WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[Fenes]

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.

Well, the typical party in my main campaign includes, apart from the three PCs, usually 7+ NPCs that would qualify as cohorts, not counting the "a dozen or two of guards" they often travel with. So, there are reasons for them to be present.

 

[dangerous jack]

As long as followers can move on their own, I think I'll be happy with even the most complicated character that I want to play: Odin in an epic Ragnarok campaign.

Odin:
* has a mount: Sleipnir the eight-legged horse
* has two familiars: Huginn & Muninn the ravens
* has two animal companions: Geri & Freki the wolves
* can summon: the Valkyries

I'll stat up the mount with:
Journey to Valhalla: Daily, Standard - Sleipnir and all allies within 2 squares plane shift
Eight-legged trample: Encounter, Standard
Hoof stomp: At Will, Immediate Reaction (when an enemy falls prone in an adjacent square)

The familiars get:
Detect Thoughts or Modify Memory, etc.: Encounter, Standard
Distraction: At Will, Minor - save ends

The wolves get stuff like:
Trip: Encounter, Standard - target is tripped + either the wolf or Odin can make a followup basic attack
Bite & Tear Apart: Encounter, Standard - the wolves must be flanking an opponent, and this causes big damage


So one round of Odin vs. a Giant could be:
Move: Odin rides Sleipnir adjacent to the giant, wolves & ravens also get to move adjacent
Minor: familiars distract the giant
Standard: wolf uses Trip, Odin gets a followup attack
Immediate: Sleipnir gets a Hoof Stomp because the giant becomes prone

On the next round, Odin's actions are:
Minor: the ravens go to distract another enemy
Move: everyone shifts to flank the giant
Standard: wolves use Bite & Tear Apart, which is as powerful as any of Odin's other encounter attacks. We can say that Odin was attacking the giant too (or another one that approached), but it was the wolves that did the real damage this turn.


So I managed to convince myself that giving up actions to followers probably could work (with the notable caveat of free follower movement). And if this seems like a fun combat to me after a few hours of thinking about it, then I imagine the designers could come up with a whole bunch more that I like. Of course, I haven't figured out how to run the Valkyries that Odin summons on his next turn...

 

[Storminator]

You don't watch it, that's the point:

"While you go for the high priest and his bodyguard, the militia that followed you battle with his acolytes".

(combat scene between PCs and NPCs)

"As you stand over the bloody corpse of the evil high priest, the milita deals with the rest of the acolytes, most of which are dead or fleeing".

KarinsDad pointed this out explicitly as a bad thing. But now you know you've been playing wrong!

PS

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

In True 20 (and I think Mutants and Masterminds) it takes a move action to commands allies and followers (ie to get them to do stuff). Seems like a decent compromise. Especially if it is one command per follower. (exception might a swarm or mob that acts as one unit).

I propose that we can have the best of both worlds, in terms of suggested solutions.

The PC gets a dumb +n bonus to certain actions when the companion is running on autopilot in the background, but it costs some kind of action for the companion to do the impressive stuff.

Very advanced (costly?) companions could have the ability to act "for free" once per day, once per encounter, etc.

 

[JohnSnow]

So I managed to convince myself that giving up actions to followers probably could work (with the notable caveat of free follower movement). And if this seems like a fun combat to me after a few hours of thinking about it, then I imagine the designers could come up with a whole bunch more that I like. Of course, I haven't figured out how to run the Valkyries that Odin summons on his next turn...

I think it's relatively easy to convince yourself that animal followers need direction to do more than just "follow their instincts." The same should be true of "mindless" undead, like zombies and skeletons.

One thought would be that you direct your followers as a standard action, meaning that you lose your attack action, but not your movement. The followers of course, still get to move.

The trick is that multiple followers (if you have them) should act in consistent ways. Freke and Gere (or any other set of animals or undead) behaving as a group and working together is totally believable. As a group, they get 1 action. Yes, you'd need to have stats for how the attack resolves when you have one wolf versus two wolves vs. three or more. But that's merely a matter of scaling powers.

Valkyries should be treated as Odin's allies. In other words, if Odin summons Valkyries to his aid, you should get XP for those Valkyries. Alternatively, if it's a daily power (for a PC), it's not that much of a headache.

Personally, I'd rather see followers and companions that actually help out rather than hordes of useless minions.

Minor thought: as minions, summons are pretty easy to adjudicate. You call them up and send them against an opponent. If it takes one action per summon, you'd be limited in how many would enter a fight. For example:

Summoning: As a standard action, you may summon 1 creature, mob or swarm. A creature, mob or swarm you summon is considered "controlled" by you.

Controlled Creatures: As a standard action, you may order a controlled creature to perform an action. Changing the action requires you to expend a standard action. You may have controlled creatures due to summoning, enchantment, or various other methods.


The theory is that if it takes a round to acquire the extra action, then a round to give them direction, you are essentially sacrificing two attacks to get your follower. Many players might do that once per encounter, but they'd be unlikely to do it constantly. Only a dedicated summoner would do so.

That's the general idea, any way. Balancing it would take time.

 

[KarinsDad]

You honestly cant see the difference between the monster casting Sleep on the party and the situation where one guy plays a fighter and is adventuring with a druid, ranger and a wizard with their menagerie?

Come on Karnsdad, trying to belittle us with comments like this serves no purpose.

That was not my intent. My intent was to show that there are a lot of ways to decrease or increase actions per side. Additional creatures is just one aspect of that issue.

It's reasonable for a DM to put limits on cohorts, followers, summoned creatures, etc.

I do not consider it reasonable for WotC to yank these game elements out of the game or to make the game mechanics for them game mechanics only and non-believable (e.g. "What does you cohort do? "He gives me Combat Advantage, but he cannot be attacked.").

My point is that these game elements have been in the game for 30+ years and are only a problem if seriously abused. It's totally fine for a DM to say "No cohorts in my game". It's totally unreasonable for WotC to say "Because of actions per side, there are no cohorts in the game system". IMO.

Yes, some people have had problems at their table. They can fix that for their table. I have never seen major problems, probably because my players limit themselves to a single companion or cohort and do not go overboard with it. Hence, I see no reason for WotC to "fix it". All that does is make the game less enjoyable for people who do like these game elements.

Fixing this is like fixing the fact that a PC can have 20 different magical swords in the game, one for each different situation. It's a player group fix, not a game system fix.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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.

Another sensible answer.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

It becomes a DM Fiat thing, not part and parcel of my character's abilities. I don't have to jump through a DM's hoops to cast Fireball. As a DM, I don't have to give my players little side-missions to gain weapon specialization. I can always drape it in world-junk all I want, but it is part and parcel of the character's power whether I do so or not.

A follower that I spend resources for is similar to Fireball and Weapon Specialization. Adding world detail to it is great, but it needs to be part of my character sheet, not a pure role-playing excercise in jumping through DM hoops. That's not very satisfying, because it feels more like it's the DM's power and the DM's permission than it feels like part of my own character's authority and might.

It's not an "instead of," the two are not at odds, but in the same way that you can add "you study under the ancient firemage Alcesistic" in order to have the PC learn Fireball, you could have "you impress the king's squire!" in order to have the PC gain a follower.

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.

The key is spending resources. In 3e, I'd expect to be able to get a magic item I wanted to get with enough gold, too, because they are part and parcel of a PC's power in 3e.

In 4e, I wouldn't expect that except for the basic two or three items. But a follower who is part and parcel of my PC's power, yeah, I'd expect to be able to get it in the same way that the fighter gets his whirlwind attack and the rogue gets his sneak attack. You can add some fluff around it, but you get it, even if you don't fluff it up

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.

If some sort of companion is part of my character's power, in the same way that fireball is part of a wizard's power, having a DM control him in the background is not going to do it for me.

I might be able to stomach abstraction, as long as it still felt like I was empowered by my ally.

 

[Cadfan]

Ok, there's actually... three different situations here, I think.

1: Individual cohorts. This is the Paladin with Leadership who brings along his acolyte shieldbearer Jort the Dullwitted. This also includes single animal pets.

2: Allied hordes. This is when the party recruits 10, or 100, or 10,000 guardsmen to help them storm the enemy's stronghold.

3: Summoned animals and monsters.

I think each of these is a bit different from the others.

For number 1, a quick fix is that players can only directly control the actions of their own character. NPCs following the party may be given orders by the PCs, but are directly controlled by the DM. If another character gives an order to your cohort, whether that bothers you and what you do about it are resolved in character.

For number 2, Fenes' fix works really well. Its also what Heroes of Battle recommends. Just eyeball the likely outcome of the horde's involvement, and decree it so. This works best when there is an enemy horde as well, though, so that the two hordes can do battle while the PCs take the spotlight. It falls down a bit when your horde is fighting a single large enemy, though, and you can't shuffle the horde off to the side of the stage.

For number 3, I think its fair that the PC control the creature directly. As a player, I'd want to, and that seems to be the intent of 3e summoning spells. One additional creature that is only present some of the time usually isn't a problem on its own. The problems come in when the player summons multiple creatures, has to take time to pick which creature he wants out of many, has to look up their stats, and has to familiarize himself with their abilities. One way 4e could deal with this is to restrict characters to only one summoned creature at a time, have each spell summon only one type of creature, and include the statblock in the spell description. This would minimize the intrusion on the rest of the player's evening.

Summon Wolf
Druid, Daily
Duration- 5 minutes, until the end of the encounter, or until dismissed.
Effect: Summons one wolf. You control the wolf's actions. At the end of the spell's duration, it vanishes. Remember, you may only have one summoned creature at a time.
Wolf
[insert statblock here, with adjustments built in for druid level]

 

[Baka no Hentai]

Unless I've completely missed something, though, I dont believe that WOTC has definitively excluded there ever being cohorts and followers... however, none of the base classes will have them at release.

I think it is entirely reasonable that they will include them in future PHBs or DMGs if they can find a balanced way to do so in 4E.