WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[Dausuul]

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'd come up with a similar division, but I have a fourth category--Followers. The classic example is the 3.X evil cleric who runs around with four times her level in Hit Dice of skeletons. These are typically allies you've used "character power" (that is, your mechanical in-game abilities) to get, and they're either fairly durable or can be replaced quickly when they die, so you expect to keep them with you long-term.

Individual Cohorts. IMO, the main challenge here is power level. One cohort doesn't generally slow the game down badly enough to be a problem, but they usually add a lot of power to their masters. Leadership in 3.X was, for my money, the single most broken feat in the game (unless you count Epic Spellcasting).

I think I would address this by creating "cohort classes," kind of like NPC classes. Cohort classes would be simplified, so they take less time to run and level up than a full PC.

Then say that when you would normally level up, you can instead declare that you're getting a cohort. From that point on, you have a "level adjustment" of +1. The cohort classes will be balanced so that at any given level X, the power of a level X player plus level X cohort is equivalent to the power of a level X+1 player.

Allied Hordes. These are typically short-term and obtained through roleplaying; they can be dealt with cinematically. Either have them square off with the bad guy's hordes, or just declare that they provide a flat circumstance bonus to the PCs and clutter up the battlefield but don't actually get any actions of their own.

Summons. For summons, I favor the "spend your action to control your summons" approach.

Followers. These are trickier, since there are both power and gameplay issues involved. I guess I'd go with using the cohort system I outlined above, and treating all of your followers sort of like a single cohort. They get one collective action per round, although that action's effect may be distributed--for instance, if your followers attack, then you declare which creatures are being attacked by which followers and make a single attack roll. Any creature whose AC is low enough to be hit by that attack roll takes X damage for each follower that attacked it.

Or, just make it so the followers can act, but their attacks are so weak that 99% of the time their best tactical option is to provide a circumstance bonus to the PCs.

 

[dangerous jack]

When a player wants a cohort, is that player really wanting another PC (albeit of lower level)? If not, what differentiates it?

Edit to add: And if so, can we remove cohorts from the solution?

 

[Wolfwood2]

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.

Actually, there was mention of a higher level paladin having a mount during one of the playtest reports.

 

[Baka no Hentai]

One thing to keep in mind for all those suggesting that Cohorts be balanced by XP or Level cost to the player that controls them: WOTC is designing fourth edition around nothing costing experience. In fact, for balance purposes they even suggest that if a PC dies during an adventure or misses an adventure entirely, that they should be awarded the same XP as all the other party members so that all the PCs stay even with each other.

That said, it is highly doubtful that WOTC will ever re-implement a system that causes a player to trade XP for something... unless doing so causes a similar cost to the entire party.

 

[Wolfwood2]

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.

I think it a fundmental mistake to make what is basically a free-willed NPC into part-and-parcel of a character's power.

Maybe I have a double standard, because I can sort of see it for things like animal companions and paladin mounts and such, but in my mind those thigns are fundamentally different. They're not expected to be treated as 'people' within the context of the game world.

A squire or apprentice is not like knowing the fireball spell or having weapon specialization. If such an NPC is a part of your character, then you're basically playing two PCs. And if it's a game where players can have multiple PCs then that's fine, but let's not make folks expend a feat slot of the privilege.

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.

That's because it is the DM's power and DM's permission and not part of your own character's authority and might.

 

[Wolfwood2]

When a player wants a cohort, is that player really wanting another PC (albeit of lower level)? If not, what differentiates it?

Edit to add: And if so, can we remove cohorts from the solution?

I think that is the basic question that needs to be answered before we can say how/if such a thing should be represented by the rules.

 

[Dausuul]

When a player wants a cohort, is that player really wanting another PC (albeit of lower level)? If not, what differentiates it?

Sometimes, sometimes not. Here are the reasons people usually seem to want cohorts, in my experience (defining "cohort" as "a single long-term companion of significant power"):

#1: Character Accessory. Typical examples are a druid's animal companion or a paladin's mount. The cohort is expected to be at least somewhat useful in battle, but its main purpose is to make the PC look/feel spiffy.

#2: Role Filler. When there's a particular capability that the party needs, but nobody feels like playing a class that has that capability, someone picks up Leadership and gets a cohort to cover it. The most common example is probably the heal-bot cleric or favored soul. Less commonly, you might see a rogue cohort for lockpicking and trap-finding, or even a defense-heavy fighter cohort in a party that needs a tank.

#3: Dramatic Foil. This is a lot like the "character accessory," but has more roleplaying involved. The player is looking to add some depth to the main PC. This can be anything from a little brother whom the PC can be protective of, to a long-suffering valet whom the PC can make ridiculous demands of. I knew a guy who picked up a henchman (back in 2E) just so his pseudo-Russian nobleman character would have someone to bellow "Sergei! My vodka!" at.

#4: Backup Character. Some campaigns and parties can easily incorporate new PCs, but in a lot of cases it's disruptive to try to work in a random new PC when an old one dies. In this case, the DM might encourage players to get cohorts that can step up if their masters are killed.

#5: Secondary Character. The player wants to try out another class, race, et cetera, but doesn't want to give up his/her old character.

#6: Source of Uberness. The player is trying to come up with a "killer combo" of some kind, needs another character to provide some crucial element, and doesn't want to depend on another PC for that element (or nobody else wants to build a PC who can provide it). Alternatively, the player just wants the tremendous power boost that comes from getting that second action every round.

#7: Combination. Some mix of the above.

One thing to keep in mind for all those suggesting that Cohorts be balanced by XP or Level cost to the player that controls them: WOTC is designing fourth edition around nothing costing experience. In fact, for balance purposes they even suggest that if a PC dies during an adventure or misses an adventure entirely, that they should be awarded the same XP as all the other party members so that all the PCs stay even with each other.

That said, it is highly doubtful that WOTC will ever re-implement a system that causes a player to trade XP for something... unless doing so causes a similar cost to the entire party.

A level adjustment is a bit different from trading XP; essentially, you're taking a level in Cohort-Master. The thing is, I really don't see any other way to make cohorts balanced. That second action is so powerful that you have to give up a substantial amount of personal power in order to balance it, and the only way I can think of to give up that much power is to skip a level or two. Using up a feat won't cut it.

 

[DM_Blake]

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

So, I have a wizard with a fighter cohort.

Most of the time, my wizard gets +2 on attack rolls while his cohort is running around on autopilot swinging his sword at my enemies - but the cohort never hits them himself; he just distracts them enough to give me my +2 to hit.

but it costs some kind of action for the companion to do the impressive stuff.

But, once in a while, my cohort shouts "Deadly Rainbow Toad Whirlwind" and uses his special combo to beat the snot out of my enemies. When he does this, I am so astonished that I cannot even think to cast a basic at-will spell.

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

Although, once in a while, maybe even once in every battle, I get my wits together enough that I can cast a spell, even during my cohort's fancy combo attack.

Am I getting that right?

With respect to this idea, (not just your idea, Ridley's Cohort, but everyone else with ideas of giving up your actions to let your cohort act on your turn) -- am I the only one here who thinks this sounds more like a board game, or a video game, but sounds nothing at all like an RPG?

Are we so desperate to balance the fun and make everyone have equal face time that we don't care how unreal or unbelievable our RPG becomes?

----------

On a side note, Ridley's Cohort, did Ridley have to skip his turn when you wrote that post? (j/k - I find your name ironically interesting in this particular discussion thread).

 

[Saishu_Heiki]

Are we so desperate to balance the fun and make everyone have equal face time that we don't care how unreal or unbelievable our RPG becomes?

In a game that features time stopping magic, ancient dragons with unknowable wisdom, and people firing eldritch powers at their foes... the "reality" and "believability" becomes very subjective.

I am "desperate" to ensure that no one or two people monopolize the time allocated to gaming. I have a spouse, work, and an advanced degree to finish. So do many of my players. If four people are waiting on one person as a hard and fast fact of the game, I say it needs changed.

 

[Dausuul]

In a game that features time stopping magic, ancient dragons with unknowable wisdom, and people firing eldritch powers at their foes... the "reality" and "believability" becomes very subjective.

Replace "reality" and "believability" with "verisimilitude," then. Or "internal consistency" if you like. The fact that this is a fantasy setting is irrelevant; consistency is an issue in any setting.