Druid conjure animals [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

MaxWilson

2020-08-17, 10:11 PM

8wGremlin

2020-08-17, 11:09 PM

I make conjured animals/summons/hired mercenaries /etc. get a fair share of the XP earned, proportional to level or CR (rounded up to 1).

10,000 XP split between four 8th level PCs is 2500 XP each. Split between four 8th level PCs and eight wolves is 2000 XP per PC and 250 per wolf. (Wolves can't actually use it but they still earn it.)

It gives the druid a reason to consider using CR 2 monsters instead, or casting other spells instead of conjuring animals.

I feel that's harsh for the druid players, or for any summoners for that matter.
Do you penalise the Beast master ranger, or the Wizard with find familiar, or the paladin with their find steed?
It seems that rule penalises a druid from using their iconic spells, it would be like penalising a Wizard's use of fireball.
But it's your game and your house rule, so all good for you and your players.

Anyway, any half decent monster would realise that the Druid summoned or is controlling them, and if they can focus fire on the druid, they should, even giving some humanoid creatures javelins and bows that they focus fire on the summoner would be a deterrent. Don't go for the beasts, go for the Summoner.

And never ever let them pick pixies.

Tanarii

2020-08-17, 11:21 PM

Ranged attacks, depending on their con save and how good they are at taking cover.

Make the player state their PC's order on their turn (it's spoken) and then you control the summons on their turn. Or make them say it out loud and then let the player control them within reason of the stated order.

Pick the creatures summoned.

Limit the possible creatures summoned depending on what's reasonable within your game world. (E.g. maybe flying snakes aren't a thing.)

More encounters per Long rest.

MaxWilson

2020-08-17, 11:55 PM

I feel that's harsh for the druid players, or for any summoners for that matter.
Do you penalise the Beast master ranger, or the Wizard with find familiar, or the paladin with their find steed?

Yes, no, and somehow it's never come up but maybe you're right and I should if it does. (It would be a small penalty for a single horse, on the order of 3%.) And the necromancer with an army of undead wights, and the cleric summoning allies via Planar Ally, and the fighter with an army of mercenaries, or a Horn of Valhalla, or the giant he beat in a riddle game and persuaded to help save the princess alongside the party because she knows people who know riddles.

More minions means you can tackle greater challenges and get more XP, but there's a cost too, and that cost is designed to discourage you from using it when it would be overkill. On the positive side, not dying is very nice, so these spells and tactics still get used.

But so do other druid spells like Wrath of Nature, Guardian of Nature, Polymorph, Spike Growth, Call Lightning and sometimes even Erupting Earth and Ice Storm. Without this rule there would be no good reason to use those other spells except Erupting Earth/Ice Storm (because no concentration), or indeed any of the higher-CR options on Conjure Animals itself.

BloodSnake'sCha

2020-08-17, 11:57 PM

BTW, why do you find dispell magic useless in that case?

And you can also make the beasts random.
Roll: "you got two snakes, one wolf, one raptor..."

Unoriginal

2020-08-18, 02:41 AM

Do you usually have only a few enemies per encounters and/or a couple encounters per long rest?

Fnissalot

2020-08-18, 05:10 AM

I wouldn't let the player directly control them and they probably at most get 5-6 or so words per turn to order them with and then they wouldn't be able to talk so much else. So if the player says "Attack the owlbears", I as the GM would move them in to the best of their ability and say how many got to attack, so even if they have 8 wolves, all of them would likely not be able to attack as they block each others movements. Additioally, most beasts are not that smart either so they might misunderstand or act sub-optimally. I wouldn't let the beasts dodge in and out to allow more of them to attack unless they are birds with flyby, or are explicitly told to do so. Large packs would likely just be sitting still.

Also, Silence, Warding Wind, and similar spells prevents the player from ordering them around, since they need to hear the order (or should have too at least).

Additionally, RAI is that the DM chooses what beasts they get and even if the player choose "Two beasts of challenge rating 1 or lower", they might sometimes get a CR 0 rat and a CR 1 tiger, or two CR1/2 reef sharks that are suffocating, or two CR 1 lions. Nothing states what the average or total CR of the conjured animals should be, so I would split them equally between the CR they can be. So even if you take eight CR 1/4 or lower, on average, I would have 1/3 of them be CR0, 1/3 CR 1/8, and 1/3 CR 1/4, so you could get something like 3 wolves, 3 cats, and 2 camels. If you think that is too much, they should at least not get all beasts at max CR.

Amnestic

2020-08-18, 05:52 AM

Additionally, RAI is that the DM chooses what beasts they get and even if the player choose "Two beasts of challenge rating 1 or lower", they might sometimes get a CR 0 rat and a CR 1 tiger, or two CR1/2 reef sharks that are suffocating, or two CR 1 lions. Nothing states what the average or total CR of the conjured animals should be, so I would split them equally between the CR they can be. So even if you take eight CR 1/4 or lower, on average, I would have 1/3 of them be CR0, 1/3 CR 1/8, and 1/3 CR 1/4, so you could get something like 3 wolves, 3 cats, and 2 camels. If you think that is too much, they should at least not get all beasts at max CR.

RAW, the player chooses what's summoned. RAI, the DM chooses something 'fun' according to sage advice. Watching half or all your spell fizzle out and be worthless isn't 'fun', so it's not RAI to summon suffocating sharks.

Bobthewizard

2020-08-18, 06:13 AM

RAW, the player chooses what's summoned. RAI, the DM chooses something 'fun' according to sage advice. Watching half or all your spell fizzle out and be worthless isn't 'fun', so it's not RAI to summon suffocating sharks.

I'm playing a shepherd druid in a campaign with Amnestic and I love what they are doing. When I use the spell it works just fine. It helps the whole party by doing damage, absorbing hits, and controlling enemy movement, but I don't think the other players feel overshadowed at all. The barbarian and fighter still do the most single target damage. The wizard and bard still take care of control and AOE. Fireball takes care of threats that conjure animals might struggle with.

Amnestic counters the spell two main ways without nerfing it at all. First, the threat of multiple encounters per day makes me think, 'Do I need to use this here?" so there are many fights I can't cast it. But the main way they counter it is to make some encounters have so many opponents that the 8 snakes or wolves I summon just can't do everything on their own.

So that's my recommendation. Don't nerf the spell. That sucks as a player. Instead, make sure there are multiple encounters per day often enough that the player has to consider whether or not to use the spell. And when there are big encounters just scale it up a little to make sure everyone needs to contribute.

Fnissalot

2020-08-18, 07:48 AM

RAW, the player chooses what's summoned. RAI, the DM chooses something 'fun' according to sage advice. Watching half or all your spell fizzle out and be worthless isn't 'fun', so it's not RAI to summon suffocating sharks.

RAW only specifies that the player chooses the amount and max CR and leaves it blank who should choose the exact beast.

Summon Greater Demon, Infernal Calling, Find Steed, Find Greater Steed, and Find Familiar are the summoning conjuration spells that explicitly lets you choose what you summon.

My point was not that you should summon suffocating sharks everytime, but that it might happen if you are fighting in a harbor, and that said, you should probably only do it with one shark once. The point was that you would get a varied selection of beasts, both in CR and type. If you always get 8 wolves from the spell, it will likely equal a fireball on the second turn of the beasts attacking (the DMG suggests that it should hit 4 creatures, and save or half vs attacks with advantage should almost average out. 4*(8d6) = average 112 vs 8*(2d4+2)= average 56/turn) not counting the monsters they knock prone, the crowd control of just standing in the way, the damage they soak (88HP), and that they are less prone to overkill since the damage is divided into smaller chunks. With eight average CR 1/4 creatures, it is likely one of the best spells of 3rd spell level in the game. With creatures split equally between the CRs it can summon (a third each of CR 0, 1/8, and 1/4), it will equal a fireball in damage at around turn 5, which sounds way more reasonable to me.

Additionally, the difference between average beasts is rather small and two CR 1/4 beasts are way better than a single CR 1/2. The same goes for eight CR 1/4 versus a single CR 2.

I did calculated the mean damage and HP for beasts in the monster manual, might have missed some monsters but this should still show an approximation for why you should not give 8 CR1/4 beasts with the spell. A CR 1/4 monster from the MM, does about 8.05 damage in a turn, if their attacks and damage effects trigger. A CR 1/2 does about 10.35. A CR 1/8 does about 5.3. A CR 0 deals about 1.77. A CR 1/4 beast has about 15.6 HP in the monster manual while a CR 1/8 has about 8.7, and a CR 1/2 has only 19.7. A CR 1/2 is not as good as two CR1/4. Even a CR 2 beast has only on average 47 HP and deals 17.7 on average. Two CR 1/4 will deal almost as much damage will only slightly worse chance to hit, and three of them has as much HP.

If my players chooses the larger amounts, I will give them worse beasts than if they pick a single big one. It is never fun when the game stops due to 8 beasts suddenly have to do their actions, and it is more balanced to give them more average beasts for what they picked. Giving them 3 wolves, 2 camels and 3 cats is 69 hit points of beasts split over 8 bodies and they will do 31.5 damage as long as they hit, so it is still better than a single CR 2 beast. If they get 8 beasts, the total damage and HP should likely be at most what a single CR 2 beast gets, since in most scenarios, more creatures are better than fewer. If they pick, they will likely pick beasts above the average which breaks this even more.

stoutstien

2020-08-18, 08:13 AM

AoEs are mostly useless cuz the beasts are summoned all over the place, around/in between my enemies, making AoE moot in most cases.

There's plenty of creatures that don't care about their own AOE damage. Devils are immune to fire for example so hurl flame/fireball are low risk. Undead are immune to charm and fear effects so there's quite of few choices that they can be intermingled with and be fine.

3rd level spells are supposed to be powerful and have the capacity to completely circumvent or destroy an encounter. The problem arises when every encounter can be solved with a single spell. It's really no different than having fireball wipe everything out because you keep giving them bunched up targets with low dex saves.

Clerics get Spirit guardian, wizards get fireball, bards get hypnotic patterns, and Druids get conjure X. The game just completely changes at level 5.

da newt

2020-08-18, 08:42 AM

As a DM, if you plan to nerf the Shepherd Druid's defining spell and mitigate their subclass, you had better discuss this during session 0 and spell out specifically how you plan to reduce the PC's defining characteristic. Yes - the spell and subclass combo is very potent, but if the DM decides they will handle that by house ruling XXXX to nerf the capability, this had best be discussed up front and agreed to by all.

If you allow CA to be used as designed/written, simply adjust your encounters to account for an extra 8 cr 1/4 beasts (what would their CR be w/ magic attacks and + 10 hp each) in the party. Maybe one of your Orcs is the tribe's hunt master and has his hunting dogs with him, or add 3 Orogs, or ... just bump up the challenge rating to account for the extra party members. If your druid can add a pool of 168 hp, and 56 damage/round (all hit) - then adjust your adversaries strength/capabilities as needed to make it as challenging and encounter as you want it to be.

As to suggestions to hamstring the casting by randomizing creatures, not allowing the PC to control them, providing CR 0s when CR 1/4 are summoned, etc - these sorts of tactics only increase the DM vs the Players adversarial mindset UNLESS is it well discussed and agreed upon during session 0.

Tanarii

2020-08-18, 09:07 AM

nickl_2000

2020-08-18, 09:13 AM

For intelligent enemies use terrain and field control spells as well as the AoEs. It is very easy for the bad guys to have tanks up front who hold off the summons in a choke-point while casters and archers rain death on the PCs.

Also, remember that summons require concentration. So, you can have people focus on the Druid caster to break concentration and then poof the summons are gone.

Fnissalot

2020-08-18, 09:50 AM

Additional option, and probably more player friendly than choosing the creatures yourself:
- rebalance the number of creatures it summons based on the DMG encounter multiplier.

Assume you get 400 XP divided by the action multiplier from the encounters guideline. Takes some rounding, up seems to work better than down. Multiply the XP by 2/3/4 for upcasting.

Additional creatures Multiplier is:
1 = x1
2 = x1.5
3-6 = x2
7-10 = x2.5
11-14 = x3

So modified numbers would be the following. I've marked a * where you should just cast at the previous level and save the slot.

3rd level:
CR 2 = 1
CR 1 = 2
CR 1/2 = 3
CR 1/4 = 4

5th level upcast:
CR 2 = 2
CR 1 = 3
CR 1/2 = 4
CR 1/4 = 7

7th level upcast:
CR 2 = 2*
CR 1 = 3
CR 1/2 = 6
CR 1/4 = 10

9th level upcast:
CR 2 = 2* (rounded down. Up is 2700xp)
CR 1 = 4
CR 1/2 = 8
CR 1/4 = 11

(It looks like the 9th level slot should probably provide more than 1600 XP or x4 though. Maybe the 7th more than x3 / 1200 XP. In retrospect I should probably do this by giving XP for the specified number of CR 2s, then calculating the other CRs from there.)

I like it! And as you said it would probably better if you take the adjusted exp of 1,2,3, or 4 CR 2 monsters and then split that number down to see how many you get. So it is 450 exp at 3rd, 1350 at 5th, 2700 at 7th, and 3600 at 9th. At 3rd it would then summon 1/2/3/5 beasts of CR 2/1/.5/.25, at 5th 2/3/6/10, at 7th 3/6/10/15, and at 9th 4/7/12/18. I rounded to closest, alternatively to the one that would make a difference between CR if it was equally far away and keep it most consistent with the other adjusted exps at that spell level.

At 3rd it would then summon 1(450exp)/2(600xp)/3(600xp)/5(500xp) beasts of CR 2/1/.5/.25, at 5th 2(1350)/3(1200)/6(1200)/10(1250xp), at 7th 3(2700)/6(2400)/10(2500)/15(3000), and at 9th 4(3600)/7(3500)/12(3600)/18(3600).

If rounded down below the limit:
At 3rd it would then summon 1(450exp)/1(200xp)/2(300xp)/4(400xp) beasts of CR 2/1/.5/.25, at 5th 2(1350)/3(1200)/6(1200)/10(1250xp), at 7th 3(2700)/6(2400)/10(2500)/14(2100), and at 9th 4(3600)/7(3500)/12(3600)/18(3600). This looks less nice.

Another option would be to balance it around hit dice instead of CR, so that you summon a number of hit dice worth of monsters. So 6 hit dice worth with a 3rd level spell slot and increase it by 2 for each extra spell slot level.

As a DM, if you plan to nerf the Shepherd Druid's defining spell and mitigate their subclass, you had better discuss this during session 0 and spell out specifically how you plan to reduce the PC's defining characteristic. Yes - the spell and subclass combo is very potent, but if the DM decides they will handle that by house ruling XXXX to nerf the capability, this had best be discussed up front and agreed to by all.

If you allow CA to be used as designed/written, simply adjust your encounters to account for an extra 8 cr 1/4 beasts (what would their CR be w/ magic attacks and + 10 hp each) in the party. Maybe one of your Orcs is the tribe's hunt master and has his hunting dogs with him, or add 3 Orogs, or ... just bump up the challenge rating to account for the extra party members. If your druid can add a pool of 168 hp, and 56 damage/round (all hit) - then adjust your adversaries strength/capabilities as needed to make it as challenging and encounter as you want it to be.

As to suggestions to hamstring the casting by randomizing creatures, not allowing the PC to control them, providing CR 0s when CR 1/4 are summoned, etc - these sorts of tactics only increase the DM vs the Players adversarial mindset UNLESS is it well discussed and agreed upon during session 0.

While I agree that it should be discussed with the players affected (and I see no problem taking that discussion during a between sessions), I don't think it is about the players vs the GM. The main reason I am against spells that promotes summoning hordes, is that they slow down the game which in the long run will make everyone enjoy the game less in my experience. If this is unique to the tables I play at, then I am happy for you and agree that the GM should account for it in when planning encounters instead. The second reason being that the spell becomes widely inconsistent between its options. One option is far better than the others, and the better option outperforms everything you can get from a 3rd level spell when the player always get the best options. This builds into the first reason, in that the uneven balance of the spell promotes summoning large numbers over one large creature. Gaining somewhere between 16-24 hit dice worth of beasts is a lot better than picking a CR 2 beast with 5-8 hit dice, not counting the action economy of 1 attack versus 8. A spell that has that much difference based on the choice you do with it is crazy. You as a player and the party as a whole are punished when you take the option that will not bog down the game. The spell is still strong even if you get an even split of CR 0 to 1/4 across the eight beasts you summon, or use adjusted exp instead of CR, and it makes it less punishing to choose the option that does not kill the pace of the game.

Nhym

2020-08-18, 10:06 AM

Speaking as an experienced Shepherd Druid player, do NOT nerf the player by having them able to only summon one or two creatures as not only does that severely cripple the entire main feature of his class, but translates poorly to the mid/higher levels when the numbers usually matter much more than individual creatures for Conjure Animals. I'm sure it's already been said but nerfing Conjures for a Shepherd is like nerfing Fireball as a wizard. I hope you aren't controlling the creatures yourself because that's a TON for the DM to do. You should have the player manage them.

If you can trap the PC in any way, do so. Any good Shepherd Druid will be building around Con (for concentration) as their most important attribute since losing concentration is the single worst thing a Shepherd can do, so if you force them to make a Con save or two, that's good. Of course the first thing I do after summoning my Conjures is straight up full speed run away so you may not get a chance to do that on every fight.

Size is also an overlooked aspect of the Shepherd as a lot of good summons are actually large in size so they each take up a 2x2 square which can quickly fill up any indoor space. I would suggest using smaller spaces only if you have few, strong creatures as many small creatures will get rolled in small spaces just as much as the summons.

Alternatively, you can do the opposite and have each fight be a large-scale battle with multiple smaller enemies specifically intended for the summons while the party deals with a larger baddie or something.

While AOE may seem like a good counter (and is), practically summons will be spread out and surrounding everything so chances are you won't get as much mileage with an AOE as you'd like. That being said, at higher CRs Auras can be a killer. Something like a fear aura which forces a save is great for disabling multiple summons since they generally don't have great saves.

Let me know if you have specific questions. I wrote a whole guide on the Shepherd.

DragonBaneDM

2020-08-18, 10:13 AM

TLDR: Add tougher/more monsters (especially spellcasters), ignore the beasts, and hit the players.

Back when I was Moon Druid'ing, one of the things that excited me the most about my Dinomancer was that Conjure Animals lasted a super long time! I could keep my pack of velocibabies around for a whole hour! That meant I could take them to the next fight!

What that didn't stop, though, was the rest of my party's need to take a short rest in between fights. Also, it just was a clear signal to the DMs (rotating chair game) that they could up their tactics/CR game. It wasn't long that my Conjure Animals became an emergency red button rather than a free pass to roflstomp fools.

See, having a Druid spellcaster with 3rd level spells kind of green-lights you to go from the "4 Hard Encounters" adventuring day to the "6 Medium-Hard Encounters". You got more duders? Cool, same here. And they're going to retreat and go grab the next encounter of monsters and bring them down here, or trigger this trap I've added in. Heck, you mentioned not having a lot of spellcasting NPCs? Add them in, yo! You've got free reign to step up your game and use tougher CRs, which, if you're using XP, means that players level faster.

Honestly, the upside of Conjure is that it makes the extra damage counters the extra time. The beasts will take out a lot of your monsters, but my best advice is to not go for them unless it's added value on top of a well placed Thunderclap or Fireball. Go for the Druid, go for the other party members. Make those summoned beasts only last for an encounter, because they're really gonna need that short rest at the end of the fight. Make them take that short rest and *boom*, that spell slot spent the same as the Sorcerer's Hold Person.

LudicSavant

2020-08-18, 10:58 AM

there's a Druid in my game that is dominating with conjure animals. I'm inclined to let him have his fun, which is what we're here for. Any suggestions on how to keep this very powerful spell at bay? Dispel magic seems useless. Counterspell of course is good but not many mages in these encounters. They do magical damage, tons of hit points (mighty summoner, bear totem), and keep other characters safe as the animals r up front. Druid can cast it pretty much every encounter. It's probably the most powerful low/mid level thing I've seen in 5e. It's good for any encounter really. Other players although liking the powerful spell, seem a bit bored....

Breaking Concentration, AoE control spells / kiting, or just plain old RAW.

See, by RAW, Conjure Animals is only as strong as the DM makes it, since the DM chooses the animals that are summoned. The only agency the player has is choosing the number of creatures and the CR *cap* (you can actually still get things below that CR). A cruel DM could just say you get suffocating seahorses, that's it.

Which, frankly, sucks, whether your DM is cruel or generous. It means that it wins or loses by DM fiat, which always feels bad. And let's face it, summoners want to go "Pikachu, I choose you!" It's part of the fantasy and the mechanics should deliver on that, but don't.

This is why at my own tables, I make it so that players can choose what they get from Conjure Animals, but the summoning progression is 1/2/3/4 creatures rather than 1/2/4/8 creatures. Makes the game run faster, makes players have more fun, and makes the various "number of creature" options more balanced against each other.

Really, the 1/2/4/8 progression seems like it was written with the assumption that CR would work like it did in past editions, where it was exponential. It's not anymore. Apparently someone didn't get the memo as 5e was being cobbled together through many revisions by many different people. That's my hypothesis anyway.

Additional option, and probably more player friendly than choosing the creatures yourself:
- rebalance the number of creatures it summons based on the DMG encounter multiplier.

Assume you get 400 XP divided by the action multiplier from the encounters guideline. Takes some rounding, up seems to work better than down. Multiply the XP by 2/3/4 for upcasting.

Additional creatures Multiplier is:
1 = x1
2 = x1.5
3-6 = x2
7-10 = x2.5
11-14 = x3

So modified numbers would be the following. I've marked a * where you should just cast at the previous level and save the slot.

3rd level:
CR 2 = 1
CR 1 = 2
CR 1/2 = 3
CR 1/4 = 4

5th level upcast:
CR 2 = 2
CR 1 = 3
CR 1/2 = 4
CR 1/4 = 7

7th level upcast:
CR 2 = 2*
CR 1 = 3
CR 1/2 = 6
CR 1/4 = 10

9th level upcast:
CR 2 = 2* (rounded down. Up is 2700xp)
CR 1 = 4
CR 1/2 = 8
CR 1/4 = 11

(It looks like the 9th level slot should probably provide more than 1600 XP or x4 though. Maybe the 7th more than x3 / 1200 XP. In retrospect I should probably do this by giving XP for the specified number of CR 2s, then calculating the other CRs from there.)

Huh! Very similar to what I use :smallsmile:

sithlordnergal

2020-08-18, 02:42 PM

I make conjured animals/summons/hired mercenaries /etc. get a fair share of the XP earned, proportional to level or CR (rounded up to 1).

10,000 XP split between four 8th level PCs is 2500 XP each. Split between four 8th level PCs and eight wolves is 2000 XP per PC and 250 per wolf. (Wolves can't actually use it but they still earn it.)

It gives the druid a reason to consider using CR 2 monsters instead, or casting other spells instead of conjuring animals.

I can see it working with hired mercs, and would be a good way to let them improve, but why would any conjured animals and summons get exp in the first place? That makes zero sense. O_o They get summoned during the battle and are generally dropped right as combat ends. There's no reason for them to get exp. Heck, it would make more sense for Zombies and Skeletons animated by a Wizard to earn exp more then it does for animated things and temporary summons.

sithlordnergal

2020-08-18, 02:48 PM

Amnestic

2020-08-18, 02:48 PM

I can see it working with hired mercs, and would be a good way to let them improve, but why would any conjured animals and summons get exp in the first place? That makes zero sense. O_o They get summoned during the battle and are generally dropped right as combat ends. There's no reason for them to get exp. Heck, it would make more sense for Zombies and Skeletons animated by a Wizard to earn exp more then it does for animated things and temporary summons.

I want my fireball to also earn exp.

Nhym

2020-08-18, 03:03 PM

I want my fireball to also earn exp.

Right? That's a ****ty thing to do to a player in nerfing their signature spell rather than just challenging them more.

sithlordnergal

2020-08-18, 03:19 PM

I want my fireball to also earn exp.

...I know that is sarcasm...but now I kinda wanna implement something like this. If you have a signature spell that you consistently use every encounter you can have it slowly get stronger. Like Chromatic Orb starts out normal, but after casting it enough times and having it "earn" exp it gains a small buff. For example, you can add Necrotic or Radiant to the list of damage types it can do, or it can add +1 to the attack and damage rolls.

In exchange you have to give up a portion of the exp that you earn, not the party just you.

LudicSavant

2020-08-18, 03:25 PM

MaxWilson

2020-08-18, 03:26 PM

I can see it working with hired mercs, and would be a good way to let them improve, but why would any conjured animals and summons get exp in the first place? That makes zero sense. O_o (A) They get summoned during the battle and are generally dropped right as combat ends. There's no reason for them to get exp. (B) Heck, it would make more sense for Zombies and Skeletons animated by a Wizard to earn exp more then it does for animated things and temporary summons.

(A) IME they tend to stick stick around after the battle too, sometimes for multiple battles, and it's better to summon them before the battle if you know it's coming due to (a) action economy, and (b) the fact that Conjure Minor Elementals, Conjure Minor Elemental, Conjure Woodland Beings, etc. take 1 minute to cast instead of 1 action, plus sometimes (c) the opportunity to pre-position them around the party, buff them with temp HP, etc.

(B) Yes, zombies and skeletons count too. This isn't a Conjure Animals-specific rule, it's about how XP is divided, and reasons for PCs to fight their own battles instead of just flooding the dungeon with combat proxies. (Does it really make sense for PCs to gain XP just from standing there watching a bajillion skeletons and elementals disassemble other monsters?)

sithlordnergal

2020-08-18, 03:38 PM

The main issue to be careful of with this would be that it could easily encourage 'defaulting,' which reduces tactical depth and thereby makes for less interesting gameplay.

Yeah, you'd need to put a cap on how much a spell can improve, and you'd need a way to limit the number of spells you can boost. If I were to set up a robust system for this it would be along the lines of this:

Choose a number of spells equal to your casting modifier to become Specialized in. Whenever you gain experience, you can choose to put that experience into one of those spells instead.

After a spell have X number of experience, you can gain a minor benefit. Each chosen spell can only gain three benefits. You can change out a Spell Specialization after a long rest, however once you are no longer specialized in a spell it loses any experience points and benefits it may have had.

Keep in mind, that's just something I threw together in about 5 minutes. So it would need to be refined. But it should prevent spells from becoming super OP, and it allows casters to change out the spells they're specialized in, which lets things remain interesting, without making it super easy to do, preventing system abuse.

Amnestic

2020-08-18, 03:39 PM

...I know that is sarcasm...but now I kinda wanna implement something like this. If you have a signature spell that you consistently use every encounter you can have it slowly get stronger. Like Chromatic Orb starts out normal, but after casting it enough times and having it "earn" exp it gains a small buff. For example, you can add Necrotic or Radiant to the list of damage types it can do, or it can add +1 to the attack and damage rolls.

In exchange you have to give up a portion of the exp that you earn, not the party just you.

I can't find it now but I do recall someone making a thing like this - hit with [x] weapon [y] times for a bonus with it, cast [spell] enough times for a damage/save boost sorta thing, along with some other "achievement" style progression markers. I came across it while looking into feats-as-rewards but it was in one of those random reddit threads and digging into my history hasn't found it. Unfortunate.

If I did do something like that I might want to keep the exact system private to avoid the tactical changes that LudicSavant mentions, and only let people know when they specifically 'level up' their skill/weapon/whatever so they're not trying to 'grind' it.

Daion515

2020-08-18, 03:42 PM

Not super common, but my DM has used things like Forbiddance. Conjure Animals uses Fey spirits that turn into beasts, their type is still Fey, he hasn't used it often, but it stops my Shepherd here and there. Another thing we decided to adopt was "Handling Mobs" from DMG. p. 250. It is good for allowing a Druid to use a lot of beasts without slowing down combat. And if creatures with advantage are summoned we just knock the tier down by two.

So anti-fey spells are good. "Handling Mobs" rules from the DMG help with speed of combat. AOE's are great choices, even better if you can hit the druid for the concentration checks. Dispel Magic would also be good, you can target the magical effect that is "Conjure Animals". You'll want to take a step back and look at HOW your druid is dominating. Are the other players just constantly falling on the Druid to do his thing and win the battles for them because he can? Enemies can adapt as much as the players can. Especially if the enemies know who the players are. Shepherds are not only great with Conjure Animals. They can be fantastic healers too. Many times I've had to fall back to being a healer. And by gawd does that get me aggro. To the point it's almost impossible to keep concentration, and that's when my allies really have to step up and do something. I'd have to say consistent AoE damage is the biggest challenge for me as a Shepherd, especially without a backup healer.

sithlordnergal

2020-08-18, 03:47 PM

(A) IME they tend to stick stick around after the battle too, sometimes for multiple battles, and it's better to summon them before the battle if you know it's coming due to (a) action economy, and (b) the fact that Conjure Minor Elementals, Conjure Minor Elemental, Conjure Woodland Beings, etc. take 1 minute to cast instead of 1 action, plus sometimes (c) the opportunity to pre-position them around the party, buff them with temp HP, etc.

(B) Yes, zombies and skeletons count too. This isn't a Conjure Animals-specific rule, it's about how XP is divided, and reasons for PCs to fight their own battles instead of just flooding the dungeon with combat proxies. (Does it really make sense for PCs to gain XP just from standing there watching a bajillion skeletons and elementals disassemble other monsters?)

A) Eh, there's a reason I never waste my time with Conjure Elemental and such, you never know when combat will happen and 9 times out of 10 you just waste the spell slot, unless you use something like Planar Binding to keep it around for 24 hours. Either way, conjured creatures, or things animated by Animate Objects shouldn't be gaining exp.

B) Are the zombies and such going to eventually become stronger by gaining exp? Otherwise it seems like a nerf that isn't all that good and simply punishes a build type that, in my opinion, is really strong in Tier 2 but becomes kind of pointless in Tier 3. Cause having those NPCs drain exp for no reason isn't fun. But if, say, a zombie you animated can get stronger you now have a reason to keep it around and keep it 'alive' for as long as possible.

MaxWilson

2020-08-18, 04:08 PM

A) Eh, there's a reason I never waste my time with Conjure Elemental and such, you never know when combat will happen and 9 times out of 10 you just waste the spell slot, unless you use something like Planar Binding to keep it around for 24 hours. Either way, conjured creatures, or things animated by Animate Objects shouldn't be gaining exp.

B) Are the zombies and such going to eventually become stronger by gaining exp? Otherwise it seems like a nerf that isn't all that good and simply punishes a build type that, in my opinion, is really strong in Tier 2 but becomes kind of pointless in Tier 3. Cause having those NPCs drain exp for no reason isn't fun. But if, say, a zombie you animated can get stronger you now have a reason to keep it around and keep it 'alive' for as long as possible.

(A) Sounds like a playstyle-specific thing. I will note that Stealth and pre-buffs work together very nicely, and recon helps a lot too, but even then there are cases where you won't know for sure that combat is about to break out (e.g. treachery). It's interesting to me though that an hour-long spell like Conjure Elemental is wasted 9 times out of 10 in your games. Is the same thing true for 8 hour spells like Mage Armor and Foresight?

I imagine that could make warlocks and monks fairly popular at your table, because a warlock can keep a pre-cast spell like Invisibility up essentially indefinitely just by resting periodically. Likewise a Shadow Monk can just tell the DM "I am going to keep Pass Without Trace up all day, resting every 3 hours so that I never drop below 3 ki points." (A House Lyrandar warlock, from Eberron, could do the same thing to keep an elemental on hand constantly.)

(B) I guess it all depends on how you view XP, where it comes from, and why it gets split between multiple people in the first place. Perhaps we have different assumptions. From my perspective, an elemental is just as useful in a fight as a 5th level Fighter and should receive a similar share of the XP.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-18, 04:11 PM

Right? That's a ****ty thing to do to a player in nerfing their signature spell rather than just challenging them more.

What if it is an unbalanced/overpowered spell or ability?
What if this spell or ability detracts from other players at the table?

sithlordnergal

2020-08-18, 08:34 PM

(A) Sounds like a playstyle-specific thing. I will note that Stealth and pre-buffs work together very nicely, and recon helps a lot too, but even then there are cases where you won't know for sure that combat is about to break out (e.g. treachery). It's interesting to me though that an hour-long spell like Conjure Elemental is wasted 9 times out of 10 in your games. Is the same thing true for 8 hour spells like Mage Armor and Foresight?

I imagine that could make warlocks and monks fairly popular at your table, because a warlock can keep a pre-cast spell like Invisibility up essentially indefinitely just by resting periodically. Likewise a Shadow Monk can just tell the DM "I am going to keep Pass Without Trace up all day, resting every 3 hours so that I never drop below 3 ki points." (A House Lyrandar warlock, from Eberron, could do the same thing to keep an elemental on hand constantly.)

(B) I guess it all depends on how you view XP, where it comes from, and why it gets split between multiple people in the first place. Perhaps we have different assumptions. From my perspective, an elemental is just as useful in a fight as a 5th level Fighter and should receive a similar share of the XP.

A) Time has a really weird flow at the tables I play in. Anything that lasts 8 hour or longer lasts until you take/finish a Long Rest. A spell that lasts an hour usually lasts long enough to be there for one encounter, then it ends, unless you cast it a long time ago out of game, then it might be gone even if you've had no encounters. Meaning there's really no functional difference between a spell that lasts for 10 minutes or a spell that lasts an hour outside of "Can I cast this immediately".

As for scouting...I've been in a lot of tables, never had anyone scout ahead before. Either as a player or as a DM. But that may just be from playing a lot of AL and my own DMing style. Being more then 30 feet away from the party is a good way to guarantee that you will be dying, or at least downed, before the party can save you because of traps and monsters. As a result, you never know when you'll encounter a thing so those "prep" spells have to be cast on round 1 of initative. Which further weakens any summoning spell that has a casting time higher than 1 action.

B) Ahh, yeah I view it differently. Since the players most likely cast a spell amd spent resources to gain that elemental, it means its still the players gaining the exp because they are acting through that elemental. Sure the fire elemental was helpful, but they don't get to have exp since they were just a creature summoned by the players.

MaxWilson

2020-08-18, 09:25 PM

B) Ahh, yeah I view it differently. Since the players most likely cast a spell amd spent resources to gain that elemental, it means its still the players gaining the exp because they are acting through that elemental. Sure the fire elemental was helpful, but they don't get to have exp since they were just a creature summoned by the players.

That's certainly valid, and I used to run things that way before I grew dissatisfied with the implications for game balance.

NorthernPhoenix

2020-08-19, 09:03 AM

Limit the player to just one animal for purposes of encounters. It may seem like nerfing the player but you could easily explain that frankly your tired of having to play the zoo keeper. More summon creatures means more working of initiative order, following up on those summoned animals that have status conditions, party buffs, etc. In short for most DM's there is more book keeping on their part which is why some outright band the spell. For games I DM I have come to learn the value of this. Having multiple animals for rp reasons like tracking a target or something non-combat related is fine. Typically less crunch involved in those situations.

This is what i do, except i do two animals to be generous. I'm not out to "gatcha" people with weird DM chooses choices or any other way to completely invalidate the spell (everyone dispels, etc.). I just say, you can pick anything you like, but no more than 2 creatures no matter. This solves the majority of the spells problems imo. And i agree, out of combat having more is fine.

MrStabby

2020-08-19, 02:34 PM

There are some abilities that hurt conjured animals a lot more than others...

Forbidance has been mentioned.

Invisibility is often good; lower hit chance coupled with disadvantage will disproportionately impact summons. Add in no attacks of opportunity from them and they just wont shine.

Flyers. Seriously, how many beasts have ranged attacks? And the ones that fly are not usually the problematic options.

I know you kind of dismissed area of effect, but it's worth a revisit. You dont need to target the summons, just collateraly harm them when you hit players. Also, destructive wave is a fun spell in it's own right.

Terrain effects- be it sulphirus air that does d12 damage per turn to everything or just difficult terrain, they will tend, on average to be harsh against summons.

MaxWilson

2020-08-19, 02:38 PM

Terrain effects- be it sulphirus air that does d12 damage per turn to everything or just difficult terrain, they will tend, on average to be harsh against summons.

Also falling damage is pretty good. If continuing on the adventure requires rappelling down a 50' cliff, PCs will only be inconvenienced even if they mess up and fall for 5d6 (17) falling damage, but conjured wolves will probably have to be re-summoned at the bottom.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-19, 02:47 PM

Flyers. Seriously, how many beasts have ranged attacks? And the ones that fly are not usually the problematic options.
giant owls

Also falling damage is pretty good. If continuing on the adventure requires rappelling down a 50' cliff, PCs will only be inconvenienced even if they mess up and fall for 5d6 (17) falling damage, but conjured wolves will probably have to be re-summoned at the bottom.

a 5th level shepherd druid that walks his wolves through the bear spirit has wolves with at least 22 HP...
at 6th level, the wovles have 27 HP
at 10th level, the druid can move the bear spirit to heal everyone back up in 30 seconds.

MaxWilson

2020-08-19, 02:49 PM

a 5th level shepherd druid that walks his wolves through the bear spirit has wolves with at least 22 HP...
at 10th level, the druid can move the bear spirit to heal everyone back up in 30 seconds.

Yep, shepherd druids are better than the average druid at keeping their summons alive against "pretty good" threats. That's the whole point of playing a shepherd druid.

Although nitpick: the 10th level feature won't really help the wolves, since the HP they lost were mostly temp HP.

nickl_2000

2020-08-19, 02:53 PM

Flyers. Seriously, how many beasts have ranged attacks? And the ones that fly are not usually the problematic options.

Official material? 1 that you can summon. Apes can throw rocks. I enjoyed having an ape artillery on my druid.

MrStabby

2020-08-19, 03:18 PM

Official material? 1 that you can summon. Apes can throw rocks. I enjoyed having an ape artillery on my druid.

Huh. I had guessed two, still, given the power of big birds I have never seen them be much of an issue.

And if a druid player was summoning apes to throw rocks, I would guess that it isn't the most egregious use of the spell.

It isnt about making the spell useless, just on average of more of an appropriate power level such that others can have more fun.

Fnissalot

2020-08-19, 03:25 PM

Official material? 1 that you can summon. Apes can throw rocks. I enjoyed having an ape artillery on my druid.
Giant spiders in the monster manual and similar monsters in some adventures have ranged webs as well.

Dmdork

2020-08-19, 05:35 PM

So, quick question, is your Druid a Sheppard Druid? If not, toss in a few more enemies with resistance to B/P/S. It cuts down the damage HARD. Also, fire elementals are the bane of anyone who uses Conjure Animal.

Next, AoE's are useful, as are things like Anti-Magic zones. You could also choose the animals yourself if need be.

They do magic damage. AoE is no good cuz the animals get summoned in between all the enemies and allies . Of course anti magic, of course Counterspell , but these things seldom come into play

x3n0n

2020-08-19, 05:44 PM

AoE is no good cuz the animals get summoned in between all the enemies and allies .

How is your druid casting Conjure Animals in between the enemies? The spell takes 10 rounds (no, one action) to cast.

Assuming the animals are there before combat begins, that gives you part of the first round to influence battlefield placement and potentially get an AoE of some kind.

Edit: corrected casting time, sorry.

However, it may still be reasonable to control their initial placement: "[they] appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range." I think there is a reasonable argument that the DM could choose their initial positions since it doesn't say "of your choice". (That seems far less invasive than choosing under-CR'ed beasts.)

stoutstien

2020-08-19, 05:49 PM

How is your druid casting Conjure Animals in between the enemies? The spell takes 10 rounds to cast.

Assuming the animals are there before combat begins, that gives you part of the first round to influence battlefield placement and potentially get an AoE of some kind.

You are thinking conjure elemental. Conjure animal is only an action. Still limited to spaces the druid can see during casting.

stoutstien

2020-08-19, 05:59 PM

They do magic damage. AoE is no good cuz the animals get summoned in between all the enemies and allies . Of course anti magic, of course Counterspell , but these things seldom come into play

I think is the case where the player might have more game mastery than you as the DM which any of itself is not really that big of a deal until it started disrupting gameplay. you're not going to find an in-game solution to this you probably should just have am open conversation with the players. There might not even be a problem.

Conjure animal is a very potent spell but all and all it limited. As you continue up in levels you're going to see a lot bigger problems than a handful of elk running amok.

Hael

2020-08-19, 07:34 PM

Conjure animal is a very potent spell but all and all it limited. As you continue up in levels you're going to see a lot bigger problems than a handful of elk running amok.

I dont agree. It stays relevant throughout the entire game. For one, it is one of the single largest bag of hp buffs you can give a party. The effective damage it mitigates is well above the simple numerical value, given that it can be encompassing a lot of negative damage.

More importantly, the movement restriction and effective area CC it provides is surpassed only by high lvl bard and wizard spells.

Of course, even then the effective dpr still rivals and surpasses most martials (even through tier4).

Dmdork

2020-08-19, 07:49 PM

I think is the case where the player might have more game mastery than you as the DM which any of itself is not really that big of a deal until it started disrupting gameplay. you're not going to find an in-game solution to this you probably should just have am open conversation with the players. There might not even be a problem.

Conjure animal is a very potent spell but all and all it limited. As you continue up in levels you're going to see a lot bigger problems than a handful of elk running amok. well, the adventure has gone from 5th-8th lvl so far, and I don't see anything that makes me think Conjure Animals is limited. in terms of combat, it's a spell that is almost always the right answer, more so than any spell I've seen. It's does damage and absorbs damage, usually both of those things together. The rest of the players do well to use this as an advantage, letting the animals soak up the attacks and do some damage first. Most enemies I would say are not smart enough to understand (before it's too late) that they should not attack the animals and try to kill the Druid. All in all its fine, just wondered how u all felt and theres a lot here that helps, Thanks to all.

HappyDaze

2020-08-19, 08:07 PM

The main issue to be careful of with this would be that it could easily encourage 'defaulting,' which reduces tactical depth and thereby makes for less interesting gameplay.

Have you heard of Polearm Master?

stoutstien

2020-08-19, 08:40 PM

I dont agree. It stays relevant throughout the entire game. For one, it is one of the single largest bag of hp buffs you can give a party. The effective damage it mitigates is well above the simple numerical value, given that it can be encompassing a lot of negative damage.

More importantly, the movement restriction and effective area CC it provides is surpassed only by high lvl bard and wizard spells.

Of course, even then the effective dpr still rivals and surpasses most martials (even through tier4).

Eh. Maybe in White room scenarios but in real gameplay it only becomes an issue if a DM allows the animals to be perfect tacticians.
A druid with a Dr. Doolittle level entourage of beasts is powerful but it's not like other 3rd level spells aren't wiping out one or more encounters if factors allow.

MaxWilson

2020-08-19, 09:13 PM

I dont agree. It stays relevant throughout the entire game.

It does stay relevant and it remains an excellent spell, but stoutsien is also right that there are much bigger problems and more broken possibilities in the game. Not a ton of them, but probably at least five. Off the top of my head:

(1) Simulacrum (especially when combined with #2 but even used vanilla)

(2) Wish (especially when combined with #1 but also when used for other spells like Find Greater Steed during downtime, Planar Binding VIII)

(3) Wall of Force or Forcecage (especially when combined with a damage-over-time spell like Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound, Sickening Radiance, or Cloudkill). Also Leomund's Tiny Hut if the DM buys the idea that it's immune to damage like Wall of Force despite not saying so, as opposed to being as destructible as a real hut or a Bigby's Hand.

(4) Concentration-free summoning spells (Planar Binding, Tiny Servant, Animate Dead, and in some ways Mass Suggestion), especially if you start stacking them. Conjure Animals is very efficient but less stackable and more vulnerable to disruption, and in many cases also more vulnerable to AoEs because beasts typically have no ranged weapons. (I know, I know, apes and spiders do.) The no-concentration spells often benefit greatly from simple concentration spells like Fog Cloud, e.g. Tiny Servants V + Darkness or Fog Cloud = minions who effectively all have Greater Invisibility.

(5) The mounted combat rules (especially when combined with good ranged weapons or spells).

Hael

2020-08-20, 02:41 AM

It does stay relevant and it remains an excellent spell, but stoutsien is also right that there are much bigger problems and more broken possibilities in the game. Not a ton of them, but probably at least five. Off the top of my head:
.

Sure, you can throw true polymorph in that list, but I mean for a low lvl spell there’s really nothing that compares.

It seems obvious to me that the designers didn’t think about the ramifications of the spell very hard, I mean the pixies into flying Trex oversight alone is pretty glaring.

LudicSavant

2020-08-20, 02:58 AM

Have you heard of Polearm Master?

Yes, I have.

MrStabby

2020-08-20, 03:22 AM

I am not sure it is useful to try and nail down an objective standard for a spell being too powerful that works universally.

What matters is if a spell is too powerful at a given table,with a given level of systemmastery and a particular balance of classes.

If a spell is diminishing the fun that other players are having then that spell is a problem, even if we think it isn't that powerul in other contexts.

Conjure Animals is doubly problematic on a shepherd druid, because any halfdecent DM is going to realise that this is kind of the point of being a shepherd druid - nerfing the spell is more than just some minor rebalancing but is really hitting what the player decided they wanted to be good at.

Trying to find a solution such that the Druid feels special, feels that shepherd was a valid choice but also leaves the other players feeling that their character choices are valid as well (particularly martial ones), without being effectively out-damaged or out hit-pointed by a caster is not going to be easy. This is why I favour rebalancing enemy and terrain selection over house-rules; if you put in place rules then it is harder to adapt them between games or as characters die. People expect consistancy in rules. If you change up selection of enemies you can actively rebalance according to the characters in the game.

So in a party with a wizard, a bard, a druid and a monk I wouldnt worry about the druid casting conjure animals so much. It's their thing and being responsible for providing battlefield HP and a lot of attacks isn't really stepping on anyones toes. If the druid can do this and heal and cast farie fire and battlefield control then they are still agreat character but they don't obviate anyone else. On the other hand if you have two fighters, a rogue and a druid in a party and the druid is throwingdown more effectiveHP than the fighters have and doing more damage with attacks and on top of this has all the other good things druids can do then I think there is more of an issue that needs addressing.

KyleG

2020-08-20, 03:36 AM

Bobthewizard

2020-08-20, 07:05 AM

As a martial player in a party with a shepherd druid the worst part is not being able to get into the fray because the area is saturated with conjured beasts. I actually welcome the fireball or the druid losing concentration in many cases. Great to soak up the damage but it is hard to play ones character when there are 8 others + PC on the field.

This sounds like it could be solved with short conversation. It's in the druid's best interest to give you a path to the enemy. Conjure animals is a great spell and very powerful, but no single animal is going to be better than your fighter. The druid should definitely help you get to the enemy if you want.

da newt

2020-08-20, 07:34 AM

Kyle - ask your Druid friend to conjure Velociraptors - they are nasty with pack tactics and multi attack, but also TINY so it will be easier for you to move.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-20, 08:09 AM

This sounds like it could be solved with short conversation. It's in the druid's best interest to give you a path to the enemy. Conjure animals is a great spell and very powerful, but no single animal is going to be better than your fighter. The druid should definitely help you get to the enemy if you want.

No single animal... but 8 will definitely be better than his fighter.

Valmark

2020-08-20, 08:18 AM

No single animal... but 8 will definitely be better than his fighter.

I have an hard time thinking one of those animals is better then the fighter, unless they fly and the PC does not. Or they are underwater without a swim speed while the animals do.

It's not like all 8 need to be there to attack after all. Though, this is definitely a PC problem and not a spell problem.

Sigreid

2020-08-20, 08:25 AM

Don't do it all the time of course, but the conjured animals are described as spirits that take the form of the animals. In my opinion, that means they should be barred from areas that would bar a spirit. I think Hallowed and some other areas would count.

Bobthewizard

2020-08-20, 08:25 AM

No single animal... but 8 will definitely be better than his fighter.

Yes, but I'm not even trying to debate that. Even when they cast it, and it is great, they still should want the fighter in there and contributing. Better to pull one animal out and let the fighter in. The conjured animals should never get in the way of other players.

My point is they can pull one animal out of the way to let the fighter in and then you have a fighter and 7 animals attacking the enemy. That is better than 8 animals attacking with the frustrated fighter twiddling their thumbs.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-20, 08:30 AM

I have an hard time thinking one of those animals is better then the fighter, unless they fly and the PC does not. Or they are underwater without a swim speed while the animals do.

It's not like all 8 need to be there to attack after all. Though, this is definitely a PC problem and not a spell problem.

At level 6, a hasted fighter gets 4 attacks (including PM) and, what, 60 HP?
At level 6, a shep druid gets 9 attacks all with advantage and about 170 HP?

Why shouldn't there be all 8? That is the most efficient use of the spell. If a player is supposed to play suboptimally intentionally dumbly, to keep a spell/class in check, then how is it NOT a spell problem?

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-20, 08:32 AM

Yes, but I'm not even trying to debate that. Even when they cast it, and it is great, they still should want the fighter in there and contributing. Better to pull one animal out and let the fighter in. The conjured animals should never get in the way of other players.

My point is they can pull one animal out of the way to let the fighter in and then you have a fighter and 7 animals attacking the enemy. That is better than 8 animals attacking with the frustrated fighter twiddling their thumbs.

I hestitated, cuz i thought this might be your intent. But it doesn't really solve the problem.
Those "7" animals have a chance of routing the enemies before the fighter gets her first attack.
The fighter is still twiddling her thumbs.

stoutstien

2020-08-20, 08:34 AM

Yes, but I'm not even trying to debate that. Even when they cast it, and it is great, they still should want the fighter in there and contributing. Better to pull one animal out and let the fighter in. The conjured animals should never get in the way of other players.

My point is they can pull one animal out of the way to let the fighter in and then you have a fighter and 7 animals attacking the enemy. That is better than 8 animals attacking with the frustrated fighter twiddling their thumbs.

How is the druid wording a command in a way that a single animal can comprehend and repositions with the rest of them maintaining whatever placement they are while doing something else other than taken up space?

Valmark

2020-08-20, 09:14 AM

At level 6, a hasted fighter gets 4 attacks (including PM) and, what, 60 HP?
At level 6, a shep druid gets 9 attacks all with advantage and about 170 HP?

Why shouldn't there be all 8? That is the most efficient use of the spell. If a player is supposed to play suboptimally intentionally dumbly, to keep a spell/class in check, then how is it NOT a spell problem?
You're playing intentionally dumb when you summon 8 wolves and use them all blocking the martial of choice. If you use 7 and leave one out, the damage is much higher. Of course, the martial is more at risk but well... Usually, a martial can either take a hit or knows how to get out of dodge.

How is the druid wording a command in a way that a single animal can comprehend and repositions with the rest of them maintaining whatever placement they are while doing something else other than taken up space?

"Only you, come here" *points*

Now, this is a pretty silly example, but is an example. And true, it makes the animal take up space, but first off you can keep it in reserve or in protection just in case, and second the fighter will be better then any one CR 1/4 beast you can summon so it's still optimal.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-20, 09:38 AM

You're playing intentionally dumb when you summon 8 wolves and use them all blocking the martial of choice. If you use 7 and leave one out, the damage is much higher. Of course, the martial is more at risk but well... Usually, a martial can either take a hit or knows how to get out of dodge.

When I posted this, I thought you meant choosing 4 CR 1/2 or 2 CR 1 creatures, which would be a self nerf. Now it is clear you meant summon 8, use 7.

You are right, of course.
7 wolves would do the bulk of the damage, and leave the scraps for fighter.
That will give the illusion that the fighter's contribution mattered.

stoutstien

2020-08-20, 09:44 AM

"Only you, come here" *points*

Now, this is a pretty silly example, but is an example. And true, it makes the animal take up space, but first off you can keep it in reserve or in protection just in case, and second the fighter will be better then any one CR 1/4 beast you can summon so it's still optimal.

Only works if you imagine that everything freezes in between turns. it's hard to think that the conjuring animals are sitting there in a stationary position attacking like rock'em sock'em robots so trying to single out one to give a specific command is dubious enough without factory the issue that the conjured animal cannot fulfill that command until it's turn so anything can happen between those points in time to make said command impossible to complete.

Valmark

2020-08-20, 09:59 AM

When I posted this, I thought you meant choosing 4 CR 1/2 or 2 CR 1 creatures, which would be a self nerf. Now it is clear you meant summon 8, use 7.

You are right, of course.
7 wolves would do the bulk of the damage, and leave the scraps for fighter.
That will give the illusion that the fighter's contribution mattered.
Yeah, sorry for the misunderstanding, that's what meant.

And yeah, you are at least not shutting down another PC. Plus, in the fights I've been in with Conjure Animals, there was usually plenty to do anyway- but that could be a matter of DMs.

Only works if you imagine that everything freezes in between turns. it's hard to think that the conjuring animals are sitting there in a stationary position attacking like rock'em sock'em robots so trying to single out one to give a specific command is dubious enough without factory the issue that the conjured animal cannot fulfill that command until it's turn so anything can happen between those points in time to make said command impossible to complete.

I mean, that's how it works. You give an order on your turn, they execute it as best as they can on theirs- no need to imagine anything. It's not even a complicate order. If a DM handles it differently that's on them, not on the spell.

It IS true that anything can happen- but that is always true, regardless of whatever the PC is or is doing, not a flaw of Conjure Animals.

Bobthewizard

2020-08-20, 10:27 AM

7 wolves would do the bulk of the damage, and leave the scraps for fighter.
That will give the illusion that the fighter's contribution mattered.

I'm not sure it's an illusion. In my campaign, at level 6, the summons are probably averaging around 35-40 points of damage per round. That's about what our barbarian can do. They definitely all root for each other.

It might also depend on the fights. In easy fights, I could see this being an issue if the summons take everything out before others get a chance to participate. In heavy fights, where we've already cast 2 fireballs and a hypnotic pattern, the summons have been killed, I'm casting it again, and we are just trying to survive, everyone cheers for the summons.

"Only you, come here" *points*

This works but I think it doesn't even have to be that detailed. The animals are somewhat intelligent and are not chess pieces waiting to be told each specific movement. You should be able to give a general command, "Protect us and help the fighter kill the dragon" should be enough. Then move them around as they would move tactically. My DM lets me control their movement without having to spell out each specific command and it hasn't broken anything. As someone who also DMs, I think it would be a headache to control or limit that for a player.

stoutstien

2020-08-20, 11:25 AM

Valmark

2020-08-20, 11:31 AM

Just lost a long post thanks to shoddy internet.

Basically was just a story how recently I had a Shepherd druid using terror chickens (velociraptors) to good effect until thanks to a general command and some certain stone panels that you didn't want to step on.
the party is now dealing with a temple slowly filling with water and two rooms with substantial treasures are practically cut off. Like dropping a fireball in a library sometimes the most powerful choices also have powerful consequences.

That right there is the exact situation where I wouldn't use Conjure Animals as written. Or at least be very careful with it.

Like when your party wizard mistakes the fireball's range as "diameter" instead of "radius". That still hurts. We were protecting some npcs and, well...
We failed that big time.

stoutstien

2020-08-20, 11:41 AM

That right there is the exact situation where I wouldn't use Conjure Animals as written. Or at least be very careful with it.

Like when your party wizard mistakes the fireball's range as "diameter" instead of "radius". That still hurts. We were protecting some npcs and, well...
We failed that big time.

With great power...

I'm pretty lenient and make sure players are aware of the impact of the decision but if a player is trying to squeeze every ounce of power out of a spell like conjure animal and end up screwing their own party over who am I to stop them?

MrStabby

2020-08-20, 11:47 AM

That right there is the exact situation where I wouldn't use Conjure Animals as written. Or at least be very careful with it.

Like when your party wizard mistakes the fireball's range as "diameter" instead of "radius". That still hurts. We were protecting some npcs and, well...
We failed that big time.

For me this doesnt help. I see that spells are a way to hog the spotlight, usually by being too powerful, but taking all the spotlight by screwing things up is just as much denying other players the chance to shine.

To be clear, I dont think this spell is the worst offender, but I can see why some might.

Satori01

2020-08-20, 11:52 AM

They do magic damage. AoE is no good cuz the animals get summoned in between all the enemies and allies . Of course anti magic, of course Counterspell , but these things seldom come into play

As the DM, you determine how common Counterspell is encountered.

I can certainly empathize with feeling bedeviled by a particular PC option as a DM.

Conjure Animals is one of a small list of spells that can always be effective in the hands of a player.

The transportation value of the spell is oft under looked, such as: summoning a school of 8 Tuna to swim you back to shore when a bad teleport lands your group in the ocean, for example.

If your player is rocking the spell, sometimes all you can do is give them a tip of the hat.

Terrain and tactics can defuse the onslaught of critters.
An obstacle that a beast can't pass can negate some if not all of the summoned herd.

Most beasts have low Wisdom saves, and low Intelligence scores, so Illusions, Fear effects, Charm effects etc are efficient means of neutralizing the conjured beasts.

Many beasts have low STR scores so Gust of Wind or Dust Devil can dislodge creatures.

Monsters or NPCs that have abilities that heal, grant temp HP, etc should take the opportunity to feast on the the summoned buffet. Also, use mooks, like goblins, and don't be afraid to include them in friendly fire AoE effects.

An Ogre Mage just does not care one whit about how many OSHA complaints his goblin minions file.

Lastly just be cognizant of the size of the conjured beasts. A creature two sizes larger or smaller does pose much of a physical barrier.

Master O'Laughs

2020-08-20, 12:09 PM

Thinking about it, if you were your character, wouldn't you be happy you were friends and allies with someone who could mop the floor with your enemies with a single spell?

Also, for the time when conjure animals is really strong, the DM may need to look for other ways to make the fighter relevant then. What if during the fight a strength based skill challenge had to also be succeeded on with defeat laying in the balance.

Idk, the fighter is also the likely recipient of the really cool magic weapon. So I think there are definitely creative ways to approach the problem without nerfing the spell and making the druid feel stupid for picking that circle.

MrStabby

2020-08-20, 12:29 PM

Valmark

2020-08-20, 12:36 PM

For me this doesnt help. I see that spells are a way to hog the spotlight, usually by being too powerful, but taking all the spotlight by screwing things up is just as much denying other players the chance to shine.

To be clear, I dont think this spell is the worst offender, but I can see why some might.
To be fair, when you screw up... You screw up. It's not like you do it on purpose, spell or not.

Thinking about it, if you were your character, wouldn't you be happy you were friends and allies with someone who could mop the floor with your enemies with a single spell?

Also, for the time when conjure animals is really strong, the DM may need to look for other ways to make the fighter relevant then. What if during the fight a strength based skill challenge had to also be succeeded on with defeat laying in the balance.

Idk, the fighter is also the likely recipient of the really cool magic weapon. So I think there are definitely creative ways to approach the problem without nerfing the spell and making the druid feel stupid for picking that circle.

This. I'll never understand how is it bad for a PC to solve an encounter with everybody else not getting hurt or consuming resources even while getting 'outshined'.

As others have said too, you can put other things for players to do. Or target CA's weakpoints.

Or swarms. Really, take your pick.

MaxWilson

2020-08-20, 01:39 PM

This. I'll never understand how is it bad for a PC to solve an encounter with everybody else not getting hurt or consuming resources even while getting 'outshined'.

That's exactly why I give those summoned creatures a share of the XP: because it aligns the fighter PC's psychology with the fighter player's psychology. Both of them still see an upside in having all of those conjured animals around, but only when they are truly necessary--otherwise they are just reducing the challenge and reducing how much the fighter PC (and player) learns from the experience.

Snails

2020-08-20, 02:08 PM

Thinking about it, if you were your character, wouldn't you be happy you were friends and allies with someone who could mop the floor with your enemies with a single spell?

What that means is this player has figured out a tactic to efficiently deal with the preferred encounter design style of the DM. Good for that player. So you all are ready to up the number of encounters per day.

Furthermore, transitioning to Tier 2 should not be simply numerical changes. The encounter mix should include qualitative changes, too. Otherwise, it is not just Conjure Animals, but the encounter will practically be solved by Fear, Fireball, Hypnotic Pattern, Stinking Cloud.

DragonBaneDM makes the point earlier in the thread...

See, having a Druid spellcaster with 3rd level spells kind of green-lights you to go from the "4 Hard Encounters" adventuring day to the "6 Medium-Hard Encounters". You got more duders? Cool, same here. And they're going to retreat and go grab the next encounter of monsters and bring them down here, or trigger this trap I've added in. Heck, you mentioned not having a lot of spellcasting NPCs? Add them in, yo! You've got free reign to step up your game and use tougher CRs, which, if you're using XP, means that players level faster.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-20, 02:19 PM

I'll never understand how is it bad for a PC to solve an encounter with everybody else not getting hurt or consuming resources even while getting 'outshined'.

It isn't about one encounter.

It is about being unnecessary in most encounters.

If you still don't understand how

waiting all week for the game.
driving out to the buddies house/FLGS
wading through a 4-hour session
... and not being able to contribute in a meaningful way
is bad, then ...

I am at the table do epic things.. not watch someone else do them.

KorvinStarmast

2020-08-20, 02:24 PM

Kyle - ask your Druid friend to conjure Velociraptors - they are nasty with pack tactics and multi attack, but also TINY so it will be easier for you to move. We watched a pack of velociraptors take down a T Rex in two rounds (Or was it three?) It was something else.

Don't do it all the time of course, but the conjured animals are described as spirits that take the form of the animals. In my opinion, that means they should be barred from areas that would bar a spirit. I think Hallowed and some other areas would count. That's a neat thought; same with Conjure Fey?

If I were my character I would also be happy to be save and affluent in a stable part of the cosmos with no need to adventure. Being a character is different to playing one I guess. That's a different game called "Rogues and Retirement" :smallbiggrin:

Valmark

2020-08-20, 02:51 PM

It isn't about one encounter.

It is about being unnecessary in most encounters.

If you still don't understand how

waiting all week for the game.
driving out to the buddies house/FLGS
wading through a 4-hour session
... and not being able to contribute in a meaningful way
is bad, then ...

I am at the table do epic things.. not watch someone else do them.

My point is still the same. I have no less fun if my friend or friends are solving encounters without me contributing meaningfully, because I'm happy about succeding. I'm happy about our party not dying horribly and getting on with their goals, etc.

I am bothered when my character comes out as useless because of whatever poor choices I made, but that's a whole other matter.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-20, 02:56 PM

My point is still the same. I have no less fun if my friend or friends are solving encounters without me contributing meaningfully, because I'm happy about succeding. I'm happy about our party not dying horribly and getting on with their goals, etc.
You have fun with different aspects of the game, and cannot understand with other folks that find fun in contributing to the party success. That is fair.

I am bothered when my character comes out as useless because of whatever poor choices I made, but that's a whole other matter.
Not everyone can play a druid.

KorvinStarmast

2020-08-20, 03:00 PM

and cannot empathize with other folks Seems a bit of an overstatement as a response. Agree that fun is found in a lot of different ways, yeah. :smallcool:

Valmark

2020-08-20, 03:13 PM

You have fun with different aspects of the game, and cannot empathize with other folks that find fun in contributing to the party success. That is fair.

Roughly correct. I do empathize- I don't get why that is troublesome, but if a player is in distress for that I notice that and I try to help them (or I wouldn't have bothered to talk about ways to 'control' CA for example). It's no fun if not everybody are having fun.

(Also I have fun too contributing, simply if it doesn't happen I still have fun)

KorvinStarmast

2020-08-20, 03:15 PM

(Also I have fun too contributing, simply if it doesn't happen I still have fun)
Sounds like how I enjoy the game now.
I have fun regardless of who shines during a particular encounter. I will say that as a DM, I try to get the spotlight spread around during a session; but I have noticed that some encounters will have one PC shine more than others. As a consequence, I don't just have those kinds of encounters.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-20, 04:53 PM

Sounds like how I enjoy the game now.
I have fun regardless of who shines during a particular encounter. I will say that as a DM, I try to get the spotlight spread around during a session; but I have noticed that some encounters will have one PC shine more than others. As a consequence, I don't just have those kinds of encounters.

I don't think it's really about shining so much as contributing.

The OP posted

there's a Druid in my game that is dominating with conjure animals. ... Other players although liking the powerful spell, seem a bit bored....

this indicates that it isn't a particular encounter, but rather a class of encounters (most likely combat). If martials are bored because they aren't engaged in combat, what other kinds of encounters would you suggest that let martials contribute.

Perhaps it is just my magic is better than martials bias, informing my opinion.

smp4life

2020-08-20, 11:02 PM

smp4life

2020-08-20, 11:05 PM

The DM should control all conjured animals if the druid is abusing the spell. The druid gives a general order like attack, or defend and the animals carry it out. They don't act as the druids personal delta force that each do the most optimal thing based on the druids knowledge of the situation. Plus if you let the play control the 8 or 16 flying owls, it slows the game waaaay down and the other players get frustrated because druids turn takes 20 times longer than theirs.

smp4life

2020-08-20, 11:07 PM

if conjures are shredding the encounters and the enemies have a modicum of intelligence, simply target the druid to break the concentration. It's not that hard.

smp4life

2020-08-20, 11:14 PM

That's exactly why I give those summoned creatures a share of the XP: because it aligns the fighter PC's psychology with the fighter player's psychology. Both of them still see an upside in having all of those conjured animals around, but only when they are truly necessary--otherwise they are just reducing the challenge and reducing how much the fighter PC (and player) learns from the experience.

When the fighter takes an action surge, I assume you are also giving that action surge a portion of the xp?

FoxWolFrostFire

2020-08-21, 01:51 AM

Master O'Laughs

2020-08-21, 06:12 AM

I remember making a thread which shared many of my problems with this very spell. I say just be honest with your player and ask them to focus on the single big cr creature or the many low ones. Also tell them to be ready at a moment's notice with the stat block. A summoner character should ALWAYS have flash cards at the ready

And don't be a trash tier dm, let them pick their summons

That is what I did for my more common summons.

Also, i think as you said, one way is to talk to the player and also another way is to present challenges in which it really is not ideal. For instance an area with choke points so your party can not properly engage due to the clutter of summons and also a mass of ranged enemies picking away at you.

Or terrain differences, so the wolves can't get to the bad guys but the fighter could climb up to them or the wizard cast fly on the fighter.

MrStabby

2020-08-21, 06:39 AM

I remember making a thread which shared many of my problems with this very spell. I say just be honest with your player and ask them to focus on the single big cr creature or the many low ones. Also tell them to be ready at a moment's notice with the stat block. A summoner character should ALWAYS have flash cards at the ready

And don't be a trash tier dm, let them pick their summons

I am not sure the player picking them is the best way; my preference is to pick a creature for each environment so that it is a) thematic and b) the player/party knows what they are getting and can plan round it. The issue for me is not so much the basic beasts but rather what happens when players start to bring in exotic creatures from outside the setting or creatures from outside the PHB/MM. If there are no dionosaurs in the world, then no - you can't conjure one.

FoxWolFrostFire

2020-08-21, 08:53 AM

I am not sure the player picking them is the best way; my preference is to pick a creature for each environment so that it is a) thematic and b) the player/party knows what they are getting and can plan round it. The issue for me is not so much the basic beasts but rather what happens when players start to bring in exotic creatures from outside the setting or creatures from outside the PHB/MM. If there are no dionosaurs in the world, then no - you can't conjure one.

I have to disagree with this. The best way around those things not getting summoned. The Exotic or non setting favored creatures can be pulled off the list. That way it still gives player agency over their own spell awhile still giving them a HUGE amount of options.

It is better to lose specific types of creatures than to end up with one you never wanted to start with.

Mutazoia

2020-08-21, 09:29 AM

BTW, why do you find dispel magic useless in that case?

This is why...

Dispelling Conjure Animals
Conjure animals may be extraordinarily powerful and—in some cases—extraordinarily annoying, but it’s actually quite easy to remove these animals from the battlefield in most situations. There are three main ways to counteract the effects of this spell: direct damage, magic removal, and breaking concentration.

The most obvious way to deal with the beasts summoned by conjure animals is to just kill them. If the caster summons eight wolves in a clump, a single fireball could easily wipe them all out—though casters can easily fireball-proof their casting by spreading out their conjured creatures. Generally speaking, though, killing the conjured animals one-by-one is the least efficient way of dealing with them.

Magic removal like dispel magic is actually ineffective against conjured creatures. Dispel magic ends ongoing magical effects, but conjure animals is an instantaneous effect that causes one or more creatures to appear. Counterspell can negate the casting of conjure animals in the first place, but it’s still a fairly inefficient route. You’re just trading one of your 3rd-level spell slots for one of theirs.

Breaking the caster’s concentration is the most efficient, but least consistent, method of dealing with conjured creatures. In some cases, the caster may simply wish to use a different spell that requires concentration—and fortunately, the vast majority of druids’ powerful spells do require concentration! If you absolutely have to end their concentration on conjure animals as soon as possible, focusing fire on the druid will do the trick. Even if you’re needling the caster with tiny attacks, they’re bound to fail a DC 10 Constitution saving throw eventually. And as soon as their concentration drops, the spell ends and every single conjured creature disappears instantly!

The DM should control all conjured animals if the druid is abusing the spell. The druid gives a general order like attack, or defend and the animals carry it out. They don't act as the druids personal delta force that each do the most optimal thing based on the druids knowledge of the situation. Plus if you let the play control the 8 or 16 flying owls, it slows the game waaaay down and the other players get frustrated because druids turn takes 20 times longer than theirs.

No. The DM has way to much to do already, an throwing the extra workload on them is a **** move. I've never had to take extra time to plot out why my summons are doing...I do that during the other players turns.

MrStabby

2020-08-21, 09:31 AM

I have to disagree with this. The best way around those things not getting summoned. The Exotic or non setting favored creatures can be pulled off the list. That way it still gives player agency over their own spell awhile still giving them a HUGE amount of options.

It is better to lose specific types of creatures than to end up with one you never wanted to start with.

You say "better". "Better" for whom?

For the druid player, sure. Picking that one option that can solve whatever the challenge of the day is... again, is great for that one player.

For the other four PCs in the party? I have yet to see the case that its better for them.

For the DM? Meh, not so bothered, but I want everyone to have fun and will tend to go for the option that lets everyone shine in their own way.

This is why...

Dispelling Conjure Animals
Conjure animals may be extraordinarily powerful and—in some cases—extraordinarily annoying, but it’s actually quite easy to remove these animals from the battlefield in most situations. There are three main ways to counteract the effects of this spell: direct damage, magic removal, and breaking concentration.

The most obvious way to deal with the beasts summoned by conjure animals is to just kill them. If the caster summons eight wolves in a clump, a single fireball could easily wipe them all out—though casters can easily fireball-proof their casting by spreading out their conjured creatures. Generally speaking, though, killing the conjured animals one-by-one is the least efficient way of dealing with them.

Magic removal like dispel magic is actually ineffective against conjured creatures. Dispel magic ends ongoing magical effects, but conjure animals is an instantaneous effect that causes one or more creatures to appear. Counterspell can negate the casting of conjure animals in the first place, but it’s still a fairly inefficient route. You’re just trading one of your 3rd-level spell slots for one of theirs.

Breaking the caster’s concentration is the most efficient, but least consistent, method of dealing with conjured creatures. In some cases, the caster may simply wish to use a different spell that requires concentration—and fortunately, the vast majority of druids’ powerful spells do require concentration! If you absolutely have to end their concentration on conjure animals as soon as possible, focusing fire on the druid will do the trick. Even if you’re needling the caster with tiny attacks, they’re bound to fail a DC 10 Constitution saving throw eventually. And as soon as their concentration drops, the spell ends and every single conjured creature disappears instantly!

My ruling would have been the summoning/conjuration is an instantanious effect but the ability to controll them is an ongoing effect. If you dispell, you just dispell control and they become free willed.

Valmark

2020-08-21, 09:34 AM

This is why...

Dispelling Conjure Animals
Conjure animals may be extraordinarily powerful and—in some cases—extraordinarily annoying, but it’s actually quite easy to remove these animals from the battlefield in most situations. There are three main ways to counteract the effects of this spell: direct damage, magic removal, and breaking concentration.

The most obvious way to deal with the beasts summoned by conjure animals is to just kill them. If the caster summons eight wolves in a clump, a single fireball could easily wipe them all out—though casters can easily fireball-proof their casting by spreading out their conjured creatures. Generally speaking, though, killing the conjured animals one-by-one is the least efficient way of dealing with them.

Magic removal like dispel magic is actually ineffective against conjured creatures. Dispel magic ends ongoing magical effects, but conjure animals is an instantaneous effect that causes one or more creatures to appear. Counterspell can negate the casting of conjure animals in the first place, but it’s still a fairly inefficient route. You’re just trading one of your 3rd-level spell slots for one of theirs.

Breaking the caster’s concentration is the most efficient, but least consistent, method of dealing with conjured creatures. In some cases, the caster may simply wish to use a different spell that requires concentration—and fortunately, the vast majority of druids’ powerful spells do require concentration! If you absolutely have to end their concentration on conjure animals as soon as possible, focusing fire on the druid will do the trick. Even if you’re needling the caster with tiny attacks, they’re bound to fail a DC 10 Constitution saving throw eventually. And as soon as their concentration drops, the spell ends and every single conjured creature disappears instantly!

Except that Conjure Animals isn't istantaneous, it can easily be dispelled.

Mutazoia

2020-08-21, 09:36 AM

Except that Conjure Animals isn't istantaneous, it can easily be dispelled.

Well, you can argue with this guy then, lol (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/254-spell-spotlight-conjure-animals)

NorthernPhoenix

2020-08-21, 09:42 AM

Well, you can argue with this guy then, lol (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/254-spell-spotlight-conjure-animals)

No DM has to argue with that guy, they just need to have the "courage" to make the ruling.

Valmark

2020-08-21, 09:45 AM

Well, you can argue with this guy then, lol (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/254-spell-spotlight-conjure-animals)

...whoever they are they first say that it is easy to dispel then later say that it cannot be dispelled so I don't think there is much to argue.

Homewever, the comment section does raise an issue- Dispel Magic would dispel one creature at a time. Which I guess makes sense, even if I don't like that too much.

Mutazoia

2020-08-21, 10:42 AM

...whoever they are they first say that it is easy to dispel then later say that it cannot be dispelled so I don't think there is much to argue.

However, the comment section does raise an issue- Dispel Magic would dispel one creature at a time. Which I guess makes sense, even if I don't like that too much.

I believe he meant it was easy to dispel by breaking the druid's concentration, given that the entire last paragraph of that section is devoted to that method. But I do agree that Dispel Magic could work on one creature at a time, although it would take more resources to dispel a pack of 16 wolves than would be prudent....not many NPC would have 16 spell slots to burn just to cancel out one 3rd level druid spell.

Valmark

2020-08-21, 11:11 AM

I believe he meant it was easy to dispel by breaking the druid's concentration, given that the entire last paragraph of that section is devoted to that method. But I do agree that Dispel Magic could work on one creature at a time, although it would take more resources to dispel a pack of 16 wolves than would be prudent....not many NPC would have 16 spell slots to burn just to cancel out one 3rd level druid spell.

Oooh right. I got confused because "dispelling" makes me think of dispel magic. Though it doesn't change that in theory Dispel Magic works.

But if the enemy has the slots and the time to cancel all the creatures the party has probably lost.

Though to conjure 16 beasts you need to use a 5th level slot or more, which makes it harder to dispel.

MaxWilson

2020-08-21, 12:49 PM

summoned animals are a resource of the druid. therefore he has earned that xp.

That's how I used to run it. It's valid, I just don't like the implications, and apparently the OP doesn't like them much either or this thread wouldn't exist.

Fnissalot

2020-08-21, 01:30 PM

Well, you can argue with this guy then, lol (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/254-spell-spotlight-conjure-animals)
Weird, they state in the sage advice compendium that the intent is that it can be dispelled by dispel magic since the duration is not instantaneous? It also specifys that it will only remove the spell from that singular target, so against eight wolves, it is a third level spell to be left with 7 wolves...

Snails

2020-08-21, 01:53 PM

From Dispel Magic (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Dispel%20Magic#content) description:

Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. [emphasis added]

A spell that requires Concentration is, in fact, an ongoing magical effect. So, yes, you can remove all those critters within 120 feet with one casting.

This argument becomes messier with Conjure Elementals, as the elemental will stick around to take out its anger after the Concentration is broken.

Regardless, whatever the druid is Concentrating on is a magical effect that can be removed by Dispel Magic. Per RAW, there is magic ongoing that requires Concentration, and when that ends "[the creature(s)] disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends."

MrStabby

2020-08-21, 01:59 PM

From Dispel Magic (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Dispel%20Magic#content) description:

I would rule that a spell that requires Concentration is, in fact, an ongoing magical effect. So, yes, you can remove all those critters within 120 feet with one casting.

Hmm. Yeah. You convinced me.

Dmdork

2020-08-21, 04:53 PM

BTW, why do you find dispell magic useless in that case?

And you can also make the beasts random.
Roll: "you got two snakes, one wolf, one raptor..."
I'm told dispel magic would only dispel one beast, a waste when there's 8-16 of them

sithlordnergal

2020-08-21, 05:45 PM

Well, you can argue with this guy then, lol (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/254-spell-spotlight-conjure-animals)

That is an interesting take on Conjure Animals, and makes the spell a lot stronger. Personally I wouldn't really rule it that way because Conjure Animal is not Instantaneous, its a Concentration spell where all the animals disappear if you lose concentration. And Dispel Magic specifically states you can cause a magical effect within range to end, so if you choose a point within 120 feet and say "No more Conjured Animals" they'd be dispelled and disappear.

Valmark

2020-08-21, 06:21 PM

stoutstien

2020-08-21, 06:26 PM

I'm told dispel magic would only dispel one beast, a waste when there's 8-16 of them

You're the DM. You decide how everything works in the game and as long as you're consistent and fair you have the final say.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-21, 06:57 PM

You're the DM. You decide how everything works in the game and as long as you're consistent and fair you have the final say.

Yeah, I know right. Why should anyone ask for clarifications to the rules?

MaxWilson

2020-08-21, 08:04 PM

The thing is, they are dispelled in that point. While true that conjure animals is a magical effect, it summons several creatures and you can't target all of them at once.

I mean, I would rule that you can, but I don't think that's RAW. And is not RAI seeing the tweets that have been quoted.

What Tweets? I may have missed something, but all I saw was a link to an article on D&D Beyond (https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/254-spell-spotlight-conjure-animals), which isn't even the same company as the 5E designers, who work for Wizards of the Coast. There's no reason to think that Mr. James Haeck has any special insight into what the 5E designers (Mike Mearls, Rodney Thompson, and Jeremy Crawford) intended when they wrote Dispel Magic and Conjure Animals.

According to Rodney Thompson and Mike Mearls in the Most Important Video You've Never Seen About 5E Design (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdz_lMt-nLw), the actual process of turning 5E from a game written in notebooks and spreadsheets into a product that you could buy (Player's Handbook) was pretty hectic and filled with last-minute changes driven by feedback from playtesters, so even if a given rule was the RAI at time of product release, if it doesn't work for you and your players they would totally tell you to change it. It's what they did, thousands of times.

Tanarii

2020-08-21, 08:18 PM

From Dispel Magic (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Dispel%20Magic#content) description:

A spell that requires Concentration is, in fact, an ongoing magical effect. So, yes, you can remove all those critters within 120 feet with one casting.
Agreed. Its a magic effect you can target to take them all out at once.

stoutstien

2020-08-21, 08:42 PM

Yeah, I know right. Why should anyone ask for clarifications to the rules?

Nothing wrong for asking for clarification. They always a different view or idea to consider to make a game better.

Snails

2020-08-21, 08:43 PM

The thing is, they are dispelled in that point. While true that conjure animals is a magical effect, it summons several creatures and you can't target all of them at once.

You are conflating two things that are separated in the RAW for Dispel Magic: creatures and the magical effect.

Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. [emphasis added]

Yes, you could Dispel Magic on 1 of the 8 critters -- that is allowed. But just because that is allowed action does not mean you cannot target the "magical effect" that encompasses all 8.

(A) We know that Dispel Magic allows targeting an ongoing magical effect -- that is unambiguous RAW.
(B) We know there is an ongoing magical effect because of the listed Duration -- that is unambiguous RAW.
(C) We know what happens when the magical effect stops because the Conjure Animals spell tells us about the effect of ending Concentration -- that is unambiguous RAW.

A + B + C = Dispel Magic the whole thing. Done.

Is there any RAW support whatsoever for disallowing the dispelling of the magical effect which is the Conjure Animals spell the druid is Concentrating on?

Valmark

2020-08-21, 09:01 PM

You are conflating two things that are separated in the RAW for Dispel Magic: creatures and the magical effect.

Yes, you could Dispel Magic on 1 of the 8 critters -- that is allowed. But just because that is allowed action does not mean you cannot target the "magical effect" that encompasses all 8.

(A) We know that Dispel Magic allows targeting an ongoing magical effect -- that is unambiguous RAW.
(B) We know there is an ongoing magical effect because of the listed Duration -- that is unambiguous RAW.
(C) We know what happens when the magical effect stops because the Conjure Animals spell tells us about the effect of ending Concentration -- that is unambiguous RAW.

A + B + C = Dispel Magic the whole thing. Done.

Is there any RAW support whatsoever for disallowing the dispelling of the magical effect which is the Conjure Animals spell the druid is Concentrating on?

What are you targeting? As in, on what specifically are you casting the spell? On the druid? On an animal? In the air?

That's the problem right there. If you take for example Bless, you cannot dispel "Bless" as whole, you can dispel its targets one by one. Same with CA.

Also for example Antimagic Field does not suppress all animals as a whole- it can only supress those in its area.

Mutazoia

2020-08-21, 09:24 PM

Yes, you could Dispel Magic on 1 of the 8 critters -- that is allowed. But just because that is allowed action does not mean you cannot target the "magical effect" that encompasses all 8.

(A) We know that Dispel Magic allows targeting an ongoing magical effect -- that is unambiguous RAW.
(B) We know there is an ongoing magical effect because of the listed Duration -- that is unambiguous RAW.
(C) We know what happens when the magical effect stops because the Conjure Animals spell tells us about the effect of ending Concentration -- that is unambiguous RAW.

A + B + C = Dispel Magic the whole thing. Done.

Is there any RAW support whatsoever for disallowing the dispelling of the magical effect which is the Conjure Animals spell the druid is Concentrating on?

Conjure Animals does not actually conjure animals. When you cast Conjure Animals "You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range." Poof. 'Animals' appear and the magic is over. Your concentration keeps them from saying "peace out" and ****ing off home. Concentrating is not a magical effect in of itself, and can't be dispelled with Dispel Magic.

Tanarii

2020-08-21, 09:28 PM

That's the problem right there. If you take for example Bless, you cannot dispel "Bless" as whole, you can dispel its targets one by one. Same with CA.
Bless is also a magical effecr you can Dispel with one casting of Dispel Magic.

Valmark

2020-08-21, 09:41 PM

Bless is also a magical effecr you can Dispel with one casting of Dispel Magic.

Yes, but you target one of the three creatures and Dispel Bless on that one, not target the Bless spell as a whole.

Snails

2020-08-21, 10:04 PM

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-21, 10:38 PM

If dispel magic targets the magical effect from bless cast by a cleric, does it remove the effect on all the targets? Dispel magic ends a spell on one target. It doesn’t end the same spell on other targets.

In contrast, a spell like conjure woodland beings has a non-instantaneous duration, which means its creations can be ended by dispel magic and they temporarily disappear within an antimagic field.
They only disappear within the fiield, not all disappear when 1 enters the field.

RAI suggests that Dispel Magic will not cancel the spell.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/90140/can-dispel-magic-end-a-conjure-animals-spell

Valmark

2020-08-21, 10:39 PM

You could target one single of the creature with Bless. Or you could target the one whole magical effect. According to the RAW, both are legal usages of Dispel Magic. Choose wisely.

Again, how are you targeting 'Bless'? How are you targeting 'Conjure Animals'? In the example of the antimagic field there is no way for the area to suppress "the magical effect". You can suppress the creatures individually, but not the effect. And it explicitely says that 'magical effects' are suppressed, so it's not like there isn't a comparable wording.

RAI suggests that Dispel Magic will not cancel the spell.

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/90140/can-dispel-magic-end-a-conjure-animals-spell

Also this, though I was trying to keep it strictly RAW.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-21, 10:49 PM

Also this, though I was trying to keep it strictly RAW.

The problem with strictly RAW is that the PHB gives conflicting definitions of magic effect

A spell is a discrete magical effect

When you cast this spell, you can specify individuals that are unaffected by any or all of the Effects that you choose... A Dispel Magic cast on a specific Effect, if successful, removes only that Effect.

the spell is an effect or it creates effects

Snails

2020-08-21, 10:49 PM

What are you targeting? As in, on what specifically are you casting the spell? On the druid? On an animal? In the air?

I am targeting the "magical effect".

Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range.

Choose. One magical effect. Within range.

Is the Conjure Animal spell a "one magical effect"? Yes.
Is it "within range"? Yes (or rather, we are not arguing about cases where it is not).
So I choose it.

That the RAW fails to describe how this is accomplished in exacting sensory detail and internal perceptions of the spellcaster may be a shortcoming of the text in your eyes, but nonetheless it is possible. Your argument boils down to claiming that the RAW is wrong just because you are confused about the how.

Valmark

2020-08-21, 11:23 PM

The problem with strictly RAW is that the PHB gives conflicting definitions of magic effect

the spell is an effect or it creates effects
Both, I'd argue. Or it is a magical effect with multiple parts maybe.

I am targeting the "magical effect".

Choose. One magical effect. Within range.

Is the Conjure Animal spell a "one magical effect"? Yes.
Is it "within range"? Yes (or rather, we are not arguing about cases where it is not).
So I choose it.

That the RAW fails to describe how this is accomplished in exacting sensory detail and internal perceptions of the spellcaster may be a shortcoming of the text in your eyes, but nonetheless it is possible. Your argument boils down to claiming that the RAW is wrong just because you are confused about the how.

No, my argument is based on the fact that it is not possible to target the spell as an abstract magical effect. And made the example with antimagic field.

Fnissalot

2020-08-21, 11:55 PM

While I think both RAI and RAW, is that only 1 of 8 conjured animals could be affected by a cast of dispel magic. If you have conjured 8 wolves, you have 8 separate instances of magical effects caused by the spell, so you choose one of those effects to end. There is no communal magic effect on the table you can target that binds them together. It does not say that you can target a spell directly, and dispel magic can as it is written only dispel spells, so if you were supposed to be able to target spells directly, it would say so.

That said, I would allow dispelling all conjured creatures with one cast just to not promote conjuring the highest amount of creatures even more.

Tanarii

2020-08-22, 12:05 AM

Yes, but you target one of the three creatures and Dispel Bless on that one, not target the Bless spell as a whole.

You could target one single of the creature with Bless. Or you could target the one whole magical effect. According to the RAW, both are legal usages of Dispel Magic. Choose wisely.

Exactly. Target the Bless magical effect. Not the Blessed creature. Then the effect ends entirely.

If you target the creature, all magic on it ends on it. If you target an effect, it will end on everything it affects.

AdAstra

2020-08-22, 12:19 AM

Valmark

2020-08-22, 12:32 AM

Exactly. Target the Bless magical effect. Not the Blessed creature. Then the effect ends entirely.

If you target the creature, all magic on it ends on it. If you target an effect, it will end on everything it affects.
So, nobody is going to reply to my AM Field example?

A basic “does this make any sense” check tells me that dispelling a spell as a whole should be possible, even if it has multiple effects. However, I might treat the caster themselves as the “target” for such an action. Like, if someone cast Hold Person at third level, I don’t see any reason why Dispel Magic shouldn’t free both targets.

If each individual part of a spell’s effect had to be dispelled separately, that would extend to spells like Mirror Image or Melf’s Minute Meteors

Do note that both MI and MMM have only one specific target, so there is no conflict there.

And yeah, I too would rule it like that. It's not a terribly effective nerf even anyway.

Snails

2020-08-22, 12:38 AM

No, my argument is based on the fact that it is not possible to target the spell as an abstract magical effect. And made the example with antimagic field.

Your argument is the RAW is wrong. I quoted the wording for you, and you believe that the wording could not possibly mean what is says it means, because you are confused about the "how" of targeting a magical effect.

That you are confused about such is not really a failing on your part, because the RAW does not illuminate such details. I could describe to you how it might work, but that would be headcanon. Likewise, your assertions about how it cannot possibly work are nothing more than headcanon.

In the example of the antimagic field there is no way for the area to suppress "the magical effect". You can suppress the creatures individually, but not the effect. And it explicitely says that 'magical effects' are suppressed, so it's not like there isn't a comparable wording.

That sounds like headcanon, as there is no apparent strong reasoning to support this line of reasoning. FWIW, whether "the magical effect" is suppressed or not within the Antimagic Field is both unknown and unknowable. Are you going to cast Detect Magic or True Seeing to check for the presence of these auras within the AMF? I didn't think so. <shrug>. How about we just believe the text?

It is the design intention of AMF to suppress magic only within its borders on a very temporary basis. That such might be weird in some cases is acceptable, as "antimagic magic" borders on self-contradiction by its very nature.

It is the design intention of Dispel Magic to be able to nuke the whole entire spell, and we know this because the spell text says so very clearly.

Valmark

2020-08-22, 12:56 AM

Your argument is the RAW is wrong.

That sounds like headcanon, as there is no apparent strong reasoning to support this line of reasoning. FWIW, whether "the magical effect" is suppressed or not within the Antimagic Field is both unknown and unknowable. Are you going to cast Detect Magic or True Seeing to check for the presence of these auras within the AMF? I didn't think so. <shrug>. How about we just believe the text?

My argument is that the RAW does not say what you are saying. Saying that the RAW is wrong wouldn't make any whatsoever sense.

...it sounds like headcanon saying that an AM field has no way to suppress a multi-targeting spell (as in, something like Bless) without including all the targets? That... That is literally how the spell works.

Nevermind, I realize this argument isn't productive at all after that.

Snails

2020-08-22, 01:00 AM

A basic “does this make any sense” check tells me that dispelling a spell as a whole should be possible, even if it has multiple effects. However, I might treat the caster themselves as the “target” for such an action. Like, if someone cast Hold Person at third level, I don’t see any reason why Dispel Magic shouldn’t free both targets.

I do sympathize with being confused about this .
"What am I targeting when I am dispelling the whole magical effect?"
"Am I seeing something? Perceiving something in the air?"

There is one answer that everyone could presumably accept: First you cast Detect Magic or True Seeing, because then the auras become visible and it is easy to imagine that. Now I can point at a thread of a larger whole and imagine that Dispel Magic follows the thread to find the whole magical effect and remove it.

But if you overthink along the lines of "where is the magical effect really", then it takes two rounds to even bring down a Wall of Fire right in front of your face.
"Gee, the fire is fire. The fire is created by a magical effect but fire itself is not magical in 5e. So you cannot cast Dispel Magic on a Wall of Fire without casting Detect Magic first, so you can perceive the aura of the spell itself."

At the game design theoretical level, this line of reasoning makes perfect sense mechanically; however, in terms of game play, it completely sucks.
Your team just got burned by a Wall of Fire. And now you want to spend a powerful spell slot to remove it.
Your team just got chewed up by 8 summoned wolves. And now you want to spend a powerful spell slot to remove them.

It is both fundamentally fair, and it is actually what the RAW says you can do, too.

I know it is headcanon, but I would say that there is a very narrow & limited kind of Detect Magic baked into Dispel Magic. Thus if you the spellcaster can make a reasonable guess about what you are dispelling ("I think those creatures are from some kind of conjuration") then spell provides enough information during casting to help Dispel Magic succeed. Likewise "I think this wall of burning flames is a magical thing that can be dispelled" is good enough.

Fnissalot

2020-08-22, 06:22 AM

I do sympathize with being confused about this .
"What am I targeting when I am dispelling the whole magical effect?"
"Am I seeing something? Perceiving something in the air?"

There is one answer that everyone could presumably accept: First you cast Detect Magic or True Seeing, because then the auras become visible and it is easy to imagine that. Now I can point at a thread of a larger whole and imagine that Dispel Magic follows the thread to find the whole magical effect and remove it.

But if you overthink along the lines of "where is the magical effect really", then it takes two rounds to even bring down a Wall of Fire right in front of your face.
"Gee, the fire is fire. The fire is created by a magical effect but fire itself is not magical in 5e. So you cannot cast Dispel Magic on a Wall of Fire without casting Detect Magic first, so you can perceive the aura of the spell itself."

At the game design theoretical level, this line of reasoning makes perfect sense mechanically; however, in terms of game play, it completely sucks.
Your team just got burned by a Wall of Fire. And now you want to spend a powerful spell slot to remove it.
Your team just got chewed up by 8 summoned wolves. And now you want to spend a powerful spell slot to remove them.

It is both fundamentally fair, and it is actually what the RAW says you can do, too.

I know it is headcanon, but I would say that there is a very narrow & limited kind of Detect Magic baked into Dispel Magic. Thus if you the spellcaster can make a reasonable guess about what you are dispelling ("I think those creatures are from some kind of conjuration") then spell provides enough information during casting to help Dispel Magic succeed. Likewise "I think this wall of burning flames is a magical thing that can be dispelled" is good enough.

It is not about line of sight. Dispel magic doesn't require line of sight, just one thing to target in range, be it a creature, an object or a magic effect. I might be wrong on this but after skimming the PHB, RAW never clarifies if 8 wolves are considered one or eight magical effects in the same way that RAW never says that everything affected by a single spell counts as the same magical effect. Dispel Magic, by RAW does not clarify if it only affects that single magical effect or all magical effects caused by the spell. While the intention according to SA Compendium is that you can only dispel one part of the spell with each casting, I would say it is up to the DM to decide since the RAW is fuzzy on what actually counts here. It is fuzzy in the same way that PAM's reaction never actually states what weapon you use for the opportunity attack, but based on the context it is implied that it is the polearm. Dispel magic affects spells on a target but never specifies if it only affects the the spell on that target or everything the spell has done.

counterspell is different as it explicitly allow targeting the casting of a spell while dispel magic cannot target a spell that is cast but can target a magical effect.

sithlordnergal

2020-08-22, 06:41 AM

The thing is, they are dispelled in that point. While true that conjure animals is a magical effect, it summons several creatures and you can't target all of them at once.

I mean, I would rule that you can, but I don't think that's RAW. And is not RAI seeing the tweets that have been quoted.

Well, that is the weird bit about Dispel Magic, it doesn't actually state that you need a set "point", only that you have to target "magical Effect within range". Think of it as a radius centered on yourself. As long as you're within 120 feet of the conjured animals, they get dispelled when you target the Conjure Animal magical Effect. Now, if one of the conjured creatures is out of that range, they would remain because they were out of the spell's range and couldn't be hit by it.

It works the same with any spell. Is there an invisible creature around and you can't see it? Dispel Magic: Invisibility. Bam, everything being hidden by the Invisibility spell within 120 feet of you, the caster, is no longer Invisible, because Dispel Magic removed that magical Effect. Fly has been cast? If they're within 120 feet of you, its not anymore.

Fnissalot

2020-08-22, 06:51 AM

sithlordnergal

2020-08-22, 06:59 AM

Nothing says that 3 different casts of invisibility would be considered the same magical effect? Dispel magic does not say that it dispels all spells that could cause a specific effect in range.

I probably could have worded it better. How about "Anything being affected by that Invisibility spell is now visible", I.E. if you upcast Invisibility to turn two creatures Invisible, and someone targets that Invisibility spell, both creatures are now visible, because the effect from the single spell was targeted instead of individual creatures.

So you'd still be targeting just that one spell instead of the three different spells. It doesn't actually change the Conjure Animals bit though. Unless there are two Druids and they both cast Conjure Animals, the conjured creatures all come from the same source, I.E. the single casting of Conjure Animals.

EDIT: There could actually be a very shakey, not very convincing argument to be made that all three Invisibility spells would be Dispelled...

"The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect--such as the highest bonus--from those castings applies while their durations overlap, or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap.

For example, if two clerics cast bless on the same target, that character gains the spell's benefit only once; he or she doesn't get to roll two bonus dice."

Since two different castings of the same spell are essentially treated as one spell effect, you could make the argument that Dispel Magic would be able to purge three or more castings of the same spell because the game treats them as being the same, with the only difference being the duration of the two spells.

But honestly, I wouldn't buy such an argument because it throws Dispel Magic's own balance way out of whack and makes it far more stronger than intended.

Valmark

2020-08-22, 07:05 AM

Well, that is the weird bit about Dispel Magic, it doesn't actually state that you need a set "point", only that you have to target "magical Effect within range". Think of it as a radius centered on yourself. As long as you're within 120 feet of the conjured animals, they get dispelled when you target the Conjure Animal magical Effect. Now, if one of the conjured creatures is out of that range, they would remain because they were out of the spell's range and couldn't be hit by it.

It works the same with any spell. Is there an invisible creature around and you can't see it? Dispel Magic: Invisibility. Bam, everything being hidden by the Invisibility spell within 120 feet of you, the caster, is no longer Invisible, because Dispel Magic removed that magical Effect. Fly has been cast? If they're within 120 feet of you, its not anymore.

At most, it would be everything hidden by a single Invisibility spell. Dispel Magic is not an AoE.

(If that's already what you were saying sorry, I misunderstood)

Also, your example makes little sense- the effect Conjure Animals acts on all the conjured beasts, so dispelling it should dispel them all- failure to do so further shows how this interpretation doesn't work.

EDIT: There could actually be a very shakey, not very convincing argument to be made that all three Invisibility spells would be Dispelled...

"The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect--such as the highest bonus--from those castings applies while their durations overlap, or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap.

For example, if two clerics cast bless on the same target, that character gains the spell's benefit only once; he or she doesn't get to roll two bonus dice."

Since two different castings of the same spell are essentially treated as one spell effect, you could make the argument that Dispel Magic would be able to purge three or more castings of the same spell because the game treats them as being the same, with the only difference being the duration of the two spells.

But honestly, I wouldn't buy such an argument because it throws Dispel Magic's own balance way out of whack and makes it far more stronger than intended.
Yeah, this doesn't work at all RAW. The effects count as one when the effects overlap, but there is no such thing if different magic users use the same spell on different targets.

da newt

2020-08-22, 07:12 AM

sithlordnergal

2020-08-22, 07:17 AM

At most, it would be everything hidden by a single Invisibility spell. Dispel Magic is not an AoE.

(If that's already what you were saying sorry, I misunderstood)

Also, your example makes little sense- the effect Conjure Animals acts on all the conjured beasts, so dispelling it should dispel them all- failure to do so further shows how this interpretation doesn't work.

Yeah, that was what I was saying. X3 I could have worded it better. And it may not be a true AoE, but you kind of need to treat it as a pseudo-AoE with 120ft being the max limit for sanity's sake. Because otherwise weird things begin to happen, and you end up in a position where it either:

A) Can only target a magical effect on a single creature, which invalidates the "target a magical effect in range"

or

B) You target the spell effect and it essentially has unlimited range. Allowing you to potentially dispel the spell effect of a creature extremely far away. Best example of this would be the Wizard casts Invisibility on the Rogue and Range. The pair split up to scout, and the Ranger comes across an evil wizard. The Wizard knows something is there, casts Dispel Magic on Invisibility, and now both the Rogue and Ranger can now be seen even if the Rogue is 300 feet away on a different floor.

Valmark

2020-08-22, 07:24 AM

I always assumed the target of Dispel Magic could be the affected person/creature or the affecting/caster if the affect requires concentration. You dispel the caster's concentration breaking the spell.
Dispel magic doesn't dispel concentration though. Or at least it doesn't say so.

Yeah, that was what I was saying. X3 I could have worded it better. And it may not be a true AoE, but you kind of need to treat it as a pseudo-AoE with 120ft being the max limit for sanity's sake. Because otherwise weird things begin to happen, and you end up in a position where it either:

A) Can only target a magical effect on a single creature, which invalidates the "target a magical effect in range"

or

B) You target the spell effect and it essentially has unlimited range. Allowing you to potentially dispel the spell effect of a creature extremely far away. Best example of this would be the Wizard casts Invisibility on the Rogue and Range. The pair split up to scout, and the Ranger comes across an evil wizard. The Wizard knows something is there, casts Dispel Magic on Invisibility, and now both the Rogue and Ranger can now be seen even if the Rogue is 300 feet away on a different floor.

A) How does it invalidate? A magical effect on a single creature is exactly what "a magical effect within range" means (or can mean).

B) Yeah this would make little sense.

So yeah, you don't need to treat it as an AoE- it's not presented anywhere as an AoE and option A works perfectly well.

Tanarii

2020-08-22, 09:36 AM

B) You target the spell effect and it essentially has unlimited range. Allowing you to potentially dispel the spell effect of a creature extremely far away. Best example of this would be the Wizard casts Invisibility on the Rogue and Range. The pair split up to scout, and the Ranger comes across an evil wizard. The Wizard knows something is there, casts Dispel Magic on Invisibility, and now both the Rogue and Ranger can now be seen even if the Rogue is 300 feet away on a different floor.
That is exactly what happens. The effect is within 120ft, and gets dispelled ad it is the chosen thing to be dispelled. That it also affects something outside of 120 ft is irrelevant, it is now dispelled entirely.

If you choose the Ranger instead, it would instead affect each spell on the Ranger.

Snails

2020-08-22, 09:50 AM

So yeah, you don't need to treat it as an AoE- it's not presented anywhere as an AoE and option A works perfectly well.

The terminology has changed. Most spells we thought of as explicitly AoEs in 3e are now implicitly AoEs in 5e. Compare the language of Bless.

Bless
Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Clr 1, Pal 1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: 50 ft.
Area: The caster and all allies within a 50-ft. burst, centered on the caster
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)
Bless fills your allies with courage. Each ally gains a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls and on saving throws against fear effects.

Bless counters and dispels bane.

Bless
1 enchantment
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 30 feet
Components: V S M (A sprinkling of holy water)
Duration: Up to 1 minute
Classes: Cleric, Paladin
You bless up to three creatures of your choice within range. Whenever a target makes an attack roll or a saving throw before the spell ends, the target can roll a d4 and add the number rolled to the attack roll or saving throw.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, you can target one additional creature for each slot level above 1st.

What is the AoE of a 5e Dispel Magic? In 3e terms, it is a 120 foot burst centered on the caster (with additional stipulations to narrow the scope of the effect to every aura on a creature/object or one entire single magical effect).

By eschewing the details of targeting, 5e brought the size of the spell text down to ~124 words, down from ~716 words for 3e. The spells are not identical, but 5e preserves the same concept while being much simpler in every respect.

BTW, your confusion about targeting an "abstract magical effect" was also an issue in 3e, in spite of the much greater level of detail for such things. For example, if I cast Bull's Strength and Stoneskin on my friend the Fighter, and then the BBEG casts Dominate Person on that same Fighter, can I cast Dispel Magic to remove the Dominate Person only and leave my buffs in place? 3e Dispel Magic (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dispelMagic.htm) uses similar language of "one object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell" while not actually explaining how the targeting for one spell is done. Presumably, surgical precision targeting could be accomplished via Detect Magic or True Seeing, while the rules are silent on whether such is actually required.

Snails

2020-08-22, 10:11 AM

That is exactly what happens. The effect is within 120ft, and gets dispelled ad it is the chosen thing to be dispelled. That it also affects something outside of 120 ft is irrelevant, it is now dispelled entirely.

If you choose the Ranger instead, it would instead affect each spell on the Ranger.

I agree, although I think reasonable people could see it otherwise.

If we accept that a "magical effect" is a single non-physical entity/object, successfully targeting any one piece can potentially unravel the whole shebang. It is not fundamentally different than whether it is fair to kill a giant with a normal attack when only one "square" of four squares is physically within range of my attack.

Likewise, if my enemy upcasts Fog Cloud to 9th level, thus covering my entire army in a 180 foot radius fog, is my upcast Dispel Magic limited to removing a 120 foot radius slice? I would say that the magical effect is one object, and can potentially be entirely dispelled in one go by having access to any piece of the whole.

Lopping off slices is allowed (in many cases), but the fact it is allowed does not mean unraveling the whole shebang is disallowed.

Mutazoia

2020-08-22, 10:37 AM

I always assumed the target of Dispel Magic could be the affected person/creature or the affecting/caster if the affect requires concentration. You dispel the caster's concentration breaking the spell.

Except concentration is not a magical effect, it's a mental process (which is why it can be broken by taking damage...otherwise it wouldn't matter how much damage the caster took, he wouldn't lose concentration).

I also found this tid-bit:

The Sage Advice Compendium includes a ruling on the DM (not the player) deciding what is summoned with a Summon X spell, and also includes a ruling on dispelling such effects once created:

Whenever you wonder whether a spell’s effects can be dispelled or suspended, you need to answer one question: is the spell’s duration instantaneous? If the answer is yes, there is nothing to dispel or suspend.

In contrast, a spell like conjure woodland beings has a non-instantaneous duration, which means its creations can be ended by dispel magic and they temporarily disappear within an antimagic field.

Notice here (backed up by Mearls as asked by @Christopher) that they are saying the creations of a Summon X spell can be ended by dispel magic or temporarily vanish inside antimagic field (because they ARE magic) individually, but that one cast of dispel magic does not destroy them ALL. Targeting the caster with dispel magic would do nothing because the spell is not affecting him as a target; he is simply channeling the spell.

Breaking concentration would be the fastest way to deal with multiple summoned creatures since dispel magic doesn't have an AoE. The aforementioned antimagic field would also be effective if the caster was caught inside, rendering his concentration spell non-functioning in its entirety until he stepped outside of the antimagic zone again, in which case the creatures would reappear.

Also this from Sage Advice as well:

If dispel magic targets the magical effect from bless cast by a cleric, does it remove the effect on all the targets?

Dispel magic ends a spell on one target. It doesn’t end the same spell on other targets.

Might as well throw this at it as well.... (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/12/18/if-i-dispel-magic-one-of-many-creations-from-a-conjure/)

stoutstien

2020-08-22, 10:43 AM

Except concentration is not a magical effect, it's a mental process (which is why it can be broken by taking damage...otherwise it wouldn't matter how much damage the caster took, he wouldn't lose concentration).

On that note I really wish there was a disrupt spell that only effect is the target makes a concentration check.

Mutazoia

2020-08-22, 10:49 AM

On that note I really wish there was a disrupt spell that only effect is the target makes a concentration check.

My barbarian casts "AXE TO THE FACE"

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-22, 11:31 AM

The terminology has changed. Most spells we thought of as explicitly AoEs in 3e are now implicitly AoEs in 5e. Compare the language of Bless.

No, AOE is clearly and explicitly defined in 5e in RAW. There is no implicit AOE in 5e. 3e wordings have no impact on 5e.

If we accept that a "magical effect" is a single non-physical entity/object,

It is telling that no one has defined magical effects, but everyone is slinging around implications on how it is used.

Nhym

2020-08-22, 11:35 AM

I hope this link clears up the dispel debate via Sage Advice:

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/90140/can-dispel-magic-end-a-conjure-animals-spell/90156

Also you can't "target" concentration, and concentration is not a "magical effect" the "magical effects" are each of the summoned creatures.

Snails

2020-08-22, 12:17 PM

No, AOE is clearly and explicitly defined in 5e in RAW. There is no implicit AOE in 5e. 3e wordings have no impact on 5e.

You arguing semantics. The 5e Dispel Magic potentially affects the entire 120 foot radius around the caster. Whether you want to call that an AoE is unimportant. But when someone asks "where" it is targeting, the where is the 120 foot radius. "Where" may be an incomplete answer to how Dispel Magic targets, but the spell does give us the answer, with respect to physical dimensions.

It is telling that no one has defined magical effects, but everyone is slinging around implications on how it is used.

It is defined, albeit with a significant degree of fuzziness. Some people just do not like the definition provided, so they ignore it.

A spell is a discrete magical Effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression

So while there can be arguments about magical effect other than spells, the RAW tells us that a spell is "a discrete magical effect". Thus when I use Dispel Magic, it is possible to dispel the spell itself, because the RAW says so. That is right there in the rules.

While the "how" may be too vague to satisfy everyone (myself included), the end result is adequately defined.

Snails

2020-08-22, 12:21 PM

I hope this link clears up the dispel debate via Sage Advice:.

The Sage Advice answer is provably incomplete on this topic, as it provides no guidance on why it is okay to ignore the text provided in the RAW about choosing to target the "magical effect" instead of the creature/object. That you could choose to target once creature/object has never been in dispute.

I am sticking with RAW.

Fnissalot

2020-08-22, 01:52 PM

The Sage Advice answer is provably incomplete on this topic, as it provides no guidance on why it is okay to ignore the text provided in the RAW about choosing to target the "magical effect" instead of the creature/object. That you could choose to target once creature/object has never been in dispute.

I am sticking with RAW.

The PHB spellcasting rules regularly refer to spells having a plural of effects. For example:'"Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell's effects.", "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise", Or "Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed." A magical effect is not synonymous with a spell. So RAW is not conclusive if 8 conjured animals from one spell can be considered one magical effect or if each of them would be a separate effect.

You arguing semantics. The 5e Dispel Magic potentially affects the entire 120 foot radius around the caster. Whether you want to call that an AoE is unimportant. But when someone asks "where" it is targeting, the where is the 120 foot radius. "Where" may be an incomplete answer to how Dispel Magic targets, but the spell does give us the answer, with respect to physical dimensions.

If it would be a AOE with 120ft, it would say the range was Self (120-foot radius). The dispel magic spell says "Choose any creature, object, or magical Effect within range" since you cannot choose a creature, object or effect that is 125 feet away.

MaxWilson

2020-08-22, 02:46 PM

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-22, 04:22 PM

MaxWilson

2020-08-22, 04:29 PM

What spell was on the wolf?

Conjure Animals.

You can tell it was affected by the spell because it when the spell is temporarily suppressed (by Globe of Invulnerability or Antimagic Field) or permanently ended (by Dispel Magic or loss of concentration).

Snails

2020-08-22, 04:53 PM

So RAW is not conclusive if 8 conjured animals from one spell can be considered one magical effect or if each of them would be a separate effect.

Careful there. Both these statements can be true. The argument against dispelling all the critters in one go rests on the assertion that the first of these two is false. That assertion is conspicuously lacking any logical support whatsoever.

But we know the first is true because...

A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression

Thus we know that a spell itself is an example of a "magical effect".

Choose any creature, object, or magical effect within range

Thus we know that magical effects in general can be targeted, not just spells.

Put these two together, and this statement must be true: "Your target for dispelling can be any creature, object, or spell [plus some other unspecified magical effects that we need not discuss now]"

AdAstra

2020-08-22, 04:54 PM

On that note I really wish there was a disrupt spell that only effect is the target makes a concentration check.

If it only did that, it would be kinda weak, don't you think? Like, fireball allows you to functionally force at least a DC 10 Concentration Save to multiple creatures, in addition to dealing sizable damage. Sleet Storm forces Concentration Saves against your spell DC for creatures in a huge area, plus other notable effects. Hold Person, if the target fails their Wisdom Save, not only drops their Concentration (through incapacitation), but Paralyzes them.

stoutstien

2020-08-22, 05:27 PM

If it only did that, it would be kinda weak, don't you think? Like, fireball allows you to functionally force at least a DC 10 Concentration Save to multiple creatures, in addition to dealing sizable damage. Sleet Storm forces Concentration Saves against your spell DC for creatures in a huge area, plus other notable effects. Hold Person, if the target fails their Wisdom Save, not only drops their Concentration (through incapacitation), but Paralyzes them.

If it was a lower slot it could work well or maybe bonus action casting. I think the fact it wouldn't need an attack roll or a save could make it a valid choice.

AdAstra

2020-08-22, 05:41 PM

If it was a lower slot it could work well or maybe bonus action casting. I think the fact it wouldn't need an attack roll or a save could make it a valid choice.

Frankly, concentration's hard enough to keep if someone's trying to take it down. A spell to specifically mess with it is liable to either be too weak to be useful, or make concentration spells completely untenable in combat.

Valmark

2020-08-22, 05:49 PM

Conjure Animals.

You can tell it was affected by the spell because it when the spell is temporarily suppressed (by Globe of Invulnerability or Antimagic Field) or permanently ended (by Dispel Magic or loss of concentration).
And yet suppressing Conjure Animals on a wolf doesn't supress it on all of them.

Fnissalot

2020-08-22, 05:52 PM

Careful there. Both these statements can be true. The argument against dispelling all the critters in one go rests on the assertion that the first of these two is false. That assertion is conspicuously lacking any logical support whatsoever.

But we know the first is true because...

Thus we know that a spell itself is an example of a "magical effect".

Thus we know that magical effects in general can be targeted, not just spells.

Put these two together, and this statement must be true: "Your target for dispelling can be any creature, object, or spell [plus some other unspecified magical effects that we need not discuss now]"
Both statements cannot be true. Casting conjure animals to summon 8 creatures will either result in 8 effects or 1 effect. I cannot see the logic of 1X=8X.

I missed that part when I read the chapter, my bad. But the chapter contradicts it later on as it says that spells can have multiple effects so it is not totally consistent at least.

That said, I still think it should dispel all of them from a balance point of view.

Fnissalot

2020-08-22, 06:02 PM

In fact, the Sage Advice answer is in outright contradiction of the RAW (not for the first time--Sage Advice has always been notorious for giving ill-considered answers, going back to AD&D and Dragon Magazine days). Dispel Magic says, "Any spell of 3rd Level or lower on the target ends." Not "the effect of any spell of 3rd Level or lower on the target ends on that target." The spell itself ends, as long as it is affecting the target that just got hit with Dispel Magic.

If you Dispel Magic on a wolf that was conjured via Conjure Animals, Conjure Animals explicitly ends, and that wolf and all the others vanish.

Based on RAI, this is probably miswritten the same way PAM's reaction is.
"While wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach." intends that the opportunity attack is with the polearm but it is not written that it needs to be.

RAI implies the spell should read like "Any spell of 3rd Level or lower (...) ends (on that target). For each spell of or higher on the target, make an ability check using your Spellcasting Ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a successful check, the spell ends (on that target)."

MaxWilson

2020-08-22, 08:23 PM

And yet suppressing Conjure Animals on a wolf doesn't supress it on all of them.

It's no different from how suppressing the middle of a Wall of Force or a Lightning Bolt does not suppress the ends, outside the Antimagic Field. That's just how Antimagic Field works: suppresses effects specifically within its area of effect, only.

Based on RAI, this is probably miswritten the same way PAM's reaction is.
"While wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach." intends that the opportunity attack is with the polearm but it is not written that it needs to be.

RAI implies the spell should read like "Any spell of 3rd Level or lower (...) ends (on that target). For each spell of or higher on the target, make an ability check using your Spellcasting Ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell's level. On a successful check, the spell ends (on that target)."

Whether or not that is RAI, I think we both acknowledge that that is not RAW in the PHBs you can buy today, yes? (Despite Sage Advice's opinion.)

I do not think changing RAW to end the effect only on one target would be an improvement. It makes the game less balanced overall, although I guess it does make monsters with at-will Dispel Magic a little less weirdly overpowered against summoning spells.

Snails

2020-08-22, 08:32 PM

Both statements cannot be true. Casting conjure animals to summon 8 creatures will either result in 8 effects or 1 effect. I cannot see the logic of 1X=8X.

Depends on how "magical effect" is defined. A larger magical effect can have identifiable pieces, each which could (potentially) fit the definition of magical effect on their own.

Your idea of counting simply does not apply to things that can be sub-divided. Consider:

"I love pie, and I can eat a lot"
"I love this quarter slice, because it is pie"
"But one whole pie is 4 quarter slices. 1 != 4. So I cannot eat a whole pie."

Does that really work for you?

Whether "a spell" fits the definition of "magical effect" is settled by the RAW, BTW. So if I agreed with your reasoning, then the correct conclusion is that casting Dispel Magic on one wolf ends the entire Conjure spell, whether that was intended or not.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-22, 10:02 PM

What spell is on the wolf?Conjure Animals.
Conjure animals CREATED the wolf. there isn't a spell ON the wolf.
edit: the spell is on the fey that are summoned/compelled to appear and assume beast form.

You can tell it was affected by the spell because it when the spell is temporarily suppressed (by Globe of Invulnerability or Antimagic Field) or permanently ended (by Dispel Magic or loss of concentration).

I disagree
We are arguing about whether Dispel Magic (or Antimagic Field) on one wolf removes all the wolves. You cannot use the hypotheses to prove itself.
I disagree that losing concentration removes the spell from the wolf, since the spell IS the wolf (and friends).

I do see how Globe of Invulnerability interacts, can you clarify that?

It's no different from how suppressing the middle of a Wall of Force or a Lightning Bolt does not suppress the ends, outside the Antimagic Field. That's just how Antimagic Field works: suppresses effects specifically within its area of effect, only.

where did you get this? I haven't seen antimagic vs wall or vs lightning bolt?
edit: it's in the spell description for AM F

Nhym

2020-08-23, 02:42 AM

Dispel magic states "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range." the very use of the word Choose signifies that there must be a target to the spell.

Conjured Animals says "You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range" You don't summon a "conjured animals" magical effect or some ethereal invisible "spell" magical effect that constitutes each of the summoned creatures; you summon fey spirits. period. If Conjured Animals created a "magical effect", that magical effect could be dispelled, but it does not. It creates Conjured Creatures. (magical effects are not spells, they are things spells create)
Therefore, the ONLY relevant targets of a spell can be:
A. The summoned creatures, or B. The Druid. There are no other targets. You cannot target the un-targetable, therefore, Dispel Magic MUST be cast on either "one creature" or the druid.
Now, targeting the Druid does nothing because Concentration is not a "creature, object, or magical effect".
Targeting a conjured creature, Dispel Magic causes "Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends." Notice the On the target. As in, since the conjured creature is magical, that magic ends on the target thus causing the summoned creature to disappear. The spell cannot end magic on a creature other than the creature targeted, otherwise the spell would not say "Choose ONE creature, object, or magical effect within range."

Thus, you cast Dispel Magic on a creature summoned with Conjure Animals. That creature disappears. Nothing else happens. The end.

Tanarii

2020-08-23, 02:55 AM

Dispel Magic says, "Any spell of 3rd Level or lower on the target ends." Not "the effect of any spell of 3rd Level or lower on the target ends on that target." The spell itself ends, as long as it is affecting the target that just got hit with Dispel Magic.
Agreed. That's the way it reads.

MaxWilson

2020-08-23, 12:14 PM

Therefore, the ONLY relevant targets of a spell can be:
A. The summoned creatures, or B. The Druid. There are no other targets. You cannot target the un-targetable, therefore, Dispel Magic MUST be cast on either "one creature" or the druid.
Now, targeting the Druid does nothing because Concentration is not a "creature, object, or magical effect".
Targeting a conjured creature, Dispel Magic causes "Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends." Notice the On the target. As in, since the conjured creature is magical, that magic ends on the target thus causing the summoned creature to disappear. The spell cannot end magic on a creature other than the creature targeted, otherwise the spell would not say "Choose ONE creature, object, or magical effect within range."

Thus, you cast Dispel Magic on a creature summoned with Conjure Animals. That creature disappears. Nothing else happens. The end.

"Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends."

If a spell of the right level is on the target you choose, the spell ends. Not just ends its effect on the target--the spell ends outright. All the animals disappear because the spell has ended.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-23, 12:39 PM

"Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends."

If a spell of the right level is on the target you choose, the spell ends. Not just ends its effect on the target--the spell ends outright. All the animals disappear because the spell has ended.

That is valid if you agree that there is a spell ON the conjured animal...
If a sorc casts a fireball, I would not say there is a spell ON the fireball.
If a druid casts Conj animal, I would not say there is a spell ON the boar.
edit: The spell is ON the fey summoned/compelled to appear in the form of a boar.

Nhym

2020-08-23, 03:07 PM

That is valid if you agree that there is a spell ON the conjured animal...
If a sorc casts a fireball, I would not say there is a spell ON the fireball.
If a druid casts Conj animal, I would not say there is a spell ON the boar.

This is correct; I agree with you. A spell is not affecting a Conjured creature, they ARE the spell. There is no "Spell" there is only "One Creature". That's why it's called Conjure Animals not Create Animals. There is a big difference.

"Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends."
If a spell of the right level is on the target you choose, the spell ends. Not just ends its effect on the target--the spell ends outright. All the animals disappear because the spell has ended.

You contradicted yourself. Allow me to highlight.

"Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends."
If a spell of the right level is on the target you choose, the spell ends. Not just ends its effect on the target (that is exactly what it says. The spell (provided there even is one as I agree with the previous dude) only ends on the target)

Snails

2020-08-23, 03:27 PM

Overthinking the "how" of targeting with Dispel Magic just generates endless fodder for ruleslawyering, and no useful guidance whatsover about what are good answers.

I can literally challenge whether it is possible to use Dispel Magic on a Wall of Fire on this basis, which is clearly both against RAW and RAI. After all, I see fire but the fire is the result of the magical effect. The fire itself is not magical, nor does it have magic on it. Therefore there is nothing but an abstract magical effect somewhere...unknown, so Dispel Magic cannot possibly target it, right?

Heck, we do not even know whether Bless is on its targets, because Bless text does not use the word "on". So Dispel Magic does not work on Bless at all.

These are all arguments being put forth about conjured animals, but they equally apply to lots and lots of spells in endless possible abusive ways, thereby "proving" that Dispel Magic cannot possibly do what the RAW says it can do.

Perhaps we should just trust the RAW and accept that any magical effect within 120 feet can be targeted and dispelled by Dispel Magic, even if we might be less than happy about the explanation about how this is accomplished? Perhaps we should just trust the RAW when it says that a spell is a magical effect, and thus any whole entire spell with all its constituent parts is a valid target?

MaxWilson

2020-08-23, 03:30 PM

"Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends."
If a spell of the right level is on the target you choose, the spell ends. Not just ends its effect on the target (that is exactly what it says. The spell (provided there even is one as I agree with the previous dude) only ends on the target)

Subject: "any spell"
Qualifier: "of 3rd level or lower on the target"
Predicate: "ends"

The spell ends. It's gone. No more spell.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-23, 03:34 PM

This is correct; I agree with you. A spell is not affecting a Conjured creature, they ARE the spell. There is no "Spell" there is only "One Creature". That's why it's called Conjure Animals not Create Animals. There is a big difference.

You contradicted yourself. Allow me to highlight.

"Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends."
If a spell of the right level is on the target you choose, the spell ends. Not just ends its effect on the target (that is exactly what it says. The spell (provided there even is one as I agree with the previous dude) only ends on the target)

Okay, I like that I posted that, because I agreed with you. (I think)
But your dissection of my post now leads to me to "if you dispel magic on 1 summoned creature, it removes it on all"

That said, MaxWilson, where did you find the bit about antimagic field vs wall?
edit: Spell description for AM F

Snails

2020-08-23, 03:41 PM

"Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends."
"Any spell of 3rd level or lower ends on the target."

In modern "Business English", these are two very different statements

The RAW uses the first.

Sicmetal43

2020-08-23, 03:56 PM

Mutazoia

2020-08-23, 04:00 PM

Dispel magic states "Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range."
Conjure Animals can, depending on the level it was cast at, create one or more effects i.e. ONE black bear would be one effect, 16 wolves would be 16 separate effects. Since Dispel magic says you must choose ONE effect, you cannot dispel all wolves by dispelling one of them.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-23, 04:04 PM

MaxWilson

2020-08-23, 04:12 PM

Okay, I like that I posted that, because I agreed with you. (I think)
But your dissection of my post now leads to me to "if you dispel magic on 1 summoned creature, it removes it on all"

That said, MaxWilson, where did you find the bit about antimagic field vs wall?

It's in the AMF spell description.

"Areas of Magic: The area of another spell or magical Effect, such as Fireball, can't extend into the Sphere. If the Sphere overlaps an area of magic, the part of the area that is covered by the Sphere is suppressed. For example, the flames created by a Wall of Fire are suppressed within the Sphere, creating a gap in the wall if the overlap is large enough."

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-23, 04:30 PM

It's in the AMF spell description.

"Areas of Magic: The area of another spell or magical Effect, such as Fireball, can't extend into the Sphere. If the Sphere overlaps an area of magic, the part of the area that is covered by the Sphere is suppressed. For example, the flames created by a Wall of Fire are suppressed within the Sphere, creating a gap in the wall if the overlap is large enough."

Geez. I just skipped right over that... reading!!!
Thanks.

Nhym

2020-08-23, 05:45 PM

PHB says "A spell is a magical effect"
The argument is, don't target the wolf, target the spell.

Where in the PHB does it say that specifically? Also, how can you target a spell? Like what specifically would you be targeting, because a "spell" has no physical manifestation. Only the effect of a spell has a physical manifestation. For example, Counterspell doesn't target a "spell", you "attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." If a spell itself were a valid target, the Counterspell of all spells would actually say that.

Nhym

2020-08-23, 05:48 PM

Subject: "any spell"
Qualifier: "of 3rd level or lower on the target"
Predicate: "ends"

The spell ends. It's gone. No more spell.

You are missing the Object: the target. The spell ends... on the target.

Tanarii

2020-08-23, 06:02 PM

You are missing the Object: the target. The spell ends... on the target.
Nope. The spell on the target ends. That's a different sentence from the one you just wrote.

Nhym

2020-08-23, 06:27 PM

Nope. The spell on the target ends. That's a different sentence from the one you just wrote.

That is false as illustrated by its interaction with Bless in Sage Advice page 14:

"If dispel magic targets the magical effect from bless cast
by a cleric, does it remove the effect on all the targets?
Dispel magic ends a spell on one target. It doesn’t end the
same spell on other targets."

https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SA-Compendium.pdf

MaxWilson

2020-08-23, 06:37 PM

That is false as illustrated by its interaction with Bless in Sage Advice page 14:

"If dispel magic targets the magical effect from bless cast
by a cleric, does it remove the effect on all the targets?
Dispel magic ends a spell on one target. It doesn’t end the
same spell on other targets."

https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SA-Compendium.pdf

If you have to change the subject like that it means you're aware that the RAW wasn't supporting your position.

The Sage Advice ruling conflicts with RAW. (Not for the first time.) Sage Advice is wrong: in the PHBs that you can buy today, the spell ends.

Nhym

2020-08-23, 06:57 PM

If you have to change the subject like that it means you're aware that the RAW wasn't supporting your position.

The Sage Advice ruling conflicts with RAW. (Not for the first time.) Sage Advice is wrong: in the PHBs that you can buy today, the spell ends.

But Sage Advice is like an extension to the PHB clarifying rules, it can't be wrong because it is the rules? If you can't even agree to that I don't even know what to say. Also it's not changing the subject, it's adding supporting information. My "position" is simply that Dispel Magic only dispels one summoned creature.

Mutazoia

2020-08-23, 07:03 PM

PHB says "A spell is a magical effect"
The argument is, don't target the wolf, target the spell.

But the spell is over and done with...it's not the spell keeping the wolves in play, it's the Druids concentration. Once the wolves appear, the effect has passed and you are left with 16 separate magical effects running around the map. Since you have no real target, you can't just dispel "Conjure Animals". You can dispel a singular animal because it is one instance of a magical effect: A Fey that has for all intents and purposes polymorphed into a wolf. Since each wolf is capable of independent action from its brethren, each wolf is therefore counted as a separate effect for the sake of Dispell Magic. If every single wolf had to take the exact same action, then you could argue that dispelling one would dispel them all.

Even "Sage Advice", a platform put out by the actual designers of the game that they use for clarifying grey areas and loopholes they didn't catch before printing, says as much. Does "Sage Advice" sometimes contradict the printed rules? YES. That's the whole point of having an outlet to ask the designers rules questions. So if Mike Mearls says it is so, then it is so, regardless of whether or not you think that contradicts the printed book. His answer to the question is basically an errata for something that came up during play that they didn't think about during the design phase.

And, if Mike Mearls says you can't use Dispel Magic to dispel all creatures from Conjure Animals at once time, that's pretty much the definitive answer.

stoutstien

2020-08-23, 07:05 PM

But Sage Advice is like an extension to the PHB clarifying rules, it can't be wrong because it is the rules? If you can't even agree to that I don't even know what to say. Also it's not changing the subject, it's adding supporting information. My "position" is simply that Dispel Magic only dispels one summoned creature.

The rules can and are often wrong. from needing clarification with sage advice or being in direct conflict with other rules needing DM to make a snap ruling involving a rule.
The existence of a rule can't be the defense for it being used.

Nhym

2020-08-23, 07:10 PM

The rules can and are often wrong. from needing clarification with sage advice or being in direct conflict with other rules needing DM to make a snap ruling involving a rule.
The existence of a rule can't be the defense for it being used.

The problem (or solution) to introducing into the argument 'the validity of rules' basically turns the argument into a case where at the end of the day, it's just up to the DM to decide.

Snails

2020-08-23, 07:33 PM

The rules can and are often wrong. from needing clarification with sage advice or being in direct conflict with other rules needing DM to make a snap ruling involving a rule.
The existence of a rule can't be the defense for it being used.

That is a fair argument when someone can point to an actual apparent contradiction within the RAW. Or they can name an overt reason why the most obvious interpretation gives a very undesirable result.

But we are not anywhere near those situations.

What we have here are some posters' headcanon in apparent contradiction with the RAW. And the only textual support for that headcanon is a reference to SA where the good sage seems to be working under a somewhat similar kind of headcanon.

MaxWilson

2020-08-23, 08:07 PM

But Sage Advice is like an extension to the PHB clarifying rules, it can't be wrong because it is the rules?

Where does Sage Advice ever even claim to replace the PHB?

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-23, 08:30 PM

But the spell is over and done with...it's not the spell keeping the wolves in play, it's the Druids concentration.

PHB Page 209
Concentration
Some spells require you to maintain concentration in order to keep their magic active.

The Druid is concentrating on the spell in order to keep her magic active.

Where in the PHB does it say that specifically?

PHB Page 199
What Is a Spell?
A spell is a discrete magical effect,

Tanarii

2020-08-23, 08:38 PM

But Sage Advice is like an extension to the PHB clarifying rules, it can't be wrong because it is the rules?
It most certainly can be wrong if the "clarification" directly contradicts what the rule as written says.

Don't get me wrong, I still appreciate them putting out an officially compiled "here's how we intended it to work". But it absolutely can be wrong and directly contradict the RAW. They've even changed said document in the past when they realized that. e.g. with War Magic when they finally included their final version of the Shield Master ruling (which Crawford changed his tweet rulings on several times), and with Elves and Long Rests/trance.

We're all discussing our own interpretation of RAI of the Rule as Written regardless. RAW is just a quote. Nothing more, nothing less. :smallamused:

So my point of view is most accurately:
I don't interpret the RAW the same way the developers do because that's not how English works. I believe their interpretation directly contradicts what's written.

PhoenixPhyre

2020-08-23, 08:41 PM

For me, this statement from the SA Compendium (which is official rulings) is dispositive (as RAW by itself has no primacy in my eyes).

If dispel magic targets the magical effect from bless cast by a cleric, does it remove the effect on all the targets? Dispel magic ends a spell on one target. It doesn’t end the same spell on other targets.

Targeting the magical effect? Check.
Ending the effect on one target, not the whole set? Check.

It's an exact parallel. Each and every conjured animal is a separate effect of the spell, and must be targeted individually by dispel magic. Concentration is not a magical effect, so you can't target the druid. There is no meta "conjure animals spell effect" separate from the individual creatures summoned to target.

I can understand other people differing, but it seems that most of this discussion is proof-texting (taking a few words and phrases out of context and acting like they're proof). That sort of thing is one reason why I dislike RAW-supremacy arguments.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-23, 08:47 PM

For me, this statement from the SA Compendium (which is official rulings) is dispositive (as RAW by itself has no primacy in my eyes).

I can understand other people differing, but it seems that most of this discussion is proof-texting (taking a few words and phrases out of context and acting like they're proof). That sort of thing is one reason why I dislike RAW-supremacy arguments.

I guess the problem I have with this argument(?) is that it makes Sage Advice equal to Errata.
Except, that WotC says it isn't Errata, so even WotC doesn't agree with it.

If WotC isn't willing to say Sage Advice is a correction, then WotC RAI should have no more weight than a house rule.

stoutstien

2020-08-23, 08:48 PM

That is a fair argument when someone can point to an actual apparent contradiction within the RAW. Or they can name an overt reason why the most obvious interpretation gives a very undesirable result.

But we are not anywhere near those situations.

- a candle doesn't need to be lit to produce light.
-the faster you are the longer it take for you to stand up from prone.
- anytime two specific effects are at odds.
- anything that is focused on lighting, sight, or hiding.

Tanarii

2020-08-23, 08:48 PM

I can understand other people differing, but it seems that most of this discussion is proof-texting (taking a few words and phrases out of context and acting like they're proof). That sort of thing is one reason why I dislike RAW-supremacy arguments.
Its not about RAW supremacy. It's about interpreting what the RAW says.

A separate question is: Should a DM run it the way I believe the RAW is written or the way SAC says to do it?

My answer to that is the way I think RAW is written, because they just expended a 3rd level slot. Anything less is underpowered. YMMV.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-23, 08:58 PM

That is a fair argument when someone can point to an actual apparent contradiction within the RAW. Or they can name an overt reason why the most obvious interpretation gives a very undesirable result.

But we are not anywhere near those situations.
- a candle doesn't need to be lit to produce light.
-the faster you are the longer it take for you to stand up from prone.
- anytime two specific effects are at odds.
- anything that is focused on lighting, sight, or hiding.

You are posting examples of "overt reasons why the most obvious interpretation gives a very undesireable result" in support of Snails's argument, right?

Nhym

2020-08-23, 09:05 PM

Where does Sage Advice ever even claim to replace the PHB?

I didn't say it replaces the PHB. On the website it says "We gather some of the most frequent D&D rules questions and provide answers to them in the Sage Advice Compendium."I'm saying they are clarifications to the rules, which is exactly what they are.

It's an exact parallel. Each and every conjured animal is a separate effect of the spell, and must be targeted individually by dispel magic. Concentration is not a magical effect, so you can't target the druid. There is no meta "conjure animals spell effect" separate from the individual creatures summoned to target.

I agree.

Snails

2020-08-23, 09:06 PM

It's an exact parallel. Each and every conjured animal is a separate effect of the spell, and must be targeted individually by dispel magic. Concentration is not a magical effect, so you can't target the druid. There is no meta "conjure animals spell effect" separate from the individual creatures summoned to target.

Thank you for your clear explanation of your thinking.

But I am quite unconvinced by your reasoning, because it runs afoul of the definition of magical effect and their relationship to spells that we have, and it is in apparent contradiction to the spell duration.

A spell is a discrete magical Effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression.

"Discrete" here is in the sense of something that is one single & distinct entity.

Your reasoning demands that a Conjure Animals spell stops being one single & distinct entity after casting is complete, thus the spell does no longer fits the definition of a spell.
So why do we have a duration for this non-spell thing and what are the rules for Concentration for non-spells?

Furthermore, if a spell has a duration, it is still an ongoing thing. It is not finished. It did not stop being a spell, and we know this because the spell text tells us so. If a spell is still a spell, it is still a "discrete magical Effect" in its own right, and your reasoning is wrong. There is very literally an ongoing "conjure animals spell effect" as per the Conjure Animals text itself. (Whether or how it is separable from the creatures is unknown.)

MaxWilson

2020-08-23, 09:26 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2020-08-23, 09:31 PM

Thank you for your clear explanation of your thinking.

But I am quite unconvinced by your reasoning, because it runs afoul of the definition of magical effect and their relationship to spells that we have, and it is in apparent contradiction to the spell duration.

"Discrete" here is in the sense of something that is one single & distinct entity.

Your reasoning demands that a Conjure Animals spell stops being one single & distinct entity after casting is complete, thus the spell does no longer fits the definition of a spell.
So why do we have a duration for this non-spell thing and what are the rules for Concentration for non-spells?

Furthermore, if a spell has a duration, it is still an ongoing thing. It is not finished. It did not stop being a spell, and we know this because the spell text tells us so. If a spell is still a spell, it is still a "discrete magical Effect" in its own right, and your reasoning is wrong. There is very literally an ongoing "conjure animals spell effect" as per the Conjure Animals text itself. (Whether or how it is separable from the creatures is unknown.)

That's entirely proof texting. You're grabbing one sentence out of a larger paragraph and applying it as a global definition.

That's what I mean about this discussion and "RAW primacy"--RAW, in and of itself, is meaningless. Only interpretations matter. And the same would apply to bless, but we know from official sources that that's not what happens. So you have a conflict between your interpretation of the text and what the developers say the text means (how it should be interpreted). Note that SA didn't say that RAW says X, but RAI says Y, something it does repeatedly throughout. This is a statement about the text itself. So your interpretation is just plain wrong according to the people who wrote the text.

Text has no intrinsic meaning until it is interpreted. Some interpretations are obvious, some are not. In this case, letting you target the essence of the spell itself is just letting dispel magic be counterspell, but better because you can wait and do it selectively as well. And that's obviously a bit wonky.

Edit: and furthermore, we know you can't Ready dispel magic to act as counterspell. So independently targeting the "spell effect" itself of a spell isn't something you can do. Words have many meanings. And you can't take the meaning from one context and apply it globally. A spell effect is the effect of a spell. Literally. That's what those words mean in this context, it's the only rational thing they can mean. You can't call out "I'm targeting invisibility", otherwise you could purge a single spell effect selectively. Which would make the target a creature option rather pointless, because now you can cherry pick. The more I think about it, the more that the SA makes total sense and the other interpretation is wonky.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-23, 09:35 PM

Also, players buy copies of the PHB, not Sage Advice. Sometimes it's worth tolerating a minor imperfection in the RAW just to conform to the Principle of Least Surprise for the players, to make the game more predictable for them, but in a case where both common sense and the RAW agree on one interpretation (Dispel Magic ends Conjure Animals), it isn't worth contradicting both just to conform to Sage Advice.

Wait. I have been converted to RAW says "Dispel Magic ends Conjure Animals".
I do not agree that common sense says that is the only reasonable interpretation.
To suggest that means that the I and the others are either disingenuous or lack common sense.

Snails

2020-08-23, 09:36 PM

Its not about RAW supremacy. It's about interpreting what the RAW says.

A separate question is: Should a DM run it the way I believe the RAW is written or the way SAC says to do it?

My answer to that is the way I think RAW is written, because they just expended a 3rd level slot. Anything less is underpowered. YMMV.

Well put.

Let's keep in mind that Dispel Magic is already inauspicious in terms of action economy, because you probably just suffered the bad effect before getting a chance to dispel it, e.g. the 8 wolves just attacked your party. Dispel Magic is useful in the sense of preventing a bad situation from getting worse, but looks so very much inferior to Counterspell in terms of 3rd level spells/

In fact, this weakened interpretation of Dispel Magic would be okay as a 1st level spell, not even worth a 2nd level spell. (This works particularly well because there are built in incentives to upcast.)

PhoenixPhyre

2020-08-23, 09:46 PM

Well put.

Let's keep in mind that Dispel Magic is already inauspicious in terms of action economy, because you probably just suffered the bad effect before getting a chance to dispel it, e.g. the 8 wolves just attacked your party. Dispel Magic is useful in the sense of preventing a bad situation from getting worse, but looks so very much inferior to Counterspell in terms of 3rd level spells/

In fact, this weakened interpretation of Dispel Magic would be okay as a 1st level spell, not even worth a 2nd level spell. (This works particularly well because there are built in incentives to upcast.)

They do very different things, even though both end magical effects.

Sure, dispel magic isn't very good against Conjure Animals. Yay. That's what counterspell is good for. It's great against a whole bunch of other spells that counterspell can't touch. Different spells for different needs. Otherwise you've got one spell to rulecancel them all, because you can use dispel magic everywhere [0] but you can't use counterspell everywhere.

[0] by the prevailing interpretation here, you could Ready it to counter a spell effect as it's cast. Another thing that SA says is not RAW.

Snails

2020-08-23, 09:53 PM

That's entirely proof texting. You're grabbing one sentence out of a larger paragraph and applying it as a global definition.

That's what I mean about this discussion and "RAW primacy"--RAW, in and of itself, is meaningless. Only interpretations matter. And the same would apply to bless, but we know from official sources that that's not what happens. So you have a conflict between your interpretation of the text and what the developers say the text means (how it should be interpreted). Note that SA didn't say that RAW says X, but RAI says Y, something it does repeatedly throughout. This is a statement about the text itself.

Better to propose a global definition that can be supported by text than to simply not have one, that is for sure. And it is not actually one bit of text I am flogging. It is both the one full sentence grabbed out of that paragraph, and the text of the spell as per the duration. So I can demonstrate consistency within the RAW.

So your interpretation is just plain wrong according to the people who wrote the text.

That's nice. But they seem to be ignoring the text they wrote. And I am happy to listen to clarifications about specific text that may be interpreted differently by different parties, but conclusions that appear to ignore the text are not convincing.

Text has no intrinsic meaning until it is interpreted. Some interpretations are obvious, some are not. In this case, letting you target the essence of the spell itself is just letting dispel magic be counterspell, but better because you can wait and do it selectively as well. And that's obviously a bit wonky.

Better? I have 8 wolf bite marks to prove that it is not better!

You can't call out "I'm targeting invisibility", otherwise you could purge a single spell effect selectively. Which would make the target a creature option rather pointless, because now you can cherry pick. The more I think about it, the more that the SA makes total sense and the other interpretation is wonky.

And I am seeing the exact opposite. The point of targeting the creature is I can potentially remove multiple effects, and I do not have to have a clue what any of them might be -- a good guess that guy is buffed is sufficient. I see nothing particularly wrong with someone burning a 3rd level spell to easily remove a specific 2nd level spell like Invisibility, because making the attempt is foolish unless you have certain knowledge of the tactical situation. If you cast Invisibility right in front of your enemies and linger somewhere in a location that would be called "plain sight" immediately thereafter, were you actually expecting that the enemy spellcaster could not and would not punish you for that risk?

MaxWilson

2020-08-23, 09:56 PM

Wait. I have been converted to RAW says "Dispel Magic ends Conjure Animals".
I do not agree that common sense says that is the only reasonable interpretation.
To suggest that means that the I and the others are either disingenuous or lack common sense.

Would you settle for common sense?

Everything on the Internet is opinion, but sometimes it's worth explicitly highlighting when personal judgment is involved.

langal

2020-08-23, 10:15 PM

Tanarii

2020-08-23, 10:20 PM

The point of targeting the creature is I can potentially remove multiple effects, and I do not have to have a clue what any of them might be -- a good guess that guy is buffed is sufficient.
Ah, this is actually a good counterpoint on my originally stated opinion on balance.

1 Dispel removing all of 1 other magical effect by ending the spell entirely? That's pretty solidly balanced.

1 Dispel removing ALL magical effects on one creature by ending the related spells entirely? That's not very balanced.

What's balanced is a choice between the two:
-end one magical effect by ending the spell entirely
-end all magical effects on one creature only

(I'm ignoring what RAW says here, just stating my opinion on balance.)

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-23, 10:22 PM

Would you settle for common sense?

Everything on the Internet is opinion, but sometimes it's worth explicitly highlighting when personal judgment is involved.

No. You have insinuated that I am an idiot or disingenuous, because I disagree with you.

Labelling an insult as an opinion doesn't make it less of an insult.

Tanarii

2020-08-24, 12:25 AM

I would settle for you not insinuating that posters on this thread who disagree with you are idiots or disingenuous.

Allow me to courteously direct you to the forum rules:
https://forums.giantitp.com/announcement.php?a=1

Fnissalot

2020-08-24, 12:42 AM

Subject: "any spell"
Qualifier: "of 3rd level or lower on the target"
Predicate: "ends"

The spell ends. It's gone. No more spell.

"Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends."
"Any spell of 3rd level or lower ends on the target."

In modern "Business English", these are two very different statements

The RAW uses the first.
I brought it up with a english professor at my old university. He said that although not intuitively, they can be used to have the same meaning in both directions. The position of "on the target" is not required to change the meaning of it. "On the target" can both be assumed to be a qualifier for the subject as well as part of the predicate which leaves us with two "correct" although not equally frequent interpretations. If on the target is part of the qualifier, the whole spell ends, but if it is part of the predicate, the spell ends but only on the target. The second is more common in prose and poetry and should probably not been used in a rules text.

Snails

2020-08-24, 01:30 AM

I
I brought it up with a english professor at my old university. He said that although not intuitively, they can be used to have the same meaning in both directions. The position of "on the target" is not required to change the meaning of it. "On the target" can both be assumed to be a qualifier for the subject as well as part of the predicate which leaves us with two "correct" although not equally frequent interpretations. If on the target is part of the qualifier, the whole spell ends, but if it is part of the predicate, the spell ends but only on the target. The second is more common in prose and poetry and should probably not been used in a rules text.

Absolutely. Which is why I applied the qualification of modern Business English, in which failing to recognize which interpretation is more strongly suggested by location is understood as very poor writing. Obviously if this were poetry we were analyzing, I would hesitate to offer an opinion, because such ambiguity or misdirection could well be purposeful, or the choice might be an artifact of achieving a desired rhythm.

Fair point though.

I would say if one wants to point to the precise language here to demonstrate a point, then there is one interpretation that is stronger than the other. But suggesting it is simply ambiguous is certainly reasonable.

AHF

2020-08-24, 07:43 AM

I'd stick with the one creature gets dispelled. Give the player the option of upcasting to remove more. Like one additional creature per level upcast or something. As far as what is "RAW", I would typically trust the actual game designers' judgement. The point of the game is DM flexibility. Most of these RAW arguments are the epitome of inflexibility.

Seems a bit harsh to point to people being the “epitome of inflexibility” when they are reading the basic definition of what a spell is (a discrete magical effect) and the actual text of the spell for their position. Further, it raises my eyebrow when their interpretation results in a third level spell being able to dispel another third level spell after the 8 wolf attacks but your interpretation results in having to upcast that third level spell in a 9th level slot and it still doesn’t completely dispel the 8 wolves, leaving one still on the field.

Snails

2020-08-24, 10:31 AM

What's balanced is a choice between the two:
-end one magical effect by ending the spell entirely
-end all magical effects on one creature only

(I'm ignoring what RAW says here, just stating my opinion on balance.)

That is how I would prefer to play as well (casting aside the rules text sifting, for the moment).

Kyutaru

2020-08-24, 03:36 PM

I guess the problem I have with this argument(?) is that it makes Sage Advice equal to Errata.
Except, that WotC says it isn't Errata, so even WotC doesn't agree with it.

If WotC isn't willing to say Sage Advice is a correction, then WotC RAI should have no more weight than a house rule.
I agree, this is accurate in that WotC is nothing more than RAI. It's not RAW and D&D players are free to disregard even stuff that is. I disagree that it doesn't have more weight as it does come from an official source so the weight carried is somewhat greater than Joe Guy's table house rules for the purposes of general discussion.

However, YOUR house rules (read: each table's DM) will always supersede the weight of the developer's intentions. That applies with or without Sage Advice. If we're looking to RAW then Sage Advice doesn't matter at all, it's just another RAI argument from a more credible source. It is not an errata because D&D has no need of erratas. The DM is judge, jury, and executioner and will decide whether something makes it into his game or not.

So if the discussion centers around what's RAW then all valid interpretations of RAW are permitted. If it focuses on RAI then all RAI works too but the developer RAI is the one people will usually side with for the purposes of the argument. Ultimately this doesn't matter to each individual table though. DM = God.

HIWPI - per RAW you can just target the magical effect. You can't see the magical effect but line of sight is only needed for spells if the description says so. Reading Dispel Magic verbatim, it doesn't mention a thing about being able to see what you're dispelling. So using their Jedi Wizard senses, casters can dispel magical effects that they know about as long as they're in range. The concentration of a Druid seems to indicate there is a residing magical effect that presents as a valid target for the spell.

NaughtyTiger

2020-08-24, 03:51 PM

It is not an errata because D&D has no need of erratas.

WotC does maintain official Errata for DnD 5e content.

Kyutaru

2020-08-24, 04:00 PM

WotC does maintain official Errata for DnD 5e content.

Okay. It is not errata because WotC explicitly maintains a separate errata.

Snails

2020-08-24, 06:51 PM

For the record, I start with the RAW not because I believe that RAW is automatically better, but because it is difficult to really understand someone's RAI argument unless they can put it within the context of the RAW. In fact, without context, it is nearly impossible to figure out whether such a RAI argument is a carefully considered opinion or a guess that went astray because of an incomplete recollection of the rules.

<cough>sage</cough>

And that goes for Balance and similar arguments, too. Are you making a Balance argument based on a considered understanding the common interpretations of RAW/RAI, or are you just guessing because you need an answer and you likes what you likes?

Tanarii

2020-08-24, 10:15 PM

And that goes for Balance and similar arguments, too. Are you making a Balance argument based on a considered understanding the common interpretations of RAW/RAI, or are you just guessing because you need an answer and you likes what you likes?
I'll freely admit for me its the latter most of the time. 😂

Merudo

2020-08-25, 08:59 AM

Subject: "any spell"
Qualifier: "of 3rd level or lower on the target"
Predicate: "ends"

The spell ends. It's gone. No more spell.

Suppose every wall of my house is painted with the same yellow paint; tired of the ugly color, I hire a paint stripper. They point to my bedroom wall and say, "any paint on this wall will be removed", and I accept their bid. The paint stripper removes the paint off that wall, and leaves.

Can I then sue them, arguing that they should have instead removed the paint on all walls?

Subject: "Any paint"
Qualifier: "on this wall"
Predicate: "will be removed"

The whole house is covered in the same paint as the one that is on the wall, and therefore all of it should be removed - right?

Of course not; the paint is not one singular thing, and the paint on my kitchen wall doesn't satisfy the qualifier "on this wall".

However, for invented magical spells, it is no longer clear if the spell is one singular entity, or if it instead acts as paint, effectively "painting" each target with a magical effect.

From the "a spell is one thing" perspective, Dispel Magic ends the whole spell. However, for the "a spell is like paint" perspective, removing the magical paint effect from one target doesn't affect the other targets.

Both readings are valid. If anyone is in the wrong here, it's WotC for doing such a poor job writing the spell.

Snails

2020-08-25, 10:06 AM

I'll freely admit for me its the latter most of the time. 😂

Don't we all?

(On a serious side note, doing so is not actually a problem. Doing so while freely admit you are going for Balance is not just fine, but often a helpful opinion.
But, as a practical matter, going for Balance while ignoring the RAW and pretending the RAW says what you want it to say, that sows confusion. That is why it is helpful to say "I know the RAW says X, but I think Y is much better because reason Z.")

From the "a spell is one thing" perspective, Dispel Magic ends the whole spell. However, for the "a spell is like paint" perspective, removing the magical paint effect from one target doesn't affect the other targets.

Both readings are valid. If anyone is in the wrong here, it's WotC for doing such a poor job writing the spell.

Right.

However, we should consider if I walk the paint stripper through the whole house and say "remove the red paint", I am probably physically standing in one room and not two when I say so. While it might seem harsh, but it would not be crazy to berate the paint stripper for only touching the paint within easy reach of where I was standing when I said those words. Didn't I just show you a whole lot of red paint?

From my perspective, I do not see why it cannot be both "a spell is one thing" and "a spell gets spread like paint" at the same time. How a Dispel Magic targets an ongoing magical effect is so abstract a concept that there can exist multiple techniques known to the spellcaster to achieve different ends, without the rules needing to model the exact details.

I hold that the RAW strongly indicates that when there is a spell with a duration there exists an ongoing "one thing" that can be somewhere somehow targeted.

Does that mean that if N multi-target buffs go on the party and one PC gets hit by Dispel Magic all N go down for everyone. That is a perfectly reasonable reading of the RAW. As Tanarii points out, that is probably not a desirable way to play the game, and I agree with him.

One problem with the "a spell is like paint" perspective is the model put forth so far is underdeveloped. A creature is a nice convenient chunk where we can point to AMF for motivation for how to subdivide. But a Wall of Fire and a Wall of Ice can be subdivided into many chunks, too, by AMF or with an axe in the case of the ice wall, even if they are physically touching. How many Dispel Magic spells does it take to bring down a Wall of Fire or Wall of Ice? The paint model is not (yet) adequate to answer this question.

The value of Dispel Magic should be strongly related to its own slot level and the slot level of the ongoing effect it is attempting to address. Choices like 1 or 2 or 4 or 8 critters should generally not make a vast difference in how Dispel Magic is used. And furthermore, as the party climbs up levels where the opposition can often cast Dispel Magic, I do not want a huge horde of critters clogging the combat to become the norm.

KorvinStarmast

2020-08-25, 10:23 AM

But the spell is over and done with...it's not the spell keeping the wolves in play, it's the Druids concentration.
And, if Mike Mearls says you can't use Dispel Magic to dispel all creatures from Conjure Animals at once time, that's pretty much the definitive answer.
Actually, Mearls was never the SAC voice of authority, it was Jeremy Crawford. WoTC even said so a few years back. MM's more of an idea man.

... Least Surprise for the players, to make the game more predictable for them, but in a case where both common sense and the RAW agree on one interpretation (Dispel Magic ends Conjure Animals), it isn't worth contradicting both just to conform to Sage Advice. In the interest of 'having it both ways' I offer two ways to parse what happens when the opposing magic using character (let's say it's a cleric for the moment) casts dispel magic after the druid has conjured those 8 fey spirits who take on the forms of wolves.

(1) The caster sees the druid concentrating on a spell, or notices that the druid cast a spell and a bunch of wolves appeared. The caster than casts dispel magic at a target - the druid who is concentrating in a spell - and the spell is gone because that's where the magical effect is located.

(2) The caster sees the wolves while they may not see the druid for some reason, they can cast dispel magic on a wolf. That wolf goes away but the others don't.

Why the difference? The distinction would be in the target of the dispel magic spell.

I think it works within RAW in either case, so the caster needs to be clear about what target it is that needs to be dispelled.

To fiddly? It strikes me as sensible, but perhaps others don't agree.

Merudo

2020-08-25, 10:43 AM

One problem with the "a spell is like paint" perspective is the model put forth so far is underdeveloped. A creature is a nice convenient chunk where we can point to AMF for motivation for how to subdivide. But a Wall of Fire and a Wall of Ice can be subdivided into many chunks, too, by AMF or with an axe in the case of the ice wall, even if they are physically touching. How many Dispel Magic spells does it take to bring down a Wall of Fire or Wall of Ice? The paint model is not (yet) adequate to answer this question.

The description of Dispel Magic is even more problematic when targeting a magical effect:

Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends.

Let select a magical effect as the target. The rule then becomes

Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the magical effect ends.

Huh? The spell needs to be "on" the magical effect to be dispelled? What does that even mean?

Suppose I target a Wall of Fire as the magical effect. Is the Wall of Fire spell "on" the Wall of Fire magical effect? A strict reading would say no - the Wall of Fire spell is or causes the magical effect, but is not "on" it, and so Dispel Magic does nothing.

This ruling leads to Dispel Magic being useless when targeting a magical effect, except maybe for some very niche cases (dispelling a Glyph of Warding might end the spell stored inside it).

Snails

2020-08-25, 01:53 PM

I like the gist of what KorvinStarmast said.

I propose:
(1) A spell is an ongoing magical effect which can generate separate and distinct magical sub-effects. The "mother effect" does sustain the "daughter sub-effects".
(2) Not every result of a spell is magic itself but most observable things offer links to magical effects.
(3) Concentration offers a link to the spell which is the ongoing magical effect. Any spellcaster who observes someone Concentrating understands what is necessary to follow the link to the spell, and dispel the whole thing.
(4) An individual conjured animal offers a link to the magical sub-effect that sustains that one animal.
(5) Similarly, any individual creature or object offers links to all the sub-effects on that creature/object. Targeting the creature/object with Dispel Magic can bring down all the sub-effects affecting that one creature/object.

I think this covers the main use cases.

There are remaining ambiguities and corner cases, left to the DM to rule whether a sufficient link exist to use Dispel Magic in a particular way...
-- Is observing the spell being cast any practical advantage to making a link to the spell?
-- Can Dispel Magic be used against Invisibility? How?
-- Is it possible to follow a link from the sub-effect to the effect?
I propose: Yes, it is possible, but it does not come easy like in the simple cases above. You would need to study the Weave carefully, and Detect Magic or True Seeing makes this much easier.
-- Can I bring down a Wall of Fire with one Dispel Magic?
I propose: Yes, being a physically contiguous effect, it so happens that it easer to follow the link from any part to the whole spell.

NorthernPhoenix

2020-08-26, 08:29 AM

Valmark

2020-08-26, 09:28 AM

With the new book finally introducing the much improved (for gameplay, not power) single unit summons, we'll finally be able to sweep the poorly designed "Conjure loads of X" spells under the carpet and just use the new spells instead.

Thanks WOTC!

There were already five of those though, including Xanathar's. Unless those are boosted somehow when compared to the ones already existing there won't be any real change.

NorthernPhoenix

2020-08-26, 12:25 PM

There were already five of those though, including Xanathar's. Unless those are boosted somehow when compared to the ones already existing there won't be any real change.

Not in AL, which sucks for them. But any other table can just ban the problem spells, and now replace them with their improvements (instead of nothing, right now).

Valmark

2020-08-26, 12:33 PM

Not in AL, which sucks for them. But any other table can just ban the problem spells, and now replace them with their improvements (instead of nothing, right now).

Why AL didn't have those? Most of them are from PHB.

Also, are the spells you're talking about coming in the next book the ones present in the UA? Like Summon Bestial Spirit.

NorthernPhoenix

2020-08-26, 12:49 PM

Why AL didn't have those? Most of them are from PHB.

Also, are the spells you're talking about coming in the next book the ones present in the UA? Like Summon Bestial Spirit.

AL doesn't allow banning anything so for them the new book won't change anything. And yes, the UA Summons are the ones i'm talking about.

Hael

2020-08-26, 01:36 PM

NorthernPhoenix

2020-08-26, 03:04 PM

The UA summons are obviously much, much weaker than this spell, and it’s not even close. Especially for the Shepherd Druid.

While the spell is definitely way overboard in power, it is highly problematic to ban or limit a signature class defining spell.

What you kinda would prefer is if the UA spells were upped in power to get somewhere close to this, but just a small step down so that some people will use it. If it’s too much of a nerf, they’ll be functionally useless.

The UA spells are close enough in power to the single entity version of the Conjure X. They are weaker than the multi-monster version, but to me that's a feature, not a bug. With an adequate replacement, it's much easier to justify banning the offending spell.

MaxWilson

2020-08-26, 03:46 PM

The UA spells are close enough in power to the single entity version of the Conjure X. They are weaker than the multi-monster version, but to me that's a feature, not a bug. With an adequate replacement, it's much easier to justify banning the offending spell.

I'm not so sure about "close enough in power."

A fifth-level Conjure Elemental spell can give you an AC 15, 90 HP Air Elemental with resistance to nonmagical attacks, attacking at +8 for 28 HP of damage, with 90' of flying speed.

A fifth-level Summon Elemental Spirit can give you an AC 16, 58 HP Elemental Spirit with resistance to lightning/thunder, attacking at +9 for 29 HP of damage, with 40' of flying speed.

Offensively the new spirits are slightly better, but the mobility is clearly worse and they are less than half as durable. (58 HP vs. effectively 180 HP, and that's for one of the more fragile elementals. Also you can boost an Air Elemental's AC to 18 via Mage Armor but apparently not an elemental spirit's.) Since combat power is roughly the product of offensive power times staying power, TL;DR the new spell is less than half as powerful as the old spell.

Or let's take a look at Conjure Animals (CR 2) vs. Summon Bestial Spirit III.

A third-level Conjure Animals can give you an AC 12, 60 HP Giant Constrictor Snake with a built-in restraining attack (like a free Sentinel that also grants advantage to allies), +8 to hit for 13 damage.

A third-level Summon Bestial Spirit III can give you an AC 14, 38 HP bestial spirit with Pack Tactics and one attack at +7 to hit for 11.5 damage.

The spirit is more accurate if Pack Tactics applies, but with zero control, worse defense (only 63% as many HP and no restraining for disadvantage, which offsets the slightly-better AC), and worse damage. TL;DR the new spell is probably about 50-65% as powerful as the old spell.

That's for the single-monster version of Conjure Animals, which is widely-acknowledged to be significantly worse than the swarm tactic.

I think you can make an argument that the new spells are less broken and more appropriate than the old spells, and that the game is improved if you ban the old ones and substitute the new ones. (Although they are also rather boring, which is a separate problem.) However, I don't think you can make a strong argument that they are close enough in power to the single entity version of Conjure X to fill the same role. Banning the old ones in favor of these new ones would be a clear nerf.

Valmark

2020-08-26, 06:38 PM

NorthernPhoenix

2020-08-26, 07:10 PM

I'm not so sure about "close enough in power."

I think you can make an argument that the new spells are less broken and more appropriate than the old spells, and that the game is improved if you ban the old ones and substitute the new ones. (Although they are also rather boring, which is a separate option.) However, I don't think you can make a strong argument that they are close enough in power to the single entity version of Conjure X to fill the same role. Banning the old ones in favor of these new ones would be a clear nerf.

I wouldn't actually ban any spell that only summons one thing. The multi-unit spells are far and away the biggest problem. As for the new spells not being as strong as the old ones, i think that's OK. They're good enough, and allow for the same fantasy without being out of control.

x3n0n

2020-08-26, 07:24 PM

It's also worthy of note that a Sheperd druid gets to use more of their class features using other conjurations, since they don't get to boost hp on the new ones (the formula doesn't use hit dice, and Sheperds give +2 hp for each)

That problem is lmited to Sheperds though, anything else shouldn't have qualms.

I wondered the same, and I'm hopeful that the book version's wording will allow the Shepherd to buff these. It's not a good look when the hot new summon spell is effectively unusable to the best summoner.

Mutazoia

2020-08-26, 10:05 PM

Actually, Mearls was never the SAC voice of authority, it was Jeremy Crawford. WoTC even said so a few years back. MM's more of an idea man..

"Hey, this article says THIS."

"Well that article wasn't written by one of the creators of the game."

"Hey, one of the creators of the game says the same thing."

"Well actually that creator technically just came up with ideas while another creator wrote stuff down, so I'm still going to ignore it."

Actually, Crawford said the same thing in a different posting on the same topic soooooo...what's the excuse now?

Nhym

2020-08-26, 10:43 PM

The UA spells are close enough in power to the single entity version of the Conjure X. They are weaker than the multi-monster version, but to me that's a feature, not a bug. With an adequate replacement, it's much easier to justify banning the offending spell.

I don't think you've ever played a Shepherd Druid before... Unless they are doing it for a very specific or thematic reason, no Shepherd would ever limit themselves to only ever using the single creature summon as the class is built around buffing multiple summons (with the +2 HP per hit die being WAY more effective on multi-summons and the bear spirit totem not having a creature buff limit).

Another aspect to the original Conjure Animals that is really important to Shepherd Druids is the utility given from the spell. Some Beasts have Blindsight, some can grapple, some can prone, some can restrain and a lot are specifically tailored to certain situations with stats that balance specialty in one or two areas with mediocrity in everything. That isn't even considering Conjure Woodland Beings which offers a TON more utility than Summon Fey Spirit and Conjure Animals even without pixies. Being forced into the new summoning spells would make a Shepherd Druid no better than the basic druid after the totem is summoned and would almost kill the subclass.

Now for a comparison of the "Beast Spirit" summoned at 3rd level with some Conjured animal options:
AC=14. The CR 1/8 Giant Crab has AC 15.
HP=33-38 depending on Wis Mod. The CR 1 Giant Octopus has 52 (plus 8 hit die for a total of 68hp)
Speeds of 30ft with Flying of 60. CR 1/8 Dolphin with 60ft swim speed, CR 1 Giant Eagle with 80ft fly speed, CR 1/4 Panther with 40ft climb speed and 50ft normal speed.
Its 1d8+7 pierce averages out to 12 pierce while the CR 1/4 Cow has an average of 14 pierce with a charge.
The ONLY exceptional thing that the Beast Spirit brings that nothing below a CR 2 can match is a +7 to hit... then again everything I listed you can summon at least MULTIPLES of.

I hear you might say "well the Beast Spirit is better than those creatures in other ways?" And yeah, that's the point! It swaps excellence in specifics with meh in everything. If you are trying to fly your party away from an explody thing, you aren't worrying about your Giant Eagles AC, you care that they have 80ft Fly speed. If you are fighting invisibility with no other options, you aren't worrying about your constrictor snakes HP, you care that it has Blindsight and a grapple. Or if you have to traverse an underwater cavern without water breathing, you'll feel a lot safer grabbing onto a dolphin than the beast spirit.

The beauty of Conjure Animals is its choice, and the crappy summoning spells they came up with would basically take that away. (Also to those of you who complain summons slow down the game too much, so does the idiot not paying attention texting on his phone. If the Shepherd player is properly prepared, turn time should never be a problem)

**Note: Personal feelings, yes 8 creatures is probably too many, but one is too few. Personally, I'd say 2-6 depending on the situation and space available is a good balance. (Coming from a player with a TON of experience with the Shepherd Druid)