WoTC Rodney: Economy of actions

[Nytmare]

I don't know, from the 4th I've played so far, I'd say that an extra handful of actions on the player's turns wouldn't really slow things down too much. If summoning was relegated to something that lived with the rituals instead of an in-combat ability, it could have a component cost to limit it, and then all you'd have to do is adjust whatever the party level is called nowadays to compensate. Summoning a celestial badger or two could be handled the same way that buying a pair of hunting dogs or hiring Bobby-Joe Barbarian to show you how to get to the forgotten ruins would be handled.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I'm willing to see Cohorts fall by the wayside. I've long said that higher-level D&D comes down to a few simple concepts.

First To Act Wins
Save or Lose
and
Action Advantage

It isn't any mystery why my cleric racks his 1st level slots with a spell that adds to Initative checks, puts the rest of his spells in immunities, and took a cohort that folds into a Tiny pocket-sized arcane missile-launcher. Additionally I keep a lot of Immediate Action Spells on hand (wonderful things) and the entire party bought every Belt of Battle (or whatever the Magic Item Compendium item is that grants extra actions per day was) and I purchased a headband that Quickens three levels of spells per day (another Magic Item Compendium gem, IIRC).

At 20th level there are no characters in the party that get 1x Immediate Action, 1x Swift Action, 1x Move Action, and 1x Standard Action. Everyone has a cohort, a Belt of Battle, a bunch of summoned creatures, feats that grant extra attacks, etc etc.

In D&D3.5 my major concerns were: Act Early, Become Immune To Status Effects, and Get More Actions.

Though, to be honest, it looks like in 4.0 it will be: Modify Saves (Increases and/or Save Out Of Turn), More Hit Points (everything goes to HP now), and Reduction/Immunity To Movement Effects (since most of the powers we've seen cause some sort of involuntary movement or limit movement).

--fje

 

[Wormwood]

So Final Fantasy style summons. The summoning is really just a special effect for an attack that does huge amounts of damage.

That'd be my ideal, yeah.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For D&D, I'm not a fan of the "one big special effect summon," and even the FF games have been kind of inching away from that (the more recent games either have permenant cohorts or things that appear for a few rounds before vanishing) because it's really not a whole lot different than most other magical combat effects.

It lacks it's own character, IMO.

Now this is the model that D&D has always used...more actions means less reward.

It's kind of just semantics, but I prefer to think of it as "more actions means the challenge will be greater." Same reward -- lots more beasties.

Though pure XP cost still doesn't really address the problem of people sitting on their thumbs while the druid finishes his three turns...

 

[ShadowX]

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. However, animal companions and followers shouldn't follow the same rule. At most a minor or move action to give them a new target or specific order.

I know as a player and a DM that I avoid or discourage, respectively, the accumulation of followers or an emphasis on summons. Yes, I know it excises a very fine character concept, but it's just not worth the effort of running or keeping track of the stats.

 

[Keenath]

I agree that the extra actions given is problematic. IMO, the best way to handle this is to regard companion-type characters (animal companions, followers, henchman, summoned creatures, etc.) as being essentially powers or feats that give bonuses in certain situations...
Essentially what the companion becomes is an in game justification for the PC to buy a suite of abilities and bonuses rather than a distinct entity in its own right.

I agree totally with this. The Raven Knight PRC presented in "Expedition to Castle Ravenloft" does this with its raven companion -- the companion can take one of several actions each turn that inflict specified debuffs on the enemy you selected, but it doesn't act like a character. It doesn't provoke AOOs, and while it can take damage, you can call up a new one in the morning if it gets destroyed.

Other than those elements, it acts essentially like a raven familiar -- but you don't get an XP punishment for losing one, and it's actually useful in combat.

 

[senna]

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

OK, corner case i now, a DM friend of mine ask me to help him once to do a massive battle set up and make stats for some npcs and monsters, my friend is a good storyteller but a lousy min/maxer an was dm´ing for a group of powerplayers.

The setup was a bunch of midlevel monsters, the group was almost epic, a barbarian, forsaker, frenzied berzeker with an ability to creat an antimagic field and a freaking RED GREAT WIRM. He had planed a diplomatic solution at first, but maked all the stats because he knew his players, and they would try to hack the dragon.

In game after some messages they arranged a metting in a neutral ground. One of the characters where a wizard with a thing for summoning and calling, with some days in advance he prepared a couple of spells and hoardied some scrolls for the battle. Once everybody arived at the destination, the said wizard casted time stop, afecting his imp familiar too and summoned a barrage of monster to deal with the mid level threats and two gates, with his familiar using use magical device to do the same. His turn lasted almoust an hour, with him managing that massive numbers of monsters. The fight lasted two rounds, including surprise, it was one of the most dissapointing fights i´ve ever seen, only because everybody just didin´t act.

 

[DM_Blake]

I'm inclined to agree with you on all accounts. Perhaps it should be possible to bolster a follower/familiar to heroic levels by investing PC actions in the NPC?

So, just to be clear.

Your point is that if my wizard goes to town and hires Boris, the town tough guy, to come along on our adventures, then when I get into combat, Boris just stands there when I cast a spell, and I just stand there when Boris bashes an orc with his big hammer?

"Hey, Boris, it's our turn. I want to cast a spell, so you just stand there and look dumb. No, no, I promise, next time it's our turn I will let you bash something. Really. So just hold still this turn, OK? Yeah, I know that big orc is going to gut you if you don't bash him. So what? I need to cast this spell, so you gotta just stand there and get gutted."

Really, if that's how it will work, then why bring Boris along in the first place. Which leads to more interesting RP:

"No, Boris, you can't come with me. I know you're good with your big old hammer, but with you running around bashing all the orcs, I would never be able to cast any spells. I know, I know, you think you can keep the orcs away from me, but strange forces of the universe will bind my arms and keep me from casting my spells. I'd love to hire you, Boris, but I just can't turn myself into a spectator like that, so you have to stay in town."

 

[drothgery]

So Final Fantasy style summons. The summoning is really just a special effect for an attack that does huge amounts of damage.

Well, that was FF IV, VI, VII, VIII, and IX - style summons (where a summon was usually just a themed attack spell). With FFX and XII-style summons, you summoned a big guy that essentially replaced you in combat.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I agree that the Druid Menagerie needs to go, but I think that the best way to make followers fair is to handle it at a metagame level, rather than having the fighter suddenly get fewer actions because he has a henchman.

In my game, I ban Druids and the Leadership feat. That said, I currently have a Dread Necromancer in the party, which is almost as bad.

I would handle it in 4E by making use of the paradigm that the PCs are special. Followers never get action points, and the PC must use his own action points -- basically a metagame resource -- to acquire and keep personal followers. These followers should be less powerful than the followers available in 3.5; I would suggest half the level of the PC as a cap.

For NPCs, I would try to make it the case that the NPC attaches itself to a group, not an individual PC, and let the players take turns running it.

Ken