WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[malraux]

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.

Point of order: I cannot think of a single example from fantasy wherein the summoned creature is a lowly badger. Sure there's summoning either powerful demons or hoards of undead, but that's exactly the point. Summoning of creature in literature is almost always of a creature more powerful than the caster, and requires much work the keep the monster under control. For the hoard of nastiness, I'd hope that the rules turn it into a single swarm/hoard abstraction if that is how 4e wants to go.

 

[Wormwood]

Since the game rules cater to everyone, its hopeful that they fix the problem for everyone.

Thank you. Kinda tired of being told that my problems with 3e didn't really happen.

The fact that 4e is adressing so many of the problems that I've personally faced at the gaming table indicates that my gripes about 3.5 were not idiosyncratic.

 

[DM_Blake]

Wasn't there a Final Fantasy game where the summons actually took your place in battle? That seems more fitting. The wizard spends his actions controlling a summons with an appropriate buff to summons for monopolizing the wizard's actions.

That's a great idea.

I'm all for it.

But - the big caveat is that the summoned creature needs to adequately replace the summoner.

If the summoner can do 25 HP of damage every round, consistently, using at-will powers, then the summoned creature needs to be able to do 25 HP of damage every round, consistently.

If that is not the case, then the summoner has replaced his useful actions with his creature's weak actions.

Nobody will do that.

But given that summoning provides an adequate substitution for the summoner, then this is a great way to handle it.

 

[Stalker0]

Actually I just thought of an idea for animal companion.

Normally your animal companion only takes basic actions, like defends you if something attacks you. Else it doesn't leave your side. Then you can use powers to give it commands to do more things, like actually run out and attack something.

Example:

Wolf Companion
Initiative: Special. The wolf moves along with its master, and only takes other actions unless given commands.
HP: 30
Healing Surge Heals: 7
AC: 15
Fort: 16
Ref: 16
Will: 11
Guardian Bite: (immediate reaction, when its master is attacked in melee). Bite +5 (1d6+4) plus followup.
Followup: Trip Attack +5 vs Fort or target is knocked prone.
Companion: Wolf grants its master an effective use of the track feat.
Guardian Nature: The wolf will always remain adjacent to its master unless commanded to do otherwise. Once a command is performed, the wolf will return to a square adjacent to its master unless given another command.


Feral Attack
Druid Attack 1 (at-will, standard)
You command your animal companion to target a foe within 5 squares of you. The animal immediately moves to the creature and attacks.

Feral Healing
Druid Utility 1 (at will, standard)
Special: No more than twice per encounter.
Range: 5 squares
Through your natural connection with your companion, you can give up a small amount of your spiritual energy to help your friend.

Benefit: You give up one of your own healing surges. Your companion heals as if he just used a healing surge.

 

[KarinsDad]

However, the more common scenario is that almost everyone has followers/pets/summons and while no one person is taking 75% of the round by himself, the time between a given player's chance to act grows to ludicrous lengths.

Have each player roll initiative for each NPC follower, that way, all of the actions are not bunched up on a single player's initiative. On average, they are spread out across inits. Not much different than the DM having a bunch of different NPCs with different inits (for DMs who do that).

This does not follow the init rules for summoned creatures, but if the problem is bad enough, it could be done (and an incentive to not summon in too many creatures).

 

[Thyrwyn]

In my opinion, there are two classes of allies being discussed, and they should be treated differently because of their potential impact on the DM's ability to prepare appropriate encounters.

The cohort, hireling, or permanent ally: Should be allowed to participate fully in any fight and share in the xp/treasure after the fight. Player action opportunity can be maintained by placing a limit of one such ally per player. This type of ally can be planned for and encounters can be balanced accordingly: there is an extra 1st lvl cohort along? add another 100xp worth of monsters to the opposing side. Not ideal, but this is a failry common staple of the genre. Certain archetypes (eg "the BeastMaster") with multitudes of diverse, minor allies (ferrets, hawks, parrots, etc. . . ) can be represented through a selection of per day abilities.

The summoned/called ally: These types of allies are especially problematic because their mere potential places too much emphasis on the summoning character: when summoned, they throw off the economy of actions both in terms of party vs encounter and in terms of summoner vs other players. This kind of ally can not be adequately prepared for. What happens when the DM makes an encounter tougher, expecting the wizard to prepare his 'typical battery of summonings', and then the wizard prepares some other powers instead? I would solve this by making the power a "per day" power and having them impose an action penalty on the summoner.

They do not have to be more powerful. They only have to be as powerful. This solves both the encounter prep and balance issues. The DM preps some the same number of xp worth of bad guys - if the Wizard prepares something else, no biggie; if the Wizard summons something, again, no biggie. The summoned creatures should be different, more specialized than the summoner. Maybe the Wizard summons a Troll to get close and smash the enemy, or a Fire Elemental to fight some enemies with Vulnerability Fire. Basically, the summoner would give up their actions in order to play a different role for a fight, or the same role in a different way. The summoner's player still gets to play and be effective without overshadowing any of the other players or monopolizing the action pool. The balance of the encounter is not thrown off, though it may be changed - but players find ways to do that to DMs all the time

I would apply this same philosophy to the polymorph/shapechange type of effect, for the same reasons.

 

[Stalker0]

If the summoner can do 25 HP of damage every round, consistently, using at-will powers, then the summoned creature needs to be able to do 25 HP of damage every round, consistently.

If that is not the case, then the summoner has replaced his useful actions with his creature's weak actions.

Not necessarily. Keep in mind summons aren't just about offense, they are about defense. If my summoned creature can absorb hits, that's an advantage.

Furthermore, lets say I summon a creature, and in true FF style my character goes off scene. In dnd terms, I might become the summoned creature for one round. That means any damage my summon takes doesn't hurt me. Any effects the summon takes goes away when I turn back. That's a huge advantage right there, and such a summon does not need to do as much damage as a regular power to be useful.

 

[DM_Blake]

You are correct. This is more what I want.

The other 4 people at the table should not be penalized because they don't want to micromanage a platoon of troops or summons. If the wizard wants a cool summon, that comes out of his action budget.

Fluff-wise, you can make it work. Summon: you are binding another creature's free will. That takes a tremendous effort, depriving you of your standard action. Hireling: you need to ensure that the new guy is working with the tactics of the group. Combat is a frenzy of action happening very quickly. If you don't tell him what to do, he will not be able to react. If you do tell him what to do, you can't manage to do as much as everyone else because your attention is split between yourself and your hireling.

Yes, but we're talking a role-playing game here. This isn't checkers.

The other 4 people are not penalized. They should be glad that their chances of survival just increased. The fighter looks at the pit fiend standing next to him, bashing away at the army of evil dragons, and should be thinking "Wow, glad he's on my side" not "Wow, I sure am penalized."

I feel sorry for players at a role-playing game who see that kind of thing as a penalty.

At my gaming table, the group contributes suggestions about how the summoned or NPC allies spend their turns. Sure, the wizard or druid with the army of summoned followers has a longer turn. But during his turn, the other players are saying "hey, move your bears over here so I can have flanking" or "hey, put that elemental in front of the cleric - he got nailed last round and needs some interference to protect him."

The players are contributing to the action, they are involved in what's going on. They are invested in the combat and its outcome.

They are not just "sitting on their thumbs" as some people in this thread have said.

If they are, then I feel sorry for them, too, and try to offer suggestions, or even directly put them in control of some NPCs, to draw them into the action. "Hey, Fred, it seems that Joe is pretty busy running all these monsters he summoned. I need you to help him out by running the dire bear and the giant owl. When it's your turn, you just tell me what these critters are gong to do and you roll their attacks."

That even serves to split up the animal horde's actions onto different initiatives, so there aren't 12 critters all goin on the druid's initiative. It gets spread around.

As for the fluff, I have already said I like the idea of the summoner losing actions to control his big powerful summoned creature - but this fails miserably if he is giving up actions to summon his little weak summoned creature.

And fluff or no fluff, I am not hiring a henchman from the Henchmen-R-Us guild in town if he is half my combat strength or if he is going to make bad decisions that require me to give up my turns to micromanage him. That henchman is not worth the time or trouble unless he can get up on his own back legs and contribute on his own.

 

[DM_Blake]

"*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.

Agreed.

I tell players right up front when they first bring it up in the discussion: "You're all people. Just because that one guy is played by the DM and the rest are played by you players, doesn't mean that any of your characters see yourselves or your companions as more or less real, more or less worthy, or more or less useful. There is no distinction between PC and NPC in the game, and your characters cannot act like there is."

Now, if a group of level 10 characters is hiring a level 6 ranger, they can easily tell that guy he only gets a half-share, or less, because he is much weaker and cannot contribute as much. This often applies to "cohorts" since the Leadership feat already accounts for cohorts being weaker than the PC with the feat.

 

[DM_Blake]

"*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.

Why doesn't this further the discussion?

To me, those comments serve to show that some players are all right with the current 3.5 implementation of cohorts (etc.).

It seems perfectly germaine to this discussion to bring up this fact.

Maybe it's just different strokes for different folks - maybe those players are OK with it because their own attitudes about D&D are different than the attitudes of players who are not OK with it.

Or, maybe it's a different DM style that makes them OK with it - maybe this DM gets the other players involved more in the cohorts, or offers suggestions to the player monopolizing too much time about how he can speed up his actions. Or whatever.

But, for one reason or another, this group of players doesn't have a problem with cohorts, and it might be important to the discussion to find out why.

Squelching other contributors to the discussion by telling them their comments don't further the discussion just because their experience differs from your own is much less likely to further the discussion. In other words, your comments like these do not further the discussion in the slightest.