WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[Andur]

Pet classes are almost always more powerful than non-pet classes.

Ranger + companion can make over 10 attacks per round in 3e.

Hunter in WoW is still needs to be nerfed.

I like the idea of pets (whatever their form) getting one action per round, no daily powers. Summoned are easiest in my head, they get to stick around until they are either killed/dismissed or they take an encounter action. Followers and other persistent pets would have to not get encounter powers either.

 

[TerraDave]

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).

 

[KarinsDad]

The problem is not a "realism" issue, it is a fun issue. If one of my players is taking 75% of hte actions is a given round and making everyone else wait and deprive them of their fun, I am more than willing to ignore any "realism" issues that arise when the problem is fixed.

Be honest. Has this really happened in your games? Has one player monopolized the time to such a great extent?

 

[Plane Sailing]

EDIT: Continuing the HeroQuest train of thought... When you take a follower, you could define three things that the follower "does" like "Helps with Rituals", "Reads Obscure Languages", "Keen Insight" and then assign 5 points among them with none of them being lower than one. (i.e. "Helps with Rituals +3", "Reads Obscure Languages +1", "Keen Insight +1"

These points would represent the bonus (like a miscellaneous magic item) the PC would receive whenever the follower's ability comes into play. The same concept could be used to represent groups of followers, a familiar or a single follower.

I really like this concept. I've not played Heroquest, but I quite like a lot of the (non-magic) ideas in the game.

 

[Dragonblade]

For a single henchman/follower, I'll generally let the PC play them. Any more than one and I play them as DM. To make things easier on myself, I usually just have them stay out of the fight.

However, I don't normally have to deal with followers since I tell my players up front that if the NPC significantly contributes to a fight, then they are included in the XP calculation and they will demand treasure rights.

Usually, at least half the players will balk and be like, "No way does the NPC get any of our stuff, he can sit out the battle, or gets treasure and XP from *your* share!" and they all glare accusingly at the player who wants to bring in the NPCs. Peer pressure is usually enough.

If the PCs order the NPCs to do something in the fight, like tend to a fallen comrade, I'll have them do that, but it potentially makes them a target for monsters depending on the situation. I won't deliberately target them, but if it would be logical for a monster to attack one, it will do so. They have lost followers that way.

 

[malraux]

I hope summon monster type spells are either completely gone, or require the caster to give up his actions to allow the summonee to fight.

Similarly with animal companions, I hope those aren't another PC who just can't speak. As an idea though, a ranger might be able to use his animal companion for bonuses like combat advantage only, or the animal companion might have actions that trigger on a successful hit by the ranger. For example, the ranger directs his hawk to fly in the face of the orc, temporarily distracting him and giving the ranger combat advantage (but not requiring an attack by the hawk). Then, if the ranger hits with his attack, the hawk could have a once per day power to blind the foe. Wolf companions might have a once per encounter trip power, etc. That seems to balance the number of actions (the ranger still has the normal attack, move, quick) but gets have something thematic.

 

[Dragonblade]

You could do what HeroQuest does with followers. And that is, give the PC a +2 to attack if his follower is helping out -- the equivalent of the follower always being an "Aid Another".

Having the follower do anything on his own, would require the PC to spend an action.

Moreover, you could use followers to "replace" the magic items. Such that followers give you advancing bonuses as you increase in level.

The trade-off would be that a follower is a minion and could be killed -- much like a magic sword could be lost or stolen.

I'm sure that the minion rules for monsters will give us more ideas on this too. At worst, the DM could just control the follower and require a PC to spend an action to "force" the follower to do something that the PC wanted him to do (especially if that action put the follower in harm's way).

EDIT: Continuing the HeroQuest train of thought... When you take a follower, you could define three things that the follower "does" like "Helps with Rituals", "Reads Obscure Languages", "Keen Insight" and then assign 5 points among them with none of them being lower than one. (i.e. "Helps with Rituals +3", "Reads Obscure Languages +1", "Keen Insight +1"

These points would represent the bonus (like a miscellaneous magic item) the PC would receive whenever the follower's ability comes into play. The same concept could be used to represent groups of followers, a familiar or a single follower.

I like this a lot.

 

[Dragonblade]

The problem is not a "realism" issue, it is a fun issue. If one of my players is taking 75% of hte actions is a given round and making everyone else wait and deprive them of their fun, I am more than willing to ignore any "realism" issues that arise when the problem is fixed.

As a player, I have more fun playing *my character*, not watching the druid perform an intricate interpretive dance with her summons and companions and cohorts. As a GM, I can watch people losing interest as the time between their actions grows longer.

Taking away options is not a good solution in my mind, so summons and animal companions have a place in the game. However, making sure that the player has to decide on their character's "action budget" keeps the game moving for everyone... a good solution for me.

I agree with this too.

 

[WyzardWhately]

To me, it would make the most sense for singular companions/familiars/whatever to just count as an extra member of the party. If they're going to be there, you add so much to your XP budget for the encounter. There. Now there's more bad guys, so the action economy stays relatively balanced.

 

[Enkhidu]

Exactly.

The problem is not a "realism" issue, it is a fun issue. If one of my players is taking 75% of hte actions is a given round and making everyone else wait and deprive them of their fun, I am more than willing to ignore any "realism" issues that arise when the problem is fixed.

As a player, I have more fun playing *my character*, not watching the druid perform an intricate interpretive dance with her summons and companions and cohorts. As a GM, I can watch people losing interest as the time between their actions grows longer.

Taking away options is not a good solution in my mind, so summons and animal companions have a place in the game. However, making sure that the player has to decide on their character's "action budget" keeps the game moving for everyone... a good solution for me.

You do realize that the easiest fix for this is to let other players control summoned monsters/companions/cohorts, right? The summoner tells the creature what to do (attack that wizard!, grab that McGuffin!, Heal me!) and the controlling player takes care of the specifics. Throw in taking turns on this with every combat, and no one gets left out.