Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chris_Nightwing" data-source="post: 6097357" data-attributes="member: 882">I think there is a place for companions, hirelings, henchmen, animal companions, summons, constructions, familiars and any others I've forgotten. The key thing is making their power and abilities limited in scope such that they can't dominate a scenario, or replace an existing character. An obvious and quick rule is to limit how many such NPCs you can have under your command - linking it with your Charisma or spellcasting ability, or tying it into any magic item limitation method you are using, so that they take up a slot and thus weaken your own character in exchange.There is also the way in which these NPCs interact with the world. Animal companions were completely obedient and always available - now whilst that makes sense for a small creature that contributes little in combat such as a familiar, even a tiger ought to think twice when confronted with a devil. One's use of animal companions should not be continual, but when needs be - I will say that the animal companion version of the 4E Ranger had a neat trick here, in that you could use its attack *or* your own, and with some powers let you combine your attacks. You ought to be giving something up to have your tiger follow you around all day and attack every round as you command - it's just not clear what that ought to be yet, certainly the action economy is a good start - I think it solves summons entirely, the spellcaster simply gives up their own actions to enable the different, hopefully more effective, actions of their summon.Then we have the problem of fully autonomous beings, such as cohorts from 3E - they can clearly attack and make decisions without you needing to direct them, so how can be balance them? Well, in the old days they took a share of your experience points, and that's worth considering as their progression then feels more organic, but is it really a penalty, and can they still detract from other characters? That's unclear - I would like to see a loyalty subsystem to deal with this: a cohort is not a slave, and offering them rewards and making sure they aren't cannon fodder should play a role in their existence. This sort of system would also allow for games with a low number of players - who hasn't, at some point, wanted to play a CRPG-style game with just one player and NPCs fairly managed? In some ways cohorts and unusual NPCs such as golems are more rewards than character options, and as such come under the DM's purview anyway, as I understand rewards in DDN at the moment, but still, I would like to see something concrete and meaningful as a cost to obtain them. To construct a golem, for instance, you might have to permanently give up a high-level spell slot, and if you only get one 9th/8th/7th/6th slot, that might be a considerable price to pay. To have an unwaveringly loyal cohort, hm, maybe sacrificing your future ability increases - after all, you are focused on training them more than yourself from now on.</blockquote>

Verification