Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4126780" data-attributes="member: 2011">From a player's perspective, the extra actions can be more problematic for other players if the player controls the NPC follower. If the DM controls the NPC followers, then each player gets the same number of actions and their shouldn't be an issue.However, some players enjoy controlling their PC's NPC followers when appropriate. So, either the other players should not have an issue with it, or the other players too should try to acquire followers, or if a player really has a problem "sitting on his hands" while another player runs his PC's NPC follower, the DM should control the NPC followers.But, the recommendation of the author to have each player have a set number of actions to be used by both the PC and the PC's followers is totally artificial. I think most people would have a problem doing that in game, just to resolve the two potential issues you mentioned (the first of which is real with regard to balance and the second of which is totally perception based). In our 3E games, we have had a lot of different cohorts, companions, familiars, etc. and not once has a single player mentioned not liking to wait for another player to play his PC's NPC. So, I suspect that this problem is not really an issue for most players, just a comment to support the author's contentions.The author also makes the assumption that there will be X NPC enemies for X PC allies and hence, his solution of y actions per round per player (regardless of number of NPC allies) would work. This assumption is also totally artificial in an FRPG.The author's solutions make the problems worse instead of better. That's bad game design IMO. Fine for a board game, totally awful for an FRPG.</blockquote>

Verification