since we let role playing solve everything and the other players were not willing to share.

We ended up with one game where there was a PC who was 4 levels above the rest of the party because he outsmarted the DM and was given a bunch of bonus xp for it. There was another game where a player was good enough at role playing that he had essentially 3 or 4 fanatical followers the same level as the rest of the party who would do almost everything he said. So, he got 4 characters while we all got one.

It made all of them way more powerful than anyone else in the group. It inspired jealousy and arguments amongst the players. Sometimes it was open and obvious that it was happening, other times the players knew that they HAD to put up with it so they didn't tell anyone about their feelings. Instead they just felt more and more left out and useless in the party every week until they stopped playing one day.

Also, I have enough on my plate as a DM than also having to run 3 cohorts in the party as well. I'll leave that up to the players, thank you.