Animate Objects - Opportunity Attack Question

[Sirion8288]

Hey all,

I am looking for clarification... Let's say I cast animate objects on 10 tiny objects. Each one becomes a "creature." Let's say that I command them to "kill that person." The 10 objects/creatures start attacking that target. That target then leaves the location. Yes, an opportunity attack occurs, Crawford even states this (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/08/are-summonedanimated-creatures-able-to-make-opportunity-attacks/).

Here is my question, do ALL 10 objects/creatures get an opportunity attack? Also, does the caster (who is maintaining concentration) have to use his/her own reaction in the process, or is it just the object/creature's reaction? Then the caster still has his/her own reaction for whatever?

Looking for any insight.

Thanks

[Amnestic]

Nothing in the spell suggests they don't get reactions, so yes, all 10 would get an opportunity attack at no action cost to the spellcaster.

It's a pretty beefy spell.

[DwarfDM]

Basically, ask your DM.

But in my opinion. I would allow one attack of opportunity using your reaction (because you control them). Or else the 10 tiny objects surrounding your enemy would be extremely powerful. See it as a form of multiattack. And multiattack only works with the attack action.

[Sirion8288]

Basically, ask your DM.

But in my opinion. I would allow one attack of opportunity using your reaction (because you control them). Or else the 10 tiny objects surrounding your enemy would be extremely powerful. See it as a form of multiattack. And multiattack only works with the attack action.

If that is the case though, how am I able to make 10 attacks via my bonus action, with each "creature." How is that not a multi-attack???

[Sirion8288]

Nothing in the spell suggests they don't get reactions, so yes, all 10 would get an opportunity attack at no action cost to the spellcaster.

It's a pretty beefy spell.

That's my understanding. It's a lv 5 spell, meant to be beefy.

[DwarfDM]

If that is the case though, how am I able to make 10 attacks via my bonus action, with each "creature." How is that not a multi-attack???

That's just my insight.

But seriously, casters are already extremely powerfull. And I fully agree with you that 10 attacks of opportunity are RAW. As a DM I just would not allow it. Because it would make an already strong spell the best option 99% of the time.

If an enemy would do this to my players. They would freak out. Because in bird person culture it is considered a …. well you know… So I would not allow them to do the same. Call it a balancing thing.

[Sirion8288]

That's just my insight.

But seriously, casters are already extremely powerful. And I fully agree with you that 10 attacks of opportunity are RAW. As a DM I just would not allow it. Because it would make an already strong the best option 99% of the time.

If an enemy would do this to my players. They would freak out. Because in bird person culture it is considered a …. well you know… So I would not allow them to do the same. Call it a balancing thing.

It is only a d4+4....but ya, that's 10 potential attacks. While it might not do much damage individually, it adds up. More importantly, each attack can mean a concentration check. Animate Objects is an OP spell regardless.

[PhantomSoul]

It is only a d4+4....but ya, that's 10 potential attacks. While it might not do much damage individually, it adds up. More importantly, each attack can mean a concentration check. Animate Objects is an OP spell regardless.

It's an insane spell -- to the point that I (as the spellcaster) suggested to the DM that I not be able to have them make opportunity attacks (unless I'd actually commanded them to take the Ready action, in which case it's not an opportunity attack), with the fluff that they're controlled objects rather than really being sentient creatures (much less melee-trained creatures to have such ingrained tactics!) and controlling them takes a bonus action, not a reaction. (Plus the book doesn't say that everyone/every_creature can make opportunity attacks, but that you-the-player can make opportunity attacks, at least in the main section on opportunity attacks, which I used to contextualise the "self-nerf" ruling.)

And opportunity attacks coupled with something like a fear effect or a dissonant whispers? Yikes!

[Sirion8288]

It's an insane spell -- to the point that I (as the spellcaster) suggested to the DM that I not be able to have them make opportunity attacks (unless I'd actually commanded them to take the Ready action, in which case it's not an opportunity attack), with the fluff that they're controlled objects rather than really being sentient creatures (much less melee-trained creatures to have such ingrained tactics!) and controlling them takes a bonus action, not a reaction. (Plus the book doesn't say that everyone/every_creature can make opportunity attacks, but that you-the-player can make opportunity attacks, at least in the main section on opportunity attacks, which I used to contextualise the "self-nerf" ruling.)

And opportunity attacks coupled with something like a fear effect or a dissonant whispers? Yikes!

Ya. I do a bonus action and command them to attack (assuming the spell was already going), then use dissonant whispers as an action, forcing 10 opportunity attacks. Thats 20 d4+4 attacks. Wow. OP

[J.C.]

Ya. I do a bonus action and command them to attack (assuming the spell was already going), then use dissonant whispers as an action, forcing 10 opportunity attacks. Thats 20 d4+4 attacks. Wow. OP

And you can further buff them up with heavy obscurement since they have blindsight. They get advantage on their attacks and disadvantage at being hit.

[PhantomSoul]

And you can further buff them up with heavy obscurement since they have blindsight. They get advantage on their attacks and disadvantage at being hit.

And they occupy their space (being creatures), so it's a mobile wall! (admittedly the usefulness depends highly on terrain and on the objects chosen)

[Sirion8288]

And you can further buff them up with heavy obscurement since they have blindsight. They get advantage on their attacks and disadvantage at being hit.

Oh damn, someone cast darkness in the area. Wow, they all have advantage. 20 attacks with advantage. Wow....ya, as a DM I would say no. Way too OP.

[J.C.]

Oh damn, someone cast darkness in the area. Wow, they all have advantage. 20 attacks with advantage. Wow....ya, as a DM I would say no. Way too OP.

I do not agree with nerfing player capability for playing smart and tactically. Instead, learn how as a DM to keep the combats challenging. It sends the wrong message when you punish smart play. As a DM you should instead reward smart play.

[Amnestic]

As with most minionmancy in 5e, the "easiest" solution is to not let the caster summon 8 or 10 of a creature. Limit it to a maximum of 2-4 creatures (so, a mix of medium+large, one huge+2 tiny, etc.) and it's a lot more reasonable. Still powerful, of course, but less dominating.

It does hinder the aesthetic theming of enchanting a table worth of silverware a b it, but eh, such is life.

[J.C.]

As with most minionmancy in 5e, the "easiest" solution is to not let the caster summon 8 or 10 of a creature. Limit it to a maximum of 2-4 creatures (so, a mix of medium+large, one huge+2 tiny, etc.) and it's a lot more reasonable. Still powerful, of course, but less dominating.

It does hinder the aesthetic theming of enchanting a table worth of silverware a b it, but eh, such is life.

You are still putting yourself in the awkward position of punishing smart play on behalf of your players. Instead of punishing your players, why not adjust to the challenge?

Players discovering synergies and hidden potentials in spells is a good thing. Players cooperating and coordinating to become tactically more powerful is a good thing.

[Sirion8288]

You are still putting yourself in the awkward position of punishing smart play on behalf of your players. Instead of punishing your players, why not adjust to the challenge?

Players discovering synergies and hidden potentials in spells is a good thing. Players cooperating and coordinating to become tactically more powerful is a good thing.

I also like the idea, from a DM perspective, if you do this, I can also do this. Be warned :P

[MarkVIIIMarc]

This takes a level 5 spell slot, concentration and failing a Dissonant Whispers save to get the opportunity attacks.

Before some DM goes hating on this consider the costs to the player. A good non concentration level 3 AOE can do 100 points of damage albiet to a couple of enemies.

Its also a lot neater tactically.

[Lord Vukodlak]

If that is the case though, how am I able to make 10 attacks via my bonus action, with each "creature." How is that not a multi-attack???

You don’t, you command them to carry out a task with a bonus action and they continue until the task is done. It’s not a bonus action every turn like say spiritual weapon.

[Tanarii]

Either nix the tiny objects option, or reduce their power. It's a known OP aspect if the spell.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Either nix the tiny objects option, or reduce their power. It's a known OP aspect if the spell.

Maybe.

Whats the damage per round of the spell?

How about a fireball against 4 or 5 enemies?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Note: the tiny option doesn't block the path against medium or larger creatures. You can move through the space is any creature two sizes larger or smaller as difficult terrain.

[greenstone]

First, its a 5th level spell. It's supposed to be mean. For that 5th level slot, a caster could have sent 8 magic missiles at the enemy caster (for an almost guaranteed failure of concentration) or a honking great fireball at a lot of enemies all at once.

Second, why is the enemy caster doing that close to the PC? If I have a spellcaster concentrating on something nasty, they are going to be a long way from anything the PCs can do to disrupt spellcasting. If nothing else, they will be 61 ft away, to avoid counterspell. :-)

Finally, anything the PCs can do, the foes can do.

I think animate objects (or any conjuration of tiny things) plus dissonant whispers is a great tactic. Consider it stolen for use against my PCs heh heh heh.

[PhantomSoul]

I think animate objects (or any conjuration of tiny things) plus dissonant whispers is a great tactic. Consider it stolen for use against my PCs heh heh heh.

And for kicks, if you have the combo on caster(s) with Subtle Spell, you could do that with no perceptible components... so right in a castle in front of the king and queen and their magical advisor! And if they die, well, it's perfectly reasonable to suspect the victim was running away from the ensorcelled kitchenware, not from the actual source of the unknown dissonant whispers on the other side of that kitchenware.

[sithlordnergal]

Basically, ask your DM.

But in my opinion. I would allow one attack of opportunity using your reaction (because you control them). Or else the 10 tiny objects surrounding your enemy would be extremely powerful. See it as a form of multiattack. And multiattack only works with the attack action.

Remember, they're individual creatures. Would you allow two zombies raised by a Necromancer to make individual attacks of opportunity? If yes, then the 10 tiny creatures would get the same thing. I will agree, it is extremely powerful...but then again Minionmancy always is. And its actually not that strong, you only get 10 of them. A 5th level Conjure Animals will net you 16 cr 1/4 creatures.

[sithlordnergal]

Either nix the tiny objects option, or reduce their power. It's a known OP aspect if the spell.

I mean, I wouldn't nix it. Keep in mind, those tiny creatures do non-magical damage, so even if they all hit for 10d4+40, that's gonna be cut in half. They also have 20hp, so a single fireball will kill them unless you roll really low on the damage. Not to mention common enemies will absolutely wreck them, especially Elementals. If you're fighting someone with a Fire Elemental, those tiny objects are dead.

[Tanarii]

I mean, I wouldn't nix it. Keep in mind, those tiny creatures do non-magical damage, so even if they all hit for 10d4+40, that's gonna be cut in half. They also have 20hp, so a single fireball will kill them unless you roll really low on the damage. Not to mention common enemies will absolutely wreck them, especially Elementals. If you're fighting someone with a Fire Elemental, those tiny objects are dead.Besides the point of the Tiny Objects being a significant power outlier within the spells own balance point.

I mean, "don't Zerg something with a Aura" is still a good point tho. :smallamused:

[Amnestic]

You are still putting yourself in the awkward position of punishing smart play on behalf of your players. Instead of punishing your players, why not adjust to the challenge?

Players discovering synergies and hidden potentials in spells is a good thing. Players cooperating and coordinating to become tactically more powerful is a good thing.

Nothing about one player casting one spell exactly as its written is "discovering synergies" or "coordinating". There's no special interaction that players are setting up in this example. It's just "cast spell, swarm".

And yes, you can adjust to the 'challenge', you can 'counter' it, as a DM you can do anything you want. The issue isn't that it's good, it's that it potentially overshadows the rest of the party because, again, there's no interactions at play here. It's just one character casting one spell. So yeah, I'll nerf it - for that, and for some other reasons (maybe rolling 10-20 attacks per round isn't good for turn speed idk).

There's nothing awkward about seeing an outlier spell and going "that's too far of an outlier" and applying a balance tweak so it fits what you want at your table. I don't feel awkward about that in the slightest, and I don't know why anyone else would either.

[greenstone]

Additionally, foes with ranged weapons will be attacking the objects at advantage if outside 30ft, as the objects are blind.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Per spell description I believe the objects are non magical and this do non magical piercing or bludgoning attacks? Better at least have silver objects to animate.

Its useful. Its fun to animate a large object like a boat and have it beat its former rider or just leave.

Its just not OP IMO. Heck, if you don't have the right combo of PC's it takes two turns to trigger the Dissonant Whispers opportunity attacks.

[Keravath]

To the OP:

There would be 10 opportunity attacks, one for each creature. It would cost the creature's reaction and has nothing to do with the caster. The caster spends a bonus action to issue initial instructions and another bonus action if they want to make any changes but it only takes a single bonus action to instruct the creatures to attack something else.

To all the DMs who nerf it:

I can only ask why. It is a 5th level spell that summons up a bunch of tiny creatures with 20 hit points each. They don't even count as magical in terms of damage type (though that would be a DM call since they are animated non-magical objects). Yes there are some situations where it will be particularly powerful but look at all the other 5th level spells - Wall of Force, Synaptic Static, Telekinesis etc - and then the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th level spells that follow. Higher level spells are fun, cool and powerful for a reason.

I've played a character who cast Animate Objects - against some creatures resistant to non-magical damage with a high AC (Draco-lich, undead dragon and friends) - it didn't do much - it might have been 10 attacks but the damage was minimal.

I've watched other characters use it with mixed success. In an ideal situation it can work well but honestly not most of the time in my experience.

Do the folks who think it needs nerfing just not play much in tier 3 or 4? Do you nerf every other high level spell? I'm mainly asking because I just don't see and haven't experienced any issue with this spell in use whatsoever.

On paper you get a rare situation like the one described that triggers 10 op attacks - but if it is such an issue, one fireballl is likely sufficient to wipe out most of them. In addition, there are no special rules for these objects as far as I can tell. They are considered constructs with a con of 10, int and wis of 3 and charisma of 1. They have no listed damage immunities, no condition immunities, no resistance. All of which makes them susceptible to most spells and all kinds of damage - the bottom line is that Animated objects don't last long at level 9.

Perhaps other DMs have different experiences in practice from me ... but from my experience playing the game with this spell and watching it used by others there is no reason whatsoever to nerf it but obviously opinions may vary and other opinions are probably based on those players own actual experience with the spell in play. How are you folks playing it differently to come up with such a different opinion?

[Keravath]

Nothing about one player casting one spell exactly as its written is "discovering synergies" or "coordinating". There's no special interaction that players are setting up in this example. It's just "cast spell, swarm".

And yes, you can adjust to the 'challenge', you can 'counter' it, as a DM you can do anything you want. The issue isn't that it's good, it's that it potentially overshadows the rest of the party because, again, there's no interactions at play here. It's just one character casting one spell. So yeah, I'll nerf it - for that, and for some other reasons (maybe rolling 10-20 attacks per round isn't good for turn speed idk).

There's nothing awkward about seeing an outlier spell and going "that's too far of an outlier" and applying a balance tweak so it fits what you want at your table. I don't feel awkward about that in the slightest, and I don't know why anyone else would either.

Changing things up is the job of the DM for their game. They can use house rules as they like as long as the DM lets the players know in advance so that they can stay away from nerfed spells.

However, there are lots of folks out there who don't agree that Animate Objects is any form of outlier or overpowered in any way whatsoever and those DMs will simply run their games using RAW or change things however they like. (Personally, I have no issues with Animate Objects as long as the player knows how to be efficient with making multiple attack and damage rolls simultaneously - I could see myself house ruling it [or rolling the dice on behalf of the player] if they were particularly slow at resolving their turn).