Can you summon Chwingas for their Charms?

[Mr Adventurer]

In theory you could Conjure Minor Elementals and get 8 of them, and have them give you 8 supernatural charms of the DMs choice. Not clear whether the DM specifies which elementals you get with your spell but just cast it until you get what you want. This seems pretty great since the charms last until used. No?

[Expired]

In theory you could Conjure Minor Elementals and get 8 of them, and have them give you 8 supernatural charms of the DMs choice. Not clear whether the DM specifies which elementals you get with your spell but just cast it until you get what you want. This seems pretty great since the charms last until used. No?
It does seem great, but unless the spell specifically mentions it, your DM chooses the creature summoned. And even if you do get lucky and conjure Chwingas, do the charms remain after they are despawned or die?

[Goosefarble]

I feel like since it's an adventure-specific creature (Tomb of Annihilation) the assumption is it doesn't exist in your gameworld/region.

[Mr Adventurer]

It does seem great, but unless the spell specifically mentions it, your DM chooses the creature summoned.

Where does it say this?


And even if you do get lucky and conjure Chwingas, do the charms remain after they are despawned or die?

The text of the creature ability only says that you get the Charm, with nothing to say it goes away on its own or is then dependent upon the Chwinga.


I feel like since it's an adventure-specific creature (Tomb of Annihilation) the assumption is it doesn't exist in your gameworld/region.

Surely that's the point of Conjuring them, though.

[Edenbeast]

Where does it say this?

Sage Advice (https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_july2015):


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.


Surely that's the point of Conjuring them, though.

PHB page 226:


An elemental summoned by this spell disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends. The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions. Roll initiative for the summoned creatures as a group, which has its own turns. They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you). If you don’t issue any commands to them, they defend themselves from hostile creatures, but otherwise take no actions. The GM has the creatures’ statistics.

So for one, if your DM doesn't have access to Tomb of Annihilation, he doesn't have the creatures' statistics. And second, whether they are setting-appropriate is the DM's decision.

[Segev]

The fact that this “sage advice” is not at all clear from the text makes me suspicious that it was not originally the intent, but something that the sage decided on later. Now, you can run it that way. If you feel the spells are too powerful if the players have agency over what they get, go ahead. But it is not what the spells say.

I do question how many players would take spells with that wording, though, it they were not bait and switched from sounding to the player like they got the choice.

Oh, two elementals of CR 1 or less? Have two lava mephits to help you fight firenewts. It is thematic for the lava filled cavern you’re in!

Why are you upset that I gave you less than one CR worth of creatures who can’t hurt the fire newts?

And before you say the DM is deliberately screwing over the players with that, just how useful do the elementals have to be for him to be “fair?”

Who’s to judge that not getting pixies with polymorph isn’t just as unfair as that?

If the spells were meant to be random, they should have had a table to roll on, and added a caveat that the DM could choose anything that was more appropriate of the given CR.

The “or lower” is particularly troublesome when it’s not the player’s choice. If it’s the player’s choice, it is liberating to let them get things of intermediate power for specific purposes. If it’s not his choice, asking for fewer creatures doesn’t guarantee more powerful ones.

[Edenbeast]

The fact that this “sage advice” is not at all clear from the text makes me suspicious that it was not originally the intent, but something that the sage decided on later. Now, you can run it that way. If you feel the spells are too powerful if the players have agency over what they get, go ahead. But it is not what the spells say.

I think the wording in Sage Advice is pretty clear. Whether or not to use it is up to the DM, so it's always best to confirm with your DM first.



I do question how many players would take spells with that wording, though, it they were not bait and switched from sounding to the player like they got the choice.

Oh, two elementals of CR 1 or less? Have two lava mephits to help you fight firenewts. It is thematic for the lava filled cavern you’re in!

Why are you upset that I gave you less than one CR worth of creatures who can’t hurt the fire newts?

And before you say the DM is deliberately screwing over the players with that, just how useful do the elementals have to be for him to be “fair?”

Who’s to judge that not getting pixies with polymorph isn’t just as unfair as that?

If the spells were meant to be random, they should have had a table to roll on, and added a caveat that the DM could choose anything that was more appropriate of the given CR.

The spells were not meant to be random, nor necessarily thematic or matching the environment. It has more to do with being appropriate for the setting, and whether the material is available to you/the DM. If the DM is only using monsters from the Monster Manual, for example. Or maybe certain creatures/monsters just don't exist in the setting. My home-brew setting for example reflects modern day biodiversity. Dinosaurs are extinct, thus Conjure Animals won't be able to summon one. Oh, and another favourite of mine: fresh water vs. marine environment... It seems D&D shoves them together as "underwater" or "aquatic," but in my opinion it's a far stretch to summon a shark or octopus in a lake. I also like to make use of skill checks such as Nature or Arcana to see if a character actually knows/provide the information as to what kind of animals or creatures he can summon.



The “or lower” is particularly troublesome when it’s not the player’s choice. If it’s the player’s choice, it is liberating to let them get things of intermediate power for specific purposes. If it’s not his choice, asking for fewer creatures doesn’t guarantee more powerful ones.

I think it would be quite reasonable of the DM to point out to the player that, for example, no CR 2 creatures are available, so the option is two CR 1 creatures at best.

[Segev]

I think the wording in Sage Advice is pretty clear. Whether or not to use it is up to the DM, so it's always best to confirm with your DM first.I didn't say the Sage Advice wasn't clear. I said the spell text didn't make what the Sage Advice claims is the intent at all clear.


The spells were not meant to be random, nor necessarily thematic or matching the environment. It has more to do with being appropriate for the setting, and whether the material is available to you/the DM. If the DM is only using monsters from the Monster Manual, for example. Or maybe certain creatures/monsters just don't exist in the setting. My home-brew setting for example reflects modern day biodiversity. Dinosaurs are extinct, thus Conjure Animals won't be able to summon one. Oh, and another favourite of mine: fresh water vs. marine environment... It seems D&D shoves them together as "underwater" or "aquatic," but in my opinion it's a far stretch to summon a shark or octopus in a lake. I also like to make use of skill checks such as Nature or Arcana to see if a character actually knows/provide the information as to what kind of animals or creatures he can summon.Conjure animals summons fey creatures which take the form of beasts. There is nothing preventing them from taking the form of extinct ones.

The issue is that the spell is worded in such a way that it is basically giving limits to what the player can summon, with no lower limits, and no indication that the things summoned are not in his control. All of this points to it being the player's choice, because you only don't need lower limits if you expect the person choosing to be going for the best thing he can get.

But, since the arguments in favor of the Sage Advice being "obviously" what was always intended center on how players could choose overpowered options every time even with the limits, so "obviously" the DM is supposed to pick to limit the power of the spells....there should be text present indicating a lower bound. Or something to tell players what to actually expect from the spell, rather than "name a number and hope the DM gives you something higher CR rather than lower if you didn't pick the maximum quantity you could summon."

Again, this is bad design because even a DM who is trying his best to be "fair" has to guess what the right power level is. Because apparently 4 creatures of CR 1 or less can be horribly overpowered if the players pick it. So how much below what the players would pick should he go in order to make it "fair?"

The spells are badly worded if the Sage Advice was their intended reading, and are badly designed if that was the intent, as well.


I think it would be quite reasonable of the DM to point out to the player that, for example, no CR 2 creatures are available, so the option is two CR 1 creatures at best.Why, though? Why aren't they available? These are magical summoning spells, calling forth fey or elemental creatures that take on the forms of beasts or elementals. The creatures literally appear out of nowhere.

It's the DM choosing to arbitrarily limit it at that point. I mean, he's within his rights to say, "You chose one creature of CR 2 or less; I'm giving you this CR 1/4 creature, which fits the bill." It might be nice of him to bend the rules and say, "I'm only going to give you a CR 1/4 creature; are you sure you don't want to summon more of them?" But that's "nice" in the sense that he's already refusing to give what they really want and is trying to force their choice to not be their choice.

The spell at that point may as well say the DM picks one of the options. But then, the DM could always pick the "only one creature" option and still stick to CR 1/4, and no matter how much you say "but that would be the DM being unfair," the fact remains that the DM giving them anything other than what they would have picked could be deemed "unfair."

[Mr Adventurer]

The fact that this “sage advice” is not at all clear from the text makes me suspicious that it was not originally the intent, but something that the sage decided on later. Now, you can run it that way. If you feel the spells are too powerful if the players have agency over what they get, go ahead. But it is not what the spells say.

I do question how many players would take spells with that wording, though, it they were not bait and switched from sounding to the player like they got the choice.

Oh, two elementals of CR 1 or less? Have two lava mephits to help you fight firenewts. It is thematic for the lava filled cavern you’re in!

Why are you upset that I gave you less than one CR worth of creatures who can’t hurt the fire newts?

And before you say the DM is deliberately screwing over the players with that, just how useful do the elementals have to be for him to be “fair?”

Who’s to judge that not getting pixies with polymorph isn’t just as unfair as that?

If the spells were meant to be random, they should have had a table to roll on, and added a caveat that the DM could choose anything that was more appropriate of the given CR.

The “or lower” is particularly troublesome when it’s not the player’s choice. If it’s the player’s choice, it is liberating to let them get things of intermediate power for specific purposes. If it’s not his choice, asking for fewer creatures doesn’t guarantee more powerful ones.

Yeah, it's a real head scratcher. I've opened a discussion about it with the DM. But knowing what is already out there on this topic is useful to pass along.

For one thing, were I the DM I wouldn't want any part of the casting of this spell. I have enough to do. I'd restrict it to Monster Manual creatures plus a sourcebook as appropriate, and leave it at that for the player to manage.

The "or less" bit is really puzzling, yes. What are supposed to be the circumstances where a DM should give a CR 1 creature when the player wanted a CR 2 creature? A mystery.

I'm not saying a DM should have no power to veto creature choices, or to set expectations. But that shouldn't be part of each casting of the spell.

[Segev]

Ultimately, I think the Sage Advice is a not-quite-panicked "oops, we goofed" realization, and suggested house rule to let DMs prevent players from picking thigns that are "too good."

And if you run it as per the Sage Advice, and you do strive to be fair about giving them useful creatures for the situation, the spells will probably still be used and useful.

[MaxWilson]

The fact that this “sage advice” is not at all clear from the text makes me suspicious that it was not originally the intent, but something that the sage decided on later. Now, you can run it that way. If you feel the spells are too powerful if the players have agency over what they get, go ahead. But it is not what the spells say.

FWIW "player chooses the CR range, not the creatures" was my immediate understanding when I first read the spell in 2014, long before Sage Advice answer. Maybe that's because it also says "the DM has the creature's statistics," or maybe it's because that's how it works in AD&D, but I always look askance at people who confidently assert that players choosing specific creatures was the original rule intent.

Compare for example: Polymorph which explicitly says the new form can be "any beast" of the appropriate CR range, or Conjure Elemental which lets you choose the elemental's element because it's based on where you cast it.

Conjure Animals/Woodland Creatures/Fey have no such language. Leaving it up to the DM is entirely justified by the rule text--but a DM who rules lawyers the spell text to deliberately give you underpowered creatures is a jerk DM and you shouldn't play with rules lawyer jerk DMs.

The DM will tell you how they decide, and you can always ask e.g. "are there any ways to increase the probability of getting flying mounts for the party, like if I want to ferry us over a chasm?" It might involve special components, or an Arcana check, or upcasting, or it might be impossible--it all depends on your DM. And nothing in the spell text says otherwise so in this case I believe Sage Advice is correct about the rule intent.



The “or lower” is particularly troublesome when it’s not the player’s choice. If it’s the player’s choice, it is liberating to let them get things of intermediate power for specific purposes. If it’s not his choice, asking for fewer creatures doesn’t guarantee more powerful ones.

I don't understand what you mean here. Why would a player ever opt to take a CR 1/2 creature in place of a CR 2 creature instead of just selecting the CR 1/2 option in the first place. If anything that looks like more support for "the exact creature is out of your control" i.e. "the DM chooses", although DMs should not abuse it.

(IMO the best use of that clause is to use it only in the service of helping the player get what they want. If they express a desire for flying invisible spies of CR 1/4 or lower, expecting to get sprites, but your gameworld has flying invisible TELEPORTING creatures that happen to be CR 0 instead with no offensive capabilities, it's not wrong to give them the better but CR 0 creatures. But under normal circumstances you should just stick to the CR the player picked.)



The issue is that the spell is worded in such a way that it is basically giving limits to what the player can summon, with no lower limits, and no indication that the things summoned are not in his control. All of this points to it being the player's choice, because you only don't need lower limits if you expect the person choosing to be going for the best thing he can get.

Sure, but that doesn't imply the person choosing is the caster's player, who doesn't even know the creatures' statistics. The DM knows the stats and is in the best position to choose well.



But, since the arguments in favor of the Sage Advice being "obviously" what was always intended center on how players could choose overpowered options every time even with the limits, so "obviously" the DM is supposed to pick to limit the power of the spells....there should be text present indicating a lower bound.

Please note: those aren't my arguments. If there's a monster too powerful to let your players summon en masse (like CR 1/4 Pixies), then that monster is also too powerful to make your players fight en masse (like CR 1/4 Pixies). The solution is the same in both cases: change the inappropriate CR, just like the DMG tells you to. (CR 2 Pixies are fragile but have powerful control spells, and are not underpowered for their CR.)

[HPisBS]

... The "or less" bit is really puzzling, yes. What are supposed to be the circumstances where a DM should give a CR 1 creature when the player wanted a CR 2 creature? A mystery....

If you Conjure [4 CR 1/2 or lower] Woodland Beings, that allows odd combinations like 3 satyrs for some ranged action economy + 1 pixie for its spell.

Or it could just be to let you conjure things with less than 1/4 CR, like the chwinga. If not for that text, they would be inaccessible to you.... Although, if that were the case, then the higher CR options wouldn't need the "or lower" text.

Edit:

And nothing in the spell text says otherwise so in this case I believe Sage Advice is correct about the rule intent.

The same can be said in reverse.

The caster of the spell chooses how he wants to apply his spell - including the specific creatures he wants to conjure, And nothing in the spell text says otherwise.

("The DM has the creature's statistics" just means players don't need to look it up themselves. That's at least as reasonable of a reading as one that replaces the word "has" with "chooses.")

[MaxWilson]

The same can be said in reverse.


Yes, but I'm not the one here who is claiming that the Sage Advice interpretation is not the original intent of the spell. I'm perfectly content to stipulate that the wording misleads people who stat from different assumptions, and that the Sage Advice Q&A was needed to clarify the intent.



("The DM has the creature's statistics" just means players don't need to look it up themselves. That's at least as reasonable of a reading as one that replaces the word "has" with "chooses.")

How can the players even know what creatures are legal for them to pick? They don't have access to stats, including CR.

If it said "the DM has statistics for all the creatures you can choose from" that would be different.

[Segev]

I don't understand what you mean here. Why would a player ever opt to take a CR 1/2 creature in place of a CR 2 creature instead of just selecting the CR 1/2 option in the first place. If anything that looks like more support for "the exact creature is out of your control" i.e. "the DM chooses", although DMs should not abuse it.The player might want only one creature, and might want a specific one that's not CR 2. It makes sense to let players have the freedom to choose a lesser option, only limiting them in maximum power.

The trouble is when you apply this to the DM, with the implied intent that the DM is limiting the power of the spell by not letting the player choose anything he wants iwthin the limits. If the intent is that picking a single CR 2 creature will get you a CR 2 creature, why put the "or lower" in, when it's not the caster or player who chooses? Its only possible use is for the DM to screw the player out of the power he wanted, while punishing the player for not having guessed the maximum CR the DM would allow him.

[MaxWilson]

The player might want only one creature, and might want a specific one that's not CR 2. It makes sense to let players have the freedom to choose a lesser option, only limiting them in maximum power.

But why wouldn't the player want two of them?



The trouble is when you apply this to the DM, with the implied intent that the DM is limiting the power of the spell by not letting the player choose anything he wants iwthin the limits. If the intent is that picking a single CR 2 creature will get you a CR 2 creature, why put the "or lower" in, when it's not the caster or player who chooses? Its only possible use is for the DM to screw the player out of the power he wanted, while punishing the player for not having guessed the maximum CR the DM would allow him.

Absolutely false--the appropriate use is to give the player something better than they expected even if it happens to be lower CR. If you *want* to give a player a CR 0 Chwinga mixed in with the CR 1/4 Sprites the player was hoping for and have it grant a magical Charm (or even just use its at-will Pass Without Trace to aid the party), you can, even if the Chwinga is your homebrewed monster that the player doesn't know exists. But under normal circumstances you will not need that "or lower" freedom.

Giving the player something better than expected (but lower CR) is certainly not punishing the player.

[Segev]

But why wouldn't the player want two of them?

I don't know.

Why wouldn't you want two bowls of ice cream instead of one? If somebody wanted to buy just one, would you insist he had to take two? Even if he didn't want the second one, and was willing to forego it despite it being buy-one-get-one-free?

It literally only makes sense to have the OPTION to forego power/quantity if the person who's benefitting is the one choosing.


...here. Let me try to fully make an analogy.


You are being asked to buy a package for a cruise, and the packages are:

5 meals worth no more than $5 each per day
3 meals worth no more than $15 each per day
2 meals worth no more than $50 each per day

And you pick the 5 meal plan, does it make sense that you wouldn't be force-fed the other 3 meals if you decide you only want to eat two that day?

If you pick the 2 meal plan, and the cruise line decides that they're serving you a $1 meal for each meal, are you being cheated?

Does it make more sense that "up to X" is a choice given to you, the customer, or to the cruise line?

[MaxWilson]

I don't know.

Then how can you claim the text supports only one interpretatation? I've given you examples of when it would be appropriate for the DM to use the "or lower" freedom when the player picks e.g. "one beast of challenge rating 2 or lower", but you can't explain why a player would ever want that "or lower" freedom. Furthermore, if the intent is to let a player select "or fewer," why would it not say so? Why can't a player summon exactly three animals instead of 1/2/4/8?

You haven't responded to the other points I've made above--maybe you didn't see them because some of them were added as edits when responding to multiple posts, but to repeat the key two:

(1) The DM is the only one who's even in a position to do the choosing because the DM knows what's legal to choose. If instead of "choose an option... the DM has the creatures' statistics" it instead said "the DM has the statistics of all the creatures you can choose from, including their CRs", that would be different.

(2) You've claimed that the only reason for having the DM choose is to prevent having players pick overpowered monsters. No, and in fact that's not even the right solution to the overpowered summons (a.k.a. the Pixie problem). Monsters that are overpowered when summoned are also overpowered when used against the PCs, and the solution is to change the CR, exactly as the DMG says to do. Pixies work well IMO at CR 2, or at least as well as CR ever works anyway. They're fragile but powerful.


Why wouldn't you want two bowls of ice cream instead of one? If somebody wanted to buy just one, would you insist he had to take two? Even if he didn't want the second one, and was willing to forego it despite it being buy-one-get-one-free?

Why wouldn't you take three instead of four? And yet your argument implies that that's not possible, because there is no "three creatures of CR 1/2" option.


It literally only makes sense to have the OPTION to forego power/quantity if the person who's benefitting is the one choosing.

False, as addressed above. It makes sense if the person choosing is intentionally maximizing benefit to the spellcaster, but that doesn't imply that the person choosing is the player of the spellcaster--the player doesn't even know what the legal options are.



...here. Let me try to fully make an analogy.

You are being asked to buy a package for a cruise, and the packages are:

5 meals worth no more than $5 each per day
3 meals worth no more than $15 each per day
2 meals worth no more than $50 each per day

And you pick the 5 meal plan, does it make sense that you wouldn't be force-fed the other 3 meals if you decide you only want to eat two that day?

If you pick the 2 meal plan, and the cruise line decides that they're serving you a $1 meal for each meal, are you being cheated?

Does it make more sense that "up to X" is a choice given to you, the customer, or to the cruise line?

I've never been on a cruise so I actually don't know how meals are served on a cruise line, but I certainly wouldn't assume from what you wrote there that I get to choose whatever I want from each meal, like in a restaurant. It sounds like they have some kind of menu schedule already planned, which makes sense because it's more economical to follow the same meal schedule for everyone on Plan A (expensive $50 meals) than to prepare all the Plan A dishes on demand. But I've never been on a cruise.

If they give you $1 meals they won't have repeat customers, so it makes sense to believe they'll make a good-faith effort to give you something as close to the limit as possible, especially if you've dealt with them in the past and found that they run an ethical business and take joy in providing good value. (Like a good DM.)

[Mr Adventurer]

You are confusing the arguments about "X CR or lower" and "it doesn't make sense for the DM to choose the summoned creatures".

[Segev]

Then how can you claim the text supports only one interpretatation? I've given you examples of when it would be appropriate for the DM to use the "or lower" freedom when the player picks e.g. "one beast of challenge rating 2 or lower", but you can't explain why a player would ever want that "or lower" freedom. Furthermore, if the intent is to let a player select "or fewer," why would it not say so? Why can't a player summon exactly three animals instead of 1/2/4/8?Good question.

You're missing the point, though. The point is, if I can summon one creature of CR 2 or 8 creatures of CR 1/4, that's one thing. But it says I can summon 1 creature of CR 2 or less, or 8 creatures of CR 1/4 or less.

This construction only makes sense if the only reason to choose less than CR 2 is a player's choice. Because they just don't want to bother with the other 7 giant owls, perhaps, when they just need a quick ride across a chasm.

Perhaps there's no reason for it, and they should get exactly CR 2 when they pick "1 creature."

But as written, "X or lower" is freeing only if it's the beneficiary who is being left the choice to take a lesser option. Otherwise, it's cheapening. "Haha! You took fewer creatures, but you're still only getting CR 1/4! Take that!"

Or, to turn it around on you: Why allow the DM to cheat the player by giving him lower-CR creatures when the player sacrificed numbers for better ones?


You haven't responded to the other points I've made aboveSorry; I'll try to be more conscientious.


to repeat the key two:

(1) The DM is the only one who's even in a position to do the choosing because the DM knows what's legal to choose. If instead of "choose an option... the DM has the creatures' statistics" it instead said "the DM has the statistics of all the creatures you can choose from, including their CRs", that would be different.That assumes there are books the players are banned from reading.

Just because players may not know "what's available" in the sense that the DM might not permit creatures from, say, Storm King's Thunder in his Tomb of Annihilation game doesn't mean that the players can't know the monster manual statistics for some critters and ask for, say, 8 giant owls.

It mostly makes little sense to even say, "Er, no, those don't exist in this campaign," because there's no reason for them not to. "They're not native to Chult" is pointless: they're fey spirits conjured in the form of animals, not real animals drawn from the nearby environment.

As well say that the DM decides what Druids turn into each time they use their powers, because the players might not know what's available to turn into.


(2) You've claimed that the only reason for having the DM choose is to prevent having players pick overpowered monsters. No, and in fact that's not even the right solution to the overpowered summons (a.k.a. the Pixie problem). Monsters that are overpowered when summoned are also overpowered when used against the PCs, and the solution is to change the CR, exactly as the DMG says to do. Pixies work well IMO at CR 2, or at least as well as CR ever works anyway. They're fragile but powerful.I didn't say it was a good choice. I said it's the only reason I can think of for why they decided on this rule later. Because I don't believe it was always the intended rule; if it were, the spell would say the DM picks the creatures. It's not a hard thing to write, and the notion that it's so obvious it's not necessary to write it is laughable given how it's worded. "Choose one of the following options...[of which one option is] 1 beast of CR 2 or less" in no way implies that what kind of beast it is is chosen by the DM.

So if their goal wasn't to limit the power of the spell they'd realized was too strong based on some options being just too good, I don't know what their goal was in making this change that is being presented as supposedly how they were always intended to be read.

If, indeed, they were always meant to be read that way, then the editor and the writer both did an unusually bad job at writing clearly. Multiple times, since this language appears in multiple spells. And I am saying "unusually bad" in the context of 5e.



Why wouldn't you take three instead of four? And yet your argument implies that that's not possible, because there is no "three creatures of CR 1/2" option.Sure. It could be more permissive.


False, as addressed above. It makes sense if the person choosing is intentionally maximizing benefit to the spellcaster, but that doesn't imply that the person choosing is the player of the spellcaster--the player doesn't even know what the legal options are.This argument still fails unless you also wish to argue that the player doesn't know the legal options for a druid to wild shape into, and therefore the DM picks the druid's wild shape form each time.


I've never been on a cruise so I actually don't know how meals are served on a cruise line,Neither have I. Please don't focus on that part. Am I truly so bad at analogies that people can't help but focus on what is obviously just window dressing to help set the stage in order to ignore the actual point?


I certainly wouldn't assume from what you wrote there that I get to choose whatever I want from each meal, like in a restaurant. It sounds like they have some kind of menu schedule already planned, which makes sense because it's more economical to follow the same meal schedule for everyone on Plan A (expensive $50 meals) than to prepare all the Plan A dishes on demand. But I've never been on a cruise.That isn't what I said, though. I said the cruise line chose to give you 2 $1 meals. Do you feel cheated, when you paid for 2 meals of "$50 or less?"


Now, I know why you're going there; yo'ure trying to address the, "The player gets to pick" vs. "the DM gets to pick," but that's not what I was addressing with this analogy. I am addressing the specific question of why the language about "this CR or less" would make sense without it being a cheat.


For the "pick your meals" vs. "have your meals picked for you" point, if you're buying a meal plan that allows you up to $20 per meal in the cafeteria, no, perhaps you don't have full freedom to pick any food dish you want, but you have the freedom to pick from the meals offered. The way the Sage Advice describes the spell, though, "a beast" doesn't mean "from a menu of options," but rather "that the DM picks," so your meal plan lets you walk into the cafeteria, and instead of picking food and meals until you hit the $20 limit (or as close as you can get), the cashier hands you something he picked out for you, because that's what he feels like giving you, even if it's worth $5 and you'd have preferred the $15 item next to it.

The pretense that the menu is unknown just doesn't hold water. There might be EXTRA options the players don't know, but there are stats in the back of the PHB, for crying out loud, not to mention the monster manual being pretty easily available. Maybe the module you're playing has options you don't know about that the DM might generously give you if he's the one making the choices, but again, by this logic, druids have the DM choose their form every time they use wild shape.

[MaxWilson]

Good question.

You're missing the point, though. The point is, if I can summon one creature of CR 2 or 8 creatures of CR 1/4, that's one thing. But it says I can summon 1 creature of CR 2 or less, or 8 creatures of CR 1/4 or less.

I'm clearly not "missing the point" when I've explicitly addressed this argument already, twice. I think you missed the rebuttal though.


That assumes there are books the players are banned from reading.

Just because players may not know "what's available" in the sense that the DM might not permit creatures from, say, Storm King's Thunder in his Tomb of Annihilation game doesn't mean that the players can't know the monster manual statistics for some critters and ask for, say, 8 giant owls.

It mostly makes little sense to even say, "Er, no, those don't exist in this campaign," because there's no reason for them not to. "They're not native to Chult" is pointless: they're fey spirits conjured in the form of animals, not real animals drawn from the nearby environment.

As well say that the DM decides what Druids turn into each time they use their powers, because the players might not know what's available to turn into.


The spell literally says, "the DM has the creatures' statistics." The players may or may not have access to the same books the DM owns, but it's clearly up to the DM whether or not to use the unaltered statistics from the books.

This point in bold here is spurious: I don't mean this snarkily but you do sometimes forget rules, Segev, so I'm not sure if you're cognizant that you can only wildshape into creatures you have seen before, which means you do need DM cooperation at some point to enable a given wildshape. After that the player characters know what animals they have seen (and are therefore potentially eligible for wildshape), and could know by experimentation whether or not they are able to wildshape into those creatures.

Furthermore, wildshape does not use any analagous phrasing to Conjure Animals/Woodland Creatures. There is no "choose from... the DM has the creatures' statistics" phrasing. Wildshape uses the opposite language: "you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before... Your game Statistics are replaced by the Statistics of the beast..." So your analogy fails on multiple levels.

With that in mind about wildshape, go back and re-read your argument above. The part in bold comes across as "if that were true, wildshape would work ."


I didn't say it was a good choice. I said it's the only reason I can think of for why they decided on this rule later.

You're still begging the question (assuming that a change was made), and your initial statement was much stronger: you said it was the only possible reason, and it's not.


Because I don't believe it was always the intended rule; if it were, the spell would say the DM picks the creatures. It's not a hard thing to write, and the notion that it's so obvious it's not necessary to write it is laughable given how it's worded. "Choose one of the following options...[of which one option is] 1 beast of CR 2 or less" in no way implies that what kind of beast it is is chosen by the DM.

So if their goal wasn't to limit the power of the spell they'd realized was too strong based on some options being just too good, I don't know what their goal was in making this change that is being presented as supposedly how they were always intended to be read.

If, indeed, they were always meant to be read that way, then the editor and the writer both did an unusually bad job at writing clearly. Multiple times, since this language appears in multiple spells. And I am saying "unusually bad" in the context of 5e.


I get what you're saying in terms of "it could be clearer," but do you at least acknowledge that it's possible to read it the other way (player chooses an option, DM fulfills that choice with appropriate creatures and gives the statistics) and always has been?

Note that there are some spells where your choices are quite different: instead of choosing the CR change, for Conjure Elemental you choose the element (by choosing where you cast the spell), and Conjure Fey/Celestial don't give you an explicit choice at all. Honestly I think your argument about ambiguity would be much, much stronger if you were focusing on spells like Conjure Fey and Conjure Celestial where it doesn't say what you pick, although even there my AD&D training would have led me not to assume you get to pick--otherwise it would say so. (It also makes those spells easy to dismiss at first as uninteresting, when you first pick up a 5E PHB, since "challenge rating 6" sounds like it's going to be something weak.)


This argument still fails unless you also wish to argue that the player doesn't know the legal options for a druid to wild shape into, and therefore the DM picks the druid's wild shape form each time.

Again, you seem to be misremembering the wildshape rules. The player can't just pick a monster out of the MM and wildshape into it--they can only pick monsters they've seen before. So rather than failing because of the wildshape rules, wildshape actually supports the argument.


Neither have I. Please don't focus on that part. Am I truly so bad at analogies that people can't help but focus on what is obviously just window dressing to help set the stage in order to ignore the actual point?

That isn't what I said, though. I said the cruise line chose to give you 2 $1 meals. Do you feel cheated, when you paid for 2 meals of "$50 or less?"

I'm pretty sure I addressed this point explicitly.


Now, I know why you're going there; yo'ure trying to address the, "The player gets to pick" vs. "the DM gets to pick," but that's not what I was addressing with this analogy. I am addressing the specific question of why the language about "this CR or less" would make sense without it being a cheat.

But you're trying to use "this CR or less" as evidence that "the player gets to pick," so it only makes sense to look at it in the whole context. Your own analogy supports the idea that the DM does the picking, in good faith, within the constraints imposed by the package you selected. That's what an ethical cruise line would do and what a good DM can be expected to do.


For the "pick your meals" vs. "have your meals picked for you" point, if you're buying a meal plan that allows you up to $20 per meal in the cafeteria, no, perhaps you don't have full freedom to pick any food dish you want, but you have the freedom to pick from the meals offered.

That's possible, but it's certainly not the only interpretation of your hypothetical package, and not the first one I'd assume based on what you described. Maybe it would be more obvious if I'd ever been on a cruise.

If you're arguing for ambiguity then fine, but you seem to be arguing for the opposite: that Sage Advice is unambiguously contradicting original intent, and that argument isn't supported by the spell text. At best it's not explicitly contradicted by the spell text.


[B]The pretense that the menu is unknown just doesn't hold water. There might be EXTRA options the players don't know, but there are stats in the back of the PHB, for crying out loud, not to mention the monster manual being pretty easily available. Maybe the module you're playing has options you don't know about that the DM might generously give you if he's the one making the choices, but again, by this logic, druids have the DM choose their form every time they use wild shape.

This sentence in bold doesn't even make sense. "Pretense that the menu is unknown"? Unknown to whom? Certainly unknown to me (you didn't describe a menu in your post). I didn't argue that it was unknown, I said my impression was that it was on a fixed schedule. If you call ahead to the cruise line you might be able to find out in advance what the menu is, or maybe you'd even find out that it was cafeteria-style dining after all and you got to pick whatever you want each time. But if someone reads your post and it turns out to be a fixed schedule after all, if that person complains that they were cheated because they expected to be able to order a la carte every meal... well, I don't think that person has a strong case. They weren't cheated, they just jumped to the wrong conclusion.

[Sigreid]

I think this is a rulings not rules area. Personally, I'd let you do it because it's cool. But that's just me.

[Segev]

On my phone, will try to be more verbose later.

The Druid language quoted specifies that you turn into a beast you’ve seen before. What, in that, makes you think you choose which beast you turn into?

[MaxWilson]

On my phone, will try to be more verbose later.

The Druid language quoted specifies that you turn into a beast you’ve seen before. What, in that, makes you think you choose which beast you turn into?

It specifies that you assume the shape of a beast that you've seen before. "Assume" is an active verb meaning "to take or take upon one's self". It implies a high degree of voluntary control, and the restriction to only animals you've seen before is apparently intended to further imply that you need to have a high degree of knowledge of the shape you're assuming. Furthermore there's literary precedent. That adds up to such a strong case for choosing which beast you turn into that I would honestly be astonished to meet someone who believed otherwise.

What makes you believe Conjure Woodland Beings/Animals intends to grant a similar degree of fine control over the shape of the summoned spirits to the spellcaster?

[Edenbeast]

But as written, "X or lower" is freeing only if it's the beneficiary who is being left the choice to take a lesser option. Otherwise, it's cheapening. "Haha! You took fewer creatures, but you're still only getting CR 1/4! Take that!"

Or, to turn it around on you: Why allow the DM to cheat the player by giving him lower-CR creatures when the player sacrificed numbers for better ones?

In my opinion it should be more interpreted as "quality over quantity" or the reverse. So, either few, but strong creatures, or many but weak creatures. Within that context the DM decides what is available and lets the player decide.



That assumes there are books the players are banned from reading.

Just because players may not know "what's available" in the sense that the DM might not permit creatures from, say, Storm King's Thunder in his Tomb of Annihilation game doesn't mean that the players can't know the monster manual statistics for some critters and ask for, say, 8 giant owls.

It mostly makes little sense to even say, "Er, no, those don't exist in this campaign," because there's no reason for them not to. "They're not native to Chult" is pointless: they're fey spirits conjured in the form of animals, not real animals drawn from the nearby environment.

It's exactly that: the DM has the statistics, if he choses to only use the MM then that's what's available. Or if it's a specific setting, then those options are available. Going back to my example, "dinosaurs are extinct," that's a home-brew setting, the conditions are written in stone: they can't be summoned. Beyond having found some fossils, you don't know anything about them, neither do the fey spirits.



As well say that the DM decides what Druids turn into each time they use their powers, because the players might not know what's available to turn into.

Again, the rules are quite clear about this: "you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before." There's no reason for confusion here, you either know the shape, or not. And it's up to the DM to reign in a player who gets a bit too liberal here. There's many factors here of course, first of all, what creatures have you encountered during your formation (as in, you grew up in a forest: you know mostly forest animals), and what creatures do you encounter during the campaign. (E.G. if the campaign takes place wholly within the tropics, there is no reason you know about polar bears.)

[Segev]

You can choose to get a creature of CR 2 or less


You can choose to turn into a creature you have seen before.


I see nothing between these two that implies they are different in terms of who chooses the final selection of beasts.



And it is a quality bs quantity thing, in terms of the best you can get. But if you choose quality, the worst you can get is the exact same as if you choose quantity. And if the Dm is picking, there is no way to know what you’re getting. So the language makes no sense to give leeway unless it’s intended as a gamble. “I’ll take fewer and hope the Dm gives me better...but he could give me one of what I could have had 8 of, instead.”

[MaxWilson]

You can choose to get a creature of CR 2 or less

You can choose to turn into a creature you have seen before.

I see nothing between these two that implies they are different in terms of who chooses the final selection of beasts.

It's kind of frustrating when you ask questions and then totally ignore the answers. Can you or can you not provide a similar level of justification for Conjure Animals as I did for Wildshape?

I will note that you're not even quoting Conjure Animals correctly. It's not "choose to get a creature of CR 2 or less," it's "you summon fey spirits that take the form of Beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range. Choose one of the following options for what appears." There's a significant difference in wording there.


And it is a quality bs quantity thing, in terms of the best you can get. But if you choose quality, the worst you can get is the exact same as if you choose quantity. And if the Dm is picking, there is no way to know what you’re getting. So the language makes no sense to give leeway unless it’s intended as a gamble. “I’ll take fewer and hope the Dm gives me better...but he could give me one of what I could have had 8 of, instead.”

This looks like the same argument that's been refuted repeatedly. Granted that whoever is doing the choosing ought not to be a jerk and give you something worse than you expected, but that doesn't imply that whoever is doing the choosing is the spellcaster or the player of the spellcaster. (The spell text implies that it's the spirits themselves doing the choosing but in practice that can mean the DM, who in turn can delegate to a player if they want to.)

[Segev]

It's kind of frustrating when you ask questions and then totally ignore the answers. Can you or can you not provide a similar level of justification for Conjure Animals as I did for Wildshape?I...did?

I pointed out that there is no difference. But I'll try again, now that I'm at my computer and can be more long-winded.


I will note that you're not even quoting Conjure Animals correctly. It's not "choose to get a creature of CR 2 or less," it's "you summon fey spirits that take the form of Beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range. Choose one of the following options for what appears." There's a significant difference in wording there.I was, again, on phone, so yes, I was paraphrasing for brevity.


You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range. Choose one of the following options for what appears:

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

Each beast is also considered fey, and it disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends. The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions. Roll initiative for the summoned creatures as a group, which has its own turns. They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you). If you don’t issue any commands to them, they defend themselves from hostile creatures, but otherwise take no actions. The GM has the creatures’ statistics.


Alright, so it says you choose one of those options. Let's examine the language more closely. After choosing the first option, the way the spell simplifies is as follows:



You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range. One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower appears.

The beast is also considered fey, and it disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends. The summoned creature is friendly to you and your companions. Roll initiative for the summoned creature, which has its own turns. It obeys any verbal commands that you issue to it (no action required by you). If you don’t issue any commands to it, it defends itself from hostile creatures, but otherwise takes no actions. The GM has the creature's statistics.

If you dispute that that's how you should parse the spell after the player has chosen the first option, please give me a different parsing that you believe to be more accurate.

Now, let's look at Wild Shape.


Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before. You can use this feature twice. You regain expended uses when you finish a short or long rest.

Your druid level determines the beasts you can transform into, as shown in the Beast Shapes table. At 2nd level, for example, you can transform into any beast that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower that doesn't have a flying or swimming speed.

You've asserted that the verb "assume" is an "active" verb which is somehow different because your choice was to have a beast appear in conjure animals. I disagree with this on the face of it. Nothing about "you assume the form of a beast" implies you pick what form that is if "you summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts" doesn't also imply you pick what forms they assume.

In other words, yes, I can see room to argue that the DM picks the creatures you summon, but any consistent reading of the language requires me to also say that, if you read it that way, the DM also chooses the druid's wild shape forms.


This looks like the same argument that's been refuted repeatedly. Granted that whoever is doing the choosing ought not to be a jerk and give you something worse than you expected, but that doesn't imply that whoever is doing the choosing is the spellcaster or the player of the spellcaster. (The spell text implies that it's the spirits themselves doing the choosing but in practice that can mean the DM, who in turn can delegate to a player if they want to.)I haven't actually seen a refutation. I've seen people say "yeah, it's supposed to be up to the DM, duh, so you can get screwed," but nobody's actually refuted that the point I am making.

Perhaps I'm not articulating it well, since you seem to think it's been refuted and I am not seeing anybody even addressing it.

Let's start here: Do you agree that the reason it says, "One beast of CR 2 or less," is to expressly limit it from conjuring a beast of, say, CR 3, 4, or even 8?

Assuming the answer is "yes," (and, if not, feel free to ignore the rest of this post, as we'll need to start over from the above to have a meaningful discussion), do you agree that the reason it says, "Two beasts of CR 1 or lower," is to expressly limit any two-beast summoning to having neither of them be CR 2, 3, 4, or 20? (As well as any numbers in between.)

Again, assuming the answer is "yes," let's examine why those limits would need to be there. If you have limits, it's either to guide people, or to prevent somebody from doing something abusive/dangerous/otherwise undesirable. Do you agree that the reason for the limits here is to prevent whoever is making the choice from causing there to be a summoned creature or creatures which are too powerful for the resources represented by the casting of the spell?

(...assuming the answer is "yes"...)

If it was always intended that the DM was the one who would be making the choice, and it never occurred to the writers that anybody would interpret the text as suggesting the player of the caster is making that choice, then the number must be just a guide, right? Because obviously, the DM isn't going to deliberately give the player more powerful creatures than he should be able to get for the resources expended. (Or, if he is, then he's not going to follow guidelines about that, anyway.)

If, on the other hand, it was intended to be understood that the player of the spellcaster is making the choice, the limit is there to tell him what the maximum power of creature (or at least CR, where that in theory represents power) he can have. He can't call up 8 CR 8 creatures, because if he calls up 8 creatures, he can have at most CR 1/4. If he calls up only one, he can have at most CR 2.

Now, let's look at this spell in terms of decision-making on the part of the player of the spellcaster.

If the spell were really intended such that the DM is choosing the creatures summoned, my expectation in the language would be of this form:

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

Or, alternatively, this:

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

"Why?" you may ask. The answer is simple: if I'm playing the spellcaster, I want to know what I am guaranteed to get out of the spell. If I'm choosing to prepare or learn it, then spend a spell slot on it, and choosing to have fewer than 8 beasts show up, I expect that I get something for cutting my number of beasts by a minimum of 50%. But, if it's not worded in one of the above two ways, but rather how it is in the PHB, and we're following the Sage Advice ruling that the DM picks 'em, then what the spell is telling me is that I can have 8 CR 0 creatures, 4 CR 0 creatures, 2 CR 0 creatures, or 1 CR 0 creature. And, maybe, if the DM is feeling nice, he might deign to go higher on those numbers, and his niceness is permitted to go higher if I pick a smaller number of summoned creatures. On the other hand, if they're worded as above, even if the Sage Advice is being followed, if I pick fewer creatures, I am guaranteed a higher-quality creature (provided the DM isn't actively screwing me over by picking something technically of appropriate CR but useless in the circumstances, like a flock of owls underwater).

If I'm WRITING the spell, I am writing the spell to put limits on the choices available to whoever is making the choice about what creatures are summoned. So, if I intend for the player to make the choice, I write it as written in the PHB, because I don't need to know why the player would choose fewer creatures of a given CR when he could have more, or a lower CR than he could otherwise have. I do need to make sure he can't take too powerful a creature if he's getting a lot of them, and that the most powerful creature he can get is limited to whatever I think the balanced limit happens to be.

If, on the other hand, I'm writing the spell and expecting the DM to be doing the picking, I recognize that whatever number I put in for the CR - whether it's a minimum or a maximum - is probably what he's going to use unless he wants to screw over or really help out the spellcaster. But, if I put in "exactly this CR," it guarantees that CR. If I put in "this CR or lower," I'm inviting the DM to screw over the player, because the DM is the one who the player is playing "against." (And, if he's not, then what's the point of not just letting the player decide what he gets?) If I make it "this CR or higher," it's unlikely the DM is going to grant the player a lot of powerful creatures, but the option is there, and it's not like the DM can't do that anyway.

"Well, but, it's not like he couldn't ignore your minimum CR and give lower ones, either!" you might say. And you're right. But players have a tendency to call DMs out on house-ruling things into being nerfed, and it's a pretty good sign of the kind of relationship they're going to have when thta happens.

With it as written and the "DM picks" ruling, however, it's possible the DM had a good reason for giving you 1 seahorse when you asked for a beast of CR 2 or lower, and he's within the rules, so you have no technical grounds to complain. The spell functioned as (supposedly) advertised.

So, either the spell is badly written, badly designed, or was never intended prior to the Sage Advice ruling coming up to have the DM choosing.

[Mr Adventurer]

But if you choose quality, the worst you can get is the exact same as if you choose quantity.

Worse, in fact: the lowest of "one elemental of CR 2 or lower" is eight times lower than the lowest of "eight elementals of CR ¼ or lower".

[Segev]

Worse, in fact: the lowest of "one elemental of CR 2 or lower" is eight times lower than the lowest of "eight elementals of CR ¼ or lower".

Point granted. I more just was measuring "quality" and ignoring quantity, but you're absolutely right in that fewer of the same quality is worse than more of the same quality.

[Zuras]

The fundamental issue with all the “DM chooses” interpretations of conjuring spells is that they introduce unnecessary drama into the process. If a DM unexpectedly changes the intent of a spell that’s a major violation of the social contract at most tables. If I want magic to be fraught and unreliable I’d play a different system (Call of Cthulhu, maybe).

It’s not a problem if there is discussion beforehand between the DM and players, but both sides need to be on the same page as to what is reasonable. Most tables I’ve seen play the conjuring spells as “player chooses with DM veto”, because summons random tables takes away from the out of combat utility and DMs get sick of pixies, chwingas and velociraptors pretty quick.

I personally run it where if the player picks something appropriate to the area they get it, but if they want something odd (octopus in the desert, say) it’s a spellcasting check (DC 15 for an octopus in the desert, DC 12 for right environment/wrong region).

I haven’t actually had a player try to summon chwingas, but I’d probably allow it the first time but restrict the charms to only last for the duration of the spell, then just veto it after that if it turns out to be unbalanced.

[HPisBS]

I haven’t actually had a player try to summon chwingas, but I’d probably allow it the first time but restrict the charms to only last for the duration of the spell, then just veto it after that if it turns out to be unbalanced.

DM chooses which charm you get; that should be all the control you need.