WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[I'm A Banana]

Well, usually, you don't spend a feat on followers in my games, they are acquired through actions in game.

Which means they are not the player's option, they are the DM's option.

Which, still, isn't very satisfying for me as a player OR a DM.

 

[Stalker0]

If someone takes a leadership feat, then we handle it by letting the player create the cohort, and by considering the cohort as loyal (to the death and such, unless specified otherwise). That's quite a difference from the rest of the "followers".

True, but the problem with that cohort still remains. I'll take one of worst case scenarios, you have a druid with leadership and a young druid acolyte (your cohort). So now you have 2 druids and 2 animal companions to dictate moves to each round. Further, the animals often have multiple attacks. So now you are figuring out spells to cast while rolling lots of attack rolls, and calculating all the damage. This can take a large amount of time, far more than other players.

Now in 4e, actions do seem quicker, so that would help somewhat. But there's still an underlying problem that with your feat not only have you acquired more power, but you have acquired more spotlight time.

The design question becomes, can we:

1) Provide a companion that has an insignificant amount of time dedicated to running its actions, so it does not greatly affect the economy of actions.
2) Provide a companion that provides a reasonable benefit, one that makes the companion worthwhile.
3) Within the system make the companions limitations believable enough, as supposed to just some mechanical handwave.

As this thread has indicated, from a design perspective this is VERY HARD thing to do.

 

[DM_Blake]

Wisdom there, and absolute agreement on my part.

I misunderstood your original post, however. And I really have seen DMs roll dice for two sides of a combat before.

Those are DMs who don't understand the difference between their "Story teller role" and "Story teller roll".

Hopefully the DMG will clarify this and help fledgling DMs understand this better.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I bring this up because while it doesn't address the econoby of actions issue where one side of the battle has more actions than another side, it definitely makes sure the players number of actions is quite high. A guy moving a druid and 2 animals has 3x the actions of someone moving a fighter. But they both have 4 orcs, then the difference is 7 to 5. Not even 2x the actions anymore.

Yep, that is more or less the way we play, all the time. Plus, with a group that has been together for awhile, you can tweak it even more. Druid always has a lot to do? Don't give him as many orcs, or at least give him minions instead of brutes. One player really enjoys this, but another is overwhelmed or simply wants to focus on her character? Give the first extra and/or more complicated, and the second less orcs.

And again, if the players aren't willing to play multiple characters because they all want to focus on their PCs, then it doesn't help matters to have the extra characters and shuck them off on the DM or such. About all you can do is have the DM make ad hoc, quick rulings on what the extra characters are doing and have accomplished. The DM making tons of rolls takes away focus from the PCs, same as if they players do extra. To keep the players engaged, give them something to be engaged about.

 

[Fenes]

Which means they are not the player's option, they are the DM's option.

Which, still, isn't very satisfying for me as a player OR a DM.

That's not true in my games - if a Player wants a cohort there are lots of options to get them in game. If a player has a problem with having to acquire followers by recruiting mercenaries, or impressing a noble so his heir will become a squire, instead of picking a feat, well, then my game will probably not suit him anyway.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The design question becomes, can we:

1) Provide a companion that has an insignificant amount of time dedicated to running its actions, so it does not greatly affect the economy of actions.
2) Provide a companion that provides a reasonable benefit, one that makes the companion worthwhile.
3) Within the system make the companions limitations believable enough, as supposed to just some mechanical handwave.

As this thread has indicated, from a design perspective this is VERY HARD thing to do.

From a design perspective it is easy, especially once you lay out the problem clearly. The hard part is facing up to the necessary design, and convincing people that it is the necessary design.

 

[Fenes]

True, but the problem with that cohort still remains. I'll take one of worst case scenarios, you have a druid with leadership and a young druid acolyte (your cohort). So now you have 2 druids and 2 animal companions to dictate moves to each round. Further, the animals often have multiple attacks. So now you are figuring out spells to cast while rolling lots of attack rolls, and calculating all the damage. This can take a large amount of time, far more than other players.

That's why I don't roll attacks for all those animals and the druid. They get foes assigned, and the outcome of their fight comes down to the outcome of the PC's fight. Or I simply eyeball it, or reduce it to a single roll.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Which means they are not the player's option, they are the DM's option.

Which, still, isn't very satisfying for me as a player OR a DM.

Why? Again I'll draw the comparison to magical items, which are the DM's option in pretty much the exact same way (for non-spellcasters). A DM can choose to include a magical item in a particular adventure if he wants to have it. Or a player can decide he wants a particular magic item and do what is necessary in the game world to get it. In 3.5 this often is simply accumulating enough gold to buy the item or pay to have it made, but it's still the DM's option to make the item available.

I think a suitable compromise is to make followers a DM option, but provide some clear guidelines for how followers will impact a game and when/how PCs might reasonably gain them.

 

[Wolfwood2]

That's why I don't roll attacks for all those animals and the druid. They get foes assigned, and the outcome of their fight comes down to the outcome of the PC's fight. Or I simply eyeball it, or reduce it to a single roll.

Does this actaully come up a lot, or do the you and the players usually find reasons not to have companions/cohorts there at all?

After all, if these NPCs are essentially more part of the roleplay side than the tactical combat side, it seems reasonable to leave them out of the tactical combat side as much as possible. Sometimes the storyline may demand they be there, but it's not exactly unreasonable to not drag your apprentice itno combat.

 

[Harshax]

So far, I can see these rules:

Cohorts/Sidekicks - limit 1 per player, available at Paragon Tier. Has its own actions. Encouragement to share running the NPC among players (but not required). No actual XP tracking, but slower advancement than PCs, maybe 1 NPC level for every 2 PC levels. Acquired through roleplay, and not permanent expenditure of character assets.

Hirelings/Mooks - No limit per player. Shared equally among all players during combats. No XP advancement. Acquired through roleplay (and cash), and not permanent expenditure of character assets.

Summons - Generic stat blocks w/ special abilities ordered carte blanche, requires two minor actions: 1 to maintain and 1 to direct. Only Encounter or Daily power, not at will. Summoner may lose control if knocked unconscious. Weaker summons disapate/flee, more powerful become uncontrolled.

Animals/Swarms - Generic stat blocks, enhancements to character abilities (marks, flanks, etc). Requires standard actions to direct but then are persistent.

Mounts - Replaces character movement. Requires minor action to control. Swap Riding Skill for Attack Rolls when attacking from horseback (whichever is lower).

Familiars - Shared HP pool. Enhancements to character abilities (spell casting rolls, marks, modifies powers). Most useful in non-combat.

Can't think of any other type of hanger-on that typically travels with the party, but if things are handled this way, I think I'll be pretty happy overall.