WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[Frostmarrow]

Economy of actions

I find this subject intriguing. Actions are so powerful in the game that Haste needed to be nerfed. Looks like the same problem arises with followers and summoned critters. (Never thought of that).

Is it okay to limit actions to one share per player (rather than one share per character)?

 

[Jack99]

Is it okay to limit actions to one share per player (rather than one share per character)?

I think it at least a good idea to look at the number of extra actions one can gain. Maybe you don't need to limit it to one share per player, as long as you make sure that extra actions that one is able to gain, aren't too powerful.

I think summoned monsters should replace your actions, if not all, then at least some of them. For example: If Skamos the Wizard summons a small elemental, his choices are as follows:
-use his minor action to sustain the elemental
-use his minor action to sustain the elemental and his standard action to make it move and/or attack.

Companions and familiars should be very weak in combat, like minions.

A spell like haste should be single target and perhaps higher level than it was in 2e and 3e.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Very good post.

The economy of actions is at the heart of why Solo BBEG's have such trouble with the party of do-gooders.

My own "Solo Template" gives a Solo creature 1 action point per PC. The Solo can spend its action points, no more than one per PC turn, to take an "immediate standard action."

 

[dangerous jack]

Tough one. I think he has a very good point, but I'd dislike followers / familiars / companions / summoned creatures feeling mechanically like equipment or a spell.

Of the top of my head, I could compromise with something like:
* give followers 1 action / turn (and allow a double-move as a single action so they could keep up)
* limit special actions (Encounter & Daily powers) to 1 character or follower / player / turn

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Depends - from a pure gameplay perspective, that's basically what you have to do to maintain game balance. And not only from a pure "power" perspective - if player 1 can do more stuff each round then player 2, this can feel very unfair.

But from a "realismn"/"simulationist" perspective, this totally doesn't work in all cases. I can see it for undeads or summoned monsters - you need to order them to have them do anything, or at least concentrate on the spell controlling them. But why do I need to do the same effort for a sentient follower?

I suppose there is no perfect solution. For me, I really have trouble accepting non-magically (or technologically) controlled costing me actions. It just doesn't feel right.

I might be more willing to accept this idea if D&D wasn't focussed on playing individuals in a party. If we were controlling multiple characters all the time, and the group controlled by the character had to share their actions, it might work. (Wouldn't that get us closer to the "Wargaming" roots?) It is a very strong shift in your mental model of the game.

From a pure power balance point of view, I suppose that Followers or Cohorts should be somehow cost you some XP. Maybe one approach would be to reduce the XP from a combat encounter by the XP the Follower/Cohort would give you if he was an enemy - or he just got his share like everyone else. But this doesn't solve the problem of different player participation, and it also makes Cohorts and Followers look like something "power-neutral". Sure, you can add more guys to the party, but you will get less XP, so in the long run, you get no real benefit form it. But maybe that's okay...

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think it at least a good idea to look at the number of extra actions one can gain. Maybe you don't need to limit it to one share per player, as long as you make sure that extra actions that one is able to gain, aren't too powerful.

I think summoned monsters should replace your actions, if not all, then at least some of them. For example: If Skamos the Wizard summons a small elemental, his choices are as follows:
-use his minor action to sustain the elemental
-use his minor action to sustain the elemental and his standard action to make it move and/or attack.

Companions and familiars should be very weak in combat, like minions.

A spell like haste should be single target and perhaps higher level than it was in 2e and 3e.

I'm inclined to agree with you on all accounts. Perhaps it should be possible to bolster a follower/familiar to heroic levels by investing PC actions in the NPC?

 

[kodyboy]

I think that summoned creatures should maintained by concentration: i.e. the summoner must take a standard action to keep the creature around and controlled. Another twist on this that sounds fun to me is if the summoner's concentration is broken the monster is uncrontrolled until the spell duration ends This may or may not matter depending on what was summoned; but it could be fun! This limits his actions to a minor and move which is fine. If this is done however the summoned monsters need to be considerably tougher than the old 3.5 lists as this concept severely limits what the caster can do. Without seeing all the rules and such it is hard to judge but how about summon monster 1-30 with each level summoning a level 1-30 monster? If it works out it is simple enough.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I agree that the extra actions given is problematic. IMO, the best way to handle this is to regard companion-type characters (animal companions, followers, henchman, summoned creatures, etc.) as being essentially powers or feats that give bonuses in certain situations. For example, with a follower, it might be easier for your PC or another PC to gain combat advantage. With an animal companion like a wolf, maybe the PC gets a bonus to tracking. And so on.

Essentially what the companion becomes is an in game justification for the PC to buy a suite of abilities and bonuses rather than a distinct entity in its own right.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think this is a case where common sense should trump game balance.

By that I mean that if the PCs have a lot of summoning spells and/or followers, throw more or slightly tougher bad guys at them.

One cannot model a world completely where it feels comfortable to everyone, but if spell casters have to burn actions to control their summoned creatures or undead, then why would they bother to even have them?

And, it makes even less sense to have game mechanics to do this for followers or familiars/companions.


The other aspect of this with respect to followers and companions is that they are more fragile then PCs. The DM needs to threaten them every once in a while so that a player does not over use them. By that, I mean that followers and companions should not be in the middle of the fight too often and if they are, the chances of them dying are significantly greater (by definition).

I understand from a game mechanics POV that number of actions per round per side influences balance. But, there are other game mechanics (such as weaker allies) which can be used to counter balance and it does not mean that for a game to be balanced, both sides need to have a similar number of actions per round. Other factors can be used and it does not need to be a game mechanic which controls this. The DM can control it.

 

[lvl20dm]

This was a good post, and it does show why we won't be seeing animal companions and such in the initial PHB release for 4e. I think it's easier to balance when it is a core class feature - like the Ranger's animal companion in 3e - than when it is something like the Summon Monster line of spells. That said, I never really felt like the animal companions in 3e were particularly balanced. They could make a class, like a Necromancer, that is themed around his undead minion(s) - most of this class' abilities could be themed around improving that companion and most of the "actions" that really mattered for combat would spring off the minion.