July Sage Advice is out

[Shining Wrath]

WotC (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_july2015)

Lots of stuff on Arcane Ward, but the key ruling for some of the debates hereabout is the official nerfing of Conjure Spells. Some conjuration spells do allow the caster to choose which creature answers (e.g., Find Familiar), but others the player chooses the size, and the DM choose the type. Example given is Conjure Elementals; player chooses the size of elemental, DM chooses which elementals of that size appear. Player is allowed to express a preference.

So, the 8 pixie horde from Conjure Woodland Beings is not going to happen unless your DM wants it to happen.

[pwykersotz]

With regard to summoning pixies, it's very interesting to read that particular update. I'm accustomed to forum arguments going unanswered in a clear way by WotC, but maybe that's since I got into 3.5 after 4 was released.

I might not always abide by their RAI, but I'm glad we have it.

[Dragonus45]

Eh, the idea that I'm not allowed to chose what I summon is a real deal breaker for me. Looks like its time to break out the house rules.

[Safety Sword]

Nothing surprising or (excuse the pun) game changing there.

Just some squashing of the ridiculous rule bending people try on.

[Shining Wrath]

Eh, the idea that I'm not allowed to chose what I summon is a real deal breaker for me. Looks like its time to break out the house rules.

I play; I DM; I can absolutely see both sides of this.
Player: I've got a great idea that works if I can summon badgers. DM: Sorry, I'm giving you ravens. Player: Waaaaahhhhh.
Player: I want to summon pixies! DM: We're in the middle of the desert, the nearest tree is 750 miles north-north-west, and this desert is made of anti-fey sand. Player: Waaaaaaaahhhhhhh want pixies!

Both end in player Waah, first one justified, second one not so much.

[pwykersotz]

Nothing surprising or (excuse the pun) game changing there.

Just some squashing of the ridiculous rule bending people try on.

Yeah, I was actually surprised by the sheer number of fairly obvious rulings. Many of them were raised once here in the playground, and then the answer was quickly discovered, like the Warlock telepathy bit.

[Dragonus45]

I play; I DM; I can absolutely see both sides of this.
Player: I've got a great idea that works if I can summon badgers. DM: Sorry, I'm giving you ravens. Player: Waaaaahhhhh.
Player: I want to summon pixies! DM: We're in the middle of the desert, the nearest tree is 750 miles north-north-west, and this desert is made of anti-fey sand. Player: Waaaaaaaahhhhhhh want pixies!

Both end in player Waah, first one justified, second one not so much.

I totally disagree. My spell should be able to give the the magical creature of my choice when I cast it because it's my spell. The only thing this ruling does is give the GM power to shut down players and take things away from players when it suits them too.

[Cybren]

I totally disagree. My spell should be able to give the the magical creature of my choice when I cast it because it's my spell. The only thing this ruling does is give the GM power to shut down players and take things away from players when it suits them too.


Alternatively allowing for the PCs to always get everything they want just isn't as interesting gameplay. Letting the DM choose means that you get more varied scenarios and it stops summoning spells from being a swiss army knife.

[Safety Sword]

I totally disagree. My spell should be able to give the the magical creature of my choice when I cast it because it's my spell. The only thing this ruling does is give the GM power to shut down players and take things away from players when it suits them too.

The great thing about 5E is that you're free to disagree. Change whatever you like in your game.

I actually think it makes sense that it's not the player's choice of creature. I think it adds flavour if the creature that is called is one that makes sense for the environment that you're in.

Each to their own though, if you want your players to always use the same creature because they are mechanically stronger then go ahead. You might as well just research a spell called "Call Pixies" though.

Also, from a DM perspective, being able to insert a particular creature can generate hooks. Perhaps you always get the same creature, when you call frogs. His name is Darren, and he gets to know you...

[JNAProductions]

So what happens when Darren dies?

[pwykersotz]

So what happens when Darren dies?

His brother Darrell shows up and says that the Frog Lord requests your presence to discuss Darren's demise. Perhaps to extract vengeance, or perhaps to make good on his last will and testament.

Obviously. :smalltongue:

[Shining Wrath]

I totally disagree. My spell should be able to give the the magical creature of my choice when I cast it because it's my spell. The only thing this ruling does is give the GM power to shut down players and take things away from players when it suits them too.

They have clarified RAI; you are free to do what you want. As I said, I can see the point of player agency because it lets a clever player get what they need to solve a problem; and I can see the point of letting the DM say that you get something appropriate (and, perhaps, flavorful) to the situation. Why should you be able to summon woodland beings in the middle of the desert? Why not special fey that enjoy sand and heat? Tying the DM's hands can also be not-fun.


So what happens when Darren dies?

His mother, Thunderhop the Baleful, would like to have words with you.

[JAL_1138]

So what happens when Darren dies?

Perhaps by getting Darren killed, you have angered his patron, the mighty Froghemoth (http://www.lomion.de/cmm/froghemo.php), who appears and is hostile to you the next time you try to summon a frog.

EDIT: Slightly ninja'd.

[Safety Sword]

So what happens when Darren dies?

Darren's body disappears and his soul is returned to the fey wild, where he is thanked for his service by the Fey Lords and restored to life, transported back to his swamp.

Until that damned druid calls him forth to run over traps again. What a jerk that guy is....

[Gnomes2169]

Perhaps instead of choosing stuff on the fly, a DM could make a list of creatures in particular climates of certain CR's (certain dinosaurs, pixies, blighs, wolves or other creatures of the sort for tropical forests; giant insects, bats, mychonids or other creatures for caves; a different list of creatures for desserts, etc), and then let players choose from the appropriate list whenever they cast a summon spell. Spells like summon elementals would probably be easy to work with (no water in a dessert, no air underground, no fire while on the ocean, no earth while flying in airships), while conjuer fey or conjure animals would take a bit more work.

[Safety Sword]

Perhaps instead of choosing stuff on the fly, a DM could make a list of creatures in particular climates of certain CR's (certain dinosaurs, pixies, blighs, wolves or other creatures of the sort for tropical forests; giant insects, bats, mychonids or other creatures for caves; a different list of creatures for desserts, etc), and then let players choose from the appropriate list whenever they cast a summon spell. Spells like summon elementals would probably be easy to work with (no water in a dessert, no air underground, no fire while on the ocean, no earth while flying in airships), while conjuer fey or conjure animals would take a bit more work.

I hear DMs like tables. And you can randomly generate the creatures from the tables.

That's how I'm doing it at the moment..

[Gnomes2169]

I hear DMs like tables. And you can randomly generate the creatures from the tables.

That's how I'm doing it at the moment..

*Slowly slides his folder of tables under his cubby* DM's like tables? Really? Why, I don't know what you could possibly mean! *The cubby tips over, and tables go EVERYWHERE!*

...

I have no idea where those came from. o-o

[Safety Sword]

*Slowly slides his folder of tables under his cubby* DM's like tables? Really? Why, I don't know what you could possibly mean! *The cubby tips over, and tables go EVERYWHERE!*

...

I have no idea where those came from. o-o

Pick up those tables immediately young DM or I will confiscate them! Don't leave your tables lying around where players can trip over them!

:smallamused:

[Dimcair]

summoners are dead anyway

[Giant2005]

Nothing surprising or (excuse the pun) game changing there.

Just some squashing of the ridiculous rule bending people try on.

I disagree, I found a couple of things to be pretty surprising.
I was surprised by the fact that an Abjuration Wizard's Arcane Ward doesn't benefit from Resistances or Immunities.
I was also surprised by the fact that Polearm Master's bonus attack doesn't benefit from the weapon's stats which means, it wouldn't benefit from a +1 Quarterstaff's +1 damage and to-hit bonus.

[mephnick]

summoners are dead anyway

I know, isn't it great?

[GiantOctopodes]

I disagree, I found a couple of things to be pretty surprising.
I was surprised by the fact that an Abjuration Wizard's Arcane Ward doesn't benefit from Resistances or Immunities.
I was also surprised by the fact that Polearm Master's bonus attack doesn't benefit from the weapon's stats which means, it wouldn't benefit from a +1 Quarterstaff's +1 damage and to-hit bonus.

The first one I discovered on my own while researching Thorns builds, and it definitely surprised me at the time, but only because I hadn't looked carefully enough at the wording before that point.

The second one is not quite correct- it's definitely an attack with the same weapon (and I'm pretty sure it's been clarified somewhere already that it benefits from any magic properties on the weapon, can't find that now though), but the verbiage of Polearm master is "the weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4", so I think what he meant to say is that the damage die for the attack is a function of the feat, not the weapon, which is consistent with the answer. Whether the weapon does 1d10, 3d100, or whatever else, the damage die for polearm master is still 1d4. As usual his wording has caused as many questions as it has answered, though, since now we need to go back and re-verify bonuses from magic weapons apply to the attack (both static mods, +d6 damage from elemental weapons, etc).

Or at least people do who care about his rulings :smallsmile:

[Gnomes2169]

summoners are dead anyway

I wouldn't say so. Summoners are just as good at murdering the action economy as they have always been... Perhaps even more so now that most summoning is explicitly a non-action. The only difference really is that they can't solo-shatter the game starting level 5-7.


Pick up those tables immediately young DM or I will confiscate them! Don't leave your tables lying around where players can trip over them!

:smallamused:

Yeep! Sir yes sir! *Scurries about, collecting papers*

[pwykersotz]

I was also surprised by the fact that Polearm Master's bonus attack doesn't benefit from the weapon's stats which means, it wouldn't benefit from a +1 Quarterstaff's +1 damage and to-hit bonus.

I'm not sure that follows. The examples listed involved which damage die to use which is separate from magical bonuses. Basically it's saying that weapons which have their die changed by magic still use the d4 because the bonus action attack doesn't use the die from the weapon, it uses a d4. But passive magical effects aren't brought into it, I would assume a weapon that says "on hit/crit do x" would still function. I might be wrong though, the implication IS that you aren't making an attack with your weapon as normal, a pommel strike with a sword might not deal elemental damage from that elemental weapon spell thematically.

Curious.

[Giant2005]

I'm not sure that follows. The examples listed involved which damage die to use which is separate from magical bonuses. Basically it's saying that weapons which have their die changed by magic still use the d4 because the bonus action attack doesn't use the die from the weapon, it uses a d4. But passive magical effects aren't brought into it, I would assume a weapon that says "on hit/crit do x" would still function. I might be wrong though, the implication IS that you aren't making an attack with your weapon as normal, a pommel strike with a sword might not deal elemental damage from that elemental weapon spell thematically.

Curious.

But it says specifically that the attack is a function of the feat, not the weapon being used. If the weapon is irrelevant, then it doesn't matter how heavily enchanted it is. It isn't even like a magic weapon's +1 enchantment is even significantly different to the Shillelagh enchantment. If one magic enchantment has no effect on the bonus attack, I don't know why the other would.

[Thrudd]

I totally disagree. My spell should be able to give the the magical creature of my choice when I cast it because it's my spell. The only thing this ruling does is give the GM power to shut down players and take things away from players when it suits them too.

The problem is, your spell doesnt give you a creature of choice. The technology's just not there. The spell gives an unspecified creature or creatures. Base your plans on the tools you have, not the tools you wish you had or hope to have. The DM isnt taking anything away from players, its something they never had in the first place.

If you want to know how to summon a specific type of creature, thats a spell a high level wizard could research and create. Same with anything there is no existing spell for. Your DM should have rules for adjudicating the process and results of spell research, including required level and cost.

[SharkForce]

wow. well, summoning with a DM that demands RAW suddenly got to be a lot worse. (and seriously, why would it matter whether the creature is common where you're summoning it? that's why it's a summoning spell and not a mind control spell. if it was *there* you wouldn't have to summon it. so sure, if you're in a desert, and you have a spell that can summon water elementals, well, you're summoning a monster, not mind controlling a monster that's already there. what difference does it make if the extraplanar creature you grab likes deserts or not?).

also, pixies are still broken, because they just don't seem to be willing to fix the actual problem instead of the thing that makes the problem visible.

[pibby]

I just think the ruling for summons is jarring for most players since summoning functioned differently in previous editions. Players used to pick from a table and summon from there. The downside was that it didn't account for expansions like monster manual 2 and 3. The currently ruling does so it's got that going for it. I'm sure most DMs who want to actually collaborate with their players will resolve this ruling issue to work for their table.

[Thrudd]

I just think the ruling for summons is jarring for most players since summoning functioned differently in previous editions. Players used to pick from a table and summon from there. The downside was that it didn't account for expansions like monster manual 2 and 3. The currently ruling does so it's got that going for it. I'm sure most DMs who want to actually collaborate with their players will resolve this ruling issue to work for their table.

Yeah, I know 3e was that way. But go back to AD&D and it was all about the DMs tables. 3e spoiled us with powers and options and more of everything to make the game easier.

[SharkForce]

Yeah, I know 3e was that way. But go back to AD&D and it was all about the DMs tables. 3e spoiled us with powers and options and more of everything to make the game easier.

yes, and in 2e, summoning was crap the majority of the time.

and the times when it wasn't? didn't use a table (or rather, didn't use a randomized table to decide what you get... there were good summoning spells that used a table where you ask for creatures and the table tells you a % chance to get it).

[GiantOctopodes]

wow. well, summoning with a DM that demands RAW suddenly got to be a lot worse. (and seriously, why would it matter whether the creature is common where you're summoning it? that's why it's a summoning spell and not a mind control spell. if it was *there* you wouldn't have to summon it. so sure, if you're in a desert, and you have a spell that can summon water elementals, well, you're summoning a monster, not mind controlling a monster that's already there. what difference does it make if the extraplanar creature you grab likes deserts or not?).

also, pixies are still broken, because they just don't seem to be willing to fix the actual problem instead of the thing that makes the problem visible.

Agreed, though Elemental is a bad example because you specifically do get to pick the element with the Conjure Elemental spell, based on the environment you pick as their spawn point.

One of the things that's funniest about that is the DM's permission under that ruling to absolutely mess with the player. Since every conjure spell includes that "or lower" clause in every option (which is a truly bizarre choice if it's meant to be as Crawford describes), say you choose to summon 1 beast of CR 2 or lower. Since you're in a sewer, a single rat appears. Or you use Conjure Fey, and get a sprite.

Seriously, though, why did they include the "or lower" clause at all? If you summon a creature of CR 2 or lower, it's not like there's a CR 1.5 to have the "or lower" not be 1 or lower. And if you're summoning a creature of CR 1 or lower, why would it not be governed by the option for creatures of CR 1 or lower? Etc down the line, so the only one that really needs that line is the lowest option on the list. Otherwise, if you let someone choose CR 2 or lower, but you give him two beasts of CR 1, you're directly giving him a different option than what he picked. I can think of nothing else it would seek to imply other than choosing 1 CR 2 creature and getting 1 CR 1/4 creature instead. And Crawford even uses the "or lower" phrase in every part of his response!

[Thrudd]

yes, and in 2e, summoning was crap the majority of the time.

and the times when it wasn't? didn't use a table (or rather, didn't use a randomized table to decide what you get... there were good summoning spells that used a table where you ask for creatures and the table tells you a % chance to get it).

Hey, it got you a creature that will fight for you without question, that hung around for a decent amount of time (much longer than 3e duration). If the creature had some kind of special power beyond claw/claw/bite, hey bonus! Once again, the game is about figuring out how to use the tools you have.

5e is still way way more lenient on the players than AD&D was, there should really be nothing to whine about in regards to not having enough power as a spell caster.

[Malifice]

I totally disagree. My spell should be able to give the the magical creature of my choice when I cast it because it's my spell. The only thing this ruling does is give the GM power to shut down players and take things away from players when it suits them too.

So... my athletics skill check should let me lift whatever I want because its my skill?

Sorry, but the DM gets a say.


Perhaps instead of choosing stuff on the fly, a DM could make a list of creatures in particular climates of certain CR's (certain dinosaurs, pixies, blighs, wolves or other creatures of the sort for tropical forests; giant insects, bats, mychonids or other creatures for caves; a different list of creatures for desserts, etc), and then let players choose from the appropriate list whenever they cast a summon spell. Spells like summon elementals would probably be easy to work with (no water in a dessert, no air underground, no fire while on the ocean, no earth while flying in airships), while conjuer fey or conjure animals would take a bit more work.

Meh; I'll just ask the player what he's trying to summon (having regards to the environment). If its reasonable, then OK. If it's not reasonable (summoning polar bears in the desert) then no. Anything in the middle then I'll probably call for a nature or arcana check.

And the game goes on.


wow. well, summoning with a DM that demands RAW suddenly got to be a lot worse.


Does summoning need a buff that I'm not aware of?

Also; RAW doesn't exist in and of itself. We've had this discussion (about this very topic actually). Interpretation of RAW means you will always get different RAW.


(and seriously, why would it matter whether the creature is common where you're summoning it? that's why it's a summoning spell and not a mind control spell. if it was *there* you wouldn't have to summon it.

Because it only summons local creatures, or creatures appropriate to the environment? Ignore logic, because, you know... magic.

[SharkForce]

Hey, it got you a creature that will fight for you without question, that hung around for a decent amount of time (much longer than 3e duration). If the creature had some kind of special power beyond claw/claw/bite, hey bonus! Once again, the game is about figuring out how to use the tools you have.

5e is still way way more lenient on the players than AD&D was, there should really be nothing to whine about in regards to not having enough power as a spell caster.

no, it got you creatures that had a pathetically bad chance to hit, low damage, low HP, and if you were *really* lucky and got the max or near max number summoned, you'd maybe equal the fighter's damage for the round or two it took your enemies to kill them all. except that the fighter didn't have to spend a limited resource to do that damage, whereas you just spent your level 3 spell slot getting (again, if you're extremely lucky) 8 2 HD ants.

and no, it didn't last longer. i just checked my 2e PHB, and i can tell you that monster summoning 1 gives you 2 rounds + 1 per level.

the summons that didn't let you choose what you're getting were trash. the best case scenario was basically you being less disappointed than you could have been.

@ malifice:

you're not summoning animals. you're summoning fey spirits that can take the form of animals. since they are (presumably) being pulled out of the feywild or whatever equivalent exists in your setting, it does not make any more sense for there to be creatures appropriate to the terrain than it does to make creatures that are not appropriate to the terrain, because the creatures aren't from that area. they are not, in fact, even actual animals. they're fey. being summoned from another plane. which is no physically closer to the desert than it is to the arctic than it is to the bottom of the ocean. in all cases, you are calling a creature across planar boundaries. so no, you aren't ignoring logic because it's magic. logic says that precisely zero of the creatures you summon are from the place you summon, otherwise you wouldn't need to summon anything at all, you'd just need a spell that controls them.

[Malifice]

malifice:

you're not summoning animals. you're summoning fey spirits that can take the form of animals. since they are (presumably) being pulled out of the feywild or whatever equivalent exists in your setting, it does not make any more sense for there to be creatures appropriate to the terrain than it does to make creatures that are not appropriate to the terrain, because the creatures aren't from that area.

Yeah, and apparently when those 'fey spirits' appear next to the dude that summoned them, they assume the forms of animals or other critters native to that area.

Because magic. That's what the spell does. Those 'fey spirits' don't like to (or can't or wont) take the form of a polar bear in the desert, a shark in a forest or a camel underwater.

Take it up with the spirits. I just work here.

[Giant2005]

Yeah, and apparently when those 'fey spirits' appear next to the dude that summoned them, they assume the forms of animals or other critters native to that area.

Because magic. That's what the spell does. Those 'fey spirits' don't like to (and wont) take the form of a polar bear in the desert, a shark in a forest or a camel underwater.

Take it up with the spirits. I just work here.

I imagine it to be more like the Transformers. When they first came to Earth, they scanned the nearby area for vehicles to emulate - I imagine they Fey Spirits probably do the same thing.

[Malifice]

I imagine it to be more like the Transformers. When they first came to Earth, they scanned the nearby area for vehicles to emulate - I imagine they Fey Spirits probably do the same thing.

Or they require some of the mana of nearby environment to form into a native creature or similar.

Summonong camels in the Ocean doesn't work. Seals, sharks and nerids are fine though.

[JAL_1138]

Summonong camels in the Ocean doesn't work. Seals, sharks and nerids are fine though.

Crazy Hassan (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Hassan) would beg to differ. He can sell you a used aquatic camel* at a fantastic discount.

*"Aquatic camel" means an ordinary-looking dromedary camel wearing flippers, waterwings, and a snorkel, which will nonetheless perform exactly as advertised and get you across the ocean faster than a three-masted schooner.

[charlesk]

The problem with the conjuration ruling is that it ruins summons even for those who didn't abuse it.

My bard took Conjure Animals as one of his level 3 magical secrets. It's a useless spell IMO if he has no control over what appears. Now my DM isn't a jerk so I'm sure we can work something out.

But I am not a fan of this ruling. There's a legal maxim that says "hard cases make bad law". Making a ruling over a whole class of already-nerfed spells because of corner abuse cases (8 pixies) is unwise.

[Vogonjeltz]

With regard to summoning pixies, it's very interesting to read that particular update. I'm accustomed to forum arguments going unanswered in a clear way by WotC, but maybe that's since I got into 3.5 after 4 was released.

I might not always abide by their RAI, but I'm glad we have it.

Any claim that 8 pixies was an option (by the player) was always based on inserting words into the text that didn't exist. So this response by WotC isn't surprising in the least.

[pwykersotz]

But I am not a fan of this ruling. There's a legal maxim that says "hard cases make bad law". Making a ruling over a whole class of already-nerfed spells because of corner abuse cases (8 pixies) is unwise.

I doubt that they made the ruling because of the pixie scenario. Rather, forum goers who prefer permissive interpretations (I'm not always exempt from this myself) decided to interpret it in a different way than it was intended. And also, this is following your maxim exactly. They avoided a hard case and provided guidelines for adjudication. DM's are more than able to simply say "Whatever you want within the guidelines appears."

To counterpoint my support of the ruling though, I would certainly take issue with a DM who subverted my summons a majority of the time for no good thematic reason.


Any claim that 8 pixies was an option (by the player) was always based on inserting words into the text that didn't exist. So this response by WotC isn't surprising in the least.

True. I'm just not accustomed to an edition where there's a response at all. This is a nice change for me. :smallsmile:

[Shining Wrath]

So I'm tempted to make a compromise ruling on conjuration, which I present for your abuse (and possibly improvement :smallbiggrin:).

Ask the player what they want. Then set a DC for a concentration check. Make the check? Get your preference. Miss the check? DM rolls on a table.

If you're pulling multiple creatures, you have to maintain concentration for all of them - so if you want 8 pixies and total 17 on your concentration check, you might get 4 pixies, and 4 randomly chosen Woodland Beings (assuming L4 spell slot).

[SharkForce]

Yeah, and apparently when those 'fey spirits' appear next to the dude that summoned them, they assume the forms of animals or other critters native to that area.

Because magic. That's what the spell does. Those 'fey spirits' don't like to (or can't or wont) take the form of a polar bear in the desert, a shark in a forest or a camel underwater.

Take it up with the spirits. I just work here.

nothing about the spell says one way or the other that they assume the form of animals native to the area. it just says they assume the form of animals. a polar bear is an animal, whether it is in the arctic or the tropics. therefore, it is a valid option, whether you are in the arctic or the tropics. it is no more logical to assume that they take the form of creatures native to the environment than it is to assume that they take the form of creatures not native to the environment. maybe they have favourite forms, and when you want wolves, you summon spirits that like being wolves, for example.

in any event, if this ruling is a response to the "pixie problem", then it is a terrible response. pixies are still broken, it's just that now it's harder to summon them. but any time you do have pixies in a combat situation, for any reason, they will still be every bit as broken as they are now, and are still a problem.

random summons are bad. the only problematic option from any summoning spell allowing you to choose your creature summoned was pixies, and the only reason it was ever a problem is that someone decided to give pixies a bunch of 4th level spells plus a bunch of other powerful spells, and someone (possibly the same person, possibly not) decided that they should have an extremely low CR in spite of having a bunch of really strong spells that can easily be used to end a fight.

[Strill]

Alternatively allowing for the PCs to always get everything they want just isn't as interesting gameplay. Letting the DM choose means that you get more varied scenarios and it stops summoning spells from being a swiss army knife.

The DM already has control over the universe. They don't need to control the players' own abilities.

[pwykersotz]

The DM already has control over the universe. They don't need to control the players' own abilities.

An oft used line, but it comes from the perspective of adversarial gameplay instead of cooperative. The GM isn't controlling the player's spell, he's marking it with the flavor of the world. Likewise the players are using the ability to make their mark on the world.

I told my players about the ruling, and the first reaction was "Sweet, so there might be Poison Elementals or something crazy that gets summoned!"

[mephnick]

Yeah, I'm wondering what kinds of tables are out there if people are so worried about DM's destroying their abilities by asking for a little flavour.

I doubt most DM's are going to say "YOU GET EXACTLY THIS NOW SHUT UP". If they do, they're a bad DM, it has nothing to do with the rules.

If a player demands forest pixies at the top of an Arctic mountain and won't compromise, they're a bad player, it has nothing to do with rules.

[charlesk]

Conjure Animals is about using my creativity to choose creatures that will help solve a particular problem. I don't want that substituted by the DM's choice, even if the DM is a good one. It removes all of the interest of the spell, for me at least.

[GiantOctopodes]

Yeah, I'm wondering what kinds of tables are out there if people are so worried about DM's destroying their abilities by asking for a little flavour.

I doubt most DM's are going to say "YOU GET EXACTLY THIS NOW SHUT UP". If they do, they're a bad DM, it has nothing to do with the rules.

If a player demands forest pixies at the top of an Arctic mountain and won't compromise, they're a bad player, it has nothing to do with rules.

Emphasis mine. Agreed.

I think the concern that arises is at least in part that this does nothing to improve the situation at a good table (after all, they likely were already using collaborative storytelling in some form or another), while potentially worsening the situation at bad tables. Those DMs who don't wish to engage in collaborative storytelling, but rather want to tell their own story and have the players as a captive audience just got more tools to do exactly that, while taking away a variety of abilities the player may have used to deviate from the path the DM wishes them to follow.

Meanwhile, the primary concern (Pixies) remain unaddressed, and unbalanced. It's not just the ruling that is a source of potential concern (after all, good tables will still be good and bad tables will still be bad regardless of any rulings or lack thereof, as you indicated), but more about choosing that route in lieu of simply fixing the root issue.

[tieren]

Conjure Animals is about using my creativity to choose creatures that will help solve a particular problem. I don't want that substituted by the DM's choice, even if the DM is a good one. It removes all of the interest of the spell, for me at least.

I agree, particularly as a Ranger, I was counting on the summons more than say a druid or other full caster.

I could plan on going into a situation and getting boars or wolves or babboons, now I have to worry if the DM decides its funny to give me vulture or owl instead (or a sparrow). How is that supposed to balance between a predictable pack of wolves and maybe you get a songbird or a cricket?

[Ruslan]

I totally disagree. My spell should be able to give the the magical creature of my choice when I cast it because it's my spell. The only thing this ruling does is give the GM power to shut down players and take things away from players when it suits them too.
You almost make it sound like it's a bad thing :smallbiggrin:

"I want to summon a shark!"
"There are no sharks here. None arrive."
Is not a DM "taking things away". Where I come from, we just call it "interaction", as in "interactive fantasy roleplaying".

[Eisenheim]

now I have to worry if the DM decides its funny to give me vulture or owl instead (or a sparrow). How is that supposed to balance between a predictable pack of wolves and maybe you get a songbird or a cricket?

If you have to worry about your DM screwing you over because it's "funny" (and you aren't playing a comic game where the players expect and laugh at their charcters' misfortunes), you have problems that go far beyond the adjudication of summoning spells. If the only thing that makes the ruling problematic is antagonistic GM-player relationships, that's not really a big deal. Those a bad with or without rulings like this.

[SharkForce]

You almost make it sound like it's a bad thing :smallbiggrin:

Is not a DM "taking things away". Where I come from, we just call it "interaction", as in "interactive fantasy roleplaying".

no kidding there's no sharks here.

that's why I'm summoning them. you know. bringing them here. from somewhere else. where there are sharks. or, more accurately, I'm summoning fey spirits, which can turn into sharks (or bears, or badgers, or rabbits, or pterodactyls, or whatever). on another plane, which is connected in such a way that physical distance is irrelevant.

after all, if they were already here, I wouldn't need to summon them, now, would I?

[tieren]

no kidding there's no sharks here.

that's why I'm summoning them. you know. bringing them here. from somewhere else. where there are sharks. or, more accurately, I'm summoning fey spirits, which can turn into sharks (or bears, or badgers, or rabbits, or pterodactyls, or whatever). on another plane, which is connected in such a way that physical distance is irrelevant.

after all, if they were already here, I wouldn't need to summon them, now, would I?

I agree, its not like its the old "call animals", they went out of their way to explain the immediate presence of completely obedient animals by describing them as fey. If they wanted things nearby to just come to you that would be a totally different spell.

[GiantOctopodes]

I agree, its not like its the old "call animals", they went out of their way to explain the immediate presence of completely obedient animals by describing them as fey. If they wanted things nearby to just come to you that would be a totally different spell.

Agreed, but not even a spell. Specifically that would be the non-magical Ranger 13th level ability 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"

[tieren]

Agreed, but not even a spell. Specifically that would be the non-magical Ranger 13th level ability 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"

And actually from an RP perspective I'd be less likely to do that.

Its one thing to summon some spirits that go back to spirit world when they're done, but to ask the friendly beasts in the area to come rush the dragon for you seems cruel, or at the least cold blooded. I mean what if they have kids? Won't anyone think about the children?

[Slipperychicken]

I'm never casting a conjure animals spell with this ruling in place. The DM can too easily just troll you by giving you mice or other less-useful animals when you want wolves and constrictor snakes. I'm not blowing a 3rd level spell, an action, and concentration for a chance to beg the DM for a favor.

Still, it does keep summoning in line, though I fear it may have been nerfed too much now. If the effect of a spell is determined by the DM's whim, and forces him to dig through his book for an appropriate statblock mid-session, I might as well just cast something else and save us both the headache.

[Zevox]

I kinda want to stay out of the overall argument here, but to throw in my 2 cents: I don't understand the notion that a summoning spell should only summon things appropriate to your current environment. At all. It's a summoning spell, the whole concept is that it's pulling a creature from another plane and bringing them to you - there should be no restrictions on what it can bring you beyond the ones necessary for balance purposes. The idea that it makes any sense flavor-wise for there to be restrictions based on your environment just sounds like total nonsense to me, and I don't get why anyone would think that in the first place.

No, I don't see a reason why you couldn't summon a Camel when you're in the ocean, to use an example I saw earlier. It would be a dumb idea and just get the camel killed, sure, but why shouldn't your spell be able to do it if you were dumb enough to do it anyway? Similarly, what's wrong with summoning Pixies when you're on an arctic mountaintop, other than the part about Pixies being mechanically OP? This is what a summoning spell does - its their whole point, the whole flavor behind them in the first place.

(Yeah, similarly, I'd just be ignoring the clarification about the DM choosing what the spell summons in any games I were to run, personally. Might do something about the Pixie abuse or anything that seemed similarly OP if it ever came up, but otherwise, go nuts as far as I'm concerned.)

[JAL_1138]

Everything in the game works by DM whim, in the sense that the DM can just say "well, I've houseruled that" if you try to RAW them. Heck, even hitting the monster with a sword relies on your DM not trolling you. The game only works if your DM isn't trying to screw you. Pulling out the rulebook doesn't accomplish squat if the DM isn't willing to agree with you about it. 8 pixies? That's probably going to get banned by a DM anyway. Summoning a shark in the desert? Regardless of the rule text, whether it says you get exactly what you want or not, houserules exist and the DM's only going to let you do that if they don't find it too ridiculous--which they might or might not. A DM that'd have a problem with it is going to alter the spell.

And before anyone goes hollering Oberoni, I'm not saying the rules are perfectly fine and not broken because they can be changed. I'm saying that the text of the spell saying one thing doesn't stop the DM if they're out to screw you or trying to shut down cheese. You may like the other wording better but assuming the rules are some kind of defense against the DM is mistaken. There's no practical difference between the DM screwing you by saying "well that's what it says" versus "I know what it says and I don't care."

[tieren]

If you have to worry about your DM screwing you over because it's "funny" (and you aren't playing a comic game where the players expect and laugh at their charcters' misfortunes), you have problems that go far beyond the adjudication of summoning spells. If the only thing that makes the ruling problematic is antagonistic GM-player relationships, that's not really a big deal. Those a bad with or without rulings like this.

I'm not literally worried about him intentionally trying to ruin me that way, but I am concerned he would believe there is some greater purpose to making me have to struggle with what I happened to get instead of what I wanted.

And what that does is convert one of the tools I have for solving problems (a spell) into a new problem I have to solve (how to make the best use of whatever shows up). It takes away my solution to the problem and makes me try to figure out what his is, which I don't like.

[Thrudd]

I'm never casting a conjure animals spell with this ruling in place. The DM can too easily just troll you by giving you mice or other less-useful animals when you want wolves and constrictor snakes. I'm not blowing a 3rd level spell, an action, and concentration for a chance to beg the DM for a favor.

Still, it does keep summoning in line, though I fear it may have been nerfed too much now. If the effect of a spell is determined by the DM's whim, and forces him to dig through his book for an appropriate statblock mid-session, I might as well just cast something else and save us both the headache.

The DM should have summoning tables of all appropriate creatures for each level of each spell with page number for reference. Simple roll on the chart, and flip to the page. If this wasnt included in the DMG or monster manual, that's an oversight I hope they remedy soon. Otherwise the DM has some prep to do if a player gets this spell.

So it isnt the DM getting to decide what they think is appropriate for you, it is the dice. With a caveat, perhaps, to reroll on the table if the summoned creature would be useless in its situation. You might have a separate table for aquatic summons, since most land creatures will be useless in the water and vice versa. But whether you get giant rats or a wolf or a badger or a lynx should not matter all that much, the idea is all the options are of comparable HD and power (but not identical).

The player need/desire to control every aspect of everything surrounding their character (not just actions and behavior), is not necessarily the best thing for the game. The wizard, at one point, barely even controlled what spells they were able to learn, their level 1 spell book was encouraged to be determined randomly. Now players plan out a build from lvl 1-20 choosing what spells they'll have at each level before they even start playing. In-game, in-character strategy (making plans based on what happens to your character and the world they are in) has been supplanted by out of character/meta-game strategy (like building a MtG deck) and I think that takes some of the wonder and surprise out of roleplaying. When everyone always knows exactly what to expect and how everything will work, the game takes on the flavor of a tactical combat game with the DM and players trying to outwit eachother with applications of reliable known quantities.

[SharkForce]

I'm never casting a conjure animals spell with this ruling in place. The DM can too easily just troll you by giving you mice or other less-useful animals when you want wolves and constrictor snakes. I'm not blowing a 3rd level spell, an action, and concentration for a chance to beg the DM for a favor.

Still, it does keep summoning in line, though I fear it may have been nerfed too much now. If the effect of a spell is determined by the DM's whim, and forces him to dig through his book for an appropriate statblock mid-session, I might as well just cast something else and save us both the headache.

the DM doesn't even necessarily have to be trolling you. the spell allows you to, for example, call a few flying creatures that can carry you. the DM isn't "trolling" you by giving you wolves or giant snakes instead, but the spell is no longer reliable for what you want to do.

and for the most part, summoning was never out of line in the first place. the problem was always that certain specific summons (in particular pixies) were a problem.

[-Jynx-]

So much distaste for the summoning ruling. Remember though, you wouldn't be sending Charmander out in the ocean, or Bulbasaur in a desert ya know dawg? Smell ya later.

[Shining Wrath]

As has been noted, you are not summoning actual beasts with CWB; you are summoning fey.

Now, then, the question becomes: does your spell compel the fey to take the form you wish? The ruling is that it does not. The fey, then, get to choose. And given that fey are notoriously chaotic and mischievous, the odds that you'll get exactly what you desire is actually pretty low, unless you have some way to compel their obedience - not to your commands, but to your desires as to the form assumed. And the ruling is you don't have any way to do that.

Presumably a fey would rather not manifest as a fish in the desert nor a camel in the ocean - presumably. Their thoughts are not as our thoughts.

In fact, a DM could ask how the summoned fey feel about the spell caster and use that to guide what form the fey choose to take. Is a LE wizard is more likely to get fey who show up as butterflies when he wants pixies?

Anyway, I still think a DM should consider what the players want and reward clever play - but it ought not to be automatic. I'm still pondering the idea of concentration checks to get what you want.

[Slipperychicken]

the DM doesn't even necessarily have to be trolling you. the spell allows you to, for example, call a few flying creatures that can carry you. the DM isn't "trolling" you by giving you wolves or giant snakes instead, but the spell is no longer reliable for what you want to do.

and for the most part, summoning was never out of line in the first place. the problem was always that certain specific summons (in particular pixies) were a problem.

I suppose that "no longer reliable" is a better way of putting it. Short of some assurance from the DM that he will designate creatures which are desirable, I don't see the spell as useful.

When I was talking about summoning being out of line, I meant to consider 5e's summoning in relation to that of 3.x.



The player need/desire to control every aspect of everything surrounding their character (not just actions and behavior),

Just to be clear, this isn't what I'm advocating. I'm fine with rolling low scores, my character losing limbs, randomly determining spells or equipment, or failing a lot due to die rolls (provided these things are a known part of the game experience). I'm just not keen to have my character voluntarily spend resources on options which I or my PC perceive as unreliable or ineffective. In some respects, the choice is just good roleplaying.

[charlesk]

Just to be clear, this isn't what I'm advocating. I'm fine with rolling low scores, my character losing limbs, randomly determining spells or equipment, or failing a lot due to die rolls (provided these things are a known part of the game experience). I'm just not keen to have my character voluntarily spend resources on options which I or my PC perceive as unreliable or ineffective. In some respects, the choice is just good roleplaying.

Exactly.

I mean, take my case as an example. Conjure Animals was a debatably good choice as magical secrets for a utility bard before -- they can fill a lot of useful roles in and out of combat. Outside combat, get riding horses or flying critters. In combat, numerous uses: more attackers, meat shields, positioning, pack tactics, whatnot.

But how "utility" is the spell when you don't control what appears? I sure wouldn't take it as currently ruled.

In one fight I summoned a water creature to dive down and save a party member who was knocked unconscious in water and was too far away for anyone to be able to get too quickly. What if the DM decided to give me a monster that couldn't swim or wasn't strong enough to lift a party member? And if the DM would be considered "bad" for doing that, what exactly is the point in giving the DM one more thing to worry about?

[Thrudd]

I suppose that "no longer reliable" is a better way of putting it. Short of some assurance from the DM that he will designate creatures which are desirable, I don't see the spell as useful.

When I was talking about summoning being out of line, I meant to consider 5e's summoning in relation to that of 3.x.



Just to be clear, this isn't what I'm advocating. I'm fine with rolling low scores, my character losing limbs, randomly determining spells or equipment, or failing a lot due to die rolls (provided these things are a known part of the game experience). I'm just not keen to have my character voluntarily spend resources on options which I or my PC perceive as unreliable or ineffective. In some respects, the choice is just good roleplaying.

True, it might not be your first choice in many cases. But if you found it on a scroll, might you not add it to the book? And I think its unreliability is being overstated. You will 100% get a creature or creatures of a certain range of power that will obey your commands. You cannot rely on it providing a mount, or a creature with a specific ability or number of attacks, but it will always give you something that will fight and provide extra numbers for your party. You might feel this is not as effective a use of a spell slot as some other choices, but that is the case when you compare any spell to another. Who ever chose affect normal fires over magic missile? Or summon monster over fireball? Not every choice needs to be equally useful in all situations.

[GiantOctopodes]

True, it might not be your first choice in many cases. But if you found it on a scroll, might you not add it to the book? And I think its unreliability is being overstated. You will 100% get a creature or creatures of a certain range of power that will obey your commands. You cannot rely on it providing a mount, or a creature with a specific ability or number of attacks, but it will always give you something that will fight and provide extra numbers for your party. You might feel this is not as effective a use of a spell slot as some other choices, but that is the case when you compare any spell to another. Who ever chose affect normal fires over magic missile? Or summon monster over fireball? Not every choice needs to be equally useful in all situations.

Emphasis mine. I think it would be an easier pill to swallow on that front without that "or lower" clause on everything. Getting 2 CR 2 beasts is one thing, even if you don't pick the exact beast. Getting 2 creatures "of a certain range of power" where that range is anywhere from CR 2 to CR 1/8 is something quite different.

[SharkForce]

The DM should have summoning tables of all appropriate creatures for each level of each spell with page number for reference. Simple roll on the chart, and flip to the page. If this wasnt included in the DMG or monster manual, that's an oversight I hope they remedy soon. Otherwise the DM has some prep to do if a player gets this spell.

So it isnt the DM getting to decide what they think is appropriate for you, it is the dice. With a caveat, perhaps, to reroll on the table if the summoned creature would be useless in its situation. You might have a separate table for aquatic summons, since most land creatures will be useless in the water and vice versa. But whether you get giant rats or a wolf or a badger or a lynx should not matter all that much, the idea is all the options are of comparable HD and power (but not identical).

The player need/desire to control every aspect of everything surrounding their character (not just actions and behavior), is not necessarily the best thing for the game. The wizard, at one point, barely even controlled what spells they were able to learn, their level 1 spell book was encouraged to be determined randomly. Now players plan out a build from lvl 1-20 choosing what spells they'll have at each level before they even start playing. In-game, in-character strategy (making plans based on what happens to your character and the world they are in) has been supplanted by out of character/meta-game strategy (like building a MtG deck) and I think that takes some of the wonder and surprise out of roleplaying. When everyone always knows exactly what to expect and how everything will work, the game takes on the flavor of a tactical combat game with the DM and players trying to outwit eachother with applications of reliable known quantities.

sure, how about from now on, fighters only get to choose the broad category of weapon they're using, and at the start of every fight the DM randomly rolls to determine which specific one you get. oh, you wanted a weapon that works well with polearm mastery and the DM rolled a greatsword for you? too bad, that's just you wanting to be able to control everything about your character, you should rejoice in the opportunity you've just been given to use suboptimal tools for no reason whatsoever. and hey, why should anyone get to choose their skill proficiencies, it should be a random roll, every time you want to use any skill proficiency the DM just rolls to find out whether you have that proficiency or not. that sounds like a great way to improve the game! better yet, you can just check what each individual level is as far as class every morning, that way you can get lots more experience in improvising with what the random rolls give you! [/sarcasm]

seriously, it adds very little to have it be random. this kind of thing might have a place in the wild mage subclass, where the player opted in to random stuff ( slightly more likely to be favourable than not), but it has no place as a general rule for all summoning spells.

[JNAProductions]

Honestly, my houserule would be thus for summoning:

No pixies. Other than that, you get to pick.

[Shining Wrath]

Emphasis mine. I think it would be an easier pill to swallow on that front without that "or lower" clause on everything. Getting 2 CR 2 beasts is one thing, even if you don't pick the exact beast. Getting 2 creatures "of a certain range of power" where that range is anywhere from CR 2 to CR 1/8 is something quite different.

I read the example of Conjure Elementals as explicitly stating the player chose the HD of the elementals. I don't think the DM has any control over that.

[Thrudd]

sure, how about from now on, fighters only get to choose the broad category of weapon they're using, and at the start of every fight the DM randomly rolls to determine which specific one you get. oh, you wanted a weapon that works well with polearm mastery and the DM rolled a greatsword for you? too bad, that's just you wanting to be able to control everything about your character, you should rejoice in the opportunity you've just been given to use suboptimal tools for no reason whatsoever. and hey, why should anyone get to choose their skill proficiencies, it should be a random roll, every time you want to use any skill proficiency the DM just rolls to find out whether you have that proficiency or not. that sounds like a great way to improve the game! better yet, you can just check what each individual level is as far as class every morning, that way you can get lots more experience in improvising with what the random rolls give you! [/sarcasm]

seriously, it adds very little to have it be random. this kind of thing might have a place in the wild mage subclass, where the player opted in to random stuff ( slightly more likely to be favourable than not), but it has no place as a general rule for all summoning spells.

As long as there isnt one or more specific creature choices that are always more useful than others, like a creature that can grapple and immobilize one or more enemies, put them to sleep or other such things, choosing a summon isnt that big a deal. When pixies and such are in the mix, then rolling on the summon table is like rolling for the damage on a fireball. Sometimes you roll well and kill everything, sometimes you roll poorly or everything makes saves and your spell doesnt do that much.

[GiantOctopodes]

I read the example of Conjure Elementals as explicitly stating the player chose the HD of the elementals. I don't think the DM has any control over that.

I totally agree that is the way it should work. And that is the way it works at my table and the tables at which I play (actually there we let the spellcaster pick as long as they don't exploit, the DM just retains veto power, but regardless). I just thought it was a puzzling choice of wording, based on how he was explaining it to work. The "or lower" is pasted onto literally every sentence he says. The worst is this:

"For example, if you pick the second option, the DM chooses the two elementals that have a challenge rating of 1 or lower"

Why bother saying that at all? The 3rd option is four elementals of CR 1/2 or lower. You chose the 2nd one. If he then must stick to CR 1, why not just say CR 1, not CR 1 or lower? Honestly, I just can't explain away his choice of verbiage except to expressly allow him to give a lower HD creature than what is selected, which seems bogus to me, but otherwise, why choose that wording? Again, won't be an issue for me or mine. I just don't understand the reasoning.

[Shining Wrath]

I totally agree that is the way it should work. And that is the way it works at my table and the tables at which I play (actually there we let the spellcaster pick as long as they don't exploit, the DM just retains veto power, but regardless). I just thought it was a puzzling choice of wording, based on how he was explaining it to work. The "or lower" is pasted onto literally every sentence he says. The worst is this:

"For example, if you pick the second option, the DM chooses the two elementals that have a challenge rating of 1 or lower"

Why bother saying that at all? The 3rd option is four elementals of CR 1/2 or lower. You chose the 2nd one. If he then must stick to CR 1, why not just say CR 1, not CR 1 or lower? Honestly, I just can't explain away his choice of verbiage except to expressly allow him to give a lower HD creature than what is selected, which seems bogus to me, but otherwise, why choose that wording? Again, won't be an issue for me or mine. I just don't understand the reasoning.

It does seem odd ... unless the DM has some reason for saying "Normal elementals aren't available here for Reasons, here's some mephits", why not give the full strength?

[SharkForce]

As long as there isnt one or more specific creature choices that are always more useful than others, like a creature that can grapple and immobilize one or more enemies, put them to sleep or other such things, choosing a summon isnt that big a deal. When pixies and such are in the mix, then rolling on the summon table is like rolling for the damage on a fireball. Sometimes you roll well and kill everything, sometimes you roll poorly or everything makes saves and your spell doesnt do that much.

not everything is about damage.

when I get to choose, I can choose things that have a given CR because they have more hit points if we need creatures to delay enemies. I can choose giant owl when I need to fly. I can choose burrowing animals when I want something dug out. I can choose a creature with stealth if I want to lay an ambush. I can choose a creature large enough to ride, and fast enough to be a worthwhile mount, if we need to travel quickly. and of course, I can choose good damage when I want to add some damage.

when I don't get to choose, it isn't rolling well on a fireball vs rolling poorly on a fireball. it's casting a fireball when what I wanted to do was cast flight on multiple party members so that we could run away.

and again, the problem with pixies is the CR. it has nothing to do with the fact that you can summon 8 CR 1/4 creatures, and everything to do with the fact that pixies should be somewhere between CR 1/2 to CR 1 (I personally favour CR 1). 2 pixies with a level 4 spell is admittedly still really good, but also carries a lot of risk. and, it also solves the problem that happens when you actually trust the CR guidelines to help you decide how many pixies make an appropriate challenge for a party.

[Naanomi]

Summoning aside...
-Damage resistance before temp HP, Heavy Armor mastery before temp HP as well?
-if I dual wield a whip and rapier do I provoke for either movement?

[GiantOctopodes]

Summoning aside...
-Damage resistance before temp HP, Heavy Armor mastery before temp HP as well?
-if I dual wield a whip and rapier do I provoke for either movement?

Yes. The reason for Arcane Ward acting differently is the phrase "Whenever you take damage, the ward takes the damage instead". The Arcane Ward is not you, and does not interact with your mitigation mechanics. The damage just comes straight out of its hp until it fails. Once it has failed, any remaining damage gets applied normally. So if you took 21 piercing damage while raging and wearing heavy armor (I don't know how or why this would occur, don't question it) and your arcane ward has 14 hp left, it takes the 14, you have 7 left, you reduce the damage by 3 for heavy armor master, then cut in half for resistance, knocking it down to 2 damage taken.

The second one I'm not sure I understand the question, sorry.

[Thrudd]

not everything is about damage.

when I get to choose, I can choose things that have a given CR because they have more hit points if we need creatures to delay enemies. I can choose giant owl when I need to fly. I can choose burrowing animals when I want something dug out. I can choose a creature with stealth if I want to lay an ambush. I can choose a creature large enough to ride, and fast enough to be a worthwhile mount, if we need to travel quickly. and of course, I can choose good damage when I want to add some damage.

when I don't get to choose, it isn't rolling well on a fireball vs rolling poorly on a fireball. it's casting a fireball when what I wanted to do was cast flight on multiple party members so that we could run away.

and again, the problem with pixies is the CR. it has nothing to do with the fact that you can summon 8 CR 1/4 creatures, and everything to do with the fact that pixies should be somewhere between CR 1/2 to CR 1 (I personally favour CR 1). 2 pixies with a level 4 spell is admittedly still really good, but also carries a lot of risk. and, it also solves the problem that happens when you actually trust the CR guidelines to help you decide how many pixies make an appropriate challenge for a party.

I get why you want to do it that way. I just dont agree that you should get all that from a single spell. The randomness balances this out. One single spell that lets you summon the perfect tool on the fly for multiple situations is too much. If we instead used it as a series of spells, requiring a separate summon spell for each creature, or required you to choose the creature that would be summoned at the time of spell preparation, this would be more ok. If you know you'll need a giant eagle today, you can dedicate your spell slot to summoning one, but you can't change your mind and pick a different animal on the fly later. If you dont specify when you prepare or pray, then it is random. This still requires some judgement and prep from the DM, to provide the list of potential summons to the player.

[Sigreid]

Some conjuration spells do allow the caster to choose which creature answers (e.g., Find Familiar), but others the player chooses the size, and the DM choose the type. Example given is Conjure Elementals; player chooses the size of elemental, DM chooses which elementals of that size appear. Player is allowed to express a preference.


That's straight up retarded and in my opinion a good reason to not take Sage Advice as an absolute.

[JNAProductions]

I get why you want to do it that way. I just dont agree that you should get all that from a single spell. The randomness balances this out. One single spell that lets you summon the perfect tool on the fly for multiple situations is too much. If we instead used it as a series of spells, requiring a separate summon spell for each creature, or required you to choose the creature that would be summoned at the time of spell preparation, this would be more ok. If you know you'll need a giant eagle today, you can dedicate your spell slot to summoning one, but you can't change your mind and pick a different animal on the fly later. If you dont specify when you prepare or pray, then it is random. This still requires some judgement and prep from the DM, to provide the list of potential summons to the player.

That's a pretty good way to implement it. Mind if I steal it?

[Pex]

Yeah, I'm wondering what kinds of tables are out there if people are so worried about DM's destroying their abilities by asking for a little flavour.

I doubt most DM's are going to say "YOU GET EXACTLY THIS NOW SHUT UP". If they do, they're a bad DM, it has nothing to do with the rules.

If a player demands forest pixies at the top of an Arctic mountain and won't compromise, they're a bad player, it has nothing to do with rules.

The problem is it allows for this to happen. When the DM does say "YOU GET EXACTLY THIS NOW SHUT UP", the player has no recourse. All the DM has to say against a player's protest is WOTC told him he could, "shut up already or there's the door you powergaming rollplaying munchkin". The player has no evidence the DM is a bad DM other than his personal opinion, which no longer counts for anything. The tyrant DM returns to mainstream.

As for the bad player demanding pixies in the arctic, it was forever an option to kick a player out after talking to him does not solve the problem regardless of game edition so there is no problem.

[Coidzor]

Alternatively allowing for the PCs to always get everything they want just isn't as interesting gameplay. Letting the DM choose means that you get more varied scenarios and it stops summoning spells from being a swiss army knife.

They're supposed to be bloody swiss army knives, though, not a reason to cue Yakkety Sax (www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnHmskwqCCQ). Or at least closer to the swiss army knife than to the bad gags from the D&D cartoon involving Presto the Magician's freaking hat.

[tieren]

Look at who gets conjure animals. Druids at level 5 and rangers at level 9. It's not such a big deal for the druid who has more spells and slots and if it really needed a particular animal they can wilds ape into it.

This really hurts the ranger who had to wait much longer to get it and has to drop hunters mark to cast it.

[Gnomes2169]

they can wilds ape into it.

Well I knew that the minnesota hockey team was getting desperate, but I didn't think they would go quite that far!

[Sindeloke]

what exactly is the point in giving the DM one more thing to worry about?

Seriously! I don't understand why more people aren't frustrated by this. Every single thing I can offload onto my players is one more thing that isn't distracting me from keeping the game flowing, responding quickly to changing situations, roleplaying fifteen characters at once and managing the spells, tactics and special abilities of a dozen bad guys in a fight. Are there seriously DMs out there who want to interrupt themselves with ninety seconds of digging around for a table, rolling on it, and telling their players what they get instead of just asking the player what they're summoning and moving on? The player can do that while other people are taking their turns and you don't have to do anything, but instead you're going to stop the whole game so you can juggle your monster manual? How is that worth your time? How is that worth the time of anyone at the table?

I already offload Inspiration, wild magic, and cohorts/DMPCs onto my players, and even important enemy NPCs in a fight if someone gets knocked down and their own PC is out. It engages the players and makes everything move so much more quickly and smoothly. Why on Earth would I want to take any of that burdensome noise on myself? I don't have enough to keep track of, I have to decide if my players deserve badgers or spider monkeys too?

[Naanomi]

Yes. The reason for Arcane Ward acting differently is the phrase "Whenever you take damage, the ward takes the damage instead". The Arcane Ward is not you, and does not interact with your mitigation mechanics. The damage just comes straight out of its hp until it fails. Once it has failed, any remaining damage gets applied normally. So if you took 21 piercing damage while raging and wearing heavy armor (I don't know how or why this would occur, don't question it) and your arcane ward has 14 hp left, it takes the 14, you have 7 left, you reduce the damage by 3 for heavy armor master, then cut in half for resistance, knocking it down to 2 damage taken.

The second one I'm not sure I understand the question, sorry.
I was thinking specifically an Armor of Agathys user who can find a source of resistance/heavy armor mastery to keep his armor up longer

The second thought was a swashbuckler with a rapier/whip combo to provoke attacks of opportunity when people move near him or at a distance, given this confirms the 'dance around safely within 10ft' interpretation of reach

[GiantOctopodes]

I was thinking specifically an Armor of Agathys user who can find a source of resistance/heavy armor mastery to keep his armor up longer

The second thought was a swashbuckler with a rapier/whip combo to provoke attacks of opportunity when people move near him or at a distance, given this confirms the 'dance around safely within 10ft' interpretation of reach

Cool, glad we were on the same page then :smallsmile: I would have used something more obscure like investiture of stone (the more likely source of resistance with that build) but wanted to keep it simple for ease of explanation. Note that the rulings a) don't change anything (it's always been that way and my mini guide was written with the same premises that were confirmed to be true) and b) are actually beneficial, since it confirms beyond a doubt that abjuration rituals recharge the arcane ward. Now we just need WotC to release an abjuration ritual of higher than 1st level (seriously, how is leomund's tiny hut, the ultimate defensive spell, an evocation spell!) and we're golden. But hey, researching new spells exists for a reason anyway, right?

Ah, I see now what you mean with the second one. Yes, I would certainly rule that it provokes an opportunity attack personally (you're leaving the threatened area of the rapier), but it's a messy subject. If you note, the reach property says it "adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it." (emphasis mine). According to that, you shouldn't actually threaten the squares that are 10' away from you at all, since your reach (as a medium creature) would remain 5' until you make an attack with the weapon, and you make an opportunity attack "when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach".

So, per RAW, you should *only* get AoOs when the creature is moving from 5' to 10' away. This has undesirable and messy interactions with sentinel (stopping you from cutting them off at the 10' mark), and we personally have houserules regarding AoOs anyway. The situation is muddied further by Crawford weighing in contrary to RAW in a ill defined fashion, saying you gain the AoO when "a creature leaves the reach you have with that weapon", which would seem to mean that the creature provoking the AoO draws it based upon the weapon you wish to use to attack them. This would support your desired setup, since they are leaving the reach you have with the rapier when moving from 5' to 10', thus per his rules you should gain the AoO with the rapier at that time, and then with the whip when they move from 10' to 15' away.

However, opportunity attacks per RAW are not dependent on the weapon but on your reach as a creature, and do not require a weapon to make. Specifically, every creature is able to make an unarmed strike at any time, so according to his own example, the creature should have still drawn an AoO from the polearm wielder's unarmed strike when moving from 5' to 10', with the granted AoO now having an arbitrary limit on the attack options you have as part of that AoO (can only use unarmed strikes, not your weapon), then you would gain (if you still had your reaction) an AoO with the polearm when it moved from 10' to 15'.

In short, I wouldn't worry too much about that particular ruling, it's nonsensical even when just considering it on its own merit. I recommend working with your DM to figure out exactly how you want to handle Attacks of Opportunity and reach weapons. If you were playing in my campaign, yes, they absolutely would draw AoOs with that setup, both when moving from 5' to 10', and from 10' to 15'. Sorry I can't be more help on that one.

[Giant2005]

when I get to choose, I can choose things that have a given CR because they have more hit points if we need creatures to delay enemies. I can choose giant owl when I need to fly. I can choose burrowing animals when I want something dug out. I can choose a creature with stealth if I want to lay an ambush. I can choose a creature large enough to ride, and fast enough to be a worthwhile mount, if we need to travel quickly. and of course, I can choose good damage when I want to add some damage.

There are spells that can slow down the enemies, there are spells that allow you to fly, there are spells that allow you to dig, there are spells that assist you in ambush attempts, there are spells that summon fast mounts for you to ride. There are spells for everything you listed but you just want one spell to rule them all.
The whole reason Kryx has been running around making threads about buffing less-used spells is purely because of interpretations like this that render those other spells obsolete. You are complaining about a clarification that declares that the game isn't as poorly designed as you seem to want it to be. That is a good thing.

[Kryx]

The whole reason Kryx has been running around making threads about buffing less-used spells is purely because of interpretations like this that render those other spells obsolete.
I think is a dig at my work on that thread, but I'm unsure.
If it makes you happier there wasn't enough support so I'm not going dedicate hours and hours to it to only have a discussion with one guy.

That said, there are spells that are absolute garbage in 95% of cases and that's sad. I'd love to improve them to be more viable choices if possible.

[Xetheral]

Seriously! I don't understand why more people aren't frustrated by this. Every single thing I can offload onto my players is one more thing that isn't distracting me from keeping the game flowing, responding quickly to changing situations, roleplaying fifteen characters at once and managing the spells, tactics and special abilities of a dozen bad guys in a fight. Are there seriously DMs out there who want to interrupt themselves with ninety seconds of digging around for a table, rolling on it, and telling their players what they get instead of just asking the player what they're summoning and moving on? The player can do that while other people are taking their turns and you don't have to do anything, but instead you're going to stop the whole game so you can juggle your monster manual? How is that worth your time? How is that worth the time of anyone at the table?

I already offload Inspiration, wild magic, and cohorts/DMPCs onto my players, and even important enemy NPCs in a fight if someone gets knocked down and their own PC is out. It engages the players and makes everything move so much more quickly and smoothly. Why on Earth would I want to take any of that burdensome noise on myself? I don't have enough to keep track of, I have to decide if my players deserve badgers or spider monkeys too?

Exactly this. The ruling makes unnecessary work for DMs, interrupts the flow of play, and results in players who are strictly as-happy or less-happy than they were before the ruling. I'm not seeing anything good about this one. Hooray--yet another house rule to add to my campaign documentation.

[Malifice]

Laughable that the very same peeps who complaining that 'martials' are no good, and 'casters' are all levels of awesomeness are the very ones complaining about the ruling restricting summoned creatures to ones to be expected in your environment as 'a horrible nerf'.

[Giant2005]

I think is a dig at my work on that thread, but I'm unsure.
If it makes you happier there wasn't enough support so I'm not going dedicate hours and hours to it to only have a discussion with one guy.

That said, there are spells that are absolute garbage in 95% of cases and that's sad. I'd love to improve them to be more viable choices if possible.

That wasn't a dig at your work - it was pointing out the cause of the need for your work.
You rated Phantom Steed to be in need of buffing and one of the main reasons as to why it needed buffing is because people interpret their "one spell" (to rule them all) as able to its job + more. If we stopped empowering spells with liberal interpretations, then spells like Phantom Steed wouldn't seem so crap anymore.
No-one should be complaining about learning that Summon Animals doesn't necessarily render a dozen or so spells obsolete, they should be rejoicing the fact that their liberal interpretation was wrong and that spell isn't so good that it makes a bunch of other spells seem shameful.

[Kryx]

You rated Phantom Steed to be in need of buffing and one of the main reasons as to why it needed buffing is because people interpret their "one spell" (to rule them all) as able to its job + more. If we stopped empowering spells with liberal interpretations, then spells like Phantom Steed wouldn't seem so crap anymore.
I don't know of any poorly interpreted spell that makes Phantom Steed worse. Conjure Animals wouldn't replace Phantom Steed even if it summoned a stronger mount as it has concentration.
Phantom Steed doesn't need help being made a garbage spell, it accomplishes that itself. 3rd level spell for a faster horse is absolutely not worth it unless you GM makes normal horses hard to buy.


No-one should be complaining about learning that Summon Animals doesn't necessarily render a dozen or so spells obsolete, they should be rejoicing the fact that their liberal interpretation was wrong and that spell isn't so good that it makes a bunch of other spells seem shameful.
I agree that Conjure Woodland Beings summoning pixies is pretty abusive and am happy that they officially allow DMs to stop that. I, like others, would rather they dealt with the actual issue. I don't mind their current ruling as I'll likely let my players summon what they want most of the time.

[Slipperychicken]

I don't know of any poorly interpreted spell that makes Phantom Steed worse. Conjure Animals wouldn't replace Phantom Steed even if it summoned a stronger mount as it has concentration.
Phantom Steed doesn't need help being made a garbage spell, it accomplishes that itself. 3rd level spell for a faster horse is absolutely not worth it unless you GM makes normal horses hard to buy.

Did we ever get dev confirmation on whether we can ritual-cast it while riding? Because doing that essentially makes it a free always-on buff for Wizards, as they could just re-cast the spell every 49 minutes or so (1 hour duration minus 11 minute ritual-casting time), and don't even need to prepare it.

[Giant2005]

Did we ever get dev confirmation on whether we can ritual-cast it while riding? Because doing that essentially makes it a free always-on buff for Wizards, as they could just re-cast the spell every 49 minutes or so (1 hour duration minus 11 minute ritual-casting time), and don't even need to prepare it.

No you can't Ritual-cast while riding but the spell doesn't really need it.
Sure it is annoying to have to stop for 10 minutes to re-cast it every hour, but even when factoring in that 10 minutes, you still move a longer distance in a shorter time than you would if you were using a regular horse.

[Sindeloke]

Laughable that the very same peeps who complaining that 'martials' are no good, and 'casters' are all levels of awesomeness are the very ones complaining about the ruling restricting summoned creatures to ones to be expected in your environment as 'a horrible nerf'.

Editorial word choice aside, you find it odd or ironic somehow that people who want their players to be less limited and have a variety of creative options to interact with the game world with some classes want their players to be less limited and have a variety of creative options to interact with the game world with other classes? Because that seems like the opposite of odd to me. :smallconfused:


Phantom Steed doesn't need help being made a garbage spell, it accomplishes that itself. 3rd level spell for a faster horse is absolutely not worth it unless you GM makes normal horses hard to buy.

Depends on the scenario. A tireless, high-speed mount during a chase scene or race-to-the-objective can be a pretty big deal, and it doesn't really even impact the wizard's resources beyond the opportunity cost of scribing it in the first place. Probably still too niche and too limited an advantage for third level, though, admittedly.

[Kryx]

Probably still too niche and too limited an advantage for third level, though, admittedly.
Exactly. It's not a bad spell itself. It has its uses. Lowering its level to 2 and/or expanding it at higher levels to use some of the benefits in pathfinder (walk over difficult terrain, water walk, and fly) make it a good utility spell.

[Slipperychicken]

No you can't Ritual-cast while riding

Got a source for that? I already know the concentration rules allow a DM to say that riding would force concentration checks, but it's far from a clear ruling.

[tieren]

There are spells that can slow down the enemies, there are spells that allow you to fly, there are spells that allow you to dig, there are spells that assist you in ambush attempts, there are spells that summon fast mounts for you to ride. There are spells for everything you listed but you just want one spell to rule them all.
The whole reason Kryx has been running around making threads about buffing less-used spells is purely because of interpretations like this that render those other spells obsolete. You are complaining about a clarification that declares that the game isn't as poorly designed as you seem to want it to be. That is a good thing.

No there aren't. Conjure animals was only available to druids and rangers, sure druids have access to spells that do those other things, or they can wildshape and vitiate the need for them.

Rangers have very few spells, learn fewer of them and have fewer slots. We don't have fly or dig or find steed or phantom mount. We don't even have entangle or slow.

This ruling is telling beastmasters who already can't have a beast companion capable of following orders more than 6 seconds at a time that they also can't summon the beasts they need in a pinch. Its insult on injury.

[Shining Wrath]

Got a source for that? I already know the concentration rules allow a DM to say that riding would force concentration checks, but it's far from a clear ruling.

If a concentration check is required at all, and you fail only on a '1', then the odds of maintaining concentration for 10 minutes plus 1 round is 0.95^101, or roughly 1 in 178. It's not impossible, but it is highly improbable. I just say you can't cast rituals unless you are in a safe, quiet, stable place rather than deal with "I keep trying until it works!" and rolling 100 times.

[Giant2005]

Got a source for that?

Only common sense.

[Kryx]

Got a source for that?
I remember Crawford or Mearls mention riding on a horse and casting, but I can't seem to find the source now.

Maybe I'm mis-remembering.

[WickerNipple]

Only common sense.

Which doesn't exist.

[Shining Wrath]

Which doesn't exist.

As I posted, if the DM rules circumstances require a concentration check, then casting a ritual is close to impossible. It's not common sense; it's MATH. :smallsmile:

If you want to make 101 concentration rolls to see if you succeeded in your ritual, go right ahead.

[WickerNipple]

As I posted, if the DM rules circumstances require a concentration check, then casting a ritual is close to impossible. It's not common sense; it's MATH. :smallsmile:

If you want to make 101 concentration rolls to see if you succeeded in your ritual, go right ahead.

Sure, if. But I'm certain there's no 'common sense' about what's appropriate for a concentration check while on horseback. Someone born riding daily would have a completely different concept than an amateur or someone whose only horse knowledge comes from movies.

Concentration checks would be appropriate for doing something at a gallop, but people used to riding horses don't concentrate on them while at a walking pace. Cultures based around horses do all sorts of crazy things in the saddle without batting an eye.

[GiantOctopodes]

If a concentration check is required at all, and you fail only on a '1', then the odds of maintaining concentration for 10 minutes plus 1 round is 0.95^101, or roughly 1 in 178. It's not impossible, but it is highly improbable. I just say you can't cast rituals unless you are in a safe, quiet, stable place rather than deal with "I keep trying until it works!" and rolling 100 times.

What if you pass it even on a 1? Concentration checks don't have auto failure on a 1 as part of standard rules, and having a +9 bonus is certainly possible for mid-high level wizards to obtain. In that case, would you let them do it?

I'm also not so sure about the need for concentration checks at all when riding. "Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn’t interfere with concentration". Moving around and attacking your foe doesn't cause a check. Riding a horse, unless you're doing a "risky maneuver" doesn't require a handle animal check. If it's just the mundane activity of riding along, and not something crazy like leaping across a gorge, I just don't see calling for a concentration check every round. Even then, I can't see calling for a concentration check every time the player makes a skill check, since there's no need for one when they make an attack roll.

"The following factors can break concentration:
Casting another spell that requires concentration
Taking damage
Being incapacitated or killed

The DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you’re on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw"

I hardly think riding a horse is equivalent to a wave crashing over you while you're on a storm-tossed ship. I don't know, I wouldn't normally impose any limitations on spellcasting just because they're riding a horse, so the fact that the casting time is 10 minutes vs 1 minute, I don't see how that changes anything.

[Giant2005]

Casting a Ritual doesn't just require concentration, it also requires your actions for a solid 10 minutes.
You can't even search for your missing socks, eat a Goodberry, drop some ball bearings on the floor, or raise the hood of your lantern while casting a ritual. I'm pretty sure it is safe to say that you can't cast a ritual while performing a task that exercises you both physically and mentally like riding a horse does.
This isn't the sort of thing that should require explanation - a Ritual isn't just waving your hands around and causing a magical effect - that is what happens with a regular magic spell. A ritual is far more involved.

[Naanomi]

This isn't the sort of thing that should require explanation - a Ritual isn't just waving your hands around and causing a magical effect - that is what happens with a regular magic spell. A ritual is far more involved.
I agree, any riding that would require a check (even a DC 5 one) would interrupt casting. Now, ritual casting in a wagon or carriage while someone else drives... That is reasonable to me

[Shining Wrath]

What if you pass it even on a 1? Concentration checks don't have auto failure on a 1 as part of standard rules, and having a +9 bonus is certainly possible for mid-high level wizards to obtain. In that case, would you let them do it?

I'm also not so sure about the need for concentration checks at all when riding. "Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn’t interfere with concentration". Moving around and attacking your foe doesn't cause a check. Riding a horse, unless you're doing a "risky maneuver" doesn't require a handle animal check. If it's just the mundane activity of riding along, and not something crazy like leaping across a gorge, I just don't see calling for a concentration check every round. Even then, I can't see calling for a concentration check every time the player makes a skill check, since there's no need for one when they make an attack roll.

"The following factors can break concentration:
Casting another spell that requires concentration
Taking damage
Being incapacitated or killed

The DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you’re on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw"

I hardly think riding a horse is equivalent to a wave crashing over you while you're on a storm-tossed ship. I don't know, I wouldn't normally impose any limitations on spellcasting just because they're riding a horse, so the fact that the casting time is 10 minutes vs 1 minute, I don't see how that changes anything.

AFB but: I'm pretty sure that "riding a horse" is called out, and also that it's just being ON a storm tossed ship, not a wave crashing over you. Also, casting a ritual involves reading the spell from some media (scroll or book).

[WickerNipple]

This isn't the sort of thing that should require explanation

Why not? People sleep on horseback all the time - they're not taking any actions. The horse is the one doing all the work.


AFB but: I'm pretty sure that "riding a horse" is called out, and also that it's just being ON a storm tossed ship, not a wave crashing over you. Also, casting a ritual involves reading the spell from some media (scroll or book).

Nope, neither the horse bit nor the reading/media bit is from the book. (At least, not in the Ritual or Concentration rules. No time to scan elsewhere.) Even if it were, reading on horseback is pretty common.

[rhouck]

No there aren't. Conjure animals was only available to druids and rangers, sure druids have access to spells that do those other things, or they can wildshape and vitiate the need for them.

Rangers have very few spells, learn fewer of them and have fewer slots. We don't have fly or dig or find steed or phantom mount. We don't even have entangle or slow.

This ruling is telling beastmasters who already can't have a beast companion capable of following orders more than 6 seconds at a time that they also can't summon the beasts they need in a pinch. Its insult on injury.

Yup, this.

The results are also inferior. Phantom Steed is faster. Find Steed is better in numerous ways (including lower spell level). Flying on giant Eagles is awesome... But you can also fall off and you have to be able to talk to it to tell it where to go. Whereas a party member wih Fly cast on them can do whatever they want (if they added maneuverability classes back in, the difference would be even bigger).

So it is a Swiss Army knife spell. But like a Swiss Army knife, it's not as good as a actual axe, or saw, or sword, etc.

The wotc ruling is lazy and it offloads work onto the DM (as they don't even provide him lists/tables of eligible beasts, fey, etc). They could have simply said "the DM is free to state if a desired (blank) is unavailable for your current summon, in which case the caster may choose again."

[GiantOctopodes]

Casting a Ritual doesn't just require concentration, it also requires your actions for a solid 10 minutes.
You can't even search for your missing socks, eat a Goodberry, drop some ball bearings on the floor, or raise the hood of your lantern while casting a ritual. I'm pretty sure it is safe to say that you can't cast a ritual while performing a task that exercises you both physically and mentally like riding a horse does.
This isn't the sort of thing that should require explanation - a Ritual isn't just waving your hands around and causing a magical effect - that is what happens with a regular magic spell. A ritual is far more involved.

Of course you can! Searching for your missing socks just requires moving around (movement) and maybe moving some objects (object interaction), both of which are still able to be done without issue. Dropping ball bearings on the floor is an object interaction to retrieve them, then a free action to drop them. Raising the hood of your lantern, or scattering ball bearings on the floor, or eating a goodberry, are only not possible because they use your action, specifically.

Casting a ritual (or any other spell that has a cast time of longer than 1 round) uses your action, not your turn. You still get your movement, you still get speech (within reason), you still get your object interaction, and if applicable, your bonus action and reaction. A sample wizard casting a ritual in combat:

Bobo the mighty is in combat casting a ritual. It's an important ritual and he doesn't want to start it over, so he elects to keep going with it.
He moves 30' to hide behind Grognak in his shiny plate mail, and hits the lever that closes the portcullis behind them. This cuts off their retreat, but also guarantees they only have a single front to work with.
On the enemy's turn, they start casting a spell as well. Bobo identifies it as fireball, and knowing they're in dire shape if that occurs, counterspells.
Still, dire news! Grognak is taken down by a hail of arrows from the rear ranks of the enemies, who have a clear line of sight to that location.
Knowing he needs to move, Bobo casts Expeditious Retreat, and uses the resulting bonus action dash to run 60', moving clear across the room to where the rogue Lerrik is hanging out. Knowing the situation is grim, he pulls his wand of web from his pack and holds it out for Lerrick "here, use this, Grognak is down" he says.
"You know, maybe you should stop casting that ritual at some point and contribute" Lerrick says, annoyed. He takes the wand and uses it.
On the enemy's turn, their advance has been halted, but the spellcaster is still kicking, and attempts to hurl a lightning bolt at Lerrick and Bobo.
Bobo counterspells, saying indignantly to Lerrick "I am contributing!"

Note that none of the above requires a concentration check. Note that riding a horse also does not require your action and is on the list of things you can totally do while casting extended cast time spells. Concentration checks are required when you take damage, are incapacitated or killed, or when you have environmental effects like being having a wave crash over you whilst in the middle of a storm on a ship at sea. Being on a ship in the middle of a storm at sea does not itself require a concentration check. Climbing up the rigging in those conditions does not require a concentration check. Swinging from that rigging to another ship does not require a concentration check. Why would riding a horse require one?

Edit:
AFB but: I'm pretty sure that "riding a horse" is called out, and also that it's just being ON a storm tossed ship, not a wave crashing over you. Also, casting a ritual involves reading the spell from some media (scroll or book).

Nope. Here are the full rules for spells with longer than an action cast time: "Certain spells (including spells cast as rituals) require more time to cast: minutes or even hours. When you cast a spell with a casting time longer than a single action or reaction, you must spend your action each turn casting the spell, and you must maintain your concentration while you do so (see “Concentration” below). If your concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot. If you want to try casting the spell again, you must start over."

And the concentration rules it refers to:
Some spells require you to maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active. If you lose concentration, such a spell ends. If a spell must be maintained with concentration, that fact appears in its Duration entry, and the spell specifies how long you can concentrate on it. You can end concentration at any time (no action required).
Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn’t interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:
Casting another spell that requires concentration. You lose concentration on a spell if you cast another spell that requires concentration. You can’t concentrate on two spells at once.
Taking damage. Whenever you take damage while you are concentrating on a spell, you must make a Constitution saving throw to maintain your concentration. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you take, whichever number is higher. If you take damage from multiple sources, such as an arrow and a dragon’s breath, you make a separate saving throw for each source of damage.
Being incapacitated or killed. You lose concentration on a spell if you are incapacitated or if you die.
The DM might also decide that certain environmental phenomena, such as a wave crashing over you while you’re on a storm-tossed ship, require you to succeed on a DC 10 Constitution saving throw to maintain concentration on a spell.

That's it! No riding a horse anywhere. Being on a stormy ship is fine, just don't let waves crash over you.

[Giant2005]

Why not? People sleep on horseback all the time - they're not taking any actions. The horse is the one doing all the work.

I'm pretty sure you would be in the extreme minority of DMs that let their players sleep while riding. But I can see why you would be so willing to allow someone to cast a ritual while riding if you treat riding as such a trivial task.
Having said that, I wouldn't allow a caster to cast a ritual while riding even if I was willing to let one sleep while riding - I wouldn't even let a caster cast a ritual while walking. He needs to stay in range of the casting location for the full duration of the ritual.

[GiantOctopodes]

I'm pretty sure you would be in the extreme minority of DMs that let their players sleep while riding. But I can see why you would be so willing to allow someone to cast a ritual while riding if you treat riding as such a trivial task.
Having said that, I wouldn't allow a caster to cast a ritual while riding even if I was willing to let one sleep while riding - I wouldn't even let a caster cast a ritual while walking. He needs to stay in range of the casting location for the full duration of the ritual.

Ah, sure, using those houserules I can see why you wouldn't let them cast rituals while riding, then.

[PhantomRenegade]

Looks guys lets face it, the summoning rulling is classic 5e, they know they didn't get the CR of some monsters right but they're never going to admit it, much less fix it, so instead of dealing with problem monsters themselves they give us this rule "interpretation" so the CR's stop being a problem when it comes to summoning spells.

[WickerNipple]

I'm pretty sure you would be in the extreme minority of DMs that let their players sleep while riding.

Really? I take it you (and your perceived majority of DMs) don't have any experiences riding horses long distances?

Sleeping on a horse moving at walking speed is like sleeping in a car when someone else is driving.

[Giant2005]

Ah, sure, using those houserules I can see why you wouldn't let them cast rituals while riding, then.

You can call my rules houserules if you like - I don't feel the slightest bit insulted and don't even really understand why people around these parts expect the term to be insulting.
Having said that, it isn't a houserule. The rules for targeting on page 204 of the PHB state this "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" the rules for range state: "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren’t limited by its range, unless the spell’s description says otherwise."
So what we know is that the range condition can only be ignored after the spell has been cast. We also know that casting the spell requires you to pick a location for the steed to be summoned to. Therefore if you walk too far from that point before you have finished casting the spell, the spell fails due to the range condition.

[MrStabby]

All these rules clarifications seem pretty reasonable to me.

Frankly if anyone is worried that these clarifications will be used by their DM to screw them over they should probably be looking for a new DM anyway.

As far as I can tell even the summoning spell changes seem to be about setting player expectations for what the spell can achieve rather than ruling anything out. I think the only people I have ever seen who could take these spells (conjure animals and woodland beings) and chose not to take it have been bards with their magical secrets - It was a superb "must take" spell, now it is simply very good.

For these spells I might allow a knowledge nature check to chose what to get. DC16 seems about right - that way as you gain proficiency you get better at it. It also provides a benefit to intelligence and knowledge nature, both of which I find are underused. It also means that if summoning is your thing you can still do it pretty damn well (expertise knowledge nature, reasonable INT - possibly even a source of advantage).

[Mr.Moron]

Nothing kills tension like inevitability. Anything that drives up meangingful uncertainty is a good thing in my view.

[Giant2005]

Really? I take it you (and your perceived majority of DMs) don't have any experiences riding horses long distances?

Sleeping on a horse moving at walking speed is like sleeping in a car when someone else is driving.

Actually I do. I am from rural New Zealand - horses were a way of life where I was raised and I can assure you that it is impossible to sleep on a horse but more than that, trying it would be really inadvisable. If you managed to prevent yourself from falling off, you would wake in a completely unknown location and almost certainly miles off course.
If you want to test your theory in the safety of your own home, you could easily substitute a stool for the horse in the experiment. Simply take a seat on the stool and try to take a nap.

[Naanomi]

Sleeping on a horse moving at walking speed is like sleeping in a car when someone else is driving.
I have some experience with this, sleeping while riding is possible on a relatively gentle trail and so long as someone on the ride stays awake to keep the line guided (and your saddle is good); though it takes some training to keep horses to walk in line for long rides and following the lead, it is pretty standard and even more so I suspect in medieval settings.

However learning to sleep and doing something complex are different things, this could just be my perception but I figure ritual casting is about the equivalent difficulty as serving tea: I could do it with difficulty, care, and practice in a car (or wagon back) but I don't think I could even during an easy ride

[GiantOctopodes]

You can call my rules houserules if you like - I don't feel the slightest bit insulted and don't even really understand why people around these parts expect the term to be insulting.
Having said that, it isn't a houserule. The rules for targeting on page 204 of the PHB state this "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" the rules for range state: "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren’t limited by its range, unless the spell’s description says otherwise."
So what we know is that the range condition can only be ignored after the spell has been cast. We also know that casting the spell requires you to pick a location for the steed to be summoned to. Therefore if you walk too far from that point before you have finished casting the spell, the spell fails due to the range condition.

It's not intended as an insult whatsoever. It was a statement that I now understand better why you make the decision to not allow ritual spells while riding, on the basis of your houserules. I'm glad you did not take it as insulting, for it was not meant in that way.

I'm glad you pointed out those rules, because what you'll note is not in there is a requirement to pick the target at the beginning of casting a spell. For spells with a cast time of more than 1 action, it is left entirely up in the air whether the target is determined at the beginning of the cast time, or the end. Based on the rules for casting spells with a time longer than one action, and the concentration rules (all of which I have quoted above) not requiring you to remain in one place, I personally infer that the target is picked at the end of the cast time. The reason why your rules are houserules is because they add limitations in place that are not currently present in the RAW.

Again, my statement was simply that I now understand better where you're coming from. I disagree, naturally, but I see the point of divergence in our viewpoints with greater clarity.

Edit:


However learning to sleep and doing something complex are different things, this could just be my perception but I figure ritual casting is about the equivalent difficulty as serving tea: I could do it with difficulty, care, and practice in a car (or wagon back) but I don't think I could even during an easy ride

I just want to point out that you can attack enemies if you have the actions to do so, typically if someone is concentrating on maintaining haste on you. Not saying that it's a good idea for them to do so, just that it's possible. You are also actively defending yourself from attacks at all times. So think of something you could do with relative ease during mortal combat (you only incur concentration checks if you take damage) and that's the sort of activity we're talking about. Personally, I put it more on the line of the paddle ball games, or dribbling a basketball.

[ImperiousLeader]

The Conjure spells have been odd to me since I got the 5e books, and this clarifies why. I was surprised at the renaming, from Summon X to Conjure X. Also, the wording was odd to me, fey spirits assuming the shapes of beasts, and what not. I was also surprised at how many creatures you could get, up to 24 creatures?

So, given that Sage rulings are intended to be clarifications of intent, this all makes sense to me.

As for the problem with "or lower" in a DM's hands ... ugh, I hadn't realized that there isn't a lot of choice with just one Monster Manual. Conjure Celestial has 2 options (!!!) the CR2 Pegasus, or the CR4 Couatl. If you boost it, you get the CR5 Unicorn. I honestly hadn't taken a hard look at what can be summoned, and it's not a large list. There are only 6 Fey creatures of CR2 or lower. So I get why the Conjure spells had to be written that way, but it is something that needs to change. If the player conjures CR2 Fey creatures, as a DM, I should provide CR2 creatures. But currently ... that's Sea Hags. The beast and elemental categories are better, but I'm now convinced we need a MM2 sooner than later.

As an addendum, I now expect we'll see Summon spells, for the summoner that needs the precision of summoning what they want. So Summon Bat will always get you a bat, and Conjure animals might get you a bat.

[Giant2005]

It's not intended as an insult whatsoever. It was a statement that I now understand better why you make the decision to not allow ritual spells while riding, on the basis of your houserules. I'm glad you did not take it as insulting, for it was not meant in that way.

I'm glad you pointed out those rules, because what you'll note is not in there is a requirement to pick the target at the beginning of casting a spell. For spells with a cast time of more than 1 action, it is left entirely up in the air whether the target is determined at the beginning of the cast time, or the end. Based on the rules for casting spells with a time longer than one action, and the concentration rules (all of which I have quoted above) not requiring you to remain in one place, I personally infer that the target is picked at the end of the cast time. The reason why your rules are houserules is because they add limitations in place that are not currently present in the RAW.

Again, my statement was simply that I now understand better where you're coming from. I disagree, naturally, but I see the point of divergence in our viewpoints with greater clarity.

Sorry I guess I didn't quite explain well enough - those rules I cited were within the "Casting a Spell" section of the book. They are requirements of casting a spell and as requirements, you cannot be casting a spell without meeting those conditions. You cannot begin casting a spell without choosing a target and you cannot begin casting a spell without that target being in range. The Range rules tell us that the spell is only exempt from the range condition once the spell has been cast. Ergo, you need to be within range of the target you chose when you begun casting the spell and also when you finish casting the spell.

[WickerNipple]

If you want to test your theory in the safety of your own home, you could easily substitute a stool for the horse in the experiment. Simply take a seat on the stool and try to take a nap.

I don't have to, it's a not a theory. I have years of trail riding experience that tell me half the party will be a snoozin at the end of full day's ride. I've done it on countless occasions.

You can just google 'sleeping on horseback'. It's really not that hard, but if your knowledge of horses comes from a farm setting I can understand why that wouldn't come up.

Regardless, it's immaterial for the discussion. Riding a horse in D&D 5e does not take an action or check. Doing something extreme on one does.

[GiantOctopodes]

Sorry I guess I didn't quite explain well enough - those rules I cited were within the "Casting a Spell" section of the book. They are requirements of casting a spell and as requirements, you cannot be casting a spell without meeting those conditions. You cannot begin casting a spell without choosing a target and you cannot begin casting a spell without that target being in range. The Range rules tell us that the spell is only exempt from the range condition once the spell has been cast. Ergo, you need to be within range of the target you chose when you begun casting the spell and also when you finish casting the spell.

I disagree on that topic. Note that they are indeed in the "casting a spell" section, right after the duration (which follows the cast time). They are listed in the stat block for a spell, right alongside the duration and cast time. Obviously the duration does not come into play until after the spell is cast, and the cast time describes how long it takes to cast. It is not a requirement that is met in order to begin casting. In fact, the only part of "casting a spell" that indicates it is a requirement for being able to cast is the components section. "A spell’s components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it." The word requirements does not otherwise appear in the section on casting a spell, which tells me that the only requirements by RAW for casting it is your ability to meet the components requirements. I definitely understand your decision to have a target picked at the beginning of the cast time, I just don't see that requirement in the rules text.

And in terms of being free from it once the spell has been cast, that means (for example) that animals conjured using conjure animals can leave the range described, or that the phantom steed can leave the spell's range. Note that in that context, they are referring to distance from you, the caster. It has nothing to do with the process of casting a spell, at least as far as I can discern.

Edit: And again, I see the statement "a typical spell requires you to pick a target", but again, it does not state that such occurs at the beginning of the cast time, and as such, along with the range, duration, etc, I personally infer that to take effect at the time at which the spell is cast (the end of the cast time).



You can just google 'sleeping on horseback'. It's really not that hard, but if your knowledge of horses comes from a farm setting I can understand why that wouldn't come up.


Agreed! If This Guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJM2hCE9h_Y) can do it, I think a party of D&D adventurers can manage!

[Shining Wrath]

I notice the forumites who actually have extensive experience with horses doubt you can sleep on one.

I also note that the ritual rules explicitly mention maintaining concentration.

And it's going to be a DM call as to whether or not you need a concentration check casting from horseback.

[Doug Lampert]

I notice the forumites who actually have extensive experience with horses doubt you can sleep on one.

I also note that the ritual rules explicitly mention maintaining concentration.

And it's going to be a DM call as to whether or not you need a concentration check casting from horseback.How do you notice that? I notice that people on the forum have ACTUALLY DONE IT, so anyone claiming their "extensive experience" tells them you can't, is simply wrong unless the people who've done it are all lying.

[Baptor]

yes, and in 2e, summoning was crap the majority of the time.

and the times when it wasn't? didn't use a table (or rather, didn't use a randomized table to decide what you get... there were good summoning spells that used a table where you ask for creatures and the table tells you a % chance to get it).

Yes. I recall. I can remember a time in 2e when I cast a summoning spell and summoned a small swarm of beetles that had like 1hp a piece. There were other, better monsters on the list and almost any of them would've done. I trashed that Conjurer after one session.

On the other hand, 2e did have some great summons spells at higher levels, except that either you had to win a contest of wills or the elemental ate you, or you had to have other spells on you and your allies else the demon ate you.

Yeah, summoning back then sucked.

I can see the idea of giving the DM the choice of specific creature summoned, but I have to agree with those who say it would just be far easier to fix the pixie than make such a ham fisted rule. Let's be honest, this ruling is to fix the pixie problem. Does any DM really have an issue of whether a mage conjures an earth or fire elemental? No.

[WickerNipple]

How do you notice that? I notice that people on the forum have ACTUALLY DONE IT, so anyone claiming their "extensive experience" tells them you can't, is simply wrong unless the people who've done it are all lying.

HAhahahah. I have no idea. You have at least two people in this thread with trail riding experience saying it's common. I can only assume selective reading is as popular here as it is when reading the rulebook..

[GiantOctopodes]

And it's going to be a DM call as to whether or not you need a concentration check casting from horseback.

of course, as with all things! However, I hardly think riding a horse is equivalent to a wave crashing over you while on a stormy ship, and it's a bit of a nerf to steeds in general to say that you can't concentrate while on them. Telling the Paladin that while riding the mount he obtained using Find Steed, he must make a concentration check every round he wishes to maintain concentration on his smite spells, or telling the Wizard who cast Expeditious Retreat on their horse that they must make a concentration check every round to maintain it, or telling the Eldritch Knight riding a horse that he must make a concentration check every round to maintain his Elemental Weapon, that's a surefire way to get them off those mounts asap. Since you don't need to use an action or make a check of any sort while riding, I just don't know where that decision would come from. Climbing a rock wall does not require concentration checks, combat does not require concentration checks, why, as a DM, would you make the simple act of sitting in a saddle while a horse moves under you require them?

[Thrudd]

If you dont need a concentration check while fighting, you certainly don't need one while riding a horse. You only need a check if something actually hits you or doing something really difficult, like maybe standing up on the horse's back at a gallop.

[WickerNipple]

If you dont need a concentration check while fighting, you certainly don't need one while riding a horse. You only need a check if something actually hits you or doing something really difficult, like maybe standing up on the horse's back at a gallop.

I'd require a concentration check and probably Animal Handling for moving at a gallop at all.

[Thrudd]

I'd require a concentration check and probably Animal Handling for moving at a gallop at all.

Galloping is no more distracting than fighting (it is less). If the game says you can concentrate and actually be engaged in combat, requiring attack rolls, then riding requiring an ability check should be fine as well.

[WickerNipple]

Galloping is no more distracting than fighting (it is less). If the game says you can concentrate and actually be engaged in combat, requiring attack rolls, then riding requiring an ability check should be fine as well.

Yeah I suppose you're right. I wish they'd named the mechanic something different.

[GiantOctopodes]

I'd require a concentration check and probably Animal Handling for moving at a gallop at all.

Really? Under the movement section, it describes "A mounted character can ride at a gallop for about an hour, covering twice the usual distance for a fast pace. If fresh mounts are available every 8 to 10 miles, characters can cover larger distances at this pace". I take it that section of the rules is right out then, in your games? After all, if moving at a gallop at all requires a Animal Handling check, there's no way they'll last an hour, much less longer.

[Coidzor]

Well, there's always just looking up what the hell the Mongols managed, because those guys were and are scary horsemen who've probably figured out everything that you can do in a saddle by now. Or on top of a horse without a saddle, even.

[Beleriphon]

Falling asleep on horse back is more akin to falling asleep in a car, provided somebody else is driving. I can do that just fine, in relatively smooth ground. There is no way I could fall asleep offroading over rough terrain, let alone read with any degree of success. As for casting ritual spells while on horse, sure why not provided you aren't moving over particularly rough terrain or at a particularly fast pace. As usually, DM call on what is required and when.

[SharkForce]

Laughable that the very same peeps who complaining that 'martials' are no good, and 'casters' are all levels of awesomeness are the very ones complaining about the ruling restricting summoned creatures to ones to be expected in your environment as 'a horrible nerf'.

if you'd been paying attention, you'd be aware that most of us don't feel that casters are too strong, but rather that non-casters are too weak. nerfing casters until they can't do anything interesting is *not* a good solution. 4e tried that, and last a lot of their fanbase. casters with crappy spells that don't do anything interesting do not feel like D&D.

[pwykersotz]

if you'd been paying attention, you'd be aware that most of us don't feel that casters are too strong, but rather that non-casters are too weak. nerfing casters until they can't do anything interesting is *not* a good solution. 4e tried that, and last a lot of their fanbase. casters with crappy spells that don't do anything interesting do not feel like D&D.

Non-casters aren't too weak, the only reasonable point has been that they lack options to affect the world as much as casters for both the Roleplay and Exploration tiers of the game. And explicitly allowing DM and Player collaboration on a particular game element is neither a nerf nor a buff. It's a playstyle.

This clarification does nothing to change the power or usefulness of the spell. Just like rolling 2d6 is not better or worse than taking 7 on damage. It's just situational.

[tieren]

This clarification does nothing to change the power or usefulness of the spell. Just like rolling 2d6 is not better or worse than taking 7 on damage. It's just situational.

This is just not true. It took away reliability.

Maybe I want crocodiles to help fight something in the river, and now my DM makes up some random table and I roll hyenas.

Maybe I wanted wolves with pack tactics and knocking enemies prone and now I get a flock of seagulls (and I know my DM will have a song cued up for it too).

It took away my ability to think about the situation and make a decision about the solution I thought was best and instead added at best a random roll which will be its own new problem for me to solve.

Its the same as if they made wildshape a random table roll instead of letting the druids pick what they wanted to turn into.

[SharkForce]

Non-casters aren't too weak, the only reasonable point has been that they lack options to affect the world as much as casters for both the Roleplay and Exploration tiers of the game. And explicitly allowing DM and Player collaboration on a particular game element is neither a nerf nor a buff. It's a playstyle.

This clarification does nothing to change the power or usefulness of the spell. Just like rolling 2d6 is not better or worse than taking 7 on damage. It's just situational.

"the DM decides what you get" is not collaboration.

[Coidzor]

Non-casters aren't too weak, the only reasonable point has been that they lack options to affect the world as much as casters for both the Roleplay and Exploration tiers of the game. And explicitly allowing DM and Player collaboration on a particular game element is neither a nerf nor a buff. It's a playstyle.

This clarification does nothing to change the power or usefulness of the spell. Just like rolling 2d6 is not better or worse than taking 7 on damage. It's just situational.

Decreasing usability by making the spell entirely dependent upon DM caprice does decrease the actual/average usefulness of the spell, even if it's theoretically possible that the full potential of what one wanted to get could still be realized.

[pwykersotz]

"the DM decides what you get" is not collaboration.

Fortunately, that's not what the Sage Advice said either.


A spellcaster can certainly express a preference for what creatures shows up, but it’s up to the DM to determine if they do. The DM will often choose creatures that are appropriate for the campaign and that will be fun to introduce in a scene.

That sounds like collaboration to me. I suppose your mileage may vary if you have an antagonistic DM, but as others have stated, that's not a problem with the spell.


Decreasing usability by making the spell entirely dependent upon DM caprice does decrease the actual/average usefulness of the spell, even if it's theoretically possible that the full potential of what one wanted to get could still be realized.

The problem here is that you're using a sliding scale of Useless to Exactly What I Wanted. But there's another element of the scale, which is More Than I Wanted. There's also the element of Exactly What I Needed (even if I didn't know it). There's also the very chaotic and nebulous element of Fun. It's not a binary have/have not.

[GiantOctopodes]

The problem here is that you're using a sliding scale of Useless to Exactly What I Wanted. But there's another element of the scale, which is More Than I Wanted. There's also the element of Exactly What I Needed (even if I didn't know it). There's also the very chaotic and nebulous element of Fun. It's not a binary have/have not.

Anecdote: My buddy was running to Burger King. I gave him $5 and asked him to grab me a whopper. He saw that I had given him more money than was needed and instead grabbed me a A1 steakhouse double whopper, or something like that. In his eyes, he gave me more than I wanted, he upgraded me with the extra money I had. Yet the trouble with that is that I didn't need an A1 steakhouse double whopper, nor do I particularly care for them. If I wanted one, I would have asked for that. Instead, my preference (for a regular old whopper) was not met, and I enjoyed the sandwich substantially less because of it.

More than I wanted is not necessarily better than exactly what I wanted.

[SharkForce]

Fortunately, that's not what the Sage Advice said either.



That sounds like collaboration to me. I suppose your mileage may vary if you have an antagonistic DM, but as others have stated, that's not a problem with the spell.

that sounds pretty much like "the DM will tell you what you get" to me. of course I can ask for other things. but the DM still tells me what I get. it isn't collaboration when one person has all the decision-making power and the other person only gets to make suggestions with absolutely no force behind them whatsoever.

[Thrudd]

that sounds pretty much like "the DM will tell you what you get" to me. of course I can ask for other things. but the DM still tells me what I get. it isn't collaboration when one person has all the decision-making power and the other person only gets to make suggestions with absolutely no force behind them whatsoever.

That is kind of the definition of the DM in D&D. They have all the decision making power. You have power over what actions your character takes, the DM and the dice decide everything else. If the player handbook doesnt tell you what happens or what your character gets, then the DM does. And the DM has the right to override the book if they want to.

[charlesk]

This clarification does nothing to change the power or usefulness of the spell.

I can't even conceive of what would lead anyone to make a statement like this.

Control is a big deal.

[Ardantis]

What I find interesting is how 5e has moved summoning spells closer, both thematically and mechanically, to Animate Dead.

Animate Dead summons spirits from a nearby plane, The Shadowfell, to inhabit corpses on this plane.

Conjure Animals summons spirits from a nearby plane, The Feywild, to inhabit conjured bodies on this plane.

Conjure Elementals summons a spirit from a comparatively close Elemental plane to inhabit some amount of the corresponding element on this plane.

The other Conjure spells explicitly summon a specific type of creature from its home plane to this plane.

Here's the catch: summoning an undead army always took a lot of DM cooperation from both a storytelling (entering town?) and mechanical (fireball could drop them all) standpoint. Summon spells used to give you the solution to a problem for a few rounds.

This ruling, plus the increased duration of one hour, plus the fact that Elementals and Fey (but not Celestials!) can turn against you indicates to me that the designers are pushing summoning- I'm sorry, Conjuring- into an area more like Animate Dead- an area of increased interdependence between player and DM.

Casting these spells means accepting these caveats in order to reap the admittedly absurd potential benefits. It also means working with your DM to figure out the fiddleys. How do you express preference? Well maybe you cultivate a relationship with the source of your summons- perhaps mutualism in the case of Conjure Celestial, but maybe agressive dominance in the case of Conjure Elementals. All of this is as interesting and also as difficult to adjudicate as an Army of the Dead.

I think this will be widely house ruled at tables that just want hack'n'slash or puzzle solving, and they are within all rights to do that.

At other tables, though, it opens up the floodgates for storytelling, problem solving, and archetypal complexities undreamed of by emulating the difficulties inherent in Animate Dead (and Create Undead.)

[tieren]

What I find interesting is how 5e has moved summoning spells closer, both thematically and mechanically, to Animate Dead.

Animate Dead summons spirits from a nearby plane, The Shadowfell, to inhabit corpses on this plane.

Conjure Animals summons spirits from a nearby plane, The Feywild, to inhabit conjured bodies on this plane.

Conjure Elementals summons a spirit from a comparatively close Elemental plane to inhabit some amount of the corresponding element on this plane.

The other Conjure spells explicitly summon a specific type of creature from its home plane to this plane.

Here's the catch: summoning an undead army always took a lot of DM cooperation from both a storytelling (entering town?) and mechanical (fireball could drop them all) standpoint. Summon spells used to give you the solution to a problem for a few rounds.

This ruling, plus the increased duration of one hour, plus the fact that Elementals and Fey (but not Celestials!) can turn against you indicates to me that the designers are pushing summoning- I'm sorry, Conjuring- into an area more like Animate Dead- an area of increased interdependence between player and DM.

Casting these spells means accepting these caveats in order to reap the admittedly absurd potential benefits. It also means working with your DM to figure out the fiddleys. How do you express preference? Well maybe you cultivate a relationship with the source of your summons- perhaps mutualism in the case of Conjure Celestial, but maybe agressive dominance in the case of Conjure Elementals. All of this is as interesting and also as difficult to adjudicate as an Army of the Dead.

I think this will be widely house ruled at tables that just want hack'n'slash or puzzle solving, and they are within all rights to do that.

At other tables, though, it opens up the floodgates for storytelling, problem solving, and archetypal complexities undreamed of by emulating the difficulties inherent in Animate Dead (and Create Undead.)

Oddly though if I really want wolves I guess I could kill some and then animate their corpses with some multiclass in into cleric.

[Ardantis]

Oddly though if I really want wolves I guess I could kill some and then animate their corpses with some multiclass in into cleric.

Do Zombie Wolves get Pack Tactics?

[Shining Wrath]

Per the ruling, the DM is supposed to let the player express a preference, and choose based on "thematic" and "fun" considerations. Every DM will have their own style, but "the only right way to do it is 100% player preference, no DM input at all" style is not the only way the game can be played, or should be played.

Explicitly letting the DM have input is not BadWrongFun.

[charlesk]

Explicitly letting the DM have input is not BadWrongFun.

In this case, I think it is.

Of course the DM has "input" on everything and can overrule anything. But specifically putting in the spell that players no longer have control over what appears ruins the spell, at least as far as I am concerned.

I will be "explicitly" asking my DM to houserule this particular ruling away. I already wouldn't abuse a summon spell, and I don't need Crawford's ham-fisted overreach basically ruining Conjure Animals for me and giving my DM another headache.

There are many spells and very few say explicitly that the DM decides what happens. IMO it was a big mistake to put summons in this category when almost nothing else is. And it was all done basically because of one corner abuse case, because WotC appears to prefer ruining entire subsystems of the game rather than just fixing small problems that they can't seem to admit they created.

[Demonic Spoon]

There are many spells and very few say explicitly that the DM decides what happens. IMO it was a big mistake to put summons in this category when almost nothing else is. And it was all done basically because of one corner abuse case, because WotC appears to prefer ruining entire subsystems of the game rather than just fixing small problems that they can't seem to admit they created.


There are tons of them that say it implicitly, though. When you cast a fireball, the DM determines whether or not something catches fire, for example, and the spell only provides rough guidelines (the thing has to be "flammable".

Also, I'd bet that this was their original intention and had nothing to do with the balance of corner cases - players are not expected to have the monster manual, and it would be silly to hand a player a spell which he literally couldn't use without buying an additional book. Furthermore, DMs are on generally more mechanically knowledgable, and digging through the MM for statblocks is far more daunting for the average player than the DM.

[Ardantis]

In this case, I think it is.

Of course the DM has "input" on everything and can overrule anything. But specifically putting in the spell that players no longer have control over what appears ruins the spell, at least as far as I am concerned.

I will be "explicitly" asking my DM to houserule this particular ruling away. I already wouldn't abuse a summon spell, and I don't need Crawford's ham-fisted overreach basically ruining Conjure Animals for me and giving my DM another headache.

There are many spells and very few say explicitly that the DM decides what happens. IMO it was a big mistake to put summons in this category when almost nothing else is. And it was all done basically because of one corner abuse case, because WotC appears to prefer ruining entire subsystems of the game rather than just fixing small problems that they can't seem to admit they created.

One thing that works this way just fine: Divination spells.

Divination spells leave the major part of decision making in the hands of the DM, and invite the DM to share his campaign world with the player(s) through a different means than, say, exploration or social interaction. And yet there are few complaints about divinations being part of a wizard's or cleric's regular preparation for an adventure.

Yes, divinations have been called weak in previous editions, and yes, the most powerful divination abilities in 5e (Portent and Foresight) have predetermined benefits to the player. However, the bread'n'butter divinations, like the Commune spells, are largely DM decided. In fact, in many parties, it is the spellcaster's job to expand the party's knowledge by using divination spells. These spells are not considered to be "ruined" because of it- they are an opportunity for the DM and the party to further envision their world.

Conjure spells are not ruined by DM input, and there is a long gray area between "player chooses" and "DM chooses." I'm not saying their won't be parties that go to one extreme or the other with it. And I can especially understand how charlesk, who picked the spell up before the ruling and will be playing with it after the ruling, would be miffed and would want to ensure that the spell played as he had previously understood it. I hope your DM is understanding; I know that I would be in that circumstance.

What I'm saying is that the Conjure spells are not ruined by DM involvement, and I think that the gray area introduced by this ruling makes the spells more, rather than less, interesting.

[charlesk]

There are tons of them that say it implicitly, though. When you cast a fireball, the DM determines whether or not something catches fire, for example, and the spell only provides rough guidelines (the thing has to be "flammable".


But that implicitness also applies to summons. The DM determines what the summon can do and how it does it. That is comparable to determining whether a fireball sets something on fire or not. What they've done with summons is more like casting fireball and having the spell says that the DM determines what comes out of your fingertips.



Also, I'd bet that this was their original intention and had nothing to do with the balance of corner cases - players are not expected to have the monster manual, and it would be silly to hand a player a spell which he literally couldn't use without buying an additional book. Furthermore, DMs are on generally more mechanically knowledgable, and digging through the MM for statblocks is far more daunting for the average player than the DM.

I suppose this could be argued. But then there is a section in the back of the PHB with common animals listed, for this and for other purposes.

I won't claim to know their intent. I do think this is a pretty big change and I don't really like how they did it. As written right now the caster has no control over what appears. That's a ruined spell as far as I am concerned.



What I'm saying is that the Conjure spells are not ruined by DM involvement, and I think that the gray area introduced by this ruling makes the spells more, rather than less, interesting.

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one. For me, the entire point of the spell was the ability to choose the creature, and even subtle changes in what appears can unravel plans. (I used this for combat meat less than 50% of the time.)

It's not a matter of "involvement" for me but a matter of control. The DM already controls so much of what goes on at the table, and I generally oppose anything that removes control from the players over what their characters do.

[tieren]

Per the ruling, the DM is supposed to let the player express a preference, and choose based on "thematic" and "fun" considerations. Every DM will have their own style, but "the only right way to do it is 100% player preference, no DM input at all" style is not the only way the game can be played, or should be played.

Explicitly letting the DM have input is not BadWrongFun.

There is DM input on everything. Even if you try to stab something with your sword the DM can just say a mysterious force stays your hand, but at least you were fairly confident if you succeeded the end result would be an attack.

A level 9 ranger with exactly 2 level 3 slots and only one or two level three spells now needs to decide whether to spend those precious resources on "conjure who knows what that might be useful or may not".

frankly I'd be okay if they gave us a fighting chance at what we actually want. I like the previous poster's suggestion that would tie it to a nature check, pass the check get what you want, fail the check get some random beasts. That would make sense thematically and RP wise to me and still let me feel like I have some control. Just making it pure DM fiat feels bad.

[DanyBallon]

I think we are arguing on the conjure spells for the sake of arguing, because 99% of the game will go like this:

Example 1: Player: I want to conjure some wolves, so they can gang up against the enemies
DM: Fine, you get wolves

Example 2: (while in a desert near an oasis)
Player: I want to summon a shark, to catch the thief that jumped into the oasis
DM: I don't think a shark would be appropriate, what about a crocodile?
Player: Sharks would be cool, but your right it doesn't make much sense. I'm fine with a croc.

As for people arguing about removing control from the player's hands, we could argue that players never had any control at all, as every thing (races, class, feat, spells, etc) are up to the DM. But it's common sense that there is a collaboration between the players and the DM so they both enjoy the game.

[Demonic Spoon]

But that implicitness also applies to summons. The DM determines what the summon can do and how it does it. That is comparable to determining whether a fireball sets something on fire or not. What they've done with summons is more like casting fireball and having the spell says that the DM determines what comes out of your fingertips.


As another poster mentioned, there are other spells - like divinations - which are basically entirely DM fiat.


I suppose this could be argued. But then there is a section in the back of the PHB with common animals listed, for this and for other purposes.

I won't claim to know their intent. I do think this is a pretty big change and I don't really like how they did it. As written right now the caster has no control over what appears. That's a ruined spell as far as I am concerned.


That section of the PHB does not have anywhere close to enough creatures. For example, I'm pretty sure virtually nothing conjurable by Summon Woodland Beings is in there. It's mostly sub-CR1 beasts.

If giving the DM control of what comes out ruins the spell, then I assume you consider all of the other spells which rely heavily on the DM (such as divination spells) to be useless as well.

[tieren]

As another poster mentioned, there are other spells - like divinations - which are basically entirely DM fiat.



That section of the PHB does not have anywhere close to enough creatures. For example, I'm pretty sure virtually nothing conjurable by Summon Woodland Beings is in there. It's mostly sub-CR1 beasts.

If giving the DM control of what comes out ruins the spell, then I assume you consider all of the other spells which rely heavily on the DM (such as divination spells) to be useless as well.

1. The only thing in that section that could be summoned by Conjure woodland beings are sprites (although a pack of invisible archers could be fun and less broken than pixies).

2. I don't believe the divination example is a good example because you know when you take and cast it you are getting whatever the DM decides fits, its the nature of the spell. This change is more akin to changing all wizard attacks to one damage spell called "evocation spell" and the DM deciding whether you got a scorching ray a lightning bolt or a fireball.

[Demonic Spoon]

2. I don't believe the divination example is a good example because you know when you take and cast it you are getting whatever the DM decides fits, its the nature of the spell. This change is more akin to changing all wizard attacks to one damage spell called "evocation spell" and the DM deciding whether you got a scorching ray a lightning bolt or a fireball.

Conjure animals/elementals/whatever are single spells, not multiple spells each. Even with this change, a singular summoning spell has more versatility than a singular evocation spell because even if you completely disregard the ability of the player to work with the DM to get something he is happy with (and disregarding this is absolutely absurd unless your DM hates you), you have at the bare minimum 4 different ways that the spell could be cast.

[charlesk]

As another poster mentioned, there are other spells - like divinations - which are basically entirely DM fiat.


That's right, but they are required to be that way because they are basically the player extracting information from the DM, and you know what you are getting into if you decide to use them.

This simply isn't necessary for summon spells. It's a step backwards without a good justification.

[GiantOctopodes]

That's right, but they are required to be that way because they are basically the player extracting information from the DM, and you know what you are getting into if you decide to use them.

This simply isn't necessary for summon spells. It's a step backwards without a good justification.

Well, there is a good justification- with that ruling, they can release whatever they want in monster manuals without having to worry about it being abused by conjure spells, and can similarly release whatever additional conjure spells they want without worrying about it being abused. However, as has been previously indicated, the only thing that can be actively abused right now is Pixies. Basically, this allows them to be lazy and not properly balance things in the future with less repercussions. Not exactly a compelling design philosophy, but there you have it. At my tables we'll be blatantly ignoring this ruling, of course, both because the players don't abuse conjuration spells and because we fixed the CR of pixies ourselves so the whole thing is moot. Also because we feel more player control can lead to greater player creativity, and the less work that gets dumped with no warning on the DM the better.

I mean, think about it, the player is allowed to express a preference (gee, thanks for that crawford, how generous) but is not required to do so. Bad DMs nothing, I can imagine players with 0 prep or idea as to what is possible with their abilities, mid combat bogging everything down by just saying "I summon elementals! CR2!" and the DM then scrambling to find something that fits. Having the DM run that show basically requires them to scan through the MM and make tables of all the options present for summoning, or else risks slowing the entire combat down as the DM is burdened with researching what the player's spell can do. Speaking of....

[Shining Wrath]

Clearly for an ongoing campaign where the players took Conjure spells with a particular understanding, and especially if they have used them that way, the DM has to houserule that into effect for the duration. One of the main rules of being a good DM: do not break the player's build with a new rule.

Which means communication and talking about builds at Session Zero. So going forward, you need to talk to your DM before making a build that relies on Conjuration. This ruling, as noted, adds some complexity.

I still think most of this is the opposite of the Oberon Fallacy: just because a DM *can* break Conjure spells doesn't mean they are going to be broken in practice.

Talk to your DM, as Charlek says he intends to do. In practice I think this will be as useful as "player choice" and perhaps more fun at some tables, as players who never would have thought to ask for something get a fun, flavorful monster.

[GiantOctopodes]

My biggest fear as a player would definitely be a DM who decided to roll randomly. There's a lot of difference in a combat between getting Giant Poisonous Snakes or Flying Snakes and getting Frogs (just regular frogs) when summoning creatures of CR 1/4 or lower, for example. Not to mention the possibility of getting some fish on land that just flop around for a while and die, or something equally absurd (underwater summoning creatures you hope will help bring you back to shore, and instead get a bunch of blood hawks, who flail around and die). Hopefully DMs will be wise enough to *not* do that, especially for conjure animals. Looking into it a bit more, Conjure Animals (CR 1/4 or lower) would indeed be nigh well useless, were a DM to roll on a chart for the results.

[ImperiousLeader]

I think everyone is focusing on the negative. Here's a thought, leaving it to the DM grants him leave to help you with modified monsters.

It has already been pointed out that there are three Celestials in the game that are valid targets for Conjure Celestials and only 1 CR2 Fey. The non-animal and elemental conjurations are not exactly teeming with choices. But a homebrewed monster, a leveled up creature, a quick Celestial Template ...

These are things that I don't expect my players to do, but they are something I'd be willing to consider.

[Shining Wrath]

I think everyone is focusing on the negative. Here's a thought, leaving it to the DM grants him leave to help you with modified monsters.

It has already been pointed out that there are three Celestials in the game that are valid targets for Conjure Celestials and only 1 CR2 Fey. The non-animal and elemental conjurations are not exactly teeming with choices. But a homebrewed monster, a leveled up creature, a quick Celestial Template ...

These are things that I don't expect my players to do, but they are something I'd be willing to consider.

Let us consider future editions of the MM as well. Often the DM is the person who owns all the books; you wanted to summon sharks because you couldn't think of a better monster, but the DM looks at his table and picks Mutant Sea Bass, which you didn't even know existed, and they work better than sharks because of the lasers!

[SharkForce]

I think everyone is focusing on the negative. Here's a thought, leaving it to the DM grants him leave to help you with modified monsters.

It has already been pointed out that there are three Celestials in the game that are valid targets for Conjure Celestials and only 1 CR2 Fey. The non-animal and elemental conjurations are not exactly teeming with choices. But a homebrewed monster, a leveled up creature, a quick Celestial Template ...

These are things that I don't expect my players to do, but they are something I'd be willing to consider.

what, are we somehow operating under the assumption that the DM is incapable of introducing new creature types without the conjure spells conjuring stuff according to their decision?

because i'd never operate under that assumption. if the DM wants to introduce a new creature, the DM in my experience generally does so whether you use summoning spells or not.

[ImperiousLeader]

No, but I'm seeing a lot of assumptions that the DM is going to use the conjure spell to screw the PC over. I'm not going to do that until you blow that concentration save. :sabine:

[Shining Wrath]

what, are we somehow operating under the assumption that the DM is incapable of introducing new creature types without the conjure spells conjuring stuff according to their decision?

because i'd never operate under that assumption. if the DM wants to introduce a new creature, the DM in my experience generally does so whether you use summoning spells or not.

That's not what he said, though; he said the DM can introduce a creature you don't even know exists, and would therefore never choose. And since some spells (see Giant Octopodes new thread) have only minimal choices available at particular CR levels, the DM might give you something actually better for your purposes than your choice.

[Anlashok]

Sort of weird how many people are enjoying DM-controlled summonings when Wild Sorcerer is almost universally considered bad for the exact same reason.

Not quite sure I get the "appropriate to the environment" argument either. Seems like the whole point of a summoning spell is that it, well, summons something to you. It's not some sort of "locate animal" and "Charm animal" rolled into one. It's a summoning.

Nevermind that in the examples of Animals and Woodland Beings both explicitly summon fey spirits rather than actual animals.

Also not really a fan of how much it can put you at the whim of spiteful DMing. I don't like the idea that a player can cast Conjure Animal, declare they want one big monster and the DM decides that the most 'appropriate' thing to give them is a single mouse because hey it's perfectly valid.

[Sigreid]

Let us consider future editions of the MM as well. Often the DM is the person who owns all the books; you wanted to summon sharks because you couldn't think of a better monster, but the DM looks at his table and picks Mutant Sea Bass, which you didn't even know existed, and they work better than sharks because of the lasers!

I would expect a wizard at least to have a solid understanding of what he is going to get. The wizard's shtick is understanding his magic. I don't see a wizard trying to summon a fire elemental and getting say a gargoyle.

[Coidzor]

Explicitly letting the DM have input is not BadWrongFun.

The DM deciding what happens isn't input, though. It's the DM deciding what happens and maybe they'll take into consideration what the player wants.

So basically it's the same thing as an unsafe wish from previous editions, and we all know how those were widely regarded as an excuse for even good DMs to **** with the players.

Even when people wouldn't previously have wanted to screw the players, it now provides them with encouragement to do so.


Let us consider future editions of the MM as well. Often the DM is the person who owns all the books; you wanted to summon sharks because you couldn't think of a better monster, but the DM looks at his table and picks Mutant Sea Bass, which you didn't even know existed, and they work better than sharks because of the lasers!

And he just... keeps the new MM summoning options a complete and utter secret from the player until he gets to spring them on him by subverting his summoning? And you think that's an example of a good DM-Player relationship? :smallconfused:

[Naanomi]

How many GMs here plan on regularly shafting players who use these spells? I don't... Maybe I'm GMing wrong?

[SharkForce]

That's not what he said, though; he said the DM can introduce a creature you don't even know exists, and would therefore never choose. And since some spells (see Giant Octopodes new thread) have only minimal choices available at particular CR levels, the DM might give you something actually better for your purposes than your choice.

or the DM could alternately, after making the creature, say "hey i made a new creature that you can summon", and introduce it to you.

i mean, it isn't like this enables DMs to introduce new creatures, and without it they just would never be able to do so. they could already introduce new creatures if they wanted. this seems like a rather pointless rule to cram in if the entire objective is to have DMs once in a blue moon have the spell summon a new creature as a means of introducing it into the world. why not, just, you know... introduce it to the world. with or without a summoning spell.

[ImperiousLeader]

And, for Conjure Elemental, you know that won't happen, as you must target an area appropriate for such an elemental. You need a large source of fire to get a fire elemental. Target a boulder and get an Earth Elemental.

[Ardantis]

And, for Conjure Elemental, you know that won't happen, as you must target an area appropriate for such an elemental. You need a large source of fire to get a fire elemental. Target a boulder and get an Earth Elemental.

I do like that Conjure Elemental has a built-in failsafe.

[charlesk]

How many GMs here plan on regularly shafting players who use these spells? I don't... Maybe I'm GMing wrong?

It isn't necessary for the DM to be vindictive to inadvertently ruin the spell.

One of the reasons I took Conjure Animals is that I love the creativity inherent in the spell, and I like being able to summon my beasts and then let the scenario play out, so the DM and other players can see why I summoned it and what I want to do with it. I don't want to have to declare in advance why I am summoning the creature and what I plan to do with it. And I don't want to have to get into an argument or bargaining session with the DM either. It simply ruins all the fun.

I don't see it as an improvement to go from "Oh, he's conjuring that, let's see what he does with it" to "You want that? Oh, well, that's not 'native to this environment' so instead you get this" followed by me explaining why I wanted the thing I asked for in the first place, and then the DM thinking it over, and maybe giving it to me, or giving me something else he thinks will match what I wanted (but might not). This is not what epic gameplay sessions are made of.

[Shining Wrath]

or the DM could alternately, after making the creature, say "hey i made a new creature that you can summon", and introduce it to you.

i mean, it isn't like this enables DMs to introduce new creatures, and without it they just would never be able to do so. they could already introduce new creatures if they wanted. this seems like a rather pointless rule to cram in if the entire objective is to have DMs once in a blue moon have the spell summon a new creature as a means of introducing it into the world. why not, just, you know... introduce it to the world. with or without a summoning spell.


No one has said "the only way for the DM to introduce new creatures is via Conjure spells", so let's stop raising that straw man. You asking for a wolf and getting a mouse is the DM screwing with you. I won't defend that. But it is at least possible that the game will be more fun for the table as a whole if the caster isn't 100% in control. If the DM thinks a different creature is going to be more fun, for whatever reason, and if in fact the DM is right, then the game suffers with 100% caster control.

Trust your DM. If you can't, maybe your problem is not with this ruling.

[charlesk]

If the DM thinks a different creature is going to be more fun, for whatever reason, and if in fact the DM is right, then the game suffers with 100% caster control.


Depends on what you consider "fun" I suppose.

To me, there's nothing less fun than having an idea I proposed for what I want to do with my character be overruled by the DM substituting his judgment, regardless of the end result. The DM already gets to control most of what happens at the table, the players relatively little. If I can't even choose creatures I summon, that's just that much less control.

Personally, I just quit a game in large part because the DM was basically micromanaging the story and I felt like I was a spectator. Putting more things in the rules that make players bystanders, even a little bit, is a bad decision.

[tieren]

It isn't necessary for the DM to be vindictive to inadvertently ruin the spell.

One of the reasons I took Conjure Animals is that I love the creativity inherent in the spell, and I like being able to summon my beasts and then let the scenario play out, so the DM and other players can see why I summoned it and what I want to do with it. I don't want to have to declare in advance why I am summoning the creature and what I plan to do with it. And I don't want to have to get into an argument or bargaining session with the DM either. It simply ruins all the fun.

I don't see it as an improvement to go from "Oh, he's conjuring that, let's see what he does with it" to "You want that? Oh, well, that's not 'native to this environment' so instead you get this" followed by me explaining why I wanted the thing I asked for in the first place, and then the DM thinking it over, and maybe giving it to me, or giving me something else he thinks will match what I wanted (but might not). This is not what epic gameplay sessions are made of.

This exactly (x100)!

Suppose that from now on all illusions were just attempts to create illusions and the DM decides what really appears. "Oh you wanted to hide that pit but instead created the illusion of an armchair, now what do you do?"

This rule reintroduces spell failure but only to a limited set of casters and that is bad.

[Demonic Spoon]

Depends on what you consider "fun" I suppose.

To me, there's nothing less fun than having an idea I proposed for what I want to do with my character be overruled by the DM substituting his judgment, regardless of the end result. The DM already gets to control most of what happens at the table, the players relatively little.

It's not usually a question of the DM's opinion vs the player's opinion of what's fun. Players, on behalf of their characters, are biased against picking an animal that is thematically cool and flavorful for the location of the adventure. Their characters are in real danger and, if given the choice to summon what they want, are obviously going to try to summon the optimal animal for the situation.

The DM has a more balanced view of things. He isn't going to want to neuter the player by summoning anything obviously useless like frogs, but he'll have more of a perspective of "What CR X animal makes most sense to be summoned here". He will then presumably be reasonable and listen if this choice is utterly ruinous to the player's plans.


And as mentioned before, giantITP posters are not average D&D players. Most players aren't even going to have a copy of the monster manual, let alone want to dig through it to find a list of creatures they can summon. Most players are going to be more than happy to let the DM do that work for them.

I don't see any major harm in houseruling it back, as long as the player avoids obvious brokenness like 8 pixies. However, let's stop pretending like no one benefits from this text.

[SharkForce]

No one has said "the only way for the DM to introduce new creatures is via Conjure spells", so let's stop raising that straw man. You asking for a wolf and getting a mouse is the DM screwing with you. I won't defend that. But it is at least possible that the game will be more fun for the table as a whole if the caster isn't 100% in control. If the DM thinks a different creature is going to be more fun, for whatever reason, and if in fact the DM is right, then the game suffers with 100% caster control.

Trust your DM. If you can't, maybe your problem is not with this ruling.

then why do people keep on acting like this ruling is necessary, if the ONLY positive thing it adds is the DM once in a very long while giving you a creature that you didn't know about for some reason or adding new creatures, and yet there is extreme potential for negative results. we have a miniscule fraction of the time where it does something slightly good, and potential for it to go horribly wrong. what kind of sane individual looks at those outcomes and says "oh hey, we should definitely make that decision"? if this is *not* the claim, then why the hell does it keep coming up as if it was some major benefit of this ruling that now the DM could introduce new creatures? if they are *not* claiming that the two things are in some way linked, then why is it even being brought up in this discussion at all? i mean, if nobody is suggesting they're linked, it's about as relevant as randomly spewing any other rule. i may as well go on a rant about the effects of the optional marking mechanic as talk about the ability to introduce new creatures, unless introducing new creatures is supposed to in some way be related to the subject of discussion.

the only positive outcome that has been proposed is the DM stepping in and giving you a new creature that fits your needs better. that positive benefit can be 100% retained by the DM stepping in and saying "hey, did you consider X?", only without the massive downside that comes attached with the DM making the decision.

the supposed upsides in a good group are tiny, if they even really exist at all in a way that can't be duplicated with no loss using other methods. the downsides in a group that has problems are gigantic.

trusting your DM isn't too hard in a good group that has been playing together for a long time. good luck when you've never met your DM before, or where you're just stuck with the option of having a mediocre or bad DM or no DM at all.

[Demonic Spoon]

then why do people keep on acting like this ruling is necessary, if the ONLY positive thing it adds is the DM once in a very long while giving you a creature that you didn't know about for some reason or adding new creatures, and yet ...

You're attacking a straw man. At no point did anyone agree that that was the only positive thing added by the ruling - this thread has seen several others be brought up.

[SharkForce]

You're attacking a straw man. At no point did anyone agree that that was the only positive thing added by the ruling - this thread has seen several others be brought up.

ok, feel free to list something that is actually added by this ruling, and doesn't already exist independent of this ruling.

[GiantOctopodes]

No one has said "the only way for the DM to introduce new creatures is via Conjure spells", so let's stop raising that straw man. You asking for a wolf and getting a mouse is the DM screwing with you. I won't defend that. But it is at least possible that the game will be more fun for the table as a whole if the caster isn't 100% in control. If the DM thinks a different creature is going to be more fun, for whatever reason, and if in fact the DM is right, then the game suffers with 100% caster control.

Trust your DM. If you can't, maybe your problem is not with this ruling.

emphasis mine. This is true, but isn't it just as fair to say that "If the DM thinks a different creature is going to be more fun, for whatever reason, and if in fact the DM is wrong, then the game suffers due to lack of 100% caster control"?

[Shining Wrath]

Depends on what you consider "fun" I suppose.

To me, there's nothing less fun than having an idea I proposed for what I want to do with my character be overruled by the DM substituting his judgment, regardless of the end result. The DM already gets to control most of what happens at the table, the players relatively little. If I can't even choose creatures I summon, that's just that much less control.

Personally, I just quit a game in large part because the DM was basically micromanaging the story and I felt like I was a spectator. Putting more things in the rules that make players bystanders, even a little bit, is a bad decision.

So you don't like it. Does that mean that no table, anywhere, ever, will benefit from a DM substituting? Not a table where the DM has played for 20 years and the conjurer is a noob? Not one where the DM homebrewed a monster specifically for this situation because of extremely good in-story reasons?

It seems you just had a bad experience along these lines. I'm sorry you had to quit your table. As I said, I'm not defending the idea of you asking for a wolf and getting a mouse. The DM should not use this to toy with his players. I am, however, defending the idea that there are circumstances where a caster not getting what they asked for might be more fun for the table as a whole. I appreciate that you're not in a place right now to enjoy the thought of being overruled.

[charlesk]

The DM has a more balanced view of things. He isn't going to want to neuter the player by summoning anything obviously useless like frogs, but he'll have more of a perspective of "What CR X animal makes most sense to be summoned here". He will then presumably be reasonable and listen if this choice is utterly ruinous to the player's plans.


I don't want the DM's "more balanced view of things". What you are suggesting borders on DM-sponsored meta-gaming. Is that supposed to be any more fun than a DM saying "are you sure?" before someone casts a spell? Or an NPC providing "important" information because the DM wants things to go in a particular direction?

The DM should be painting the scenario with enough detail that it is either clear to the players what is going on and what the right approach is, or that they deserve the consequence of their own actions.

And the mere fact of forcing me to explain what I plan to do with the animals several rounds in the future is a deal-breaker for me. I cannot understand how anyone can think it is a boon to role-playing for a player to have to explain at the table why they wanted a summon because of actions they haven't taken yet.


So you don't like it. Does that mean that no table, anywhere, ever, will benefit from a DM substituting? Not a table where the DM has played for 20 years and the conjurer is a noob? Not one where the DM homebrewed a monster specifically for this situation because of extremely good in-story reasons?


The subject being discussed is whether, on the whole, this ruling is good for the game. My belief is that it is not. That doesn't mean there aren't some tables where it would help, but that's a pretty low bar to clear. (Any ruling, no matter how ridiculous, will probably help some table somewhere.)

And if the DM has homebrewed monsters, why not simply add them to the available list before the campaign or session begins?

This viewpoint isn't because I recently quit a game. I recently quit a game because of this viewpoint. Player empowerment is a big deal.

[tieren]

I want to be clear, I trust my DM and I think he would think he is making it more fun for everyone by giving me something other than I asked for, but I would disagree.

Maybe I want babboons to climb the rigging and attack the pirates and instead I get a couple of hippos that tip over the boat. My DM would see that as a hilarious win, that solved the problem I was facing and was an unexpected twist.

My problem is then that is HIS solution to the problem we were facing and not mine. It replaces my creativity with his, and I don't enjoy that.

[charlesk]

I want to be clear, I trust my DM and I think he would think he is making it more fun for everyone by giving me something other than I asked for, but I would disagree.

Maybe I want babboons to climb the rigging and attack the pirates and instead I get a couple of hippos that tip over the boat. My DM would see that as a hilarious win, that solved the problem I was facing and was an unexpected twist.

My problem is then that is HIS solution to the problem we were facing and not mine. It replaces my creativity with his, and I don't enjoy that.

Precisely. The DM already gets to dictate the outcome of most of what happens at the table. We don't need even more of what the player wants being substituted by what the DM wants... even if well-intentioned.

[Coidzor]

No one has said "the only way for the DM to introduce new creatures is via Conjure spells", so let's stop raising that straw man. You asking for a wolf and getting a mouse is the DM screwing with you. I won't defend that.

You're defending that possibility though, by defending conjuration as the new unsafe wish.


If the DM thinks a different creature is going to be more fun, for whatever reason, and if in fact the DM is right, then the game suffers with 100% caster control.

And the DM is just as likely to be wrong about that as they are to be right, so that's still a significant IF. Even if the DM is right and summoning a different thing would have had a marginally improved outcome, not having DM caprice rule the day and instead having the player get what they wanted to summon isn't suffering.

[Demonic Spoon]

I don't want the DM's "more balanced view of things". What you are suggesting borders on DM-sponsored meta-gaming. Is that supposed to be any more fun than a DM saying "are you sure?" before someone casts a spell? Or an NPC providing "important" information because the DM wants things to go in a particular direction?

The DM should be painting the scenario with enough detail that it is either clear to the players what is going on and what the right approach is, or that they deserve the consequence of their own actions.

And the mere fact of forcing me to explain what I plan to do with the animals several rounds in the future is a deal-breaker for me. I cannot understand how anyone can think it is a boon to role-playing for a player to have to explain at the table why they wanted a summon because of actions they haven't taken yet.


I specifically did not say that the DM would choose a more mechanically optimal set of creatures. Quite the opposite - the argument is based on the idea that the DM won't feel compelled to make the decision on nothing but the statblock. That doesn't mean the DM will create useless critters, but it does mean that he might decide to put desert creatures in a desert environment as opposed to, say, wolves.



ok, feel free to list something that is actually added by this ruling, and doesn't already exist independent of this ruling.


I'm not going to read the thread for you. It's all over the thread, including my post immediately preceding this one.

[Shining Wrath]

... SNIP ...



The subject being discussed is whether, on the whole, this ruling is good for the game. My belief is that it is not. That doesn't mean there aren't some tables where it would help, but that's a pretty low bar to clear. (Any ruling, no matter how ridiculous, will probably help some table somewhere.)

And if the DM has homebrewed monsters, why not simply add them to the available list before the campaign or session begins?

This viewpoint isn't because I recently quit a game. I recently quite a game because of this viewpoint. Player empowerment is a big deal.

And I come down firmly on the side of allowing the DM latitude is going to make the game more fun at most tables. And you don't.

I don't think you get what I mean by the homebrewed monster, so let me amplify. DM knows that one of his players is likely to use conjuration spells when faced with a swarm of monsters. The party is working their way through an abandoned ruin and, when they get to the bottom, they discover it is a Temple of Yog Soggoth and are attacked by a swarm of horrible creatures.

The DM has homebrewed night gaunts exactly, precisely, and only to give in response to a conjuration spell at this moment. To add night gaunts to the available list even 5 minutes before the party reaches the bottom of the ruins reveals the DM's big plot twist that the ruin is a Temple of Yog Soggoth. Also, night gaunts are especially useful at this moment, because the horrible creatures are especially ticklish.

You say those night gaunts are always, every time, a bad thing. And I don't.

[Coidzor]

Trust your DM. If you can't, maybe your problem is not with this ruling.

Because only the guilty have strong feelings about privacy, right?


It's not usually a question of the DM's opinion vs the player's opinion of what's fun. Players, on behalf of their characters, are biased against picking an animal that is thematically cool and flavorful for the location of the adventure. Their characters are in real danger and, if given the choice to summon what they want, are obviously going to try to summon the optimal animal for the situation.

The DM has a more balanced view of things. He isn't going to want to neuter the player by summoning anything obviously useless like frogs, but he'll have more of a perspective of "What CR X animal makes most sense to be summoned here". He will then presumably be reasonable and listen if this choice is utterly ruinous to the player's plans.

It's summoning. Unless something is woefully unsuited to the environment for its own survival and efficacy(such as ye olde summoning a fish in a desert example), then whether something would be found in that environment doesn't matter for making sense. The only thing that matters for making sense to be summoned is what the caster knows his options are, what the caster knows of the situation, and what the caster wants his summons to do. Which the player can handle just fine as long as the DM doesn't screw the pooch on narration.


And as mentioned before, giantITP posters are not average D&D players. Most players aren't even going to have a copy of the monster manual, let alone want to dig through it to find a list of creatures they can summon. Most players are going to be more than happy to let the DM do that work for them.

And that's fine as a variant rule for lazy players/groups.


I don't see any major harm in houseruling it back, as long as the player avoids obvious brokenness like 8 pixies. However, let's stop pretending like no one benefits from this text.

Because you have to houserule it back, which means the bad rule we don't like is the official rule for, e.g. official sanctioned play and other things of that nature. And the default rules are going to stand with newer players, especially ones who don't know about the original, superior way of doing things. Etc. Etc.


emphasis mine. This is true, but isn't it just as fair to say that "If the DM thinks a different creature is going to be more fun, for whatever reason, and if in fact the DM is wrong, then the game suffers due to lack of 100% caster control"?

No, it's not actually true, they're just trying to use reframing to get us to subtly agree with them by controlling the language we use to discuss the matter. That's why they euphemistically referred to the DM adjudication as "collaboration," and why I responded to such arguments by calling it what it is, reliance upon DM caprice.

[Demonic Spoon]

Maybe I want babboons to climb the rigging and attack the pirates and instead I get a couple of hippos that tip over the boat. My DM would see that as a hilarious win, that solved the problem I was facing and was an unexpected twist.

My problem is then that is HIS solution to the problem we were facing and not mine. It replaces my creativity with his, and I don't enjoy that.

Summoning animals for a utility purpose like that is not the average case in the spell. This is where player-DM collaboration comes in. This is what would actually happen:

Player: "I'm going to cast Conjure Animals, and then send them up the mast to tear up the rigging!"

DM: "Alright, you get some..." <DM considers various creatures meeting the CR requirement that could attempt that task>..."Baboons!"


It's summoning. Unless something is woefully unsuited to the environment for its own survival and efficacy(such as ye olde summoning a fish in a desert example), then whether something would be found in that environment doesn't matter for making sense. The only thing that matters for making sense to be summoned is what the caster knows his options are, what the caster knows of the situation, and what the caster wants his summons to do. Which the player can handle just fine as long as the DM doesn't screw the pooch on narration.

The fluff of the spell is that it directs fey spirits assume the form of some creatures, not that the caster creates the creatures from nothing.


And that's fine as a variant rule for lazy players/groups.


Given that these "lazy players/groups" almost certainly comprise the majority of people who play D&D, I would argue that your preferred interpretation is more suited as a variant rule. Also, are you seriously condemning people who prefer that as lazy? That's incredibly off base.


Because you have to houserule it back, which means the bad rule we don't like is the official rule for, e.g. official sanctioned play and other things of that nature. And the default rules are going to stand with newer players, especially ones who don't know about the original, superior way of doing things. Etc. Etc.


As mentioned, there is a substantial subsection of the playerbase who benefit from this kind of ruling, even if you do not. You mention new players, but new players are by far the most likely to benefit from this kind of a rule.

[charlesk]

There was never anything stopping a DM from overruling the usual conjuration rules to make a special outcome at a special time. That's what Rule 0 is about. And yes, done sparingly and tastefully, it could be fun.

But that's a far cry from instituting DM fiat right into the spell rules, which changes summoning from "I wield my powerful magic and create X" to "Please, Mr. DM sir, may I have an X?" on a routine basis. Bleh.

The DM already gets to determine all the NPCs, all the monsters, the timing of most encounters, the layouts of the world and the dungeons.. pretty much everything. The players get to control.. very little. You think it's an improvement to the DM-player balance to give the DM even more ability to have control and be creative, and the player to have less? You're right, we disagree.

[Shining Wrath]

Because only the guilty have strong feelings about privacy, right? ... SNIP ...

Yes, of course, the DM is exactly like the government, because every DM who is challenged imprisons or executes the player who does so

[SharkForce]

I'm not going to read the thread for you.

i've read it. there's a lot of talk about how the DM is going to choose things for you and make the game better, with nothing to support it.

for example, there is an argument that players who don't know what they're doing can have a DM make a better decision than them. that's nice and all, but:

1) that isn't how you learn things. if you make all the important decisions for the player, how do you expect them to ever get good at making decisions?
2) there is no need for the DM to be the primary decision-maker for this to happen. the DM is already there and fully capable of offering advice. most likely there are also a few other players able to offer advice without the taint of knowing what the enemies have planned, which will also help with understanding how to make decisions based on what you can see, rather than having the DM make decisions based on what (s)he knows.

another argument is that the players might not have access to the monster manual with the information. that's nice... does the player have access to an encyclopedia? how about google. i may not have *exact* stats, but if i google something to the effect of "D&D 5e summoning guide" i'm going to get most of what i need as far as making decisions about what to summon. and again, by doing it this way, i learn, i make the decisions, and i claim the mistakes... but also the successes. in contrast to having everything handed to me by the DM on a silver platter and turning my character into a DMPC.

none of these arguments actually present anything that is added by the ruling. in all cases, simple discussion handles everything as well or better, except that it leaves the player in control of their own character's actions, which is largely as it should (exceptions for mind control, of course).

[charlesk]

Summoning animals for a utility purpose like that is not the average case in the spell. This is where player-DM collaboration comes in. This is what would actually happen:

Player: "I'm going to cast Conjure Animals, and then send them up the mast to tear up the rigging!"


And if I want to summon an animal to do something 3 rounds down the line, or even longer? What then, I have to explain in advance what I'm doing and why I'm doing it? That's fun?

[coredump]

I like the summoning clarifications. I think it makes the game better.

[Naanomi]

The fluff of the spell says fey spirits... Not beings known for predictability or willingness to follow strict orders. A little unpredictability is fine by me, as a player or GM.

[Demonic Spoon]

And if I want to summon an animal to do something 3 rounds down the line, or even longer? What then, I have to explain in advance what I'm doing and why I'm doing it? That's fun?


Is this how you normally play? You sit at the table completely silent, only saying anything when you are describing explicitly what you're doing, with no context or other discussion?

In my experience, it's fairly rare that a player would make an elaborate plan that lasts several rounds without mentioning it to anyone.

[Coidzor]

Also, are you seriously condemning people who prefer that as lazy? That's incredibly off base.

You're the one who said they're unwilling to know what their options are but want to play summoners. That's not condemnation, that's simple observation.


As mentioned, there is a substantial subsection of the playerbase who benefit from this kind of ruling, even if you do not. You mention new players, but new players are by far the most likely to benefit from this kind of a rule.

On the contrary, it inculcates them with poor gaming values and acceptance of bad rules.


Yes, of course, the DM is exactly like the government, because every DM who is challenged imprisons or executes the player who does so

You're the one saying that the only people who have a problem with this rule have a problem with themselves and either a bad DM or are paranoid.

So, no, you don't get to just try to turn sarcasm to highlight your attitude around so easily.

[Demonic Spoon]

You're the one who said they're unwilling to know what their options are but want to play summoners. That's not condemnation, that's simple observation.


No, that's not what I said. I said that they don't want to. Not wanting to buy a $30-50 book, or not wanting to spend a very nontrivial amount of time digging through said book, do not constitute laziness. Simply not having the level of system mastery needed to process a ton of monster statblocks also doesn't indicate laziness.


On the contrary, it inculcates them with poor gaming values and acceptance of bad rules.


It's obviously not a bad rule or poor gaming values if it makes the game more fun for them.

[GiantOctopodes]

I specifically did not say that the DM would choose a more mechanically optimal set of creatures. Quite the opposite - the argument is based on the idea that the DM won't feel compelled to make the decision on nothing but the statblock. That doesn't mean the DM will create useless critters, but it does mean that he might decide to put desert creatures in a desert environment as opposed to, say, wolves.

I just want to point out that wolves can and do exist in the desert. They do fine in the sand for the same reason they do fine in the snow. Smaller size and smaller packs, obviously, due to scarcer game, but a wolf is not an inappropriate choice for a desert environment. And if a DM gives the player a bunch of scorpions or even flying snakes or whatever he thinks are appropriate to the desert, when the player wanted wolves because they're trying to capture folks alive and being able to knock them down and keep them from running away is the key to doing so, his thematic choice *is indeed* useless to the player. Personally too I would just find it wonky for the player to say "I want wolves", the DM to say "You get a bunch of flying snakes since wolves aren't native to this environment" and the player to say "I needed creatures with a trip attack so we can capture these guys alive" and then the DM to say "oh, ok, in that case you get wolves".

The issue is that it's more thematic, or flavorful, or fun, for the DM. People are specifically saying that the lack of motive choice in the decision makes it less fun for them, regardless of what the DM produces. The fact the DM chose it automatically makes it not as fun as if they had chosen it themselves, even if it works out better, or is more thematically appropriate, or whatever else. And obviously that viewpoint doesn't apply to everyone, and it's not like this issue won't be worked out on a table by table basis. But just as it's disingenuous to say that no table will enjoy this, it's also disingenuous to say that no table will suffer because of this. I think the main point that some are trying to get across is that with this, it's possible for a DM to make the game less enjoyable for a player, without realizing they're doing so or thinking they're a bad DM at all, and since many D&D players have trouble expressing themselves properly, they'll just suffer in silence.

It was always possible for the DM to say "no, you don't get that" when the player goes to summon 8 pixies, and it was always possible for a player to say to the DM "You know the creatures better than I do, whatever is appropriate". Heck, let's be real, it was always possible for the DM to say "you get camels instead" when the player summons horses in the desert. This doesn't change that or really add to it at all. Thus the argument that the potential downside is far greater than the potential upside. Bad DMs with this make for less fun games, well intentioned but wrong DMs make for less fun games, only well intentioned DMs who are truly better able to gauge what the party will find enjoyable than the player will lead to better games using this rule, and that's a *lot* to ask for from a DM, and a lot of trust to place in them.

Edit:

Summoning animals for a utility purpose like that is not the average case in the spell. This is where player-DM collaboration comes in. This is what would actually happen:

Player: "I'm going to cast Conjure Animals, and then send them up the mast to tear up the rigging!"

DM: "Alright, you get some..." <DM considers various creatures meeting the CR requirement that could attempt that task>..."Baboons!"

Given that these "lazy players/groups" almost certainly comprise the majority of people who play D&D, I would argue that your preferred interpretation is more suited as a variant rule. Also, are you seriously condemning people who prefer that as lazy? That's incredibly off base.



As mentioned, there is a substantial subsection of the playerbase who benefit from this kind of ruling, even if you do not. You mention new players, but new players are by far the most likely to benefit from this kind of a rule.

In terms of your example, that is what would happen at your table. No one except your players can tell you that this ruling is not good for your table. But you cannot guarantee in any way that is what will happen at any given table. In fact, that does not match what several people have said they would do in this very thread. Some have said specifically they'll roll on random tables. In addition, others have stated the idea of having to say what their plan is spoils it for them and makes it less fun, even if they end up being able to accomplish that task.

Also, you have no way of knowing what the majority of people who play D&D are like. It is flat out unsubstantiated to claim that your opinion is based on what "the majority" like and want to play with, and that his preferred interpretation is associated with "the minority". Frankly, that's also incredibly off base, and coming from you I'm surprised.

[Demonic Spoon]

i've read it. there's a lot of talk about how the DM is going to choose things for you and make the game better, with nothing to support it.

for example, there is an argument that players who don't know what they're doing can have a DM make a better decision than them. that's nice and all, but:

1) that isn't how you learn things. if you make all the important decisions for the player, how do you expect them to ever get good at making decisions?
2) there is no need for the DM to be the primary decision-maker for this to happen. the DM is already there and fully capable of offering advice. most likely there are also a few other players able to offer advice without the taint of knowing what the enemies have planned, which will also help with understanding how to make decisions based on what you can see, rather than having the DM make decisions based on what (s)he knows.

another argument is that the players might not have access to the monster manual with the information. that's nice... does the player have access to an encyclopedia? how about google. i may not have *exact* stats, but if i google something to the effect of "D&D 5e summoning guide" i'm going to get most of what i need as far as making decisions about what to summon. and again, by doing it this way, i learn, i make the decisions, and i claim the mistakes... but also the successes. in contrast to having everything handed to me by the DM on a silver platter and turning my character into a DMPC.

none of these arguments actually present anything that is added by the ruling. in all cases, simple discussion handles everything as well or better, except that it leaves the player in control of their own character's actions, which is largely as it should (exceptions for mind control, of course).

You're grossly overestimating the amount of crunch that a non-crunchy player is going to want to dig through. I had a player playing a land druid who was overwhelmed even when I provided him the stat blocks of the various creature options he could summon. A creature stat block, especially one as complicated as some fey that Conjure Woodland Beings might summon, is hard to digest for someone who does not know the system inside and out. Yes, I'm sure that if they sat there and studied real hard, maybe they could go through all their options and process them appropriately. But it's way easier for most players not to have to do that.

It also relies on them having a copy of the Monster Manual, which most players don't. Or to know about summoning guides on the internet. Most people don't browse D&D forums.

[GiantOctopodes]

You're grossly overestimating the amount of crunch that a non-crunchy player is going to want to dig through. I had a player playing a land druid who was overwhelmed even when I provided him the stat blocks of the various creature options he could summon. A creature stat block, especially one as complicated as some fey that Conjure Woodland Beings might summon, is hard to digest for someone who does not know the system inside and out. Yes, I'm sure that if they sat there and studied real hard, maybe they could go through all their options and process them appropriately. But it's way easier for most players not to have to do that.

It also relies on them having a copy of the Monster Manual, which most players don't. Or to know about summoning guides on the internet. Most people don't browse D&D forums.

Emphasis mine. Do you have any support for those assertions?

[Shining Wrath]

You're the one saying that the only people who have a problem with this rule have a problem with themselves and either a bad DM or are paranoid.

So, no, you don't get to just try to turn sarcasm to highlight your attitude around so easily.



Let's go back and look at what I actually did say, then.


Me:

No one has said "the only way for the DM to introduce new creatures is via Conjure spells", so let's stop raising that straw man. You asking for a wolf and getting a mouse is the DM screwing with you. I won't defend that. But it is at least possible that the game will be more fun for the table as a whole if the caster isn't 100% in control. If the DM thinks a different creature is going to be more fun, for whatever reason, and if in fact the DM is right, then the game suffers with 100% caster control.

Trust your DM. If you can't, maybe your problem is not with this ruling.
If you read that as " ... SNIP ... the only people who have a problem with this rule have a problem with themselves and either a bad DM or are paranoid.", then let me explain. I assert that you should trust the DM to decide that a different creature would be more fun than what you asked for. This is not at all saying that substitution should happen every conjuration, or even 10% of conjurations. This is not at all saying the DM should deliberately give you completely unsuitable creatures. In fact, it's the opposite; the DM may make a good, fun, flavorful choice that enhances the experience. It can happen. Crawford's ruling is that the DM can be trusted with that power as RAI.

[Xetheral]

And I come down firmly on the side of allowing the DM latitude is going to make the game more fun at most tables. And you don't.

Do you honestly believe that at "most" tables players will be happier when the DM chooses something other than what the players wanted to summon? Or are you using a different gauge of "fun" than player happiness?

As I see it, when the DM chooses, rather than the players, there are three possibilities:

The DM picks what the players wanted. Players are just as happy with the results as they would have been if they had gotten to pick.* Total fun stays the same. The DM picks something other than what the players wanted, and the players like it less than they would have liked their own choice. Total fun goes down. The DM picks some other than what the players wanted and because the players were unaware of the existence or implications of that choice, the players like it more than they would have liked their own choice. Total fun goes up.
(*For those types of players for whom the methodology is important in addition to the results, in case 1 total fun might go down just from not getting to pick, even if the end result matches their choice.)

Case 3 is the only one where total fun goes up, and it only happens when the DM knows better than the players what their actual preferences are (or would be). I'm hard-pressed to believe this situation will occur at anything close to the majority of tables. Case 1 and Case 2 seem FAR more likely, which suggest that at most tables total fun will stay the same or decrease.

[Demonic Spoon]

I just want to point out that wolves can and do exist in the desert. They do fine in the sand for the same reason they do fine in the snow. Smaller size and smaller packs, obviously, due to scarcer game, but a wolf is not an inappropriate choice for a desert environment. And if a DM gives the player a bunch of scorpions or even flying snakes or whatever he thinks are appropriate to the desert, when the player wanted wolves because they're trying to capture folks alive and being able to knock them down and keep them from running away is the key to doing so, his thematic choice *is indeed* useless to the player. Personally too I would just find it wonky for the player to say "I want wolves", the DM to say "You get a bunch of flying snakes since wolves aren't native to this environment" and the player to say "I needed creatures with a trip attack so we can capture these guys alive" and then the DM to say "oh, ok, in that case you get wolves".


Any creature could presumably capture something alive, as long as it uses melee attacks. Regardless, is needing a very specific ability really the average case for summoning?


The issue is that it's more thematic, or flavorful, or fun, for the DM. People are specifically saying that the lack of motive choice in the decision makes it less fun for them, regardless of what the DM produces. The fact the DM chose it automatically makes it not as fun as if they had chosen it themselves, even if it works out better, or is more thematically appropriate, or whatever else. And obviously that viewpoint doesn't apply to everyone, and it's not like this issue won't be worked out on a table by table basis. But just as it's disingenuous to say that no table will enjoy this, it's also disingenuous to say that no table will suffer because of this. I think the main point that some are trying to get across is that with this, it's possible for a DM to make the game less enjoyable for a player, without realizing they're doing so or thinking they're a bad DM at all, and since many D&D players have trouble expressing themselves properly, they'll just suffer in silence.


I didn't say no table would enjoy it - I even said that it's easy to houserule. I simply suggested that there are tables that would enjoy it more as it is now, and those tables tend to have newer players less willing to institute houserules.


It was always possible for the DM to say "no, you don't get that" when the player goes to summon 8 pixies, and it was always possible for a player to say to the DM "You know the creatures better than I do, whatever is appropriate". Heck, let's be real, it was always possible for the DM to say "you get camels instead" when the player summons horses in the desert. This doesn't change that or really add to it at all. Thus the argument that the potential downside is far greater than the potential upside. Bad DMs with this make for less fun games, well intentioned but wrong DMs make for less fun games, only well intentioned DMs who are truly better able to gauge what the party will find enjoyable than the player will lead to better games using this rule, and that's a *lot* to ask for from a DM, and a lot of trust to place in them.


Except when the DM says "You get camels instead" and the player argues that the spell says he chooses what shows up and thematic appropriateness isn't part of the deal, and then points to the book which reinforces that. In general, it's bad design for the DM to have to overrule what is explicitly written in the book. I would argue that, if we were going under the old rules the DM said "You get camels instead" without clarifying that as a houserule beforehnad, he was being a bad DM.


In terms of your example, that is what would happen at your table. No one except your players can tell you that this ruling is not good for your table. But you cannot guarantee in any way that is what will happen at any given table. In fact, that does not match what several people have said they would do in this very thread. Some have said specifically they'll roll on random tables. In addition, others have stated the idea of having to say what their plan is spoils it for them and makes it less fun, even if they end up being able to accomplish that task.

Also, you have no way of knowing what the majority of people who play D&D are like. It is flat out unsubstantiated to claim that your opinion is based on what "the majority" like and want to play with, and that his preferred interpretation is associated with "the minority". Frankly, that's also incredibly off base, and coming from you I'm surprised.


I can't make claims about any given table, but I can bring up that different kinds of players exist. I am not saying that you or anyone other person in this thread will find the errata'd rules more fun. I fully encourage you and others to houserule it in your games. I am simply bringing other perspectives from people who do benefit from the writing of the spell as errata'd.

You are correct that I do not have a statistical breakdown of the knowledge levels of all D&D players, and I can't say these things with absolute certainty. However, I had thought that stuff like this was common knowledge - do you really think, for example, that the average player in a D&D 5e game owns his own copy of the Monster Manual?


Do you honestly believe that at "most" tables players will be happier when the DM chooses something other than what the players wanted to summon? Or are you using a different gauge of "fun" than player happiness?


I don't think at most tables, the average player even knows what creatures are available to summon because he does not have a copy of the Monster Manual, and even if they did, has not spent an hour digging through it and cataloging the different summon options. In the hypothetical scenario where the player has done exactly that then I imagine the player would be more than happy to choose the summon.

[Mellack]

I don't understand the whole need for "appropriate for the environment" to go beyond land/sea creatures. You are not drawing animals from the terrain. They are not actually animals at all, but spirits taking animal form. As such, I don't care if they want a giant frog in the desert. It may not be native, but this is not a real frog, so have at it. Otherwise, it is much the same as if I said a teifling can't teleport to the arctic.

[Shining Wrath]

Emphasis mine. Do you have any support for those assertions?

I'll take a stab at it.

There's somewhere around 10M D&D players, or so I've read.
This forum has about 55,000 members, total. Not all of those are active.
There are perhaps a dozen similar forums, with some overlap in membership. This is one of the larger ones.

I'm going to estimate that 10% of D&D players frequent forums. I admit it's an estimate, but I know that only half the players at my table do so at all, and only one does it regularly besides me.

[rhouck]

I don't think at most tables, the average player even knows what creatures are available to summon because he does not have a copy of the Monster Manual, and even if they did, has not spent an hour digging through it and cataloging the different summon options. In the hypothetical scenario where the player has done exactly that then I imagine the player would be more than happy to choose the summon.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of the DM helping the hapless player who doesn't know what creatures are available for him to summon. If such a player casts a summoning spell and isn't sure what creatures are available in the CR 1/4 category, can't he just... you know.... ask? :smallconfused:

"Hey, DM, the PHB says that you have the stats. I'm not even sure what I can get at CR 1/4, do you have any recommendations?" or even "no idea what I can get, just surprise me!"

This concept of the DM handholding characters who don't know what they're missing requires that that player not even know that he is missing something. And that's easily rectified with a nudge from the DM of "make a Nature check -- okay, you remember you've also heard of X animal that might be helpful to you here..."

[georgie_leech]

I'm not sure I follow the logic of the DM helping the hapless player who doesn't know what creatures are available for him to summon. If such a player casts a summoning spell and isn't sure what creatures are available in the CR 1/4 category, can't he just... you know.... ask? :smallconfused:

"Hey, DM, the PHB says that you have the stats. I'm not even sure what I can get at CR 1/4, do you have any recommendations?" or even "no idea what I can get, just surprise me!"

This concept of the DM handholding characters who don't know what they're missing requires that that player not even know that he is missing something. And that's easily rectified with a nudge from the DM of "make a Nature check -- okay, you remember you've also heard of X animal that might be helpful to you here..."

These are all excellent suggestions for an experienced DM. Less so for an inexperienced DM. I'm noticing that a lot of the design of 5e seems geared towards simplifying or making it easier to start picking up the game, and this design choice makes a lot of sense from that angle. What's a player to do when neither they nor the DM know what a good summon would be in a particular scenario? The rule suggests the DM pick something they think appropriate. For experienced Players and DM's, this is a rather drastic nerf. It's one I wouldn't be using (though I do like the compromise solution of "Conjure Giant Badger" and "Conjure Field Mouse" being distinct spells you can prepare when you know Conjure Animal), but it's not a rule aimed at me.

[SharkForce]

And I come down firmly on the side of allowing the DM latitude is going to make the game more fun at most tables. And you don't.

I don't think you get what I mean by the homebrewed monster, so let me amplify. DM knows that one of his players is likely to use conjuration spells when faced with a swarm of monsters. The party is working their way through an abandoned ruin and, when they get to the bottom, they discover it is a Temple of Yog Soggoth and are attacked by a swarm of horrible creatures.

The DM has homebrewed night gaunts exactly, precisely, and only to give in response to a conjuration spell at this moment. To add night gaunts to the available list even 5 minutes before the party reaches the bottom of the ruins reveals the DM's big plot twist that the ruin is a Temple of Yog Soggoth. Also, night gaunts are especially useful at this moment, because the horrible creatures are especially ticklish.

You say those night gaunts are always, every time, a bad thing. And I don't.

congratulations. you've just demonstrated exactly WHY this shouldn't be encouraged.

you've managed to take player agency completely out of their hands. nothing that the players or characters do is going to be the turning point of the battle. not even anything that their enemies do, like a mistake that can be exploited or them rolling out a new tactic. instead, the entire fight revolves around the DM saving the day when one of the players casts a summoning spell. oh goody. how fun.

I played in a group with a DM like that for a while. he probably thought the game was awesome. my low-level character was gaining levels like crazy because the fights were worth a ton of exp and all the work was done by NPCs. I had gotten an amazingly powerful magic item that was directly related to a choice I made at character creation.

and I didn't care. I had absolutely no investment in that character or that game. it was a setting that I liked, using a game system that I still like, with a character that I had designed, and I just didn't care. nothing I or my character did mattered. it wasn't awesome. it was horrendously dull. I hated that game. by the end of the first session, I was no longer present emotionally or intellectually. a few sessions later, my sense of obligation to the group stopped outweighing my active dislike of the game that DM was running, and I was no longer present physically.

had that been my first introduction to the setting, the rules, or tabletop PnP RPG games, I would likely have never gotten interested in any of them, or at least not for a very long time. crap like this is not good. it is bad. absolutely awful. atrocious. if I was the character that was supposed to summon your stupid instant DM solution, you'd be lucky if I was even there, and most likely I wouldn't care enough to try and play a game of "guess what the DM wants me to do". I'd probably just sit there waiting for the DM to fix the problem like always happens anyways instead of wasting everyone's time by trying to do something meaningful but time-consuming with my actions.

worst of all, you're doing it in a heavy-handed fashion, and charging me my resources that I could have used to try and have an impact (had I any inclination to do so any more) to do it. this is the antithesis of awesome, and if it happens with anything like enough regularity to need the rules to support it, then I don't want to be anywhere remotely near the games where it happens.

[GiantOctopodes]

I'll take a stab at it.

There's somewhere around 10M D&D players, or so I've read.
This forum has about 55,000 members, total. Not all of those are active.
There are perhaps a dozen similar forums, with some overlap in membership. This is one of the larger ones.

I'm going to estimate that 10% of D&D players frequent forums. I admit it's an estimate, but I know that only half the players at my table do so at all, and only one does it regularly besides me.

Possibly, but keep in mind please the following two things:

1) Consuming content is very different from creating content. You don't need a membership to peruse what's on the forums, only to contribute. That's like judging the max number of people who have seen a youtube video by the number of channels there are. It's a very loose comparison, but it stands.

2) The most significant area of overlap is this- those who are willing to go online to seek out content to enhance their D&D experience. The same people reading these forums or looking up guides to summoning are the same people who are reading the sage advice articles. Would any of the players at your table who do not view forums at all know whatsoever (or care) about the sage advice article?

It's been said that this ruling is to help newer players, who don't have access to the enhanced resources available online. I find that funny, since this ruling is only available to players who can access the enhanced resources available online. Only half my group owns a monster manual, but all of them know how to use the internet to find things to make their lives easier.

[Demonic Spoon]

2) The most significant area of overlap is this- those who are willing to go online to seek out content to enhance their D&D experience. The same people reading these forums or looking up guides to summoning are the same people who are reading the sage advice articles. Would any of the players at your table who do not view forums at all know whatsoever (or care) about the sage advice article?

It's been said that this ruling is to help newer players, who don't have access to the enhanced resources available online. I find that funny, since this ruling is only available to players who can access the enhanced resources available online. Only half my group owns a monster manual, but all of them know how to use the internet to find things to make their lives easier.

Not really true - the errata is incorporated into all future printings of the PHB. Today, most newer players may not have access to it, but 2 years from now the errata will be the default.

[SharkForce]

Not really true - the errata is incorporated into all future printings of the PHB. Today, most newer players may not have access to it, but 2 years from now the errata will be the default.

sage advice is not the same as errata. they have a separate document for that.

they may, at some point, incorporate this ruling into the errata. but so far as we can tell, it won't be in any new printings of the books.

[GiantOctopodes]

Not really true - the errata is incorporated into all future printings of the PHB. Today, most newer players may not have access to it, but 2 years from now the errata will be the default.

Yes, but this isn't in the errata. Unless you're saying future printings of the PHB will have a section devoted to the sage advice articles?

Also, I'm aware the ruling only requires one player (the DM) to have access to online resources, but just as it's valid for them to find this ruling and present it to the players, it's also valid for them to find summoning guides or other resources and present those to the player.

[WampDiesel]

Possibly, but keep in mind please the following two things:

1) Consuming content is very different from creating content. You don't need a membership to peruse what's on the forums, only to contribute. That's like judging the max number of people who have seen a youtube video by the number of channels there are. It's a very loose comparison, but it stands.


As an example to this point, I was browsing the GITP 3.5e forums for at least 4 years between 2011 and 2015 without ever creating an account. It wasn't until I started playing 5e that I finally created an account and decided to contribute to the discussion.

For when I was first starting to play 3.5e I felt as though the glut of rules and settings meant that my opinion was not as important or needed as those that have been in the system since inception. However since I had been involved in the playtest and have been playing 5e since it came out, I felt like I had something to contribute to the conversation. Even if it is mostly silly character ideas / builds and half-baked rules advice.

Case in point, I have nothing to add to this thread other than this anecdotal evidence.

[Demonic Spoon]

Yes, but this isn't in the errata. Unless you're saying future printings of the PHB will have a section devoted to the sage advice articles?

Also, I'm aware the ruling only requires one player (the DM) to have access to online resources, but just as it's valid for them to find this ruling and present it to the players, it's also valid for them to find summoning guides or other resources and present those to the player.

that's a fair point. Maybe it should be errata'd to make it more clear - and also potentially provide some guidance on how the DM should select a creature.

[georgie_leech]

As an example to this point, I was browsing the GITP 3.5e forums for at least 4 years between 2011 and 2015 without ever creating an account. It wasn't until I started playing 5e that I finally created an account and decided to contribute to the discussion.

For when I was first starting to play 3.5e I felt as though the glut of rules and settings meant that my opinion was not as important or needed as those that have been in the system since inception. However since I had been involved in the playtest and have been playing 5e since it came out, I felt like I had something to contribute to the conversation. Even if it is mostly silly character ideas / builds and half-baked rules advice.

Case in point, I have nothing to add to this thread other than this anecdotal evidence.

How are you finding the game to pick up? Which edition do you think was harder to learn and use, or which required more effort up front to start playing?

[charlesk]

I just discussed this issue with my DM. He said he thought it was a bad ruling and that conjuration should be controlled by the conjurer. He also added: "I can't think of a single instance in literature or film where the conjurer didn't know what they were getting." Obviously D&D isn't literature or film, but it's a good point that it also makes little sense thematically for a conjurer to not have control over the conjuration.

I'm glad he and I are at least on the same page. But that's mostly luck. I still think this is a horrid ruling.

[Ruslan]

I, on the other hand, can't think of many examples where the conjurer could summon stuff from a virtually unbounded list.

The Wicked Witch of the West? Flying monkeys, and flying monkeys only. She doesn't get to choose between wolves, pixies, sharks, flying monkeys and the rest of the Monster Manual.

Dracula? Wolves or bats. That's it. No monkeys. Admittedly, he gets to choose between the two, but he doesn't get to choose "sharks" or "flying monkeys".

Aquaman? Water creatures only. Sharks yes, bats and wolves no. And certainly no monkeys.

And so on.

I agree that "DM chooses" is a bit of an awkward solution, but a solution nonetheless. The unbounded list - this is the problem.

[georgie_leech]

I just discussed this issue with my DM. He said he thought it was a bad ruling and that conjuration should be controlled by the conjurer. He also added: "I can't think of a single instance in literature or film where the conjurer didn't know what they were getting." Obviously D&D isn't literature or film, but it's a good point that it also makes little sense thematically for a conjurer to not have control over the conjuration.

I'm glad he and I are at least on the same page. But that's mostly luck. I still think this is a horrid ruling.

To be fair to other mediums, summoning tends to be either long involved rituals involving circles, invoking truenames, excessive amounts of incense and the like, or some variation of Monster-in-a-Can. The fluff of this edition's spells is a lot closer to hanging out a sign that says "help wanted," with some discretion as to where you hang the sign.

[charlesk]

I, on the other hand, can't think of many examples where the conjurer could summon stuff from a virtually unbounded list.


Unbounded list? Huh? They can only be of a certain type, and there is a list of them in the MM. Anything beyond that is only if allowed by the DM in the first place, so giving the DM extra control was not necessary.

[Xetheral]

I, on the other hand, can't think of many examples where the conjurer could summon stuff from a virtually unbounded list.

The Wicked Witch of the West? Flying monkeys, and flying monkeys only. She doesn't get to choose between wolves, pixies, sharks, flying monkeys and the rest of the Monster Manual.

Dracula? Wolves or bats. That's it. No monkeys. Admittedly, he gets to choose between the two, but he doesn't get to choose "sharks" or "flying monkeys".

Aquaman? Water creatures only. Sharks yes, bats and wolves no. And certainly no monkeys.

And so on.

I agree that "DM chooses" is a bit of an awkward solution, but a solution nonetheless. The unbounded list - this is the problem.

All of those abilities involve drawing existing creatures to you, rather than conjuring extraplanar beings from thin air. In the first case, it makes sense that you only get what's around you (or whom you employ, in the Wicked Witch's case). In the second case, I find it hard to imagine how you'd summon something that far removed without knowing what you'll get.

[Ruslan]

I don't really much care about the exact fluff of the summoning. Nobody reads it anyway, except when it's necessary to justify their (mechanical) point of view. The ability to summon from the entire Monster Manual (and future Monster Manuals that will undoubtedly get printed, see 3.5) is the problem here.

[Shining Wrath]

congratulations. you've just demonstrated exactly WHY this shouldn't be encouraged.

you've managed to take player agency completely out of their hands. nothing that the players or characters do is going to be the turning point of the battle. not even anything that their enemies do, like a mistake that can be exploited or them rolling out a new tactic. instead, the entire fight revolves around the DM saving the day when one of the players casts a summoning spell. oh goody. how fun.

I played in a group with a DM like that for a while. he probably thought the game was awesome. my low-level character was gaining levels like crazy because the fights were worth a ton of exp and all the work was done by NPCs. I had gotten an amazingly powerful magic item that was directly related to a choice I made at character creation.

and I didn't care. I had absolutely no investment in that character or that game. it was a setting that I liked, using a game system that I still like, with a character that I had designed, and I just didn't care. nothing I or my character did mattered. it wasn't awesome. it was horrendously dull. I hated that game. by the end of the first session, I was no longer present emotionally or intellectually. a few sessions later, my sense of obligation to the group stopped outweighing my active dislike of the game that DM was running, and I was no longer present physically.

had that been my first introduction to the setting, the rules, or tabletop PnP RPG games, I would likely have never gotten interested in any of them, or at least not for a very long time. crap like this is not good. it is bad. absolutely awful. atrocious. if I was the character that was supposed to summon your stupid instant DM solution, you'd be lucky if I was even there, and most likely I wouldn't care enough to try and play a game of "guess what the DM wants me to do". I'd probably just sit there waiting for the DM to fix the problem like always happens anyways instead of wasting everyone's time by trying to do something meaningful but time-consuming with my actions.

worst of all, you're doing it in a heavy-handed fashion, and charging me my resources that I could have used to try and have an impact (had I any inclination to do so any more) to do it. this is the antithesis of awesome, and if it happens with anything like enough regularity to need the rules to support it, then I don't want to be anywhere remotely near the games where it happens.

Boy, I'm glad you weren't in our last campaign, where we went through an area where every arcane spell had a chance of failure unless we made a concentration check. I wasn't the DM; I imagine you'd have thrown dice (more likely, insults) at our DM. Areas where spells work differently are pretty normal (manifest zones, anyone?), but you just cast such a thing as a horrible example of DM heavy-handedness and insist that the spell doing something other than exactly what the player asks for means the DM is in complete control of the entire session.

This is a collaborative game between players and DM. Every edition, every table, every time. Adding these spells to the areas where collaboration is explicitly required doesn't ruin the game, or these spells, or being a conjurer wizard.

[charlesk]

Boy, I'm glad you weren't in our last campaign, where we went through an area where every arcane spell had a chance of failure unless we made a concentration check. I wasn't the DM; I imagine you'd have thrown dice (more likely, insults) at our DM. Areas where spells work differently are pretty normal (manifest zones, anyone?), but you just cast such a thing as a horrible example of DM heavy-handedness and insist that the spell doing something other than exactly what the player asks for means the DM is in complete control of the entire session.


There's a difference between being in a special area that behaves differently from the norm, and changing the norm. I and others are not objecting to the possibility of such special cases, just to changing the rules to make them the normal case.


Adding these spells to the areas where collaboration is explicitly required doesn't ruin the game, or these spells, or being a conjurer wizard.

Collaboration wasn't explicitly required in this case. And using "collaboration" here is really pushing the bounds of that word; it ignores the inherent antagonism in the DM-player relationship.

Even leaving those things aside, "collaboration" isn't a carte blanche excuse for warping balance.

I'm glad it didn't ruin those things for you, but it did for a lot of people.

[georgie_leech]

Collaboration wasn't explicitly required in this case. And using "collaboration" here is really pushing the bounds of that word; it ignores the inherent antagonism in the DM-player relationship.



What inherent antagonism? :smallconfused:

[squiggit]

I don't understand the whole need for "appropriate for the environment" to go beyond land/sea creatures. You are not drawing animals from the terrain. They are not actually animals at all, but spirits taking animal form. As such, I don't care if they want a giant frog in the desert. It may not be native, but this is not a real frog, so have at it. Otherwise, it is much the same as if I said a teifling can't teleport to the arctic.

I wanna second this. Talking about appropriate creatures for the environment when we're talking about a spell that conjures fey spirits that then take the form of a specific animal seems weird. Space and time and location don't even seem like they should be a factor.


What inherent antagonism? :smallconfused:

Players vs DM is just as valid a campaign style as cooperative storytelling is. Presumably he's referencing the former.

[Shining Wrath]

There's a difference between being in a special area that behaves differently from the norm, and changing the norm. I and others are not objecting to the possibility of such special cases, just to changing the rules to make them the normal case.


... SNIP ...

But my entire example was a temple where it was a special area, and telling the player in advance he might get night gaunts would be a big reveal as to the nature of the special area. And I was told that's horrible heavy-handed DMing. So while perhaps you don't mind special areas, it seems that some people think they are the DM taking over the game.

[georgie_leech]

Players vs DM is just as valid a campaign style as cooperative storytelling is. Presumably he's referencing the former.
Perhaps, but as you've noted it's not the only style. If it's inherent, it's there regardless of style; it's always a factor. I acknowledge that the DM needs to run the antagonists, but I don't see how that translates out to wanting to see your players' plans fail.

[charlesk]

What inherent antagonism? :smallconfused:

Come on, do I really have to explain this?

[Safety Sword]

If you're not playing an adversarial game against your DM, none of these concerns really matter.

And if you are trying to "beat" the DM, I have news for you. You're missing the best part of D&D. Building a unique story.

If my players couldn't trust me not to screw them when casting a summoning spell I think that would be an indicator of how our group was doing.

[squiggit]

Perhaps, but as you've noted it's not the only style. If it's inherent, it's there regardless of style; it's always a factor. I acknowledge that the DM needs to run the antagonists, but I don't see how that translates out to wanting to see your players' plans fail.

True, I don't think anyone said it wasn't. It's still something that exists so the game should have some idea of that in mind. Even beyond that though I think baking that much inconsistency-through-fiat into the spell system isn't a very good precedent. It's the reason people have been arguing over how illusions work for literally as long as there's been D&D.

Sure, houserules/rule 0 is a thing, but I put them in a different category because they're proactive. A rule 0 change is a DM actively altering something for some specific purpose, while a design choice like this simply denies the players a baseline from which to work and arguably both defeats the whole point of having rules and is a pointless statement because rule 0 already exists.



If you're not playing an adversarial game against your DM, none of these concerns really matter.
Even if you're not playing an adversarial game the concerns still matter. Yes, you don't have to worry about the DM actively screwing you, but you're still denied any baseline expectation of functionality and have your capabilities left at someone else's arbitary whim (like the aforementioned being denied access to certain creatures based on environment just because) and you're foisting extra bookkeeping on the DM simply by casting the spell (aka the wild sorcerer problem). The only way those concerns go away is if the GM is letting you summon what you want to summon (or at least close enough to), at which point you're completely ignoring the change.

[charlesk]

It's not about the DM and myself being adversaries. We are role-playing, and the roles are inherently adversarial.

I go into a cave and discover a dragon there. I'm playing a humanoid character, the DM is playing the dragon. The character and the dragon in most cases will have conflicting goals and the adversarial nature of the encounter is obvious.

If I end up fighting the dragon, and I want to use a summoning spell to aid myself in combat, then at that moment the DM is not "collaborating" with me at all. We are still both trying to have fun, but we are essentially in conflict. It's utterly absurd to suggest that it's fine for the DM to dictate what comes from a conjuration spell because of "collaboration".

We are fighting each other. I do not want to have to tell the DM why I am summoning a particular creature, nor do I want some other creature to show up. And if the DM is any good, he doesn't want to know either.

[rhouck]

Adversarial doesn't mean "beat" the DM in the sense of "break the game". Breaking the game isn't fun for anyone. But beating the DM in the sense of overcoming the encounters he has thrown out you is absolutely fun.

And having played both sides of the table, some of the best moments are when your players SURPRISE you with a solution you hadn't thought of. And some of the worst moments would be when a DM goes "hey, this is the solution you should use", because that removes player agency.

[pwykersotz]

Otherwise, it is much the same as if I said a teifling can't teleport to the arctic.

To be fair, it's not a racial ability. :smalltongue:

[Zevox]

All of those abilities involve drawing existing creatures to you, rather than conjuring extraplanar beings from thin air. In the first case, it makes sense that you only get what's around you (or whom you employ, in the Wicked Witch's case). In the second case, I find it hard to imagine how you'd summon something that far removed without knowing what you'll get.
Exactly. D&D summoning is more akin to the sort seen in classic stories of people summoning demons to do their bidding or make pacts with them where they traded their souls for power (i.e. Faust). Just controlling - or communicating with, in Aquaman's case - something existing that happens to be nearby is totally different from what D&D summoning is supposed to be.

[SharkForce]

Boy, I'm glad you weren't in our last campaign, where we went through an area where every arcane spell had a chance of failure unless we made a concentration check. I wasn't the DM; I imagine you'd have thrown dice (more likely, insults) at our DM. Areas where spells work differently are pretty normal (manifest zones, anyone?), but you just cast such a thing as a horrible example of DM heavy-handedness and insist that the spell doing something other than exactly what the player asks for means the DM is in complete control of the entire session.

This is a collaborative game between players and DM. Every edition, every table, every time. Adding these spells to the areas where collaboration is explicitly required doesn't ruin the game, or these spells, or being a conjurer wizard.

edit: one second, wrong quote... give me a moment to get the right one.
edit 2: ok, there we go. got the right quote now =S

on the contrary, my objection was not about the rules changing.

my objection was that your entire plan for how the climactic battle goes has next to nothing with what the player does.

the fact that you're completely blind to this suggests that the rest of your campaign will feature the same flaw. neither the players or the characters are even to be allowed to find out anything about the tool that is absolutely needed to gain victory, nor do they have any control whatsoever as far as making it happen is concerned.

that is bad DMing. there is no other way around it. the players don't win that fight. they barely even participate. if they win, it's because the DM did it. not from clever use of player abilities or careful research and planning or teamwork. it's because the DM pulled a solution out of nowhere for the central fight and took away all power for the players to be able to employ that solution on their own.

the rest doesn't matter in the slightest. the game i played with that DM in the past, he followed all the rules (more or less, no game is ever completely devoid of house rules). all of my abilities worked as described, just fine. they just didn't matter, because the DM was the one winning all the fights for me.

THAT is what made me stop caring about the character and the game. not changing the rules. the fact that nothing my character did mattered one way or the other. just like you seem to want to make your climactic encounter run, with the characters having absolutely nothing to do with victory, it's all based around the DM deciding to hand them an "i win" button, with no input required on their part.

it makes for crappy story-telling when the reason the heros win is basically blind luck with no skill mixed in, and it makes for even worse "collaborative" story telling when one of the collaborators not only does not have any power to make decisions, but doesn't even know that the decisions are being made.

this kind of crap being pulled is an argument for why the DM *shouldn't* be the one making the decision about what the player summons on a regular basis. the fact that it inspired such a horrifically awful idea that robs the players of any sense of accomplishment and removes the characters from being heroic to just random schmucks who lucked out and got victory handed to them without earning it is a compelling reason for why the idea should never have even been uttered in the first place. you may as well just put a lever at the start of the dungeon that kills all monsters within and have it set to "on" by default.

[Safety Sword]

Even if you're not playing an adversarial game the concerns still matter. Yes, you don't have to worry about the DM actively screwing you, but you're still denied any baseline expectation of functionality and have your capabilities left at someone else's arbitary whim (like the aforementioned being denied access to certain creatures based on environment just because) and you're foisting extra bookkeeping on the DM simply by casting the spell (aka the wild sorcerer problem). The only way those concerns go away is if the GM is letting you summon what you want to summon (or at least close enough to), at which point you're completely ignoring the change.

Perhaps you should adjust your expectations then?

I fully expect that when I go into a game that the rules will be followed. If that means the DM selects the creatures, then that's what it means. I would also expect that if there are any house rules in play that I would be informed of them so I can build my character within the new limits.

I DM two different games and I don't think the rolls for the conjure tables I have are the biggest issue I face. In fact, it very often allows me to add to the story or introduce new creatures to the players.

D&D is a game of overcoming challenges. If you always solve the challenges the same way because of a certain entry in the monster manual (or whatever) then I think you're losing something, not "gaining functionality".

This is going to be a very philosophical argument and I do have strong opinions about it. The issue really is that players sometimes feel entitled to the way a thing should work, and grossly ignore how it does "because reasons".

Once my players had played my campaigns for a little while and we worked out where the boundaries were it was easy to say "my game, my way" because they know I have the skills to make the game fun for everyone and I'm not out to get anyone. Trust is a big thing in a well functioning role playing group.

[Pex]

No one has said "the only way for the DM to introduce new creatures is via Conjure spells", so let's stop raising that straw man. You asking for a wolf and getting a mouse is the DM screwing with you. I won't defend that. But it is at least possible that the game will be more fun for the table as a whole if the caster isn't 100% in control. If the DM thinks a different creature is going to be more fun, for whatever reason, and if in fact the DM is right, then the game suffers with 100% caster control.

Trust your DM. If you can't, maybe your problem is not with this ruling.

The problem is with the ruling because it conjures (pun intended) mistrust in the DM.

If it's the DM you've played with for years where your group may or may not switch who is DM for a time, this ruling means nothing. You all know, trust, and like each other implicitly no one is going to tell you how to play your games.

It's when you want to join a new group. It's when you play in Society and play with different DMs depending on the game session. It's when you never played D&D before and don't know any better that a DM is not supposed to be a tyrant. The ruling facilitates the ability of the tyrant DM to exist and will not learn not to be one because he can claim to have the backing of WOTC and dismiss players as powergaming rollplaying munchkin whiners.

[charlesk]

The problem is with the ruling because it conjures (pun intended) mistrust in the DM.

If it's the DM you've played with for years where your group may or may not switch who is DM for a time, this ruling means nothing. You all know, trust, and like each other implicitly no one is going to tell you how to play your games.

It's when you want to join a new group. It's when you play in Society and play with different DMs depending on the game session. It's when you never played D&D before and don't know any better that a DM is not supposed to be a tyrant. The ruling facilitates the ability of the tyrant DM to exist and will not learn not to be one because he can claim to have the backing of WOTC and dismiss players as powergaming rollplaying munchkin whiners.

This is it in a nutshell.

SharkForce, I'm on your side on this one. ;)

[Safety Sword]

The problem is with the ruling because it conjures (pun intended) mistrust in the DM.

If it's the DM you've played with for years where your group may or may not switch who is DM for a time, this ruling means nothing. You all know, trust, and like each other implicitly no one is going to tell you how to play your games.

It's when you want to join a new group. It's when you play in Society and play with different DMs depending on the game session. It's when you never played D&D before and don't know any better that a DM is not supposed to be a tyrant. The ruling facilitates the ability of the tyrant DM to exist and will not learn not to be one because he can claim to have the backing of WOTC and dismiss players as powergaming rollplaying munchkin whiners.

Bad DMs are a thing I suppose. I'm just glad they're somewhere else.

Again, this isn't a rules problem, it's a people being jerks problem.

[Sindeloke]

Bad DMs are a thing I suppose. I'm just glad they're somewhere else.

Again, this isn't a rules problem, it's a people being jerks problem.

I trust my players to make intelligent, creative choices about what to summon that will move the story forward. Perhaps you don't. Bad players are a thing I suppose. I'm just glad they're somewhere else.

Wasn't really a rules problem, just a people being bad players problem. WotC laid out a rule anyway, but then again they essentially get paid by the rule.

[DanyBallon]

The rule haven't been change, it was written as is. Sage advice just confirm the intent because there was people that ask about it, that's it! The ruling on conjure spells is somehow in line with what was in 1e and 2e, which is part of the experience 5e is trying to recreate in part, for better or worst. Sure it's a big change for those who liked how 3.x and 4e gave the players more control over the game. Some prefer it his way, other prefer the way it was done in the older editions (1e and 2e). Either way, every group, palyers and DM, should discussed what are their expaectation and play accordingly. Your group don't like DM control over what you get in a conjure spell, then have the player choose. You think it's not an issue, leave it as is. If you fear being screwed in AL because it's RAW, then I guess the 2e style of play of 5e ain't for you.

[Shining Wrath]

edit: one second, wrong quote... give me a moment to get the right one.
edit 2: ok, there we go. got the right quote now =S

on the contrary, my objection was not about the rules changing.

my objection was that your entire plan for how the climactic battle goes has next to nothing with what the player does.

the fact that you're completely blind to this suggests that the rest of your campaign will feature the same flaw. neither the players or the characters are even to be allowed to find out anything about the tool that is absolutely needed to gain victory, nor do they have any control whatsoever as far as making it happen is concerned.

that is bad DMing. there is no other way around it. the players don't win that fight. they barely even participate. if they win, it's because the DM did it. not from clever use of player abilities or careful research and planning or teamwork. it's because the DM pulled a solution out of nowhere for the central fight and took away all power for the players to be able to employ that solution on their own.

the rest doesn't matter in the slightest. the game i played with that DM in the past, he followed all the rules (more or less, no game is ever completely devoid of house rules). all of my abilities worked as described, just fine. they just didn't matter, because the DM was the one winning all the fights for me.

THAT is what made me stop caring about the character and the game. not changing the rules. the fact that nothing my character did mattered one way or the other. just like you seem to want to make your climactic encounter run, with the characters having absolutely nothing to do with victory, it's all based around the DM deciding to hand them an "i win" button, with no input required on their part.

it makes for crappy story-telling when the reason the heros win is basically blind luck with no skill mixed in, and it makes for even worse "collaborative" story telling when one of the collaborators not only does not have any power to make decisions, but doesn't even know that the decisions are being made.

this kind of crap being pulled is an argument for why the DM *shouldn't* be the one making the decision about what the player summons on a regular basis. the fact that it inspired such a horrifically awful idea that robs the players of any sense of accomplishment and removes the characters from being heroic to just random schmucks who lucked out and got victory handed to them without earning it is a compelling reason for why the idea should never have even been uttered in the first place. you may as well just put a lever at the start of the dungeon that kills all monsters within and have it set to "on" by default.

My plan for the climatic battle was that if the player doesn't summon allies then they can still win, and that the night gaunts were more funny with the tickling than powerful. I wouldn't ever do what you describe. You've now posted two multi-paragraph descriptions of what I'm doing wrong in this hypothetical case when nothing I wrote even implied that only casting Conjure X would save the party.

[Malifice]

"the DM decides what you get" is not collaboration.

How about 'The DM has final say on what you get'.

Just like the DM has final say on everything.

[Pex]

The rule haven't been change, it was written as is. Sage advice just confirm the intent because there was people that ask about it, that's it! The ruling on conjure spells is somehow in line with what was in 1e and 2e, which is part of the experience 5e is trying to recreate in part, for better or worst. Sure it's a big change for those who liked how 3.x and 4e gave the players more control over the game. Some prefer it his way, other prefer the way it was done in the older editions (1e and 2e). Either way, every group, palyers and DM, should discussed what are their expaectation and play accordingly. Your group don't like DM control over what you get in a conjure spell, then have the player choose. You think it's not an issue, leave it as is. If you fear being screwed in AL because it's RAW, then I guess the 2e style of play of 5e ain't for you.

Tyrant DMs were all the rage in 2E. The DMG encouraged it by telling DMs to say no to practically anything a player wanted, such as refusing to let a player play a ranger instead be a fighter who always wanted to be a ranger but is allergic to trees to "inspire roleplaying". In that aspect, 5E certainly is recreating some 2E experience. The difference now is experienced players know better not to put up with it. It's the new players who don't know any better now might suffer it while they didn't in 3E, 4E, & Pathfinder. 5E isn't as blatant about it as 2E, and the DMG does encourage good DM play, but trying to incorporate 2E atmosphere unfortunately includes the tyrant DM.

I don't think it is a coincidence I never experienced a tyrant DM in all my years playing 3E and Pathfinder, but when I try to get in on a 5E game, there's the tyrant DM who admitted out loud he doesn't believe players should ever get what they want.