Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Harshax" data-source="post: 4131794" data-attributes="member: 61534">I'm totally on board (and even suggested) that cohorts provide buffs, but when I read something like this, I immediately want to change sides. I don't want rules that say - 'Here's your cohort, he sucks, because otherwise you'll get to many cool actions.'  There just isn't any motivation to get a cohort. Even moreso, cohort rules such as this will make your sidekick nothing more than a liability.Players want cohorts for many reasons.  Outside of roleplay, those reasons usually revolve around bolstering a weakness.  If bolstering that weakness means the cohort is going to be exploited by every 2-bit kobold priest with charm person, or spring every trap, or fall in every pit, or get knocked unconscious every combat, then you've undermined a big reason to get one in the first place.If the 'Action Economy' is so ding dang important, then the only reasonable solution to action inequality, is to give everyone an opportunity to share the surplus of an NPC being part of the party. I mean, the whole point of the blog was that the game needs to be absolutely Socialist in terms of spreading Actions fairly and evenly to all participants.I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure if you enforce false balance in the economy, you end up with a broken market. Either you end up with all your actions being outsourced to India, or a trade surplus with another economy that has no interest in your actions, or a glass ceiling on supply and demand where apparently powerful actions are purposely diminished so as not to *complete devalue* the existing surplus of weaker/minor actions, or an embargo from other economies who trade actions only with those who do not falsely influence the value of their own actions.In other words, if an animal, mercenary, henchman, or sidekick is introduced to the party, its actions should not be any different than if you encountered said creature in an adventure. If it runs different than it would if ran by the DM, you have a false economy.It's been a good conversation, but I'm pretty certain that regardless of what the designers presume to be the best implementation of the Action Economy, I for one will disregard it for a more favorable and reasonable system of spreading the wealth at my socialist table.ymmv,Harshax</blockquote>

Verification