The Economy of Actions: Pets

[RefinedBean]

I don't know how this would work in 4th Ed, but something akin to the Hexblade's Dark Companion from the 3.5 PHB2 would be nice...providing a bonus based one where it's placed. I'd have it that enemies could negate it by taking a standard action to "attack" it every round, so it's at least soaking up an enemy action.

Of course, that might strike some people as lame, since it makes the animal companion nigh immortal. But do you really want some minion killing your companion? Nah.

 

[darkdragoon]

People blow the whole "economy of action" thing completely out of the proportion. If giving someone a pet was that bad, then adding another player would be even worse... Do we see strict 5 players, no more! rules in the DMG?

Another player is 1 for 1. Animal companions, Leadership, Diplomacying someone into a fanatic, much less making armies of undead are 2 for 1 at worst.

 

[Psychic Robot]

I'm guessing it will be a minor action to sustain the pet. Perhaps a move action to make it use a standard action. I'm hoping that such is the full extent of the vast nerf that pets are taking.

 

[PHGraves]

This whole "Economy of Actions" twaddle seems as if the recoil from the feared "3.5 Druid with a hojillion minions"/"Necromantic Army" cheese has launched us way too far in the other direction.

Setting aside the joy of trading your own actions for a much less competent pet, how would this handle more than one pet per character?

Sure, fine, no massive undead army for my necromancer. I would love more than one, though. Heck, three would be mighty keen.

What would be even more keen? Being able to, at the very least, move in the same round as more than one of my pets.


It seems as if this EoA trope runs counter to one of the major pillars of 4E - Dynamic Combat. Tactical movement has become such a large part of 4E that it seems odd (to me, at least) that we are now being asked to lock down our 'summoner' for them to use their pets.

 

[Kraydak]

Another player is 1 for 1. Animal companions, Leadership, Diplomacying someone into a fanatic, much less making armies of undead are 2 for 1 at worst.

Adding an extra players adds an extra person who may not always be on the ball. Adding a pet, just gives one person (already active) a few more actions that he was probably already working into his tactics (note: make the person with a pet delay his characters so they all act on the same initiative). Further, pets tend to be less complicated (and hence faster) than full PCs. An extra player will certainly slow things down more than 1 pet, and will usually slow things down more than 2 simple pets. Beyond that, life gets complicated.

 

[DrSkull]

If the "pet" or "henchman" or whatever gets a full set of actions and has hit points etc, I think that subtracting his XP from the XP award of the encounter is the perfect solution.

You aren't going to get a lot of experience if a horde of zombies does all of your fighting for you. That sounds perfect to me.

 

[Fredrik Svanberg]

So what is a sufficient way to balance the Pet issue?

I wish all pets and mounts worked the same way. They should work like this: to make the pet do a move action, spend a minor action. To make the pet take a standard action, spend a move action. Pets take minor actions for free.

I think this would be balanced and if all pets and mounts worked like this it would be easy to remember.

 

[Incendax]

I would like summoned pets to attack adjacent enemies automatically, but require a Move Action to "Control" and get them to move to tactical locations. In this way, it is not possible for a Summoner to have more than two actively moving pets at a time. (Though he could still use them as a defensive wall)

 

[IceFractal]

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.

The problem is that you're still thinking in 3E terms of what summoning a horde means. If you summon a tactically complex creature, there would just be one. If you summon a horde of creatures, they would not be tactically complex. It's as simple as it sounds.


To be more specific, here's some possible types of summons:
1) Full Fledged - Summons a tactically complex, comparitively powerful creature, which takes at least your standard action to control. So you're basically replacing your actions with the creature's.

2) Lesser Creature - Summons a relatively weak creature who's options are always just "charge someone" (or something equally simple), which takes a minor action to control. So you're making one decision for one of your actions.

3) Horde - Summons a horde of creatures who attack everyone within their area. Like a swarm, you don't keep track of individual creatures - everyone in the area gets attacked, like a zone, and the entire thing has one pool of HP. The creatures wouldn't get OAs, so moving through it would have a static effect like difficult terrain and/or taking damage. Standard action to make the whole horde attack. So the only decision you're making is where to place the zone as a whole - not every individual creature in it.

4) Single-Purpose - Summons a creature which locks onto one foe and keeps attacking them as long as it lasts, not under your direct control. Or it simply stays in one spot and attacks people who try to pass it. No action to control, because you aren't. So you make the decision once when you cast it, like a spell that does ongoing damage.