WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[Dragonblade]

I REALLY like the idea of the summoner being able to effectively perform different party roles based on the creature they summon. Or alternatively, if we want to talk wildshaping druids, the druid themselves can effectively take on party roles through the creatures they turn into.

The key is to make the summons/wildshaped form tough enough that the summoner/druid character can effectively perform those roles for the party, but yet not so tough that they overshadow another PC in those roles. Its a fine line to walk. The summon creature lists in 3.5 are WAY too weak for the level those creatures are summoned at.

I also agree with Moridin that if you spend a resource such as a feat to gain a follower, or an animal companion, then that player should get to control that follower. Not the DM, and not another player.

As to whether followers should simply provide mechanical bonuses like a constant Aid Another, or whether they should have stats and actions of their own is a tricky one. There are certainly pros and cons to each side. Its certainly more believeable and realistic to have followers as individuals, but from a game play and fun perspective (for the other players especially) its much easier to have followers that are essentially fluff that provides a mechanical bonus to a player.

I don't know what the right answer is. Perhaps there isn't one. But I'm certainly enjoying this discussion.

 

[malraux]

Only? So 1E through 3.5 were not balanced with regard to any type of followers or hirelings?

WRT both types of balancing, that sounds reasonable.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I don't think you can't simplify combat in this game to merely being an economy of actions. It is much more complex than that. This is thinking of combat in D&D as more of a boardgame, where everyone's turns should be perfectly fair and balanced, rather than a roleplaying game, where there are many other factors to consider. It's not just an economy of actions, it's an economy where actions are only one of many commodities. Encounter and daily powers are also very important commodities in 4th edition. An ability which grants a player extra actions isn't necessarily unbalanced if he had to pay a daily power to get it, for example. There's also exp and monetary costs, ritual costs, etc.

And I think the most important thing to consider is the roleplaying "cost." People in real life can raise armies, build-up nations, or lead masses into religious observance. Why shouldn't an epic fantasy hero be able to do such things? Certainly it shouldn't be easy, and alot of it depends on the style of game you're running. But hey, if your player manages to convince someone to follow you through roleplaying, or manages to tame and train a dire bear, why should you be no better off for it? Why should that henchmen or pet not be able to fight for you?

I think a large part of the problem with minions in 3rd edition was that it was tied to class abilities (or the leadership feat). The two biggest problems with this is that only some people had access to minions and that they were guaranteed. If everyone has the opportunity to get minions, rather than just druids, rangers, wizards, etc, the so-called economy of actions remains intact. Fighters and Warlords can recruit cohorts, Clerics can call upon angels, Druids can get all their furry little friends, and Wizards can enslave elementals or demons to serve them. If everyone can get minions, then everyone is happy. There isn't a balance issue when everyone has the opportunity to get followers. But it should be just that, an opportunity, not a handout or class feature. If getting an animal companion is a class feature, than clearly all memebers of that class will have one. If they don't, they're gimping themselves.

I think companions should be mostly a roleplaying thing. If you want a dire bear, go out and find one, tame it and spend the time to train it. If you want cohorts, go do what is necessary in roleplaying to obtain them. These things should never, IMO, be tied to a feat or class feature. If a player spends a feat on leadership, he then has good reason to feel entitled to those servants. They are, effectively, part of his character. Likewise with an animal companion, familiar, etc. And then we often hand-wave away the roleplaying aspect. Those followers just appear out of thin air, or you can just pray for a new animal companion if it dies, rather than having to go to the work to get a new one. Having companions as a class feature makes them an entitlement, rather than something you have to work for. And doing that removes what is perhaps the best way to balance them.

I don't think having minions should be a default assumption. They can and should have drawbacks. Pets have to be cared for, and especially large and powerful ones, like bears, aren't always able to accompany their masters. They may not fit in the narrow hallway or be able to cross the rickety bridge. My group came across these situations quite often. With followers, there are logistic and morale concerns. How do you feed your army? How do you keep them loyal? How do you get them to accompany you on hellish adventures? Even the most disciplined fighting fource will be reluctant to follow a hero into one of the nine hells on some suicidal quest. And summoned creatures, which would be the most powerful minions, could carry other risks, such as breaking free of the summoner's control. Just as obtaining minions should be, IMO, a roleplaying concern, maintaining them is also something that should require effort. Not to the point that they aren't worth having, but enough that they aren't taken for granted.

I am against minions simply giving bonuses to their master. This is just too unbelievable for my tastes. A necromancer raises the dead to fight for him, not give him a +X bonus to his own attacks. That said, a necromancer class could still be balanced, especially if his own spells were weaker then Wizard spells. Perhaps the zombies he calls to crawl up out of the ground follow the minion rules, and die in one hit. I would prefer this to apply to temporary zombies created by an encounter/daily power, rather than those created by rituals, however. Ritually animated dead should be alot tougher, but this can be balanced by the cost of the ritual to create them.

I'm not necessarily against the idea of concentration being required to control summoned minions. However, I think that this should only apply to creatures summoned with an encounter/daily power, rather than long-term summons conjured by a ritual. I could certainly envision a daily power that allows a Wizard to summon an elemental for an encounter, but he has to spend his standard action to sustain it. Such an elemental should be quite powerful, though. If he has to give up his own actions, and a daily power, the minion should be quite impressive.

Ritual minions shouldn't require any action on the part of the master to control, save perhaps a minor action to direct them in combat. This could be balanced because you have to pay for this in the cost of the ritual, take the risk that the creature may break free and eat you if you don't overcome its will during the summoning process, and also the fact that the creature won't likely be too happy to be enslaved by magic, and may later seek vengeance. Sure, go ahead and summon that Pit Fiend. Just be prepared for the terrible revenge it will certainly seek after its term of service is up, and that's if you manage to subjugate it in the first place.

 

[small pumpkin man]

I don't think you can't simplify combat in this game to merely being an economy of actions. It is much more complex than that. This is thinking of combat in D&D as more of a boardgame, where everyone's turns should be perfectly fair and balanced, rather than a roleplaying game, where there are many other factors to consider. It's not just an economy of actions, it's an economy where actions are only one of many commodities. Encounter and daily powers are also very important commodities in 4th edition. An ability which grants a player extra actions isn't necessarily unbalanced if he had to pay a daily power to get it, for example. There's also exp and monetary costs, ritual costs, etc.

And I think the most important thing to consider is the roleplaying "cost." People in real life can raise armies, build-up nations, or lead masses into religious observance. Why shouldn't an epic fantasy hero be able to do such things? Certainly it shouldn't be easy, and alot of it depends on the style of game you're running. But hey, if your player manages to convince someone to follow you through roleplaying, or manages to tame and train a dire bear, why should you be no better off for it? Why should that henchmen or pet not be able to fight for you?

I think a large part of the problem with minions in 3rd edition was that it was tied to class abilities (or the leadership feat). The two biggest problems with this is that only some people had access to minions and that they were guaranteed. If everyone has the opportunity to get minions, rather than just druids, rangers, wizards, etc, the so-called economy of actions remains intact. Fighters and Warlords can recruit cohorts, Clerics can call upon angels, Druids can get all their furry little friends, and Wizards can enslave elementals or demons to serve them. If everyone can get minions, then everyone is happy. There isn't a balance issue when everyone has the opportunity to get followers. But it should be just that, an opportunity, not a handout or class feature. If getting an animal companion is a class feature, than clearly all memebers of that class will have one. If they don't, they're gimping themselves.

I think companions should be mostly a roleplaying thing. If you want a dire bear, go out and find one, tame it and spend the time to train it. If you want cohorts, go do what is necessary in roleplaying to obtain them. These things should never, IMO, be tied to a feat or class feature. If a player spends a feat on leadership, he then has good reason to feel entitled to those servants. They are, effectively, part of his character. Likewise with an animal companion, familiar, etc. And then we often hand-wave away the roleplaying aspect. Those followers just appear out of thin air, or you can just pray for a new animal companion if it dies, rather than having to go to the work to get a new one. Having companions as a class feature makes them an entitlement, rather than something you have to work for. And doing that removes what is perhaps the best way to balance them.

I don't think having minions should be a default assumption. They can and should have drawbacks. Pets have to be cared for, and especially large and powerful ones, like bears, aren't always able to accompany their masters. They may not fit in the narrow hallway or be able to cross the rickety bridge. My group came across these situations quite often. With followers, there are logistic and morale concerns. How do you feed your army? How do you keep them loyal? How do you get them to accompany you on hellish adventures? Even the most disciplined fighting fource will be reluctant to follow a hero into one of the nine hells on some suicidal quest. And summoned creatures, which would be the most powerful minions, could carry other risks, such as breaking free of the summoner's control. Just as obtaining minions should be, IMO, a roleplaying concern, maintaining them is also something that should require effort. Not to the point that they aren't worth having, but enough that they aren't taken for granted.

I am against minions simply giving bonuses to their master. This is just too unbelievable for my tastes. A necromancer raises the dead to fight for him, not give him a +X bonus to his own attacks. That said, a necromancer class could still be balanced, especially if his own spells were weaker then Wizard spells. Perhaps the zombies he calls to crawl up out of the ground follow the minion rules, and die in one hit. I would prefer this to apply to temporary zombies created by an encounter/daily power, rather than those created by rituals, however. Ritually animated dead should be alot tougher, but this can be balanced by the cost of the ritual to create them.

I'm not necessarily against the idea of concentration being required to control summoned minions. However, I think that this should only apply to creatures summoned with an encounter/daily power, rather than long-term summons conjured by a ritual. I could certainly envision a daily power that allows a Wizard to summon an elemental for an encounter, but he has to spend his standard action to sustain it. Such an elemental should be quite powerful, though. If he has to give up his own actions, and a daily power, the minion should be quite impressive.

Ritual minions shouldn't require any action on the part of the master to control, save perhaps a minor action to direct them in combat. This could be balanced because you have to pay for this in the cost of the ritual, take the risk that the creature may break free and eat you if you don't overcome its will during the summoning process, and also the fact that the creature won't likely be too happy to be enslaved by magic, and may later seek vengeance. Sure, go ahead and summon that Pit Fiend. Just be prepared for the terrible revenge it will certainly seek after its term of service is up, and that's if you manage to subjugate it in the first place.

Quick points.

1)Roleplaying penalties shouldn't be used by game designers to restrict combat bonuses, this restricts what can be done with the system.
2)Different classes should not get substantially different bonuses from cash, as this restricts what can be done with the system.
3)Minions which aren't class abilities aren't minions, they're NPCs. The suggestions apply to characters who gain minions as class abilities, not necessarily to horses, or allies you gain through the plot. (although requiring a minor action to control an animal doesn't seem to crazy)
4)A large part of the problem is that animal companions slow down play, giving them to everyone would make this much, much worse.
5)A large part of the problem with summoning in 3.x is that while it is often strong, not only is it clunky, but the summoned creatures rarely have interesting abilities, they're often just there to add more bodies. Requiring the caster to spend their actions to give the creature actions will allow the creature to have actually interesting things to do, while keeping fiddlyness down to minimum.

 

[WhatGravitas]

The only real way to do it and keep balance is to sacrifice your own actions for theirs.

True, but that can cause annoyances - flavour-wise - for some people, if it's done on a regular basis. I think a workable solution would be:

Take the average number of rounds of an encounter for the level the summon is usually used.

Then make the summoning process half that long - on average, you should come out even with the total actions (but leave a move action to move around).

This solution has the benefit, that it packages it possibly a bit neater (flavour-wise), rewards tactics (if you can stall the encounter, you get a net plus of actions), but also makes it risky, since you pre-pay the actions. The drawback is: The player twiddles his fingers while he summons.

This is, of course, only useful for in-combat summons. Long-term summons and hirelings work best as NPC, I think. The only thing is: Animal companions and familars. :/

Cheers, LT.

 

[KidSnide]

I suspect a key aspect of this is to balance the action economy with the feel that the summoned creature is really an independent creature.

For example, you could have a Guardian Hound, that is either a summoned spirit hound on an actual animal companion. Presumably, this would either require a ritual (with a costly material component) or a feat (which requires finding an actual dog to train). The Hound will follow you around, taking up a space on the board, but requires no action.

Whenever the master is attacked with melee the hound will automatically attack the entity threatening its master on the master's turn. Sure, this is an extra action, but it is really no different in spirit from a warding spell or an aura ability that damages enemies when they approach. (Alternatively, this could take a minor action.) With a standard action, the master can point out an enemy and say "sick em", at which point the Hound charges the target and continues to attack until the enemy dies. This is not really all that different than an attack with continuing damage, except that the enemy can get rid of it by killing the hound instead of making a save. (Plus it forfeits your "aura" defense.)

Such a rule takes the action economy into account, but doesn't completely give up on the idea that this hound is an actual creature in the world, as opposed to simply some sort of aura.

Alternatively, you could imagine a Sha'ir class (genie summoner) whose principal class ability is to summon a genie of appropriate power. Sure, such a character could send the genie off to fight while using his pitiful remaining skills, but the real power of the Sha'ir is to use his standard (and, I suppose, minor) actions to make the genie do all sorts of cool things, like fight stronger or cast special genie spells. (Presumably, such a class would have a potentially expensive ritual way of replacing a dead genie between encounters, but if you kill a sha'ir's genie, you've nuked much of his power at least for that battle.)

Of course, you could also go all the way with an Elemental Summoner who has a selection of lesser wizard-type attack spells, but where a portion of the character's daily and encounter abilities come from summoning a particularly powerful entity, the control of which requires all of the Elemental Summoner's standard actions. An Elemental Summoner's enemies would naturally have the choice between trying to defeat the summoned creature or ignoring him to go after the relatively vulnerable Summoner himself. Aside from this last bit (where the summoner stays on the board), this kind of summoning isn't all that different from the Druid that transforms herself into the a creature with a different set of stats.

I certainly agree with the original point that the action economy is a critical consideration with "extra action" powers. However, the point of these examples is to show that you can have the game-feel of summoned creatures (with their own stats and spot on the board), AND an intelligent consideration of the action economy. There are a lot of ways to give the "right level" of master action dependency without forcing every summoned creature into either a character-replacement (like the elemental summoner) or a pure mechanical effect (the summoned creature that gives you a +2 flanking bonus, but never ever takes an independent action).

 

[RodneyThompson]

I certainly agree with the original point that the action economy is a critical consideration with "extra action" powers. However, the point of these examples is to show that you can have the game-feel of summoned creatures (with their own stats and spot on the board), AND an intelligent consideration of the action economy. There are a lot of ways to give the "right level" of master action dependency without forcing every summoned creature into either a character-replacement (like the elemental summoner) or a pure mechanical effect (the summoned creature that gives you a +2 flanking bonus, but never ever takes an independent action).

And I think this is absolutely right. There's a wide, wide array of ways this can be done. I hope people will note that the economy of actions is just one facet of a game system, whether it be D&D or a board game or a TCG or whatever, and by no means should the discussion exclude other considerations.

I do think the economy of actions is far more important than the consideration it usually gets, however. Your examples are some good ways to be mindful of the economy of actions while at the same time getting the effect you want. And by no means would I advocate treating followers as just a floating bonus (unless I had a damn good reason to do so), and I think there's definitely room for creating a real, fully-statted summoned creature that also keeps with the balance on the economy of actions.

The whole purpose of the original blog post was merely to highlight my thoughts on the value of actions across all games.

I don't think you can't simplify combat in this game to merely being an economy of actions. It is much more complex than that. This is thinking of combat in D&D as more of a boardgame, where everyone's turns should be perfectly fair and balanced, rather than a roleplaying game, where there are many other factors to consider. It's not just an economy of actions, it's an economy where actions are only one of many commodities. Encounter and daily powers are also very important commodities in 4th edition. An ability which grants a player extra actions isn't necessarily unbalanced if he had to pay a daily power to get it, for example. There's also exp and monetary costs, ritual costs, etc.

Yes, I agree with almost every statement you make in there (with one exception). Nowhere in this discussion did I intent to give the impression that the economy of actions trumps all. However, I do disagree that we shouldn't try and make everyone's turn balanced against everyone else's. Balanced doesn't always mean equal, but if you throw action balance to the wind then it gets out of hand in a hurry. It doesn't make it a boardgame to try and balance people's actions against one another, it makes it a roleplaying game that has some sense of balance in the action economy.

 

[Graf]

..., not watching the druid perform an intricate interpretive dance with her summons and companions and cohorts.

Hehe. Too funny.
Now for the badger's solo interpretive rendition of swan lake...
(animal growthed badger minces around the clearing)

 

[TwinBahamut]

Well, I had something of an epiphany regarding how I would like the summoned monster/hireling/familiar problem to be solved. This might take a while and end up as a wall of text, so bear with me.

First, I think there should be an absolute and clear separation of every kind ally creature into a limited set of distinct categories. A summoned genie is not the same thing as a hired torch-bearer or the Fighter's riding gryphon, so they should not be covered by the same rules. I think there should be four categories: Cohorts, Mounts, Companions, and Summoned Creatures, each of which is handled differently by the rules.

Cohorts are all of the PCs' NPC allies, hired muscle, and other independent beings. Frankly, I don't think these kind of characters should be tied to PC character creation at all, and I think things like the Leadership Feat in 3E were a serious mistake. These kinds of characters should exist only as NPCs controlled by the DM, run using the same rules as other NPCs and monsters. A PC might hire a guy to carry a torch into battle, but once there the torch-bearer is just another character being run by the DM. The only issue here is making sure that such characters are easy for the DM to run (which 4E seems to be addressing quite well).

Mounts are, well, mounts, creatures that the PCs and NPCs use to move around. As a whole, I think the actual "actions" of a mount should be abstracted away. Just to keep things simple, I think it is best if the game just assumes that the mount's movement capability replaces the PC's, and in doing so it treats the mount like a piece of equipment. If a mount has abilities other than a movement capability, it should be treated like a combination mount/companion, and follow the rules of both. I think the ability to ride a mount should be linked to character creation, but not mounts themselves.

Companions are a mix of animal companions (including loyal pets), familiars, and various other creatures that add to a PC's combat options. I think they should obey the following rules: 1) Companions are always assumed to be in the PC's square in combat. 2) Companions offer some passive benefit (like a bonus to certain kinds of skills) while they are with their PC. 3) By using a minor action, a PC can direct his Companion to use one of its Powers to help the master. 4) Companions are acquired through feats/class abilities, and can't be obtained by just buying one. 5) A character can only have one Companion.

A few examples of a companion and its powers may be as follows:

Wolf Companion (Heroic)
Grants a +5 bonus to your passive perception score.
Allows you to track as if you had the scent ability.

Attack: +7

Wolf's Leg Bite (Encounter * Minor * Companion * Melee)
Your Wolf Companion bites at the leg of an enemy, attempting to throw him off balance.
Wolf's Attack vs. AC, melee range
Hit: You gain Combat Advantage against the target.

Wolf's Fang Rush (Enounter * Minor * Companion * Melee)
Your Wolf Companion dashes at a foe and strikes with its teeth and claws before returning to your side.
Wolf's Attack vs. AC, range 3 squares
Hit: Deal 2d6 + 6 damage to target.


Fairy Familiar (Paragon, Familiar)
Adds +10 healing to your Healing Surges

Attack: +12

Fairy's Aura (Encounter * Minor * Companion * Utility)
Your Fairy Familiar creates an aura of protective magic around you.
Effect: You gain +4 on all defenses against Force effects.

Deliver Touch Spell (At Will * Minor * Companion * Utility)
Your Fairy Familiar carries one of your touch spells to an ally or an enemy. Can only be used if you have a touch spell ready.
Fairy's Attack vs. Reflex, range 4 squares
Hit: Your touch spell is activated against the target.


I hope those examples get the idea across... I still am not sure how HP and defenses would work for mounts and companions (though I would prefer it if they just assumed all attacks were directed against the PC and his defenses and AC, just to keep it simple), but I think the idea is sound.

Finally, Summoned Monsters. Overall, I think that summoned creatures should require the PC to sustain the summoning with Standard actions, but should be accordingly powerful. Beyond that, they should be fully-fleshed out monsters that are controlled by the PC. I don't think they need any more or less complexity than that.

I think that covers it all...

 

[KidSnide]

I do think the economy of actions is far more important than the consideration it usually gets, however.

Well, I certainly agree that the economy of actions is critical. It is difficult to overstate impact that 3.5E made by changing the Haste effect, at least in my campaigns. An extra action was so powerful that the most important question in a 3.0E fight became which side could dispel the other side's Haste effect first.