WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[RodneyThompson]

Wow, good discussion on this. Glad to see that my thoughts mirror many of those you guys have been discussing.

When talking about summoned monsters, cohorts, hirelings, animal companions, etc. a lot of people have posited several ideas for how to "balance" the extra actions the extra creature brings to the table. Among them are:

• Share of the treasure/share of the XP
• The casting time of bringing in a summoned creature
• The gold cost to hire a hireling
• The feat/talent/power/whatever character mechanic cost of getting the cohort or companion in the first place

Now, those are certainly valid ideas, but in the end you can't legitimately call any of those equivalent to extra actions. To continue the economy analogy, what is the exchange rate between a standard action and the share of the treasure for an encounter? How do you balance a full round's worth of attacks against the gold cost of getting a hireling? There's no clear conversion rate, so any talk of balance is actually more guesswork than not.

For hirelings, I think the best tack is just to treat them like an NPC that comes along and fights. As someone else pointed out, 4E is going to make it pretty easy to adjust encounters given that you can just add so much XP worth of monsters to the encounter to balance that NPC's presence. But that doesn't do you a ton of good if you play 3.5 or Star Wars Saga Edition, and while you can (and probably should) adjust the encounter it's far less of an exact science. Since you're not investing feats, talents, whatever in this hireling, it's OK to adjust the encounters since that hireling can die, leave, or otherwise vanish from the scene with no appreciable penalty to the player characters. They're limited-time effects that require no permanent investment on the behalf of the PCs.

In my thoughts, if you expend a permanent character resource--feat, talent, class feature, power, whatever--to acquire a cohort, animal companion, familiar, or something else that adds to the economy of actions, you should be in control of it. You are the one expending resources, so there's no reason not to allow you to be in charge of it. This is where the crux of my thoughts of the economy of actions comes in. Altering that economy has two clearly stated effects: it requires the Gamemaster to adjust the challenges to place the same value's worth of actions on the enemy's side of things in order to create a balanced encounter, and it also tips the value of an individual player's action resources in that player's favor, thus giving him an advantage over his comrades in the economy of actions.

Traditionally, d20 games have tackled the former effect (Gamemasters balancing the encounters against an increased number of player actions) primarily by weakening the source of those extra actions: cohorts are lower level than you, summoned creatures aren't your equal, animal companions and familiars are significantly weaker. Likewise, they've pretty much ignored the latter effect (the balance in the economy of actions between players). What I've been wondering is whether or not it's a better solution to balance the economy of actions first (I lose an action, but my cohort takes an action) and then go from there. That effectively solves the latter effect, and if you make the cohort's action at least equal to actions you could potentially take then you've made it worthwhile. If it's a limited effect, like a summoned creature that only lasts a few rounds, you can actually make the summoned creature's options BETTER than the ones you'd be taking, since it's of limited duration. This doesn't mean that a cohort is just standing there like an idiot when you share actions; it can mean that you're working together in concert to achieve a goal, especially if there's some kind of added benefit. And, of course, you have to tailor things to the flavor as well. The example of the pit fiend that just sits there and flanks is a poor one, because you'd never design a summon that just does that. Now, you might design a summon that just flanks as a low-level ability, since just being able to flank is a low-level effect, but the effect would have to be tailored for that. If you design a pit fiend summoning spell, you probably want him to be able to do pit fiendy things, but that does not mean that you have to disrupt the economy of actions to do so.

The real value of a follower, cohort, animal companion, familiar, or summoned creature should not be in the number of actions it can take in a given round. Rather, its value should be in the number of options having that item provides. Someone earlier mentioned that a summoner wizard's versatility is the advantage; he's a controller who can bring into play aspects of any of the roles, should the need arise. There's value in versatility, and I think that's more interesting than just another turn's worth of actions.

Obviously, I'm just theorizing here, and I am really more thinking about it in Star Wars terms, but I think the economy of actions is a universal concept.

 

[Scrollreader]

I brought this up in a similar thread overon RPGnet in response to this blog entry. I think we can already see a sort of preview of the way 4e wil treat summons in some of the tail end 3.5 books. (sort like how the Warlock and ToB were previews of other 4e mechanics). Specifically, Summon Elemental Monolith, and the various calling spells that replaced the cleric with a celestial/fiend and moved the caster to that realm. As for my table, we vastly preferred them for actual combat. An elemental monolth is /awesome/. And actually relevant to combat, unlike the poor bastards on the Summon Monster IX list, who are barely speedbumps at 17th level play. I think something along these lines for summons is almost inevitable.

This does not, of course, solve the familiar/animal companion issue, though in general, the source material supports those as either additional PCs (Mercedes Lackey's Tarma and Kethry stories, for example, have the Kyree, but he's essentially a DMNPC) or as minor combat adds, from time to time.

Hirelings are likely minions, and anything they conribute to the economy of actions is going to end when a level appropriate badly curses loudly.

The cohort issue is the real stickler here, I suspect for people who like 'realism'. And is also probably the least likely to actually cause economy of actions problems. At least in my games, either I disallow the Leadershp feat, or else I make it avaliable to all PCs (usually for free). This way, everybody gets two actions, if the cohorts are along, etc.

As for he rare few NPCs that are heroic enough to keep pace with a PC, and not anybody's cohort? They should be run by the DM. But they probably are also not terribly common, in a Points of Light, or even just a Heroic World (like Eberron currently is)

 

[Wolfwood2]

Traditional cohorts are more of a challenge, since they tend to have capabilities that are close to a full PC. It seems to me that the right solution there is to eliminate the Leadership ability that gives a PC the "right" to have one of those characters around and simply let the GM decide whether or not such a character is disruptive. Based on that decision, a GM can decide when such an NPC would be willing to join the party (or ask for treasure). (Certainly, many of my D&D games have included a party NPC that rounds out the party's abilities and serves as an extra character when a guest wants to join the game for a night.)

I'm right with you there. I think that third edition made a serious mistake in making Leadership a feat. Now don't get me wrong, I like a lot of the mechanics and advice on balance. It was an excellent choice to have a section in the DMG talking about what to do if a PC and/or the party want to bring a sidekick with them along on adventures. But it shouldn't have been a feat. Players shouldn't have been able to say, "I'm 9th level. I'll take my cohort now."

If attempting some mechanical balance to pay for having a second character, then a single feat is not enough. If, as many DMs here have said, a cohort is an independent NPC run entirely by the DM, then there is no need to pay a feat for it. The shadowy area between the two is problematic.

I think all of the Leadership stuff should have been treated the same way as DMG sections on how to populate a town, what to do if the PCs want to build a keep, and other events that might reasonably come up in gameplay. Not as a feat.

 

[BryonD]

In a perfect world ...

I'm glad to know I have been experiencing a world much closer to perfect than you have.

I agree with some of the concepts expressed in this thread. But some seem way over the top from any concern I've ever experienced. And some of the "solutions" that boil down to denying options to other players just seem horrid.

 

[Harshax]

I could see animal companions and familiars as changes to existing powers. Say you have a touch spell, your familiar can deliver it for you, so in essence, you've bought a feat that changes the spell's description from touch to ranged. The fluff 'Shocking Grasp is delivered at a distance by my frog familiar' is not particularly relevant, unless the familiar can be destroyed. We might see familiars as sharing the HP pool of the caster. As for actions, I doubt a familiar will have actions significant for combat. In my years at the table, I've only see a familiar ordered into combat in a moment of desperation for the wizard or party.

Animals Companions could also be treated this way. If you spend a feat to have a wardog, maybe it adds a bonus to damage, or allows you to flank, but it doesn't really do anything on its own. Maybe the 'Mark' ability can be used this way. The fighter with the war dog marks a target, who takes damage every round from the dog if it doesn't attack it. When the fighter attacks the marked target, he gets a damage bonus. If the dog dies, the fighter can't use those abilities until he's trained a new one. This is no different than not being able to throw a fireball until you've bought a new scroll.

 

[RigaMortus2]

First, ask yourself, what is the purpose of a hireling, or an animal companion, or a summoned creature as it relates to combat? It's purpose is to fight against the PC's enemies.

One thing that I have used in the past, a 'technique' I used so I didn't have to worry about controlling NPC vs. NPC (where one group of NPCs were helping the PCs), is to basically have them running in the background. They would "tie up" other NPCs until the PCs could get to them.

So I would not roll every action. The NPCs basically acted like a mez or a stun in that it took the focus off the PCs from the opposing NPCs. Then when the PCs decided to engage, the NPC focused their attention on them. Once the PCs engaged, the ally NPCs, having been locked in combat, fell back out of the combat to recover.

You could incorporate something like this, perhaps with a d20 roll involved. Check the XP level of the ally NPC vs. the XP level of enemy NPC and apply a modifier to the d20 roll. This would determine if the ally NPC flees, continues to fight (no change) or maybe even wins the combat. It may determine if the enemy NPC gets around the ally NPC and engage the party, or if they make a pot-shot, or some other action.

Again, all this is going on in the background. So you could run large combats by doing this as well. Just assume ally NPCs are attacking/defending the un-engaged enemy NPCs.

I think this would work well given the example of the Skill challenge in Escape from Sembia.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

 

[xechnao]

What I've been wondering is whether or not it's a better solution to balance the economy of actions

Why don't you give each companion a random chart of actions.

For example roll 1d6:

If not engaged
1 charge nearest enemy
2 ...
3

If engaged
1...
2
etch

If bloodied
1 ...etch

 

[I'm A Banana]

For hirelings, I think the best tack is just to treat them like an NPC that comes along and fights.
...
In my thoughts, if you expend a permanent character resource--feat, talent, class feature, power, whatever--to acquire a cohort, animal companion, familiar, or something else that adds to the economy of actions, you should be in control of it.

Pretty much yes on all these.

Altering that economy has two clearly stated effects: it requires the Gamemaster to adjust the challenges to place the same value's worth of actions on the enemy's side of things in order to create a balanced encounter, and it also tips the value of an individual player's action resources in that player's favor, thus giving him an advantage over his comrades in the economy of actions.

(a) is solved by the "Less XP or More Enemies" idea, and 4e's scale should be nice (and in 3.5 or SAGA, you can do what you always have to do in an encounter anyway and eyeball it).

(b) can be solved, in my mind, by making it something that everyone just gets (thus making sure that no one person gets the larger suite of actions), or by resolving those actions abstractly (so the player maybe gets to roll an extra d20 at the end of his turn, to see how his friend does, not the whole suite of actions).

I think the second solution might be the best, but you have to walk a fine line with regards to believability here. If the player gets a suite of "commands" he can issue a given "pet", and then rolls a dice to resolve the entire rounds' worth of actions, I'd say it's probably believable. This goes to 3e's Handle Animal skill in some ways. But you'd have to ensure that friendly wizard sidekicks could still be wizardy, and that friendly dire bear companions can still give a big ol' maulin'.

I'm also kind of a fan of "combos," but FFZ already has room for those, and they'd be wierder to add to most d20 games.

What I've been wondering is whether or not it's a better solution to balance the economy of actions first (I lose an action, but my cohort takes an action) and then go from there.

That only works with certain effects.

I can believe that it takes me a minor action (or even maybe a move action!) to issue a new command, but it shouldn't take me any actions to keep directing my friend Ed to swing his sword. Talking is a free action, right? I can believe that giving a direct order takes a bit more, but not much more...

I can entirely believe that it takes my whole turn to give orders to the avatar of Orcus I just called out of the Abyss, every round I want to keep him here instead of sending him back from whence he came.

When we're dealing with blantantly magical effects, some sort of concentration or "action loaning" makes sense.

When we're dealing with blatantly mundane effects, it doesn't really pass the believability barrier to do that.

There's a continuum there, but different people will hit it at different points, and you're going to need something else to handle the blantantly mundane effects.

This doesn't mean that a cohort is just standing there like an idiot when you share actions; it can mean that you're working together in concert to achieve a goal, especially if there's some kind of added benefit.

Combos, man. The idea in FFZ is that you pool your actions to get a greater effect: you get to use two powers at once, or change how your powers work, or get to use a more limited power earlier (a limit break or something).

Think in terms of teamwork benefits or sharing spells -- less actions, but actions that carry almost twice the punch and have double the versatility.

Also, think in terms of the powers that leaders (like warlords) give. Having a cohort *makes you a leader*. When you act, they act in concert, doing things like moving or attacking.

The real value of a follower, cohort, animal companion, familiar, or summoned creature should not be in the number of actions it can take in a given round. Rather, its value should be in the number of options having that item provides. Someone earlier mentioned that a summoner wizard's versatility is the advantage; he's a controller who can bring into play aspects of any of the roles, should the need arise. There's value in versatility, and I think that's more interesting than just another turn's worth of actions.

That's a good point, and a cool idea, but I could see it stepping on toes unless we fall back into 3e's model of cohorts/companions/summons being weaker. If the conjurer can summon a fell beast who is a better striker than the rogue (even if only for a little while), who needs the rogue?

Versatility is fine, but there needs to be potency in it, too, or else you wind up with the 3e Bard: "I suck equally at everything!"

Obviously, I'm just theorizing here, and I am really more thinking about it in Star Wars terms, but I think the economy of actions is a universal concept.

I've been wrestlin' with it in FFZ, too, though my problems have been more in translating a "you have an entire party's worth of actions" into "you have one person's." Things like "Save or Suck" have a history in the FF series, and they're fine when you only loose one suite of options for a round or two, but if it's a character's entire suite? And that's the only character they play?

Really starting to puzzle out the fine line between running a "unit" and running a "character."

 

[RodneyThompson]

Why don't you give each companion a random chart of actions.

You *could* do that, and it's certainly a legitimate design. I, personally, would not design a system like that because 1) I want the player who invests the resources in getting the follower to be able to control the follower, since it was their resources invested; 2) it does nothing to solve the issue of the allies still getting more actions than they normally would, though admittedly this can be dealt with in encounter design; 3) it requires players and Gamemasters to reference their books during play, which can slow things down; 4) bad luck can cause the resource of a follower to be nearly useless, while good luck can cause it to become overpowering; and 5) it makes it more difficult to replicate any kind of intelligence on behalf of the follower, whether that intelligence is provided by a player or the DM.

 

[xechnao]

You *could* do that, and it's certainly a legitimate design. I, personally, would not design a system like that because 1) I want the player who invests the resources in getting the follower to be able to control the follower, since it was their resources invested; 2) it does nothing to solve the issue of the allies still getting more actions than they normally would, though admittedly this can be dealt with in encounter design; 3) it requires players and Gamemasters to reference their books during play, which can slow things down; 4) bad luck can cause the resource of a follower to be nearly useless, while good luck can cause it to become overpowering; and 5) it makes it more difficult to replicate any kind of intelligence on behalf of the follower, whether that intelligence is provided by a player or the DM.

I do not know if you are familiar with Baldur's Gate video games. Those were lots of fun (IMO) and the system was like you could "issue" your companions in different modes for example aggressive, defensive, cautious, reckless etch. On tabletop each mode could come with a reference card or sheet so no need to hunt rules during play.