The Economy of Actions: Pets

[IceFractal]

I think people take "economy of actions" too far. The problem in 3E was that there wasn't even any attempt to limit it. For instance, the Druid - who already gets a pet - is also a summoner. But there's a middle ground between "the summoner takes his 12 turns" and "multiple actions are pure evil!".


Let's look at some simple cases:
Case 1 - A mount you ride that gets to attack when you attack, given to a class that has single-attack powers. End result: Two attacks, same as a Ranger.

Case 2 - A horde of ghosts which attack each creature in an area (at the cost of a standard action). End result: One attack per creature, same as a Wizard.

Case 3 - A creature that attacks for minor damage, sustainable with a minor action. End result: Same as many "sustain minor" powers, like Stinking Cloud.


There are already lots of powers that involve multiple attacks - I think the economy of actions is more flexible than some people give it credit for.

 

[WhatGravitas]

IThere are already lots of powers that involve multiple attacks - I think the economy of actions is more flexible than some people give it credit for.

I think there's also some confusion.

Some use economy of actions to refer to the actual actions - the reason why single strong monsters are weaker than multiple weak monsters - less actions.

If it's about players, it's more like "economy of decisions". Decisions take time and drag out the game. Plus, if the decisions are important, they're also giving you a feeling of mattering.

A attack spell with multiple attack rolls is perhaps worth a lot of actions, but it is a single decision.

If you're playing with a companion/familiar/pet/whatever, we have the problem that both things are acting together, which makes it more problematic:

Due to the "economy of actions", you get a lot more powerful in-game.

Due to the "economy of decision points", you get a lot more important out-of game.

Cheers, LT.

 

[IceFractal]

If the pets/summons have simple abilities, it doesn't increase the amount of decisions necessary. Let's look at those examples again:

Case 1:
The mount is occupying the same position as the rider, so those two attacks are probably against the same target - it could even be worded that way. Same number of decisions as the Ranger.

Case 2:
Since the horde attacks all targets within it's area, the only question is where to put that area. Same number of decisions as the Wizard.

Case 3:
You make one decision - same as most minor-action powers.


And again, there are lots of powers that involve multiple decisions. Any Leader power that hits and enemy and simultaneously buffs an ally? That's two decisions right there. A Warlord power like Own the Battlefield? That's potentially a dozen decisions in one power!

Summoning can involve multiple actions and multiple decisions. So can a number of other powers. If those other powers are fine, why is summoning a problem?

 

[ForbidenMaster]

If the pets/summons have simple abilities, it doesn't increase the amount of decisions necessary. Let's look at those examples again:

Case 1:
The mount is occupying the same position as the rider, so those two attacks are probably against the same target - it could even be worded that way. Same number of decisions as the Ranger.

Case 2:
Since the horde attacks all targets within it's area, the only question is where to put that area. Same number of decisions as the Wizard.

Case 3:
You make one decision - same as most minor-action powers.


And again, there are lots of powers that involve multiple decisions. Any Leader power that hits and enemy and simultaneously buffs an ally? That's two decisions right there. A Warlord power like Own the Battlefield? That's potentially a dozen decisions in one power!

Summoning can involve multiple actions and multiple decisions. So can a number of other powers. If those other powers are fine, why is summoning a problem?

The problem with a horde scenario vs a fireball is that with a fireball you pick a focal point and roll. With a horde you must move each minion to its proper space, taking into account a lot more tactical decisions including flanking, OAs, Cover, who attacks when syncronizing with diffirent powers and abilities, beccause who says you can only have a horde made up of one type of creature, etc.

It essentially comes down to the amount of time a DM takes when its his turn. Now while in 4ed that is pretty streamlined, its still a lot more time than a normal PCs turn, and definitely a lot more complicated then a fireball.

 

[Baumi]

I still don't understand what the big deal is. You could just hand out some MM stats, which are quick to play and easy to understand and just take care that the group doesn't get to many pets.

In Savage Worlds we have often some Hirelings, Guards, etc. in the party and I haven't had a problem with it jet (as a GM & Player). It's just important that they are easier to handle then a normal Character...

 

[Minigiant]

The way I see it working is much like multi classing. You take a feat and gain a companion. You can move the companion into your or any ally's square and you get a bonus to melee damage. They you can take more feats to get powers. One that functions like Flaming Sphere. Another that makes the companion flank an adjacent enemy as a minor. ETC.

 

[Belphanior]

I think pets will be handled in one of two ways (and maybe both):

1. Inherent to Class.
The necromancer is a prime candidate for being a pet-class, as a sort of sub-division of the leader role. Make your own little troupe and buff them. All classes we've seen so far are viable on their own. Adding in extra actions/powers due to having a buddy makes those people inherently above and beyond the normal saps that don't have extra allies. Thus, classes would need to be designed from the ground up to have allies, in order to keep overall balance the same.

2. Feat chains.
I agree with Minigiant that this is a likely way to go, since it already has been used with multiclassing. This works best for animal companions you can train and cooperate with, or mechanical critters for the artificer who can upgrade them, and less for full NPC allies who have their own sentience.

 

[Nymrohd]

How about if pet classes have powers not only to summon pets but also to handle them? They could have for instance weak encounter standard attack powers or daily immediate attack powers that grant their pet standard actions

 

[clearstream]

If you're playing with a companion/familiar/pet/whatever, we have the problem that both things are acting together, which makes it more problematic:

Due to the "economy of actions", you get a lot more powerful in-game.

Due to the "economy of decision points", you get a lot more important out-of game.

I really felt those two things impacting a lot on my 3.5 campaign.

Do pets really need discrete actions, or can they integrate into your own.

For example, your mount increases your move, and gives you access to additional powers and boosts existing powers. Or your dog automatically adds to your Perception skill, much like familiars in 3.5.

Makes them more like items...

-vk

 

[clearstream]

How about if pet classes have powers not only to summon pets but also to handle them? They could have for instance weak encounter standard attack powers or daily immediate attack powers that grant their pet standard actions

Nice idea!