Whither Summoners and Animal Companions?

[Wormwood]

I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I really hope to never see another summoner or animal companion again.

Twiddling my thumbs while the Druid takes THREE turns for each one of mine?

Yeah, not so much fun.

 

[lukelightning]

Twiddling my thumbs while the Druid takes THREE turns for each one of mine?

Only 3? I used to do more, sort of.

1: Druid wildshaped as dire ape... claw claw bite rend.
2: Tiger animal companion: charge, pounce, claw claw bite rend.
3: 1d4+1 summoned wolves: bite bite bite bite trip trip trip.
4: Flaming Sphere (technically part of my druid's own actions, but virtually another creature).

 

[DreamChaser]

so, is it possible that, while the wizard is a controller, the wizard summoner will be a... leader? I mean, with all the bossing around his minions and stuff...
Or could it be that he is both a leader and a controller?
It would be the same with druid: leader/controller...
Maybe this is why he was left out of the first 4E PHB: cross roles would be too much for a start.

I don't think this is the meaning of Leader in the context of the party roles since it is actually the category of support. "Leader" seems to be the better choice when one thinks of the other option as Supporter which doesn't sound fun (but describes perfectly what both cleric and bard WERE).

Summoning monsters / allies / etc. is 100% pure Controller. You are manipulating the state of the battlefield to suit your and your parties benefit by adding more combatants all of which are on your side.

DC

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I really hope to never see another summoner or animal companion again.

Twiddling my thumbs while the Druid takes THREE turns for each one of mine?

Yeah, not so much fun.

Or more. MOst likely they will go with what they did for Complete Psionic... where you can only have 1 summoned creature at a time. They acknowledge its a pain in the ass to wait while someone's 17 summoned house cats do their claw/claw/bite bite against something they need a 20 to hit anyways.

While I think both should remain, they could definately use some streamlining.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I coudl get behind the "only 1 summoned creature", especially if the duration then was expanded so that you could use the creature for something other than combat - scouting, etc.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I coudl get behind the "only 1 summoned creature", especially if the duration then was expanded so that you could use the creature for something other than combat - scouting, etc.

Same here. Then include some swarms/mobs in the list to get the 'horde' feeling, without the pain.

Cheers, LT.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Although first-level summoned monsters really *do* seem to only last long enough to deliver a single attack and then go away (like in Final Fantasy), the ...

The Playes in my game dubbed Monster Summoning I- "Furry Magic Missle"

 

[ptolemy18]

I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I really hope to never see another summoner or animal companion again.

Twiddling my thumbs while the Druid takes THREE turns for each one of mine?

Yeah, not so much fun.

There are some people who *want* to play complicated characters that require a lot of bookkeeping, and some people who want to play simple characters. The game should support both types. Otherwise, you're just penalizing people who want to play complicated characters with lots of options, an option which exists in the existing rules from 1E to 3.X.

If I play a basic fighter in 3E, I know my turn will take less time and I basically have less choices than if I'm playing some complicated mage character who has 20 spells memorized, or some druid with a bunch of animal companions. That's a granted. Iron Heroes is a good book, it is good to give the fighters and rogues more stuff to do, but once you start taking AWAY the stuff that spellcasters can do--?? Oh no. No way.

If the idea is "everyone's turn must take the same amount of time", I'd rather have *everyone's* turn take forever, thanks. The idea of having all classes be of equal complexity, frankly, willfully ignores the fact that people play D&D in different ways and enjoy different types of characters.

To look at it another way... it's like if someone wants to talk to all the NPCs and spend a lot of time on it and the other players don't want to. The rules shouldn't actually state "YOU CANNOT TALK TO TOO MANY NPCS." This is something that the DM and party should adjudicate themselves (i.e. "The bartender doesn't want to talk to you anymore. He's busy dealing with other customers." or "Sorry, I will not allow you to get the Leadership feat, the group is too big already.") The option should be there.

Or, it's like how Gary Gygax, in the introduction to "Return to the Tomb of Horrors," mentioned that one of his 1e gaming groups beat the original Tomb by forcing a bunch of orc slaves to go through it ahead of them. I'm sure that the people who were controlling those orc slaves got a lot of time with the DM saying "Okay, the first squad of orcs goes through the doorway on the left... and then... and then..." But it was a legitimate strategy, and it worked, and Gary Gygax doesn't suddenly break character to say how bad it was that these people were controlling soooo many orcs. (Of course, mentioning Gary Gygax in any D&D-related conversation is a cheap shot, I suppose...)

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

There are some people who *want* to play complicated characters that require a lot of bookkeeping, and some people who want to play simple characters. The game should support both types. Otherwise, you're just penalizing people who want to play complicated characters with lots of options, an option which exists in the existing rules from 1E to 3.X.

You even recognize the problem, that the Master of Many Servants (MOMS) has to roll a hundred claw/claw bites for his herd, yet seem to think that everyone else should just suck it up and accommodate one guy's time hogging playstile.

What if someone wants to play a character that always hits then and deals a hundred points of damage at level 1? Should we just let them have an "I win" button?

And for the records, I also think if someone is being a social spotlight hog, or trying to chat for hours with random NPC's, then yeah, the DM should move things along. I'd say it should be included under some game pacing advice in the DMG. The DMG 2 had some decent advice on how to accommodate various play styles and what to do if they become problematic.

Or, it's like how Gary Gygax, in the introduction to "Return to the Tomb of Horrors," mentioned that one of his 1e gaming groups beat the original Tomb by forcing a bunch of orc slaves to go through it ahead of them. I'm sure that the people who were controlling those orc slaves got a lot of time with the DM saying "Okay, the first squad of orcs goes through the doorway on the left... and then... and then..." But it was a legitimate strategy, and it worked, and Gary Gygax doesn't suddenly break character to say how bad it was that these people were controlling soooo many orcs. (Of course, mentioning Gary Gygax in any D&D-related conversation is a cheap shot, I suppose...)

I always found that incredibly unheroic and lame. You might find it interesting. Anyone herding mooks and farm animals down halls to set off traps would quickly find themselves a new group.

 

[The Little Raven]

You even recognize the problem, that the Master of Many Servants (MOMS) has to roll a hundred claw/claw bites for his herd, yet seem to think that everyone else should just suck it up and accommodate one guy's time hogging playstile.

From what I glean from this thread and another thread, this guy plays magic-users exclusively, so he doesn't want a lessening of his particular playstyle in the slightest, even if he takes way more time than anyone else.