I'm having a little trouble with a druid

[Thrasher92]

Hey guys,

I'm DMing a group of 5 level 11s and the druid is dominating every encounter I throw at them. He keeps just summoning a bunch of fey creatures and then shapeshifting into various animals (which he will easily do twice). He has the War Caster feat and most of the time he is able to pass any concentration check he has to make.

Any advice to make the encounters more challenging for him? We are at a point in the campaign where it wouldn't be strange for enemies to start targeting him specifically (He is a druid in a forest that is being taken over by evil fey and they have encountered druids before and know what powers they posses).

[Aett_Thorn]

Hey guys,

I'm DMing a group of 5 level 11s and the druid is dominating every encounter I throw at them. He keeps just summoning a bunch of fey creatures and then shapeshifting into various animals (which he will easily do twice). He has the War Caster feat and most of the time he is able to pass any concentration check he has to make.

Any advice to make the encounters more challenging for him? We are at a point in the campaign where it wouldn't be strange for enemies to start targeting him specifically (He is a druid in a forest that is being taken over by evil fey and they have encountered druids before and know what powers they posses).

Well, remember that the player chooses the CR of the creatures that he summons, but the DM chooses what TYPE of creature is summoned. So, by RAW, the player doesn't necessarily get creatures that are able to shapeshift, or that might be the most useful for the current situation.

Give him areas where his creatures will need to funnel, and hit them with AoEs. Or just make sure to use AoEs in general.

Have your own swarms of creatures to use against them.

Give the party an illusion to fight, and only after the summon spell expires do you bring out the real enemies.


However, keep in mind that the game is supposed to be fun. If all of the players are having fun, this might not be an issue. However, if one player is vastly overshadowing everyone else, then talking to the player should be the first step.

[SharkForce]

well, first thing, if it's pixie spam, i recommend you ignore their official CR and set it to at least 1/2 and probably 1.

apart from that, AoE. more summons means each summon is weaker, it's the same thing from the player side as if you sent a bunch of goblins their way. fireball will solve your problems nicely :P

additionally, animal forms have terrible AC. so yes, there's a lot of HP there. but it should be disappearing really quickly if you focus the druid (not that it's necessarily the best decision). meanwhile, the druid is not doing an awful lot personally, because in animal form all they have is the animal's attacks, which isn't much to work with now that the ridiculous level 2 spike is past. having nuked the conjured minions, enemies can proceed to simply ignore the druid. if he wants to have an impact again, he's gonna have to burn his wild shape either way just to get back to human form and cast spells.

it sounds like they're short resting after every fight if the druid is getting two wild shapes every time. never mind adjusting tactics for the druid, why are the evil creatures all staying out of support range of each other? how are the party getting fights so thoroughly isolated that they only ever face one group at a time, rather than at least encountering the occasional groups supporting each other?

and finally, it is worth noting that in animal form, he has all of the animal's statistics. he has their strength, not his own, which is usually beneficial. he has their constitution, not his own, which might be beneficial and might not, especially as it relates to con saves. and he has their hit points, not his own, which means that he's fighting a bunch of fey which might have spells like sleep. sleep, which wouldn't work on a high HP druid, but against a wounded to 25 HP giant scorpion? well now, that's a whole different story. if the druid falls asleep, there goes the druid's turn, there goes the druid's concentration (so bye-bye minions), and potentially there goes either the rest of the druid's turns for the fight or there goes someone else's turn as they spend it waking up the druid instead of attacking. and there's no saving throw.

lastly, one piece of general advice: action economy, action economy, action economy. that's why the druid summoning a ton of weak stuff is causing you problems (again, unless the "weak stuff" is pixies, in which case their CR is wildly inaccurate, and that alone could be causing you problems). but here's the thing: you're the DM. you don't have to send a couple of CR 10 creatures alone. you can send, oh, 3-4 CR 6 enemies backed up by a dozen CR 1/2 enemies, basically doing the same thing the druid is doing really. as the DM, you have access to as many mooks as you want. you're witnessing the power of a lot of mooks, make sure that you use the power of a lot of mooks too. let the druid's minions have their own problems to deal with, as each fey has to deal with a charmed goblin, or a skeleton that a hag coven made, or oozes, or giant toads or something like that.

[Unoriginal]

Hey guys,

I'm DMing a group of 5 level 11s and the druid is dominating every encounter I throw at them. He keeps just summoning a bunch of fey creatures and then shapeshifting into various animals (which he will easily do twice). He has the War Caster feat and most of the time he is able to pass any concentration check he has to make.

Any advice to make the encounters more challenging for him? We are at a point in the campaign where it wouldn't be strange for enemies to start targeting him specifically (He is a druid in a forest that is being taken over by evil fey and they have encountered druids before and know what powers they posses).

How many fights per adventuring day are you making them go through?

[Jerrykhor]

Just curious, whats the party lineup? They are all level 11s, so they can't all be chumps.

[prototype00]

Well, remember that the player chooses the CR of the creatures that he summons, but the DM chooses what TYPE of creature is summoned. So, by RAW, the player doesn't necessarily get creatures that are able to shapeshift, or that might be the most useful for the current situation.

This. It is entirely DM fiat as to what woodland creatures show up. If they are doing Pixie spam, it’s because the DM explicitly allowed them to.

[8wGremlin]

There is an ongoing debate as to the veracity of that statement - RAW states nothing on the choice bar what CR the creatures are, only that the DM has the stats.

It is reasonable to assume that as the GM you can decide to interpret however you want.

[EvilAnagram]

I'll echo the question, how many fights are they going through every long rest?

[Thrasher92]

Just curious, whats the party lineup? They are all level 11s, so they can't all be chumps.

There are 2 fighters (Champion and Battle Master), 1 Barbarian (Bear Totem), 1 Rogue (Thief), and the Druid.

[Thrasher92]

I'll echo the question, how many fights are they going through every long rest?

About 3. They sometimes are able to avoid fights with stealth or conversation but I usually aim for 3.

[prototype00]

There is an ongoing debate as to the veracity of that statement - RAW states nothing on the choice bar what CR the creatures are, only that the DM has the stats.

It is reasonable to assume that as the GM you can decide to interpret however you want.

According to Sage Advice, there is no ambiguity. DMs choice.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/09/conjure-woodland-beings-pixies-and-giant-apes/

[Malifice]

About 3. They sometimes are able to avoid fights with stealth or conversation but I usually aim for 3.

That's not enough. You're supposed to be get aiming for between six and eight.

You might want to switch to the gritty rest variant.

[lunaticfringe]

Throw your own Minionmancers at them. They ain't got Counterspell. Use their own tactic against them, but meaner.

[EvilAnagram]

About 3. They sometimes are able to avoid fights with stealth or conversation but I usually aim for 3.

The game system aims for six to eight medium to hard encounters every long rest. You're giving them half of the minimum number of encounters they should be getting. This means that players with long rest resources (the Druid, in this case) will have a huge advantage over the rest of the party because resources that are designed to be stretched out over the course of eight encounters are getting concentrated into three.

Give them more encounters per long rest, make sure the encounters are of a higher CR, and use more area of effect (AOE) abilities to take out those pesky pixies. Personally, I roll to see what creatures get summoned with that spell. I use an online tool that sorts creatures by type and roll a d8 to see what they get.

[8wGremlin]

According to Sage Advice, there is no ambiguity. DMs choice.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/09/conjure-woodland-beings-pixies-and-giant-apes/

ah yes sage ADVICE...

I can see that it was their design intent for it to be the GMs choice, with Player suggestions, but this is not official errata.

See: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/12/why-are-your-rulings-official-for-dd-but-not-adventure-league/ (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/12/why-are-your-rulings-official-for-dd-but-not-adventure-league/)for Crawfords other statements...


So again; it's up to the GM to interpret how they want...

[SharkForce]

According to Sage Advice, there is no ambiguity. DMs choice.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/09/conjure-woodland-beings-pixies-and-giant-apes/

according to the actual rules that people have in their hands rather than off in internet land somewhere, there is ambiguity. if they want it to be clear, they should release errata, since there is absolutely nothing clear about telling you who owns the rulebook with the stats for a monster in it. i mean, suppose that another player actually has the monster manual, not the DM; does that mean that the other player chooses what you summon? what if your 4-year old niece grabbed the book to look at the pictures. does she choose the monsters? it is particularly absurd since i know that for years, AL had it that the player always chooses, never the DM (from a list. which coincidentally didn't include pixies, although now they've removed it... and unsurprisingly, i've seen it brought up by a few AL DMs here since that happened).

but that's beside the point. the only reason it should even be a concern in the first place is if CR is wrong. unless one CR 1/4 monster is wildly out of whack with all the other CR 1/4 monsters, nothing should be broken when you summon what you want. heck, we don't even know the problem is the specific monster showing up; i merely mentioned pixies because it's been a problem in a number of other situations i've seen people dealing with, so i was guessing that might be part of the problem here. the OP never said a word about pixies, just about "a bunch of fey creatures".

[prototype00]

ah yes sage ADVICE...

I can see that it was their design intent for it to be the GMs choice, with Player suggestions, but this is not official errata.

See: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/12/why-are-your-rulings-official-for-dd-but-not-adventure-league/ (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/12/why-are-your-rulings-official-for-dd-but-not-adventure-league/)for Crawfords other statements...


So again; it's up to the GM to interpret how they want...


according to the actual rules that people have in their hands rather than off in internet land somewhere, there is ambiguity. if they want it to be clear, they should release errata, since there is absolutely nothing clear about telling you who owns the rulebook with the stats for a monster in it. i mean, suppose that another player actually has the monster manual, not the DM; does that mean that the other player chooses what you summon? what if your 4-year old niece grabbed the book to look at the pictures. does she choose the monsters? it is particularly absurd since i know that for years, AL had it that the player always chooses, never the DM (from a list. which coincidentally didn't include pixies, although now they've removed it... and unsurprisingly, i've seen it brought up by a few AL DMs here since that happened).

but that's beside the point. the only reason it should even be a concern in the first place is if CR is wrong. unless one CR 1/4 monster is wildly out of whack with all the other CR 1/4 monsters, nothing should be broken when you summon what you want. heck, we don't even know the problem is the specific monster showing up; i merely mentioned pixies because it's been a problem in a number of other situations i've seen people dealing with, so i was guessing that might be part of the problem here. the OP never said a word about pixies, just about "a bunch of fey creatures".

Point taken. I refer to Sage Advice for so many rule interactions it’s hard to imagine people who willfully disregard the designers of the game when they have access to their rulings.

So how is it run in AL, just curious? Pixies and T-Rex’s at every druid tier 2 table?

[Jerrykhor]

There are 2 fighters (Champion and Battle Master), 1 Barbarian (Bear Totem), 1 Rogue (Thief), and the Druid.

A bunch of pure martials, I see why the Druid is the star now. I'm currently playing a low level Moon druid too, and at level 2, I feel like I am better than a Champion Fighter. As a brown bear, I already have 19 strength, 40ft speed, multi-attack, climbing speed, more hp, and Keen Smell. And I still have spells in caster form. The only thing I lack is range attack in bear form.

Druids are just awesome lol.

[EvilAnagram]

A bunch of pure martials, I see why the Druid is the star now. I'm currently playing a low level Moon druid too, and at level 2, I feel like I am better than a Champion Fighter. As a brown bear, I already have 19 strength, 40ft speed, multi-attack, climbing speed, more hp, and Keen Smell. And I still have spells in caster form. The only thing I lack is range attack in bear form.

Druids are just awesome lol.

Meh. At level 11, any one of those characters should blow the druid away in damage dealt through direct attacks. However, a Druid who is getting a long rest every three encounters will constantly have a ton of resources that make it difficult for the others to compete.

[Malifice]

The single long rest class is dominating in a game where the DM is using half as many encounters per long rest.

OP: You need to be pushing 6+ encounters on the party as a median between long rests. And letting them get at least 2 short rests over that time (also as a median).

If your fighters are getting more short rests, they'll have more action surges, second winds, and sup dice to blow.

If you're getting more encounters between long rests, your Druid is going to have to ration his high level slots more.

DnD is balanced around 6-8 encounters between long rests, featuring around 2-3 short rests over that time.

Put them on the doom clock (you have 24 hours do do mission or else) and then stat up 6-8 encounters for them. Alternatively use the gritty rest variant.

If thats too hard just make it a table rule: 'No-one gets the benefit of a long rest till at least 6 encounters have been resolved, of the DM says so (which he rarely will), and everyone gets a short rest only after every 2nd encounter'.

[Citan]

A bunch of pure martials, I see why the Druid is the star now. I'm currently playing a low level Moon druid too, and at level 2, I feel like I am better than a Champion Fighter. As a brown bear, I already have 19 strength, 40ft speed, multi-attack, climbing speed, more hp, and Keen Smell. And I still have spells in caster form. The only thing I lack is range attack in bear form.

Druids are just awesome lol.
And 11 AC instead of 18-22, and about same average damage as a dual-wielding Fighter or a Monk, bit vulnerability to INT and CHA saves, and no ability to switch range or use martial-related feats. :)

Brown Bear is a great form as long as, and because, you have true martials besides you that can take the brunt of damage. But if enemies focus fire you, you're toast. And just at level 3 when martials gain archetypes it loses some of the shining.

I feel like I'm the only one that tends to use Moon Druid shaping to instead make "nova ambushes" or "quick retreats" (like, take a form that has burrow as a bonus action, Hide, crawl under the big group of enemies, then on next turn bonus action back to cast a powerful AOE). This feels like a waste of the "shape THP" potential, but it is very fun to unleash a well-aimed Tidal Wave (hard to position correctly) or Conjure a group of Animals to surround the pesky caster in the backline (or directly Hold him when possible), that thought he was safe thanks to the big ones creating a continuous line of defense. :)

With that said, I totally agree that Druids are awesome (probably my favorite class with Sorcerer and Monk).

[Jerrykhor]

I guess the problem is the summons. There are a few ways to go about it:

1. Counterspell. Muahaha.

2. Hit him many times, even with small weak attacks like an upcasted Magic Missile. He will have to roll a con save for each dart.

3. His summons are Fey, so use spells like Protection from Evil and Good, Magic Circle, Hallow, Forbiddance.

[Lombra]

That's not enough. You're supposed to be get aiming for between six and eight.

You might want to switch to the gritty rest variant.

It's plenty if you go by the experience/day rules and are careful with the CR of monsters: three deadly encounters/day (18.000 exp each) will leave the whole party challenged.

Plus, there could be situations where the druid is forced to expend resources out of combat.

[Throne12]

Well, remember that the player chooses the CR of the creatures that he summons, but the DM chooses what TYPE of creature is summoned. So, by RAW, the player doesn't necessarily get creatures that are able to shapeshift, or that might be the most useful for the current situation.

Give him areas where his creatures will need to funnel, and hit them with AoEs. Or just make sure to use AoEs in general.

Have your own swarms of creatures to use against them.

Give the party an illusion to fight, and only after the summon spell expires do you bring out the real enemies.


However, keep in mind that the game is supposed to be fun. If all of the players are having fun, this might not be an issue. However, if one player is vastly overshadowing everyone else, then talking to the player should be the first step.

I am so tired of see " keep in mind that the game is supposed to be FUN." Yes it a game that everyone at the table is supposed to have fun that includes the DM. DM's spend time out of there week preparing for the game. They want to have fun running the game for the player's. Then a player comes in each time and just I cast the spell " I Win". It leaves the DM standing there Wondering why bother.

I'm sorry for derailing the thread. But it urks me that people say what's the problem if the player's are having fun.

[Malifice]

It's plenty if you go by the experience/day rules and are careful with the CR of monsters: three deadly encounters/day (18.000 exp each) will leave the whole party challenged.

Plus, there could be situations where the druid is forced to expend resources out of combat.

It's not xp totals you have to worry about. It's resource usage.

3 deadly fights per long rest favors the long rest classes heavily. They can afford to nova.

The game becomes less strategic and more button mashing rocket tag.

Not saying you shouldn't do the occasional day like this. Indeed you should. But you should ideally be making the players ration resources over a longer adventuring day as default.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's not xp totals you have to worry about. It's resource usage.

3 deadly fights per long rest favors the long rest classes heavily. They can afford to nova.

The game becomes less strategic and more button mashing rocket tag.

Not saying you shouldn't do the occasional day like this. Indeed you should. But you should ideally be making the players ration resources over a longer adventuring day as default. Thought it is a bit more work for the DM to do that.

[sithlordnergal]

So, I can certainly see your issue. First, start giving them more encounters, as everyone else said. And second, give the Fey they're fighting some powerful AoE's like Fireball. In 5 swarms of Minions beat Single Powerful Enemies, AoE's beat those Swarms, and Single Powerful Enemies beat AoE's.

[DivisibleByZero]

Well, remember that the player chooses the CR of the creatures that he summons, but the DM chooses what TYPE of creature is summoned. So, by RAW, the player doesn't necessarily get creatures that are able to shapeshift, or that might be the most useful for the current situation.
This. It is entirely DM fiat as to what woodland creatures show up. If they are doing Pixie spam, it’s because the DM explicitly allowed them to.

There is an ongoing debate as to the veracity of that statement - RAW states nothing on the choice bar what CR the creatures are, only that the DM has the stats.

It is reasonable to assume that as the GM you can decide to interpret however you want.

According to Sage Advice, there is no ambiguity. DMs choice.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/09/conjure-woodland-beings-pixies-and-giant-apes/

ah yes sage ADVICE...
<snip>
So again; it's up to the GM to interpret how they want...

Actually, 8wGremlin, if you want to go all RAW about it, then the answer is simple.
Choose one of the following options for what appears:
One fey creature of challenge rating 2 or lower
Two fey creatures of challenge rating 1 or lower
Four fey creatures of challenge rating 1/2 or lower
Eight fey creatures of challenge rating 1/4 or lower

The spell description states exactly what the player chooses. The player chooses X number of creatures at challenge rating Y.
It does not state that the player chooses which creatures appear, but rather only that they choose a number and a challenge rating.
So by RAW, you're wrong, and it is not up to the DM to interpret it how they want. It can be up to the DM to ignore that if they want and allow the player to choose something which the spell description does not state that they choose, but not how to interpret it.
The spell does exactly what it says it does, and it says choose a number and a challenge rating.
Anything more than that is outside of the RAW.

[Emay Ecks]

Break the druid's concentration. Even with warcaster, there are still many ways to break concentration.

-Magic Missile on the druid means 3+ concentration saves.
-Sleet storm is a higher DC concentration save.
-Give an enemy the Mage Slayer feat, the druid no longer has advantage on his saves.
-Have an enemy cast Moonbeam on the druid. the druid will have disadvantage on the save against it (shapechanger), and will be forced out of the animal form
-Use high damage spells (which means higher concentration saves). Some sample 6th level spells (which your party is capable of casting, and so too should your enemies) are: Harm (14d6 or 49 avg), Disintegrate (10d6+40, or 75 avg), Finger of Death (7d8+30, or 61.5 avg). The concentration dcs for those spells range from 24 for harm to 32 for disintegrate. Even with advantage, I don't see how your druid will ever make that save.
-Dispel Magic and Counterspell.
-Anything that could incapacitate the druid instantly ends concentration. Banishment/Banishing Smite, Sleep on the low temp hp of the animal form, etc.
-Suggestion to make the druid think that ending his spell is a good idea, it's really hard to focus on it during all this fighting after all.

[SharkForce]

Actually, 8wGremlin, if you want to go all RAW about it, then the answer is simple.
Choose one of the following options for what appears:
One fey creature of challenge rating 2 or lower
Two fey creatures of challenge rating 1 or lower
Four fey creatures of challenge rating 1/2 or lower
Eight fey creatures of challenge rating 1/4 or lower

The spell description states exactly what the player chooses. The player chooses X number of creatures at challenge rating Y.
It does not state that the player chooses which creatures appear, but rather only that they choose a number and a challenge rating.
So by RAW, you're wrong, and it is not up to the DM to interpret it how they want. It can be up to the DM to ignore that if they want and allow the player to choose something which the spell description does not state that they choose, but not how to interpret it.
The spell does exactly what it says it does, and it says choose a number and a challenge rating.
Anything more than that is outside of the RAW.

no, if you want to go all RAW about it, nobody chooses exactly what shows up because it doesn't say anyone chooses in the RAW. it says the player chooses the number and CR. it never says *anyone* chooses the exact creatures. that's just kinda left up in the air. it's reasonable to presume that *someone* chooses, via *some* method. it is not reasonable to read that and then conclude that the text in any way states who decides, or how. that part is left completely open. you can read that and say "well, it's the PC's ability, so i'll let the player decide". you can read that and say "well, it isn't specified, so maybe it's in the part of the game that the DM is supposed to arbitrate". you could even read that and say "hey i remember back in 2nd edition we had random summoning tables, we should use that method", just like you could read that and say "hey i remember back in 3rd edition there was a table that the player could choose from, we should use that method", or any number of other things i haven't considered.

but what is absolute balderdash is to read that section of the rules and conclude that it tells you who chooses what creatures show up at all, or what method is used to decide.

so, when someone says it's up to the DM to interpret, that's because it is left completely unspecified, and the only way you're going to resolve the spell is for a DM to make a decision as to how they think it should work. which is to say... it's up to the DM to interpret.

[Dalebert]

When I'm playing a druid I actually purposefully avoid summoning a lot of creatures even though it's usually amazingly effective. Actually because it's so effective. Also because it can get tedious and because it tends to overshadow the other characters. It's fairly common for me to summon 2 effective allies like dire wolves or quicklings. It helps but it's not usually obnoxious. Adds some dmg and takes some heat off my allies but doesn't tend to dominate. I figure if I self-regulate a bit, the DM won't feel compelled to jump through hoops making obscene encounters trying to challenge us and maybe enemies won't see me as this terrifying threat that deserves all their attention.

[Contrast]

Actually, 8wGremlin, if you want to go all RAW about it, then the answer is simple.
Choose one of the following options for what appears:
One fey creature of challenge rating 2 or lower
Two fey creatures of challenge rating 1 or lower
Four fey creatures of challenge rating 1/2 or lower
Eight fey creatures of challenge rating 1/4 or lower

The spell description states exactly what the player chooses. The player chooses X number of creatures at challenge rating Y.
It does not state that the player chooses which creatures appear, but rather only that they choose a number and a challenge rating.
So by RAW, you're wrong, and it is not up to the DM to interpret it how they want. It can be up to the DM to ignore that if they want and allow the player to choose something which the spell description does not state that they choose, but not how to interpret it.
The spell does exactly what it says it does, and it says choose a number and a challenge rating.
Anything more than that is outside of the RAW.

I don't actually disagree with you that the spell should be kept as simple as possible to avoid turning combats into a complicated mess but...

If you saw a restaurant advertising a special deal where you got to choose a meal that cost less than a set amount as part of a promotional deal, would you assume the restaurant got to randomly choose the meal for you unless this was explicitly noted? Common language - you identify x fey creatures of x challenge rating and DM gives you their stat blocks. You choose a meal under x cost you would like as part of the deal and the restaurant provides you with the food you asked for.

That said, it does say the DM has the stats. A DM isn't obligated to use the stats for a pixie from the rulebook if they don't think its appropriate (either by changing their abilities or CR) but this is something I'd expect to be discussed with the player out of session, ideally before the spell is ever cast.

[DivisibleByZero]

no, if you want to go all RAW about it, nobody chooses exactly what shows up because it doesn't say anyone chooses in the RAW.

Everything in the game is up to the DM, by default.
In this case, the spell states that the player chooses the number and the CR.
What is left reverts to the default, which once again is that the DM decides, just like everything in the game.
This is what the rules state. This has been confirmed by the Sage. This is the RAW.

[SharkForce]

Everything in the game is up to the DM, by default.
In this case, the spell states that the player chooses the number and the CR.
What is left reverts to the default, which once again is that the DM decides, just like everything in the game.
This is what the rules state. This has been confirmed by the Sage. This is the RAW.

everything in the game *except for the PCs* is up to the DM by default. nothing in the PHB explicitly states that the player gets to choose their race, and it isn't needed, because the PCs are *not* by default under the control of the DM, they are by default under the control of the players. in this case, we're discussing the use of a PC ability, so no, it doesn't default to the DM, because while the rest of the world is certainly by default under the control of the DM, the PCs are not.

[DivisibleByZero]

everything in the game *except for the PCs* is up to the DM by default. nothing in the PHB explicitly states that the player gets to choose their race, and it isn't needed, because the PCs are *not* by default under the control of the DM, they are by default under the control of the players. in this case, we're discussing the use of a PC ability, so no, it doesn't default to the DM, because while the rest of the world is certainly by default under the control of the DM, the PCs are not.

No.
We're not discussing teh use of a PC ability, we're discussing the use of a spell.
But even if we were discussing teh use of a PC ability, the DM is sitill in control of that as well, because the ability itself is not the PC.
The player controls the PC, and what the rules tell him he controls.
Everything else, abilities/spells/etc, are under the control of the DM where it is not specified to be under the control of the players'.
Spells do exactly what they say they do. No more, and no less. It tells you exactly what the player's choose. Number and CR. That's it. No more and no less. The player choosing the type of creature would fall under No More.

[SharkForce]

No.
We're not discussing teh use of a PC ability, we're discussing the use of a spell.
But even if we were discussing teh use of a PC ability, the DM is sitill in control of that as well, because the ability itself is not the PC.
The player controls the PC, and what the rules tell him he controls.
Everything else, abilities/spells/etc, are under the control of the DM where it is not specified to be under the control of the players'.
Spells do exactly what they say they do. No more, and no less. It tells you exactly what the player's choose. Number and CR. That's it. No more and no less. The player choosing the type of creature would fall under No More.

spells *are* PC abilities, when they're being used by PCs. it isn't part of the world at large, it is part of the PC. it originates from the PC, and would have no existence in the world if the PC was not doing it. certainly, a DM is free to change rules as desired, and in this case, there isn't a clearly stated rule, but no, this is no more defaulting to the DM than any other PC ability. the DM doesn't decide when the fighter uses the power attack portion of GWM, or when the barbarian uses reckless attack, why would he by default decide what the PC is summoning when there is absolutely no text anywhere stating that summoning works differently then all the other PC abilities where the player decides?

[DivisibleByZero]

there is absolutely no text anywhere stating that summoning works differently then all the other PC abilities where the player decides?

It isn't different.
The rules tell the player what he chooses, whether it be a target, or a number and CR, or whatever. Beyond that, it's all in the DM's hands.
There is no text stating that it's different because it isn't different at all. The player only gets to decide what the rules tell him to make a decision about.
The type of creature summoned is not included in what he was told to decide. He was told to choose a number/CR combination. That's it.

You're reading things that aren't written.

[SharkForce]

It isn't different.
The rules tell the player what he chooses, whether it be a target, or a number and CR, or whatever. Beyond that, it's all in the DM's hands.
There is no text stating that it's different because it isn't different at all. The player only gets to decide what the rules tell him to make a decision about.
The type of creature summoned is not included in what he was told to decide. He was told to choose a number/CR combination. That's it.

You're reading things that aren't written.

uh-huh.

you got a rule for your default everything is under total DM control rule? the one you're insisting is there?

because everywhere i see the role of the DM described, it talks about creating the setting, and adjudicating, but nowhere does it say everything except what is explicitly specified to be under player control being under DM control. which is probably a good thing, because there is all kinds of stuff that they never explicitly put under player control. who chooses race? not specified. there are guidelines for how you should choose a race, but it never says the player decides, so i guess that must be DM's decision. who chooses class? guess what: not specified. guess that must be the DM too.

the rule you are claiming to follow does not appear any place that i can find it, and makes for all kinds of stupidity if we actually follow it. the DM creates the world. absolutely nothing specifies that what you summon is part of the world as opposed to being part of a character's actions.

i can certainly understand that someone might want to prevent pixie spam, but insisting that imaginary rules are real ones is a dumb way to go about doing that. fix the CR on pixies and pixie spam stops being a problem. heck, just be up-front about it, state that pixies are a problem so you're banning them and only them, problem solved. but there's no reason to make all summoning spells a gamble just to fix one specific problem. that's just stupid. there's no need to use a chainsaw to perform surgery when a scalpel does the job just fine but with far less collateral damage.

[DivisibleByZero]

I stopped reading when you claimed that it doesn't specify who chooses a race. Because that's literally the first thing under creating a character.
Step 1. Choose a Race
Whoever is creating the character chooses the race.

[Strangways]

There is an ongoing debate as to the veracity of that statement - RAW states nothing on the choice bar what CR the creatures are, only that the DM has the stats.

It is reasonable to assume that as the GM you can decide to interpret however you want.

Per the Sage Advice Compendium, Wizards of the Coast has made clear that the intent of the spell is that the player chooses the CR and the DM chooses which creatures of that CR appear in response. Just determine the creature randomly and the DM can drastically reduce the problem of pixie abuse.

[Deleted]

Hey guys,

I'm DMing a group of 5 level 11s and the druid is dominating every encounter I throw at them. He keeps just summoning a bunch of fey creatures and then shapeshifting into various animals (which he will easily do twice). He has the War Caster feat and most of the time he is able to pass any concentration check he has to make.

Any advice to make the encounters more challenging for him? We are at a point in the campaign where it wouldn't be strange for enemies to start targeting him specifically (He is a druid in a forest that is being taken over by evil fey and they have encountered druids before and know what powers they posses).

Rival druids watch the party fight a few times. Let's say 5 times.

The more information that the Druid PC gives them, the stronger they become. At first they are just people watching the fights, after they see the PC wildhshape the druids start to wildshape, after they see the Druid PC summon...

Have them be quite obviously taking down notes and have them not antagonize the party. Hell, they may even heal the party up so they can get more information later. Maybe even have them hero worship the druid in some fashion.

Have the group of druids offer the Druid PC leadership of their circle, if the player accepts then the player rolls up a new character. If the player doesn't accept... Well... The Druid Circle isn't to fond of people saying no to them.

Now, there is an in game explanation that says why the enemy can counter the party and why all the abilities of the Druid don't work as well.

Have the Druid Circle target the Druid PC's allies, use the injury chart in the DMG for funsies. These druids aren't trying to kill the PCs, just injure/convince the Druid to join them (by showing their might... They aren't the smartest bunch, but they are quite wise in the ways of nature).

[SharkForce]

I stopped reading when you claimed that it doesn't specify who chooses a race. Because that's literally the first thing under creating a character.
Step 1. Choose a Race
Whoever is creating the character chooses the race.

1) if there's no disclaimer that the rule you're claiming exists doesn't apply when it's inconvenient for the argument you're making, i'm afraid the rule must still apply even when it's inconvient for you. if the rule is to be selectively ignored with no indication of when to selectively ignore it, then it is a completely useless rule.

2) sounds like you still read far enough to get to the part where i asked you to provide the rule then, and are either unwilling or unable to provide such a reference. given that i've already shown how blatantly nonsense that rule would be if it did exist, i'm frankly inclined to suspect that there is, in fact, no such rule.

[Twizzly513]

If all of these fey creatures are having that much of an impact on the fight, NPCs count as a PC when doling out XP for a fight if they had a large impact on it. If your power-gamer gets less XP from this strategy, he'll stop doing it. If he plays the "they came from me so it still counts as me doing it" card, you can inform him that this makes a lot of sense, and that you've revised your ruling to be that only his share of XP will be divided up among the summoned creatures. Y'know, just to be fair :smallbiggrin:

[Twizzly513]

because everywhere i see the role of the DM described, it talks about creating the setting, and adjudicating, but nowhere does it say everything except what is explicitly specified to be under player control being under DM control. which is probably a good thing, because there is all kinds of stuff that they never explicitly put under player control. who chooses race? not specified. there are guidelines for how you should choose a race, but it never says the player decides, so i guess that must be DM's decision. who chooses class? guess what: not specified. guess that must be the DM too.


Who... Who burned you?

Oh, also, I thought I'd just throw in a handy-dandy wikipedia definition:
In effect, the Dungeon Master controls all aspects of the game, except for the actions of the player characters (PCs)

[SharkForce]

Who... Who burned you?

Oh, also, I thought I'd just throw in a handy-dandy wikipedia definition:

if he's going to cite a nonexistant and nonsensical rule as the reason why a crap rule must be in the game, i'm going to point out the obvious gigantic flaws with it.

do i think that the books need to specify who chooses race? no. except, if they're dumb enough to state that anything not explicitly given to the players is given to the DM, they do. the lack of an explicit mention in something that "we all know" should be obviously under the player's control tells us that even if the rule that is being cited does exist, it cannot be relied upon; we already have some obvious situations where following that rule means doing ridiculous things, and that was just with a brief "hey, i wonder if it explicitly says you get to choose your own race". frankly, i'm sure there are plenty of other equally stupid and nonsensical implications to the rule he's claiming exists. i'm simply pointing out that the rule he's claiming we are supposed to follow is a terrible rule with terrible implications. yes, that does mean i pointed out a completely absurd thing and said "here, this is what following a terrible rule would get us". it does not mean i think we should follow the terrible rule. it means that i think the rule is terrible, that it has all kinds of terrible implications, and that the existence of such a terrible rule would be a horrible thing, if i believed any such rule was actually listed anywhere, that players only get to control what the books explicitly state they control.

as to the second point, wikipedia is not a source for D&D rules, it's a source for information about things in general, and if i'm the first person to tell you this i'm going to be disappointed, but:

wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for just about anything. it is a really cool resource, but it is ultimately something that can be edited by any person with no real justification required, and the only control on that is other people who can edit it with no real justification required. D&D is certainly not as contentious as, say... the holocaust, for example, but an argument based on wikipedia is essentially argumentum ad populum. that doesn't mean information on there is wrong, of course, but it does mean that information found there is based on what people think is true, not on what has been proven with rigorous testing or what has been proven based on objective evidence.

furthermore, in that wikipedia quote... how is summoning monsters not an action of the characters when it is done by a PC druid? you might feel like what comes in response toa conjure woodland beings spell is somehow definitely part of the world rather than part of the character, but how would you go about actually proving that to be true rather than just something you kinda decided was probably true based on that's how you think it should be? how do you know that the character isn't supposed to choose, again, bearing in mind that not everyone is even going to be aware of the statements the developers have made, which is not in any way incorporated into the rulebooks?

[damascoplay]

Well, summoning a bunch of feys is a good idea until a fey lord accidentally appears out of nowhere and tells them that they're going to the Summer Court for summoning fey creatures without their consent. Or a random fey creature is summoned and goes into a frenzy rage until everyone is dead.

Maybe the summoned feys are tired of being summoned every time a battle pops up? Maybe they're starting to dislike the druid and slowly stops obeing him? If he's summoning pixies, the next time he orders them to polymorph someone, they turn him into a sheep!

Or they are pulled throught a portal to the Feywilds and left to die in a place full of lycanthropes (You can make a quest out of this).

Easy.

:smalltongue:

[SharkForce]

Well, summoning a bunch of feys is a good idea until a fey lord accidentally appears out of nowhere and tells them that they're going to the Summer Court for summoning fey creatures without their consent. Or a random fey creature is summoned and goes into a frenzy rage until everyone is dead.

Maybe the summoned feys are tired of being summoned every time a battle pops up? Maybe they're starting to dislike the druid and slowly stops obeing him? If he's summoning pixies, the next time he orders them to polymorph someone, they turn him into a sheep!

Or they are pulled throught a portal to the Feywilds and left to die in a place full of lycanthropes (You can make a quest out of this).

Easy.

:smalltongue:

or, fix the problem instead of ambushing your players (and no, i didn't mean characters there) by abusing your power. you've been given a position of trust. you should be using it to fix problems, not to become one. rewriting the PHB without telling the players about it is a **** move.

you can resolve the problem by talking to the party, by implementing the full adventuring day somehow-or-other (if you don't want to do full gritty realism variant, consider going partway; 8 hours is a short rest, 24 hours is a long rest, and provide some minimal sense of urgency, even if it's just a matter of their enemies having more time to prepare - and your party should never want to give their enemies time to prepare), by at the very least telling the party about necessary changes you're making (which should never feel like they're targeted at the players, but rather at the problem in the system, if there is one - if 8 wolves is too strong, tell the group you're changing the CR 1/4 option to be only 6 monsters or something, or maybe change the options to 6 CR 1/4, 3 CR 1/2, 2 CR 1, or 1 CR 2).

but yanking the rug out from under the players? that's just wrong. you're getting together to have fun. this isn't a competition you're trying to win, it's a game you're trying to play together because you enjoy it. the DM may play the PC's enemies, but the DM should never *be* the PC's enemy.

[Chugger]

According to Sage Advice, there is no ambiguity. DMs choice.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/09/conjure-woodland-beings-pixies-and-giant-apes/

This leads to abuse on the other end, like DMs deliberately and maliciously picking useless and humiliating animals or fey to show up. A lot of DMs ignore this Sage Advice, and the obvious answer is to disallow pixies but allow the druid to have at least some voice in what arrives. It's not like the old spell, where you rolled what arrived because you were literally summoning a creature from nearby to be your ally. These are spirits sent to aid you that materialize into a form - so why wouldn't the caster pick the form?

Because the caster picks pixies all the time and breaks the game, so just disallow pixies - or these pixies that show up can't polymorph but do something much weaker and CR appropriate. Because the fey spirits that the spell called can't do the full pixie thing.

Okay so he summons wolves and knocks prone all the monsters and breaks the game. Then let the druid request what shows up but occasionally have - or x percent of the time have the spirits mess it up - they arrive as hyennas instead because glitch - but sometimes let him have his wolves. (edit - or if two dire wolves are requested send a dire wolf and a giant hyenna - cuz that fey spirit has never seen a dire wolf and did the best it could - there are so many other choices/options besides being a jerk - and DM choice here feels so much like over-control - being a jerk - at least to me and a lot of the players I know - so easy to be heavy-handed, but that sucks). Just make sure what is fighting them is a challenge.

Mostly if what you're hitting them with is too easy, change the type of monsters that attack - try a more caster oriented monster team maybe - make the monsters harder - if average hp for monster is 61 but their hit dice would allow more - like 80 - give them 80 and see if that makes it challenging enough.

Go for challenging enough, not wipe them out. Or you will break your game and find yourself with an empty table.

[Chugger]

Well, summoning a bunch of feys is a good idea until a fey lord accidentally appears out of nowhere and tells them that they're going to the Summer Court for summoning fey creatures without their consent. Or a random fey creature is summoned and goes into a frenzy rage until everyone is dead.

Maybe the summoned feys are tired of being summoned every time a battle pops up? Maybe they're starting to dislike the druid and slowly stops obeing him? If he's summoning pixies, the next time he orders them to polymorph someone, they turn him into a sheep!

Or they are pulled throught a portal to the Feywilds and left to die in a place full of lycanthropes (You can make a quest out of this).

Easy.

:smalltongue:

I hope you're joking - you're making a face so maybe you are - but please no one actually do this sort of thing at your table. This is akin to a DM saying, "Well I'm sick as poop of parties abusing fireball, so the next time they cast fireball they accidentally opened a vortex into the elemental plane of fire and let through an Elemental Fire Lord who killed them all" ... this is horrid DM'ing imho. But this is what passes too often as DM'ing and I have no idea why players accept it (a lot don't - a lot of players, once they realize it's "one of those DMs", leave and never come back).

There are other (and I think better) ways to solve this. Seriously.

[Deleted]

or, fix the problem instead of ambushing your players (and no, i didn't mean characters there) by abusing your power. you've been given a position of trust. you should be using it to fix problems, not to become one. rewriting the PHB without telling the players about it is a **** move.

you can resolve the problem by talking to the party, by implementing the full adventuring day somehow-or-other (if you don't want to do full gritty realism variant, consider going partway; 8 hours is a short rest, 24 hours is a long rest, and provide some minimal sense of urgency, even if it's just a matter of their enemies having more time to prepare - and your party should never want to give their enemies time to prepare), by at the very least telling the party about necessary changes you're making (which should never feel like they're targeted at the players, but rather at the problem in the system, if there is one - if 8 wolves is too strong, tell the group you're changing the CR 1/4 option to be only 6 monsters or something, or maybe change the options to 6 CR 1/4, 3 CR 1/2, 2 CR 1, or 1 CR 2).

but yanking the rug out from under the players? that's just wrong. you're getting together to have fun. this isn't a competition you're trying to win, it's a game you're trying to play together because you enjoy it. the DM may play the PC's enemies, but the DM should never *be* the PC's enemy.

If you give ample warning, in amd out of character, having the pixies start to get annoyed and then hostile would make a lot of sense in game.

Start off with the pixie saying flatly "oh, another battle, and here I thought it might be for tea or a fancy dinner!" when it's summoned. Then lead further and further into the pixies hating the PC. Eventually have them serve the PC papers that's a court order to calm down on the harassment. If the PC doesn't comply then further action may be taken.

Build it up slowly, build it up in such a way that the other players will be on the side of the pixies.

Start using the long term injury rules in the DMG for the pixies (and other summon creatures)? When the druid is forcing a creature with a broken arm to fight or be in battle... Yeah not good. Espevially if these are "young" pixies who are just temp summons or with their first summer job (rimshot).

Maybe they do unionize or bring the PCs to court, but whatever you do, give a fair warning. Make it a complete campaign/side quest out of it. Don't just instantly drop rocks, let the player put the rocks up, set the trap, and have their character spring said trap while standing under it...

It should almost always be the player's fault when bad stuff happens. Their characters chose the path.

[SharkForce]

If you give ample warning, in amd out of character, having the pixies start to get annoyed and then hostile would make a lot of sense in game.

Start off with the pixie saying flatly "oh, another battle, and here I thought it might be for tea or a fancy dinner!" when it's summoned. Then lead further and further into the pixies hating the PC. Eventually have them serve the PC papers that's a court order to calm down on the harassment. If the PC doesn't comply then further action may be taken.

Build it up slowly, build it up in such a way that the other players will be on the side of the pixies.

Start using the long term injury rules in the DMG for the pixies (and other summon creatures)? When the druid is forcing a creature with a broken arm to fight or be in battle... Yeah not good. Espevially if these are "young" pixies who are just temp summons or with their first summer job (rimshot).

Maybe they do unionize or bring the PCs to court, but whatever you do, give a fair warning. Make it a complete campaign/side quest out of it. Don't just instantly drop rocks, let the player put the rocks up, set the trap, and have their character spring said trap while standing under it...

It should almost always be the player's fault when bad stuff happens. Their characters chose the path.

no, not really.

supposing instead of conjure woodland beings, we were to replace this with, say.... always using a polearm. should the polearms unionize and start randomly turning into cursed polearms? i mean, you could give lots of warning and everything.

if something is unbalanced, fix it, and do it openly by talking to the group. don't make it annoying to use, or suddenly backfire just because. make it balanced.

[Deleted]

no, not really.

supposing instead of conjure woodland beings, we were to replace this with, say.... always using a polearm. should the polearms unionize and start randomly turning into cursed polearms? i mean, you could give lots of warning and everything.

if something is unbalanced, fix it, and do it openly by talking to the group. don't make it annoying to use, or suddenly backfire just because. make it balanced.

Bad example.

The fix is already part of the rules (the DM picks what shows up), which doesn't seem to be something that is on the table. So, work with what you do have and make it a plot hook... You know, put a bit of effort into things and engage the player with what they're giving you.

You aren't taking the spell away from them. The druid still has the spell, just can't spam the broken power option.

When comparing this situation to weapons (which in itself isn't a fair comparison lol, weapons do one thing and one thing only whereas summons are much more versatile)... it just doesn't hold up. It would be more like if the player had a class feature that allowed the player to hire cohorts that could do all sorts of things.

In which case the local union/guild would probably get mad if the cohorts were coming back harmed, unpaid, and abused.

[nilshai]

Per the Sage Advice Compendium, Wizards of the Coast has made clear that the intent of the spell is that the player chooses the CR and the DM chooses which creatures of that CR appear in response. Just determine the creature randomly and the DM can drastically reduce the problem of pixie abuse.

Yes and it was a pathetic attempt to rectify their error with summoning masses of pixies. They threw every summon spell in the trash, while they could've simply added errata to the pixie, increasing it's CR to 1 or 2 - problem solved, everyone happy.

[Unoriginal]

Yes and it was a pathetic attempt to rectify their error with summoning masses of pixies. They threw every summon spell in the trash, while they could've simply added errata to the pixie, increasing it's CR to 1 or 2 - problem solved, everyone happy.

Except those who would have called it a pathetic attempt to rectify their error

[RickAllison]

Break the druid's concentration. Even with warcaster, there are still many ways to break concentration.

-Magic Missile on the druid means 3+ concentration saves.
....
-Have an enemy cast Moonbeam on the druid. the druid will have disadvantage on the save against it (shapechanger), and will be forced out of the animal form


You have some problems here. Magic Missile doesn't work because all the darts are simultaneous and only trigger one concentration save. Same reason why you roll one damage die for all of them and why the Evoker gets to apply the damage to each one. Scorching Ray could do it, especially since the Druid probably has low AC. Also, being a shapechanger is different than being able to change shape. Shapechanger is a creature subtype, while being able to change shape is a feature. Every shapechanger can change shape to some extent, but creatures like metallic dragons and imps can change shape without being shapechangers.

So Magic Missile only forces one save, and Moonbeam only does damage.

[DivisibleByZero]

Bad example.

The fix is already part of the rules (the DM picks what shows up),

The problem is that he doesn't understand this, or won't admit it.

[Jerrykhor]

You have some problems here. Magic Missile doesn't work because all the darts are simultaneous and only trigger one concentration save. Same reason why you roll one damage die for all of them and why the Evoker gets to apply the damage to each one. Scorching Ray could do it, especially since the Druid probably has low AC. Also, being a shapechanger is different than being able to change shape. Shapechanger is a creature subtype, while being able to change shape is a feature. Every shapechanger can change shape to some extent, but creatures like metallic dragons and imps can change shape without being shapechangers.

So Magic Missile only forces one save, and Moonbeam only does damage.

Its not that simple if you go by strict reading. In the PHB, it is stated that if you take damage from multiple sources, you make separate saving throws from each source of damage. The word 'source' was not defined, but by plain English meaning, it would refer to the creature from which the damage came from. But they gave an example of a 'source' of damage, which is 'an arrow'.

If a single arrow is considered a source of damage, then 4 arrows from the same creature would be 4 sources of damage.

This proves that for Magic Missile, 1 dart=1 source of damage, 3 darts=3 sources of damage. No mention if the damage being simultaneous matters or not, so we can safely assume that it does not.

However, Mike Mearls did say that MM is one source. But I wouldn't put much stock in that, since he has known to be wrong some times (And I think I made a strong case here). Also, the roll one d4 for all 3 darts is pretty stupid. The spell description only says that a dart deals 1d4+1 damage, so common sense would tell you that 3 darts would be 3d4+3. The darts being simultaneous should not even mean anything, since 'simultaneous damage' is not even a mechanic.

[DivisibleByZero]

In this case, the source is the spell, not the number of missiles. The fact that it is simultaneous does indeed matter here.
How many magic missile spells did he take damage from that turn?

[Jerrykhor]

In this case, the source is the spell, not the number of missiles. The fact that it is simultaneous does indeed matter here.
How many magic missile spells did he take damage from that turn?

No it is not. WotC are not using the word 'source' correctly, otherwise the source would be the weapon used, or the creature that is using it. And no matter how many arrows he shot at the same creature, it would be one source.

But instead, the example given was 'arrow'. So yeah, the equivalent would be the dart, not the spell.

[RickAllison]

No it is not. WotC are not using the word 'source' correctly, otherwise the source would be the weapon used, or the creature that is using it. And no matter how many arrows he shot at the same creature, it would be one source.

But instead, the example given was 'arrow'. So yeah, each dart is a source, not the spell.

The problem is that "four arrows" does not necessarily equate to what is happening with Magic Missile. Four arrows from your Friendly Neighborhood Fighter or Eldritch Blasts or Scorching Rays are distinctly different sources of damage while Magic Missile is a weird spell that would be more analogous to a magic shotgun. You wouldn't have the Druid make twenty saves against Conjure Barrage, but that spell is even more literally multiple arrows.

[SharkForce]

Bad example.

The fix is already part of the rules (the DM picks what shows up), which doesn't seem to be something that is on the table. So, work with what you do have and make it a plot hook... You know, put a bit of effort into things and engage the player with what they're giving you.

You aren't taking the spell away from them. The druid still has the spell, just can't spam the broken power option.

When comparing this situation to weapons (which in itself isn't a fair comparison lol, weapons do one thing and one thing only whereas summons are much more versatile)... it just doesn't hold up. It would be more like if the player had a class feature that allowed the player to hire cohorts that could do all sorts of things.

In which case the local union/guild would probably get mad if the cohorts were coming back harmed, unpaid, and abused.

it is not part of the rules. it is part of the official clarification provided by the devs, which is found online, not in the rulebooks, and not in the errata. nowhere in the actual rules will you find solid evidence that the DM is supposed to choose what gets summoned. it doesn't say that they do, or that they don't, but a lack of rules is not rules, it's just a lack of rules. the fact that it doesn't say the DM doesn't choose does not by default mean that the DM does choose; i've already demonstrated how stupid such a rule would be, and what kind of idiotic nonsense would come from it.

and no, it isn't like a class feature that allows you to hire cohorts. it is like if you had an ability that gives you a minion that obeys your orders, and the DM decides to rewrite the ability after you've gotten it to suddenly require a bunch of stuff that the ability didn't require, going out of their way to make it inconvient and annoying so that they can pretend they're not being a jackass because they supposedly didn't nerf the ability, instead of just resolving it like a decent person should.

let's look at it another way: imagine you're playing a free-to-play MMORPG. the devs have decided that an ability you have is too powerful (and honestly, it probably is, at least when used in a certain way). however, instead of fixing the one abuse case, they decide to just make it increasingly inconvenient and annoying and eventually have the ability randomly backfire when you use it instead of fixing their mistake.

how do you respond? do you think that change would be enjoyable for you? or would you perhaps feel inclined to leave?

now, to be clear, i don't think any competent company would do that. but let's stop and think about that. the thing you're proposing to do to your friends? that is something that a corporation that only cares about your potential to spend money wouldn't even do to you. your friends would *literally* be better off in this case to have a corporation that doesn't give a damn about them making the decision than they would be having you make this decision.

that is how much of a giant foul-smelling pile of rancid bull poop this idea is. it is so blatantly awful that someone who doesn't care about you in the slightest would not do it to you.

you are the DM. the players have put you in a position of trust, and given (yes, given, you have no power over them beyond what they give you) you the power to fix problems as needed. you should use it to fix problems, and not to be one.

edit:
Except those who would have called it a pathetic attempt to rectify their error

but it would at least be a pathetic attempt to rectify their error that didn't ruin something that otherwise works. pixie spam is a problem. sprite spam is not. the rational conclusion is that there is a problem with pixies, rather than a problem with a spell that can summon pixies or sprites, and the rational solution is to fix the problem with pixies instead of making a crappy ruling that impacts the entire spell that was not the problem in the first place.

[Jerrykhor]

The problem is that "four arrows" does not necessarily equate to what is happening with Magic Missile. Four arrows from your Friendly Neighborhood Fighter or Eldritch Blasts or Scorching Rays are distinctly different sources of damage while Magic Missile is a weird spell that would be more analogous to a magic shotgun. You wouldn't have the Druid make twenty saves against Conjure Barrage, but that spell is even more literally multiple arrows.

You are right on the 'weird' part. I have a hard time imagining how the darts can strike simultaneously on two different targets that are each 5ft and 120 ft away from the caster.

[greenstone]

He keeps just summoning a bunch of fey creatures

Note that conjure fey and conjure elemental both have a casting time of 1 minute, not 1 action. They are not spells a druid is going to cast in combat. Well, they might, but it the party going to let the druid spend the first 10 rounds contributing nothing? Also, if lots of foes are hitting the druid, sometime in those 1 rounds there is going to be a failed concentration roll, which ruins the casting..

So, make sure some combats are not telegraphed.

The summoned creatures do stay around for an hour, but if some of them are killed in one combat, they don't regenerate. If you lose three pixies then you have lost those three for the rest of the hour.

That is also an entire hour of concentration. In that hour the druid cannot cast any other concetration spells; they cannot ready any spells; they cannot cast any spells of casting time longer than 1 action (which includes any ritual casting); they cannot become incapacitated or petrified or unconscious; they cannot use any magic items that require concentration.

Concentration can also be broken by spells like sleet storm, earthquake and storm of vengeance. At low HP in beast form, a good old sleep spell can also do it. A foe could charm the druid and order them to drop concentration.

Note that in beast form the druid is using the beast's CON score, not their own (though they still get proficieincy and feat benefits). Note also that concentration saves are the higher of 10 and half-damage. For example, if they take 25 points of damage then the saving throw DC is 12, not 10.


and then shapeshifting into various animals (which he will easily do twice).

Yep, that's what Druids do. Make sure you give them opportunities to shine and feel like a badass.

If too much resting is an issue then give them more combats or give them a time limit. For example, if the PCs enter the dungeon, have two combats, and then withdraw and rest then have the dungeon inhabitants reinforce, so that when the PCs enter the next day, they fight the same battles a second time. Alternatively, have the dungeon inhabitants just leave, taking all their stuff. No XP and no treasure for the party.:smallbiggrin:

[greenstone]

You are right on the 'weird' part. I have a hard time imagining how the darts can strike simultaneously on two different targets that are each 5ft and 120 ft away from the caster.

Magic missile is an area-effect spell that only hits some people. Think of it as a very discriminating fireball.

[DivisibleByZero]

it is not part of the rules. it is part of the official clarification provided by the devs,

It is part of the rules. That's the part which you don't understand.
Originally it could have potentially been read either way.
They clarified which way was the correct way to read it, even though there was no need, because that clarification only served to state exactly what was already known, this being that spells only do exactly what they state and no more. In this case, they state that the player chooses a number/CR combination.
If it could have potentially been read in two different ways, and they clarify which way is correct, that clarification becomes part of the RAW.
The clarification does not change the RAW. The clarification does not conflict with the RAW. The clarification only serves to make it clear which way it should be read, and as such it is indeed the RAW.

[Talamare]

It is part of the rules. That's the part which you don't understand.
Originally it could have potentially been read either way.
They clarified which way was the correct way to read it, even though there was no need, because that clarification only served to state exactly what was already known, this being that spells only do exactly what they state and no more. In this case, they state that the player chooses a number/CR combination.
If it could have potentially been read in two different ways, and they clarify which way is correct, that clarification becomes part of the RAW.
The clarification does not change the RAW. The clarification does not conflict with the RAW. The clarification only serves to make it clear which way it should be read, and as such it is indeed the RAW.

Stop trying to phrase your wording as if it's fact.
Sage Advice is a Designers Opinion on how it should work.

Official Errata are Official Clarification.

[DivisibleByZero]

Stop trying to phrase your wording as if it's fact.
Sage Advice is a Designers Opinion on how it should work.

Official Errata are Official Clarification.

It's not opinion. It is indeed fact.

"This thing can be read two ways. Which is correct?"
"This one is correct.'
"OK, thanks."

[Talamare]

It's not opinion. It is indeed fact.

"This thing can be read two ways. Which is correct?"
"This one is correct.'
"OK, thanks."

Errata are RAW Clarification

Everything else, EVERYTHING... is opinion.
It doesn't matter if it was the original person who wrote it, designed it, created it.
Unless it's an Official Errata, it's an opinion.

Do you disagree?
That's a nice opinion.

[DivisibleByZero]

Errata are RAW Clarification

Everything else, EVERYTHING... is opinion.
It doesn't matter if it was the original person who wrote it, designed it, created it.
Unless it's an Official Errata, it's an opinion.

Do you disagree?
That's a nice opinion.

It doesn't matter if I disagree.
WotC disagrees, and states as much in the Sage Advice Compendium.

Sage Advice Compendium (http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SA-Compendium.pdf), via WotC's website (http://dnd.wizards.com/sage-advice-compendium):

Header from that download page:
Sage Advice Compendium
This document compiles Sage Advice answers, organized by topic.

Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice. The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice and on Twitter.

(That's precisely what has happened here. Both by being printed in this Compendium by JC under Sage Advice via WotC's site, and by being confirmed MULTIPLE TIMES via Twitter as well.... This is the official Ruling. Read on.)

Compiled Answers
Sage Advice answers that are relevant to the current state of the rules are compiled here. An answer that has become obsolete isn’t included in this compilation.

(That it is still present tells us that it remains relevant.)

When you cast a spell like conjure woodland beings, does the spellcaster or the DM choose the creatures that are conjured?
A number of spells in the game let you summon creatures. Conjure animals, conjure celestial, conjure minor elementals, and conjure woodland beings are just a few examples.
Some spells of this sort specify that the spellcaster chooses the creature conjured. For example, find familiar gives the caster a list of animals to choose from.
Other spells of this sort let the spellcaster choose from among several broad options. For example, conjure minor elementals offers four options. Here are the first two:
• One elemental of challenge rating 2 or lower
• Two elementals of challenge rating 1 or lower
The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option. For example, if you pick the second option, the DM chooses the two elementals that have a challenge rating of 1 or lower.
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.

*****

Are you now going to try to argue that WotC flat out telling you that this is the Official Ruling, when placed under a position where it has been explained as the Official Ruling, that this is just their opinion?
No.
They lay out that public statements are opinions, and that Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice, which is exactly where that came from (and sometimes from Twitter via JC as well).
It's not opinion.
It's the rule. They flat out tell you that it's the rule.

DM chooses.
That's the Rule.
Get over it.

You can argue all day long about how you think it's stupid. You can ignore that if you want to. You cannot, however, say that it isn't Official or that it's just an opinion. If you do make either of those claims, then WotC says that you're wrong.
It's not someone's opinion. It's a fact that this is the Official Ruling.

So once again:

Stop trying to phrase your wording as if it's fact.
Sage Advice is a Designers Opinion on how it should work.

Official Errata are Official Clarification.
It's not opinion. It is indeed fact.

"This thing can be read two ways. Which is correct?"
"This one is correct.'
"OK, thanks."
It's not my claim that this is a fact, it's WotC's claim that this is a fact.
Sage Advice is certainly NOT just "a Designers Opinion on how it should work." Sage Advice is (and I quote, directly from Sage Advice): "Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules."

And so I'll repeat the post which you seemingly took issue with:

It is part of the rules. That's the part which you don't understand.
Originally it could have potentially been read either way.
They clarified which way was the correct way to read it, even though there was no need, because that clarification only served to state exactly what was already known, this being that spells only do exactly what they state and no more. In this case, they state that the player chooses a number/CR combination.
If it could have potentially been read in two different ways, and they clarify which way is correct, that clarification becomes part of the RAW.
The clarification does not change the RAW. The clarification does not conflict with the RAW. The clarification only serves to make it clear which way it should be read, and as such it is indeed the RAW.

[RickAllison]

Errata are RAW Clarification

Everything else, EVERYTHING... is opinion.
It doesn't matter if it was the original person who wrote it, designed it, created it.
Unless it's an Official Errata, it's an opinion.

Do you disagree?
That's a nice opinion.

DBZ is over simplifying, but so are you. Sage Advice is not just an opinion, it is the official ruling. This is different from a rule in that it does not have to be binding. A rule change like in the errata makes deviating from the rule a change that must be announced as a houserule, and the implication is that it matters for the balance of the game. A ruling can vary from table to table without constituting an actual change, and the implication is that any ambiguity can be resolved either way and be balanced, with the DM having the call on which one applies. But the Sage Advice is the official interpretation, the intended function of the rules. This doesn't mean every table must use it, but it is the standard from which other rulings are measured.

So while you don't have to use the official ruling, it is definitely confirmation that it is a valid ruling. A DM can decide that Magic Missile procs multiple concentration saves, but a player could and should put forth the deleterious effect this has on concentration spells and thus game balance (remember that such a ruling impacts not just the druid, but the relatively UP sorcerer and NPCs as well. Moonbeam can be ruled to affect anyone that changes shape, but a player should point out how this means that Moonbeam negates Shapechange (a spell that transforms the user), dragons taking humanoid/beast forms, and numerous other effects. Perhaps more importantly, this also means other interactions with shapechangers also are affected. The PC that casts Polymorph on a Night Hag will find that the spell doesn't work at all, and the lich that Mass Polymorphs the party finds that both the wizard (Transmuter) and druid simply shrug it off and proceed to wreck face.

[Contrast]

It is part of the rules. That's the part which you don't understand.
Originally it could have potentially been read either way.
They clarified which way was the correct way to read it, even though there was no need, because that clarification only served to state exactly what was already known, this being that spells only do exactly what they state and no more. In this case, they state that the player chooses a number/CR combination.
If it could have potentially been read in two different ways, and they clarify which way is correct, that clarification becomes part of the RAW.
The clarification does not change the RAW. The clarification does not conflict with the RAW. The clarification only serves to make it clear which way it should be read, and as such it is indeed the RAW.

If only there were some useful three letter acronym for when the developers wrote the Rules As Written in an ambiguous way that could potentially be read multiple ways but then later on clarified what the Rules As Intended were... :smalltongue:

Edit: And to quote the relevant Sage Advice (emphasis mine):


The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option.

Also, to be clear - I agree this is the way you should run your games, though if I was DMing I would give significant weight to what the player wanted and functionally let the player choose in most situations unless they wanted something really weird or a load of pixies.

[DivisibleByZero]

If only there were some useful three letter acronym for when the developers wrote the Rules As Written in an ambiguous way that could potentially be read multiple ways but then later on clarified what the Rules As Intended were... :smalltongue:

Edit: And to quote the relevant Sage Advice (emphasis mine):

You're cherry picking.
The relevant quote from SA is all of it, but most importantly the first portion.

Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice.

This tells us that what follows is the official answer.
Full stop.


When you cast a spell like conjure woodland beings, does the spellcaster or the DM choose the creatures that are conjured?
A number of spells in the game let you summon creatures. Conjure animals, conjure celestial, conjure minor elementals, and conjure woodland beings are just a few examples.
Some spells of this sort specify that the spellcaster chooses the creature conjured. For example, find familiar gives the caster a list of animals to choose from.
Other spells of this sort let the spellcaster choose from among several broad options. For example, conjure minor elementals offers four options. Here are the first two:
• One elemental of challenge rating 2 or lower
• Two elementals of challenge rating 1 or lower
The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option. For example, if you pick the second option, the DM chooses the two elementals that have a challenge rating of 1 or lower.
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.

So the full answer is that the spell functions exactly as its description states.
The whole "design intent" portion is irrelevant.
The spell does exactly what the spells states that it does. No more, no less.
Big shocker that this is the "design intent." Claiming that the spell does precisely what the spell says that it does, and no more, does not shift this to an RAI issue. It CEMENTS the the RAW was written exactly the way that it was meant.

The RAW says that the caster chooses a number/CR combo. It does not say that he chooses the specific creatures(s).
The "design intent" is described as the caster choosing a number/CR combo, but not the specific creatures(s).
The RAW and the RAI are in complete agreement and alignment, with absolutely ZERO deviation between them.
All the clarification does is reiterate that the RAW for the spell was written correctly, and that the spell does exactly what it says and not one single thing more than that.
That's not a RAW vs RAI problem, that's a reading comprehension problem.

[Vaz]

If you give ample warning, in amd out of character, having the pixies start to get annoyed and then hostile would make a lot of sense in game.

Start off with the pixie saying flatly "oh, another battle, and here I thought it might be for tea or a fancy dinner!" when it's summoned. Then lead further and further into the pixies hating the PC. Eventually have them serve the PC papers that's a court order to calm down on the harassment. If the PC doesn't comply then further action may be taken.


Bonus points for getting a hit of helium before hand.

[Deleted]

Bonus points for getting a hit of helium before hand.

Go home folks, thread is over.

#winnerwinnerchickendinner

[SharkForce]

i never said sage advice articles are unofficial. i said they're not in the rules. if you're playing 5e, you presumably have the PHB, and you thus have access to that information. no similar assumption can be made for having the internet; your internet might be down just now, you might be playing D&D with your friends on an aircraft carrier in the middle of an ocean, you might just not ever bother checking the internet for answers, and so forth.

i have, in fact, made it perfectly clear multiple times in this very thread that this is the official clarification.

but what i have also said is that NO, for the love of all that is holy, this is NOT a situation where sage advice is simply telling us something we all already knew. this is a new ruling. it is not found in the PHB, it is never stated with anything even remotely approaching clarity in the PHB, and yet people keep on insisting that this is just a logical continuation of the rules in the PHB, as if this was the only way it could ever have been interpreted.

it further irritates me that these same people are insisting that it was clear in the PHB on the basis of rules that they have not actually provided so much as the tiniest shred of evidence that they exist. there is no rule that the players only control things that the books explicitly claim they control. you can scream about it all you want, but it still doesn't exist, and if it did, it would be the dumbest rule in the entire book.

it is perfectly reasonable for anyone reading the PHB to conclude that the character is supposed to have control over the summoning spell. it is, after all, their spell. yes, there is clarification outside of the PHB, but that clarification is not now and never has been in the PHB, and to attempt to claim that this clarification which is not in the PHB proves that the PHB always said what the clarification says is complete and utter nonsense. if the PHB was ever clear, it wouldn't have needed an official clarification. if i go ask the sage whether fighters are supposed to get their fighting style at level 1, assuming he even answers such an inane question, he isn't going to make an official clarification, he'll just tell me what's in the book, as he does on a regular basis when answering questions about stuff that is perfectly clearly explained in the books.

personally, i also feel that it is a stupid clarification to make. the only benefit is that it blocks off pixie spam, but again, that's only a benefit in the first place because they *still* haven't gotten off their behinds to fix pixies in the first place, and it comes with drawbacks that the spells are stupidly unreliable for no rational explanation (or, alternately, with a large number of DMs including the entire AL, they just decide the rule is stupid and give control of the player's ability to the player).

[DivisibleByZero]

i never said sage advice articles are unofficial. i said they're not in the rules.

That is the official way to interpret the rule. So that is the official rule. So that is the rule.
One more time for you. This clarification did not change a thing. All it did was repeat that the spell does precisely what it says in the text, and not one single thing more than that.
No rule was altered or changed or adjusted or even clarified in any way. It was simply repeated; The spell does exactly what it says and not one thing beyond that. Period.
So yes, that is the rule.

[SharkForce]

That is the official way to interpret the rule. So that is the official rule. So that is the rule.
One more time for you. This clarification did not change a thing. All it did was repeat that the spell does precisely what it says in the text, and not one single thing more than that.
No rule was altered or changed or adjusted or even clarified in any way. It was simply repeated; The spell does exactly what it says and not one thing beyond that. Period.
So yes, that is the rule.

then feel free to actually provide a reference to the rule you're claiming exists.

there is no rule that says PCs only get control over what things they are explicitly stated to have control over. and for all your insistence that there is, you just keep on dodging the question over and over as to where this supposed rule actually is, but you still haven't actually provided any evidence for this rule you claim to be following.

[DivisibleByZero]

You want me to cite a rule stating that players only get to make the decisions which the spell explicitly asks them to make?
No.
Burden of proof is on you to show how players can make decisions beyond those which are specified to be in their control, not on me to prove the opposite.
We're all waiting.

[Contrast]

You're cherry picking.
The relevant quote from SA is all of it, but most importantly the first portion.

Official Rulings
Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice.

This tells us that what follows is the official answer.
Full stop.

I'm not disagreeing with you that that's how the spell should be played, just that the RAW is unambiguous. I'm a little confused by your stance that the RAW is undisputed given you seem to understand the original reading is unclear:


Originally it could have potentially been read either way.



That's not a RAW vs RAI problem, that's a reading comprehension problem.

To quote what rules as intended are in the context of Sage Advice (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings):


Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but fail with another.

When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.

I wasn't trying to cherry pick I was just pointing out that Mr Crawford specifically mentioned the designers intent in that Sage Advice I'm going to assume when he was answering that question he was answering it from a position of RAI given that the RAW is unspecific. If they had wanted to, they could have made it an errata and amended the text of the spell to clarify, in which case I would agree with you that the RAW was clear. They didn't so it isn't.

I'm perfectly content with the RAI ruling however :smallbiggrin:

[SharkForce]

You want me to cite a rule stating that players only get to make the decisions which the spell explicitly asks them to make?
No.
Burden of proof is on you to show how players can make decisions beyond those which are specified to be in their control, not on me to prove the opposite.
We're all waiting.

nope. it is your claim, not mine and your job to support it, not mine.

i've not made a claim that the text specifies who summons. my point is that the text is unclear and allows for either player or DM (or rather, that it does not disallow either), which is amply supported. by the fact that there is debate on it. by the fact that the sage put a clarification in an article intended to provide rulings on unclear text. by the fact that in spite of the official ruling, AL has run it following the other possible interpretation for years.

so, there's my claim with supporting proof. i'm not going to prove your claim, that's your job. so come on, out with it. you're insisting there's a rule that tells us players are limited only to decisions which are explicitly stated to be theirs. heck, i've even pointed out the implications if such a rule did actually exist, which were so mind-bogglingly stupid that you couldn't even manage to read the remainder of the post it was in (though again, i must point out that the place where i asked you several posts ago to provide any actual evidence that your supposed rule exists came before that point in the post, which you read up to, so you've got no excuse for not addressing this issue earlier).

so, here it is: put up or shut up. you insist that there is a rule that players only make decisions that they are explicitly given control over. prove it. your claim, not mine, your burden of proof, not mine.

[Deleted]

nope. it is your claim, not mine and your job to support it, not mine.

i've not made a claim that the text specifies who summons. my point is that the text is unclear and allows for either player or DM (or rather, that it does not disallow either), which is amply supported. by the fact that there is debate on it. by the fact that the sage put a clarification in an article intended to provide rulings on unclear text. by the fact that in spite of the official ruling, AL has run it following the other possible interpretation for years.

so, there's my claim with supporting proof. i'm not going to prove your claim, that's your job. so come on, out with it. you're insisting there's a rule that tells us players are limited only to decisions which are explicitly stated to be theirs. heck, i've even pointed out the implications if such a rule did actually exist, which were so mind-bogglingly stupid that you couldn't even manage to read the remainder of the post it was in (though again, i must point out that the place where i asked you several posts ago to provide any actual evidence that your supposed rule exists came before that point in the post, which you read up to, so you've got no excuse for not addressing this issue earlier).

so, here it is: put up or shut up. you insist that there is a rule that players only make decisions that they are explicitly given control over. prove it. your claim, not mine, your burden of proof, not mine.

DBZ quoted and supplied quite a lot of proof on his claims (words from WotC themselves) but it seems everyone who disagrees is just using the "fake news" argument against him just so they can drag this argument out longer and feel as if they "won" once DBZ eventually stops caring or replying.

[DivisibleByZero]

No.
The text tells you exactly the decision that you are to make. That decision is a number/cr combo.
You're claiming that the player gets to choose more. So what's your citation?

My citations otherwise, which I do not need to provide, but will anyway, are:
1. The spell description itself
2. The Sage Advice compendium.
3. JC's tweets confirming both of the former as being accurate.

OK. Your turn.
Name one SINGLE thing which states, or even implies, that any decision beyond number/cr is up to the player.
To use your words, put up or shut up. I'm not dodging. You, however, are.
Name one single thing which states or even implies that more decisions should be made by the player. Do it now.
Your previous claim, that being the absence of specificity, isn't enough. The spell tells you exactly what to decide. It is perfectly specific. You need to explain how you think more is warranted. Not how it isn't clear, because it is.

I have provided MORE THAN AMPLE proof of my claims.
Your turn.
One thing.
Go.

[Contrast]

I made a restaurant analogy earlier but we'll try again.

If you were buying a car and were told you needed to choose either a colour which came free or one with a cost and no other caveats were mentioned, would you assume that the garage got to choose the colour for you or would you assume you got to choose the colour?

To put it another way - if I choose to summon 2 dryads, what rule have I broken? The spell says one of my options is to choose two fey creatures of challenge rating 1 or lower and that's exactly what I've done. Now RAW the DM gets to give me the stat blocks for those dryads and those stat blocks don't have to match up to what is shown in the MM of course...

A typical common language interpretation of choose 'one thing of type x' or 'another thing of type y' is that the chooser gets to choose the type of thing. There are cases that isn't the case and there are cases where it is. RAW doesn't explain which is happening in this case so it's left up to inference and guesswork. If you're relying on inference and guesswork, RAW clearly isn't clear. Hence the demand for the sage advice which gave the RAI stance which clarified things.

[DivisibleByZero]

Was they supposed to be in response to my request, Contrast?
If so, try again. Not with anecdotal examples, but rather with something from the rules or from Sage advise or from a tweet from jc or from the wotc website or anything that might have something to do with this game.

[SharkForce]

No.
The text tells you exactly the decision that you are to make. That decision is a number/cr combo.
You're claiming that the player gets to choose more. So what's your citation?

My citations otherwise, which I do not need to provide, but will anyway, are:
1. The spell description itself
2. The Sage Advice compendium.
3. JC's tweets confirming both of the former as being accurate.

OK. Your turn.
Name one SINGLE thing which states, or even implies, that any decision beyond number/cr is up to the player.
To use your words, put up or shut up. I'm not dodging. You, however, are.
Name one single thing which states or even implies that more decisions should be made by the player. Do it now.
Your previous claim, that being the absence of specificity, isn't enough. The spell tells you exactly what to decide. It is perfectly specific. You need to explain how you think more is warranted. Not how it isn't clear, because it is.

I have provided MORE THAN AMPLE proof of my claims.
Your turn.
One thing.
Go.

the text tells you to make a decision. nowhere does it say that is all the decisions you need to make. nowhere does it say the DM is supposed to make any additional decisions.

so, let's see:

1) does not specify in any way who makes the decision you're insisting can only be made by the DM. since the spell does not specify, we have no specific rule, but we could still have a general rule, which you've been insisting exists. that general rule is not in the spell description, so this is not an acceptable source.
2) not in the PHB, as i've already said several times.
3) also not in the PHB.

you keep on using sources that exist outside of the PHB and which did not exist when the PHB was published to try and prove that the PHB was perfectly clear all along. it doesn't work that way. if you want to prove that the PHB, by itself, was perfectly clear, you cannot prove that by showing us clarifications that are not in the PHB. just as if i told you that i can jump to the moon while staying inside the room i am in right now would require that i not leave the room, your claim that the PHB is perfectly clear requires that you use only the PHB as your source. you could quote someone quoting the PHB, i suppose. but nobody in the stuff you've linked quotes the PHB. they just tell us they were unclear, and then proceed to tell us what they meant to say, which only proves that no, the PHB was not clear, otherwise they wouldn't be telling us it was unclear, followed by them providing clarification not contained in the PHB to make their meaning clear.


DBZ quoted and supplied quite a lot of proof on his claims (words from WotC themselves) but it seems everyone who disagrees is just using the "fake news" argument against him just so they can drag this argument out longer and feel as if they "won" once DBZ eventually stops caring or replying.

his argument is that the PHB was clear all along without any need for clarification because of a general rule that he claims exists. he has not provided any evidence that the general rule exists, and he has not provided any evidence that the PHB itself was clear about anything at all.

his proof that the ruling is official has been accepted, but it is not relevant to the topic of proving that the PHB was always clear all along. it may be true, but it is invalid. the conclusion does not follow the premise. if i tell you that i can jump while sitting down, i cannot present to you proof that i can jump while standing up as evidence. the fact that i can jump while standing up may be true, but it does not in any way prove that i can jump while sitting down. similarly, the fact that we have proof external to the PHB of what the original design intent was does not mean that the original text in the PHB clearly expressed their design intent.

(it also doesn't prove that their design intent was good, but that's a whole different topic).

[DivisibleByZero]

Still waiting for one thing in the rules, or from Sage advise, or from a tweet of JC's, or from wotc, or anything, which states or even implies that more decisions about this spell are in the hands of the player.
Your words, put up or shut up.
Stop dodging and deflecting, and give me one single thing or admit defeat.

[SharkForce]

Still waiting for one thing in the rules, or from Sage advise, or from a tweet of JC's, or from wotc, or anything, which states or even implies that more decisions about this spell are in the hands of the player.

don't need one. that isn't my claim. my claim is that the PHB itself is unclear on the subject of who decides, which i have provided proof of already.

you still need to support your claim though. you know, the one where you insist that the PHB was never unclear, and that it always clearly stated that the DM is the one that chooses.

still waiting on that general rule you've been citing for a while now about the DM making all decisions that are not explicitly given to other players. i mean, if it actually exists, that would be your proof that i'm wrong and the PHB was always clear (provided it is actually in the PHB, unlike the other stuff you've been trying to call proof). it would still be a terrible rule that we would need to question constantly because it has some spectactularly stupid implications that show the devs really didn't keep that rule in mind at all when they were writing, but it would at least be proof of your position.

[DivisibleByZero]

Your words, put up or shut up.
Stop dodging and deflecting, and give me one single thing or admit defeat.


don't need one.

So you admit defeat then. Thank you.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So you admit defeat then. Thank you.

Note that there's no RAW that specifies the PHB (or especially a literally reading of the text) to be controlling, and certainly not the sole source of rules. That is, RAW-supremacy is not textually supported, and is thus not RAW.

[SharkForce]

So you admit defeat then. Thank you.

you just go right ahead thinking that. i'm sure it fits into your world view, in any event.

[Talamare]

DBZ is over simplifying, but so are you. Sage Advice is not just an opinion, it is the official ruling. This is different from a rule in that it does not have to be binding. A rule change like in the errata makes deviating from the rule a change that must be announced as a houserule, and the implication is that it matters for the balance of the game. A ruling can vary from table to table without constituting an actual change, and the implication is that any ambiguity can be resolved either way and be balanced, with the DM having the call on which one applies. But the Sage Advice is the official interpretation, the intended function of the rules. This doesn't mean every table must use it, but it is the standard from which other rulings are measured.

So while you don't have to use the official ruling, it is definitely confirmation that it is a valid ruling. A DM can decide that Magic Missile procs multiple concentration saves, but a player could and should put forth the deleterious effect this has on concentration spells and thus game balance (remember that such a ruling impacts not just the druid, but the relatively UP sorcerer and NPCs as well. Moonbeam can be ruled to affect anyone that changes shape, but a player should point out how this means that Moonbeam negates Shapechange (a spell that transforms the user), dragons taking humanoid/beast forms, and numerous other effects. Perhaps more importantly, this also means other interactions with shapechangers also are affected. The PC that casts Polymorph on a Night Hag will find that the spell doesn't work at all, and the lich that Mass Polymorphs the party finds that both the wizard (Transmuter) and druid simply shrug it off and proceed to wreck face.

While the Bull and the Stag collide horns, the Wise Owl looks on from above.

Regardless, I still follow the rule of the DM is GOD.
So, if it comes down to it... He can straight up BAN the Spell completely.
I know that my DM has already told us when we were level 1, that Simulacron and Wish are Banned.

[RickAllison]

While the Bull and the Stag collide horns, the Wise Owl looks on from above.

Regardless, I still follow the rule of the DM is GOD.
So, if it comes down to it... He can straight up BAN the Spell completely.
I know that my DM has already told us when we were level 1, that Simulacron and Wish are Banned.

I was so sad that my DM banned Simulacrum. It made my economic domination dreams much more difficult to achieve. Although at least he was consistent; it wasn't just that we couldn't take it, but that the spell didn't exist in the setting. Wish is still fine, though.

[Talamare]

I was so sad that my DM banned Simulacrum. It made my economic domination dreams much more difficult to achieve. Although at least he was consistent; it wasn't just that we couldn't take it, but that the spell didn't exist in the setting. Wish is still fine, though.

Hah, understandable.

I was a little surprised by Wish as well, but I didn't argue.
It was the same that it didn't exist unless it was a monster who naturally had it.
But no NPC or PC could ever choose to learn it.

So gotta find them Genies!

[SharkForce]

While the Bull and the Stag collide horns, the Wise Owl looks on from above.

Regardless, I still follow the rule of the DM is GOD.
So, if it comes down to it... He can straight up BAN the Spell completely.
I know that my DM has already told us when we were level 1, that Simulacron and Wish are Banned.

sure, DM can change anything (though as i've already said, this should not be abused). that's not changing what the default is though.

if there is a consensus that wish and simulacrum are just conceptually unsalvageable (i'm not convinced that they are, but different groups may find differently) or require an excessive amount of work for the interest level to be worth the effort (which could definitely be the case), then go ahead and ban them. heck, if that's true for summoning spells (though i'm not sold on that either), go ahead and ban them too.

but i mean, don't insist that your changes are not changes, that they're the reality. that's just crazy. like, literally, if you ban wish and simulacrum and then think that they never existed in the first place because you after-the-fact banned them, that is crazy, and you should probably see someone about your megalomania problem, because no, you don't have reality-warping powers.

[Vaz]

and you should probably see someone about your megalomania problem, because no, you don't have reality-warping powers.

What the **** is it with this forum and attempting define madness from throwaway comments? What are we, 4chan or a Call of Duty lobby where we devolve into calling people autists for disagreeing with them?

[Talamare]

sure, DM can change anything (though as i've already said, this should not be abused). that's not changing what the default is though.

if there is a consensus that wish and simulacrum are just conceptually unsalvageable (i'm not convinced that they are, but different groups may find differently) or require an excessive amount of work for the interest level to be worth the effort (which could definitely be the case), then go ahead and ban them. heck, if that's true for summoning spells (though i'm not sold on that either), go ahead and ban them too.

but i mean, don't insist that your changes are not changes, that they're the reality. that's just crazy. like, literally, if you ban wish and simulacrum and then think that they never existed in the first place because you after-the-fact banned them, that is crazy, and you should probably see someone about your megalomania problem, because no, you don't have reality-warping powers.

DM defines the reality of the world you're playing with.
That is the strictest definition of reality defining powers.

If a DM chooses, he can say "MAGIC DOES NOT EXIST!"

and BOOM, Magic does not exist in the Campaign.

Now, as a player you can call him out, or choose to not play in his reality. However, as a player, when you chose him as your DM; you also chose to follow the reality he is setting forth for you.

[SharkForce]

DM defines the reality of the world you're playing with.
That is the strictest definition of reality defining powers.

If a DM chooses, he can say "MAGIC DOES NOT EXIST!"

and BOOM, Magic does not exist in the Campaign.

Now, as a player you can call him out, or choose to not play in his reality. However, as a player, when you chose him as your DM; you also chose to follow the reality he is setting forth for you.

it just so happens that D&D settings are not, in fact, reality, but are actually just imaginary constructs used in a game. so no, DMs do not have reality-warping powers either, just the ability to imagine different things like everyone else. they can imagine different things in an imaginary world, but no reality is altered by doing so.

so, for example, if your DM makes a rule that in their setting, there is no wish spell, no problem. if, on the other hand, your DM insists that the wish spell does not exist in the PHB and never did because your DM decided it doesn't exist in their setting, in spite of repeatedly being shown evidence that not only did it exist in the PHB before but that it is still in the PHB right now, completely unchanged, that is crazy.

[DivisibleByZero]

lmegalomania problem,

You mean like repeatedly requesting that someone else provide evidence or prove their point, while refusing to do the same yourself, and still insisting that you're right with no evidence compared to their plethora of provided evidence?
Pot, meet kettle.

[damascoplay]

or, fix the problem instead of ambushing your players (and no, i didn't mean characters there) by abusing your power. you've been given a position of trust. you should be using it to fix problems, not to become one. rewriting the PHB without telling the players about it is a **** move.

you can resolve the problem by talking to the party, by implementing the full adventuring day somehow-or-other (if you don't want to do full gritty realism variant, consider going partway; 8 hours is a short rest, 24 hours is a long rest, and provide some minimal sense of urgency, even if it's just a matter of their enemies having more time to prepare - and your party should never want to give their enemies time to prepare), by at the very least telling the party about necessary changes you're making (which should never feel like they're targeted at the players, but rather at the problem in the system, if there is one - if 8 wolves is too strong, tell the group you're changing the CR 1/4 option to be only 6 monsters or something, or maybe change the options to 6 CR 1/4, 3 CR 1/2, 2 CR 1, or 1 CR 2).

but yanking the rug out from under the players? that's just wrong. you're getting together to have fun. this isn't a competition you're trying to win, it's a game you're trying to play together because you enjoy it. the DM may play the PC's enemies, but the DM should never *be* the PC's enemy.

If they're together to have fun, then there's no need to worry about changing the Conjure Woodlands Beings spell as long as the players don't feel like they're being cheated,and you tell them that there's a chance of something happening during each consecutive casting of the spell. To begin with,if you're having fun with your friends, then what's the problem with all of this happening?

i just provided a couple of options for him to use. In no shape or form i wish for the DM to completely change the spell without the player's knowledge, but if the pixies are tired of being summoned, that gives the DM more liberty to roleplay with his player's characters. Besides, Conjure Woodlands being says that the pixies have to obey verbal commands, but do they need to follow the rules strictly if they don't like the druid? There's a difference between the DM trying to screw over the players and having the opportunity to do something more interesting.
And of course,changing the monsters CR are also a good thing to do,as you specified, so that's another way of dealing with the spell,but it doesn't sound as funny as the "Pixies don't like you" situation.

If a druid were to summon me just to battle some dudes while i was doing something important,that would piss me off. Wouldn't you say the same?

[Beelzebubba]

I was so sad that my DM banned Simulacrum. It made my economic domination dreams much more difficult to achieve. Although at least he was consistent; it wasn't just that we couldn't take it, but that the spell didn't exist in the setting. Wish is still fine, though.

I'd allow it but only if the character describes what they'd do.

Then the campaign is against villains using whatever that player would have pulled off.

In other words, a Lich who's been at it for a thousand years.

It would make Ravenloft look like home-cooked breakfast in a warm fluffy bed.

[damascoplay]

I hope you're joking - you're making a face so maybe you are - but please no one actually do this sort of thing at your table. This is akin to a DM saying, "Well I'm sick as poop of parties abusing fireball, so the next time they cast fireball they accidentally opened a vortex into the elemental plane of fire and let through an Elemental Fire Lord who killed them all" ... this is horrid DM'ing imho. But this is what passes too often as DM'ing and I have no idea why players accept it (a lot don't - a lot of players, once they realize it's "one of those DMs", leave and never come back).

There are other (and I think better) ways to solve this. Seriously.

Maybe because the point of D&d is playing with your friends and having fun besides all the things that happens on the table? I wouldn't let a tpk happen just because that one guy is using that one spell to much, but if a portal to another planes opens and they have to fight whatever is creeping outta there,why not? Another quest for them,figuring out what the hell is going on.

Maybe a planar entity is messing with them,or they're being afflicted by a curse. Whatever floats your boat. I like to do weird things to my party, but as long as i can explain it and it sounds valid to them.

In d&d,everythings possible,isn't it?

[DivisibleByZero]

sure, DM can change anything (though as i've already said, this should not be abused). that's not changing what the default is though.

<snip>

but i mean, don't insist that your changes are not changes, that they're the reality. that's just crazy.

I'm going to go through this one more time for you.

The way that it is written, it describes the player choosing a number/CR combination.
It says nothing about choosing what the creatures are.
Some people think that this means that the player gets to choose.
Others think that this means the DM chooses.
So the question was posed to the designers, and the designers stated that the DM chooses.
Not only did they state that the DM chooses, they made an official proclamation that this is so.
So the text reads that the player chooses X and and Y, and says nothing about Z at all.
Then the designers proclaim that the players do not choose Z.
This means that the text was written exactly as it should have been.

So while it could have been arguably potentially read either way originally in some peoples' minds, once the clarification was made that one reading was correct and the other was incorrect, you literally have no leg to stand on here.
The "default" as you put it, is that spells/abilities/features do exactly what they state that they do, and not one single thing more than that. The default is that literally anything beyond that is in the DM's hands.

Well guess what?
That fits perfectly into the scenario that we have here.
It says that the players choose X and Y, and that's what the player chooses.
It does not say that they choose Z, and so by default they do not.
This has been confirmed in an official manner.

No one is changing anything.
That's the reality.

Could they have included that the DM chooses in the text to begin with? Sure.
Does that line being excluded suddenly mean that the player gets to make three choices instead of the two explicitly listed in the description? Absolutely not, because the default is that spells do exactly what they state, and no more, and what it states is that they choose number/CR, and therefore no more. That's the default. That's also what they stated as the intent, meaning the spell description was written in a way which was correct, and that the choices presented to the player were the only choices made by the player. That's also what they reiterated on Twitter. That's what they reiterated once again when they made the official ruling in the Sage Advice Compendium. That's the rule.
You're the one that's attempting to change the default, not me.

The DM chooses.
That's the rule.
Get over it.

[SharkForce]

If a druid were to summon me just to battle some dudes while i was doing something important,that would piss me off. Wouldn't you say the same?

considering the spell explicitly says the creatures summoned are friendly... no, i think if i was summoned by a druid to fight for him, i'd be friendly. because that's what the spell does.

[DivisibleByZero]

considering the spell explicitly says the creatures summoned are friendly... no, i think if i was summoned by a druid to fight for him, i'd be friendly. because that's what the spell does.

Great.
Now apply that same logic to what choices the player makes and we'll be home free.

[damascoplay]

considering the spell explicitly says the creatures summoned are friendly... no, i think if i was summoned by a druid to fight for him, i'd be friendly. because that's what the spell does.

Friendly means that they're not hostile towards you. Doesn't mean they have to like you, or follow your rules and commands strictly.

Pixies are intelligent beings capable of having emotions and feelings,they're not brainwashed minions or dogs.

[Vaz]

Friendly means that they're not hostile towards you. Doesn't mean they have to like you, or follow your rules and commands strictly.

Pixies are intelligent beings capable of having emotions and feelings,they're not brainwashed minions or dogs.

Friendly doesn't mean friendly. Gotcha. Who says summoned creatures are actually brought from elsewhere. It's summon, not Plane Shift. It's noncommital. Is Kubo and the Two Strings conjuring or polymorphinh? Depends on the flavour. I'd allow either.

[SharkForce]

Friendly means that they're not hostile towards you. Doesn't mean they have to like you, or follow your rules and commands strictly.

Pixies are intelligent beings capable of having emotions and feelings,they're not brainwashed minions or dogs.

"The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions" and "They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them"

and actually, friendly does mean that they're not hostile towards you. it might not mean they like you, but in this case, they will definitely follow your commands.

now, like i said, you can abuse your power to ambush the players. that is certainly a thing you can do. but you shouldn't, because you don't have the power to change the rules so that you can be a troll, you have the power to change the rules to make the game more fun. if something is broken in a way that is ruining the group's fun, fix it. you're not going to make the game more fun by being a jerk.

edit: doesn't appear to be in the SRD, and i'm too lazy to type it out right now, but friendly does have a specific meaning in D&D 5e, and you can find it in the rules for how to handle charisma checks. broadly speaking, it more or less means they are inclined to help you accomplish your goals.

so, combine that with obeying your commands, and you get minions that are not going to rebel, or deliberately misinterpret your orders, or otherwise try to screw you over.

if you want a spell that does that, take a look at planar binding. those minions can hate your gets and work at cross purposes. the various "conjure" spells in the PHB do not.

[guachi]

So to summarize:

Sharkforce's main contention is that he doesn't understand the rules and refuses to accept the explanation of what the rules already say. DBZ has kindly provided lengthy quotes directly from the game designers themselves.

What is it with some people that find it so hard to say, "I didn't understand this rule and I'm glad it was clarified for me. Thanks!"

It's like listening to Posse Comitatus folks rant about how they are sovereign citizens.

[SharkForce]

So to summarize:

Sharkforce's main contention is that he doesn't understand the rules and refuses to accept the explanation of what the rules already say. DBZ has kindly provided lengthy quotes directly from the game designers themselves.

What is it with some people that find it so hard to say, "I didn't understand this rule and I'm glad it was clarified for me. Thanks!"

It's like listening to Posse Comitatus folks rant about how they are sovereign citizens.

i understand the rules just fine. i've mentioned several times that i am fully aware of the clarifications, and acknowledge them as official clarifications to the rules. apparently you just don't like getting informed before you shoot your mouth off.

the thing with quotes external to the PHB providing clarifications to the PHB is that they don't prove the PHB was clear in the first place. that's fine if you're just saying there's a clarification and now we can all know what the official rule is. it is not, however, acceptable proof if your claim is that the PHB was always clear. not because it isn't acceptable to demonstrate that the rules have been made clear now for those who know about the clarifications, but because for the purpose of demonstrating that PRIOR TO THOSE CLARIFICATIONS the PHB was clear, those clarifications are not acceptable proof. because hey guess what, those clarifications did not exist before they existed. i don't know *why* this is such a hard concept for people to grasp. it should be incredibly basic.

it's like if i was to ask people to find a solution for X^2 = X that is not 0, and everyone is all "but 0 is a correct answer". no, it bloody well isn't, because the question is not just X^2 = X, it is to find a NON-ZERO answer to that equation. likewise, if you want to prove that the PHB was clear BEFORE THE CLARIFICATIONS you CANNOT use the clarifications, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT EXIST BEFORE THEY EXISTED.

[damascoplay]

Friendly doesn't mean friendly. Gotcha. Who says summoned creatures are actually brought from elsewhere. It's summon, not Plane Shift. It's noncommital. Is Kubo and the Two Strings conjuring or polymorphinh? Depends on the flavour. I'd allow either.

Good point :smallsmile:

[damascoplay]

"The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions" and "They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them"

and actually, friendly does mean that they're not hostile towards you. it might not mean they like you, but in this case, they will definitely follow your commands.

now, like i said, you can abuse your power to ambush the players. that is certainly a thing you can do. but you shouldn't, because you don't have the power to change the rules so that you can be a troll, you have the power to change the rules to make the game more fun. if something is broken in a way that is ruining the group's fun, fix it. you're not going to make the game more fun by being a jerk.

edit: doesn't appear to be in the SRD, and i'm too lazy to type it out right now, but friendly does have a specific meaning in D&D 5e, and you can find it in the rules for how to handle charisma checks. broadly speaking, it more or less means they are inclined to help you accomplish your goals.

so, combine that with obeying your commands, and you get minions that are not going to rebel, or deliberately misinterpret your orders, or otherwise try to screw you over.

if you want a spell that does that, take a look at planar binding. those minions can hate your gets and work at cross purposes. the various "conjure" spells in the PHB do not.

I think all of this can be interpreted in several ways unless there's an errata for it,or the spell is very strictly and specific. (Or the DM says so). And i don't see how creating a problem for the players is going to be an actual issue on the table unless you're frequently trying to murder them or screw them over,and they have no faith in you. But in the end, nothing really matters if everyone's having fun.


I'm also too lazy to see the Friendly thingy in the books,so i don't blame you. :smallamused:

[Malifice]

"The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions" and "They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them"

and actually, friendly does mean that they're not hostile towards you. it might not mean they like you, but in this case, they will definitely follow your commands.

Subject to their own interpretation of those commands of course (and their own initiative).

And unless you're being incredibly specific with those commands, they have an awful lot of wriggle room.

[SharkForce]

Subject to their own interpretation of those commands of course (and their own initiative).

And unless you're being incredibly specific with those commands, they have an awful lot of wriggle room.

good thing they're friendly then, which means they want you to do what they can to help you.

given a choice between being a jerk and fixing the problem, fix the damn problem.

[Malifice]

good thing they're friendly then, which means they want you to do what they can to help you.

So what? Any loyal NPC is friendly towards you.

They're like loyal soldiers you command. And take it from a former military commander, even after giving very specific orders (a 1 hour O-group) you cant cover every possible contingency.

Plus, they have minds of their own, and can interpret your orders in many ways (either carrying out the intent of your orders, or carrying them out literally).

An order to 'Fight those Orcs' gives them a large about of leeway about how to do so. Can they stop trying to murder the orcs (without specific orders to stop) when the Orcs surrender? What about if that was your intent when you gave the order (you dont want the Orcs dead, you just want to defend yourself from them)?

Was your intent in that order to use lethal force? Was your intent to merely subdue the Orcs? What methods can the summoned critters use to 'fight the Orcs'? Can they fly up to the sky and drop rocks on the Orcs? Can they use the shove action to push them down a ravine? Can they double back around and ambush the Orcs? Can they polymorph the Orcs? Can they back off, wait for the orcs to go to sleep later than night, and then cut the Orcs throats?

The player shouldnt be playing the summoned critters. It's the DM's job to play intelligent magic items, NPCs, familiars and summoned critters (everyone else in the game world other than the PCs themselves).

Many DMs palm this responsibility over to the players of course.


given a choice between being a jerk and fixing the problem, fix the damn problem.

The DM is not 'being a jerk' by playing a summoned entity.

Summoned critters are friendly to the caster, and follow his orders. Well paid mercenaries are also friendly to their employer and follow his orders.

I play both along similar lines.

[damascoplay]

So what? Any loyal NPC is friendly towards you.

They're like loyal soldiers you command. And take it from a former military commander, even after giving very specific orders (a 1 hour O-group) you cant cover every possible contingency.

Plus, they have minds of their own, and can interpret your orders in many ways (either carrying out the intent of your orders, or carrying them out literally).

An order to 'Fight those Orcs' gives them a large about of leeway about how to do so. Can they stop trying to murder the orcs (without specific orders to stop) when the Orcs surrender? What about if that was your intent when you gave the order (you dont want the Orcs dead, you just want to defend yourself from them)?

Was your intent in that order to use lethal force? Was your intent to merely subdue the Orcs? What methods can the summoned critters use to 'fight the Orcs'? Can they fly up to the sky and drop rocks on the Orcs? Can they use the shove action to push them down a ravine? Can they double back around and ambush the Orcs? Can they polymorph the Orcs? Can they back off, wait for the orcs to go to sleep later than night, and then cut the Orcs throats?

The player shouldnt be playing the summoned critters. It's the DM's job to play intelligent magic items, NPCs, familiars and summoned critters (everyone else in the game world other than the PCs themselves).

Many DMs palm this responsibility over to the players of course.



The DM is not 'being a jerk' by playing a summoned entity.

Summoned critters are friendly to the caster, and follow his orders. Well paid mercenaries are also friendly to their employer and follow his orders.

I play both along similar lines.
That last part,thank you for saying that! He thinks that the DM having the opportunity to roleplay the pixies and unfolding an series of events,that could be fun for the players and could, means the DM's a jerk for not rulling how he wants to (In my personal opinion,the DM handles the spell how he wants to and end of conversation)... And i agree with the interpretation part of carrying out orders,i wish i was more explicit on that part.

[damascoplay]

good thing they're friendly then, which means they want you to do what they can to help you.

given a choice between being a jerk and fixing the problem, fix the damn problem.

The problem that we're having is how the DM should handle the spell,wich goes for one's opinion on how they should handle it.

If the DM says this is how it works,that's it and end of conversation.
If the DM says otherwise,that's it and end of conversation.

And could you stop with the "DM being a jerk for not doing how i think it should" thingy? It's getting really obsolete to the conversation and annoying,it's brings no further explanation to what you're trying to say. If the DM does that and nobody complains and agrees just fine on what can happen with the spell,does that makes him a jerk? I don't think so.

Let's just agree to disagree and be happy with it.

[SharkForce]

The problem that we're having is how the DM should handle the spell,wich goes for one's opinion on how they should handle it.

If the DM says this is how it works,that's it and end of conversation.
If the DM says otherwise,that's it and end of conversation.

And could you stop with the "DM being a jerk for not doing how i think it should" thingy? It's getting really obsolete to the conversation and annoying,it's brings no further explanation to what you're trying to say. If the DM does that and nobody complains and agrees just fine on what can happen with the spell,does that makes him a jerk? I don't think so.

Let's just agree to disagree and be happy with it.

well, let's apply that to another scenario and see how it goes.

for example, a barbarian has been making excellent use of the polearm master and great weapon master feats (as is expected). they're outshining other people who don't have the same ability to have an attack pattern of 1d10+15/1d10+15/1d4+15 by taking -5 to hit but getting advantage whenever they feel like it.

should we collaborate with everyone and tweak the feats so that they're still strong but not quite so overbearing that failure to choose and use them on a melee character makes you less effective than someone who does and let everyone know in advance, or should we suddenly and arbitrarily rule without warning that every time the barbarian uses power attack they're hitting harder than the weapon is designed to handle and thus the weapon takes the same damage as the target, most likely resulting in the weapon breaking in the start of the next fight the barbarian uses it? (after all, nothing in the rules says the weapons are designed to handle that kind of stress, so it's technically not even changing anything, that's just newton's third law)

one of those options is a fair solution (though not the only fair solution). the other, and i'm not the least bit sorry to say this, is being a jerk, even if in a manner of speaking it "solves the problem". just because a DM *can* screw around with your abilities after you've chosen and used them in the middle of a fight doesn't mean the DM *should*, and no, just because the DM was given power that doesn't mean it is impossible to use that power in a way that makes them a jerk.

also, the fact that people are sometimes willing to put up with the DM being a jerk doesn't mean the DM isn't being a jerk either. people put up with all kinds of things that are far worse than jerk DMs for years or even decades. that doesn't mean they like it.

[RickAllison]

Sharkforce, too many times have you posted something that I agree with, but it infuriates me entirely due to a lack of capitalization. I never knew that lacking one aspect of orthography could produce such anger :smallbiggrin: I think I think I have a problem...

[Citan]

well, let's apply that to another scenario and see how it goes.

for example, a barbarian has been making excellent use of the polearm master and great weapon master feats (as is expected). they're outshining other people who don't have the same ability to have an attack pattern of 1d10+15/1d10+15/1d4+15 by taking -5 to hit but getting advantage whenever they feel like it.

should we collaborate with everyone and tweak the feats so that they're still strong but not quite so overbearing that failure to choose and use them on a melee character makes you less effective than someone who does and let everyone know in advance, or should we suddenly and arbitrarily rule without warning that every time the barbarian uses power attack they're hitting harder than the weapon is designed to handle and thus the weapon takes the same damage as the target, most likely resulting in the weapon breaking in the start of the next fight the barbarian uses it? (after all, nothing in the rules says the weapons are designed to handle that kind of stress, so it's technically not even changing anything, that's just newton's third law)

one of those options is a fair solution (though not the only fair solution). the other, and i'm not the least bit sorry to say this, is being a jerk, even if in a manner of speaking it "solves the problem". just because a DM *can* screw around with your abilities after you've chosen and used them in the middle of a fight doesn't mean the DM *should*, and no, just because the DM was given power that doesn't mean it is impossible to use that power in a way that makes them a jerk.

also, the fact that people are sometimes willing to put up with the DM being a jerk doesn't mean the DM isn't being a jerk either. people put up with all kinds of things that are far worse than jerk DMs for years or even decades. that doesn't mean they like it.
Great job on setting up a fallacy.

You are comparing...
In one corner, something that has crystal clear description and mechanic, with totally predictible effect, no game-breaking effect per itself (you are just one martial in the end) and absolutely no bearing on the setting (GWM = stick of metal/wood), with...
In the other corner, something that is so blurry in itself that it has DM bias in essence since it is something about interacting with living, self-aware (at least up to a point) creatures to request help.

And you dare say that DM that roleplayconjured creatures (including something as soft as making Pixies interpret order, or something stronger like considering that Pixies in a desert would be would breaking the coherence of the setting) would be a jerk?

Impressive...
Impressive lack of intellectual rigor on that oneargument, borderline dishonesty. You should stay a player forever or change mindset fast if you will DM or your players would be bound for some surprises...

By the way...
Druids are supposed to be people who respect and revere nature and its creatures. Not people that try to bound creatures to their own whims.
So I have trouble to see how a Druid could ever expect to get exactly, precisely the kind of creatures he wants, especially when the environment doens't fit (confer previous example of Pixies in a desert, or Fire Mephits on a small island surrounded by ocean for Conjure Elementals)...
But hey, you are free to project egocentrical behaviour on Druids you play if DMs allow it... XD (I'd actually see that well on a Chaotic Evil Druid, since -sadly- there is no check for spell success).

[SharkForce]

Great job on setting up a fallacy.

You are comparing...
In one corner, something that has crystal clear description and mechanic, with totally predictible effect, no game-breaking effect per itself (you are just one martial in the end) and absolutely no bearing on the setting (GWM = stick of metal/wood), with...
In the other corner, something that is so blurry in itself that it has DM bias in essence since it is something about interacting with living, self-aware (at least up to a point) creatures to request help.

And you dare say that DM that roleplayconjured creatures (including something as soft as making Pixies interpret order, or something stronger like considering that Pixies in a desert would be would breaking the coherence of the setting) would be a jerk?

Impressive...
Impressive lack of intellectual rigor on that oneargument, borderline dishonesty. You should stay a player forever or change mindset fast if you will DM or your players would be bound for some surprises...

By the way...
Druids are supposed to be people who respect and revere nature and its creatures. Not people that try to bound creatures to their own whims.
So I have trouble to see how a Druid could ever expect to get exactly, precisely the kind of creatures he wants, especially when the environment doens't fit (confer previous example of Pixies in a desert, or Fire Mephits on a small island surrounded by ocean for Conjure Elementals)...
But hey, you are free to project egocentrical behaviour on Druids you play if DMs allow it... XD (I'd actually see that well on a Chaotic Evil Druid, since -sadly- there is no check for spell success).

if DM bias against a broken ability is influencing you to be a jerk, that is STILL being a jerk, regardless of the fact that you have a reason. don't be a jerk. fix the damn problem. if pixies are broken, the proper solution is not "be a jerk until the players don't want to use pixies any more", it is "make pixies not broken". that can even include banning pixies by saying they don't exist. but it should not include changing an ability in the middle of a fight after a player has chosen and used it. ideally, it should be done at the start of the campaign (before people make characters) and should allow input from everyone, but given it may have been something you weren't aware of that could come up unexpectedly, i can certainly understand not living up to that ideal. but "this thing is unbalanced" is not a good excuse to be a jerk. allow it the one time and then ban it (and allow the player to choose something else), and consider resolving it differently as a group later when you're not in the middle of a session, but again: don't be a jerk about it.

just like if GWM/PM are causing problems in your game (and yes, it *can* cause problems, we've seen people come here complaining about it, and it doesn't much matter whether the person overshadowing everyone else is a caster or a melee, they are *still* overshadowing everyone else, even if it means those other people are also melee builds that simply didn't happen to take those two very powerful feats because they didn't want to use polearms or heavy weapons), the proper solution is not to take something that is not 100% clear (nothing anywhere says that weapons don't get damaged from use, and presumably harder use will lead to more damage. again, this is not pulling something out of your butt, this is just newton's third law; if the glaive is applying X force to the target, the target is also applying X force to the glaive) and use it to mess with the player's abilities after the player has chosen the ability and used it in battle.

yes, the DM has essentially dictatorial authority. no, that doesn't mean you're somehow less of a jerk when you use that authority to be a jerk instead of using it to fix problems in a fair and open manner, whether you're doing that with an ability that summons fey creatures from another plane (so who gives a crap if you're in a desert, you're not calling pixies from the desert, you're calling them from another plane) and gives you control over them, or with an ability that allows you to hit really really hard.

so don't be a jerk. handle things in a fair and open manner. if you need to resolve something immediately, do so with those dictatorial powers you have, but don't be a jerk about it, and come back to it later. maybe in an e-mail or a phone call after the session is over, maybe at the end of the current session or the start of the next session, heck, maybe give some time for everyone who has an opinion to do some internet research for potential solutions, or if your group just can't handle those discussions simply ban the thing in question and allow the player to choose something different for later, but don't just start trolling your players every time they use the problem power.

[damascoplay]

well, let's apply that to another scenario and see how it goes.

for example, a barbarian has been making excellent use of the polearm master and great weapon master feats (as is expected). they're outshining other people who don't have the same ability to have an attack pattern of 1d10+15/1d10+15/1d4+15 by taking -5 to hit but getting advantage whenever they feel like it.

should we collaborate with everyone and tweak the feats so that they're still strong but not quite so overbearing that failure to choose and use them on a melee character makes you less effective than someone who does and let everyone know in advance, or should we suddenly and arbitrarily rule without warning that every time the barbarian uses power attack they're hitting harder than the weapon is designed to handle and thus the weapon takes the same damage as the target, most likely resulting in the weapon breaking in the start of the next fight the barbarian uses it? (after all, nothing in the rules says the weapons are designed to handle that kind of stress, so it's technically not even changing anything, that's just newton's third law)

one of those options is a fair solution (though not the only fair solution). the other, and i'm not the least bit sorry to say this, is being a jerk, even if in a manner of speaking it "solves the problem". just because a DM *can* screw around with your abilities after you've chosen and used them in the middle of a fight doesn't mean the DM *should*, and no, just because the DM was given power that doesn't mean it is impossible to use that power in a way that makes them a jerk.

also, the fact that people are sometimes willing to put up with the DM being a jerk doesn't mean the DM isn't being a jerk either. people put up with all kinds of things that are far worse than jerk DMs for years or even decades. that doesn't mean they like it.


if DM bias against a broken ability is influencing you to be a jerk, that is STILL being a jerk, regardless of the fact that you have a reason. don't be a jerk. fix the damn problem. if pixies are broken, the proper solution is not "be a jerk until the players don't want to use pixies any more", it is "make pixies not broken". that can even include banning pixies by saying they don't exist. but it should not include changing an ability in the middle of a fight after a player has chosen and used it. ideally, it should be done at the start of the campaign (before people make characters) and should allow input from everyone, but given it may have been something you weren't aware of that could come up unexpectedly, i can certainly understand not living up to that ideal. but "this thing is unbalanced" is not a good excuse to be a jerk. allow it the one time and then ban it (and allow the player to choose something else), and consider resolving it differently as a group later when you're not in the middle of a session, but again: don't be a jerk about it.

just like if GWM/PM are causing problems in your game (and yes, it *can* cause problems, we've seen people come here complaining about it, and it doesn't much matter whether the person overshadowing everyone else is a caster or a melee, they are *still* overshadowing everyone else, even if it means those other people are also melee builds that simply didn't happen to take those two very powerful feats because they didn't want to use polearms or heavy weapons), the proper solution is not to take something that is not 100% clear (nothing anywhere says that weapons don't get damaged from use, and presumably harder use will lead to more damage. again, this is not pulling something out of your butt, this is just newton's third law; if the glaive is applying X force to the target, the target is also applying X force to the glaive) and use it to mess with the player's abilities after the player has chosen the ability and used it in battle.

yes, the DM has essentially dictatorial authority. no, that doesn't mean you're somehow less of a jerk when you use that authority to be a jerk instead of using it to fix problems in a fair and open manner, whether you're doing that with an ability that summons fey creatures from another plane (so who gives a crap if you're in a desert, you're not calling pixies from the desert, you're calling them from another plane) and gives you control over them, or with an ability that allows you to hit really really hard.

so don't be a jerk. handle things in a fair and open manner. if you need to resolve something immediately, do so with those dictatorial powers you have, but don't be a jerk about it, and come back to it later. maybe in an e-mail or a phone call after the session is over, maybe at the end of the current session or the start of the next session, heck, maybe give some time for everyone who has an opinion to do some internet research for potential solutions, or if your group just can't handle those discussions simply ban the thing in question and allow the player to choose something different for later, but don't just start trolling your players every time they use the problem power.

:smallsigh: This is starting to become less and less about helping the guy with his problem,and more about deciding whether the DM's a jerk or not for handling the spell diferently from how other would. It's becoming more about personal opinion on how it should work instead of working with others to acchieve a middle ground.

Calm your hakuna matatas,friend. Let's get back to the main Thread and what really needs attention. Otherwise,we're just continuing to argue for nothing,trying to acchieve absolutely nothing.

Edit: The word of the day is..."jerk".

[SharkForce]

:smallsigh: This is starting to become less and less about helping the guy with his problem,and more about deciding whether the DM's a jerk or not for handling the spell diferently from how other would. It's becoming more about personal opinion on how it should work instead of working with others to acchieve a middle ground.

Calm your hakuna matatas,friend. Let's get back to the main Thread and what really needs attention. Otherwise,we're just continuing to argue for nothing,trying to acchieve absolutely nothing.

Edit: The word of the day is..."jerk".

are you suggesting that the subject of whether you should treat your friends well or poorly is somehow not relevant to the question of how to deal with a problematic power in a game with your friends?

[damascoplay]

are you suggesting that the subject of whether you should treat your friends well or poorly is somehow not relevant to the question of how to deal with a problematic power in a game with your friends?

Don't start assuming things,that's not the point of where i was trying to get. I'm not going to debate this with you because it's going to be worthless either way since we can't acchieve a middle ground or come with good term with each other. If you want to keep replying,go ahead,but don't expect an answer. I don't have any problems with my players,and i don't expect to learn anything from you.

Edit: You're also completely ignoring everything i've said until now about the DM and the player in all of my comments. If you want to pretend you're blind or i'm a liar,then do what you want.

[Citan]

yes, the DM has essentially dictatorial authority. no, that doesn't mean you're somehow less of a jerk when you use that authority to be a jerk instead of using it to fix problems in a fair and open manner, whether you're doing that with an ability that summons fey creatures from another plane (so who gives a crap if you're in a desert, you're not calling pixies from the desert, you're calling them from another plane) and gives you control over them, or with an ability that allows you to hit really really hard.

so don't be a jerk. handle things in a fair and open manner. if you need to resolve something immediately, do so with those dictatorial powers you have, but don't be a jerk about it, and come back to it later. maybe in an e-mail or a phone call after the session is over, maybe at the end of the current session or the start of the next session, heck, maybe give some time for everyone who has an opinion to do some internet research for potential solutions, or if your group just can't handle those discussions simply ban the thing in question and allow the player to choose something different for later, but don't just start trolling your players every time they use the problem power.
So "not playing exactly like Sharkforce = being a jerk".
Gotcha. Pure Sharkforce as usual. :)

EDIT: to add something constructive to the discussion, although you clearly don't deserve it...
If I DM a game in which players don't care about the setting and roleplay but love playing tactical skirmishes, I won't have any problem allowing Pixies. I'll just talk about beforehand with player so that it's something that is used as a trump card, not as auto-win encounter. Or I'll warn the players that unless they take extreme measures to keep it a secret (by, for example, killing all witnesses everytime and ensuring nobody could watch from afar either), it will become their signature strategy and opponents will necessarily adapt once they reach a treshold at which enemies with magic and tactical commanders become common.
Because it's a logical outcome in an evolving world.

If I had, on another hand, to DM a game for another group of players which I know are very sensitive about respecting the tropes a game sets about its settings, then I would totally enforce random conjurations or conjurations fitting the current environment, because that's exactly how those players would expect me to act. Because those players like "heavy" roleplay aka really putting up with all the built-in expectations and restrictions, so they would actually be brought out of immersion if one of them as a Druid could get Pixies in a desert, or could order Pixies to act in a way that goes against their values.
Otherwise said, they all have the same (at least close enough from each other) view on how the spell "actually works" (because spells in 5e tend to only describe mechanics but are very light on fluff, precisely to let some freedom of interpretation) and "insert" it in their view of how a Druid should behave: humble, respectful of Nature with a big N, asking for help from Nature and being grateful to whatever form it takes to do so, even if technically he used his own skill/energy to "trigger" it. Because in their view, the spell should work because the Druid should be respectful. So they wouldn't even expect to actually choose creatures in the first place. ^^

THAT is good DMing: adapting your behaviour to common expectations (common as in "agreed between everyone in session 0") from game to game.
Binary views such as yours ("do as me, it's good, otherwise, it's bad") are utterly useless in roleplaying games.
The basic point of roleplaying games, and it's great forte compared to video games, is that the group as a whole tries to support and fill in individual expectations and styles.
So any decision you make as a DM may come off as offensive or arbitrary or punishing in a game, while being perfectly fine and even much appreciated in another (supposing otherwiwe identical circumstances).
So, those on-the-fly, "fast-food" judgements you make on other people's suggestions, when the only reasonable reaction is "hey, as long as it works for you and your players" because you have no idea of someone's game or players, just tells us much about your mind narrowness, sadly.

[Talamare]

So "not playing exactly like Sharkforce = being a jerk".
Gotcha. Pure Sharkforce as usual. :)


No, but that joke probably makes you a bit of one for picking on him.

He is essentially saying that...

A DM does have UNLIMITED POWA, but it's easy to abuse it. So becareful.