(DMs) Do you control conjured creatures?

[Tanarii]

From Conjure Animals:
"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 DM has the creatures' Statistics."

Note that at no point does it say the player gets to directly control, with choice of specific actions or movement, the summoned creatures. Contrast that with Animate Dead, which allows a player to "decide what action the creature will take and where it will move during its next turn" All conjure spells are similarly worded as Conjure Animals. As is Find Familiar, except it's allows telepathic communication within 100 ft.

As a DM, do you choose to allow the player to control conjured creatures, and choose exactly how they execute the orders? Or do you control them yourself, after the player issues orders?

If you control them, in combat do you do limit speaking to on turn per the PHB? Do you limit in combat orders to 6 seconds per the round length? What impact do you think that have for use of Conjure/Familar spells in your game?

[MaxWilson]

Not only do I allow players to (mostly) control conjured creatures, I allow them to (mostly) control friendly NPCs, and occasionally enemy monsters (when the player has nothing else to do due to e.g. character absence or death).

I reserve the right to veto if they declare actions that don't make RP sense but it isn't typically needed.

I don't allow the _PCs_ to have detailed control of conjured monsters or NPCs though.

[prototype00]

Man, as a DM I already have to keep so many plates spinning and you want me also to take control of the players trash mobs that they just summoned?

They can do the legwork and if said players try to make them dance Swan Lake I’ll call bull**** as is my perogative. Otherwise players can knock themselves out.

[Tanarii]

I reserve the right to veto if they declare actions that don't make RP sense but it isn't typically needed.

I don't allow the _PCs_ to have detailed control of conjured monsters or NPCs though.Definitely an important distinction, and yah right to veto is a common way to allow PCs to control NPCs.



They can do the legwork and if said players try to make them dance Swan Lake I’ll call bull**** as is my perogative. Otherwise players can knock themselves out.
thanks for the great visual 😂

Edit: what if they conjured swans tho?

[Neorealist]

Mostly no, unless the summoning ability indicates the summoned creature might potentially act on it's own agenda and/or have certain actions or an outlook that modifies what they would or would not do. (in which case I'd expect the player to have them react in accordance with any such and will say something if I don't see that happening.)

I heartily agree with the 'spinning plates' analogy mentioned earlier, players can manage their own summoned creatures provided they aren't choosing to have them act in direct contradiction to any restrictions that exist for the creature.

[sithlordnergal]

I personally don't bother with controlling summons, if only because I don't have time to control them, the mooks, the main enemy the PC's are fighting, NPC's, and environmental effects. I also give pretty decent leeway to controlling the animals. The spell doesn't say you need to use a bonus action or action, so I allow them to give as many verbal commands as they like. I also allow them to split up their commands, no differently then if you were telling two dogs to do different things.

[micahaphone]

I'm with Max, as a DM I've got plenty enough to do, and I mostly trust my players to use them appropriately. On the off chance that someone tries to do an action or chain of events that I think is out of character for the minion, I'd step in to veto, and I'm sure my players would acquiesce. In a different campaign where the roles are swapped, I've occasionally asked my DM if something I'm planning on doing is too cheesy or out of line from what they'll accept. It's all about mutual respect in our made up elf games!

[Kane0]

+1 'Im busy controlling the rest of the world, the players can handle it'

[Tanarii]

Follow up question: if you allow the players to control them, how complex and convoluted actions do you allow the player to have them make.

Given the orders must be verbal, precise maneuvering and individual targeting seems beyond the intent of the spell if it's a large group.

[MaxWilson]

Follow up question: if you allow the players to control them, how complex and convoluted actions do you allow the player to have them make.

Given the orders must be verbal, precise maneuvering and individual targeting seems beyond the intent of the spell if it's a large group.

I would definitely raise my eyebrows at a goblin conga line, or anything that seems like you couldn't describe it in a short sentence or two. If you want your sixteen conjured constrictor snakes to, like, have half of them ready actions to Help PCs attack, another four of them Shove three different monsters prone, and the last four to wait until a monster is prone before attacking with advantage, but skipping over any monsters that are already restrained... I'm probably going to look at you and say, "Just how exactly are you phrasing your verbal command to these rather-dim reptiles? Give it to me in two sentences."

Nothing more than that has been necessary.

[Segev]

I generally would permit the player to control them, though the two times it's come up in my game, the player gave orders that sent them out of his character's sight and earshot, and so I had to do some decision making on my own and roll out some attacks and such, since his character wouldn't have a clue what had become of them unless and until the Concentration on the spell lapsed due to them all dying.

[sithlordnergal]

Follow up question: if you allow the players to control them, how complex and convoluted actions do you allow the player to have them make.

Given the orders must be verbal, precise maneuvering and individual targeting seems beyond the intent of the spell if it's a large group.

I allow them to give commands as complex as you could give to a trained dog. These aren't animals after all, they're technically conjured spirits that take the form of beasts. If you have multiple trained dogs, you should be able to split up your commands between them. As for the precise maneuvering and individual targeting, the spell itself doesn't have any limitations concerning that like it does in Animate Dead, where you get to command the group or a single zombie. Therefor I allow for tactical maneuvering. I.E. "I want 3 beasts to attack the goblin, four beasts to prevent any other goblins from getting through that door, and the last beast to Aid the Rogue." is perfectly acceptable.

[HappyDaze]

Follow up question: if you allow the players to control them, how complex and convoluted actions do you allow the player to have them make.

Given the orders must be verbal, precise maneuvering and individual targeting seems beyond the intent of the spell if it's a large group.

I figure if it can fit on a good meme image, then it might work. Consider these:

The general "attack my enemies" type of command:
https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/48527101/kill-them-kill-them-all.jpg

The more specific "attack that enemy command" (note that summoned creatures aren't usually picky about pronouns):
https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/80554682/kill-him-kill-him-now.jpg

[Zuras]

For me as a DM, it’s not even about the complexity of the commands, it’s how fast the player can execute them.

If the Druid player literally names all 8 summoned wolves and RP’s it out “Snuffles, Marcy, Jake, get the little one, everyone else on the big guy!”, it’s all good, especially when they wail “SNUFFLES, NOOOOO!” when Snuffles bites it and evaporates into a fey mist. Extra points if while they’re tracking the beasts HP on paper you look over and see they’re up to Snuffles XVII on their tracking log.

[Evaar]

Apart from the RAW, I think the most appropriate questions are:

1) Is it fun for the player and fulfilling the fantasy they had when they selected this option for the DM to take control of the summons? Or did they choose a summon option with the expectation that they will be allowed to play with the summoned creatures?

2) Is it going to be more fun for the DM to control the summons, or will it be a hassle?

I think the answer is it's obviously more fun for all parties if the player controls the summons. Yes standard oversight rules apply for the DM making sure the summons are acting reasonably, but otherwise let players use their toys. Don't take their toys away and make them your toys, especially if you don't even want more toys in the first place.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Conjured creatures are such a slap in the face to anyone who wants to play a martial but was told that they can't have nice thing sb cause it slows down the game.

As a DM it really depends on which player summons stuff. Some prefer me to control them, some can be trusted to control them, and some can't be trusted to even remember they're there.

[Keltest]

As a DM, i generally manage entirely too many combatants as it is. Im perfectly fine with players controlling their summons when applicable, but reserve the right to take control at any given time should something specific turn up that would break or strain their control, or when the summon would know something the player would not.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I usually have 10-50 enemies to control in a fight, if someone wants to summon something he need to take the responsibility and control it.
I only allow summoning if the player brought the creature stat block.

[Tanarii]

I usually have 7-12 enemies to control in a fight, and I can still control multiple players summons much faster than they can. :smallamused:

Btw since a I haven't stated it, my current default ruling is for players to control conjured creatures actions, but they have to state orders on the PC's turn. That keeps them focused on making the creatures actions match the orders somewhat.

I say current default but I haven't gotten to run a game since March *grumblegrumble*

[HappyDaze]

Conjured creatures are such a slap in the face to anyone who wants to play a martial but was told that they can't have nice thing sb cause it slows down the game.

As a DM it really depends on which player summons stuff. Some prefer me to control them, some can be trusted to control them, and some can't be trusted to even remember they're there.

Martial characters--any character really--can 'summon' mercenaries as a ritual using costly (and expended) material components, so long as they are in the right locations. Characters are not limited to spells and class abilites, sometimes money is enough.

[NaughtyTiger]

Conjured creatures are such a slap in the face to anyone who wants to play a martial but was told that they can't have nice thing sb cause it slows down the game.

was this brought up in the do martials have it that bad threads... cuz this is a huge point.

[MaxWilson]

Martial characters--any character really--can 'summon' mercenaries as a ritual using costly (and expended) material components, so long as they are in the right locations. Characters are not limited to spells and class abilites, sometimes money is enough.

Yep. This is half of the original intended use for Charisma before it became an alt-Intelligence for alt-Wizards: controlling your success at attracting and retaining henchmen.

They're not necessarily limited to hiring nonmagical henchmen either. If Lord Robilar the 20th level fighter wants to hire Bob the Cowardly 9th level wizard to chaffeur him around via Teleportation Circle and buff him with Haste or Stoneskin (while Bob hides in a Rope Trick), he can probably afford to do so, if there are any 9th level Bobs to be found.

[Studoku]

Yep. This is half of the original intended use for Charisma before it became an alt-Intelligence for alt-Wizards: controlling your success at attracting and retaining henchmen.

They're not necessarily limited to hiring nonmagical henchmen either. If Lord Robilar the 20th level fighter wants to hire Bob the Cowardly 9th level wizard to chaffeur him around via Teleportation Circle and buff him with Haste or Stoneskin (while Bob hides in a Rope Trick), he can probably afford to do so, if there are any 9th level Bobs to be found.
"I'll meet you there," says the 20th level wizard as his 9th level dominated thrall fetches his simulacrum a drink while it casts stoneskin and haste before chauffeuring him.

[Sigreid]

Nope. I'm going to let the player have fun with his or her toys.

[MaxWilson]

"I'll meet you there," says the 20th level wizard as his 9th level dominated thrall fetches his simulacrum a drink while it casts stoneskin and haste before chauffeuring him.

You do realize that 5E Dominate spells last for only 8 hours at 9th level, right? Pretty crummy use of a spell slot. You should do it the same way as the fighter instead and just hire someone.

[Zhorn]

depends on the context of the conjuring.
If the creature would otherwise be hostile to the summoner? I'll control as DM, following the orders of the summoner (but will let players roll attacks and damage).
If the creature would tend towards being friends/cooperative? Player will have full control most of the time.
Creatures with limited intelligence or operate mostly on instinct? DM control (eg: player's opting to not control their mount to bypass the action restriction, I will try to have those mounts act true to what they would choose to do as best I can)

[Unoriginal]

For Conjure Animals, the DM control them but they obey the orders the PC gave during their turn as much as possible

[KorvinStarmast]

Follow up question: if you allow the players to control them, how complex and convoluted actions do you allow the player to have them make. Given the orders must be verbal, precise maneuvering and individual targeting seems beyond the intent of the spell if it's a large group. My general position as DM:
You {the player} need to say the orders in six seconds or less to me, here, at the table. Any change you give must be said to me in six seconds or less.


That's how I do it.
My players have done fine with that framework.

Exception: we had a ranger summon a whole pack of wolves with a third level spell. (Tier 3 encounter). he summoned them before the party made contact with the enemy. The ranger and the wolves were more or less the flanking attack with the other four party members being "the main body" as they approached a bunch of fire giants. He sat down and gave the wolves explicit instructions on what he expected out of them when the attack started.

It was really cool to see how the party put together an attack plan that mostly worked, though the giants did throw a few curve balls at them ...

[nickl_2000]

In my games, players control summons. DM nix anything that is not possible or doesn't make sense. If we get to many summons on the field, then we split up the summons between the players to prevent one persons turn from taking 20 minutes.

It got really bad when I summoned 16 velociraptors who had 3 attacks each with advantage from pack tactics and the bad guys didn't have AoE at all.

[Whit]

Let player control them. As it says issue commands no action.
However, don’t let them choose the conjured.
Have a list to roll. Based on environment and lvl. More work to do but once created can save headache from the. 1/4 raptor pack tactic that people do all the time.

[Lupine]

Man, as a DM I already have to keep so many plates spinning and you want me also to take control of the players trash mobs that they just summoned?

They can do the legwork and if said players try to make them dance Swan Lake I’ll call bull**** as is my perogative. Otherwise players can knock themselves out.

I generally join here. The DM is already balancing too many plates in combat. The playerS wants to add one, they can balance it.

A couple matter of note at my table: I institute the “30 second statement or dodge” houserule. And I typically don’t give the summoner control of the swarm: I give it to another player (player, not pc). This represents the partial control the summoner has, and also helps players who are not super invested in combat be a little more so.

I also know that some DMs don’t let the PC choose what monster they summon. F=#% that. I’ll only frown on a choice if it doesn’t make sense in their environment. (No, you can’t summon an eagle in the underdark.)

[Xetheral]

I let players control summons as long the summons are nearby. If the players are deploying summons at long range (e.g. "stampede into this dungeon, break down any doors, and kill everyone you find") then I resolve the summons' actions myself (usually abstractly).

[Fnissalot]

I usually split it. they tell the summons what to do, I move them as well as they can on the map and tell how many would get to hit if the player told them to attack. I don't think that takes to much work from me as a DM. If I know the player won't try to push it, they could probably do it themselves. Either way, the player gets to do all the rolls.

If the order gets too complex to fit in into 6 seconds and still be understood, they would act as far as I think they would follow, and beasts with 1-3 Int score wouldn't likely use smart tactics but directly, and rather simply, following what was explicitly said.

[Valmark]

I just let them pick summons and keep the statblock to move the creatures as they prefer. No reason to limit it.

Of course, creatures that become/are uncontrolled (Conjure Fey freed, Summon Greater Demon freed, demons from Summon Lesser Demons, etc.) will be used by me.

[Composer99]

If the critter is uncontrolled or would turn hostile if the PC loses control, then I run it. Otherwise, the player does.

If they're in a fight, the command has to be brief (six seconds or less to speak), otherwise they can take their time.

If a player is struggling to manage their summoned critters, I might suggest they stop using them or let another player control them (while they still issue commands).

[LudicSavant]

I let them pick and control (within reason), but I adjust the 'number of creatures summoned' progression from 1/2/4/8 to 1/2/3/4.

[Sigreid]

Sometimes I'll also handle it as a cinematic. For example, if the wizard summons a swarm of fire mephits to burn the camps, supplies and such of the besieging army, I'm probably not going to roll that out and just rule of thumb how much damage I think they can do before anyone can stop them.

[NorthernPhoenix]

No. Like i mention in the other thread, i think hard capping the number of summoned creatures at 2 (or 1) is all the nerf these spells need.

I enjoy playing familers though, and if a player is really sensitive about this i try to work something out.

[Segev]

I typically let them control them, unless there's a good reason they wouldn't know what the creatures are doing.

The Stone of Earth Elemental Command they have brings forth Rocky and I let them make the tactical decisions, unless they've sent Rocky out of their direct line of sight to do something. The Charm of conjure animals that one of the PCs has used 2 of three charges of, both times the owls summoned were sent to do something that took them out of the immediate combat, so I controlled them, too. But if they're fighting with the summoner, I let the summoner control them.

[Sigreid]

I typically let them control them, unless there's a good reason they wouldn't know what the creatures are doing.

The Stone of Earth Elemental Command they have brings forth Rocky and I let them make the tactical decisions, unless they've sent Rocky out of their direct line of sight to do something. The Charm of conjure animals that one of the PCs has used 2 of three charges of, both times the owls summoned were sent to do something that took them out of the immediate combat, so I controlled them, too. But if they're fighting with the summoner, I let the summoner control them.

Good point, if they ever want to use a demon or devil summoning or something like that I'll probably control the summons who really wants to mess them over/corrupt them etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

As others said, I have enough to do on my own.

So players can control, yes, but micromanage no.

But they're fundamentally creatures with very low INT. Or are canonically incapable of doing much more than rushing at enemies and smacking them (ie zombies). So the summoner can give orders (on their turn, if the creatures can hear them). But they're going to get interpreted as by a creature without much intelligence. And ones that know friend from foe, but don't know person from person. And anything requiring complex logic (if this, then that is complex for a teenager, let alone a dog) will get vetoed (with the instruction to try again, more simply). They will act according to their basic natures. Wolves will flank/gang up. Etc.

And I generally trust my players to summon appropriate things and not cheese encounters. I'll veto things that don't exist in the setting or that the character wouldn't know about (if it only exists on another continent that no one's been to in recorded history...). And if a player bogs down the game, I'll talk to them and encourage them to summon fewer, bigger things instead. But that hasn't actually happened.

[Demonslayer666]

I allow the player to control them, but I also remind them that the commands need to be simple. Attack them, guard here, etc. are about all they can get away with.

[Sigreid]

I allow the player to control them, but I also remind them that the commands need to be simple. Attack them, guard here, etc. are about all they can get away with.

Well, this depends. If you panar bind an Azier (I think that's the fire elemental dwarf) and you're planning to make him smith for you for a while, you can be pretty complex. But, the more annoyed he is the more likely he is to jerk you around as much as he can.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, this depends. If you panar bind an Azier (I think that's the fire elemental dwarf) and you're planning to make him smith for you for a while, you can be pretty complex. But, the more annoyed he is the more likely he is to jerk you around as much as he can.

Planar binding is a separate matter. There, it's a full-fledged NPC. And the DM is absolutely (or should, IMO, absolutely) run them. The player can give orders, but that's similar to a regular NPC who is forced (for whatever reasons) to obey at least the letter of the commands. The player has no "assuming direct control" ability over them.

Temporary summons are, IMO, a different matter. Especially in combat, where the DM is already doing lots of stuff.

[Sigreid]

Planar binding is a separate matter. There, it's a full-fledged NPC. And the DM is absolutely (or should, IMO, absolutely) run them. The player can give orders, but that's similar to a regular NPC who is forced (for whatever reasons) to obey at least the letter of the commands. The player has no "assuming direct control" ability over them.

Temporary summons are, IMO, a different matter. Especially in combat, where the DM is already doing lots of stuff.

Agreed. Though even for the temporary summons there are basically 4 categories. 1. Something like a celestial may really believe in what you're doing and do it's honest to whatever god best. 2. Something like a fey may do what it's supposed to, but in the most irritating or funniest way it can think of. 3. Something like an elemental probably just wants to do its job and go home. 4. Something like a fiend is going to do his job in the way he thinks will make you most miserable later.

[Tanarii]

Wow thread got more activity. :smallsmile:


I let players control summons as long the summons are nearby.

If the critter is uncontrolled or would turn hostile if the PC loses control, then I run it. Otherwise, the player does.

Sometimes I'll also handle it as a cinematic. For example, if the wizard summons a swarm of fire mephits to burn the camps, supplies and such of the besieging army, I'm probably not going to roll that out and just rule of thumb how much damage I think they can do before anyone can stop them.

I typically let them control them, unless there's a good reason they wouldn't know what the creatures are doing.Very cool, I like these lines of thought as to alternative guidelines as to when player vs DM direct Control of acting's should kick in.


As others said, I have enough to do on my own.Each unto their own, but like I said, I can still control 8 or 16 identical summons faster than any player can. And keep track of them better. Probably because I'm used to doing it.

I know that's not exactly what you said. My personal break point is usually more than 3 creature types and groups for initiative. So point taken if I'm already controlling 3 and someone makes a summon, I'd probably start with the cognitive overload.


So players can control, yes, but micromanage no.

I allow the player to control them, but I also remind them that the commands need to be simple. Attack them, guard here, etc. are about all they can get away with.

Therein lies the rub. Especially if you play on a grid. Player summons rapidly become tactical geniuses on a grid if no guidelines are given.

Even totally within RAW ones, like giving a verbal order on your turn and the creatures acting later on their initiative. The former is easy to ignore because it is easy to read/interpret as an in-universe requirement. But the latter I regularly saw ignored at AL. And there's a world of difference if you enforce "player states the order now, then summons executes on initiative".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Therein lies the rub. Especially if you play on a grid. Player summons rapidly become tactical geniuses on a grid if no guidelines are given.

Even totally within RAW ones, like giving a verbal order on your turn and the creatures acting later on their initiative. The former is easy to ignore because it is easy to read/interpret as an in-universe requirement. But the latter I regularly saw ignored at AL. And there's a world of difference if you enforce "player states the order now, then summons executes on initiative".

To be honest, I rarely see summoners at my tables. And even more rarely see tactical geniuses. Which is fine with me, that's not the style I'm generally playing.

But I certainly think that enforcing the written restrictions is a good thing. Especially on spells. I really should write up the "balance triad" post I've been thinking about--that there's a tradeoff between Power, Versatility, and Reliability. Things that are really far on one side (like spells) should be lower on the others, and things that are powerful, versatile, and reliable need to be gated behind way higher levels and strict resource limits. So spells need to be read narrowly to reduce their individual versatility, because they're already powerful and often reliable (push button, thing happens, no check needed).

[Keravath]

The spell says

"They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them"

I interpret this to mean that any verbal command I can give them, they will try to execute. Since every action a creature can take is describable verbally, I let the player tell the creatures to do whatever they want to. If they want to attack, hide, disengage, dash or take any other action like bite, claw or grapple (if it is possible) ... I let the character have the creature do it since they could go to the effort of describing it verbally but it simply is not worth the overhead ... so I let the players control the summoned creatures unless a spell gives them less control.

[NaughtyTiger]

The spell says

"They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them"

I interpret this to mean that any verbal command I can give them, they will try to execute. Since every action a creature can take is describable verbally, I let the player tell the creatures to do whatever they want to. If they want to attack, hide, disengage, dash or take any other action like bite, claw or grapple (if it is possible) ... I let the character have the creature do it since they could go to the effort of describing it verbally but it simply is not worth the overhead ... so I let the players control the summoned creatures unless a spell gives them less control.

do you tailor the extent of their command (in combat) to what can be described in 6 seconds? or less if they spent the round casting it?

[Keravath]

do you tailor the extent of their command (in combat) to what can be described in 6 seconds? or less if they spent the round casting it?

Usually in combat the commands are pretty simple. "Attack a target", "run away to <location>", "disengage to <location>", "go to <location> and hide". The only time when it might be an issue is if they want the creature to perform some really complicated set of actions and if that happened I would deal with it on a case by case basis but it hasn't come up yet.