Any Clarification on how you determine what you summon with Conjure X spells?

[FruitOfTheShroom]

Regarding the Conjure Animal/Fey/whatever spells, how do you determine the actual creature summoned? Is it random? Player choice? DM choice?

[edit to clarify] I understand the CR and amount of creatures summoned is chosen by the player, with options based on the slot used to cast it. What I don't know is, for example, with Conjure Animals summoning CR 1 option, do you choose what beast appears? Or will it be a random CR 1 beast?

I would search the official Rules Questions on the 5e boards, but their search function is essentially broken.

Thanks in advance.

[Wartex1]

It's player choice.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

It's player choice.

This is also how I do it, but I don't have any specific text to back this up. It's just the simplest interpretation, so long as one of the players doesn't start abusing it by summoning pixies every-time. In which case there's usually a work around, such just asking the player to not purposefully abuse the system, or just upping the CR on pixies to more appropriately represent their power.

[pwykersotz]

It's player choice.

This is incorrect, there is no clarifying text. The choice belongs to whoever the table decides it belongs to. I personally side with DM choice, not to limit Pixie abuse (though that is a side benefit), but to allow the introduction of custom fey and NPC's with interesting results.

[RulesJD]

This is incorrect, there is no clarifying text. The choice belongs to whoever the table decides it belongs to. I personally side with DM choice, not to limit Pixie abuse (though that is a side benefit), but to allow the introduction of custom fey and NPC's with interesting results.

In Adventure League it's Player choice.

In homebrew, it's whatever the DM decides.

[FruitOfTheShroom]

In Adventure League it's Player choice.

In homebrew, it's whatever the DM decides.

If player's choose in Adventure League, then I suppose that's how I will rule for my group as well. Though some actual clarification from the rules team would be nice.

Thanks guys!

[Vogonjeltz]

Regarding the Conjure Animal/Fey/whatever spells, how do you determine the actual creature summoned? Is it random? Player choice? DM choice?

[edit to clarify] I understand the CR and amount of creatures summoned is chosen by the player, with options based on the slot used to cast it. What I don't know is, for example, with Conjure Animals summoning CR 1 option, do you choose what beast appears? Or will it be a random CR 1 beast?

I would search the official Rules Questions on the 5e boards, but their search function is essentially broken.

Thanks in advance.

Player choice begins and ends at what the spell says happens. In most cases the player only selects the CR/number, if that.

Anything else is, by definition, the DM's purview, as is noted by the DM having the statistics on whatever gets conjured at those CRs.

There are spells that allow for summoning of a specific creature: Gate and Planar Ally. And it's worth noting, even those spells specifically say the DM can foil those direct requests.

[Shining Wrath]

Years of 3.5 tradition says it's player choice.
As Vogon notes, one way to read the rules is that the DM has the statistics on the summoned creature. That is not explicitly stating that the DM chooses the creatureIMNSHO, just that the DM is expected to have a Monster Manual.
I rule it player choice at my table.
However, I do like the idea that sometimes you don't get what you expect ... may have to houserule that it.

[Wartex1]

Maybe roll a d20, and on a 1 or 2, it's DM's choice.

[Pex]

Player choice begins and ends at what the spell says happens. In most cases the player only selects the CR/number, if that.

Anything else is, by definition, the DM's purview, as is noted by the DM having the statistics on whatever gets conjured at those CRs.

There are spells that allow for summoning of a specific creature: Gate and Planar Ally. And it's worth noting, even those spells specifically say the DM can foil those direct requests.

Oh joy, I summon Orcus!

[mephnick]

I stick to DM choice.

Things like Adventurer's League and especially Pathfinder Society are generally pretty bad things to judge rulings on.

Edit: I get it if tables decide to use player choice though.

[RealCheese]

Maybe roll a d20, and on a 1 or 2, it's DM's choice.

When this comes up at my table i am so doing this.

[Kornaki]

You selected pixies, but the statistics I have for these pixies include the ability "Polymorph into a wolf and have wolf stats". Weird, I know, but that's 5th ed for ya.

[Dhavaer]

Oh joy, I summon Orcus!

No you don't, you munchkin, you summon Orc- wait.

[calebrus]

In Adventure League it's Player choice.

In homebrew, it's whatever the DM decides.

Because if it's not done the way that AL does it, that means it's homebrew?
Wrong. That just isn't accurate.
That's one opinion, sure, but it's not factual.

It isn't specifically stated in the text, so it's player choice or DM's choice, as the DM's decision. And even if it were specifically stated in the text, it would still be whatever the DM decides.

edit:
And for the record, I'm in the "DM picks the summons" camp, for multiple reasons.

[Chronos]

The fix I prefer (which is definitely a houserule, not any sort of interpretation of the RAW) is that when a creature you summon casts a spell, it uses your spell slots.

[Longcat]

I'm in the "player picks" camp, since it's the most fair way of going about it. The only arguably gamebreakers are Pixies, where our group has a gentleman's agreement to not use them unless a TPK is imminent.

"DM picks" usually results in bad blood between gamers, as every single time I've seen that rule in use, it was used to screw over the player or to passive-aggressively discourage them from using Conjure spells.

[Shining Wrath]

I'm considering a different house rule ... a percentage chance per conjuration that something else comes along for the ride. If you conjure woodland beings, a fey might come along.

And the supernumerary is not at all under your control. So if you've been using CWB for meat shields and getting lots of little woodland beings killed, the fey may not like you. If on the other hand you have been using CWB for purposes that fey more or less approve of, you have an additional ally in your fight.

It encourages role-play, I think, if you use the conjuration spells with the idea in mind that the summoned creatures *matter* to someone, if not to you. If the Feywild is full of pixies that have been killed fighting on your behalf while you saved your spell slots, sooner or later you get an LeShay or Wild Watcher who wants to discuss your choices. If you occasionally summon Pixies to aid you in ridding the woods of undead and aberrations and evil dudes of evilness, you get a LeShay who annihilates your enemies for you and then tells you how much he admires your work.

[Fwiffo86]

I like the method I use. Each conjure spell is tied to a specific creature, necessitating a multitude of conjure spells to be known.

You don't conjure woodland beings. You conjure Ellengel the Leafdancer (pixie) every time. The spell being named Summon (conjure) Ellengel the Leafdancer.

It comes with the bonus that what/who is summoned is a bit beefier than the stock monsters, but carries with it, if they get killed, the summon probably wont work for at least a year and a day.

Thus, someone who specialized in summoning/conjuring creatures would know dozens of these spells, one for each "named" creature.

I think it captures the fantasy trope of summoning X pretty well, and my players are having a blast with it. It also allows me to come up with some interesting named things for the game world.

[Longcat]

Our Druid summons "Bear Force One" and "Bear Force Two" every time he summons bears.

[Shining Wrath]

Our Druid summons "Bear Force One" and "Bear Force Two" every time he summons bears.

Does he get Harrison Ford riding Bear Force One? That would be an awesome use of the "extra creatures come along for the ride" idea :smallbiggrin:

[pwykersotz]

I'm in the "player picks" camp, since it's the most fair way of going about it. The only arguably gamebreakers are Pixies, where our group has a gentleman's agreement to not use them unless a TPK is imminent.

"DM picks" usually results in bad blood between gamers, as every single time I've seen that rule in use, it was used to screw over the player or to passive-aggressively discourage them from using Conjure spells.

It's too bad that you've had that experience. My only reason to control it is that an area might be proliferated with a type of fey/beast/whatever that the party hasn't encountered yet and it can be interesting. I remember a particularly memorable summon (In space D&D!) where a player's Summon Monster brought a wyrmling Plasma Dragon(I was not GM of this one). It was super cool and provided a useful expectation for the local lifeforms.

The summon should definitely meet the requisites for the spell though, and it shouldn't be used to screw the party. That's just bad form.

[Smorgonoffz]

I'm in the Dm Picks camp.

Why don't the dm let the player summon a creature appropriate to the area they're in? Like a bear in a forest, an ooze in a dungeon, an acquatic creature in the ocean etc?

[MadGrady]

Does he get Harrison Ford riding Bear Force One? That would be an awesome use of the "extra creatures come along for the ride" idea :smallbiggrin:

"Get off my Material Plane!"

[Shining Wrath]

So I'm definitely seeing ideas for how these spells can be fun if something unexpected can happen ... but still in the camp that the spell caster has some control over what they get, because of tradition and because giving players agency is usually a good thing. If the player has a clever idea that works if they get a Giant Badger, giving them Pixies is annoying for everyone involved.

I'm not interested in a RAW / RAI argument so much as I am in the "what's the most fun?" side of things.

[pwykersotz]

So I'm definitely seeing ideas for how these spells can be fun if something unexpected can happen ... but still in the camp that the spell caster has some control over what they get, because of tradition and because giving players agency is usually a good thing. If the player has a clever idea that works if they get a Giant Badger, giving them Pixies is annoying for everyone involved.

I'm not interested in a RAW / RAI argument so much as I am in the "what's the most fun?" side of things.

Agreed. There's definitely a line.

[BurgerBeast]

I might give the player a limited choice that is chosen by the DM. This way, there can be limits on what's available based on the location and conditions, but the player can be aware of what's available so that s/he doesn't ruin his/her spell. I would let the PC change his/her mind if there wasn't an animal that was wanted and available. In some cases, this might even encourage improvisation ("guys, I can't get a bear but I can get a rhino or a giraffe") and add flavour to the world (new or novel creatures).

Edit: this could also give the DM the opportunity to be helpful. "Well, there aren't any hummingbirds around here. You could try a sparrow or a raven, or maybe a bat?"

[ChubbyRain]

I always wondered why not allow the druid (or any other summoner) pull of a Final Fantasy summon somewhat like wildshape.

Your summoner is removed from play (pocket dimension) and you, the player, can pick what to summon and control their actions.

Mix this with Fwiffo86 beefy options, though no year and one day stuff, or go back to 3.5 idea of summons not being real and they are just magical copies.

This would allow for some interesting things. I want to make a subclass of monk or barbarian that can do this... The fluff would be endless.

[youtellatale]

I think it's worth noting that with spells like Conjure Animals and Conjure Fey you don't conjure an animal at all. You summon fey spirits that take the form of a beast that is chosen. This means the beasts aren't running out of the woods to save you. You literally bring them into being right where you want. For reference, conjure minor elementals and conjure elementals summons elementals, conjure celestials summons celestials, conjure woodland beings summons fey also.

Here's something to think about when some say that they like it to be setting specific: what if the Druid only conjures creatures from their native area? The DM bringing something else in because they think it's cool or fitting somewhat takes away the player choice.

Something else worth noting is that the wording is very different from Conjure Fey to Conjure Animals. CF brings one fey in the form of a beast, CA brings fey in the form of one or many beasts. CA tells the caster to choose an option while CF does not, it states that it summons a fey in the form of a CR6 or less beast. To me this means that in CA, the player should choose, but with CF it is up to the DM.

Just my 2 cents.

[calebrus]

So I'm definitely seeing ideas for how these spells can be fun if something unexpected can happen ... but still in the camp that the spell caster has some control over what they get, because of tradition and because giving players agency is usually a good thing. If the player has a clever idea that works if they get a Giant Badger, giving them Pixies is annoying for everyone involved.

I'm not interested in a RAW / RAI argument so much as I am in the "what's the most fun?" side of things.

In my games, where the players are matters greatly.
If they're in a forest, they aren't going to be summoning an octopus. If they're in a desert, tey aren't going to be summoning a bear. If they're in a.... you get the idea.
The summons will be appropriate to the locale.
But the players are perfectly free to tell me which kinds of creatures they're *trying* to summon, and in all likelihood I'll follow that. But not every time. They can tell me that they're attempting to summon a few wolves, and they may get something else instead, if the story and locale warrants it.

It's not a tool for screwing the players. It's a tool for advancing the plot or introducing new elements as I see fit.

[ChubbyRain]

In my games, where the players are matters greatly.
If they're in a forest, they aren't going to be summoning an octopus. If they're in a desert, tey aren't going to be summoning a bear. If they're in a.... you get the idea.
The summons will be appropriate to the locale.
But the players are perfectly free to tell me which kinds of creatures they're *trying* to summon, and in all likelihood I'll follow that. But not every time. They can tell me that they're attempting to summon a few wolves, and they may get something else instead, if the story and locale warrants it.

It's not a tool for screwing the players. It's a tool for advancing the plot or introducing new elements as I see fit.

What a horrible way to use DM fiat.

You do know that octopi can in fact walk up on land and grab prey right?

If I could conjure magical beasts, a big ol' octopi would be high on my list no matter where I was, perhaps not a desert though, if only because creatures and people of those areas won't expect or know much about the octopus. Summon + Grapple would be great. The octopi can hold its breath long enough for a battle.

A dolphin or other water dependent animal I could understand but not an octopus. That's like saying you can't summon a mountain lion because you are not in the mountains.

[silveralen]

What a horrible way to use DM fiat.

You do know that octopi can in fact walk up on land and grab prey right?

If I could conjure magical beasts, a big ol' octopi would be high on my list no matter where I was, perhaps not a desert though, if only because creatures and people of those areas won't expect or know much about the octopus. Summon + Grapple would be great. The octopi can hold its breath long enough for a battle.

A dolphin or other water dependent animal I could understand but not an octopus. That's like saying you can't summon a mountain lion because you are not in the mountains.

.....

You see, to me what he said seems not only reasonable but preferable. An octupus in a land locked area seems silly, fine if we are having a silly joke game with kender and such, less okay if we are going for something more serious.

I have no idea what your issue is that's a very reasonable descion on his part.

[Vogonjeltz]

Years of 3.5 tradition says it's player choice.
As Vogon notes, one way to read the rules is that the DM has the statistics on the summoned creature. That is not explicitly stating that the DM chooses the creatureIMNSHO, just that the DM is expected to have a Monster Manual.
I rule it player choice at my table.
However, I do like the idea that sometimes you don't get what you expect ... may have to houserule that it.

Right, and 3.5 this sure ain't. Given that there are spells that specifically say the player gets to choose exactly what they want to summon it stands to reason that when the spells specifically limit the decision to picking a CR/number option then it's also not letting the player get even more specific (otherwise it would just say so).


Oh joy, I summon Orcus!

And Orcus can deny the request. Or, since he's uncontrolled, he grants it....wait why did you want to do that?


In Adventure League it's Player choice.

Where is that written (specifically, please)? I want to be able to reference an actual rules citation in the future.

[Thrudd]

"Traditionally", summons were not decided by the player, they came from a random table that the DM has access to. One way 3e increased the power of spell casting characters was by allowing unerring choice of creature.

Players should not be flipping through the monster manual or DMG during the game. If the list of possible summons is not found in the PHB with the spell description, clearly the player is not intended to choose.

I would go back to "tradition", have DM make a list of possible summons for each CR, and roll on the table. They should have done that already, in the DMG or monster manual.

[Falling Icicle]

IMO, the player should get to choose. The rules for targeting spells on p. 204 states that "a typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects or a point of origin for an area of effect." 5e has a "specific beats general" rule. A spell, feat, ability, etc. follows the default assumptions of the game unless it specifically says otherwise. It seems to me like they intended for casters to choose what they target/affect/summon unless a spell says otherwise. Spells like conjure minor elementals don't say otherwise. Spells that do have a random effect that isn't chosen by the caster (confusion, prismatic spray, teleport, etc.) specifically go out of their way to say so. There's nothing in the summoning spells' rules that would indicate that they were intended to be random. No table of random monsters to roll on is provided. If they had intended for these spells to produce random results, I believe they would have said so, as they did with spells like prismatic spray.

If you do the opposite and assume that the player doesn't get to choose unless the spell specifically says that you can, that leads to all kinds of problems. If that logic applies to spells like conjure woodland beings, it would also apply to every parameter of every spell that doesn't explicitly state "of your choice." Many spells, such as finger of death and dominate person, state that they target a creature that you can see within range, but don't specifically state that it's a creature "of your choice." Should they affect a random creature, even an ally? Let's not stop there. Conjure spells don't go out of their way to state that you get to choose where the creatures appear, either, only that they appear in unoccupied spaces within range. Have fun randomly picking which squares out of potentially hundreds of squares the monsters appear in. If you don't let the caster choose the parameters for his own spells, the game effectively falls apart. At the very least, it would make playing a spellcaster a pretty miserable experience.

[Thrudd]

Conjure spells tell you exactly what the player chooses: the CR and number of summoned creatures. The PHB does not tell you anything else, except the general category of creature that the spell summons. This is not the same as targeting something. It doesn't say "choose a target creature that you know of, that creature appears and follows your orders."

How would a player know what specific creatures there are to choose from? The PHB doesn't tell them. how do they know what the CR of any given creature is? Or even what creatures exist to be summoned? It is clearly intended for the DM to choose, from creatures available in the setting.
If the spell description said "the DM will provide you with a list of creatures that can be summoned with this spell", that would change things, and there'd be more of an argument for player choice.

As is, I feel it is clear. Certainly, people can house rule that the player can look through the monster manual and choose something. I feel that is too powerful, and having a player looking through the monster manual during a game for any reason is inappropriate.

If this one spell having a random element to it is too frustrating for a player, I would suggest they not use it, or play a different class. That's just how this spell works.

[Xetheral]

...It is clearly intended for the DM to choose, from creatures available in the setting.

...

As is, I feel it is clear. Certainly, people can house rule that the player can look through the monster manual and choose something. I feel that is too powerful, and having a player looking through the monster manual during a game for any reason is inappropriate.

Even if you're correct as to how the spell was intended to work, the RAW certainly isn't clear: over many readings of the spells in question it never even occurred to me that the player might not get to select what is summoned. And as evidenced in this thread we're not the only ones with our respective interpretations. Since multiple people disagree on what the text says, even after being exposed to arguments for the other interpretation, the text can't be clear.

I also don't see anything wrong with a player looking at a monster manual during the game (unless they're looking at the entry for the current opponent without first making a knowledge check). From my perspective, the spell practically tells players to ask the DM for the monster manual so that they can make an appropriate choice of what to summon. Sure, ideally the player looked through the monster manual ahead of time and came prepared with their summons' game stats, but in my experience that level of preparation is rare.

[Thrudd]

Even if you're correct as to how the spell was intended to work, the RAW certainly isn't clear: over many readings of the spells in question it never even occurred to me that the player might not get to select what is summoned. And as evidenced in this thread we're not the only ones with our respective interpretations. Since multiple people disagree on what the text says, even after being exposed to arguments for the other interpretation, the text can't be clear.

I also don't see anything wrong with a player looking at a monster manual during the game (unless they're looking at the entry for the current opponent without first making a knowledge check). From my perspective, the spell practically tells players to ask the DM for the monster manual so that they can make an appropriate choice of what to summon. Sure, ideally the player looked through the monster manual ahead of time and came prepared with their summons' game stats, but in my experience that level of preparation is rare.

From my point of view, the PHB is the player's book. It contains everything the player needs to know about playing the game. If something isn't in there, the player is not meant to know it, and they should ask the DM. If players were supposed to choose their summons, there would be a list of creatures there in the spell description, as there was in 3e.

This is what makes it clear, to me. In the absence of text specifying a location or manner in which the summon is selected, the base assumption is that players don't have access to material other than the phb. Therefore, it is on the DM to adjudicate the result of that spell.

I think assumptions being carried over from the last couple editions are tainting people's expectations and interpretations, here.

[Wartex1]

I'm pretty sure the list of summons isn't there as to allow creatures from future supplements.

[SharkForce]

there is no indication of who should choose, or how they should choose. just pick something that works for your group, and go with that.

[silveralen]

My main problem is how do the players know what creatures exist in this world to summon? There is no guarentee that everything exists. A homebrew setting or the more niche DnD settings can easily have this problem.

It should be ultimately up to the DM. Maybe they roll on a table or let the players pick from a list or just let them choose anything from the MM, but the needs of the campaign may prevent one or more creatures from being appropriate so the DM, at minimum, has veto power over any given summon by virtue of it literally not existing.

[Pex]

And Orcus can deny the request. Or, since he's uncontrolled, he grants it....wait why did you want to do that?



It's an in-joke on the Forum. In truth only funny, in theory, to those who get the reference.

[Mr.Moron]

If I was allowing summons I'd just say it summons this FIXED_CREATURE_ENTRY for each CR entry. That one thing and only that one thing. If they wanted to explore summoning different things that that one thing, they could do research and figure out special material components or something for the proper variation.

[Pex]

From my point of view, the PHB is the player's book. It contains everything the player needs to know about playing the game. If something isn't in there, the player is not meant to know it, and they should ask the DM. If players were supposed to choose their summons, there would be a list of creatures there in the spell description, as there was in 3e.

This is what makes it clear, to me. In the absence of text specifying a location or manner in which the summon is selected, the base assumption is that players don't have access to material other than the phb. Therefore, it is on the DM to adjudicate the result of that spell.

I think assumptions being carried over from the last couple editions are tainting people's expectations and interpretations, here.

If I were a player in your campaign, would you forbid me from buying my own copy of the DMG and Monster Manual? Would I need to prove to you I don't already own the books before playing? What happens if we're fellow players in some game, you already know I own the books, but then it becomes your turn to be DM? What if the DM in that game we're fellow players who has the DMG and Monster Manual for his campaign wanted to play in your campaign?

[Thrudd]

If I were a player in your campaign, would you forbid me from buying my own copy of the DMG and Monster Manual? Would I need to prove to you I don't already own the books before playing? What happens if we're fellow players in some game, you already know I own the books, but then it becomes your turn to be DM? What if the DM in that game we're fellow players who has the DMG and Monster Manual for his campaign wanted to play in your campaign?

Of course not. It's nothing to do with owning it. I would expect you to keep your nose out of it while we were playing, when you are a player and I am the DM.

Of course, when I'm with a bunch of players that own all the books and are DMs themselves, I would not be as worried about it. I am using custom/modified creatures, and assuming you/your characters are familiar with any published stuff I include. it still is rude to go looking for the stats of monsters you are fighting, but I understand other DMs probably have a lot of it memorized.

I still wouldn't let you choose summons, though, even if you have memorized all the possibilities. It's not how the spell is written, and I prefer the random way.

[pwykersotz]

If I were a player in your campaign, would you forbid me from buying my own copy of the DMG and Monster Manual? Would I need to prove to you I don't already own the books before playing? What happens if we're fellow players in some game, you already know I own the books, but then it becomes your turn to be DM? What if the DM in that game we're fellow players who has the DMG and Monster Manual for his campaign wanted to play in your campaign?

Isn't it more reasonable to assume that his argument counts table to table and not person to person? That a person can know the books, but control over the information in them is split along the lines he divided them by of DM vs PC?

Edit: Ninja'd by the actual poster. :smalltongue:

[Chronos]

The problem with "it's not in the players' book, so players aren't expected to know it" argument is that there are plenty of other cases where the players are expected to know things from the Monster Manual. What animals can the beastmaster choose for his companion? What animals can the druid turn into? Even the paladin's steed can explicitly be a camel, elk, or pony. Those are all chosen by the player, and while a few animals they might choose are statted out in the PHB, most of them aren't.

[SharkForce]

for that matter, while it may not make much sense for a soldier to know the details of, say, a pit fiend, it is rather improbable that a soldier wouldn't know the rough capabilities of goblins, or that a hunter wouldn't know a thing or two about deer.

[Shining Wrath]

for that matter, while it may not make much sense for a soldier to know the details of, say, a pit fiend, it is rather improbable that a soldier wouldn't know the rough capabilities of goblins, or that a hunter wouldn't know a thing or two about deer.

And a Ranger knows his favored enemies like a sage; nay, like a Boss Sage. And druids presumably know quite a bit about the animals they turn into.

There's got to be PC knowledge of creatures. I suspect a Intelligence(Knowledge(Nature)) check covers most of it, and the DM ought to set the DC for things like dogs and cows very low.

[calebrus]

If I were a player in your campaign, would you forbid me from buying my own copy of the DMG and Monster Manual? Would I need to prove to you I don't already own the books before playing? What happens if we're fellow players in some game, you already know I own the books, but then it becomes your turn to be DM? What if the DM in that game we're fellow players who has the DMG and Monster Manual for his campaign wanted to play in your campaign?

In 2e, the DMG (and by association, the MM) specifically stated, in the first friggin page, that if you weren't the DM, you should close the book right this moment.
3e changed that, and began including player options in those books. 4e made it even worse, if that is possible.
5e returns to the former. There is zero material in the DMG or the MM for players. Every single thing that a player might need is in the PHB.
Players have zero reason to even open the DMG and the MM. And I, for one, am happy to see the reversion.


And a Ranger knows his favored enemies like a sage; nay, like a Boss Sage. And druids presumably know quite a bit about the animals they turn into.

There's got to be PC knowledge of creatures. I suspect a Intelligence(Knowledge(Nature)) check covers most of it, and the DM ought to set the DC for things like dogs and cows very low.

And in ALL of the above scenarios, the player doesn't need an MM. You said it yourself: he makes a check. And from the result of that check, the DM tells him what he knows. He doesn't just inherently know everything there is to know about an animal just because he's a Ranger or whatever.
There is absolutely zero reason for him to open those books unless he's on the other side of the screen.

edit:
And before anyone starts in with Death Clerics and Oathbreaker Paladins, those are specifically listed as villainous entries. As in, for NPCs. As in, not for players.

[charcoalninja]

In my games, where the players are matters greatly.
If they're in a forest, they aren't going to be summoning an octopus. If they're in a desert, tey aren't going to be summoning a bear. If they're in a.... you get the idea.
The summons will be appropriate to the locale.
But the players are perfectly free to tell me which kinds of creatures they're *trying* to summon, and in all likelihood I'll follow that. But not every time. They can tell me that they're attempting to summon a few wolves, and they may get something else instead, if the story and locale warrants it.

It's not a tool for screwing the players. It's a tool for advancing the plot or introducing new elements as I see fit.

And stomping down player agency and plot elements important to them. If I as a player choose a wolf summoning spell and prepare a wolf summoning spell you're damn sure I expect and want to be summoning wolves. You have literally every other second of the game for your story. My little blip in the initiative is MY turn to talk, MY turn to advance the story and add depth to my character and if I want Lobos the Wolf summoner to summon a timber wolf on a pirate ship by using the magic and powers the game says I have, who are you to hinder that?

[Pex]

In 2e, the DMG (and by association, the MM) specifically stated, in the first friggin page, that if you weren't the DM, you should close the book right this moment.
3e changed that, and began including player options in those books. 4e made it even worse, if that is possible.
5e returns to the former. There is zero material in the DMG or the MM for players. Every single thing that a player might need is in the PHB.
Players have zero reason to even open the DMG and the MM. And I, for one, am happy to see the reversion.


What are you going to do, make all your players sign a notarized statement solemnly swearing they don't now nor have ever read and owned the DMG and Monster Manual and promise never to do so while playing in your campaign? You will refuse to let anyone who has ever been a DM play in your campaign? Do you also disqualify yourself from ever playing the game again and must always DM because you know what's in the DMG and Monster Manual due to being a DM yourself?

[calebrus]

What are you going to do, make all your players sign a notarized statement solemnly swearing they don't now nor have ever read and owned the DMG and Monster Manual and promise never to do so while playing in your campaign? You will refuse to let anyone who has ever been a DM play in your campaign? Do you also disqualify yourself from ever playing the game again and must always DM because you know what's in the DMG and Monster Manual due to being a DM yourself?

Obviously not, that's asinine.
You can look through the books as much as you want to. There's no way for me to stop it. But you can't take that knowledge and use it to your advantage just because you, as a player, read it. Your character didn't read it.
Using the DMG and MM is metagaming, and I absolutely ABHOR metagaming.

You get to say "I conjure CR 1/4, and I'm trying to get <insert whatever here>."
You don't get to say "I'm conjuring wolves, because I said I am."
Maybe you want wolves. Maybe you think wolves are best.
And maybe I'll give you wolves.
But maybe wolves aren't best, and your character just doesn't know that. Or maybe I want to introduce you to something else so the Druid has more wild shape choices. Or maybe there aren't any wolves in the area. Or maybe whatever.
You can tell me you want wolves, and I'll probably give them to you. But you can't tell me you're definitely summoning wolves, because that's not your call. You, as a player, choose the number and CR. You can have a preference of the actual creature (and I'll probably accommodate you), but ultimately that isn't your decision, and if I decide otherwise, then that's how the cookie crumbles.

And charcoalninja's little rant above?
That's exactly the time when I choose that you don't get wolves.
Because then he'll cry and never come back. And if he's going to throw a fit over whether or not wolves got summoned, then I'll be happy when he never comes back.

Our group has been playing together, as a group, for twenty two years. We all understand that the person behind the screen is in charge of the game, whomever's turn it may be to be the one behind the screen.
If you feel entitled to absolutely anything, you better be the one behind the screen.

[Wartex1]

DMG does include Oathbreaker, Death Domain, and Aasimar for players.

[pwykersotz]

And stomping down player agency and plot elements important to them. If I as a player choose a wolf summoning spell and prepare a wolf summoning spell you're damn sure I expect and want to be summoning wolves. You have literally every other second of the game for your story. My little blip in the initiative is MY turn to talk, MY turn to advance the story and add depth to my character and if I want Lobos the Wolf summoner to summon a timber wolf on a pirate ship by using the magic and powers the game says I have, who are you to hinder that?

Aqua Wolf!!! :smallbiggrin:

I have never had a player who cared about the form an animal takes like that. That said, if they told me they wanted to theme themselves as a wolf summoner and told me such, I wouldn't change things in the same way. I might change their coloring, size, aura, and keep the same basic form and statblocks. If I felt it added anything, which depending on the campaign, it might.

But honestly, my players don't go that far. They want to summon a creature for a role. To distract, to damage, to grapple, and they telegraph that desire well. I'm able to give them something thematic that still fits what they want if I decide to modify it. This isn't a mountain, it's a molehill, and it's easy to work with. It also helps fulfil another pillar of adventuring, which is exploration. Seeing new and different creatures is fun.

Edit: Also, the whole game is for players. It's always your turn to talk or to advance the story. The DM isn't some foe to slay, he's your buddy that you're gaming with.

[calebrus]

DMG does include Oathbreaker, Death Domain, and Aasimar for players.

Nope.


And before anyone starts in with Death Clerics and Oathbreaker Paladins, those are specifically listed as villainous entries. As in, for NPCs. As in, not for players.
And Aasimar is used as an example of how to create a race, not as a racial option for players.
The Aasimar listed is used as a DM tool for racial creation, not as a player tool for racial choice.

It is: Here's an example of how you, as the DM, might want to create a new race, and here is an example of what to do and how to do it.
It is not: Here's a new race for players to choose from.

There is nothing in the DMG for players.
If you want to offer some of those things as choices for the players, then that's your prerogative as DM. But those are not player options just because they're in print.

[charcoalninja]

Obviously not, that's asinine.
You can look through the books as much as you want to. There's no way for me to stop it. But you can't take that knowledge and use it to your advantage just because you, as a player, read it. Your character didn't read it.
Using the DMG and MM is metagaming, and I absolutely ABHOR metagaming.

You get to say "I conjure CR 1/4, and I'm trying to get <insert whatever here>."
You don't get to say "I'm conjuring wolves, because I said I am."
Maybe you want wolves. Maybe you think wolves are best.
And maybe I'll give you wolves.
But maybe wolves aren't best, and your character just doesn't know that. Or maybe I want to introduce you to something else so the Druid has more wild shape choices. Or maybe there aren't any wolves in the area. Or maybe whatever.
You can tell me you want wolves, and I'll probably give them to you. But you can't tell me you're definitely summoning wolves, because that's not your call. You, as a player, choose the number and CR. You can have a preference of the actual creature (and I'll probably accommodate you), but ultimately that isn't your decision, and if I decide otherwise, then that's how the cookie crumbles.

And charcoalninja's little rant above?
That's exactly the time when I choose that you don't get wolves.
Because then he'll cry and never come back. And if he's going to throw a fit over whether or not wolves got summoned, then I'll be happy when he never comes back.

Our group has been playing together, as a group, for twenty two years. We all understand that the person behind the screen is in charge of the game, whomever's turn it may be to be the one behind the screen.
If you feel entitled to absolutely anything, you better be the one behind the screen.

I'm sure that dynamic works for your group just fine but I feel that's a terrible way to conduct any sort of game involving new players. Once you pull the agency denial card you've destroyed the trust dynamic between player and DM and basically the rest of the game becomes an endless series of asking for clarification on whether or not the PCs abilties even work since he now has 0 clue and can only guess when you'll randomly decide that your ideas are more important than his and he'll be left out in the cold again.

Dealing with this sort of DMing from on high in drop in games in the past has certainly burned me before, and now I find that as a player I a) always play characters with as many options as possible and b) optimize their survivability as much as possible to ensure I can survive whatever agency denial is going to come my way.

It's a legit playstyle for sure, just not one I consider overly healthy. But hey, gaming takes all kinds right?

[pwykersotz]

Dealing with this sort of DMing from on high in drop in games in the past has certainly burned me before, and now I find that as a player I a) always play characters with as many options as possible and b) optimize their survivability as much as possible to ensure I can survive whatever agency denial is going to come my way.

It's a legit playstyle for sure, just not one I consider overly healthy. But hey, gaming takes all kinds right?

Ah, that explains it. :smalleek:

[charcoalninja]

Ah, that explains it. :smalleek:

Likely. I've never seen this sort of DMing done in a manner that wasn't disrespectful and so I find it very hard to reconcile it conceptually. Obviously if he's been with the same group for 22 years they have a great understanding of that dynamic and have embraced it.

For me I put a lot of time and energy into my character and their presence in the story and to have my wants for the story made subserviant to anyone else's in the game, be it another player or the DM, just doen't sit well for me.

[Pex]

Likely. I've never seen this sort of DMing done in a manner that wasn't disrespectful and so I find it very hard to reconcile it conceptually. Obviously if he's been with the same group for 22 years they have a great understanding of that dynamic and have embraced it.

For me I put a lot of time and energy into my character and their presence in the story and to have my wants for the story made subserviant to anyone else's in the game, be it another player or the DM, just doen't sit well for me.

Ergo my concern when I started this:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?403198-Still-Say-Yes

[calebrus]

Ergo my concern when I started this:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?403198-Still-Say-Yes

Nope.
I call shenanigans.
In that thread, you attempt to make it clear that your point is not that restrictions exist, but rather the reasons why those restrictions exist.
I have stated many reasons why a DM might want to have control of and/or change what gets summoned, and yet you still argue with it, even though perfectly legitimate reasoning has been given.

So either you're just arguing to argue in this thread, or you're being less than forthcoming about your motivations in the other thread.

This all leads me to believe that it's an issue that someone else stated in that thread, which is that it's about control.
You don't want the DM to have it. You want it all to yourself.
You go on about control freak DMs in that thread, but even here it's about control. And as a player you don't want to give any of it up at all. Not one little bit. Which is funny considering how against "control freaks" you claim to be.

[charcoalninja]

Nope.
I call shenanigans.
In that thread, you attempt to make it clear that your point is not that restrictions exist, but rather the reasons why those restrictions exist.
I have stated many reasons why a DM might want to have control of and/or change what gets summoned, and yet you still argue with it, even though perfectly legitimate reasoning has been given.

So either you're just arguing to argue in this thread, or you're being less than forthcoming about your motivations in the other thread.

This all leads me to believe that it's an issue that someone else stated in that thread, which is that it's about control.
You don't want the DM to have it. You want it all to yourself.
You go on about control freak DMs in that thread, but even here it's about control. And as a player you don't want to give any of it up at all. Not one little bit. Which is funny considering how against "control freaks" you claim to be.

Actually few of your reasons were remotely legitimate, and it all went down to you deciding to limit one of the very few interactions one of your players have in the game based solely on your desire for your story rather than their desire for theirs. Literally one of your reasons for arbitrarily deciding that a player couldn't summon wolves that time was because you wanted to expose the Druid to a different animal. Wanting to expose the druid to something is great! Stomping out another player's actions to do it sin't. Your reasons were completely about what you want, paying very little heed to the wants of your peer sitting across from you. Players only have one avenue available to them to influence the story, their character and as I said earlier in the thread; you have the entire world, the players only have their single character. With "control" the spirit isn't the issue, it's a question of scale. As a DM you already have the entire world. You have precious little right to the PC as well.

[calebrus]

Thank you for proving my point so completely.

[charcoalninja]

Thank you for proving my point so completely.

Well... Yeah, it's about control. Difference between player control and DM control is when a player controls things, he only controls HIS guy and it only impacts his own character and what that one piece does. When a DM controls things he controls not only his pieces but everyone elses. A player in control tells people what he's doing, a DM in tells everyone ELSE what they're doing, their control has a direct impact and limit on the actions and control of others.

That's why it's all too often bad, disrespectful and aggrevating.

[Chronos]

Quoth calebrus:

5e returns to the former. There is zero material in the DMG or the MM for players. Every single thing that a player might need is in the PHB.
OK. I'm playing a rogue. I want to be able to find and disarm traps. Show me the section of the PHB that tells me how.

OK. Another player is playing a paladin. He casts the Find Mount spell, and chooses to get a camel (and yes, that spell does say that the caster chooses, and explicitly lists the camel as an option). Show me the section of the PHB that gives him the stats for his mount.

OK. We might have someone playing a druid. The Wild Shape class ability says that she can turn into any beast of CR 1/4 or less. Show me the section of the PHB that lists which beasts that includes.

[calebrus]

OK. I'm playing a rogue. I want to be able to find and disarm traps. Show me the section of the PHB that tells me how.
Investigation and/or perception, pages 177-8
Thieves' tools, page 154
Tell the DM you're looking for traps and roll perception or investigation as he tells you to. If you find a trap, tell the DM you want to attempt to disarm it and roll whatever check he tells you to.


OK. Another player is playing a paladin. He casts the Find Mount spell, and chooses to get a camel (and yes, that spell does say that the caster chooses, and explicitly lists the camel as an option). Show me the section of the PHB that gives him the stats for his mount.
He doesn't need to know that stats for every mount available. He needs to know that he can have a mount and he knows that the DM has the exact stats for anything he needs.
AFTER he has called a certain mount, THEN he will have knowledge of that mount's strengths, weaknesses, and abilities.


OK. We might have someone playing a druid. The Wild Shape class ability says that she can turn into any beast of CR 1/4 or less. Show me the section of the PHB that lists which beasts that includes.
Show me a list of all the beasts of CR 1/4 or less that the Druid has seen. He obviously knows what creatures he has come into contact with during the game.
AFTER he has wild shaped into an animal, THEN he will have knowledge of its strengths, weaknesses, and abilities.

With the exception of your first example (which is explained to him under the descriptions I listed), these are not things that the player would know before doing them, and therefore these are not things that the player needs access to inherently.

[Pex]

Nope.
I call shenanigans.
In that thread, you attempt to make it clear that your point is not that restrictions exist, but rather the reasons why those restrictions exist.
I have stated many reasons why a DM might want to have control of and/or change what gets summoned, and yet you still argue with it, even though perfectly legitimate reasoning has been given.

So either you're just arguing to argue in this thread, or you're being less than forthcoming about your motivations in the other thread.

This all leads me to believe that it's an issue that someone else stated in that thread, which is that it's about control.
You don't want the DM to have it. You want it all to yourself.
You go on about control freak DMs in that thread, but even here it's about control. And as a player you don't want to give any of it up at all. Not one little bit. Which is funny considering how against "control freaks" you claim to be.

Your reasons for not allowing the summoning of wolves boils down to wanting to give the druid exposure to more animals and because you said so. The former is nice but why do it at the expense of another player's action and the latter is your whim. The summoning player is dependent on your mood at the time as to whether or not his ability works as he wanted and expected to do. He doesn't get wolves just because. That's quite a difference of intent than a DM who decides pixies are CR 1 so that you can't conjure 8 of them with one casting of Conjure Woodland Beings to get 8 castings of Confusion due to being overpowered but otherwise the player chooses his woodland beings summoned.

[calebrus]

Your reasons for not allowing the summoning of wolves boils down to wanting to give the druid exposure to more animals and because you said so.

No, that was but one possible reason.
"But maybe wolves aren't best, and your character just doesn't know that. Or maybe I want to introduce you to something else so the Druid has more wild shape choices. Or maybe there aren't any wolves in the area. Or maybe whatever"
The "or maybe whatever" covers a whole host of other possibilities as well.
Maybe the story will advance if something else shows up. Maybe you're in a wild magic zone and the result is random. Maybe.... whatever.

Once again, it boils down to control.
You don't like control freak DMs, but you're unwilling to give up any control yourself. That's severely hypocritical. And that's why I call shenanigans.

[SharkForce]

if you want to introduce the druid to an animal, just make one show up at some point. "on your way to the city, you see a mountain lion".

heck, you can even just list it in the backstory. they're a druid. they've probably seen a lot of animals over the course of becoming a druid.

also, it's completely and utterly ridiculous to suggest that a druid would not know anything about common animals until after they've become one. they're druids. knowing about nature, wildlife, etc, is basically what they do.

not saying there's no good reasons to have the DM decide (though i do think that if a key reason you're deciding is so that you can be a **** instead of just talking out your problems like an adult, then you frankly shouldn't be the DM). but introducing the druid to an animal? not really one of them. there's tons of ways to do that, you don't need to control the summon spell for that.

also, "or maybe whatever" isn't a reason. "whatever" could be anything. "maybe the sky is blue", or "maybe it's 5:00", or "maybe this isn't an actual explanation at all, just a vague non-descriptive term that doesn't tell anyone anything about what you mean".

[calebrus]

also, it's completely and utterly ridiculous to suggest that a druid would not know anything about common animals until after they've become one. they're druids. knowing about nature, wildlife, etc, is basically what they do.

I didn't say they wouldn't know about common animals.
But I will (and did, if you read between the lines) say that while they may know that a bear is strong and hearty, they wouldn't know it has X Str and Y Con and Z hit points.
There's a difference between knowing about an animal, and knowing *everything* about an animal. And frankly, there is no way that anyone, including a Druid, would know every in and out detail of any creature until facing/interacting with/wild shaping into said creature. So once again, there is no reason that detailed information needs to inherently be available to players from the start.
All that information does is encourage metagaming.
They'll get those details after the first time they wild shape into it. Not before.

[Xetheral]

...All that information does is encourage metagaming.

They'll get those details after the first time they wild shape into it. Not before.

It's no more metagaming to look at the stats of animals before deciding what to wildshape into than it is to look at the descriptions of feats before deciding which one to take, or to look at the descriptions of spells before deciding which one to memorize.

[Chronos]

Investigation and/or perception, pages 177-8
Thieves' tools, page 154
Which one? Investigation, or perception?

And Thieves's Tools just says that they let me add my proficiency bonus to checks to disarm traps, but they don't say a word about what those checks would be.

Let's just make it simple: I want to make a rogue who's really good at dealing with traps. I'm assigning my ability scores. What score should I make the highest in order to be best at that?

[JackPhoenix]

OK. Another player is playing a paladin. He casts the Find Mount spell, and chooses to get a camel (and yes, that spell does say that the caster chooses, and explicitly lists the camel as an option). Show me the section of the PHB that gives him the stats for his mount.

OK. We might have someone playing a druid. The Wild Shape class ability says that she can turn into any beast of CR 1/4 or less. Show me the section of the PHB that lists which beasts that includes.

I wanted to write "PHB, Appendix D, page 30x", but then I've actualy looked and noticed camel isn't there, unlike mule, riding horse and a warhorse. But there is a bunch of other beasts for a druid to turn into, CR included. No pixies, either.

[Thrudd]

And stomping down player agency and plot elements important to them. If I as a player choose a wolf summoning spell and prepare a wolf summoning spell you're damn sure I expect and want to be summoning wolves. You have literally every other second of the game for your story. My little blip in the initiative is MY turn to talk, MY turn to advance the story and add depth to my character and if I want Lobos the Wolf summoner to summon a timber wolf on a pirate ship by using the magic and powers the game says I have, who are you to hinder that?

Unfortunately, there isn't a wolf summoning spell in the game. There is a spell that summons unspecified woodland creatures. If you want a wolf summoning spell, it would need to be a custom spell, the DM would need to adjudicate its level and availability.

It would be premature of you to create "Lobos the wolf summoner" when the rules of the game don't provide any such ability.

[Vogonjeltz]

It's an in-joke on the Forum. In truth only funny, in theory, to those who get the reference.

I know the reference, my point was that it only even makes sense for 3.5 and that we are talking about 5th edition, which is qualitatively different.


The problem with "it's not in the players' book, so players aren't expected to know it" argument is that there are plenty of other cases where the players are expected to know things from the Monster Manual. What animals can the beastmaster choose for his companion? What animals can the druid turn into? Even the paladin's steed can explicitly be a camel, elk, or pony. Those are all chosen by the player, and while a few animals they might choose are statted out in the PHB, most of them aren't.

The PHB gives examples for the Beastmaster.

The Druid Beast shapes have examples as well. Presumably asking the DM is always an option.

Ditto for the Find Steed spell. The DM has the stats if it's not in the PHB.


Which one? Investigation, or perception?

And Thieves's Tools just says that they let me add my proficiency bonus to checks to disarm traps, but they don't say a word about what those checks would be.

Let's just make it simple: I want to make a rogue who's really good at dealing with traps. I'm assigning my ability scores. What score should I make the highest in order to be best at that?

"Tool use is not tied to a single ability, since proficiency with a tool represents broader knowledge of its use. For example, the DM might ask you to make a Dexterity check to carve a fine detail with your woodcarver's tools, or a Strength check to make something out of a particularly hard wood."

Incidentally, page 177 other dexterity checks: pick a lock, disable a trap.

So you are right, the answer is extremely simple.

[Chronos]

OK, so where do I need to put my ability scores to be good at traps?

And yes, I do know the answer to this one already, but if you don't have the DMG, you're very likely to get it wrong.

[Pex]

I know the reference, my point was that it only even makes sense for 3.5 and that we are talking about 5th edition, which is qualitatively different.


If you know the reference then you would know edition is irrelevant.

[silveralen]

OK, so where do I need to put my ability scores to be good at traps?

And yes, I do know the answer to this one already, but if you don't have the DMG, you're very likely to get it wrong.

If I had to guess, intelligence. Haven't looked through that portion of my DMG so let me see if I'm surprised.

Edit: Yep, intelligence edges out wisdom for a dedicated trap hunter. Kinda what you'd expect from the PHB so this doesn't seem like a good example. A little bit of dexterity is good as well though I like the fact many of those traps are geared more towards avoidance or problem solving then skill check to remove.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I've actually always felt like dexterity made more sense for traps. :/ So I'd be wrong without looking.

[Wartex1]

Having proficiency in the tools and a Sleight of Hand check for trapmaking.

That's what I'd do anyways.

[Chronos]

Quoth silveralen:

If I had to guess, intelligence. Haven't looked through that portion of my DMG so let me see if I'm surprised.
Right, you had to look in a portion of the DMG to find out, which was my point. Though actually, Int is only the second-most important score for a trap-disarmer. First, you have to use Perception (Wis) to even find the trap at all, and then, if you find it, you can make an Investigation (Int) check to figure out how it works, and then, if you figure it out, you can make a Thieves' Tools (Dex) check to disarm it.

[ChubbyRain]

Right, you had to look in a portion of the DMG to find out, which was my point. Though actually, Int is only the second-most important score for a trap-disarmer. First, you have to use Perception (Wis) to even find the trap at all, and then, if you find it, you can make an Investigation (Int) check to figure out how it works, and then, if you figure it out, you can make a Thieves' Tools (Dex) check to disarm it.


Yeah it is messed up.

By what the PHB says, you should be able to replace the Perception (Wis) with an Investigation (Int) since traps are hidden items. However if you make a character based off track skill section of the PHB and your DM goes by the DMGyou kinda screwed yourself on actually finding the trap (say you didn't become trained in perception).

Assuming players don't know what is in the DMG and strong arming them from using that knowledge is pretty messed up. The greatest combat maneuver is in the DMG, climb onto bigger creatures, and it is a total shame that it isn't in the PHB.

If a player hasn't read the DMG but wants to do this, fantasy type logical idea, doesn't it just make it easier for the player to already know the core options for this instead of the DM having to either make them guess or for the DM to look stuff up? Of course with the way of DMing one would expect from so.e people on here the PC wouldn't be allowed to climb onto a bigger creature because that means they are cheating by using "metagame" knowledge.

[silveralen]

Right, you had to look in a portion of the DMG to find out, which was my point. Though actually, Int is only the second-most important score for a trap-disarmer. First, you have to use Perception (Wis) to even find the trap at all, and then, if you find it, you can make an Investigation (Int) check to figure out how it works, and then, if you figure it out, you can make a Thieves' Tools (Dex) check to disarm it.

Well, my point was I didn't have to look up, I looked up merely to check and see if my initial deduction based on the PHB was true. Which it was, mostly, I think intelligence comes out as the most important of the three we knew applied.

I think I see an issue real quick. When you read "DC to spot the whatever is 10/15", do you assume it only applies to wisdom (perception)? Because if it only allows one or the other (as later examples sometimes do), it specifies, otherwise I'd assume either works going off of what the PHB says about it. In which case they are both pretty equally represented.

You can make a case for the DMG making it sound like you need perception, investigation, and thieves tools to be a trap disarming expert while the PHB implies you need perception or investigation plus thieves tools, but that'll probably vary by table regardless. The best solution isn't to look in the DMG, it is too ask your DM, as what he decides matters far more than what is printed in the DMG.

[calebrus]

Of course with the way of DMing one would expect from so.e people on here the PC wouldn't be allowed to climb onto a bigger creature because that means they are cheating by using "metagame" knowledge.

Wrong again.
As a player, you don't need to know the rules for how the DM is going to adjudicate something. As a player, you tell the DM what you want to do.
It really is that simple.
The DM then tells you what, if any, rolls need to be made.
But the knowledge of how it's going to work behind the scenes? That's information that you, as a player, don't need. You'll get that information when the time arises.

Of course, with the way of playing one would expect that some people on here, the players wouldn't ever even attempt to climb onto something's back, because there aren't rules for it laid out for them in black and white, and these players don't have enough imagination to Role Play anything unless they can Roll Play it first.

[Pex]

Wrong again.
As a player, you don't need to know the rules for how the DM is going to adjudicate something. As a player, you tell the DM what you want to do.
It really is that simple.
The DM then tells you what, if any, rolls need to be made.
But the knowledge of how it's going to work behind the scenes? That's information that you, as a player, don't need. You'll get that information when the time arises.

Of course, with the way of playing one would expect that some people on here, the players wouldn't ever even attempt to climb onto something's back, because there aren't rules for it laid out for them in black and white, and these players don't have enough imagination to Role Play anything unless they can Roll Play it first.

So players are not entitled to know the rules of the game? Now I call shenanigans!

[calebrus]

So players are not entitled to know the rules of the game? Now I call shenanigans!

Everything that the players need to know is in the PHB.
Anything that gets outside of those bounds are things which players don't *need* to know going in, and can learn as the situation arises.
Once again, if you *need* to know exactly how a DM is going to adjudicate something before you even attempt it, that's a control issue.... and it's not a DM-Control issue, it's a You-Control issue.
This is a Role Playing game. People that need to know every single little detail before they even attempt something aren't Role Playing. Those people are Roll Playing.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I dunno, I get what you're saying, but I want to know what I need to make sure my character is good at what I want him to be good at. Going with the climbing example (which may not be the best one), say I want a character who is a monster hunter. A giant monster hunter. Maybe I've been playing Shadow of the Colossus recently. So, I want my character to be climbing all over giant monsters. When building my character, I'd want to know what I'll need to do so. I haven't read the monster climb rules recently, so I don't actually know what I need. Do I need a high strength for grip, or should I go rogue with expertise in athletics to represent climbing? Do I need dexterity to balance on the backs of moving things? How about con? Do I need that so I have the endurance to hold on to a thrashing giant? Even mental stats, really. Do I need wisdom to see potential holding points? How about Int, to know where a monster's blind spots are? Do you use charisma as a "luck stat", should I pump that for good circumstances in my favor?

That's barely touching skills. Do I need athletics for climbing? How about acrobatics to balance? Do I need perception to see handholds?

And then classes and attacking. Can I use a one handed weapon to stab while climbing, or do I have to use light weapons? Does sneak attack apply for when I'm climbing? Can I spellcast? Touch attack spellcast? If I wildshape into a cat, do I get a bonus to holding onto the monster, or is it more difficult?

If you want to answer all these questions up front so that I'll know I'll be good at my concept, well, you're in for some work for every single PC, but ok. On the other hand, you could just have the player look at the rules in the DMG ahead of time, and during the game.

[SharkForce]

so you're saying my rogue that is an expert at dealing with traps shouldn't understand the details of what it takes to deal with traps until after play starts. clearly said rogue would never have encountered a trap during the training process, nor as part of the rogue's background or anything at all like that.

and my druid, who probably has nature as a skill and has spent years watching and learning the habits of various animals won't know any details about what that animal can do, either, just like scientists today have absolutely no idea what exactly most animals are capable of due to a lack of the ability to shapeshift into one and experience it for themselves.

[pwykersotz]

Wow, this has become a very different sort of discussion since I last checked... :smalleek:

[Xetheral]

As a player, you don't need to know the rules for how the DM is going to adjudicate something. As a player, you tell the DM what you want to do.
It really is that simple.
The DM then tells you what, if any, rolls need to be made.
But the knowledge of how it's going to work behind the scenes? That's information that you, as a player, don't need. You'll get that information when the time arises.

The rules model the players' choices for their character's actions. Knowing how the model works acts as a substitute for the IC information their character would know that the players lack. For example, the player of a Druid might only have a general knowledge of the way various animals fight. The player's Druid character however, would have a much better understanding. To make an appropriate IC decision for their character the player needs to know what their character knows.

True, the IC knowledge possessed by the character would not take the form of the animals' game statistics, but giving the game statistics to the player adequately represents that knowledge because it lets the player make an informed choice on the pros and cons of each animal, just like their character would be able to do.

Ultimately, if a character would have the knowledge and experience necessary to make an informed decision, then it is not metagaming to give the player the information needed to make a similarly-informed decision on their character's behalf.

[calebrus]

You're talking about information that you would prefer to have, not information that is required for you to have.
You don't need that information to make the decision. You have a general idea of what normal animals are all about. You have a general idea of their capabilities. A general idea is all that's required to make that decision.
And you already have a general idea, so the information in the DMG and MM aren't required.

As for all that garbage above about creating a character to do one specific task, I'll say it one more time: You're Roll Playing. You don't need to *win* D&D, and that information is not required for you to play. You may prefer to have it, but it is in no way required.

[Magic Myrmidon]

I must say, asserting that my arguments are "garbage" is hardly called for.

Furthermore, I would argue that that sort of information is required if I want to actually be GOOD at my "role". "Roll" playing and "role" playing are often one and the same. If I want to play a strong barbarian, then put an 8 in strength, then my character will hardly be the door-bashing slab of meat that he should be.

So, for the aforementioned example, my "role" that I am "playing" is a monster hunter who specializes in climbing on his targets. Without knowing how to DO that, I am not really playing (nor am I capable of playing) that role.

Let's say I want to do something that isn't covered by the rules anywhere. Maybe I want ... I dunno, a scientist. No, not a wizard, a researcher who want to know the natural laws of the world? What do I need to be good at that? How will I be good at math? What about formulating theory, and spreading the word of my findings? Is that covered with a tool proficiency? It doesn't really seem to fit in the knowledges. I'd need to ask you what I should have so I can be a good scientist. Do I just have to take a shot in the dark and say "well, I guess probably nature, since I want to know ... biology and physics?" Or can I come to you and ask?

[calebrus]

First of all, you're choosing a corner case example that you would never actually do in game.
I know this because you're obviously EXTREMELY concerned with min/maxing your character build, so obviously you would never create a character that has such a narrow margin of usefulness in game. The percentage of creatures big enough for you to "mount" in that way is tiny compared to the number of mobs you're going to face. So if you're at all concerned with optimizing, which you clearly are, then you won't ever make that character.
You're just arguing for the sake of argument here, when the bottom line is that if (and I do mean IF, not when) you ever decide to do something so narrow and not optimized as creating the character in question, all you have to do is ask the DM.

Once again, this is not something you need to know from the start. Your entire argument is invalid.
I swear, you people seem to think that the PHB needs to be 850 pages to include everything that you may ever possibly need, but will never EVER use.

edit:
And I'll repeat, you're Roll Playing. You're not Role Playing.
Make a character. One with feelings and motivations (beyond "I'm the best monster climber EVAR!") and a personality. And then Role Play that character. You're creating a set of stats. That's not Role Playing. That's Roll Playing.
You don't need to know absolutely every single nuance of every single possible roll that might possibly ever have to be made in order to make a friggin character.
You have everything you require in the PHB.
It really is as simple as that.
If you desire something more, feel free to ask about it. But you don't need it, you simply want it.

[Magic Myrmidon]

If you desire something more, feel free to ask about it.

Fair points. I admit that it is unlikely that I'd want to make a character that narrow. I could come up with other examples, but really, the line I've quoted is reasonable. I might have missed it, but if you're ok with a player asking how you'd do something ahead of time, that's all that's really needed.

I do still disagree that "role" and "roll" playing are quite as separate as you seem to be saying. The mechanics are there to facilitate a structured storytelling, after all. Making the numbers support my concept is kind of important.

(For the record, my favorite character of all time was a daredevil swashbuckling type who had a penchant for climbing on monsters and doing flashy things whenever able. I've played him for five years, he has a mentor, he has friends, he has enemies, goals, emotions, and basically a life of his own. I still had to put together about 7 classes and ask DMs how to accomplish the tricks he pulls off in order to make my concept work. An int/dex based fighter is kind of hard to do in 3.5.)

That being said, I may be arguing for the sake of arguing, but isn't that what online forums are all about? :p

[silveralen]

Again I think it's worth mentioning: The DM may not be going by the DMG at times (that book is literally 90% optional material in the first place). The monsters in his campaign may not be the default MM ones.

Assuming those sources will be true is potentially problematic because, unlike the PHB, those books contain things that do fall under the DM's purview, the sort of things 5e kind of assumes he will modify anyways (again, 90% optional DMG with variant rules). Those are literally the most likely things to be altered, modified, or removed. Is anyone using DMG magic item creation? My table isn't.

Even if it isn't, you could still have problems. For example, I was running the little premamde intro adventure months ago and only skimmed the rules ahead of time (I was busy). One of my players, a rogue, focused on investigation over perception. I didn't realize the PHB laid that out as a usage for perception, and usually just called for perception checks to see if they noticed traps (he had no perception to speak of). At no point in the first entire 3ish sessions did he mention or even ask to use investigation. It wasn't until I had time to sit down and do a full cover to cover reading that I spotted the section on investigation being used to find traps which he had based his character on. Yet he didn't mention it once in play. Or ask if he could use it. Or ask to change how his character was built. Or literally anything.

You cannot replace communication. Yes, it should be as simple as "well, the PHB said x so I thought y" and the DM makes minor adjustments to accommodate you or let's you tinker with your character as needed. Or asking him to start with. Those are dramatically more likely to succeed, as I can already tell I wouldn't be using the DMG trap rules exactly as laid out, something I'm probably not going to explictly mention to my players ahead of time as I doubt they read it.

[charcoalninja]

I actually agree on the monster stats. That is the DMs purview and he has the freedom to change anything he wants with the monsters and such things because that's his domain.

He doesn't have the ability to change things about a PC on a whim though that's what I'm arguing. It's about control but it's about control amongst equals. Everyone at the table has an equal part to play in the game and no one player is less important than another. The control we're talking about is control over your bucket in the sand box so we can all play. Just because you've invented the basic story doesn't mean you get to dictate what I get to do with my bucket. DM has full control over DM stuff and that should be respected, especially if something happens that doesn't make mechanical sense, because you as a player don't have all the facts. But by the same token a player has full control over his character and what they do in the game and that, likewise should be respected just as highly.

That's all I'm saying. I don't complain if the trolls we're fighting turn out to be magma trolls that actually CAN regenerate fore damage, that's cool. Likewise the DM shouldn't be messing with my actions to suit his whim.

[Shining Wrath]

Nope.


And Aasimar is used as an example of how to create a race, not as a racial option for players.
The Aasimar listed is used as a DM tool for racial creation, not as a player tool for racial choice.

It is: Here's an example of how you, as the DM, might want to create a new race, and here is an example of what to do and how to do it.
It is not: Here's a new race for players to choose from.

There is nothing in the DMG for players.
If you want to offer some of those things as choices for the players, then that's your prerogative as DM. But those are not player options just because they're in print.

The DMG explicitly lists Death Domain and Oathbreakers as options a DM might offer to their players. You don't have to do so, but if you do, your players should be looking in the DMG to understand them.

[Thrudd]

Likewise the DM shouldn't be messing with my actions to suit his whim.

As long as your actions are allowed by the rules. It is the DM's job to enforce and adjudicate the rules of the game. If a spell says it summons woodland creatures, and you get a badger but you would have preferred a wolf, that is not the DM "messing with your actions". It is adjudicating the rules perfectly in line with the DM's role.

The ruling of how the spell works is something that should have been done prior to using it, so there is no question or misunderstanding at the time it happens. The DM making a ruling that says a player does not have control over certain things is also not "messing with your actions". The rules and rulings are the framework within which your character takes their actions.

Complaining about the rules or petitioning the DM to change them is another matter. Often it does come down to control issues, some people feel they as players should have more narrative control. Some DMs see their role as facilitating whatever story the players want to tell about the characters they have invented, the setting and rules are modified to accomodate the character concepts.

Other DMs see their role as creators of a fantasy world into which the players can enter and explore, the players are expected to fit their characters to the setting, not the other way around.

[archaeo]

You cannot replace communication. Yes, it should be as simple as "well, the PHB said x so I thought y" and the DM makes minor adjustments to accommodate you or let's you tinker with your character as needed. Or asking him to start with. Those are dramatically more likely to succeed, as I can already tell I wouldn't be using the DMG trap rules exactly as laid out, something I'm probably not going to explictly mention to my players ahead of time as I doubt they read it.

But if your party's Druid or Wizard or whatever was about to learn conjure foo, you would talk about what can actually be summoned with the spell right?

I can absolutely understand tables wanting to leave this up to the DM, though I can't really imagine that was the intended rule. But I have a hard time wrapping my head around a Wizard researching a spell (or a Druid getting it from their nature god or whatever) that summons things from another dimension without knowing, you know, what it's actually going to summon.

[Mr.Moron]

But if your party's Druid or Wizard or whatever was about to learn conjure foo, you would talk about what can actually be summoned with the spell right?

I can absolutely understand tables wanting to leave this up to the DM, though I can't really imagine that was the intended rule. But I have a hard time wrapping my head around a Wizard researching a spell (or a Druid getting it from their nature god or whatever) that summons things from another dimension without knowing, you know, what it's actually going to summon.

Generally: The idea that summoning magic is likely to pull random things or have unexpected results in a common trope.
In-Universe: Being able to summon help is better than not being able to summon help at all. You know you're probably going to get something and it's likely to helpful. It's certainly more than you'd get if you didn't learn to summon
In-Game: You're still getting 2x-5x actions the of the non-summoning players, with 2x-5x the screen time even if those actions aren't are as of high quality of your own.

[Thrudd]

But if your party's Druid or Wizard or whatever was about to learn conjure foo, you would talk about what can actually be summoned with the spell right?

I can absolutely understand tables wanting to leave this up to the DM, though I can't really imagine that was the intended rule. But I have a hard time wrapping my head around a Wizard researching a spell (or a Druid getting it from their nature god or whatever) that summons things from another dimension without knowing, you know, what it's actually going to summon.

Well, magic isn't always something you can control. Is it so hard to imagine that a spell might have an unpredictable element to it's effect? Getting a spell from a god even more so than one that is studied, who are you to tell your god what a spell should do? If there is any case where it is appropriate for a spell to act in a way you don't expect, this is it.

[SharkForce]

Generally: The idea that summoning magic is likely to pull random things or have unexpected results in a common trope.

is it?

i can't think of anything other than earlier editions of D&D that did that.

now, whoever had that house rule that a summoning spell calls forth a specific creature (or group of creatures) that you know the name of (with each spell essentially being a different true name that you have to prepare), *that* i would say is a pretty common trope (plus it leads to interesting options like being able to give your summoned creatures useful equipment). but just casting a summoning spell and not having the slightest idea what's gonna come out? not so much.

[archaeo]

Generally: The idea that summoning magic is likely to pull random things or have unexpected results in a common trope.
In-Universe: Being able to summon help is better than not being able to summon help at all. You know you're probably going to get something and it's likely to helpful. It's certainly more than you'd get if you didn't learn to summon
In-Game: You're still getting 2x-5x actions the of the non-summoning players, with 2x-5x the screen time even if those actions aren't are as of high quality of your own.


Well, magic isn't always something you can control. Is it so hard to imagine that a spell might have an unpredictable element to it's effect? Getting a spell from a god even more so than one that is studied, who are you to tell your god what a spell should do? If there is any case where it is appropriate for a spell to act in a way you don't expect, this is it.

I'm not saying you can't justify it, but I do think it's extremely counterintuitive. Unless I'm forgetting something major, the only spell that hands so much of the "power" to the DM is wish. When you learn fireball, the DM doesn't roll to see how big the explosion will be. When you cast confusion the DM doesn't get to decide how the enemies react to confusion. And however you want to handwave it, gods or capricious summoning spells or otherwise, it's the DM who will play that role.

D&D models unpredictable magic already: it's the Wild Magic Sorcerer. Otherwise, the game, in all but a very few circumstances, expects that when a player casts a spell for the first time, it works like it says it does in the book, every time. I think it's totally reasonable to extend that expectation to conjure foo. It's equally reasonable for the DM to make some executive decisions about what can actually be summoned with those spells, but it's a conversation that I think should happen before the spell is ever memorized or prepared.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Getting a spell from a god even more so than one that is studied, who are you to tell your god what a spell should do?

Irrelevant sidenote: This is why I never want to play a cleric. I want my character to be fueled by his/her own strength and abilities, not begging for help. I've considered playing a cleric of an ideal, though, since I'm not exactly asking someone else for help. This is also why I like psionics; it's the ultimate "power of the self".

[Xetheral]

You're talking about information that you would prefer to have, not information that is required for you to have.
You don't need that information to make the decision. You have a general idea of what normal animals are all about. You have a general idea of their capabilities. A general idea is all that's required to make that decision.
And you already have a general idea, so the information in the DMG and MM aren't required.

Sure, the game is still playable if you don't give the PC's access to the DMG and MM. But you claimed far more than that the information in the DMG wasn't required. You claimed that it would be metagaming for the player to consider that information when making a decision about what to wildshape into. I disagree:

Unlike most players, the Druid character has far more than "a general idea of what normal animals are all about." Accordingly, giving the player access to the game rules governing normal animals lets them make a better IC decision about what to wildshape into.

[Shining Wrath]

Broadly speaking, we have a tension between DM creativity and player agency. This is not going to be resolved as a RAW discussion, or even a RAI discussion, because there's points to be made on both sides.

In-game, though, if the spell caster does not choose what is obtained by a summons spell, then who does? Usually when there's a random chance of something happening the game gives you a table with matching percentile dice rolls, e.g., Wild Magic Sorcerers. The absence of such tables (or mention that the DM will generate them) argues against a random event. If the caster isn't making the choice, then does that imply that Someone does?

That would put it into the "DM choice" camp, but with the DM choosing as though he/she were Someone powerful - a fey lord in the case of CWB.

[silveralen]

I actually agree on the monster stats. That is the DMs purview and he has the freedom to change anything he wants with the monsters and such things because that's his domain.

He doesn't have the ability to change things about a PC on a whim though that's what I'm arguing. It's about control but it's about control amongst equals. Everyone at the table has an equal part to play in the game and no one player is less important than another. The control we're talking about is control over your bucket in the sand box so we can all play. Just because you've invented the basic story doesn't mean you get to dictate what I get to do with my bucket. DM has full control over DM stuff and that should be respected, especially if something happens that doesn't make mechanical sense, because you as a player don't have all the facts. But by the same token a player has full control over his character and what they do in the game and that, likewise should be respected just as highly.

That's all I'm saying. I don't complain if the trolls we're fighting turn out to be magma trolls that actually CAN regenerate fore damage, that's cool. Likewise the DM shouldn't be messing with my actions to suit his whim.

I agree, it just happens that the conjure creature spells kinda straddle the line, being a player action that summons a creature whose statistics are chosen by the DM.

At the end of the day, if the player can choose any creature at all, even ones that don't exist in the setting, problems might ensue. I mean... what's stopping them from hand tailoring a list of creatures using the monster creation guide to perfectly fit into a given situation? That's going to cause issues, mainly because the devs have never done a particularly good job of ensuring balanced monster creation guidelines. You can, if building a monster, give it foresight as an at will ability without increasing the CR more than a few levels. Not an issue with the DM creating them, big issue with the player.

There is going to be a line in most games. Maybe only things in the MM, maybe only things they've seen or otherwise know about, maybe only creatures that exist in the setting (which might include the DM's custom monsters), etc.

Now I jumped in and out of the thread so it might be we strayed even further from the OP than I thought, but that's my opinion.


But if your party's Druid or Wizard or whatever was about to learn conjure foo, you would talk about what can actually be summoned with the spell right?

I can absolutely understand tables wanting to leave this up to the DM, though I can't really imagine that was the intended rule. But I have a hard time wrapping my head around a Wizard researching a spell (or a Druid getting it from their nature god or whatever) that summons things from another dimension without knowing, you know, what it's actually going to summon.

Sort of, I do not go out of my way to warn players about taking abilities that are inherently vague, or give them a list of such vague abilities. If they asked, yes I would 100% discuss it. If they just assume how it works, I let them until the ability comes into play and then we see how close their expectations and what is going to happen match up. However, I will always let a player rebuild their character based on misunderstood rules. The reasoning is basically that I can't monitor every single thing my players do or ability they take, plus I like them to take abilities that surprise me/I haven't accounted for so I'd prefer not to try. Nor can every single corner vague or unclear portion be identified and pointed out ahead of time, you inevitably miss some, and I've found an incomplete list is more likely to cause bad feeling than no list.

If it were a house rule? 100% I would always mention it. I also ask them to bring it up with me if they ever aren't 100% certain how an ability might work. If all else fails, they can always alter their character as needed after it comes up in game. Iif the entire character concept is somehow lost, then we might need to have a longer discussion and make modifications to the ability/rule in question.

However, conjure spells specifically are an excellent example of the latter. Giving players full access to every creature in the MM, my notes, or that could be created using the DMG isn't going to work for a variety of reasons. But I can easily see a player needing some sort of control to enjoy being summoner. So we'd probably sit down for 5-10 mins and hash out a list of approved summons for said character (with anything outside of that being at my discretion). Whether we have this discussion before the player uses the ability or after I invoke DM fiat mid game to keep the game going depends on the player.

[DanyBallon]

This might not end the debate, but in the latest UA, they created a spell-less ranger and gived him an ability to natural allies to mimic the conjure spells here's the exact wording (emphasis is mine):


Call Natural Allies

Starting at 13th level, when you are in an area of your favored terrain, you can call natural creatures from that terrain to fight on your behalf, using your attunement to the natural world to convince them to aid you. The DM chooses beasts appropriate to the terrain to come to your aid from among those that could hear you and that are within 1 mile of you, in one of the following groups:

One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower
Two beasts of challenge rating 1 or lower
Four beasts of challenge rating 1/2 or lower
Eight beasts of challenge rating 1/4 or lower

These beasts approach you from their current location, and will fight alongside you, attacking any creatures that are hostile to you. They are friendly to you and your comrades, and you roll initiative for the called creatures as a group, which takes its own turns. The DM has the creatures’ statistics.

After 1 hour, these beasts return to their previous location. Once you use this feature, you cannot use it again in the same general area for 24 hours, since the same animals will not repeatedly heed your call.

This would tend to support the DM choose camp, but it's not a conjure spell per say.

[silveralen]

{scrubbed}

Whether or not it is is also DM dependent. In a world without wolves, conjuring a wolf may not be a thing. Which is a "local area" factor. Or it could be 100% doable.


{scrubbed}

Firebolt does in the targeting section, the fabrication spell lacks any qualification like "the DM has the statistics of the item you created".

It isn't stupid, it keeps player cheese to a minimum. I'd be best to not have to do it, but do we really think players should be custom building summons using the DMG?

[Mr.Moron]

{scrubbed}

Then rule it that way when you run a game. There is clearly no strict RAW on the matter so the entire thing boils down to personal taste.

[calebrus]

There is no default, because the text doesn't specify. You may interpret a default, but the RAW doesn't. So yes, it's a ruling.

[Chronos]

calebrus, you're right that the player doesn't actually need to know any of the rules in the DMG. But then, they don't actually need to know any of the rules in the PHB, either. You could have a player come to the table and say "I want to play a big beefy guy with a big sword, tell me how to do that", and the DM could then prepare a barbarian character sheet for them. Later on, in combat, "I want to split that orc that called me a name in two with my sword", and the DM says "OK, roll that die there", and then compares the number rolled, the attack bonus on the character's sheet, and the orc's AC. The player can do all of this without knowing any of the rules whatsoever. And yet, the rules for making a barbarian, and for attacking with a greatsword, are all right there in the PHB. Why, if the player doesn't need them?

[Vogonjeltz]

OK, so where do I need to put my ability scores to be good at traps?

And yes, I do know the answer to this one already, but if you don't have the DMG, you're very likely to get it wrong.

Dexterity, which is required for the "necessary sabotage" using thieve's tools, the exact same answer given by the PHB. Intelligence being useful for a Rogue is even indicated in the Quick Build section on page 95. They also have easy access to Perception and Investigation. There's also a text box on page 178 of the PHB that flat out tells the player that Perception is useful for spotting hidden traps.

What trap rogue isn't going to pick up expertise in perception, investigation, and thieves's tools anyway? And even if they didn't take it for perception/investigation, there's almost certainly going to be someone who did assuming the group is remotely balanced out.


I dunno, I get what you're saying, but I want to know what I need to make sure my character is good at what I want him to be good at. Going with the climbing example (which may not be the best one), say I want a character who is a monster hunter. A giant monster hunter. Maybe I've been playing Shadow of the Colossus recently. So, I want my character to be climbing all over giant monsters. When building my character, I'd want to know what I'll need to do so. I haven't read the monster climb rules recently, so I don't actually know what I need. Do I need a high strength for grip, or should I go rogue with expertise in athletics to represent climbing? Do I need dexterity to balance on the backs of moving things? How about con? Do I need that so I have the endurance to hold on to a thrashing giant? Even mental stats, really. Do I need wisdom to see potential holding points? How about Int, to know where a monster's blind spots are? Do you use charisma as a "luck stat", should I pump that for good circumstances in my favor?

That's barely touching skills. Do I need athletics for climbing? How about acrobatics to balance? Do I need perception to see handholds?

And then classes and attacking. Can I use a one handed weapon to stab while climbing, or do I have to use light weapons? Does sneak attack apply for when I'm climbing? Can I spellcast? Touch attack spellcast? If I wildshape into a cat, do I get a bonus to holding onto the monster, or is it more difficult?

If you want to answer all these questions up front so that I'll know I'll be good at my concept, well, you're in for some work for every single PC, but ok. On the other hand, you could just have the player look at the rules in the DMG ahead of time, and during the game.

Even if the rules weren't that either is allowed, I'd probably allow either if you can properly describe how you'd employ that attribute and skill proficiency. Heck, that's even a rule in the PHB for using skills with other ability scores Strength (Intimidation), for example. So no, you don't need to know anything in the DMG, although the DMG does often suggest that the DM present the options therein to the players.


That's all I'm saying. I don't complain if the trolls we're fighting turn out to be magma trolls that actually CAN regenerate fore damage, that's cool. Likewise the DM shouldn't be messing with my actions to suit his whim.

I agree completely!

And when a player casts Conjure Minor Elementals they get 4 options:
One elemental CR 2 or lower
Two elementals CR 1 or lower
Four elementals CR 1/2 or lower
or
Eight elementals CR 1/4 or lower

That's it, pick option 1, 2, 3, or 4 and then the DM tells the player what shows up. No player choice is involved beyond those parameters.

[Pex]

First of all, you're choosing a corner case example that you would never actually do in game.
I know this because you're obviously EXTREMELY concerned with min/maxing your character build, so obviously you would never create a character that has such a narrow margin of usefulness in game. The percentage of creatures big enough for you to "mount" in that way is tiny compared to the number of mobs you're going to face. So if you're at all concerned with optimizing, which you clearly are, then you won't ever make that character.
You're just arguing for the sake of argument here, when the bottom line is that if (and I do mean IF, not when) you ever decide to do something so narrow and not optimized as creating the character in question, all you have to do is ask the DM.

Once again, this is not something you need to know from the start. Your entire argument is invalid.
I swear, you people seem to think that the PHB needs to be 850 pages to include everything that you may ever possibly need, but will never EVER use.

edit:
And I'll repeat, you're Roll Playing. You're not Role Playing.
Make a character. One with feelings and motivations (beyond "I'm the best monster climber EVAR!") and a personality. And then Role Play that character. You're creating a set of stats. That's not Role Playing. That's Roll Playing.
You don't need to know absolutely every single nuance of every single possible roll that might possibly ever have to be made in order to make a friggin character.
You have everything you require in the PHB.
It really is as simple as that.
If you desire something more, feel free to ask about it. But you don't need it, you simply want it.

I get it now. You disagree with the Stormwind Fallacy.

[Chronos]

What trap rogue isn't going to pick up expertise in perception, investigation, and thieves's tools anyway?
One who didn't read the DMG, and who thus has no idea that he needs Perception instead of Investigation to find traps.

[calebrus]

I get it now. You disagree with the Stormwind Fallacy.

I don't disagree with the Stormwind Fallacy. I do, however, disagree with people using that as an excuse and/or justification.
When your entire character concept revolves around mechanics, you're Roll Playing. The Stormwind Fallacy doesn't even apply. You can Role Play and still be concerned with mechanics. But when the mechanics are primary, it falls outside the bounds of the Stormwind Fallacy.
And feeling that you absolutely require every little bit of potential knowledge in order to even make a character definitely means that mechanics are primary for a player.

Invoking the Stormwind Fallacy is not blank check to make mechanics primary, but people use it for exactly that reason. I don't disagree with the Stormwind Fallacy, but I do disagree with people that abuse it.

People that attempt to use the Stormwind Fallacy to justify their own penchant for Roll Playing are doing the entire premise of the Fallacy a disservice, and unfortunately that's a very common occurrence.

[Pex]

I don't disagree with the Stormwind Fallacy. I do, however, disagree with people using that as an excuse and/or justification.
When your entire character concept revolves around mechanics, you're Roll Playing. The Stormwind Fallacy doesn't even apply. You can Role Play and still be concerned with mechanics. But when the mechanics are primary, it falls outside the bounds of the Stormwind Fallacy.
And feeling that you absolutely require every little bit of potential knowledge in order to even make a character definitely means that mechanics are primary for a player.

Invoking the Stormwind Fallacy is not blank check to make mechanics primary, but people use it for exactly that reason. I don't disagree with the Stormwind Fallacy, but I do disagree with people that abuse it.

People that attempt to use the Stormwind Fallacy to justify their own penchant for Roll Playing are doing the entire premise of the Fallacy a disservice, and unfortunately that's a very common occurrence.

It is also not a blank check to dismiss the care a player had for his character to function as intended to fill his role as "rollplaying", which is what you are doing. You are also forbidding a player from knowing the rules to make his character, another way of calling him a munchkin. I stand by my concern in that other thread "Still Say Yes".

[calebrus]

It is also not a blank check to dismiss the care a player had for his character to function as intended to fill his role as "rollplaying", which is what you are doing. You are also forbidding a player from knowing the rules to make his character, another way of calling him a munchkin. I stand by my concern in that other thread "Still Say Yes".

I forbade nothing.
I have said multiple times that if you want to know about something not in the PHB, feel free to ask about it. But every single thing that you are required to know as a player is in the PHB.
The DMG and MM are both filled with information that is not vital to a player. Not to any player, no matter the concept.

People are claiming that they can't build or play certain characters without knowledge of certain things in those books, and those claims are flat out lies.
There is not one single word written in either of those two books that is required to build, create, or play any character at all.
They are not books for players. They are books for the DM.

A DM might *allow* players to use information from those two books during play, at his or her discretion, but the default assumption is that the players have no reason to use either of those books in any capacity whatsoever.
There is absolutely zero information in either of those books for player use, unless and until the DM decides otherwise.

There are three books.
If you're a player, the Player's Handbook belongs to you. But there is also information in there for the DM, so it belongs to him as well.
If you're the DM, the Dungeon Master's Guide belongs to you. And you control the monsters, so the Monstrous Manual is yours as well.
PHB: for PCs
PHB, DMG & MM: for DMs.

[SharkForce]

if controlling the monsters determines who gets to see the monster manual, then a summoner (that is, someone who can control monsters) should get to see the monster manual (or at least, the parts related to creatures they can summon).

[calebrus]

if controlling the monsters determines who gets to see the monster manual, then a summoner (that is, someone who can control monsters) should get to see the monster manual (or at least, the parts related to creatures they can summon).

Once again, the player chooses the number and CR of the creatures they want to conjure.
One creature at CR 2, two creatures at CR 1, four creatures at CR 1/2, or eight creatures at CR 1/4.
That's it. That's where your choice is made. That's the power that the player has regarding these spells. So, "the parts related to the creatures they can summon" ends there.
Or maybe you simply forgot what this entire four page thread was completely about?
Obviously if the DM rules that the player decides, then the player needs access to the information. But that's a ruling, not the rule. By the rules, detailed information of creature stats and abilities is not required for the player.
So like I said, if the DM declares that you can have and use that information, that's his decision. But he might not make that declaration, and if he doesn't make that declaration then there is no need for the player to have that information.... meaning.... that knowledge is not required for the players to have at the onset.

Another problem I have with your line of thinking from above, Pex, is this:
The things in the DMG aren't rules. They're guidelines. So your comments about "players knowing the rules of the game" is irrelevant. That's only likely to cause problems, because the players *think they know* how something is going to happen, when in fact it may not make sense for it to happen that way.
That's where the real problems arise. Because you're taking things in the DMG as hard and fast rules, when that's not what that source book is about in any way. It's not about rules. It's about guidelines.
The PHB is the rule book. The DMG is a book filled with guidelines designed to help DMs run a game. Nothing in that book is set in stone. Not one single thing. The same goes for the MM, because DMs are encouraged to alter monsters to fit their whims and their world.
It's fine if the players know and understand those guidelines, but their knowledge is imperfect. Attempting to actually use that imperfect *knowledge* is going to cause issues. As long as you, as a player, understand that they are indeed guidelines, and are not in fact rules, there won't be problems.
The DM knows what's happening behind the scenes in a story. The players don't.
So when the players use knowledge that they shouldn't use to make assumptions about what should or should not happen, all they're doing is creating a recipe for conflict at the table. They're using information that may or may not be correct to make these assumptions. And in the even that their information turns out to be incorrect, they're going to cry Foul at the DM, when it was their own mistake of using information not meant for them which lead to the problem in the first place. It will be their own fault, but I guarantee they'll blame the DM for it.
Your "Still Say Yes" thread is a perfect example of player entitlement. You blame DMs and call them power hungry, but the real issue is yours, not his.
Using information from any source other than the PHB, without explicit DM consent, just doesn't make sense. Players have absolutely zero entitlement to anything outside the PHB unless and until the DM explicitly tells them that they have access to it. And that also applies to many items within the PHB itself, where Variant or Optional Rules are concerned. They are not in play at all, under any circumstances, unless and until the DM says that they are.
If it isn't printed in the PHB (and within the PHB is not listed as Optional or Variant), then players have zero entitlement to it.
Period.

So, forbidding a player from knowing the rules to make his character?
Nope, not at all. The PHB is the rule book, and the character creation rules are included within that book. I don't forbid them, I fully expect players to use those rules. I also expect that those are the *only* rules they'll use without express consent to use anything outside of them.

[SharkForce]

does the DM get to know the creature's stats because he controls them in a battle, or because he chooses to put them in?

because last i checked, whether or not the player controls what creatures will show, they *do* control the actions of those creatures to a large extent. if you can explain how that is different from the DM controlling the actions of enemies in general in a battle, then you have a point. otherwise, you're just making a silly pointless arbitrary demand that players avoid the monster manual as if it were some sort of forbidden sacred tome containing secrets that would shatter their minds.

personally, i'm pretty confident they'll be able to manage keeping their fragile minds intact in spite of the earthshaking knowledge that wolves can trip enemies. but then again, i suppose i don't know the players in your group, so maybe they do need special protection from such knowledge. i sure hope you don't let them see what their dice rolled to keep them from figuring out enemy AC, though.