WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[Harshax]

That's a pretty flimsy argument. But to prove I'm just having fun, let's change the subjects slightly.

Those of us who played 1E, probably had to deal with dwarves, elves, and half-orcs in the same party, even though the racial affinity table implied that they either hated each other or had strong antipathies. Now we have Tieflings and Dragonborn, and IIRC, one is responsible for the diminishment of the other's cultural influence in the default D&D world. Groups see the same situation arise when thieves want to play in groups with paladins, or someone wants to be Lawful/Evil and another wants to be Chaotic/Good. To have an effective group, you have to have some level of agreement over what is appropriate for your table.

As hong suggested, this boils down to a group decision on desired gameplay. In other words, it should be addressed in the DMG as advice for running a successful game.

I total understand that weasels aren't metal enough. What if I had a spell that summoned 1 flaming deathklok skeleton per PC, and was controlled by each player in the party?

All I'm saying is, I don't want a game that is boiled down to its most unoffensive elements, or one that consciously avoids anything that might upset what it considers its most precious currency, if its method of avoision means leaning too far away from a shallow facsimile of reasonable actions in a supposedly freeform game world.

I think Robin Laws once wrote an article in IF that explained the difference between a toy and a game. With a toy, you had no rules or guidelines for success when playing with it. Kicking a ball around, throwing it, etc is all examples of using a toy. Deciding that you have to kick the ball through a net, or throw it into a hoop turns play with that toy into a game, because the definition of a game has inherent levels of success or failure.

Combat is definitely the 'game' aspect of D&D. However, D&D's primary strength is that it is primarily a toy and as such should have the freedom to break in an out of the structure of a game.

Introducing rules which force play to always behave as a game diminishes one of D&D's most important qualities.

 

[Saishu_Heiki]

Unfortunately, it seems we are both too dedicated to our respective sides to be able to convert.

I respect your position, and I understand the merits of it. I have a different opinion and I hope you can understand my side. I am going to step back now and see what other people come up with because I fear that I am simply repeating my same points without adding anything new to the discussion.

I hope that we can find a system that we both like, and we will see in June if that bears any resemblance to the PHB.

 

[Harshax]

I respect your position, and I understand the merits of it. I have a different opinion and I hope you can understand my side. I am going to step back now and see what other people come up with because I fear that I am simply repeating my same points without adding anything new to the discussion.

If you were at my table, you're opinion wouldn't be swept under the rug just because you happened to be in the minority. Neither would your fellow, should your's and the majority go against his.

 

[Saishu_Heiki]

If you were at my table, you're opinion wouldn't be swept under the rug just because you happened to be in the minority. Neither would your fellow, should your's and the majority go against his.

I completely understand and I try to ensure that I run my table the same way. I am just concerned that I am not truly furthering the conversation at this point. You have given me quite a bit to consider and I plan to think about it for a while.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm totally on board (and even suggested) that cohorts provide buffs, but when I read something like this, I immediately want to change sides. I don't want rules that say - 'Here's your cohort, he sucks, because otherwise you'll get to many cool actions.' There just isn't any motivation to get a cohort. Even moreso, cohort rules such as this will make your sidekick nothing more than a liability.

Players want cohorts for many reasons. Outside of roleplay, those reasons usually revolve around bolstering a weakness. If bolstering that weakness means the cohort is going to be exploited by every 2-bit kobold priest with charm person, or spring every trap, or fall in every pit, or get knocked unconscious every combat, then you've undermined a big reason to get one in the first place.

Huh? I never said your cohort sucked. I just said his attacks were pathetic. In the example I picked, the cohort is bolstering a weakness--presumably, the master's crappy defensive stats. You want a cohort that boosts your total damage output, you should have picked a different cohort.

For an offensive cohort, maybe their special move is Double Strike. The cohort takes a standard action to set this up; if you then make a melee attack before the cohort's next turn, the cohort also attacks, using the result of your attack roll. Thus, if you hit, the cohort also hits for some amount of damage--effectively a damage bonus on your attack.

And cohorts should certainly have solid hit points and decent defenses. Nothing sucks more than having to nursemaid an overly fragile cohort.

In other words, if an animal, mercenary, henchman, or sidekick is introduced to the party, its actions should not be any different than if you encountered said creature in an adventure. If it runs different than it would if ran by the DM, you have a false economy.

In that case, I'd assume it's an RP ally, run by the DM or whichever player the DM gives it to for that session, and not expected to stick around for very long. The system I was outlining was for long-term cohorts that you "buy" with a feat or class ability or some such. True, it wouldn't be able to change "random NPC you know and like" into your cohort, but my experience is most people prefer to make up their own cohorts anyhow.

 

[nittanytbone]

Here's some of the ways that 1E dealt with these issues:

COHORTS (XP AND WEALTH SPONGE): For permanent, "enduring" NPC allies, the term "henchmen" was used. Henchmen were expensive (they cost time and cash to recruit, and recruiting them was never easy -- selection was limited and they weren't guranteed to accept your offer), they required lots of gold as "upkeep" every month, they sucked magic items if you wanted their morale to be good, they sucked XP, and they usually demanded treasure shares (in addition to that salary!). Also, they started out as weak 1st-3rd level characters, with only the most powerful PCs being able to rarely locate fellows of greater ilk than 1st level; thus they required lots of careful development to be brought to a useful state. Finally, they often began with poor morale. Only with some careful roleplay and adventuring could their morale be brought to a decent level. Finally, by the time you could be looking at having multiple henchmen, a PC often had significant interests around the realm (a stronghold, holdings, etc) that would require Responsible Supervision while the PC was off adventuring. Having that henchmen be your castellan would get him off screen.

HIRELINGS (USELESS CRITTERS): These fellows required cash and gear (and sometimes magic) and did not scale as well with level for individual single combat. Furthermore, getting them killed meant finding more was often tough. Thus, they tended to fade offscreen by the time 4th level-ish was reached, with the exception of a few bodyguards who would lurk in the wings, only present to watch the horses, carry loot, or augment watches at night. To be useful in combat at higher levels, you needed a lot of them (an army to guard a stronghold, storm a castle, man a ship, etc), which then turned them into a money sink similar to henchmen (salaries, room & board, armorers/weaponsmiths, etc).

SUMMONS, VERSION A (USELESS CRITTERS): The Monster Summoning spells was delayed by about two levels. So, you'd get some goblins (no, really... goblins) as a level III spell. Plus, they wouldn't show up right away. So, these spells became more about utility than combat. You'd use goblins to spring a trap, be a distraction, or do some other utility thingy more often than not. Plus, the relatively high level spell slot meant using the spell was a significant expenditure of resources.

SUMMONS, VERSION B (USES CASTER'S ACTIONS): The conjure elemental spell required full concentration to maintain. It also had a long casting time. Finally, the elemental would always turn on its caster eventually, making it necessary to pack a Protection from Evil and Dispel Magic. This also made it more of a utility spell, or sometimes, a strategic combat spell (you'd pack Summon Elemental when planning on assaulting a castle gate, not "just in case").

SUMMONS, VERSION C (HAS ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES): The cacodemon spell could bring in powerful outsiders, but they were difficult to control. Demons and devils were not happy about being bound and you'd have to invest lots of other spells (and cash resources) into keeping them bound. Players who messed with demons knew that they were getting in for some perverse DM enjoyment/revenge later, making summoning a short term gain for a long term price. Another example would be Gate, which aged the caster, requiring a system shock roll to avoid instant death.

All of these things seem to make extra characters useless, but they remained quite popular in all of my 1E games. I'd say that summons served more for (A) simple meatshields or (B) utility purposes than anything else. Summon Monster I might not be as powerful as a Fireball, but it was versatile, which made it worthwhile. Same for Summon Elemental -- a cone of cold was better in most fights, but Summon Elemental could sink a ship, destroy a castle, explore the highest level of the tallest tower, or incinerate a library in moments.

One thing I rarely see in my games -- with several different groups -- is handing off cohorts/summoned critters for others to run. Usually, players that have little armies WANT to exult in the wargame and tend to be quite tactical in their actions. They'e also invested significant character resources in these companions. They do not want to see the henchmen that they have "groomed" for 10 sessions get thrown away and killed off by another player who is careless or see one of their more potent spells be wasted.

With those in mind, this is how I'd consider setting up 4E action-economies:

HENCHMEN/PERMANENT COMPANIONS: These fellows should get their own mini and be statted out with the basics - move rate, basic attack, defenses. They should conform more to the monstrous "roles" (artillery, brute, etc) than the PC roles (striker, leader, etc). They should have no more than 1-2 "at will" abilities, basically being limited to their basic attack. They should have only special abilities related to their race and maybe monstrous role. Finally, they should require either (A) expenditure of resources such as cash, time, and XP shares to keep around, with the cost being ongoing, or (B) require "orders" from their liege to act aggressively, in the form of actions spent or action points spent (might be better for "entitlements," such as pets or special mounts).

SUMMONED CRITTERS: Summoned critters should show up basically neutral or hostile to the caster instead of slavishly obedient. Controlling them could then require (A) expenditure of cash to bribe the summoned creature and make it do your bidding ("Here's a gem, summoned dragon -- go BBQ them now!"), (B) maintaining concentration (aka spending your own actions or action points) to make it do your bidding, or (C) the creature just goes amok, under DM control or a random table (the confusion table could work quite well and do double duty here), and there are "adverse consequences."

I think spending Action Points can be a good way to "feed" henchmen/summons. Remember, a character can use their AP to get an extra standard action. So, you could cast a spell (with a standard), move (with your move), sustain a Conjured Big Bad Monster (with an action point), and sustain some other more minor effect (with your minor).

 

[Storminator]

No, it's a carrot with no stick. I could equally argue that you want me to stop playing a druid with crummy weasels because you don't like little furry creatures with cute hands. If there are summoners akin to 2E Druids (which is unlikely), and the suggested gameplay is to share the responsibility of running the summons, you sitting on your hands is the equivalent of leaving the table to microwave a burrito during social encounters. You've chosen not to participate, even though we've decided on an economy in which you have an equal share.

Sorry to come late to the party...

I think the bolded is key here. You haven't given me an equal share. You've given me extra duties I don't want to perform, with no reward at all. Sure, now my turn takes as long to resolve as yours, but it's not nearly as fun to me as playing the character I chose to.

Even if it's deathklok skeletons.

PS

 

[DM_Blake]

IMO, one good fix would be to have the cohort be able to take actions, but make it so that the cohort's best option by far is to provide a passive buff. So, for instance, your cohort can either attack with a pathetic attack bonus for pathetic damage... or stand next to you and use his Bodyguard special ability, which takes a standard action and gives you +X to your defenses until the cohort's next turn.

This works for me, sometimes, with some cohorts. A level 10 ranger with a wolf companion, for example - nobody expects that wolf to go toe to toe with a hill giant, and it really has no chance to trip the giant, so best bet is to give some flanking to the ranger - a static +2 to attack rolls.

But sometimes it makes no sense. If I am going to spend a feat for a cohort, and all he does is give me a static bonus (or has an option to do attack with a pathetic attack bonus for pathetic damage), then I might be better off to just take Weapon Focus or Iron Will or some other feat with a static bonus.

Relegating those types of character options down to a static bonus is only 1 small step away from removing them entirely, since very few people will ever take the static bonus. And masking this relegation by allowing pathetic options doesn't change the inevitable result that the option has been relegated down to a static bonus.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Here's some of the ways that 1E dealt with these issues:

Great summary of the way AD&D handled this issue!

 

[DM_Blake]

In other words, if an animal, mercenary, henchman, or sidekick is introduced to the party, its actions should not be any different than if you encountered said creature in an adventure.

There's an interesting thought.

Party encounters a few wolves in the wilderness. During the fight, those pesky wolves keep tripping the fighter, who spends half the battle on his back.

Later, the party's ranger decides those wolves were cool, and goes out and gets a wolf animal companion.

The fighter tells him "Sweet, I sure am glad that wolf is on our side. I can't wait to see him tripping our enemies!"

The ranger answers, "Oh, he can't actually do that."

"Why not?" asks the fighter. "Those other wolves definitely knew how to trip me."

And the ranger replies, "Well, now that he's my companion, he is no longer able to bite legs or trip anything anymore. All he can do is give me +2 to hit my targets while he distracts them."

"Bah!" says the fighter, "You should have exchanged that class ability for the Iron Will feat. At least you wouldn't have to feed your Iron Will or leave it outside the city gates when we go to town. And you'd never have to worry about a griffon carrying your Iron Will off to feed it to its hatchlings."