WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[I'm A Banana]

I don't want to make 30 rolls for my followers each round of combat.

What makes you think that people with mooks won't be able to make use of mook-rules (or to use 4e terms, that people with minions won't be able to make use of minion rules) for resolving these quickly?

Abstracting the character's action (while still giving them an impact) is pretty useful.

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.

I disagree, mostly because the idea of having an effective sidekick who can hold his own is a really cool idea. As a DM, it allows me to add a lot of richness to the world, to give the party a "near-premenant" NPC, and it allows the PC who has such a guy along to add dimension to his character's relationship to the world (are they a hired mercenary? are they your backup singer? are they your lover?).

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.

Not bad, though I think the "use a minor action to use a power" means that, again, a character with a companion will have more actions per round than a character without one, since they're basically spending a minor action to gain a "standard" action from a limited selection. And this doesn't really solve the problem of cohorts ("getting rid of them" isn't an ideal option for me).

 

[Harshax]

Not bad, though I think the "use a minor action to use a power" means that, again, a character with a companion will have more actions per round than a character without one, since they're basically spending a minor action to gain a "standard" action from a limited selection. And this doesn't really solve the problem of cohorts ("getting rid of them" isn't an ideal option for me).

Tell me, if you tell the player across the table to 'Use this power on that guy', did you just gain a standard action by using a free action? If you can make that argument viable, then maybe I'll agree that minions or cohorts unbalance the action economy.

I think the action economy is something that is going to have to be balanced by those that have a stake in it: the DM & players, and not by rules that enforce a false economy.

If a player has two cohorts, and the other player has none, he should be encouraged to let the other player control him in combat. This encourages teamwork and gameplay. If, on the otherhand, you have confrontational/bickering players, you as DM should enforce silly rules that ensure everyone gets equal time behind the d20.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Tell me, if you tell the player across the table to 'Use this power on that guy', did you just gain a standard action by using a free action? If you can make that argument viable, then maybe I'll agree that minions or cohorts unbalance the action economy.

That's not really a valid comparison, because giving the player accross the table some advice doesn't increase the number of things you can do (because it doesn't give them any extra actions), whereas having a wolf follow you around who attacks on a minor action lets you turn a minor action into a standard action, giving you, say, two attacks in a round, ramping up your damage (even if it's "really" the wolf doing it, there's not much meta-level distinction).

If a player has two cohorts, and the other player has none, he should be encouraged to let the other player control him in combat.

I kind of disagree because of what Moridin said above:

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.

It's also usually a better idea to work with a player's psychology than to try and change their mind, and when I take a power, I don't expect it to benefit Paul at the table more than it benefits Me at the table, or I'd ask Paul to take it.

 

[Harshax]

That's not really a valid comparison, because giving the player accross the table some advice doesn't increase the number of things you can do (because it doesn't give them any extra actions), whereas having a wolf follow you around who attacks on a minor action lets you turn a minor action into a standard action, giving you, say, two attacks in a round, ramping up your damage (even if it's "really" the wolf doing it, there's not much meta-level distinction).

I think it is a very valid comparison. Tactical and Charismatic players tend to dominate a combat, where other player's actions revolve around the [oldschool_cred]Party Caller[/oldschool_cred]. I've done it, and I've seen it in game.

Getting a cohort, or mercenary, or hireling shouldn't default to the expenditure of some commodity like feats, or abilities (like in 3E). It should be driven by roleplay.

My suggestion is very elegant - On the one hand, it alleviates the absurdity of character & cohort operating in perfect synchronicity all the time, while at the same time helping promote the NPC as a unique individual. If each player gets a turn to run an extra, with a little guideline from the extra's master, then everyone gets a share in the surplus actions.

Still, this doesn't address summons or trained animals, but I don't think there is or should be a single solution for all types of extras.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Getting a cohort, or mercenary, or hireling shouldn't default to the expenditure of some commodity like feats, or abilities (like in 3E). It should be driven by roleplay.

That's kind of a big can of worms. To limit it, from my perspective, any increase in character power should be able to be tracked mechanically, and should not be the province of a particular player personality.

Having a reliable sidekick or adventuring trainee or something by your side is a cool idea, and I'd like to see the mechanics support and embrace the idea rather than telling me to make stuff up through roleplaying. As a player, I want that to be part of my power. As a DM, I don't want to be forced to make up a sidekick for a character who wants one.

On the one hand, it alleviates the absurdity of character & cohort operating in perfect synchronicity all the time, while at the same time helping promote the NPC as a unique individual. If each player gets a turn to run an extra, with a little guideline from the extra's master, then everyone gets a share in the surplus actions.

If a PC druid is followed around by a pack of 10 wolves, I don't want to spend twice the amount of time rolling for her wolves than I do for my character.

It's a good fix for the problem, and I agree that letting each player run an extra means that no one is left out, but each player running an extra has it's own problems. For instance:

1: It doubles the size and nearly doubles the power of the party.
2: Who those NPC's "belong" to might lead to me playing other people's companions more than my own characters.
3: It can still bog down play with the number of extra dice rolls, slowing the game significantly with all those extra actions to resolve.
4: The whole player psychology bugaboo of wanting a second character as a part of the first character's power.

I think there are ways to avoid the problem that don't lead to these secondary problems, and that "spreading around who controls the NPC" is a good fix, but not something that I'd use from the get-go because of these secondary problems.

 

[Harshax]

1: It doubles the size and nearly doubles the power of the party.
2: Who those NPC's "belong" to might lead to me playing other people's companions more than my own characters.
3: It can still bog down play with the number of extra dice rolls, slowing the game significantly with all those extra actions to resolve.
4: The whole player psychology bugaboo of wanting a second character as a part of the first character's power.

[don't interpret my brevity as confrontational - posting just before I leave for work. I'm enjoying this conversation immensely]

1 - More rope if you ask me. The players seek power in response to threat, and the DM responds to increases in power with greater threat. That's D&D, and isn't a problem inherent in the cohort system, but the game overall.

2 - That's ok. I for one enjoy a change of pace now and them, and have swapped characters for the fun of it. I've also allowed players to control NPCs so they get a taste of other styles of play. I don't see the problem there either. Autonomous extras (retainers, hirelings, henchman, cohorts), like PCs, do not always perform optimally in every situation. Roleplay may be enhanced using this method. Say the wizard's sidekick suffers a grievous wound while played by another player. 'My mind tells me it isn't Redgar's fault that Mialee died, but my heart holds a grudge against him for commanding her to engage with a touch spell'

3 - This type of gameplay is influenced by the desire of the DM and the theme of hir setting. If you don't want the players in control of loads of extras, tailor the game so that players aren't always on the look out for meat shields and enhancements to abilities they lack. This often occurs in solo or small party play, where the DM ensures the characters have a ready supply of healing potions is one example.

4 - That is a problem, I agree. I don't particularly like greedy players who want to hoard the spotlight, but pointing to the RAW isn't necessarily the best method for controlling this type of bad behavior. Your better off pointing to a House Rule, if you find yourself in circumstances where you feel like you have to play with players not fully compatible with your style.

 

[Wolfwood2]

That's kind of a big can of worms. To limit it, from my perspective, any increase in character power should be able to be tracked mechanically, and should not be the province of a particular player personality.

Having a reliable sidekick or adventuring trainee or something by your side is a cool idea, and I'd like to see the mechanics support and embrace the idea rather than telling me to make stuff up through roleplaying. As a player, I want that to be part of my power. As a DM, I don't want to be forced to make up a sidekick for a character who wants one.

I think there's a difference between having the mechanics support a cohort and having cohorts be a "character power". I think it should be done in a similiar manner to the guidelines for magical items. The rules should tell you about what power level a cohort should be to contribute to the group without overshadowing a PC. The rules should tell the DM how adding a cohort will effect his game and advise on ways to handle it smoothly.

That's a separate matter from, "take a feat, get a cohort". For one thing, I've noticed Leadership oftentimes discourages a particular NPC tfrom being adopted by the group as a whole. It's too self-conscious that the NPC "belongs" to a particular player. As has been pointed out, there is a long-standing tradition of the DM adding an NPC cleric to parties that don't have one. Though that may vanish in 4E, I think the principle that an NPC can travel with the party without increasing the power of a particular character is a good one.

In short, guidelines good. Hard rules of, "Add charisma bonus plus level + factors = number of followers per this table" bad.

I do make exceptions for things like mounts and familiars, which aren't expected to act independently most of the time.

 

[Benimoto]

I think the blog post is a pretty interesting and thoughtful exploration of the problems inherent in the action economy, even if I don't agree with all of Rodney's conclusions.

I've definitely had a problem with players having so many cohorts, animal companions, etc that the game bogged down. In fact, in my home group, we have a house rule that one particular player is never allowed more than one follower of any type, because otherwise he has a whole menagerie. It's kind of problem, since in Robin Laws's terms, he's definitely a specialist, where in every game in every campaign he wants to play a popular leader-type with a dozen lackeys to do the dirty work for him. Maybe the warlord in 4e will satisfy him.

I like the vast bulk of the article, talking about various complex boardgames and how the number of players affected how the game played. I can see how D&D 4 is trying to manage this by explicitly balancing their combat system for party vs. group instead of party vs. single monster.

Some of the friction about cohorts and other followers comes about from how they're presented. It wouldn't really be acceptable to give a player a feat that gives them an extra standard action each turn, much less a whole turn. Even if we allowed that, would we say that because that player's contributing that much more in combat that he should have a greater share of the treasure and XP?

As 3rd evolved, we saw big changes in how the "follower herder" class, the Druid, changed. IIRC, the initial rule was that the Druid could have up to twice her hit dice in animal followers. Then, Masters of the Wild introduced errata that said the Druid should limit herself to one or two animals. Finally, we saw the 3.5 system of a single animal companion. I wouldn't be surprised if the system continued to evolve in 4th edition.

I don't really like the artificiality of the rules Rodney's proposing either. Still, I see the game mechanical sense behind them. I hope they come up with something that reconciles those two concerns.

 

[Stalker0]

One I had is that might do away with combat nature of animal companions and relegate them to a non-combat role, perhaps involving rituals.

For example, the druid might have a ritual that lets them see through the eyes of all the wolves in the forest, or one that has a bear bring her a meal for the day, etc.

 

[Gentlegamer]

One I had is that might do away with combat nature of animal companions and relegate them to a non-combat role, perhaps involving rituals.

For example, the druid might have a ritual that lets them see through the eyes of all the wolves in the forest, or one that has a bear bring her a meal for the day, etc.

I like how you think!