Treantmonk evaluates 3rd level spells [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

MaxWilson

2018-10-10, 08:21 PM

I'm going to disagree with fireball being over rated. It certainly is if you are counting on it as your damage dealer against leveled opponents, I can see thinking it's over rated. I don't see that as what it's for. What it excels at is clearing the ground of mooks. We all know that with bounded accuracy powerful mobs are often supported by low CR subordinates. A wizard with fireball, particularly an evoker wizard who does not need to be careful with placement can clear most or all of the mooks in one shot while the rest of the party deals with the stronger opponents. That's the proper use of an evoker wizard. Remove the riff-raff so the fighter, barbarian and rogue can focus their excellent single target damage on the big guy.

On the other hand, I genuinely have seen people casting 9th level Fireballs, which is craaaazy.

I think there is something about Fireball which causes people to think that it is stronger than it actually is, especially when up-casted. In this case, Treantmonk's reasoning makes sense.

Sigreid

2018-10-10, 08:28 PM

On the other hand, I genuinely have seen people casting 9th level Fireballs, which is craaaazy.

I think there is something about Fireball which causes people to think that it is stronger than it actually is, especially when up-casted. In this case, Treantmonk's reasoning makes sense.

Yeah, those are people who don't understand what it is. For it's spell level, cast at it's spell level, it's a top performer. It's just not a "target the big bad" spell. But then few wizard spells are.

Chaosmancer

2018-10-10, 08:47 PM

Wow, I haven't found this much to disagree with to date. I'm surprised.

First, let's talk huts. Not that I disagree with how good it is, I disagree it is underrated. Maybe I'm just in the sweet spot of highly educated communities, but everyone talks about how OP the hut is. To the point I've been tempted to remind them, dispel magic does exist.

Next, Flame Arrows. I'm not sure how you account for 1/2 and 1/3 casters in this listing yet, but flame arrows is far worse than you make it out to be, every class that gets it (druid, wizard, sorcerer and ranger) has a better concentration or blast spell and rangers who seem iconic got arrow spells should NEVER take this spell. At least I can think of uses for Wall of Sand. I can't conceive of Flame Arrows ever being useful.

Now for Call Lightning... Especially coming right after Spirit Guardians your logic seems a little suspect. 3d10 isn't much damage? You praise Spirit Guardians for its 3d8 concentration, call lightning is also concentration, so you are talking 6, 9, 12d10. Now, it does take an action to reuse, it does have that ceiling, but it also doesn't require you to close like spirit guardians does. It might still be overrated, but its more because of the potential action economy instead of the damage from the micro aoe.

Finally, Daylight. An underrated spell? I hate this spell, a lot. Bitter from a vampire fight I may be, but I need an explanation for how this spell could possibly be useful let alone worth a 3rd slot.

Chaosmancer

2018-10-10, 08:50 PM

Yeah, those are people who don't understand what it is. For it's spell level, cast at it's spell level, it's a top performer. It's just not a "target the big bad" spell. But then few wizard spells are.

One thing I've seen which blows my mind is low level wizards casting fireballs and lightning bolts at single targets.

Had a guy once who used a lightning bolt on a single orc, and not for role-playing reasons. All the wasted potential made me cringe.

sophontteks

2018-10-10, 08:58 PM

Wow, I haven't found this much to disagree with to date. I'm surprised.

Next, Flame Arrows. I'm not sure how you account for 1/2 and 1/3 casters in this listing yet, but flame arrows is far worse than you make it out to be, every class that gets it (druid, wizard, sorcerer and ranger) has a better concentration or blast spell and rangers who seem iconic got arrow spells should NEVER take this spell. At least I can think of uses for Wall of Sand. I can't conceive of Flame Arrows ever being useful.

Umm, he rated flame arrows as the third worst 3rd level spell in the game. Are you really disagreeing with him? really?

Toofey

2018-10-10, 09:03 PM

When I am DMing I make fireball add 2d6 and 5' in radius for each additional level so it scales better as you go up the scale and end up at 20d6 and a 50' radius at 9th level, which fits. I feel like this shouldn't change fireball as an overrated spell (which I agree with either way) but it would be more fitting.

Pex

2018-10-10, 09:19 PM

Leomund's Tiny Hut as most underrated spell? In what universe? Some people argue it's the best 3rd level spell, but it's rare as roc's teeth for players to dismiss it.

Sigreid

2018-10-10, 09:20 PM

Specter

2018-10-10, 09:25 PM

Nice work.

I think the advantage of Call Lightning is that you can keep it up for 1 minute and use it every round. So it's potentially 30d10 damage.

Sigreid

2018-10-10, 09:28 PM

Nice work.

I think the advantage of Call Lightning is that you can keep it up for 1 minute and use it every round. So it's potentially 30d10 damage.

I view call lightning as the discourage the horde or army from coming into my forest spell. It's not fantastic against mid to high CR mobs, but can be used to do horrible things to massed troops.

sophontteks

2018-10-10, 09:38 PM

Leomund's Tiny Hut as most underrated spell? In what universe? Some people argue it's the best 3rd level spell, but it's rare as roc's teeth for players to dismiss it.
I think there may be a disconnect between the community of nerds who read forums about D&D all day (AKA US) and the casual D&D player.
Now I don't know for sure, but maybe it is a underrated spell among most players, and we really aren't most players.

Chaosmancer

2018-10-10, 10:17 PM

Umm, he rated flame arrows as the third worst 3rd level spell in the game. Are you really disagreeing with him? really?

Yeah, it deserves to be second worst and that's only because people other than rangers get it. It's probably the worst ranger spell since it is a 3rd level that does a 1st levels job only worse.

Oh right, that was the other thing. Conjure Barrage as overrated? Does that take into account it is one of the Ranger's only AOE damage spells and that it is massive? Sure, sucks that they don't get it until 9th level when it is rarer to run into big groups of weaklings for that 3d8, but I've never seen it rated all that highly for it to be an overrated spell

MaxWilson

2018-10-10, 10:34 PM

Nice work.

I think the advantage of Call Lightning is that you can keep it up for 1 minute and use it every round. So it's potentially 30d10 damage.

Ten minutes, not one minute. Combine it with a nice wildshape like Giant Eagle and that's 300d10 damage to some poor ground pounder like an Iron Golem or an Annis Hag.

If the fight is going to be over in only a minute you're better off with Moonbeam, but Call Lightning has a better duration.

sophontteks

2018-10-10, 10:39 PM

Yeah, it deserves to be second worst and that's only because people other than rangers get it. It's probably the worst ranger spell since it is a 3rd level that does a 1st levels job only worse.

But you agree with him that its one of the worst spells in the game.

Treantmonk

2018-10-10, 11:01 PM

guachi

2018-10-10, 11:01 PM

Treantmonk

2018-10-10, 11:36 PM

LudicSavant

2018-10-11, 12:56 AM

No response re: Conjure Animals?

Zalabim

2018-10-11, 04:15 AM

First my own comments before I address others. Again, I wrote these as I watched the video.

Flame Arrows: Maybe not a party of archers, but a party with a whole bunch of archers in tow. Skeleton Archers. Then it's a pre-battle spell that can add a burst of single-target damage (potentially) on the first round.

Wall of Sand: Yeah, it's kinda bad, but I can see it justifying its level with the combination of blocking sight and heavily impeding movement in a 30'X10' block. I wouldn't use it, but I couldn't justify it in level 2 either. It's ~3 side-by-side greases(no proning, but slows movement as much as crawling through grease anyway)+fog cloud.

Hypnotic Pattern: Don't oversell it. It doesn't have a saving throw because it ends when a creature takes damage, or by an ally using an action. So each creature that fails the save costs the enemy party one or more actions. On the downside, it is a charm and an indiscriminate area. Any creatures that pass the save should be nearby to help their allies. Assuming that enemies never help each other makes this spell (and sleep) way more powerful.

Call Lightning: Only use is longer range than Moonbeam. It's acceptable if you're in a long-distance firefight, but Tempest clerics definitely have a tendency to overrate this spell.

Erupting Earth: Overrated for its scaling, but I don't think that use is really considered. It's a hybrid spell, but its area seems a bit too small for my taste. Placing it for best area damage coverage is at odds with best difficult terrain coverage. I think Daylight deserved more than an honorable mention in this case.

Conjure Animals: I don't see this as being underrated. It's the lowest level summon, and animals are the simplest type to run. I think choosing the number and the DM picking based on the environment/situation makes most sense. That way you aren't handing the player the MM or forcing them to learn every kind of creature that exists in the campaign setting.

Leomund's Tiny Hut: Yeah, it's good. I've seen so many threads about this I can't believe it's underrated. It is misunderstood though. Allies can leave, but the caster can not. Like Wall of Force, it really should be magic walls with a listed HP and method of damaging them.

Honorable Mentions: 3rd level is a big level of spells to talk about, and it really shows here.

Wow, I haven't found this much to disagree with to date. I'm surprised.

Now for Call Lightning... Especially coming right after Spirit Guardians your logic seems a little suspect. 3d10 isn't much damage? You praise Spirit Guardians for its 3d8 concentration, call lightning is also concentration, so you are talking 6, 9, 12d10. Now, it does take an action to reuse, it does have that ceiling, but it also doesn't require you to close like spirit guardians does. It might still be overrated, but its more because of the potential action economy instead of the damage from the micro aoe.
Call Lightning takes your action to deal damage, has a smaller area, lacks the movement reduction effect, and requires you to be in a wide-open space. Using your action every turn to deal 3d10 damage is barely an improvement on what you can already do. Using one action to deal 3d8 damage each round is a lot stronger. Plus Tempest Clerics often want to use their Channel Divinity on this spell, when (I think) they're better off using it on a wider area instead.

Finally, Daylight. An underrated spell? I hate this spell, a lot. Bitter from a vampire fight I may be, but I need an explanation for how this spell could possibly be useful let alone worth a 3rd slot.
Daylight is listed as an overrated spell. Probably because of vampire experiences, yes.

Oh right, that was the other thing. Conjure Barrage as overrated? Does that take into account it is one of the Ranger's only AOE damage spells and that it is massive? Sure, sucks that they don't get it until 9th level when it is rarer to run into big groups of weaklings for that 3d8, but I've never seen it rated all that highly for it to be an overrated spell
Conjure Barrage is listed as one of the worst spells, and I agree. A 60' cone is fairly big, but 3d8 damage is very small. I'd put Lightning Arrow ahead of it though, for also taking concentration.

This.

We get a different calibur player at GitP then at the average table.
That's a comment that I'd take with a load of salt, or possibly sarcasm. There's some good and some bad, to be sure.

Calling something "underrated" or "overrated" is lazy analysis. Is there anything anywhere that has people rating spells? Does the video ever say where it gets its ratings?

Scanning the video, I don't see any. The last 12 minutes are talking about phantom ratings.
It's an excuse to talk about 6 more spells. I appreciate the extra discussion, nevermind the excuse plot.

sophontteks

2018-10-11, 07:23 AM

Calling something "underrated" or "overrated" is lazy analysis. Is there anything anywhere that has people rating spells? Does the video ever say where it gets its ratings?

Scanning the video, I don't see any. The last 12 minutes are talking about phantom ratings.
No one cares about the ratings. They care about his insight into spells which may not be very popular. His overrated/underrated spells offer the best insight and advice in the video.

He gets these phantom ratings from his own experience and the guy has a ton of experience. This is his way of sharing it. He is intentionally making contraversal picks to challenge norms and help casters think outside the box.

MaxWilson

2018-10-11, 07:30 AM

No response re: Conjure Animals?

Everyone knows Conjure Animals is fantastic. But there is no basis for Treantmonk's statement that of the DM chooses the CR, you get to choose the monster. I'm guessing that's just his DM's way of running things.

iTreeby

2018-10-11, 07:45 AM

there is no basis for Treantmonk's statement that of the DM chooses the CR, you get to choose the monster. I'm guessing that's just his DM's way of running things.
Just his DM and any DM that follows the July 2015 sage advice

Chaosmancer

2018-10-11, 08:15 AM

But you agree with him that its one of the worst spells in the game.

Yes, but unlike Wall of Sand I can't think of a single usage for Flame Arrows.

The closest I've seen is upthread where someone suggested skeleton archers, but I'd still see it as a "I have nothing better to do, so I'll burn this slot" spell. And at the level where you can just burn a 3rd level slot, you have far far better things you should concentrate on at the beginning of a combat.

Meanwhile, Wall of Sand might not stop movement but at 1/3 rate a person getting through it needs to be directly on top of it to push through. Otherwise dashing which wastes a turn. It blocks line of sight, but unlike fog cloud you can get around it for your archers and casters. I'd say a spell which can potentially make an entire enemy force lose a turn with no save can be powerful in the right scenarios.

Yet, he ranks it lower than Flame Arrows, which is fine, opinions and all that, but I just disagree.

Call Lightning takes your action to deal damage, has a smaller area, lacks the movement reduction effect, and requires you to be in a wide-open space. Using your action every turn to deal 3d10 damage is barely an improvement on what you can already do. Using one action to deal 3d8 damage each round is a lot stronger. Plus Tempest Clerics often want to use their Channel Divinity on this spell, when (I think) they're better off using it on a wider area instead.

I agree, but I don't think the video made that aspect clear. He talked about how the damage isn't worth the spell slot, when it has a long duration and the damage can be repeated in an aoe.

Also, Moonbeam which he brings up as superior for the level is a 5ft cylinder, which gives it a smaller area. I find this important because you often have to move moonbeam to keep the effect active. Sure, the enemy is going to take damage at the beginning of their turn, but unless you've got a chokepoint or something else preventing movement you'll need to move that moonbeam with your action.

Daylight is listed as an overrated spell. Probably because of vampire experiences, yes.

Reading fail on my part. Should have paused the video. Thanks for the catch.

Conjure Barrage is listed as one of the worst spells, and I agree. A 60' cone is fairly big, but 3d8 damage is very small. I'd put Lightning Arrow ahead of it though, for also taking concentration.

Yeah, I wonder about heavily buffing these spells but not allowing bards to steal the buffed versions.

'Cause both of those are Ranger exclusive, so I feel like they should take into account the level they get them. A ranger in a previous game of mine was heavily disappointed when they used Lightning Arrow for the first time and dealt like 9 damage at level 10. It just feels like an oversight

Chaosmancer

2018-10-11, 08:18 AM

Just his DM and any DM that follows the July 2015 sage advice

Which not everyone does (didn't even know about that ruling). I've mostly seen caster pick both (which makes it great) but also heard of times when the DM picked both (which makes it potentially worthless)

It's really table dependant.

Zalabim

2018-10-11, 08:39 AM

I agree, but I don't think the video made that aspect clear. He talked about how the damage isn't worth the spell slot, when it has a long duration and the damage can be repeated in an aoe.

Also, Moonbeam which he brings up as superior for the level is a 5ft cylinder, which gives it a smaller area. I find this important because you often have to move moonbeam to keep the effect active. Sure, the enemy is going to take damage at the beginning of their turn, but unless you've got a chokepoint or something else preventing movement you'll need to move that moonbeam with your action.
Moonbeam and Call Lightning have the same size for their damage. If you need to move the moonbeam with your action, it still does the same basic amount of damage as call lightning which requires your action to deal damage. The longer range, longer duration, and longer distance between strikes if necessary all help Call Lightning; The spell is alright, not bad, but overrated.

Reading fail on my part. Should have paused the video. Thanks for the catch.
No problem.

Yeah, I wonder about heavily buffing these spells but not allowing bards to steal the buffed versions.

'Cause both of those are Ranger exclusive, so I feel like they should take into account the level they get them. A ranger in a previous game of mine was heavily disappointed when they used Lightning Arrow for the first time and dealt like 9 damage at level 10. It just feels like an oversight
The ranger (and paladin) are balanced with the expectation that the spell slots they get have the same value as any other spell slot of their level. Their exclusive spells are just supposed to be very appropriate or more convenient for them to use. Conjure Barrage and Lightning Arrow just look weak for the spell level. You can buff them some without risking bards running away with it. Since Lightning Arrow's a spell that works with the attack action and Lore bards aren't good at Attacking, and the bards that are better at Attacking, aren't getting a magical secret until level 10. For Conjure Barrage, you may want to do something similar and make it modify (or modified) weapon attacks, sorta like the Arcane Archer's piercing arrow.

As is, Conjure Barrage does no more damage than Shatter, without its utility. Wider area, but that should be a given for going up to 3rd level spells. Lightning Arrow does less damage than an upcast Hail of Thorns with only slightly more range on its area effect to show for it. It should be clearly superior instead of situationally better.

Treantmonk

2018-10-11, 09:04 AM

That's a comment that I'd take with a load of salt, or possibly sarcasm. There's some good and some bad, to be sure.
.

Not sarcasm, but I should clarify. I don't mean that the GitP crowd are necessarily better players (you might be, but without sitting at a table with you there's no way to know.), what I mean is that players/DM's who come to GitP to talk about D&D, analyze D&D, discuss tactics, mechanics and features, are certainly going to have a better knowledge of the rules, and which spells are better/worse than you might find at an average table.

That's why here I put Leomund's Tiny Hut as underrated and the common reaction is, "of course Tiny Hut is amazing, but I thought everyone knew."

iTreeby

2018-10-11, 09:11 AM

It's really table dependant.

Conjure woodland beings getting you 8 pixies that can each cast 10 spells out of one fourth level slot is table dependant. But if your dm just let's you pick whatever you want you can overshadow your party with a swarm of pixies.

It's definitely table dependant. Also it's definitely not just Treantmonk's DM that follows the sage advice because if you don't, the games engine gets choked with pixies that fart flying T-Rex at the encounters.

MaxWilson

2018-10-11, 10:18 AM

Just his DM and any DM that follows the July 2015 sage advice

If we're talking about the same Sage Advice, there is nothing in it which says you can pick the creature if your DM picks the number.

The Sage Advice just says to follow the spell text: you choose the CR range and therefore the number, period. You can express a preference to your DM for what kind of creature you get, but there is no rule that says you can pick the creature exactly if you forego choosing the CR. As far as I know Treantmonk or his DM just made that up for themselves.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-11, 10:23 AM

I think there may be a disconnect between the community of nerds who read forums about D&D all day (AKA US) and the casual D&D player.
Now I don't know for sure, but maybe it is a underrated spell among most players, and we really aren't most players.

Where is he getting the data?
He is prolly playing with the same mix of D&D nerds and casual players as the rest of us.

No one underrates summoning 8 giant owls or spirit guardians. (nor Find Familiar from earlier posts)

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-11, 10:28 AM

On the topic of fireball, I had a group this weekend that turned a very hard encounter (note--walking in to the stronghold surrounded by guards and the boss and then mouthing off is not the recommended method for clearing an area) into a cakewalk because we had an evoker wizard who got first initiative.

Round 1: point-blank fireball, exempting all of us. Even half damage was enough to evaporate about half the combatants (simple bandits) and injure most of the rest.
Round 2, after a few more had come to join the party, she repeated the point-blank fireball. This dropped/severely injured the rest. After that it was just clean-up.

Yes, this was a severe resource cost (2x 3rd level spells at level 5). But that's the value of fireball, especially from an evoker wizard. Clearing mooks.

And mooks are something that people generally don't run enough of. 5e works best when you have lots of low-CR creatures and then a bigger leader, rather than 1-2 high-CR creatures. Quantity has a quality all its own.

Chaosmancer

2018-10-11, 11:24 AM

Moonbeam and Call Lightning have the same size for their damage. If you need to move the moonbeam with your action, it still does the same basic amount of damage as call lightning which requires your action to deal damage. The longer range, longer duration, and longer distance between strikes if necessary all help Call Lightning; The spell is alright, not bad, but overrated.

Really? I've always seen that "all targets within 5 ft of a point" means a square and every square adjacent while moonbean's 5ft radius is only a single square.

Wow, looking at it again, that's a big goof isn't it. It should also hit a square and every square adjacent. I'm going to have to tell my Saturday DM, cause my Ancients Paladin is going to be way happier with such an increased area.

See, this kind of thing is why these discussions are good

Specter

2018-10-11, 11:41 AM

Ten minutes, not one minute. Combine it with a nice wildshape like Giant Eagle and that's 300d10 damage to some poor ground pounder like an Iron Golem or an Annis Hag.

If the fight is going to be over in only a minute you're better off with Moonbeam, but Call Lightning has a better duration.

Well, even better!

MaxWilson

2018-10-11, 12:15 PM

Where is he getting the data?
He is prolly playing with the same mix of D&D nerds and casual players as the rest of us.

No one underrates summoning 8 giant owls or spirit guardians. (nor Find Familiar from earlier posts)

Meh, Spirit Guardians is overrated. It takes concentration, and outside of cramped dungeon crawls it's hard to use its AoE effectively without simultaneously exposing yourself to enough attacks that your concentration will break. 15' radius means that any monster with a 10' reach can pretty much hit you OR anyone you're trying to protect, at will, so you'll never have enough time for it to build up to Fireball-like levels of damage. (Not that Fireball-level damage is all that great anyway.) 3d8 damage, save for half, will takes ages and ages to kill even a CR 2-3 monster.

Fireball does have a niche, but it's primarily for cases where you see an opportunity like a bunch of Githyanki Warriors who happen to clump up (5-6 Githyanki in a 40' diameter area? Time for a Fireball!) and Spirit Guardians is too slow to exploit those cases.

The main reason Spirit Guardians looks good is just because the (pure) cleric action economy is so offensively mediocre. Spirit Guardians isn't as good as e.g. Conjure Animals or Polymorph for tough fights, but it's sometimes better than Bless or Sacred Flame, so by cleric standards it looks good although sometimes e.g. Banishment is better. For e.g. a Divine Sorlock Spirit Guardians is a lot iffier because the opportunity cost is higher.

It's hard to imagine a scenario where Spirit Guardians is the difference between winning and losing. Maybe if you're going up against three dozen Stirges.

LtPowers

2018-10-11, 12:42 PM

Really? I've always seen that "all targets within 5 ft of a point" means a square and every square adjacent while moonbean's 5ft radius is only a single square.

Wow, looking at it again, that's a big goof isn't it. It should also hit a square and every square adjacent. I'm going to have to tell my Saturday DM, cause my Ancients Paladin is going to be way happier with such an increased area.

See, this kind of thing is why these discussions are good

I use Moonbeam as a 10'x10' square. That's a 5' radius from a crosspoint. If you're targeting a square instead of a grid crossing, a five-foot radius will only reach halfway into adjacent squares, which (considering the cross-section is an arc) isn't enough to cover half of the adjacent square.

Powers &8^]

LudicSavant

2018-10-11, 01:45 PM

Just his DM and any DM that follows the July 2015 sage advice

The July 2015 Sage Advice specifically says that the player cannot choose the specific creature with Conjure Animals.

Treantmonk seems to have misread both the rules as written, and the Sage Advice, in this case.

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.

In other words, when it says "spells of this sort" it means "spells that let you summon creatures." Some spells of that sort (like Find Familiar) allow you to choose the creature conjured. Other spells (those which let you choose "X creatures of CR Y or lower") work in a different fashion, and allow you to choose from a list of options. When it says that the spellcaster "chooses one of the options" it is referring to the bullet-pointed options. This is entirely unambiguous, since it says that the "second option" is "Two elementals of challenge rating 1 or lower." If it was in fact counting the "choose the creature conjured" option as an option, it would be the third option, not the second. It's not only clear in the 2015 Sage Advice, but has been repeatedly clarified. There's no wiggle room here.

Choosing the creature conjured does not apply to anything that gives the "X creatures of CR Y" list.

It's not even an issue of "does your table use Sage Advice." The 2015 Sage Advice simply does not support Treantmonk's claim. It seems to be the case that he's just making up rules here. This seems like a pretty major oversight.

Eragon123

2018-10-11, 02:02 PM

Treantmonk actually did say that his table inverts the normal RAW rules. So while we can debate the merits of the spell RAW vs the many ways people ACTUALLY run it, let's not pretend nor purport that Treantmonk got the rules wrong when he clarified otherwise.

I actually see some benefits to such a scheme.

1. The DM doesn't have to worry about a sudden swarm. The battlefield will usually contain roughly the same amount of creatures that the DM intended.
2. The Player feels like they've always optimized with what they were given.
It's like cutting a cake between two children. One cuts the cake and the other chooses first. The chooser feels like that get slightly more than half, thus it makes sense that chooser should be the player.

LudicSavant

2018-10-11, 02:12 PM

Treantmonk actually did say that his table inverts the normal RAW rules. So while we can debate the merits of the spell RAW vs the many ways people ACTUALLY run it, let's not pretend nor purport that Treantmonk got the rules wrong when he clarified otherwise.

I just rewatched the video and cannot find where he says this. He does however say that he thinks the spell is underrated because "people are ignorant of the rules I just mentioned on picking creatures." Which suggests that he thinks that said rules are, in fact, the rules.

They are not.

He also has an extended segment explaining how he thinks Conjure Animals works "in D&D." This segment is presented as explaining how the spells works to his audience; he doesn't say anything about it being his houserule.

Eragon123

2018-10-11, 02:25 PM

I just rewatched the video and cannot find where he says this. He does however say that he thinks the spell is underrated because "people are ignorant of the rules I just mentioned on picking creatures." Which suggests that he thinks that said rules are, in fact, the rules.

They are not.

He also has an extended segment explaining how he thinks Conjure Animals works "in D&D." This segment is presented as explaining how the spells works to his audience; he doesn't say anything about it being his houserule.

Eh, I might have given him too much credit.

https://youtu.be/eVwEXpI63X4?t=970

He said the DM either picks the type or the amount.
Which is wrong.
So I actually don't need to go any further.

The player picks the Number which is attached to the CR rating. The DM has the statistics.

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-11, 02:43 PM

Meh, Spirit Guardians is overrated.

I was wrong. Someone does underrate Spirit Guardians.

tieren

2018-10-11, 03:32 PM

The player picks the Number which is attached to the CR rating.

To be even more specific the number is attached to the CR rating cap, not the CR of what actually appears.

If the player picks "one beast of CR 2 or lower", the DM is still RAW fine with giving them a single beast of a lower CR. its a jerk move, but RAW.

Stygofthedump

2018-10-11, 04:40 PM

I was sure haste was going to be ‘over rated’

MaxWilson

2018-10-11, 04:56 PM

I was sure haste was going to be ‘over rated’

Haste is an odd duck. Its effect on attacks and DPR is sometimes overrated (for a warrior type, it takes 2-3 rounds to make back the action economy cost of even casting Haste in the first place, much less the cost of losing an round if you lose concentration or the opportunity cost of not concentrating on something better like Greater Invisibility) but its effect on movement rate and defense (kiting, Hiding) is underrated.

To be even more specific the number is attached to the CR rating cap, not the CR of what actually appears.

If the player picks "one beast of CR 2 or lower", the DM is still RAW fine with giving them a single beast of a lower CR. its a jerk move, but RAW.

Sure, but an equally jerk move would be for the DM to give you a custom CR 2 monster with reach 5' and zero movement rate. That complies with both the letter and the spirit of the RAW, but it's still a jerk move. Or they could even give you exactly what you wanted, but attack you with their own custom CR 1 monsters that have absurdly high movement, Flyby, low HP, and high damage. There's lots of ways to be a jerk.

DMs in D&D have all the power, and if your DM is a jerk, don't play with them.

iTreeby

2018-10-11, 05:24 PM

Whelp I misunderstood the video.

Treantmonk

2018-10-11, 09:24 PM

The July 2015 Sage Advice specifically says that the player cannot choose the specific creature with Conjure Animals.

Treantmonk seems to have misread both the rules as written, and the Sage Advice, in this case.

This is the case. (Edit: not exactly the case, but it's my mistake regardless. If memory serves, we instituded a house-rule at some point allowing the player to choose the creature and the DM to choose the amount/CR to allow the player to prepare some options for the spell as it is not easy for a DM to easily access a list of all the 1/2 CR beast options on the fly for example. I had forgot it was a house-rule) I will be posting a correction with my level 4 video.

MaxWilson

2018-10-11, 09:35 PM

As a general observation, I would suggest reviewing the rules before creating any best/worst/underrated/overrated spell list. The thing with Conjure Animals is, what, the fourth serious house rule/rules error impacting spell ratings that we've seen so far? Find Steed paladin smite spell sharing (illegal), Conjure Animals animal choosing (cannot), Goodberry requiring an action to consume (not eligible for force-feeding by RAW, and force-feeding unconscious people can seriously harm them anyway so DMs shouldn't override RAW here), I think at least one more. We're all human, we make mistakes, but the signal-to-noise ratio on the videos will improve if the spells are rated based on PHB spell text instead of your house rules.

This is the case. (Edit: not exactly the case, but it's my mistake regardless. If memory serves, we instituded a house-rule at some point allowing the player to choose the creature and the DM to choose the amount/CR to allow the player to prepare some options for the spell as it is not easy for a DM to easily access a list of all the 1/2 CR beast options on the fly for example. I had forgot it was a house-rule) I will be posting a correction with my level 4 video.

Nitpick: the DM doesn't need to access a list of all CR 1/2 beasts on the fly. He just needs to pick one, either one suggested by the player or whichever one he happens to remember the stats of.

"Hooray! Four warhorses appear!"

Theodoxus

2018-10-11, 11:07 PM

"Hooray! Four warhorses appear!"

Our druid always seems to summon giant wasps... which are pretty effective at killing mooks, I must say.

ETA, I like your lists for the most part, but I'll echo something that was mentioned in the comments for the first video - comparing disparate spells from two class lists and saying "x is better than y" when they're not available outside of multiclass is a bit of a disservice.

Take Catnap. It's available to Bards and Sorcerers, while Rope Trick, it's "better" version is available only to wizards. Well, if you don't have wizard, but do have a bard or sorc, and have approximately 10 minutes to spare for your BDF to get his action surge and maneuvers back - catnip's a great spell. Especially on a speed run or timed quest, where an hour might be cutting it.
Yeah, it's edge - but given you can't have both catnap and rope trick without Magical Secrets or multiclassing, and there are a lot of other 3rd level spells that could make the list? Just thought I'd throw that out there.

As for Healing Spirit, it's not that everyone in the party can get 10d6 HP back, it's that you get (# of Party)!*10d6, as it heals PER TURN. So Party member 1 runs in, gets d6, then yanks party member 2 through, gaining d6, and then pulls party member 3 in for a d6, and then pulls party member 4 in for a d6. Then party member 2 runs in for a d6, pulls party member 1 in for a d6, then pulls party member 3 in for a d6, then pulls party member 4 in for a d6. Then party member 3 runs in for a d6, then pulls party member 1 in for a d6... etc... until everyone has been pulled in by everyone else and run through for the round.

Yes, at level 3, where everyone has ~24 HP or so, no big deal, you're done healing in a few rounds. At 15th level, where everyone has over 150 hit points, you still don't need to upcast the spell to return you back to max.

You have a point, as it doesn't bring back other expended resources (thankfully), but as written, it's a horribly OP spell that only a single change from Turn to Round would resolve.

Now, I've taken to just giving out free healing basically. Players should be begging to start a long rest not because they're beaten down and out of HP, but because they're out of all their other resources... restoring HP after an encounter, if it alleviates the 15 minute work day, is a great trade-off in my book, and I'm hoping the next iteration of D&D heads in that direction officially. So, I've backed off my original stance that HS is OP - but in a bog standard game of AL styled D&D? It's OPAF.

LudicSavant

2018-10-11, 11:16 PM

This is the case. (Edit: not exactly the case, but it's my mistake regardless. If memory serves, we instituded a house-rule at some point allowing the player to choose the creature and the DM to choose the amount/CR to allow the player to prepare some options for the spell as it is not easy for a DM to easily access a list of all the 1/2 CR beast options on the fly for example. I had forgot it was a house-rule) I will be posting a correction with my level 4 video.

Okay. Will you also be posting a correction for the level 2 spell rules errors? A fair number were pointed out in the last thread as well.

Zalabim

2018-10-12, 03:19 AM

Not sarcasm, but I should clarify. I don't mean that the GitP crowd are necessarily better players (you might be, but without sitting at a table with you there's no way to know.), what I mean is that players/DM's who come to GitP to talk about D&D, analyze D&D, discuss tactics, mechanics and features, are certainly going to have a better knowledge of the rules, and which spells are better/worse than you might find at an average table.
I pretty much mean that's far from certain. Even people who make youtube videos about D&D tactics, mechanics, and features aren't immune to getting things wrong from time to time. There's also people who use online resources just to confirm their existing belief. Of course I can't comment on how good people who aren't discussing it online are with the rules and tactics, so I'm just saying there's already a broad range on that ability in just the folks online.

Arkhios

2018-10-12, 03:42 AM

I have two minor issues with your evaluations.

1. Spirit Guardians also slows down enemies, this also stacks with difficult terrain.
2. Erupting Earth creates difficult terrain, which is a good side feature and compliments the druid spell selection nicely. (though i'll admit that its not the best for sorcerers or wizards)

Actually (granted, I only just now realized this):

Divine Soul Sorcerer can get quite a bit of mileage from knowing both Spirit Guardians and Erupting Earth, because they can. Erupting Earth is instantaneous and Spirit Guardians is concentrated. The other creates difficult terrain and the other slows you down even more.

Zorrah

2018-10-12, 08:18 AM

Well, in the case of goodberry + Familiar, some familiars are birds who could, regurgitate the berries for characters unable to swallow. :smallbiggrin:

Eragon123

2018-10-12, 09:24 AM

Actually (granted, I only just now realized this):

Divine Soul Sorcerer can get quite a bit of mileage from knowing both Spirit Guardians and Erupting Earth, because they can. Erupting Earth is instantaneous and Spirit Guardians is concentrated. The other creates difficult terrain and the other slows you down even more.

So we pick a mountain dwarf for the medium armor proficiency.

initial stats

STR: 16 (spend 7 points for 14 then enjoy that sweet +2 bonus)
DEX: 13 (spend 6 points then at level 4 we pick up resiliency Dex or some other half feat)
CON: 16 (Spend 7 points for 14 then enjoy that sweet +2 bonus)
INT: 8 (DUMP)
WIS: 8 (Dump, but willing to debate this)
CHA: 14 (Spend 7 then pump it up level 8 and onward)

We wear half plate when we can get it with a warhammer. We can use the shield spell or perhaps the shield of faith spell if we need more defense.

Cantrips:
Booming Blade
Prestigiditation
Ray of Frost
(Flex pick)

Spells:
Shield
(Flex Pick; perhaps shield of faith)

Stats
AC: 16
Speed:25 (we will get our vengeance soon)
Init: +1
Attack: +5 1d8+3 bludgeoning and other fun booming blade effects go up.

You know this isn't bad. I'd play it.
I know one could multiclass hexblade or paladin to make it a bit better or remove the need for mountain dwarf or the gith race that also has medium armor proficiency but I don't like multiclassing.

EDIT: I might drop the Dex to 12 and up the WIS to 9 and then pick up resiliency wis at level 4 but I feel both options are equally valid)

EDIT2: Max Wilson dropped some wisdom.

MaxWilson

2018-10-12, 09:46 AM

S
We wear half plate when we can get it and use a shield (wait do mountain dwarves get a shield proficiency?) with a warhammer

Nope, no shield proficiency for mountain dwarves.

Eragon123

2018-10-12, 10:18 AM

Nope, no shield proficiency for mountain dwarves.

Thanks will edit accordingly

Draken

2018-10-12, 10:22 AM

Small correction for Leomund's Tiny Hut at the end, you said that while the spell is active, you and your allies can come and go from it as you please, but this is not correct. Leomund's Tiny Hut ends if you (the caster) leaves the dome.

If not for this caveat, forget about its use as a Long Rest enabler, Tiny Hut would be an exceptional door.

MaxWilson

2018-10-12, 10:56 AM

It's worth noting that Leomund's Tiny Hut can't do anything a regular wooden hut cannot do (or even an earth berm built with some wire gabions and repeated Mold Earth castings to fill them up). In 5E, monsters and spells cannot pass through total cover of any type. Doesn't matter if it came from a spell or a wooden wall.

If Tiny Hut had the same "immune to all damage" clause as Wall of Force it would be clearly better than a real hut or wall, but it does not.

Draken

2018-10-12, 12:06 PM

NaughtyTiger

2018-10-12, 01:06 PM

I use Moonbeam as a 10'x10' square. That's a 5' radius from a crosspoint. If you're targeting a square instead of a grid crossing, a five-foot radius will only reach halfway into adjacent squares, which (considering the cross-section is an arc) isn't enough to cover half of the adjacent square

but, bob isn't necessarily standing in the center of that 5 ft square. he is dancing around inside it. and nimbly stays out of the glow patch...
that doesn't work at my table.

Snails

2018-10-12, 03:34 PM

Call Lightning: Only use is longer range than Moonbeam. It's acceptable if you're in a long-distance firefight, but Tempest clerics definitely have a tendency to overrate this spell.

...

Call Lightning takes your action to deal damage, has a smaller area, lacks the movement reduction effect, and requires you to be in a wide-open space. Using your action every turn to deal 3d10 damage is barely an improvement on what you can already do. Using one action to deal 3d8 damage each round is a lot stronger. Plus Tempest Clerics often want to use their Channel Divinity on this spell, when (I think) they're better off using it on a wider area instead.

I see the spell as okayish and more about flavor. It hardly matters that Tempest Clerics overrate Call Lightning because it is prepared whether they like it or not. Under certain rare conditions, specifically long drawn out combats in big open spaces, it is a devastatingly resource efficient spell. But in more typical circumstances, and upleveled Shatter is a more practical means to soften some targets before getting into the extreme violence toe-to-toe.

Oh. OTOH, if anyone is Channeling Call Lightning then maybe there is a problem. :smalleek:

I certainly can imagine Divine Channeling a 3rd or 4th level slot for Shatter, if there is a juicy cluster of targets -- 32 or 40 sonic is probably better than the sorceror can do. Once.

Treantmonk

2018-10-12, 06:21 PM

As a general observation, I would suggest reviewing the rules before creating any best/worst/underrated/overrated spell list.<snip> Find Steed paladin smite spell sharing (illegal)<snip> signal-to-noise ratio on the videos will improve if the spells are rated based on PHB spell text instead of your house rules.

The Find Steed spell says:
" While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed."

The PHB rules on targeting spells is as follows:
"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by the spell's magic. A spell's description tells you whether the spell targets creatures, objects, or the point of origin for an area of effect."

And

"The target of a spell must be within the spell's range. For a spell like magic missile, the target is a creature. For a spell like fireball, the target is the point in space where the ball of fire erupts. Most spells have ranges expressed in feet. Some spells can target only a creature (including you) that you touch. Other spells, such as the shield spell, affect only you. These spells have a range of self. Spells that create cones or lines of effect that originate from you also have a range of self, indicating that the origin point of the spell's effect must be you (see “Areas of Effect”)."

These rules are pretty clear. However, Jeremy Crawford has since made Tweets and interviews where he's suggested that a spell targets much more than the rules say or would be intuitive by the way the rules are written.

Apparently everyone who takes damage from the Fireball was targeted in addition to the point of space that was targeted. This could include targeting creatures around corners that have full cover from you (and thus, would actually be illegal to target with a spell by RAW, so are we also changing the rules for targeting creatures behind total cover?)

The whole thing has become a quagmire if his tweets are considered errata (which officially they aren't).

I'm wondering if it will be corrected at some point, we have certainly seen that in other cases.

Now in regards to Smite Spells in particular, Crawford has also tweeted specifically about them (or at least Blinding Smite), where he points out that the spell references another Target in the spell description.

However, to be clear, the spell says,
"The next time you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack during this spell’s duration, you weapon flares with a bright light, and the attack deals an extra 3d8 radiant damage to the target. "

Now I'm not an English Teacher, but "Target" here would seem to be implying the target of the melee attack, not the target of the spell. Crawford has said otherwise, though it is not intuitive.

I suspect that some unintended combos became available with Find Steed and (moreso) twin spell that he wanted to squash, so he's done a bit of "unofficial" errata.

MaxWilson

2018-10-12, 06:34 PM

Forcecage also lacks that wording, it is probably oversight and someone forgot to put general rules for force effects somewhere in the book. This is corroborated by Disintegrate calling itself out as being able to destroy "creations of magical force, such as the wall created by wall of force".

We know that force creations are not invulnerable across the board, because Bigby's Hand is a hand made out of force and it can be destroyed. You don't need a Disintegrate spell to do so. You can just hit it with an axe until it is destroyed.

Forcecage would indeed be a DM call, but since it is higher level than Wall of Force and clearly intended to be similar (e.g. they are both combat spells that are immune to Dispel Magic) it would be unreasonable IMO to make Forcecage easier to destroy than Wall of Force.

That logic doesn't apply to Leomund's Tiny Hut, which is lower level, does not share the Dispel Magic clause, and apparently isn't intended to be cast during combat (because it's a ritual, although the 1 action cast time does have niche combat applications, especially if the DM does rule that it's immune to damage).

Treantmonk

2018-10-12, 06:39 PM

Well, in the case of goodberry + Familiar, some familiars are birds who could, regurgitate the berries for characters unable to swallow. :smallbiggrin:

this is absolutely how I envision the combination to work.

Edit: As for unconsious characters and the ability to swallow, I would suggest that if they can't swallow, then you can't adminster them a healing potion either, for the same reason.

MaxWilson

2018-10-12, 06:57 PM

this is absolutely how I envision the combination to work.

As for unconsious characters and the ability to swallow, I would suggest that if they can't swallow, then you can't adminster them a healing potion either, for the same reason.

It becomes an issue of precident. That said, it absolutely does not say anywhere in the rules that you can use your action to feed a goodberry to anyone else. For the record, it also absolutely does not say anywhere in the rules that you would use your Strength to "twist" something. I'm not sure I agree that asking for a Str check to twist something makes it a "house rule".

Hey Chris,

Thanks for an honest response. Here's a frank opinion in return.

You're being absurd in your comparison to "twisting."

Look. We know that Goodberries cannot be eaten with your free object interaction. Something about consuming them takes a few seconds of deliberate effort. Do you have to chew them twenty times before swallowing? It doesn't say, but it does say that you can't just pop one in your mouth (with your object interaction) and regain 1 HP. You have to use an action.

We know that potions require an action to consume or administer. Maybe it's because of uncorking them, maybe it's because it takes a few seconds to chug. If a DM rules that you can only administer potions to conscious characters I won't complain; but it's silly to claim that a DM declining to let you consume Goodberries without spending your action like it says in the spell text is similar to not letting you twist anything because there is no Twisting section in the PHP.

Particularly because we know that it is unsafe to force feed unconscious people. It's not just a game balance or rules text argument; even real life does not support the idea that forcing food down someone's throat with your fingers is equivalent to them eating.

AFAIK regurgitation by birds is just regular vomiting. It helps get around the lack of hands to carry berries, but that isn't the issue. Regurgitating into someone's mouth is even less like eating than forcing food down their throat with your fingers is. (Besides, you can't regurgitate what you haven't eaten, and eating is how you use the berry. Would you claim that a Goodberry can be eaten multiple times for 1 HP of healing each time? Better to just avoid the whole issue and carry it in your beak without swallowing it.)

When you rate Goodberry and Find Familiar as best-in-class spells based largely on a combo that isn't even legal, and then defend that combo with absurd hyperbole (Twisting rules), other people have the right to be skeptical. When you do the same thing for other spells like Find Steed, skepticism can only grow. The videos are entertaining in the same way as any other forum post, but so far they're haven't been reliable advice.

Snails

2018-10-12, 07:00 PM

As for unconsious characters and the ability to swallow, I would suggest that if they can't swallow, then you can't adminster them a healing potion either, for the same reason.

While it is easiest to imagine swallowing a liquid as the one true way for potions to work, there is nothing especially logical about a healing potion being swallowed rather than poured over the wounds. Nor is there any particular logic to a potion of invisibility being a liquid that is swallowed rather than sprinkled.

Since the convention of drinking is unnecessarily boring, nobody is very interested in policing the details. A "potion" is a simple kind of one use magical item that is easy for the characters in the game universe to use with a specific amount of effort. The details...who cares?

Arnie82

2018-10-12, 09:58 PM

While it is easiest to imagine swallowing a liquid as the one true way for potions to work, there is nothing especially logical about a healing potion being swallowed rather than poured over the wounds. Nor is there any particular logic to a potion of invisibility being a liquid that is swallowed rather than sprinkled.

Since the convention of drinking is unnecessarily boring, nobody is very interested in policing the details. A "potion" is a simple kind of one use magical item that is easy for the characters in the game universe to use with a specific amount of effort. The details...who cares?

Potion of Healing. A character who drinks the magical
red fluid in this vial regains 2d4 + 2 hit points. Drinking
or administering a potion takes an action.

Draken

2018-10-12, 11:10 PM

We know that force creations are not invulnerable across the board, because Bigby's Hand is a hand made out of force and it can be destroyed. You don't need a Disintegrate spell to do so. You can just hit it with an axe until it is destroyed.

Forcecage would indeed be a DM call, but since it is higher level than Wall of Force and clearly intended to be similar (e.g. they are both combat spells that are immune to Dispel Magic) it would be unreasonable IMO to make Forcecage easier to destroy than Wall of Force.

That logic doesn't apply to Leomund's Tiny Hut, which is lower level, does not share the Dispel Magic clause, and apparently isn't intended to be cast during combat (because it's a ritual, although the 1 action cast time does have niche combat applications, especially if the DM does rule that it's immune to damage).

In that case, we can apply an even simpler logic to work here, as there is a major difference between Bigby's and Leomund's (and Wall of Force and Forcecage, for that matter).

Bigby's calls out an armor class and a hit point total, and that makes it destructible. Leomund's does not.

Also, Leomund's Secret Chest has a cast time of 1 action. Tiny Hut's default is 1 minute, so it is not really a combat spell, unless you have one minute of time to prepare and not having a wizard actually taking actions in combat is acceptable, which is kind of possible I suppose.

MaxWilson

2018-10-12, 11:39 PM

In that case, we can apply an even simpler logic to work here, as there is a major difference between Bigby's and Leomund's (and Wall of Force and Forcecage, for that matter).

Bigby's calls out an armor class and a hit point total, and that makes it destructible. Leomund's does not.

I already addressed this upthread. A Fire Giant's greatsword does not call out an armor class and a hit point total. Nor do the rules say it is immune to damage. It is therefore up to the DM to decide how difficult it is to damage, if a PC or another monster attempts to destroy it.

Also, Leomund's Secret Chest has a cast time of 1 action. Tiny Hut's default is 1 minute, so it is not really a combat spell, unless you have one minute of time to prepare and not having a wizard actually taking actions in combat is acceptable, which is kind of possible I suppose.

Serves me right for not double-checking the casting time before posting. Yes of course you're right, it's 1 minutes not 1 action.

Yet another reason not to expect Tiny Hut to function like Wall of Force. They're not the same class of spells.

It is technically possible to move around while casting a spell that takes 1 minute to cast, so you could theoretically use it in combat if you spent 8 or 9 rounds prepping the spell before kicking down the door, but it's clearly not intended as a combat-primary spell like Wall of Force is. It's a comfort-and-housing spell which provides some security while resting, but there's no reason to think it's infallible security.

melvinmelon123

2018-10-13, 12:31 AM

Jeremy Crawford has stated that an unconscious person can be fed a Goodberry. It's literally no different than feeding them a potion; both of them take an action, which can either be your action or that of the person giving it to you. Find Familiar clearly states that it can administer items, so using a potion or Goodberry is 100% RAW.

Zalabim

2018-10-13, 03:06 AM

@Treantmonk: There's a bunch of spells that have a range of self and clearly target other creatures with their effects. There's Fireball which targets its origin as an area spell, but by its text says targets take damage from the spell, rather than "creatures in the area." There's been no effort to distinguish between "affected by the spell" and "targeted by the spell." Detecting thoughts and crackling lightning are both used as examples for whether the target would notice in the Target section, and both obvious spell references (Detect Thoughts and Lightning Bolt) are Self range spells. Rather than split hairs and comb through every spell's description, it's better to run all spells that describe effects on things as also targeting those things if it comes up.

Both the Range and the Targets talk about the point of origin for the spell, but Range makes it clear that a spell's effects are not limited to its range after the spell is cast, unless the spell says otherwise. What seems to be going on is that the range determines how far the point of origin of the spell's magic can be, and some people get stuck there. Like that's the target and everything after that is something else. Call Lightning makes a storm cloud and lets you target bolts of lightning. Bigby's Hand makes a force construct and lets you punch targets with it. Spells often do many things.

Ultimately I don't want to get into yet another rules lawyer debate about this. I know sage advice is a touchy issue for some people, but I really only point these things out so people know what they're changing and can decide if they want to or not.

Jeremy Crawford has stated that an unconscious person can be fed a Goodberry. It's literally no different than feeding them a potion; both of them take an action, which can either be your action or that of the person giving it to you. Find Familiar clearly states that it can administer items, so using a potion or Goodberry is 100% RAW.

Jeremy Crawford just says he'd allow it, with no comment on the RAW or comparisons to potions, which at least suggests he doesn't see a difference between what he'd allow and RAW, but isn't explicit. Find Familiar says nothing about items. It does say the familiar can take other actions as normal, after saying it can't attack. So both supports of your "100% RAW" are not actually written in the rules. It's not prohibited by the rules, but also not clearly allowed. This just comes off as misrepresenting the facts.

melvinmelon123

2018-10-13, 03:21 AM

Jeremy Crawford just says he'd allow it, with no comment on the RAW or comparisons to potions, which at least suggests he doesn't see a difference between what he'd allow and RAW, but isn't explicit. Find Familiar says nothing about items. It does say the familiar can take other actions as normal, after saying it can't attack. So both supports of your "100% RAW" are not actually written in the rules. It's not prohibited by the rules, but also not clearly allowed. This just comes off as misrepresenting the facts.

That's just being pedantic and not paying attention to how 5e is written. When Find Familiar says they can take other actions, it means they can take any other action. Help, Items, w/e. Most everything in the game doesn't specifically say what you can and can't do, because the general rules are there. When a Fighter uses Action Surge, it doesn't say they can use an item with that action but they absolutely can.

I remember Crawford stating that Goodberries are usable by whoever possesses them and a separate tweet affirming that you can feed it to an unconscious person. If you can give a Goodberry to an unconscious person, and Familiars have an action that they can use, then it is RAW they can use Goodberries to revive an unconscious person.

Draken

2018-10-13, 09:04 AM

I already addressed this upthread. A Fire Giant's greatsword does not call out an armor class and a hit point total. Nor do the rules say it is immune to damage. It is therefore up to the DM to decide how difficult it is to damage, if a PC or another monster attempts to destroy it.

Mundane objects already have guidelines in the DMG, pg. 246 and 247.

So the fire giant's greatsword is a large and resilient steel object. 27 hp, AC 19. Immune to Poison and Psychic, other damage resistances and immunities as DMs prefer (for tradition's sake I would go with resistance to all damage but acid and thunder and go on a limb to tack a damage threshold of 5 on it).

Treantmonk

2018-10-13, 09:13 AM

You're being absurd in your comparison to "twisting."
If you think I was making a comparision, you missed the point I was trying to make.

but it's silly to claim that a DM declining to let you consume Goodberries without spending your action like it says in the spell text is similar to not letting you twist anything because there is no Twisting section in the PHP.

So I've been thinking about this statement for a few minutes. There's only 2 possibilities here, either you missed the point, or you were attempting to build a strawman. I will assume the former for now.

The point I was making was that there are things not covered by the rules. This doesn't mean they are illegal or house rules. It just means it's a good time for the DM to bring in some common sense and make a ruling. Their ruling does not become a "house rule" simply because it wasn't covered by the rules.

The rules are a list of things that we can do. This is how they are set up necessarily. Imagine a ruleset that listed everything you can't do! That said, the list is not exhaustive. It is not a reasonable position to say that everything not covered by the rules is not allowed by the rules.

You've taken a position that because the rules don't specifically say you can do something it is therefore illegal. That's not how it works. The rules don't say, so the DM decides. That's how it works.

If a DM were to say that an unconsious person cannot swallow a healing potion, well that's it. The DM is the arbitor of the rules. I have no problem with that. The rules don't say if a person with 0hp can swallow, so the DM decides.

If a DM were to say that an unconsious person can swallow a healing potion however, then they've set a precident. An unconsious person can swallow. That's the way they envision it working, so that's how it works.

Then it's reasonable to ask a DM why an unconsious person can swallow a healing potion but not a goodberry. Now, it's perfectly OK for them to say that the goodberry is too big, or it requires extensive chewing, or that they need to split it open with their teeth so they can spit out the seed, because the seed is poisonous. Any of those things are fine. If I didn't envision goodberry working that way, then I need to adjust my vision, because it's the DM's world.

Or they could also say that swallowing a goodberry and swallowing a healing potion each take an action for the exact same reason, and although the rules cover administering a healing potion, they simply don't cover administering a goodberry, but it makes sense to have it work the same way, this is my experience with my DM's, and that is fine too. They aren't breaking any rules, merely applying common sense to how they have envisioned the spell and potions to work, then making a call on something not covered by the rules based on that vision.

Hope that helps.

When you rate Goodberry and Find Familiar as best-in-class spells based largely on a combo that isn't even legal, and then defend that combo with absurd hyperbole (Twisting rules), other people have the right to be skeptical.

The rating was not based on the combo. That said, the ratings are subjective.

The combo is not covered by the rules, that doesn't make it illegal, at least IMO. I've rambled enough about this so I won't repeat.

The point on twisting was not Hyperbole or a comparison. You missed the point I was trying to make.

Of course, by all means be skeptical. Skepticism is good.

Edit: I'm reading this over, and hoping my tone of voice comes across, but if not, I want to be clear that none of these points are intended as attacks on you, and hope they aren't taken as such. I appreciate that you are watching the videos and providing me feedback, but I think we have suffered from miscommunication in our interaction since.

Zorrah

2018-10-13, 10:37 AM

melvinmelon123

2018-10-13, 10:55 AM

Maybe also being hung up on the fact that it would be harder to feed an unconsious person a solid rather than a liquid. Which is why my thought went to the bird. That being the case, you being out and possibly unable to swallow, I could theoretically chew the goodberry and administer it mouth to mouth for instance. The bird could regurgitate (assuming the DM doesn't say that it makes the bird use the magic and heal, draining the berry magic) so then, assuming this being the case, how would the snake, or the rat administer the berry?

As a DM, though, I would personally just allow the familiar to administer the goodberry in my campaign, because it seems like it is intended to be allowed to me, even if goodberry wasn't addressed specifically. Either way, as far as healing goes, goodberry is always going to be 10 HP of healing for a first level spell slot, which does make it compete with the average roll of cure wounds at a first level spell slot (until you're wisdom is up or assuming you're not a life cleric), putting it at least in the worthwhile category at any rate.

D&D really falls apart when you start to question if a living person could actually do the things they are doing in the game. Can I fall 100 feet and live? Probably not, but my character sure can. That giant boulder the giant just threw? That would squash me, my character shrugged it off just fine. I understand the want to introduce "realism" into the game, but it clashes so heavily with what you are doing that it never makes sense.

My character can lift massive objects, be eaten by a Tarrasque, fly, turn into a bear, but having a small fruit put in his mouth when he is unconscious is when we've jumped the shark.

sophontteks

2018-10-13, 11:13 AM

Treantmonk

2018-10-13, 11:28 AM

If you try to apply realism to goodberry, the spell becomes much better in other ways. I mean, realistically why can't you just eat 10 berries at once? Its an artificial limitation made to limit the spells power. IMO people here get too hung up on RAW when this edition is much more focused on creativity and DM interpretations anyway. There are many, many things not covered by the rules at all.

The way I envision it, you could absolutely eat 10 berries at once, though I would be inclined to rule that doesn't mean you heal 10 hp, or even 2.

Edit: You would also be REALLY, REALLY full. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhbHTjMLN5c)

Zalabim

2018-10-13, 11:31 AM

D&D really falls apart when you start to question if a living person could actually do the things they are doing in the game. Can I fall 100 feet and live? Probably not, but my character sure can. That giant boulder the giant just threw? That would squash me, my character shrugged it off just fine. I understand the want to introduce "realism" into the game, but it clashes so heavily with what you are doing that it never makes sense.

My character can lift massive objects, be eaten by a Tarrasque, fly, turn into a bear, but having a small fruit put in his mouth when he is unconscious is when we've jumped the shark.
Anytime you try to invoke realism to explain adding extra abilities to a spell, you enter dangerous territory. Goodberry seems safe enough, but I want you to realize that's what you're doing. If you allow feeding a Berry to someone else, that's probably easier for a familiar than administering a potion. I imagine a fish might have more trouble getting a bottle opened. Again, not to be all "no u" on this, but you're invoking realism. I'm just saying what the rules cover. I'm not going to be able to explain the exact reason the rules are what they are, nor am I immediately interested in telling you whether you should use them exactly as they are written or not.

The full list of familiars is: bat, cat, crab, frog (toad), hawk, lizard, octopus, owl, poisonous snake, fish (quipper), rat, raven, sea horse, spider, or weasel. Plus anything else your DM allows. Yeah, they can take whatever actions those creatures can normally take, other than attacking. I imagine a spider might have some trouble feeding someone a potion. It'll probably be easier if that person is unconscious, at least, since I imagine many people would flip the F out if a spider went for their mouth. I've seen animals get rather creative, though I bet the sea horse would find it to be a challenge beyond its capabilities. This is really a question that has to be answered for each familiar about each magical item. Can a snake use boots of speed? Can an owl use a wand of magic missile? Can a lizard use a healing potion?

sophontteks

2018-10-13, 11:37 AM

Anytime you try to invoke realism to explain adding extra abilities to a spell, you enter dangerous territory. Goodberry seems safe enough, but I want you to realize that's what you're doing. If you allow feeding a Berry to someone else, that's probably easier for a familiar than administering a potion. I imagine a fish might have more trouble getting a bottle opened. Again, not to be all "no u" on this, but you're invoking realism. I'm just saying what the rules cover. I'm not going to be able to explain the exact reason the rules are what they are, nor am I immediately interested in telling you whether you should use them exactly as they are written or not.

The full list of familiars is: bat, cat, crab, frog (toad), hawk, lizard, octopus, owl, poisonous snake, fish (quipper), rat, raven, sea horse, spider, or weasel. Plus anything else your DM allows. Yeah, they can take whatever actions those creatures can normally take, other than attacking. I imagine a spider might have some trouble feeding someone a potion. It'll probably be easier if that person is unconscious, at least, since I imagine many people would flip the F out if a spider went for their mouth. I've seen animals get rather creative, though I bet the sea horse would find it to be a challenge beyond its capabilities. This is really a question that has to be answered for each familiar about each magical item. Can a snake use boots of speed? Can an owl use a wand of magic missile? Can a lizard use a healing potion?
I personally like anything that makes the more advanced familiars from pact of the chain stronger. A normal familiar may not be able to do this, but an imp surely could.

ericgrau

2018-10-13, 12:12 PM

One thing I've seen which blows my mind is low level wizards casting fireballs and lightning bolts at single targets.

Had a guy once who used a lightning bolt on a single orc, and not for role-playing reasons. All the wasted potential made me cringe.

There is a simple reason for this at low level. Limited spell choices. It's not ideal but an area spell against a single target will do in a pinch, and not taking another single target damage spell (besides cantrips) gives you other options.

sophontteks

2018-10-13, 12:23 PM

There is a simple reason for this at low level. Limited spell choices. It's not ideal but an area spell against a single target will do in a pinch, and not taking another single target damage spell (besides cantrips) gives you other options.
Bad resource management is bad resource management. That's one less lightning strike available when its actually needed.

Corran

2018-10-13, 02:32 PM

I think it's a bit harsh for feign death to be classified as a bad spell (even if it is an honorary mention only). I am not saying it's a good spell, but bad? I'd say more like extremely situational, and its creative uses along with spontaneous casting or scroll & spellbook, make up for its situational value. I've seen it used only 2 times, but to great effect.
One time we were after a crime/cult organization. The bard of the group was spearheading our every public move against them, and he was a well known figure, especially to the cultists who were trying to have him assassinated and it was a street rumor that they had placed a price on his head. The rest of us were a bit careful with keeping our identities secret. So as one might start suspecting now, we used feign death on the bard and posed as the bounty hunters that had done the job. That helped us secure a meeting with an important member of the cult (who later as questioned to reveal some very critical info that we used to bring the cult down). Some very convenient timing along with DM's discretion, allowed the bard to ''wake up'' at the perfect moment for ruining the cultist's triumphant smile and speech, before taking them out with some style!

One other time I saw it used, was by the DM against us in a manner that hurt our ego. The party was winning a close encounter, but right before the end, one of the bad guys starts fleeing. Me and the ranger splitted from the rest of the group (cause this duo of characters were a bit specialized in hunting things down, among a few other things relating to stealth and movement; if memory serves right, longstrider, twinned expeditious retreat, hunter's mark, good survival skill, but I am bragging now...) and started hunting him down through the forest (the fight broke at the boundaries of said forest). We knew we were going to catch up to him, and long story short, when we did, we found him dead. We couldn't figure out how he died, but being on low hp and hearing the DM describe the forest ominously, we got spooked enough to quickly flee and return to our allies, so that whatever it was that killed the bad guy would not get us too. At the end of the session the DM told us the bad guy had used feign death, seeing he could not escape/hide from us or fight us, and hoping to trick us with this spell was all he had left. I am still a bit disappointed I fell for that!
Now, it's not a great spell, but it has some creative uses and I certainly had fun these two times I saw it in play (especially the first one!). That's why I think that it does not deserve to be listed as a bad spell, even if it is an honorary mention.

Treantmonk has slow listed as an honorary underrated spell (at the end of the video). I certainly rate low that spell, but I would like to get a more informed opinion about it, if someone is willing to make some points about the opposite.

Great video, Ioun would be proud!

Dragonus45

2018-10-13, 02:35 PM

Can someone provide a reference for Treantmonk's claim that you can pick a specific creature for Conjure Animals? Because every official source I can find says that you cannot do this.

There are no official sources either way, the wording is purposefully ambiguous and it explicitly relies on DM discretion.

Callak_Remier

2018-10-13, 03:52 PM

Leomund's Tiny Hut as most underrated spell? In what universe? Some people argue it's the best 3rd level spell, but it's rare as roc's teeth for players to dismiss it.

Best wizards 3rd lvl spell since it's a ritual 8 hours of safety in a dungeon is amazing

Zorrah

2018-10-13, 04:01 PM

The full list of familiars is: bat, cat, crab, frog (toad), hawk, lizard, octopus, owl, poisonous snake, fish (quipper), rat, raven, sea horse, spider, or weasel. Plus anything else your DM allows. Yeah, they can take whatever actions those creatures can normally take, other than attacking. I imagine a spider might have some trouble feeding someone a potion. It'll probably be easier if that person is unconscious, at least, since I imagine many people would flip the F out if a spider went for their mouth. I've seen animals get rather creative, though I bet the sea horse would find it to be a challenge beyond its capabilities. This is really a question that has to be answered for each familiar about each magical item. Can a snake use boots of speed? Can an owl use a wand of magic missile? Can a lizard use a healing potion?

Didn't have the full list of familiars on me when I made my post, but again, I'm of the opinion that administering a goodberry to an unconscious character is intended, as is the allowing of the familiar to use that, since it would just be the use object action. The other thing, is that I see familiars as also being exceptional examples of their animal type. Meaning fluffy can open a door, so I'm certain a cat familiar can do the same. I just kept going back to the bird example because it's a visual example that I think people can get behind. The spider familiar gives me some good visuals too. "Oh look, your familiar is crawling on me to give me something/comfort me." "That's not my familiar." "AAAHHHH"

Zorrah

2018-10-13, 04:08 PM

Treantmonk has slow listed as an honorary underrated spell (at the end of the video). I certainly rate low that spell, but I would like to get a more informed opinion about it, if someone is willing to make some points about the opposite.

A couple reasons I could think of is that slow does remove reactions and it is an AOE. Up to 6 creatures OF YOUR CHOICE. IE, no friendly fire. Also good for a debuff spell. Rogue and fighter hurt and you want to flee combat? Now, not only are the mobs moving at half speed, but your fighter and rogue can both dash to get away because they don't need to take the disengage action to break combat. It also messes up sentinel, because sentinel still gets an AOO with the disengage action, but slow prevents that, since they can't take a reaction now.

Chaosmancer

2018-10-13, 04:56 PM

A couple reasons I could think of is that slow does remove reactions and it is an AOE. Up to 6 creatures OF YOUR CHOICE. IE, no friendly fire. Also good for a debuff spell. Rogue and fighter hurt and you want to flee combat? Now, not only are the mobs moving at half speed, but your fighter and rogue can both dash to get away because they don't need to take the disengage action to break combat. It also messes up sentinel, because sentinel still gets an AOO with the disengage action, but slow prevents that, since they can't take a reaction now.

I'll add to this the fact that it cancels multi-attack. Fighting someone with 4 attacks, now they get one attack or one bonus action.

Plus a spellcaster effected might not finish a spell until their next turn, essentially losing a turn and possibly an opportunity where players were bunched together.

Then there is half movement, penalty to dex saves and lowering their AC.

The only downside to the spell I can think of is it can't be upcast.

LudicSavant

2018-10-13, 05:21 PM

There are no official sources either way

This is completely wrong, as has been established upthread.

Treantmonk

2018-10-13, 07:29 PM

This is completely wrong, as has been established upthread.

Yes, the full correction is on my next video, which will be released in a few days. (Likely Tuesday)

Theodoxus

2018-10-13, 07:29 PM

MaxWilson

2018-10-13, 09:31 PM

I'll add to this the fact that it cancels multi-attack. Fighting someone with 4 attacks, now they get one attack or one bonus action.

One of the reasons Longstrider is good is that it likewise cancels multiattack, no save and no concentration required, in many situations. You just need a party which is willing to break contact against monsters with a normal 30' move, and some good at-will ranged attacks. If everyone Dashes 80' away for one round, monsters will all get one additional opportunity attack (no multiattack) and then the combat is trivialized, even if the monsters ambushed you at short range initially. From a resource standpoint it becomes a half-round to one-and-a-half-round combat.

Only works if your party is tactically savvy and cooperative though. Having 3 guys Dash away while one guy rolls attacks is just asking for the one guy to die alone.

People generally undervalue the ability to break contact, which is weird in a game where most monsters are melee-centric. I blame the PHB IGOUGO cyclic initiative system, because it discourages players from cooperating, and as mentioned above, breaking contact requires coordination to be beneficial. You see more cooperation under Speed Factor initiative or similar (AD&D-style We-Go initiative), though even then players often STILL don't break contact when I would expect.

Aimeryan

2018-10-14, 05:14 AM

This is completely wrong, as has been established upthread.

Not the guy you quoted, however, by RAW he is correct - it is ambiguous. If you accept JC tweets as RAI then by RAI it is established. Officially, however, no errata has been published.

As for the RAI involved, Treantmonk's suggestion for DM picks CR/number, player picks creature is far and away better than JC's suggestion in my opinion. Treatmont's gives the player the feeling of agency and the ability to make the best of what is given - it allows the DM to curtail overpowered options while the player can avoid underpowered options. JC's tells the player that it is largely out of his hands unless he can sweet talk the DM.

~~~

but, bob isn't necessarily standing in the center of that 5 ft square. he is dancing around inside it. and nimbly stays out of the glow patch...
that doesn't work at my table.

This is from the DMG (pg 251):
"Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal. If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square."

That is the RAW - Bob will be affected if he is in a square that is at least half covered by the effect.

Also by RAW, you can't choose the middle of a square - it has to be a corner or possibly also an edge (depends on definition used for intersect/intersection).

If you choose a corner, a 5ft radius covers at least half of each of the surrounding four squares, so each of those squares are affected.
If you choose the middle of an edge, a 5ft radius only covers at least half of the two squares that intersect at that edge, so only the two squares are affected.
If you choose somewhere else on the edge then the squares affected by at least half of the effect is more difficult to work out - it is either the two squares or the four squares, as one of the above options (so just stick to them).

MaxWilson

2018-10-14, 08:19 AM

As for the RAI involved, Treantmonk's suggestion for DM picks CR/number, player picks creature is far and away better than JC's suggestion in my opinion. Treatmont's gives the player the feeling of agency and the ability to make the best of what is given - it allows the DM to curtail overpowered options while the player can avoid underpowered options. JC's tells the player that it is largely out of his hands unless he can sweet talk the DM.

There are no underpowered CR 1/4 options when you've got 8 of them--not unless the DM is deliberately being a jerk and giving you e.g. aquatic creatures when you're on land.

Treantmonk

2018-10-14, 12:35 PM

There are no underpowered CR 1/4 options when you've got 8 of them--not unless the DM is deliberately being a jerk and giving you e.g. aquatic creatures when you're on land.

About a third of 1/4 CR options are Large sized. I have to think in at least 1/2 of combat scenarios, 8 Large sized creatures creates as many problems as it helps. Think about it, that's 32 squares on a combat map that were previously unoccupied that are now full. That can seriously gum up the works unless you are somewhere out in the open.

Even in a case where you are out in the open, it can be difficult to move that many large sized creatures in any reasonable way that can attack the enemies efficiently, we also have to consider that these creatures aren't going to have ranged options, and that actual party members would probably also like to get in close without being serverely hamstringed due to a lack of open squares.

MaxWilson

2018-10-14, 01:04 PM

About a third of 1/4 CR options are Large sized. I have to think in at least 1/2 of combat scenarios, 8 Large sized creatures creates as many problems as it helps. Think about it, that's 32 squares on a combat map that were previously unoccupied that are now full. That can seriously gum up the works unless you are somewhere out in the open.

Even in a case where you are out in the open, it can be difficult to move that many large sized creatures in any reasonable way that can attack the enemies efficiently, we also have to consider that these creatures aren't going to have ranged options, and that actual party members would probably also like to get in close without being serverely hamstringed due to a lack of open squares.

That's backwards. You don't want to get in front of your own meat shields. PCs can just sit back and use ranged attacks. The MONSTERS are hamstrung by not being able to get to the squishies, and taking a bunch of opportunity attacks even if they can.

Getting 8 Giant Owls or 8 Draft Horses is not underpowered.

sophontteks

2018-10-14, 01:21 PM

That's backwards. You don't want to get in front of your own meat shields. PCs can just sit back and use ranged attacks. The MONSTERS are hamstrung by not being able to get to the squishies, and taking a bunch of opportunity attacks even if they can.
You are assuming the PCs are better at ranged. It could just as easily backfire.

Aimeryan

2018-10-14, 01:41 PM

You are assuming the PCs are better at ranged. It could just as easily backfire.

Agreed, and since it is the DM choosing...

Also, this is ignoring that there may already be one of your guys in melee; the DM has essentially isolated that member from the rest of you.

sophontteks

2018-10-14, 02:13 PM

The 4 tiles thing came up in our game where our moon druid couldn't get into melee against a cornered opponent. It wasn't bad, but I can see it being a real problem with several animals in a tight space. In theatre of the mind it probably won't matter much though. I never really enforced sizes like that at least.

MaxWilson

2018-10-14, 02:17 PM

You are assuming the PCs are better at ranged. It could just as easily backfire.

PCs can acquire ranged capability more readily than MM monsters can. Even a Str based Barbarian can pick up some thrown weapons.

Besides, a spell didn't become underpowered because you don't know how to use it effectively. Find Familiar isn't underpowered because the familiar can't take the Attack action. Use spells for what they're good at.

There is no CR 1/4 monster which makes Conjure Animals underpowered.

Agreed, and since it is the DM choosing...

Also, this is ignoring that there may already be one of your guys in melee; the DM has essentially isolated that member from the rest of you.

No, the DM has given that melee guy a Get Out of Melee Free card. He can Disengage through the animals any time he wants to, and monsters cannot follow without taking opportunity attacks. (And even then they have to use DMG Evade/Overrun or be two sizes larger/smaller, or else they cannot move through the animals' spaces at all, unlike the PC. You can only move at will through friendly creature' spaces as difficult terrain.)

LudicSavant

2018-10-14, 03:19 PM

Treantmonk's suggestion for DM picks CR/number, player picks creature is far and away better than JC's suggestion in my opinion. Yes, the houserule is much better than JC's rule.

My objection wasn't whether the house rule was good or bad, it was that Treantmonk mistakenly thought it wasn't a houserule (as he has already said).

To illustrate just how bad JC's rule is, let's take the "sneering jerk DM" character Treantmonk gave us in some of his earlier examples.

Player: "I want to cast Conjure Animals! I want to summon a bear!"
DM: Evil DM grin "Okay, what CR cap would you like?"
Player: "Uhm... 2. I want a Cave Bear!"
DM: "Okay, you get one creature with a CR of 2 or lower. You get a single CR 0 sea horse. It flops about pathetically as it begins to asphyxiate."
Player: ":smallfrown:"

Is this DM being a jerk? Well, yeah. But they're also acting exactly as JC says. The spell should never have been designed like this.

Essentially, Conjure Animals is potentially a trap spell in the respect that whether or not it does anything at all has nothing to do with the player's choices. No other spell in the entirety of D&D offers less player agency.

JC's tells the player that it is largely out of his hands unless he can sweet talk the DM.

Pretty much.

MaxWilson

2018-10-14, 04:17 PM

To illustrate just how bad JC's rule is, let's take the "sneering jerk DM" character Treantmonk gave us in some of his earlier examples.

Player: "I want to cast Conjure Animals! I want to summon a bear!"
DM: Evil DM grin "Okay, what CR cap would you like?"
Player: "Uhm... 2. I want a Cave Bear!"
DM: "Okay, you get one creature with a CR of 2 or lower. You get a single CR 0 sea horse. It flops about pathetically as it begins to asphyxiate."
Player: ":smallfrown:"

Is this DM being a jerk? Well, yeah. But they're also acting exactly as JC says. The spell should never have been designed like this.

It doesn't matter. A Sneering Jerk DM can ruin the game in dozens of other ways. If Conjure Animals were written to let you force a Cave Bear, Sneering Jerk DM can just unleash half a dozen Intellect Devourers to TPK you, or three dozen stirges in an antimagic zone at level five. He can even abuse the monster creation CR rules to TPK you with an Easy fight. Or he can go the other direction and let you wander around a labyrinth forever without ever meeting a single monster--that's completely RAW-compliant but it's as passive-aggressive as going you a seahorse instead of a Cave Bear, and even less fun.

Don't play with Sneering Jerk DM. It's a waste of time.

But do talk to your DM beforehand about how he or she wants to run Conjure Animals. Random tables based on terrain? Player chooses? Player chooses but DM may veto occasionally and tell you to pick something else? Fixed random tables? Last animal of that CR that you ate? All of these methods are RAW-compliant if the DM so decrees, and they're all fun.

LudicSavant

2018-10-14, 04:29 PM

It doesn't matter. A Sneering Jerk DM can ruin the game in dozens of other ways.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. JC's take on the spell is relatively lacking in player agency whether the DM is a sneering jerk or not.

But do talk to your DM beforehand about how he or she wants to run Conjure Animals.

Yes.

MaxWilson

2018-10-14, 08:08 PM

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. JC's take on the spell is relatively lacking in player agency whether the DM is a sneering jerk or not.

I posted in #95 that there are no underpowered CR 1/4 animals "unless the DM is deliberately being a jerk and giving you e.g. aquatic creatures when you're on land", and you came right back with... an example of a DM deliberately being a jerk and giving you an aquatic creature when you're on land. Now you're trying to change the subject. I don't think I'm the one who missed the point here.

Yes, obviously, giving players more control increases the relative amount of player agency. You're not wrong about that. But there's nothing wrong with running the spell as written. Even if your DM uses a random table, you can still structure your party tactics to benefit greatly from whatever it is you actually get. E.g. make sure your party has good ranged attacks, which is a good idea anyway in 5E. The spell is extremely good as written (unless you're playing with Sneering Jerk DM). It offers plenty of player agency and choices to make: "[the creatures] obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you)". Make use of your 8 [whatevers] and have fun.

For comparison, see how much fun people get out of Find Familiar with one weak animal with around 5 HP that can't even attack. Is that a spell which "lacks player agency"? Nope. You can use it to scout, to Help with attacks, and under some DMs you can even use it to force-feed people Goodberries. Now with Conjure Animals you get 8 better and stronger animals that can attack and opportunity attack and have more HP and sometimes come with special traits such as Pack Tactics or the ability to knock enemies prone. Can you figure out a good way to make use of 8 draft horses? You're a smart guy, I'm pretty sure you can. It's not like you just have 8 draft horses and have to cajole them into paying attention to you--those 8 horses are your willing slaves, go nuts with them! That's your player agency right there.

P.S. JC's take on the spell is a fairly obvious one to anyone who's ever played AD&D. You don't get to choose what monster you get when you cast Monster Summoning N. You cast the spell and the DM rolls some dice and some monsters appear. I think it's harder for people who started with 3rd edition because they grew up on the 3E clause, "The spell conjures one of the creatures from the 1st-level list on the accompanying Summon Monster table. You choose which kind of creature to summon, and you can change that choice each time you cast the spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonMonsterI.htm)," and maybe they just never realized there is any other way to run things. To me though, it's right there in the spell text--I think JC is an idiot and I ignore him, but I don't ignore the actual text of the spell, so the fact that JC happens to agree with the RAW is a happy accident on this one.

LudicSavant

2018-10-14, 10:41 PM

I posted in #95 that there are no underpowered CR 1/4 animals "unless the DM is deliberately being a jerk and giving you e.g. aquatic creatures when you're on land", and you came right back with... an example of a DM deliberately being a jerk and giving you an aquatic creature when you're on land. Now you're trying to change the subject. I don't think I'm the one who missed the point here.

I was replying to Aimeryan in my post that mentioned aquatic creatures, not you. I haven't even read your post #95, let alone responded to it. I'm not "trying to change the subject." I think you may be mistaken about which subject I was addressing in the first place. :smallconfused:

Edit: The subject of my post was that I think Treantmonk's houserule is an improvement over JC's version specifically because it offers more agency. The jerk DM scenario was given as an example of how the player doesn't have a lot of choice in the matter.

While the sea horse thing is perhaps the most extreme example, the consensus seems to be that even just getting a single CR 1 when you asked for a single CR 2 is a "jerk move" for the DM. Which raises the question of why the "CR 2 or lower" wording exists in the first place if any deviation from "2" feels like a jerk move to people. Altogether I feel that the spell places the player in a frustrating position, especially if they're in a setting where asking their DM how things will work before building their character isn't really viable (such as certain forms of organized play).

I also feel like it's just as much of an issue if, say, I get a hoard of pixies from Conjure Woodland Beings. Whether I'm getting polymorphing pixies or suffocating seahorses or something in the middle of the road, it's pure fiat, and that makes every result, whether overpowered or useless, feel unearned. In other words, the thing that's unfun for me happens whether the DM is being a jerk or not. Which is why I said that I thought you were "missing the forest for the trees." The sea horse example was but one tree. The forest persists without it.

Overall, I feel the spell falls into the category Treantmonk mentioned earlier of spells that vary greatly by DM (he gave Suggestion as an example, IIRC).

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-15, 08:37 AM

@LudicSavant--

A key philosophical underpinning of 5e is trust. Players trusting the DM to be looking out for the fun of the party as well as the coherence of the fiction. DMs trusting players not to be cheese-monkeys. Designers trusting DMs and players to not go loophole-hunting.

This means that having to set specific rules about what things you summon (beyond the number vs CR scaling built in) betrays a lack of trust. A DM who, when asked for a CR 2 creature gives a single CR 1 (especially when that's less effective) is betraying the trust, and as an OOC problem, it needs to be handled with a conversation between the player and the DM.

Solve OOC problems with OOC answers. Don't play with people you don't trust.

Edit: and the "or lower" phrasing is to cover for gaps. If you were to ask for a CR X beast in some terrains/settings, there might not be one available. So the DM can step down to the next available CR increasing the number as needed. This sets a balance between setting/fiction consonance and mechanical power. If they step down the CR and don't step up the number, that can be an issue. All of this is negotiable, though. You may only want 1 CR 1 (because of space, for example) instead of 3 or whatever.

LudicSavant

2018-10-15, 09:14 AM

A key philosophical underpinning of 5e is trust.

You fundamentally misunderstand the problem I have with the spell. Trust has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I have with it.

Solve OOC problems with OOC answers.

Funny, and here I thought that's precisely what I already suggested.

Don't play with people you don't trust.

I already don't.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-10-15, 09:42 AM

You fundamentally misunderstand the problem I have with the spell. Trust has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue I have with it.

Funny, and here I thought that's precisely what I already suggested.

I already don't.

Making more rules to fix OOC problems doesn't change OOC behavior. It just encourages loophole-seeking and more bad behavior. For groups that don't have these OOC problems, the spell as written is fine.

Personally, I'm fine with exercising a light veto over what they choose to summon, which I only use if something wouldn't fit the setting. Because I trust my players not to abuse it and to respect other people's table time. If there was abuse, I'd start with a conversation rather than a rule.

LudicSavant

2018-10-15, 10:33 AM

Making more rules to fix OOC problems doesn't change OOC behavior. It just encourages loophole-seeking and more bad behavior. For groups that don't have these OOC problems, the spell as written is fine.

The issue I have with the spell does not arise from a loophole. Again, you are misconstruing the reason I prefer Treantmonk's houserule to JC's ruling.

Let's say there was a spell that read "whenever you would roll a die while this spell is active, the DM decides the result of the die roll." I would find this spell unfun, regardless of the DM's actions. I would find it unfun if they made it always roll 1s. I would find it unfun if they made it always roll 20s. I would find it unfun if they made it always roll 10s. In fact, it would not matter what the DM made it roll.

The reason I don't like the spell has nothing to do with anyone's behavior. It has everything to do with the way action relates to consequence due to the design of the rule itself.

If there was abuse, I'd start with a conversation rather than a rule.

I agree... but the problem you are solving is not the one that I have.

AureusFulgens

2018-10-15, 10:44 AM

Making more rules to fix OOC problems doesn't change OOC behavior. It just encourages loophole-seeking and more bad behavior. For groups that don't have these OOC problems, the spell as written is fine.

Personally, I'm fine with exercising a light veto over what they choose to summon, which I only use if something wouldn't fit the setting. Because I trust my players not to abuse it and to respect other people's table time. If there was abuse, I'd start with a conversation rather than a rule.

On one hand... yes, I agree? If you have a Jerk DM who would consider giving you a seahorse for a CR 2 creature, then you have a bigger problem than a poorly-written spell, you have... well, a Jerk DM. Which is why that isn't really a great example of what's wrong with the spell. Sometimes an extreme example can be good for throwing an issue into sharp contrast and making it easier to see, but sometimes it just introduces new issues.

But let us suppose that we are playing in a good group in which the players and the DM are not out to get each other, which is the situation we should all be trying to find ourselves in. (I think this is the situation we are all implicitly playing in, including both yourself and LudicSavant.)

I think that it's still reasonable to wish that the player could choose the creature. Why shouldn't they? Find Steed solves this problem beautifully, in my opinion, by allowing the player a choice while allowing the DM to choose the range of choices available. No reason we couldn't have written this spell the same way. Let the DM decide what creatures are available in the region. Let the players pick the one they want. More agency is never bad; it doesn't mean the player doesn't trust the DM.

And yes, it's reasonable to wish that a spell were written more clearly and precisely and helpfully even under 5e's relatively freewheeling philosophy. Just because a spell wouldn't be abused by the hypothetical Good D&D Party in which we are playing, doesn't mean it should be written in a way that's open to abuse. Good game design is a valuable end in itself.

Aimeryan

2018-10-15, 10:53 AM

I also feel like it's just as much of an issue if, say, I get a hoard of pixies from Conjure Woodland Beings. Whether I'm getting polymorphing pixies or suffocating seahorses or something in the middle of the road, it's pure fiat, and that makes every result, whether overpowered or useless, feel unearned. In other words, the thing that's unfun for me happens whether the DM is being a jerk or not. Which is why I said that I thought you were "missing the forest for the trees." The sea horse example was but one tree. The forest persists without it.

Very much agreed; I understand where you are coming from here. It doesn't matter what the DM picks, the focus is on the DM when this is the rule, rather than you - despite being your spell.

Snails

2018-10-15, 12:04 PM

Zalabim

2018-10-17, 02:44 AM

As I am sure you understand, there is a sloppiness in the wording because the action of say a Fireball is placing in a grid location, while "target" means both that grid location and everyone who is hit.

The point here is to avoid insane ruleslawyering where someone getting damaged is asserted to be incidental. "Oh, I did not attack him. He had the bad luck to be near a Fireball."

Your honor, the defendant claims my client tried to kill him with a fireball, but as you can see in exhibit F, the Fireball spell has to be targeted at a point in space, not a creature. Therefore, there is no way that my client targeted the defendant with a fireball. As the claim requires positive intent, it is obvious that my client is not guilty. If the defendant was burned by my client's fireball, it is perhaps because he was standing too close to a troll. Withdrawn.

I can't imagine that kind of rules lawyering coming up for playing the game, and I'd hate to see it come up in an actual trial.

MaxWilson

2018-10-17, 02:54 AM

Your honor, the defendant claims my client tried to kill him with a fireball, but as you can see in exhibit F, the Fireball spell has to be targeted at a point in space, not a creature. Therefore, there is no way that my client targeted the defendant with a fireball. As the claim requires positive intent, it is obvious that my client is not guilty. If the defendant was burned by my client's fireball, it is perhaps because he was standing too close to a troll. Withdrawn.

I can't imagine that kind of rules lawyering coming up for playing the game, and I'd hate to see it come up in an actual trial.

It's relevant when you've been Charmed. "A charmed creature can’t Attack the charmer or target the charmer with harmful Abilities or magical effects."

DM will have to decide what counts as targetting. Does intent matter? Can you freely Fireball the warlock who made you a thrall (or the wizard who Geased you) as long as you are aiming for a point near but not on him? On the other hand, are you prevented from saving his life with a Fireball when he's got 15 stirges attached to his body, sucking out 75 HP per round?