Pixies by RAW: non-issue

[MaxWilson]

I recently reviewed the Conjure Woodland Creatures spell, and noticed that it only specifies that you get to choose the number/CR of the creatures that show up. Other than that, it just says, "Your DM has statistics for the creatures." As I read it, you don't actually get to pick which CR 1/4 creature shows up at all. Unless your DM is a total moron, or you cast this spell in the middle of the faerie solstice, you will never get 8 pixies from casting this spell.

This is a good thing because it means the spell isn't broken.

[SliceandDiceKid]

I recently reviewed the Conjure Woodland Creatures spell, and noticed that it only specifies that you get to choose the number/CR of the creatures that show up. Other than that, it just says, "Your DM has statistics for the creatures." As I read it, you don't actually get to pick which CR 1/4 creature shows up at all. Unless your DM is a total moron, or you cast this spell in the middle of the faerie solstice, you will never get 8 pixies from casting this spell.

This is a good thing because it means the spell isn't broken.

Good catch. Thanks for posting. Our DM has already tried to nerf and ban several core abilities, based on assumptions from forums.

[Z3ro]

Live by the RAW, die by the RAW.

[Urpriest]

How many other CR 1/4 creatures are available? If the DM decides randomly (after all, nothing in the rules is telling the DM that Pixies are an inappropriate choice, and 5e actually has reason to have new players), what is the chance that one of the creatures summoned is a Pixie?

[Ohnoeszz]

Good catch. Thanks for posting. Our DM has already tried to nerf and ban several core abilities, based on assumptions from forums.

Such as.....

[Longcat]

I recently reviewed the Conjure Woodland Creatures spell, and noticed that it only specifies that you get to choose the number/CR of the creatures that show up. Other than that, it just says, "Your DM has statistics for the creatures." As I read it, you don't actually get to pick which CR 1/4 creature shows up at all. Unless your DM is a total moron, or you cast this spell in the middle of the faerie solstice, you will never get 8 pixies from casting this spell.

This is a good thing because it means the spell isn't broken.

Is having 8 pixies really do broken that it warrants resorting to a passive aggressive move that may result in bad blood at the table? Dispel Magic is situational at best, and Polymorph is not the powerhouse it used to be. Besides, pixies are really squishy.

I really am glad that at my table, the DM spot rotates, which keeps shenanigans on both sides in check.

[Shining Wrath]

I think a DM ought to have a random table to generate these creatures, and that table ought to be given to anyone who learns the spell so they know what their odds are.

[silveralen]

Is having 8 pixies really do broken that it warrants resorting to a passive aggressive move that may result in bad blood at the table? Dispel Magic is situational at best, and Polymorph is not the powerhouse it used to be. Besides, pixies are really squishy.

I really am glad that at my table, the DM spot rotates, which keeps shenanigans on both sides in check.

It's pretty absurd, without a doubt. 8 polymorphs can disable a BBEG even if he has legendary saves, and buff party members assuming they are low enough level a giant ape/t-rex is a buff, and that's only one of their spells.

Look at it as this: should casting 1 level 4 spell give you access to 16 level 4 spells (8 confusion, 8 polymorph), 16 lvl 3 spells (fly and dispel magic), 16 lvl 2 spells (detect thoughts, phantasmal force), and 24 lvl 1 spells (detect good/evil, sleep, entangle), and let you cast 8 of those per turn?

Even if you take into account a pixies lower save DC compared to most casters, that's far more powerful than most would feel is warranted.

[Shadow]

The main reason that Pixies by RAW are a non-issue is because of the following line:
Opposed to Violence: Unlinke their fey cousins, the sprites, pixies abhor weapons and would sooner flee than get into a physical altercation with an enemy.

Pixies are an horrible choice to conjure. Why would you summon them? You'd summon them because you want them to fight. They hate fighting.
They'd fight if they had to. But as they're invisible and your enemies are focused on you, they have no reason to join in the fight.
Pick something else, because you probably just wasted a spell slot if you summoned pixies.

[Pex]

Peskipiksi Pesternomi

[Giant2005]

It's pretty absurd, without a doubt. 8 polymorphs can disable a BBEG even if he has legendary saves, and buff party members assuming they are low enough level a giant ape/t-rex is a buff, and that's only one of their spells.

Look at it as this: should casting 1 level 4 spell give you the chance to access to 16 level 4 spells (8 confusion, 8 polymorph), 16 lvl 3 spells (fly and dispel magic), 16 lvl 2 spells (detect thoughts, phantasmal force), and 24 lvl 1 spells (detect good/evil, sleep, entangle), and let you cast 8 of those per turn?

Even if you take into account a pixies lower save DC compared to most casters, that's far more powerful than most would feel is warranted.

I fixed that for you.
Basically summoning Pixies doesn't guarantee all of those spells - there are two ways it can play:
1. Those Pixies show up and you can use them for all of those spells you mentioned (With terrible DCs) OR
2. You summon them and someone immediately polymorphs your Pixie army into a Pixie corpse army with a single level spell (Countering a level 4 spell with a level 1 spell is just as unbalanced as everything you mentioned above).

[Thrudd]

Yes, it's nice that it looks like the summon spells are back to 1e AD&D style, where the DM rolls for a random creature. I'm sure the DMG will have the tables for each spell, just as in AD&D. The player should not know the chances of getting each creature, though they may make a knowledge/intelligence roll to know specific creatures that might appear.

[Pex]

Yes, it's nice that it looks like the summon spells are back to 1e AD&D style, where the DM rolls for a random creature. I'm sure the DMG will have the tables for each spell, just as in AD&D. The player should not know the chances of getting each creature, though they may make a knowledge/intelligence roll to know specific creatures that might appear.

What, 5E is going to forbid people buying their own copy of the DMG?

[JoeJ]

What, 5E is going to forbid people buying their own copy of the DMG?

That's what 1e did. I doubt that rule was often followed, though.

[Thrudd]

Someone who does not plan on DM'ing should not be using the DMG and MM as references. At least, while they are players and not DMs the books should be off limits during the game. Until you've memorized everything, there will at least be a little bit of surprise in the game. If information was meant for players, it would be in the PHB. Of course, very few people will follow this. But we can have our ideals.

[hachface]

The main reason that Pixies by RAW are a non-issue is because of the following line:
Opposed to Violence: Unlinke their fey cousins, the sprites, pixies abhor weapons and would sooner flee than get into a physical altercation with an enemy.

Pixies are an horrible choice to conjure. Why would you summon them? You'd summon them because you want them to fight. They hate fighting.
They'd fight if they had to. But as they're invisible and your enemies are focused on you, they have no reason to join in the fight.
Pick something else, because you probably just wasted a spell slot if you summoned pixies.

This is ridiculous reasoning. The spell specifies that summoned creatures obey the caster. The pixie's preferences "in the wild" do not matter a fig.

[Shadow]

This is ridiculous reasoning. The spell specifies that summoned creatures obey the caster. The pixie's preferences "in the wild" do not matter a fig.

Ridiculous reasoning?
They're freaking pacifists unless they get backed into a corner.
You're summoning a bunch of pacifists to fight for you. Good luck with that, and let me know how it works out.
If you summon a bunch of pacifistic invisible creatures to fight, and your DM actually makes them fight, then your DM sucks at his job.

[Ziegander]

This is ridiculous reasoning. The spell specifies that summoned creatures obey the caster. The pixie's preferences "in the wild" do not matter a fig.

And in any case, I for one do not view casting a spell on a creature while you are flying and invisible to be getting "into a physical altercation with an enemy." I doubt pixies would either.

[Sartharina]

You're summoning a bunch of pacifists to fight for you. No - you're summoning a bunch of pacifists to peacefully resolve a dispute you have with unfriendly people/creatures, and want them to cast disabling spells on them. Sleep and Polymorph are nonviolent spells that do not harm the target.

[hachface]

Ridiculous reasoning?
They're freaking pacifists unless they get backed into a corner.
You're summoning a bunch of pacifists to fight for you. Good luck with that, and let me know how it works out.
If you summon a bunch of pacifistic invisible creatures to fight, and your DM actually makes them fight, then your DM sucks at his job.

Yes, your reasoning is indeed completely ridiculous.
If your DM has pixies rebel against your command, that DM is deciding to arbitrarily overrule the printed rules of the spell.

It may be true that pixies don't want to fight for the PCs. Almost no creatures want to fight for the PCs. In this, pixies are no different from bears or demons or whatever else. The entire point of a summoning spell is that the summoned creature is compelled to obey you.

You are recommending that DMs just prevent a PC ability from working for no narratively sensible reason to patch a part of the game system that is (disputably) unbalanced.

[silveralen]

I fixed that for you.
Basically summoning Pixies doesn't guarantee all of those spells - there are two ways it can play:
1. Those Pixies show up and you can use them for all of those spells you mentioned (With terrible DCs) OR
2. You summon them and someone immediately polymorphs your Pixie army into a Pixie corpse army with a single level spell (Countering a level 4 spell with a level 1 spell is just as unbalanced as everything you mentioned above).

With a +5 to initiative, 8 pixies total, and each pixie able to appear anywhere within 60 ft you can see, I fail to see any reasonable way of killing them all with a single first level spell, especially before at least a couple of them act.

In fact, I struggle to find a single fourth level spell that could get rid of them all, except possibly dispel magic. Even then it's up to interpretation of you can dispel the summoning, or if you have to dispel each creature.

Fireball? They are too spread out (unless the summon wasn't thinking). Magic missle? If cast as a fourth level spell you managed to get 6 of the 8. Sleep? Same problem as fireball, if spread out you can't catch them all in it.

Heck, I can't even find a first level spell capable of killing 8 creatures, except possibly burning hands/thunderwave depending on how your group does cones (though at my table it typically hits 6 squares/creatures max).

Double check your solutions actually work before you get all snarky, what you claimed flat out doesn't.

Also, as for the summoning creatures bit, DM fiat on whether you get pixies or sprites. Sure, you can say you should use a table, but it's up to the DM if you actually do so it's still DM fiat to use randomness. If you are worried about the power, that's a far better solution than having the pixies not bother obeying the caster.

[Giant2005]

With a +5 to initiative, 8 pixies total, and each pixie able to appear anywhere within 60 ft you can see, I fail to see any reasonable way of killing them all with a single first level spell, especially before at least a couple of them act.

In fact, I struggle to find a single fourth level spell that could get rid of them all, except possibly dispel magic. Even then it's up to interpretation of you can dispel the summoning, or if you have to dispel each creature.

Fireball? They are too spread out (unless the summon wasn't thinking). Magic missle? If cast as a fourth level spell you managed to get 6 of the 8. Sleep? Same problem as fireball, if spread out you can't catch them all in it.

Heck, I can't even find a first level spell capable of killing 8 creatures, except possibly burning hands/thunderwave depending on how your group does cones (though at my table it typically hits 6 squares/creatures max).

Double check your solutions actually work before you get all snarky, what you claimed flat out doesn't.

Also, as for the summoning creatures bit, DM fiat on whether you get pixies or sprites. Sure, you can say you should use a table, but it's up to the DM if you actually do so it's still DM fiat to use randomness. If you are worried about the power, that's a far better solution than having the pixies not bother obeying the caster.

Fair call on the spreading them out thing. I hadn't considered that.
Although it doesn't really matter - you don't even have to hit the Pixies, hitting the caster will do.

[Shadow]

This is all an irrelevant discussion anyway.
Pacifistic creatures would not heed a call to arms from strangers to begin with, so Pixies would never be summoned.

[pwykersotz]

Thanks for pointing this out, MaxWilson!

[silveralen]

Fair call on the spreading them out thing. I hadn't considered that.
Although it doesn't really matter - you don't even have to hit the Pixies, hitting the caster will do.

Then the question is how much can you hurt the caster (same as any concentration spell) before the pixies act. Which is why the +5 initiative is important, though the ambiguity on rules could lead one to thinking that the pixies can't act their first turn.

I'm not actually sure if that was intended or not, the way handling a turn is described makes it slightly unclear. Still, pixies are (on average) rolling higher than the person who summoned them. Meaning if you let them act the first turn, the majority will act immediately after being summoned. Unless ones rolling high enough I have an initiative that has already been passed don't get to act, another odd but potentially correct interpretation.


This is all an irrelevant discussion anyway.
Pacifistic creatures would not heed a call to arms from strangers to begin with, so Pixies would never be summoned.

That's a pretty decent justification for having 8 sprites pop up when used (given their description as explcitly more martial and combative than other fey).

[SliceandDiceKid]

Would the spell be specific over general overruling the pixie's behavior?

[hachface]

This is all an irrelevant discussion anyway.
Pacifistic creatures would not heed a call to arms from strangers to begin with, so Pixies would never be summoned.

Now you're just making **** up.

[silveralen]

Would the spell be specific over general overruling the pixie's behavior?

Yes. Which is why the DM shouldn't be arbitrating their actions when they show up.

However, if the DM rules their nature makes them unlikely to show up in a combat situation compared to sprites, that's within the rules and true to the creature's general attitude.


Now you're just making **** up.

What shows up is explcitly at the DM's discretion, so long as they are the right CR, type and number. Given that, the DM can use whatever method he feels is proper to determine the conjured creature, including behavioral analysis, what creatures might be near, rolling on a table, letting the player choose, or picking something he feels is balanced.

[obryn]

I recently reviewed the Conjure Woodland Creatures spell, and noticed that it only specifies that you get to choose the number/CR of the creatures that show up. Other than that, it just says, "Your DM has statistics for the creatures." As I read it, you don't actually get to pick which CR 1/4 creature shows up at all. Unless your DM is a total moron, or you cast this spell in the middle of the faerie solstice, you will never get 8 pixies from casting this spell.

This is a good thing because it means the spell isn't broken.
I find this reading of the spell rather farcical in the "it's broken, but let's pretend it's not broken through an inane reading of the rules intended to re-balance it" sense. (q.v. Crossbow Expert, Necromancer Ned's Skelly Bros, etc.) It indicates to me a rather desperate need to imply that the game itself is perfect; it's just the DMs that are broken.

I mean, keep in mind - nowhere does the spell state that the DM picks which creatures respond. Now, mind you, it doesn't say who picks at all, but a simple on-the-face reading of the spell implies that the caster picks the types of creatures - much like they get to target a fireball.

Conjure Celestial has similar wording as a 7th level spell. Conjure Fey, too. Only Conjure Elemental is different, to specify that you can't pull an Earth elemental from a bonfire. Are you suggesting that you can't pick your Celestial with Conjure Celestial? Or your Fey with Conjure Fey?

Unless you want to say that the rulebook is so poorly-written and obtuse that nobody until you has realized this is the plain, normal reading of the rule, I don't see the argument.

...and another point for 'natural language' eh?

[JoeJ]

I find this reading of the spell rather farcical in the "it's broken, but let's pretend it's not broken through an inane reading of the rules intended to re-balance it" sense. (q.v. Crossbow Expert, Necromancer Ned's Skelly Bros, etc.) It indicates to me a rather desperate need to imply that the game itself is perfect; it's just the DMs that are broken.

Universal RPG Rule 1 applies: No rule is to be interpreted in a way that breaks the game if it is possible to interpret that rule in a way that does not.

[MaxWilson]

I find this reading of the spell rather farcical in the "it's broken, but let's pretend it's not broken through an inane reading of the rules intended to re-balance it" sense. (q.v. Crossbow Expert, Necromancer Ned's Skelly Bros, etc.) It indicates to me a rather desperate need to imply that the game itself is perfect; it's just the DMs that are broken.

I mean, keep in mind - nowhere does the spell state that the DM picks which creatures respond. Now, mind you, it doesn't say who picks at all, but a simple on-the-face reading of the spell implies that the caster picks the types of creatures - much like they get to target a fireball.

Conjure Celestial has similar wording as a 7th level spell. Conjure Fey, too. Only Conjure Elemental is different, to specify that you can't pull an Earth elemental from a bonfire. Are you suggesting that you can't pick your Celestial with Conjure Celestial? Or your Fey with Conjure Fey?

Unless you want to say that the rulebook is so poorly-written and obtuse that nobody until you has realized this is the plain, normal reading of the rule, I don't see the argument.

...and another point for 'natural language' eh?

Responding to the bold first: Obryn, your reading is wrong. Maybe you're projecting or maybe you just hang out too often with people who have issues, I dunno which. I have no such "desperate need."

Conjure Elemental was actually what got me thinking about this issue. In order to choose which type of elemental you get, you have to cast it on an appropriate volume, e.g. the ground to get an earth elemental, or kindle a bonfire first in order to get a fire elemental. In the case of Conjure Minor Elemental I'd probably (now, after re-reading the spells) apply a similar logic in order to decide which elementals show up: instead of you choosing mud mephits vs. steam mephits, you just choose the band, and if you're in a muddy place you'll get mud mephits, otherwise you'll get something else. For Conjure Animals, I dunno what I'd give you--could be deer or crocodiles or wolves--but it's definitely not going to uniformly always be the light-blue options from optimization guides. It might be animals which don't appear in the MM at all, as long as they are CR 1/4. Conjure Woodland Creatures is no different, except that since I'm highly skeptical that the CR 1/4 rating is appropriate in the first place I will probably avoid the issue by picking something else. In theory, all CR 1/4 creatures are equivalent so this isn't gimping the spell in any way.

<<Are you suggesting that you can't pick your Celestial with Conjure Celestial? Or your Fey with Conjure Fey?>> Yes, this seems to be the case. That's why it's not an issue that there are hardly any summonable Celestial/Fey creatures in the MM--it's up to your DM which one you get anyway. He can re-fluff a demon as a celestial equivalent instead and give it to you.

[SliceandDiceKid]

Responding to the bold first: Obryn, your reading is wrong. Maybe you're projecting or maybe you just hang out too often with people who have issues, I dunno which. I have no such "desperate need."

Conjure Elemental was actually what got me thinking about this issue. In order to choose which type of elemental you get, you have to cast it on an appropriate volume, e.g. the ground to get an earth elemental, or kindle a bonfire first in order to get a fire elemental. In the case of Conjure Minor Elemental I'd probably (now, after re-reading the spells) apply a similar logic in order to decide which elementals show up: instead of you choosing mud mephits vs. steam mephits, you just choose the band, and if you're in a muddy place you'll get mud mephits, otherwise you'll get something else. For Conjure Animals, I dunno what I'd give you--could be deer or crocodiles or wolves--but it's definitely not going to uniformly always be the light-blue options from optimization guides. It might be animals which don't appear in the MM at all, as long as they are CR 1/4. Conjure Woodland Creatures is no different, except that since I'm highly skeptical that the CR 1/4 rating is appropriate in the first place I will probably avoid the issue by picking something else. In theory, all CR 1/4 creatures are equivalent so this isn't gimping the spell in any way.

<<Are you suggesting that you can't pick your Celestial with Conjure Celestial? Or your Fey with Conjure Fey?>> Yes, this seems to be the case. That's why it's not an issue that there are hardly any summonable Celestial/Fey creatures in the MM--it's up to your DM which one you get anyway. He can re-fluff a demon as a celestial equivalent instead and give it to you.


^
Just This

[silveralen]

Universal RPG Rule 1 applies: No rule is to be interpreted in a way that breaks the game if it is possible to interpret that rule in a way that does not.

Indeed. Always read rules in the way which best balances them. That's common sense. If someone's interpretation isn't unbalanced go for it, if the most obvious reading is unbalanced maybe take a second look.

[Shining Wrath]

If the language of the spell does not specify how the summoned creatures are chosen, then it is the DM's decision what method shall be used; different table, different rules.

No creature in the history of D&D has ever asked to be summoned into a life or death battle on behalf of a stranger. Pixies are no different than any other creature in that regard. And their wishes are equally irrelevant to their actions; once summoned, they perforce must fight.

What actions they take are perhaps up to the Pixies, but "Run Away" and "Stay passively invisible" are not allowed by the wording of the spell; the summoned creature fights.

[Longcat]

With pixies, chances are I would conjure them outside of combat for situations that require subtlety. So the pacifist argument is kinda moot, as they are not strictly for fighting.

Regarding the "who picks" issue of summoning spells, I would expect it to get clarified before play. I would bow out of any game where I wished to play a summoning focused character and didn't get to choose my summons.

[Shining Wrath]

With pixies, chances are I would conjure them outside of combat for situations that require subtlety. So the pacifist argument is kinda moot, as they are not strictly for fighting.

Regarding the "who picks" issue of summoning spells, I would expect it to get clarified before play. I would bow out of any game where I wished to play a summoning focused character and didn't get to choose my summons.

As with many other situations, communication among the players is key.

[obryn]

If the language of the spell does not specify how the summoned creatures are chosen, then it is the DM's decision what method shall be used; different table, different rules.

...and you don't think this is something that should maybe be spelled out?

That's some pretty massive table variation there.

[obryn]

<<Are you suggesting that you can't pick your Celestial with Conjure Celestial? Or your Fey with Conjure Fey?>> Yes, this seems to be the case. That's why it's not an issue that there are hardly any summonable Celestial/Fey creatures in the MM--it's up to your DM which one you get anyway. He can re-fluff a demon as a celestial equivalent instead and give it to you.
So you don't get to pick your Fey with Conjure Fey - the DM picks, including possibly a single 1/4 CR Pixie.
You don't get to pick your Minor Elementals; they are just whatever.
You don't get to pick your Celestial; it could be something nonsensically weak.

I can't see this as anything other than a deliberately obtuse reading of the spell descriptions.

[Shadow]

...and you don't think this is something that should maybe be spelled out?

That's some pretty massive table variation there.

So what?
I don't understand the apparently huge friggin problem that people seem to have with table variation. What happens at one table has zero effect on another table. Who cares if there's variation?
All that does is make each different game at each different table more unique and customized of an experience.
I don't see that as a problem. I see it as a non-factor, or even a strength.

[tcrudisi]

So what?
I don't understand the apparently huge friggin problem that people seem to have with table variation. What happens at one table has zero effect on another table. Who cares if there's variation?
All that does is make each different game at each different table more unique and customized of an experience.
I don't see that as a problem. I see it as a non-factor, or even a strength.

For those of us who do organized play, table variation is terrible. If you are going from a home-game to a home-game, then sure its not so bad. But from organized play to organized play? Yeah, its very much a weakness.

[Shadow]

For those of us who do organized play, table variation is terrible. If you are going from a home-game to a home-game, then sure its not so bad. But from organized play to organized play? Yeah, its very much a weakness.

For organized play you err on the side of caution.
If there are multiple possible interpretations for any given text, you go with the least likely to be considered abusive and you'll always be just fine.
Don't base your character and/or build around a possibly abusive mechanic, especially if you plan on doing any organized play.
If they rule something different, consider it a gift.
I still fail to see the issue.

But then again, this goes back to Role Playing 101. Play a character, not a build.
MMOs have ruined that spirit of RPGs in this way.

[Pex]

So what?
I don't understand the apparently huge friggin problem that people seem to have with table variation. What happens at one table has zero effect on another table. Who cares if there's variation?
All that does is make each different game at each different table more unique and customized of an experience.
I don't see that as a problem. I see it as a non-factor, or even a strength.

If I do choose to play with different gaming groups I shouldn't have to relearn the rules for each table.

[silveralen]

If I do choose to play with different gaming groups I shouldn't have to relearn the rules for each table.

In practice has that ever been true? I mean, 4th and 3rd both had tons of table variation based on what was/wasn't restricted alone.

[Shadow]

If I do choose to play with different gaming groups I shouldn't have to relearn the rules for each table.

If you choose to play with different gaming groups then you almost certainly have different characters and this is a non-issue.
The only time that it might ever truly be an issue is with organized play, and I've already addressed that point.

[McBars]

For those of us who do organized play, table variation is terrible. If you are going from a home-game to a home-game, then sure its not so bad. But from organized play to organized play? Yeah, its very much a weakness.

Granted, but I don't care one whit about organized play.

It's incumbent upon the org play group, not the publishers, to decide upon a pseudo-standardized set of rulings to be applied across their games.

[McBars]

If I do choose to play with different gaming groups I shouldn't have to relearn the rules for each table.

And you don't; if, however, what you're looking for is a bulletproof written set of rules with but a single possible interpretation, such a thing does not exist, nay cannot exist.

[Thrudd]

When the PHB says "your DM has information about this", it almost certainly means the rules are in the DMG or MM, and the player isn't meant to have access to that information (otherwise the info would have been in the spell description). Since the DMG isn't released yet, we can only speculate about whether these summoning spells will be broken or not. For now, it means the DM chooses how the spell works: they either tell you what specific creatures you can summon and let you choose, or choose for you by a means of their own devising.

[Sartharina]

This is all an irrelevant discussion anyway.
Pacifistic creatures would not heed a call to arms from strangers to begin with, so Pixies would never be summoned.It's not a 'call to arms', though - Pixies have no combat ability whatsoever. Instead, it's a call for them to go nova with a Care Bear Stare into negating the combat ability of hostile creatures, which IS aligned with their ethos. Neither Sleep nor Polymorph aid in combat, and both can end a battle before it begins. And... they may not even have a choice in the matter, with the spell just snaring and compelling them to obey.
If I do choose to play with different gaming groups I shouldn't have to relearn the rules for each table.Then I advise getting out of the Tabletop RPG hobby, because no tabletop RPG lacks table-by-table variation. (And as the Dysfunctional Rules thread for 3.5 indicates, it's IMPOSSIBLE to play 3.5 without extensive houseruling)

[Eslin]

For organized play you err on the side of caution.
If there are multiple possible interpretations for any given text, you go with the least likely to be considered abusive and you'll always be just fine.
Don't base your character and/or build around a possibly abusive mechanic, especially if you plan on doing any organized play.
If they rule something different, consider it a gift.
I still fail to see the issue.

But then again, this goes back to Role Playing 101. Play a character, not a build.
MMOs have ruined that spirit of RPGs in this way.

MMOs have nothing to do with TTRPGs? If there are multiple possible interpretations for any given text then it should have an explanation for what those interpretations attached, along with notes on which choice benefits which type of playstyle and which interpretation official events will be using. If it doesn't have those things, it shouldn't be ambiguous at all, it's easy to write things so that they aren't, again unless your product is being written and proofread by cats.

Side note: The whole 'pixies are nonviolent so they won't fight for you' thing is nonsense, do you think any other summon particularly wants to be dragged into a fight it has no stake in? Summoning gives you control, that's the whole point.

[silveralen]

MMOs have nothing to do with TTRPGs? If there are multiple possible interpretations for any given text then it should have an explanation for what those interpretations attached, along with notes on which choice benefits which type of playstyle and which interpretation official events will be using. If it doesn't have those things, it shouldn't be ambiguous at all, it's easy to write things so that they aren't, again unless your product is being written and proofread by cats.

I wish you'd stop saying the thing about cats, I know some cats who are exceptionally well read and probably could have made some major contributions to the fine tuning of the PHB.

[Eslin]

I wish you'd stop saying the thing about cats, I know some cats who are exceptionally well read and probably could have made some major contributions to the fine tuning of the PHB.

Never! I have a cat batting at my hands as I type this now. We played a game yesterday and she sat on the PHB, chased the dice around the table and failed to make a single well thought out rules adjustment. It is my conclusion that she or others like her were at least partially responsible for proofreading 5e.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Never! I have a cat batting at my hands as I type this now. We played a game yesterday and she sat on the PHB, chased the dice around the table and failed to make a single well thought out rules adjustment. It is my conclusion that she or others like her were at least partially responsible for proofreading 5e.

Naaaah, there aren't many situations when 5e cuddles up to you in the most adorable fashion then tries to claw your eyes out (metaphorically, and I would hope literally, speaking). Given its well-meaning, generally nice but occasionally haphazard nature it is clearly a canine creation.

[Pex]

There is a difference between each DM applying his own house rules and each DM having to interpret the entire rule set. Summoning creatures is not the entire rule set, but it is part of different ambiguities that have been discussed already where the answer is "it's up to the DM", which means a lack of consistency as a whole and having to relearn the rules for each gaming group. If the DM hands me a sheet of paper with a small list of house rules, great. If he hands me a novella that rewrites the PHB to explain how everything works, that's a dysfunction of the game.

[GiantOctopodes]

If I do choose to play with different gaming groups I shouldn't have to relearn the rules for each table.

If someone chose to play at my table and was unwilling to accept DM fiat and any and all houserules that we as a gaming group had felt necessary to make the game balanced and fun in our eyes, they would not be welcome at the table. If they felt that they were somehow entitled to import their own rule preferences and supersede our own, that would be doubly so.

If you are arguing instead that the rules should be *so perfect* that there is neither need for interpretation nor the ability for multiple interpretations, sure, I accept that as a laudable if improbable to achieve design goal. However even under such circumstances, there would still be variance from table to table, as many of the houserules favored by my tables and those I have played at are in *direct* conflict with RAW, where something was spelled out clearly and without room for interpretation, and we just didn't like it or agree with it, thus the need for the houserule.

[silveralen]

Some examples of that are?

I have summoned creatures, a few feats (which you have to ask about anyways since they may not be in use), and a handful of miscellaneous spells.

That's hardly a novella.

[Eslin]

If someone chose to play at my table and was unwilling to accept DM fiat and any and all houserules that we as a gaming group had felt necessary to make the game balanced and fun in our eyes, they would not be welcome at the table. If they felt that they were somehow entitled to import their own rule preferences and supersede our own, that would be doubly so.

If you are arguing instead that the rules should be *so perfect* that there is neither need for interpretation nor the ability for multiple interpretations, sure, I accept that as a laudable if improbable to achieve design goal. However even under such circumstances, there would still be variance from table to table, as many of the houserules favored by my tables and those I have played at are in *direct* conflict with RAW, where something was spelled out clearly and without room for interpretation, and we just didn't like it or agree with it, thus the need for the houserule.

I figure that since so many of the ambiguities were so obvious (I've had five different players ask me if invocations are warlock or character level) they should have either fixed them or had a list at the back of the book with what the options were and which was the 'default' option (so a player can know what to expect and houserules can be clearly defined ("we're using reading x instead of the default reading y")).

[Occasional Sage]

...and you don't think this is something that should maybe be spelled out?

That's some pretty massive table variation there.

Welcome to 5e. And, frankly, every other edition of D&D I've played (back to 1st).

As to whether this variation is good or not, YMMV. Outside of D&D-for-ante, though....

[Eslin]

Welcome to 5e. And, frankly, every other edition of D&D I've played (back to 1st).

As to whether this variation is good or not, YMMV. Outside of D&D-for-ante, though....

It's not good. Rules should be clear so everyone is on the same page and can make houserules from there.

[silveralen]

It's not good. Rules should be clear so everyone is on the same page and can make houserules from there.

Hypothetically that's an amazing idea.

Let me know whenever a game with no room for interpretation exists as everything is completely 100% understood.

[Shadow]

It doesn't even make sense.
The rules should be clear so that we can all change them to our taste anyway.
???

[Knaight]

That's what 1e did. I doubt that rule was often followed, though.


Someone who does not plan on DM'ing should not be using the DMG and MM as references. At least, while they are players and not DMs the books should be off limits during the game. Until you've memorized everything, there will at least be a little bit of surprise in the game. If information was meant for players, it would be in the PHB. Of course, very few people will follow this. But we can have our ideals.

The ideal is based on some sort of bizarre assumption that there is a class of permanent DMs who do DMing, and a class of permanent players who only play. Some groups fit this, but enough don't for it to be a bad guideline. If a group has multiple GMs, or players who also like working with RPGs on a more design side (and thus have a use for seeing complete systems), or any of a bunch of other possibilities the whole idea of needed secret rules breaks down.

[SliceandDiceKid]

MMOs have nothing to do with TTRPGs? If there are multiple possible interpretations for any given text then it should have an explanation for what those interpretations attached, along with notes on which choice benefits which type of playstyle and which interpretation official events will be using. If it doesn't have those things, it shouldn't be ambiguous at all, it's easy to write things so that they aren't, again unless your product is being written and proofread by cats.

Side note: The whole 'pixies are nonviolent so they won't fight for you' thing is nonsense, do you think any other summon particularly wants to be dragged into a fight it has no stake in? Summoning gives you control, that's the whole point.

The cats are meming.

[Eslin]

The cats are meming.

Hm?


Words words words words

[Eslin]

Hypothetically that's an amazing idea.

Let me know whenever a game with no room for interpretation exists as everything is completely 100% understood.

Just skimmed through my copy of Black Crusade, first thing I thought of since FFG has a much lower production and proofreading budget than WOTC does. There are a few literal errors, but I can't see any ambiguity - searching through, can't find a single rule, feature or item that doesn't doesn't clearly work in a certain way.

[SliceandDiceKid]

Hm?


Words words words words

They wrote the PHB, proofed it, and now they're meming...

[Sartharina]

Just skimmed through my copy of Black Crusade, first thing I thought of since FFG has a much lower production and proofreading budget than WOTC does. There are a few literal errors, but I can't see any ambiguity - searching through, can't find a single rule, feature or item that doesn't doesn't clearly work in a certain way.But do all the rules work in a ways that make sense, and are they agreeable to all playstyles?

[Eslin]

But do all the rules work in a ways that make sense, and are they agreeable to all playstyles?

Haven't found anything that doesn't make sense, the closest thing I can find is that I think swift attack and lightning attack should be usable without talents, but that's personal opinion and not shared by everyone. Rereading it, it seems a good counter-example to 5e - their proofreading budget obviously wasn't anywhere near as big and there are actual spelling, grammar mistakes and errors, but everything's cohesive and clear in a way that 5e often fails to be.

I love 5e and I can't wait for the system to expand to give more options, but the amount of unclear rules when they have so much time, experience and money on their side (this is the company that does MTG, where smaller errors would be treated like a colossal ****up, right?) confuses me a little. I spotted about half the errors that come up frequently on the forums/in games in my first half hour read through, was handing the book to a bunch of munchkins and saying 'actively search for loopholes' really that hard?

[silveralen]

Haven't found anything that doesn't make sense, the closest thing I can find is that I think swift attack and lightning attack should be usable without talents, but that's personal opinion and not shared by everyone. Rereading it, it seems a good counter-example to 5e - their proofreading budget obviously wasn't anywhere near as big and there are actual spelling, grammar mistakes and errors, but everything's cohesive and clear in a way that 5e often fails to be.

I love 5e and I can't wait for the system to expand to give more options, but the amount of unclear rules when they have so much time, experience and money on their side (this is the company that does MTG, where smaller errors would be treated like a colossal ****up, right?) confuses me a little. I spotted about half the errors that come up frequently on the forums/in games in my first half hour read through, was handing the book to a bunch of munchkins and saying 'actively search for loopholes' really that hard?

Oh boy, have you actually played it? It has major issues which may not be immediately obvious, much like 3e.

Psychic powers are arguably more broken then full casters were in 3e. Literally anything a non Psyker can do a Psyker can be made to do better.

The way characters from later books calculate their alignment is not immediately obvious and is still a source of arguments. The balance of such characters is even more questionable, even compared to one another.

Don't forget that some rolls on the "gifts of the gods" section can literally ruin an entire character concept. It keeps with the theme of the game to be sure (and losing characters is very much a thing in that game line), but watching talents or abilities literally become useless because of a single roll? That's not fun, and it is basically acknowledged as such with at least two or three ways of fixing that presented for the GM (meaning it'll vary table to table, unless your GM is sadistic).

It's filled with trap options, poor balance, and unclear rules, and you practically have to talk to the GM to even know what options are allowed (looking at you CSM, if the campaign is set in the imperial space that's going to be a challenge to convince your GM).

That's just obvious stuff I remember happening clearly when my group ran it. Probably more things I can think of if you want. It's a long way from perfect, and I guarantee it'll vary table to table.

Edit: oh yeah, action types. I forget if it was black crusade, but at least one FFG 40K book had unclear rulings on whether a psychic attack power counted as an attack action (or something, the details are fuzzy). Normally you can't take two of the same type of action in your turn (so no firing twice, even if it fits you action economy), but psychic powers weren't explcitly listed as such an action and were labeled as something else, meaning it broke the established action economy rules which led to a lot of debate. Not sure if errata ever officially fixed it.

[obryn]

If you are arguing instead that the rules should be *so perfect* that there is neither need for interpretation nor the ability for multiple interpretations, sure, I accept that as a laudable if improbable to achieve design goal. However even under such circumstances, there would still be variance from table to table, as many of the houserules favored by my tables and those I have played at are in *direct* conflict with RAW, where something was spelled out clearly and without room for interpretation, and we just didn't like it or agree with it, thus the need for the houserule.
That's a terrible strawman.

"Who picks the monsters that are summoned?" is something fundamental to the function of this class of spell. It's a baseline requirement for a functioning spell block.

I mean, I'm on board with a general feeling of, "the designers did such lazy editing that the interpretation of fundamental game rules need to be left up to the DM to write," but you can do better. Every edition has.


There is a difference between each DM applying his own house rules and each DM having to interpret the entire rule set. Summoning creatures is not the entire rule set, but it is part of different ambiguities that have been discussed already where the answer is "it's up to the DM", which means a lack of consistency as a whole and having to relearn the rules for each gaming group. If the DM hands me a sheet of paper with a small list of house rules, great. If he hands me a novella that rewrites the PHB to explain how everything works, that's a dysfunction of the game.
Yes.

A DM is absolutely there to interpret, enforce, and modify rules. They should not need to fix incomplete or poorly-written rules.

[Urpriest]

Another point: if you're someone who buys a game without being a D&D player, you're not going to expect to have to figure out an interpretation based on the needs of their group. They're going to read the rules in the most naive way possible, bringing in information from similar games (generally computer-based) that they have played. They're going to assume the rules work, because the games they're used to have generally been playtested.

Basically, for those arguing that "the Pixie isn't a problem when read correctly", do you think your reading will be the majority one among people new to the game? If not, your argument is utterly irrelevant.

[MaxWilson]

Basically, for those arguing that "the Pixie isn't a problem when read correctly", do you think your reading will be the majority one among people new to the game? If not, your argument is utterly irrelevant.

Possibly. Honestly, I think most people new to the game will read the entry for the spell(s), their eyes will glaze over ("what are CR 1/4 creatures?"), and they will pick a different spell that actually has complete rules. Of those who think the spell is cool, I think about half of them will have DMs that say, "Sure, cast it and let's see what appears!" and then pick something random out of the MM. The other half will have DMs that say, "What do you want to summon?" and let them flip through the MM.

A small percentage of those whose DMs let them choose will be casting Conjure Woodland Creatures and will pick sprites or faeries. Most of those who pick pixies will think they are lame because they don't do any damage and have only 1 HP. A few of them will stumble over broken combinations like Polymorphing everybody into dragons. Some of those who discover these broken combinations will discover that their combinations are actually illegal (dragons aren't beasts and therefore not eligible polymorph targets). Those who have gotten this far may very well decide to Polymorph into Tyrannosaurs instead. This is the "Exploration" party of D&D, playing out in the metagame instead of in the game. Much fun will be had by all.

So, the upshot is that this combination is unlikely to break the game for those playing it, even if they do it "wrong." I started this thread just because I think it's interesting that you don't get to choose your creatures. It also explains why the Giant Insect spell exists, because other than getting to choose your summons it is pretty much universally worse than Conjure Animals (higher cost, shorter duration, more prep needed--slightly more creatures but not enough to compensate).

[archaeo]

I mean, I'm on board with a general feeling of, "the designers did such lazy editing that the interpretation of fundamental game rules need to be left up to the DM to write," but you can do better. Every edition has...A DM is absolutely there to interpret, enforce, and modify rules. They should not need to fix incomplete or poorly-written rules.

This isn't the bright line you imagine it to be. A rule set that requires a human arbiter should be perfectly free to leave some things open to interpretation; for some rules, it makes sense to accept that the possibility space is so wide that the best person to write the rule at that moment is the DM. 5e has, at most, a dozen places in the rules requiring the DM to do this anyway, and maybe only half of those were intentional. The rest, hey, errata will get done next year, and in the meantime 5e is simple enough that even I, a complete novice, can see the choices you'd make to keep things "balanced" the way I'd like.

Of course, I address this generally, since we all know that you, obryn, won't be adjudicating anything since you'll be playing the complete system you already have that enjoyed numerous years of development.

For what it's worth, however, I think the idea that the DM selects the monsters for CWC is reading between the lines a bit too much. For all the concern, I'd like to see somebody actually deploy this junk in an actual game before I got too stressed out about it.

[obryn]

This isn't the bright line you imagine it to be. A rule set that requires a human arbiter should be perfectly free to leave some things open to interpretation; for some rules, it makes sense to accept that the possibility space is so wide that the best person to write the rule at that moment is the DM. 5e has, at most, a dozen places in the rules requiring the DM to do this anyway, and maybe only half of those were intentional. The rest, hey, errata will get done next year, and in the meantime 5e is simple enough that even I, a complete novice, can see the choices you'd make to keep things "balanced" the way I'd like.
I utterly disagree with the notion that Conjuration spells are improved if there's uncertainty in who's supposed to pick the summoned monster.

It's cool to change things around to balance broken options, but you don't need to use vague wording as an excuse to do so. In fact, I think it's a crappy and dishonest option; if a pixie swarm is broken, address it as "broken" and fix it based on that. Don't rely on picky, rules-lawyerly exegesis to support your right as a DM to manage the game.


Of course, I address this generally, since we all know that you, obryn, won't be adjudicating anything since you'll be playing the complete system you already have that enjoyed numerous years of development.
You don't need to get territorial, here. There's no "...so go play something else!" subtext to any of my posts.

[Shining Wrath]

It's not good. Rules should be clear so everyone is on the same page and can make houserules from there.

Cite the specific edition of any TTRPG where there were not at least 5 ambiguous rules. Or 25.

Other than Tunnels and Trolls, which was simplified to the point it had maybe 10 pages of rules.

[McBars]

You don't need to get territorial, here. There's no "...so go play something else!" subtext to any of my posts.

Nope just smugness.

[MaxWilson]

It's cool to change things around to balance broken options, but you don't need to use vague wording as an excuse to do so. In fact, I think it's a crappy and dishonest option; if a pixie swarm is broken, address it as "broken" and fix it based on that. Don't rely on picky, rules-lawyerly exegesis to support your right as a DM to manage the game.

And, oddly enough, this thread isn't about doing anything of the sort.

[Eslin]

Cite the specific edition of any TTRPG where there were not at least 5 ambiguous rules. Or 25.

Other than Tunnels and Trolls, which was simplified to the point it had maybe 10 pages of rules.

Already did. Check Black Crusade, the rules all work the same way and none of them are unclear.

[obryn]

Nope just smugness.
I tend to get that way when I'm right. :smallwink:


And, oddly enough, this thread isn't about doing anything of the sort.
On the contrary, that's pretty much exactly what this thread is doing - using vague wording as an excuse to implement a balance fix. Until your new interpretation, I don't think anyone answered, "Who picks the monsters?" with "The DM decides." And you apparently view it as a balance fix, given the last statement in your OP.

I think the spell definitely should have specified the basics of who picks, at least, and it's definitely a good candidate for a sage advice tweet.

But my own argument: If it was DM Choice, it should have said so. And DM choice interacts really oddly with Conjure Celestial and Conjure Fey. It's weird and inconsistent to me that you'd get one choice (CR & #) on Conjure Woodland Beings but no choice - not even CR - on the others. That doesn't fit, for me.

[MaxWilson]

On the contrary, that's pretty much exactly what this thread is doing - using vague wording as an excuse to implement a balance fix. Until your new interpretation, I don't think anyone answered, "Who picks the monsters?" with "The DM decides." And you apparently view it as a balance fix, given the last statement in your OP.

On the contrary, it's an observation on RAW which has the interesting side effect of making balance fixes on this issue irrelevant. If I wanted a balance fix, I would just adjust the CR of pixies. My OP is a "did you know?" FYI-style observation about RAW.

So no, I don't view this as a balance fix. How does that change your analysis?


I think the spell definitely should have specified the basics of who picks, at least, and it's definitely a good candidate for a sage advice tweet.

100% agreement here. Even if the revised reading turns out to be correct, it certainly isn't obvious, and it should be obvious instead of vague.

[Sartharina]

Already did. Check Black Crusade, the rules all work the same way and none of them are unclear.Someone else with experience with the system countered that claim.

[Eslin]

Oh boy, have you actually played it? It has major issues which may not be immediately obvious, much like 3e.

Psychic powers are arguably more broken then full casters were in 3e. Literally anything a non Psyker can do a Psyker can be made to do better.
Yep, because they're psykers. Who are flat out more powerful than non-psykers. The price you pay is the potential to instantly kill yourself/have other horrible stuff happen when you do anything but cast fettered. It's not like 3.5 where a group of casters is flat out better than a group of non casters, if you take a bunch of psykers and nothing else you end up really vulnerable in a lot of ways.


The way characters from later books calculate their alignment is not immediately obvious and is still a source of arguments. The balance of such characters is even more questionable, even compared to one another.
I said Black Crusade, the original 400 page rulebook. Not gonna compare its splats because 5e doesn't have any.


Don't forget that some rolls on the "gifts of the gods" section can literally ruin an entire character concept. It keeps with the theme of the game to be sure (and losing characters is very much a thing in that game line), but watching talents or abilities literally become useless because of a single roll? That's not fun, and it is basically acknowledged as such with at least two or three ways of fixing that presented for the GM (meaning it'll vary table to table, unless your GM is sadistic).
Except it balances itself out. You can roll twice if unaligned and adjust the result by your infamy modifier, you'll never get stuck on one specific result unless you gained the corruption from a failing - which is supposed to be a really bad thing, the potential to get stuck with a bad gift is the price of failure. Again, this is chaos - you're actually getting a much better deal than anyone else.


It's filled with trap options, poor balance, and unclear rules, and you practically have to talk to the GM to even know what options are allowed (looking at you CSM, if the campaign is set in the imperial space that's going to be a challenge to convince your GM).
What poor balance, and what trap options? There are some talents that are suboptimal for most builds, but that wasn't the point of this. Psykers tend to have greater potential effects than non psykers, but this is balanced out by the greater risk (I have had several psykers at my table kill or permanently incapacitate themselves from using powers, it honestly does work as a balancing factor)


That's just obvious stuff I remember happening clearly when my group ran it. Probably more things I can think of if you want. It's a long way from perfect, and I guarantee it'll vary table to table.

Edit: oh yeah, action types. I forget if it was black crusade, but at least one FFG 40K book had unclear rulings on whether a psychic attack power counted as an attack action (or something, the details are fuzzy). Normally you can't take two of the same type of action in your turn (so no firing twice, even if it fits you action economy), but psychic powers weren't explcitly listed as such an action and were labeled as something else, meaning it broke the established action economy rules which led to a lot of debate. Not sure if errata ever officially fixed it.
I never said it was perfect, I said it lacked the ambiguous rules and features 5e has. Action type wise, attack powers are listed with the attack subtype, meaning only one can be used per round. There's no debate, they're clearly labelled as attacks.

[silveralen]

Yep, because they're psykers. Who are flat out more powerful than non-psykers. The price you pay is the potential to instantly kill yourself/have other horrible stuff happen when you do anything but cast fettered. It's not like 3.5 where a group of casters is flat out better than a group of non casters, if you take a bunch of psykers and nothing else you end up really vulnerable in a lot of ways.

I said Black Crusade, the original 400 page rulebook. Not gonna compare its splats because 5e doesn't have any.

I never said it was perfect, I said it lacked the ambiguous rules and features 5e has. Action type wise, attack powers are listed with the attack subtype, meaning only one can be used per round. There's no debate, they're clearly labelled as attacks.

For the first point, casting fettered is more than enough if you actually know what you are doing (it involves picking certain powers, but yes you can easily break the game with little risk). I've seen this first hand, and trust me I've triple checked the rules.

Black crusade is far from being an "original", it's literally one system that has been refined over the course of 5 core rulebooks. This isn't like dnd, where each edition changes things dramatically and the actual system differs to great degree, black crusade is PF and dark Hersey is 3e. It's not really fair to compare it to 5e, it had some of the broken stuff fixed due to older editions.

Take the problem I mentioned before, that was actually an issue from deathwatch that was fixed before black crusade was released. Black crusade is effectively benefitting from a collective three or four years of errata, when 5e has a single errata document up it might be with comparing the two.

The splats do have a lot of ambiguity, I remember that for sure. If you wanna get into "not a fair comparison", then see my above point, black crusade is hardly a stand alone release of rules the way 5e is.

[Eslin]

Side note regarding the thread itself: Why on earth wouldn't the caster decide what shows up? The caster determines what he does with a spell, that's how it works. Creation doesn't specifically say that you choose what material or object you create, does that mean your DM randomly determines it? Fabricate doesn't specifically say you decide what the object is, does that mean the DM decides what is produced? No, because that is incredibly stupid, as is the idea that because conjure woodland beings doesn't specifically say that you decide which creature you want to summon that the DM randomly picks from the appropriate CR.

This entire thing is ridiculous.


For the first point, casting fettered is more than enough if you actually know what you are doing (it involves picking certain powers, but yes you can easily break the game with little risk). I've seen this first hand, and trust me I've triple checked the rules.
There are a lot of ways to get strong, and only fettered powers aren't really any stronger than a bunch of well picked augmetics and gear crafting or someone who has steered their mutations cleverly.


Black crusade is far from being an "original", it's literally one system that has been refined over the course of 5 core rulebooks. This isn't like dnd, where each edition changes things dramatically and the actual system differs to great degree, black crusade is PF and dark Hersey is 3e. It's not really fair to compare it to 5e, it had some of the broken stuff fixed due to older editions.
It is perfectly fair to compare it to 5e, which uses a simplified version of the 3e rules as a chassis. Black Crusade had a bunch of rules too, and 5e had huge amounts of development time, experience and money on its side.


Take the problem I mentioned before, that was actually an issue from deathwatch that was fixed before black crusade was released. Black crusade is effectively benefitting from a collective three or four years of errata, when 5e has a single errata document up it might be with comparing the two.
And D&D is benefiting from 40 years of it existing, 5e has a massive design legacy trailing behind it to benefit from. These problems have popped up before, 5e doesn't have a lot of problems that 3.5 didn't.


The splats do have a lot of ambiguity, I remember that for sure. If you wanna get into "not a fair comparison", then see my above point, black crusade is hardly a stand alone release of rules the way 5e is.
But it is a stand alone release. In fact it is more so than 5e is, since you only need the core Black Crusade book to play. The splatbooks are very optional extras.

[archaeo]

I utterly disagree with the notion that Conjuration spells are improved if there's uncertainty in who's supposed to pick the summoned monster.

It's cool to change things around to balance broken options, but you don't need to use vague wording as an excuse to do so. In fact, I think it's a crappy and dishonest option; if a pixie swarm is broken, address it as "broken" and fix it based on that. Don't rely on picky, rules-lawyerly exegesis to support your right as a DM to manage the game.

Yeah, and you didn't quote the part of my post where I'm agreeing with you. I think it's overstating it to call the reading "picky, rules-lawyerly exegesis" -- the rules never do explicitly say you pick the exact summons, after all! -- but it certainly seems like the kind of thing the rules would spell out much more clearly if "DM chooses" was the designers' intent.

I'd also argue that conjuration is rarely unbalanced except in situations where the conjurer gets extremely lucky; the summons need to get a good initiative and then land most of their attacks to be really helpful as anything besides damage sponges, and given the speed of 5e combat, this may not be tenable. Certainly, I think that while the conjurations are great, they aren't so ridiculously overpowered that you'd often choose them over another spell of the same level, which might actually kill a level-appropriate monster instead of inconveniencing it.


You don't need to get territorial, here. There's no "...so go play something else!" subtext to any of my posts.

Well, that wasn't my intent, but,


I tend to get that way when I'm right. :smallwink:

I mean, c'mon. You're absolutely free to dislike 5e, but I think it's hard to really suggest "poorly written" is an accurate description of the rule set as you did upthread. There are definitely a few paragraphs/statblocks spread throughout the PHB and MM that are erroneous or unclear, but it's generally outweighed by the rest of the system, which is hardly written without style or cleverness and which seems to allow for an excellent elf game.

If you're just claiming to be right about the conjuration rules, though, I mean, yeah. If you ask Mearls or Crawford about it, they're going to either say "the player chooses" or "ask your DM," and if enough people ask, they'll issue errata to clarify/change it. But it seems safe to assume they intended player-chosen conjurations.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't waste a 4th level slot on a summon spell if I don't get to choose the what creatures it summons.

[MaxWilson]

I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't waste a 4th level slot on a summon spell if I don't get to choose the what creatures it summons.

I totally would. Can you honestly think of a pack of CR 1/4 elementals that I would be unhappy to get for an hour with my 4th level slot?

Kids these days.

[pwykersotz]

Side note regarding the thread itself: Why on earth wouldn't the caster decide what shows up? The caster determines what he does with a spell, that's how it works. Creation doesn't specifically say that you choose what material or object you create, does that mean your DM randomly determines it? Fabricate doesn't specifically say you decide what the object is, does that mean the DM decides what is produced? No, because that is incredibly stupid, as is the idea that because conjure woodland beings doesn't specifically say that you decide which creature you want to summon that the DM randomly picks from the appropriate CR.

This entire thing is ridiculous.

My main DM almost universally picks my summons in the 3.5 game he runs. He chooses appropriate summons for the classification based on where/when we are. I've never been disappointed. Not saying your point is invalid, just saying that this way can and does work fine.

[MaxWilson]

After looking at the DMG's monster creation rules, all I can say is that if a summoner got to craft his own CR 1/4 creature and summon it, summoning spells would be insanely broken. Take this (hypothetical) guy:

Flamespren (elemental): a living tongue of flame which licks at you from unexpected directions until you're dead.
Speed 80
AC 14
HP 17
Attacks: +4 to-hit, 2d4 + 3 damage (range 300')
Immune to non-magical weapons, immune to Force/Acid/Fire/Cold/Lightning/Thunder damage
Condition immunities: prone/charmed/frightened/unconscious/stunned/grappled/prone/immobile
Abilities: Teleportation (as Balor)

Guess what its CR is according to the DMG?

Offensive CR: 1/2
Defensive CR: 1/8
Total CR: 1/4

The CR rules are broken and therefore rely on DM judgment to not break the game by using monsters judiciously. PCs have no such judgment. (Players might, but a PC doesn't and shouldn't.) If you could summon 8 of these guys with a Conjure Minor Elemental spell, you totally would.

[Frenth Alunril]

Player: "I cast summon woodland creatures! 1/4cr"
DM: "sweet."
Player: "what happens? Did I get pixies? I want 8 pixies!"
Dm: "you feel the magic, the spell forms, and you know it worked, but nothing happened."
Player: "What!!?"
Dm: "the shocked look on your face, your utter disbelief triggers laughing, the forest itself comes to life with laughter and you wonder, is this a psychological condition, have you finally lost your mind, or is something more pernicious afoot?"

[archaeo]

The CR rules are broken and therefore rely on DM judgment to not break the game by using monsters judiciously.

Don't the CR guidelines have modifiers for features, like the Balor's teleportation or the crazy speed or the absurd immunities you've given this thing? I know I've seen a screenshot of just that kind of chart.


PCs have no such judgment. (Players might, but a PC doesn't and shouldn't.)

What does this distinction even mean? PCs can't just create monsters out of thin air, after all, and not every PC is a rationalist out to find the most power in the shortest time possible.

[MaxWilson]

Don't the CR guidelines have modifiers for features, like the Balor's teleportation or the crazy speed or the absurd immunities you've given this thing? I know I've seen a screenshot of just that kind of chart.

What does this distinction even mean? PCs can't just create monsters out of thin air, after all, and not every PC is a rationalist out to find the most power in the shortest time possible.

1.) Yes, there are modifiers for features. Teleport for example is +0 CR feature.

2.) "Breaking the game" is a metagame concept. A player might refrain from using an overpowered combination in the interests of having fun and/or preventing the DM from changing the rules of the game, but a non-munchkin PC would never think to himself, "Technically, I could cast Spontaneous Divination to Speak With Beasts and find out what Malfoy is up to, but I fear retaliation from the DM (Dialetical Mechanic) so I had better not." A PC is motivated to do what keeps him alive, but a player is motivated to do what makes the game fun. Not-abusing-loopholes is one case where metagaming can be a good thing, but it is still better if those loopholes don't exist in the first place.

[Envyus]

1.) Yes, there are modifiers for features. Teleport for example is +0 CR feature.

2.) "Breaking the game" is a metagame concept. A player might refrain from using an overpowered combination in the interests of having fun and/or preventing the DM from changing the rules of the game, but a non-munchkin PC would never think to himself, "Technically, I could cast Spontaneous Divination to Speak With Beasts and find out what Malfoy is up to, but I fear retaliation from the DM (Dialetical Mechanic) so I had better not." A PC is motivated to do what keeps him alive, but a player is motivated to do what makes the game fun. Not-abusing-loopholes is one case where metagaming can be a good thing, but it is still better if those loopholes don't exist in the first place.

2176 is the effective hp for your creature so no it is not CR 1/4. You missed the section of the rules that told you how your creature does not work.

[MaxWilson]

2176 is the effective hp for your creature so no it is not CR 1/4. You missed the section of the rules that told you how your creature does not work.

No it has 34 effective HP. 17 x2 for an immunity. You don't multiply per-immunity/resistance or else the Air Elemental would have a CR of 15 instead of 5 given its one immunity and three (five) resistances.