I know in some games this might not be an issue but in many it is, the idea that one player basically takes the equivalent amount of time of several players because he has to control multiple creatures on the table at once. That one player effectively gets multiple turns compared to other players and in some games, some players (many? most?) might find that they use an inordinate amount of time, causing an overall reduction in the interest and feeling of usefulness for other players.
I fear that the Summoner may really exacerbate this issue.
I know how 4E addressed the "economy of actions" issue and I strongly disliked that implementation.
I'm wondering first if Jason (or anyone) agrees that this might be a problem with the Summoner and second if/how it might be addressed if so?
|
I know in some games this might not be an issue but in many it is, the idea that one player basically takes the equivalent amount of time of several players because he has to control multiple creatures on the table at once. That one player effectively gets multiple turns compared to other players and in some games, some players (many? most?) might find that they use an inordinate amount of time, causing an overall reduction in the interest and feeling of usefulness for other players.
I fear that the Summoner may really exacerbate this issue.
I know how 4E addressed the "economy of actions" issue and I strongly disliked that implementation.
I'm wondering first if Jason (or anyone) agrees that this might be a problem with the Summoner and second if/how it might be addressed if so?
I like the "sleeping death" method. If the summoner annoys the other players enough and doesn't feel like planning everything out ahead of time so that he can go quickly during his turn, the party rogue slits his through while he is sleeping.
Nice :)
This was mentioned elsewhere, if a player is going to play a summoner make them know their summons. If they know what they are doing it won't be a problem. If they are trying to look through everything when its their turn then you shouldn't let them play the class. It is advanced after all :p
The same "problem" applies to any character of any class (not just "advanced" classes) that effectively gets multiple "turns" by controlling multiple "things" such as animal companions, familiars, cohorts, summoned monsters etc. Any time one player controls multiple things he effectively gets multiple turns. Sure you can say "only let the smart and organized people play character class X" but that's really not reasonable. The mechanics should manage this, not having restrictions on what people can play based on their ability to be organized etc. I'm by no means arguing in favor of the completely whacked out 4E method of dealing with this issue, just sort of wondering if Jason and company might see it as a possible concern and if so how it might be addressed in a distinctly Paizonian sort of way.
I think a Druid would be more complicated to play.
Spontaneous Summoning conversion, AND Wildshape allows ANY animal forms (within limits), AND Full Casting.
I think the 'player must be competent' rule is utterly reasonable.
It's not really specific to controlling multiple summons: If the player can't handle whatever ability's their PC has, they shouldn't be screwing up the game because of it. Same as if the player actually can't speak or understand the same language as everybody else, or can't understand basic math or count to 10. Or if they're just a jerk who likes insulting everybody else.