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="Dausuul" data-source="post: 4140548" data-attributes="member: 58197">Hmm... first, I'd like to point out that I'm not in favor of people taking a pile of actions on their turn.  I personally might enjoy playing a summoner or a necromancer, but you'll note that in the example of this I gave (the dread necro with a horde of undead), I was only playing that character by mutual agreement with the other players, and even then I handed out most of the undead for other people to control.  A summoner with five summoned creatures, who takes five times as long to resolve his/her turn as anyone else at the table, is a Bad Thing.That said, I think there is such a thing as overcompensating in the name of absolute fairness.  A single cohort, using a specialized "cohort class," with simple maneuvers that don't take a lot of time or thought, and who acts on the master's initiative, need not be a substantial drag on play.  Particularly if the cohort frequently provides a bonus instead of taking an actual action.  (The power issue is another matter.)  Yes, there is a very minor loss to fun for the other players; but weigh that against the many reasons why people want cohorts, most of which are valid, and I think the balance of fun is in favor of some kind of cohort system.After some thought, I do think specialized cohort classes are an absolute necessity, though.  Gameplay aside, the power differential is just too great otherwise.  Extrapolating from the monster XP values we've seen, a PC-classed cohort would require a huge "level adjustment" both for the cohort and for the master.  For instance, in a 10th-level party, if you wanted to have a 5th-level cohort, you'd need to give up three levels yourself in order to keep things balanced.</blockquote>

Verification