WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[KarinsDad]

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.

"*your* share!"?

Wow. I've never seen this happen in actual game play. Our players could care less if another player brought in an NPC follower. They happily divvy up treasure amongst whomever is in the party at the time as long as every character contributes (note: we still follow the cohorts get a half share rule). As DM, I've even had other NPCs join the group at times and they've always been given a fair share. There's never been any "PCs vs NPCs" treasure issues in our games.

 

[DM_Blake]

Yes, but what if I don't want to play a stupid summoned badger? I should just sit patiently while everyone else has twice the game that I do?

And as for the DM running the druid's menagerie, why would I want to watch the DM play both sides of a combat by himself? And as a DM myself, I have no desire to take *even more* time away from the players so I can resolve one PC's Pokédeck.

So your solution so this is to let the druid decide between calling lightning on the bad guy, or having his badger go bite the bad guy for 3 points of damage (but it will probably miss anyway)?

The druid will never say "OK, my badger attacks for a possible 3 HP because I don't want to actually use an effective at-will power this round".

Which means the druid will never summon a badger.

Which means summoning spells should just be removed from the game because nobody will ever want to use them in place of their much more effective at-will powers.

Which means we've just taken another interesting tool out of our fantasy tool box, just because we don't want one player to do two things in a round?

I don't see how a game like D&D can benefit by stripping it down to its Least Common Denominator. I would much, much rather keep as many options as possible - it makes the game more interesting.

 

[Warbringer]

*raises hand*

Twice with druids and once with a ranger. The druids were far worse (thanks, 3.5!)

I wouldn't have bitched about about it for as long as I have if it hadn't been so amazingly annoying.

Try a vampire cleric of the undeath/necromancy god ... never again I tell you.

 

[Stalker0]

"*your* share!"?

Wow. I've never seen this happen in actual game play. Our players could care less if another player brought in an NPC follower. They happily divvy up treasure amongst whomever is in the party at the time as long as every character contributes (note: we still follow the cohorts get a half share rule). As DM, I've even had other NPCs join the group at times and they've always been given a fair share. There's never been any "PCs vs NPCs" treasure issues in our games.

Comments like these do not further the discussion in the slightest. We all appreciate the fact that your game doesn't suffer some of the problems that other people experience, but the fact that those problems are voiced means that the problem does exist. Since the game rules cater to everyone, its hopeful that they fix the problem for everyone.

For example, I have no problems finding 5-6 players for my games. So to me, a system that is designed to accommodate only 3 players is a waste of time. Yet there are many people here that can only find 3 players if that, and so its good that the system can handle both groups.

 

[Wolfwood2]

So your solution so this is to let the druid decide between calling lightning on the bad guy, or having his badger go bite the bad guy for 3 points of damage (but it will probably miss anyway)?

The druid will never say "OK, my badger attacks for a possible 3 HP because I don't want to actually use an effective at-will power this round".

Which means the druid will never summon a badger.

The only reason that 'badger' is a summoning option is because the spell list needed a weak enough creature that a first level druid could summon it and continue to cast other spells while it attacks.

If directing the creature means the druid can't do other things, then it's not a badger. It's a big wolf with slavering fangs that is as effective as what the druid could do if he weren't controlling it (more or less and within the limits of the game's ability to balance such things).

 

[DM_Blake]

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.

Fantasy themes are filled with examples of summoned creatures. True, usually it's bad guys summoning demons or hordes of undead to attack the heroes.

But it raises the question from the PCs "If the bad guy can summon demons, why can't we?"

It's all or nothing. If the bad guys can do it, then the PCs will find a way to do it.

And removing this archetypal theme that is so common and so fun in the fantasy genre is truly sad. We might as well remove dragons, or treasure hordes, or burly sword-swinging heroes. Where do we draw the line? How much fantasy must we strip away?

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.

This is fair. Nobody expects a ferret or hawk to be a dragon-slayer. Nobody expects them to bring down the BBEG.

But this kind of thing won't work for summoning monsters, or hiring henchmen/hirelings in town.

 

[Wormwood]

Try a vampire cleric of the undeath/necromancy god ... never again I tell you.

Ugh. No thanks.

 

[Warbringer]

I'm thinking off something really simple for my new game...

Creature adds +1/2 level to what ever you are trying... It gains a further +2 if the action is a core role for it: warrior, spellcaster, rogue. The caster then marks a character that the summoned creature aids.

So Jaxis the warlock summons an 8th level demon (warrior) to aid him fighting.. on his turn the demon adds +6 (+4,+2) to combat rolls (hit, damage and in my campaign AC)...

Later he summons the a shade (rogue) to aid the rogue... the shadowy apparition can aid the rogue in his roguish activities (skill checks, flanking)...

And so on. Yeah, it feels like buffs, but I think it speeds up play

 

[malraux]

So your solution so this is to let the druid decide between calling lightning on the bad guy, or having his badger go bite the bad guy for 3 points of damage (but it will probably miss anyway)?

The druid will never say "OK, my badger attacks for a possible 3 HP because I don't want to actually use an effective at-will power this round".

Which means the druid will never summon a badger.

Which means summoning spells should just be removed from the game because nobody will ever want to use them in place of their much more effective at-will powers.

Which means we've just taken another interesting tool out of our fantasy tool box, just because we don't want one player to do two things in a round?

I don't see how a game like D&D can benefit by stripping it down to its Least Common Denominator. I would much, much rather keep as many options as possible - it makes the game more interesting.

Yes, if summoning sucks, it won't be used. The trick is to have summoning that doesn't suck. Instead of summoning a stupid badger, the druid summons an aspect of Zamnait, the badger god. Then his attack actions are subsumed by controlling this power of nature. To control for the issue raised earlier, summoning only requires as much concentration/distractibility as other normal standard actions. Simple and thematic. And pretty cool.

 

[Wormwood]

So your solution so this is to let the druid decide between calling lightning on the bad guy, or having his badger go bite the bad guy for 3 points of damage (but it will probably miss anyway)?

The druid will never say "OK, my badger attacks for a possible 3 HP because I don't want to actually use an effective at-will power this round".

Which means the druid will never summon a badger.

See, I wouldn't call slowing down the game for a slight chance to do negligible damage a particularly interesting choice.