Conjure X spells?

[danielxcutter]

I don’t know much 5e, but apparently whatever you get with this spell line is subject to DM fiat? Some of the options are way too OP or slow combat down too much from what I hear, so that’s not always a bad thing, but it still seems way too easy for a DM to arbitrarily screw you over.

What would you do if a DM tries to pull that? Actually, what do you guys think about these spells in general? Personally, I’ve never been terribly interested in playing a “summoner” type, but this doesn’t exactly help. What about other summoning spells, do they have similar caveats?

[Amnestic]

What would you do if a DM tries to pull that?

I would bring it up with my DM before I ever cast the spell, probably early on, to find out how they want to adjudicate it. Perhaps even in session 0 if it's important to my build (eg. shepherd druid).



Actually, what do you guys think about these spells in general?

Poorly written and poorly balanced.

[JackPhoenix]

Depends on the spell. Some do give you the choice, others don't. Conjure Animals, Woodland Beings and Minor Elementals only let you pick a number and CR, others don't.

And if you don't trust your GM to not 'screw you over', why are you playing with him in the first place? The GM can *always* screw you if he wants.

[danielxcutter]

Depends on the spell. Some do give you the choice, others don't. Conjure Animals, Woodland Beings and Minor Elementals only let you pick a number and CR, others don't.

And if you don't trust your GM to not 'screw you over', why are you playing with him in the first place? The GM can *always* screw you if he wants.

What should I say if they are, then? Never had a DM like that, but I have heard stories...

[JackPhoenix]

What should I say if they are, then? Never had a DM like that, but I have heard stories...

If you have a horrible GM and don't enjoy the game, don't play with him. There's a saying: No game is better than bad game.

[Aett_Thorn]

I would bring it up with my DM before I ever cast the spell, probably early on, to find out how they want to adjudicate it. Perhaps even in session 0 if it's important to my build (eg. shepherd druid).


This is probably the best advice that we can give you. Discuss these spells with your DM early and often. When bringing it up at first, come with options, like:

1) Player chooses the CR and number of creatures, DM chooses exactly which creatures show up (RAW). Probably the slowest option, because the DM has to choose which creatures show up, player has to look for stats, and then has to run maybe unfamiliar creatures.

2) Player and DM agree to a certain list of creatures that are available to use ahead of time. If player chooses CR 1/2, then here are two or three options to choose from. Player can maintain the list, and become familiar with their options over time, speeding things up.

3) Player has free reign. Probably the most unbalanced option, as they can choose the right creatures for the fight, and cause a lot of DM frustration. However, if the player is judicious, this is likely fine and will likely de facto end up like option 2.

4) DM can set limits on these spells ahead of time to better speed things up. For instance, they could limit these spells further so that they only ever summon one or two creatures max. Avoids combat clutter, but limits spell flexibility.

[MoiMagnus]

Not all the old summoning spells are DM dependents, but the new summoning spells (from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything) are much better IMO, and I'd be ok with a DM banning most of the old spells in exchange of allowing the new ones.

If you want to search on the internet of their effect, they are called
Summon Fey
Summon Shadowspawn
Summon Undead
Summon Aberration
Summon Construct
Summon Elemental
Summon Celestial
Summon Fiend

As for the old spells that depends on the DM, note that there is no restriction to only creatures from the Monster Manual, and the DM is also free to come up with homebrew creatures (possibly ones created on-the-fly).
IMO you should not be expecting any specific ability from the conjured creatures, but you should expect to have something worth your spell slot and your action, and reasonably adequate to the situation. A DM screwing you by conjuring a single fey CR 1/4 when you chose "a fey of CR 2 or less" would be quite a jerk.

[JackPhoenix]

This is probably the best advice that we can give you. Discuss these spells with your DM early and often. When bringing it up at first, come with options, like:

1) Player chooses the CR and number of creatures, DM chooses exactly which creatures show up (RAW). Probably the slowest option, because the DM has to choose which creatures show up, player has to look for stats, and then has to run maybe unfamiliar creatures.

Except the last part. Why would the player have to look for stats? The spell is rather clear that the DM has the stats.

[danielxcutter]

So it's not going to be total crap unless your DM is a total asswipe, and if they are then I have bigger problems then?

That sounds about fair. Isn't summoning as hell as it was in previous editions when it comes to round length, though?

[MoiMagnus]

So it's not going to be total crap unless your DM is a total asswipe, and if they are then I have bigger problems then?

It can also be an headache for your DM if he is the one responsible to chose the monsters, and abusable if the DM trust you to chose yourself the creatures but you abuse the trust.

Longer turns is noticeable if you're the kind of group to adventure with "the party vs a small number of monsters". If you already tend to have sidekicks or allied NPCs of some sort, civilians, and others, that should not be a problem.

[Amnestic]

Isn't summoning as hell as it was in previous editions when it comes to round length, though?

Yes, especially if you're summoning 4 or 8 creatures. There are ways to mitigate this (eg. pre-planning/pre-rolling turns, macros if you're playing digitally, splitting control of creatures between other players) but at the end of the day you're still adding 4-8 more characters - simple though they might be - to the battlefield. That's gonna slow stuff down at least somewhat, no two ways about it.

[danielxcutter]

Doesn't sound that much different than 3.x summoning in that regard, then. Although I'm pretty sure spamming summons was never optimal back then anyways. Is it optimal(in terms of pure power) in 5e, or is just people being jerkwads?

[JackPhoenix]

Unlike 3e, low-CR creatures are still relevant in sufficient numbers even at high levels in 5e. In 5e, abusing action economy by outnumbering the enemy is the road to victory.

[MaxWilson]

What should I say if they are, then? Never had a DM like that, but I have heard stories...

Don't worry about it. DMs just want to avoid hassle. There's really no bad choice at CR 1/4 or above; if the DM abuses the spell text to give you 8 CR 0 seahorses which immediately die instead of actual CR 1/4 creatures you'll know that they're abusing their rights as a DM in the same way you'll know if three Death Knights walk in the door and start killing you for no reason. In practice that never happens because Don't Play With Jerk DMs.

If it ever does happen, say, "Goodbye. I have better things to do" and leave.


So it's not going to be total - - - unless your DM is a total - - - , and if they are then I have bigger problems then?

That sounds about fair.

Correct. Even eight CR 1/4 Riding Horses is pretty good value for a 3rd level spell, especially in a ranged party which can use them as meatshields for the archers and mages (as opposed to a melee-heavy party which trips over them--the solution is for the melee dudes to mount up and use them as actual horses to increase their mobility).

There are no bad options.

[danielxcutter]

Unlike 3e, low-CR creatures are still relevant in sufficient numbers even at high levels in 5e. In 5e, abusing action economy by outnumbering the enemy is the road to victory.

Isn't that because most of the numbers are seriously watered down? Not saying you can't have fun, but I did take a look at the system and found it a bit lackluster after cutting my teeth on 3.5e. And I know someone who shares that opinion.


Don't worry about it. DMs just want to avoid hassle. There's really no bad choice at CR 1/4 or above; if the DM abuses the spell text to give you 8 CR 0 seahorses which immediately die instead of actual CR 1/4 creatures you'll know that they're abusing their rights as a DM in the same way you'll know if three Death Knights walk in the door and start killing you for no reason. In practice that never happens because Don't Play With Jerk DMs.

If it ever does happen, say, "Goodbye. I have better things to do" and leave.

Sounds about legit, yeah.

Death Knights are scary powerful in this edition, right?

[mistajames]

These spells are horribly designed. Obviously, the devs didn't think about the implications of this in advance.

If I'm playing on Roll20 and I choose my summon, I can create my whole summon in advance (token, abilities, macros, etc.) and use that. If playing on tabletop, I can do a cue card and pick out a model for the summon. Doesn't really slow down the game at all.

If my DM chooses the summoned creature, they need to pick a monster, look up the stat block, create a NPC statblock (and give me permissions if playing online) and use a placeholder model/token. When I've proposed it, the DM has always allowed me to use a random table as an alternative to them picking the summon (they have enough to think about TBH). Regardless, the game slows down to a crawl. It's stupid.

If using the Tasha's or Xanathar's summons, or something like Animate Dead, I have everything done ahead of time. I just move a few tokens, roll a bunch of dice, and that's my turn - takes about as long as it would otherwise.

[Nhym]

If you are interested, I wrote a guide on the Shepherd which obviously heavily focuses on summons which I cover in-depth through most of the guide.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXgYqPxkEHaCisQ0tteFF-KtsmfJxkOQojeWwHf22n4/edit?usp=sharing

[MaxWilson]

Sounds about legit, yeah.

Death Knights are scary powerful in this edition, right?

For a low level party, yes. Three Death Knights could take on a party of four level 12 PCs and expect to cause a TPK. Against a level 20 party they'd probably lose but it depends--they might beat four level 20 barbarians or fighters without feats or rogues or wizards played as blasters. They are CR 17 on paper.

I chose Death Knights as my example because they have a cool name and a reputation to match. Yeah, they're pretty strong.

[danielxcutter]

These spells are horribly designed. Obviously, the devs didn't think about the implications of this in advance.

If I'm playing on Roll20 and I choose my summon, I can create my whole summon in advance (token, abilities, macros, etc.) and use that. If playing on tabletop, I can do a cue card and pick out a model for the summon. Doesn't really slow down the game at all.

If my DM chooses the summoned creature, they need to pick a monster, look up the stat block, create a NPC statblock (and give me permissions if playing online) and use a placeholder model/token. When I've proposed it, the DM has always allowed me to use a random table as an alternative to them picking the summon (they have enough to think about TBH). Regardless, the game slows down to a crawl. It's stupid.

If using the Tasha's or Xanathar's summons, or something like Animate Dead, I have everything done ahead of time. I just move a few tokens, roll a bunch of dice, and that's my turn - takes about as long as it would otherwise.

I'm guessing this is why a lot of DMs just let the summoner choose instead, then?


If you are interested, I wrote a guide on the Shepherd which obviously heavily focuses on summons which I cover in-depth through most of the guide.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXgYqPxkEHaCisQ0tteFF-KtsmfJxkOQojeWwHf22n4/edit?usp=sharing

I'm... not particularly looking for a 5e game currently(partly because I don't actually have any of the books and I haven't spent enough time looking up stuff to make up for that) and Druid was never what I typically thought of when thinking of which class I would choose, but... Interesting.

Also is that name a reference to Tales of Wyre? A druid who goes by "Nhym" is too much of a coincidence for me.

[MaxWilson]

I'm guessing this is why a lot of DMs just let the summoner choose instead, then?


Yeah, it's just less hassle. If you ask for eight wolves and we're underground I might give you eight dire badgers instead, because it makes more sense, but likely as not I'd give them the same stats as wolves anyway to keep things simple, except with movement 30' (burrow 20') instead of movement 40'. If you ask for Giant Owls in a desert I might give you Giant Buzzards. But most of the time I'll just give you exactly what you were prepared for and asking for because it's less hassle and I have no reason not to.

[danielxcutter]

Fair enough! Druid is on the weaker side of casters in 5e anyways I hear.

Which is kind of ironic considering 3.5e CoDzillas and I hear Clerics are still pretty strong in 5e, though nowhere near their old glory days.

[Hael]

Fair enough! Druid is on the weaker side of casters in 5e anyways I hear.

Which is kind of ironic considering 3.5e CoDzillas and I hear Clerics are still pretty strong in 5e, though nowhere near their old glory days.

I’m not sure who told you that about druids, but it’s simply not true. They’re really strong throughout the game, and while they’re not wizards, they’re still amongst the best overall classes in the game.

[MaxWilson]

Fair enough! Druid is on the weaker side of casters in 5e anyways I hear.

Which is kind of ironic considering 3.5e CoDzillas and I hear Clerics are still pretty strong in 5e, though nowhere near their old glory days.

Whoever told you that is wrong IMO. Druids are powerful and versatile, and unlike wizards they have access to their whole spell list (a given wizard usually only has 20% or less of the wizard list in their spellbook). The only thing druids miss out on is access to a couple of overpowered spells (Simulacrum and Wish) which most people never even get access to anyway because the campaign falls apart before then. And druids still have powerful high-level spells like Shapechange and Antipathy available to them anyway, even if they can't Wish themselves an army of demons during downtime like a wizard/bard/sorc/Genielock potentially could.

In Tiers 1-3 I'd say druids are one of the top two spellcasting classes (wizards as the other, although specific subclasses of bard and sorc are also excellent). In Tier 4 when 9th level spells come online they're merely above-average.

[danielxcutter]

Oh, cool. Maybe I misunderstood, I dunno. Guess then none of the classes are absolute crap in 5e? I don't hear much good about the Ranger but archery builds apparently do okay?

Isn't Bard one of the strongest classes in this edition, though? I've heard that from a lot of sources.

[MoiMagnus]

Oh, cool. Maybe I misunderstood, I dunno. Guess then none of the classes are absolute crap in 5e? I don't hear much good about the Ranger but archery builds apparently do okay?

Isn't Bard one of the strongest classes in this edition, though? I've heard that from a lot of sources.

Depending on the playstyle of the group, the "strongest classes" are either full-spellcasters, more precisely Wizard/Bard (with Druid/Cleric and the new subclasses of Sorcerer barely behind), or the Paladin which is in one of its best implementation ever in D&D.

Fighter and Rogue are good, and while I don't personally appreciate it, Barbarian is supposed to be good too. Warlock has a mix or near-OP features and real garbage (on top of over-relying on short rests which make it very table-dependent).

Monk is not great but not terrible either, and Ranger is definitely the one with the less love, especially if you restrict yourself to the PHB.

[MaxWilson]

Oh, cool. Maybe I misunderstood, I dunno. Guess then none of the classes are absolute crap in 5e? I don't hear much good about the Ranger but archery builds apparently do okay?

Isn't Bard one of the strongest classes in this edition, though? I've heard that from a lot of sources.

Ranger has a bad reputation but my experience (based on archery Hunters and a little bit of Beastmaster archer) is that in play it's fine at least up to level 9ish. Biggest potential issue is the need to find magic weapons, since unlike Eldritch Knights they can't cast Magic Weapon spell to generate their own. If your DM is liberal with magic items or stingy with weapon-resistant monsters it will be fine. Even if not it's not like you're helpless, just annoyed with those monsters.

Bards strongest? I don't really agree with that, but they're certainly good at what they do. They make a good replacement for clerics in a four-man party. Wizard, Sharpshooter Fighter, Lore Bardlock, and Shadow Monk or Moon Druid (depending on stat rolls, high stats = monk with Alert, low stats = Goblin Moon Druid w/ Skulker) is a fun and strong party.

[Lord Ruby34]

I'd say the real problem with Conjure Animals and Conjure Woodland beings is that these are probably two of the most busted spells in the game if you just pick what you want, mostly because they come online at levels five and seven, earlier than the other really busted spells. My group learned about this the hard way, the very first time we played 5e our most optimization minded player chose druid and started casting these spells. We eventually talked and he just stopped casting them because I was ratcheting encounter difficulty way up to compensate. (This was also our first campaign, so the other characters were pretty weak too, which made things worse.)

As far as class balance goes, as long as no one attempts to break the game or makes a very poor character every class is reasonable useful and balanced. There are a few exceptions (Beastmaster Ranger, Purple Dragon Knight Fighter, Four Elements Monk) but even the weaker characters will still be able to contribute meaningfully. Spellcasters are still more versatile than martial characters, but martial characters can usually still put out way more damage.

In my opinion the biggest game balance problems only show up later (10+), mostly because martial classes later level abilities tend to be rather lackluster.

[Eldariel]

Ranger has a bad reputation but my experience (based on archery Hunters and a little bit of Beastmaster archer) is that in play it's fine at least up to level 9ish. Biggest potential issue is the need to find magic weapons, since unlike Eldritch Knights they can't cast Magic Weapon spell to generate their own. If your DM is liberal with magic items or stingy with weapon-resistant monsters it will be fine. Even if not it's not like you're helpless, just annoyed with those monsters.

Bards strongest? I don't really agree with that, but they're certainly good at what they do. They make a good replacement for clerics in a four-man party. Wizard, Sharpshooter Fighter, Lore Bardlock, and Shadow Monk or Moon Druid (depending on stat rolls, high stats = monk with Alert, low stats = Goblin Moon Druid w/ Skulker) is a fun and strong party.

Ranger's spells are pretty good even higher up; it's just so obviously a diet Druid at that point that it feels kinda bad to play. Basically almost all their good spells are Druid spells, which are still good many levels later (Goodberry, Pass without Trace, Silence [the odd non-Druid spell], Conjure Animals, Plant Growth, Conjure Woodland Beings, Freedom of Movement, Guardian of Nature, Greater Restoration, etc.), but fact remains that Ranger gets them late and gets to cast far fewer of them than Druid and never breaks into the big ticket toys and is a spells known character (which with a list like Druid's is a big deficit). A Druid half the party level is still fine in a party with martials but it feels kinda lousy next to a Druid even if you can attack twice instead of once and do a lot of damage with a bow.

I do agree that Bard is probably Tier 1; at least Lore Bard, since it can fix its spell list on level 6 to the point that while it's only got one list, it at least has most of the big ticket spells for its goal available. Not necessarily the strongest but an incredibly solid pick (Cutting Words in particular is an irreplicable ability that makes a few of the great anti-Legendary Resistance control spells in the game even better).

[Milmoor]

I'm still rather new to 5E, but not to being a DM. I've got plenty of things to do without adding a bunch of extra monsters on the fly to my workload. If you want to use magic, in my game, you have to know the rules and handle the fallout. I'll help of course, ask me questions, but you break it, you pay it. I do tell them so beforehand of course.

For summoning monsters, I've asked my players who could theoretically summon them since I heard they had issues. Talk with me beforehand, and we'll work it out. No issues so far, but should they want to use the original spells, they'll probably will have to work from a pre approved summoning table or with a set of guidelines.

[Tanarii]

The biggest problem with Conjure Animals, specifically, is it doesn't scale properly. The total power of low CR creatures you get isn't equivalent of the total power of higher CR creatures you get, it's higher. And the issue just becomes worse as you upcast the spell.

That's because the power of CR scales slowly compared to the advantage of action economy from more creatures. If the total power was balanced better, there wouldn't be an incentive to use more lower CR creatures most of the time. Available space, zone control requirements, and opposition AoE would be the primary determining factors. Those factors still exist but the bias towards more lower CR creatures is built in to the spell.

The second biggest problem is how easy it is for non-sorcerer casters to get access to Con save proficiency via Multiclassing or feat, making it relative easier to maintain concentration.