A possible RAW & SA-compliant way to handle Conjure Woodland Beings

[DrFunkenstein]

Conjure Woodland Beings, the 4th Level Druid spell, has ruined many an encounter thanks to the apparent option of summoning 8 Pixies. Pixies can cast Polymorph and Confusion, both 4th Level Spells, which basically means a Level 7 Druid is getting 16 4th-level spells for the price of one. I finally pulled this stunt last night as a player, and while it was super fun, the DM in me never wants to see this happen again.

On Sage Advice, Crawford has stated the player can choose what Challenge Rating and number of creatures they summon, but not the specific type. For example, I could choose to summon 8 CR1/4th Fey creatures, but whether they're Pixies or Sprites or Blink Dogs is out of my hands.

The DM and I had a pow-wow, and agreed next time I cast the spell and choose the 8 CR1/4th option, I will roll a d6 for each of the 8 creatures summoned. There will be a 1/3 chance for each to be a Pixie, or a Sprite, or a Blink Dog. This means I will probably wind up with 2 or 3 Pixies to get those sweet sweet spells, and then a grab bag of Sprites and Blink Dogs which sound fun if not particularly powerful. We haven't done it yet, but it sounds reasonably balanced to us.

For other summoning spells, I think Crawford's policy that players don't choose what they summon (unless specifically stated) is a crappy mechanic. For example, in my own campaign, the Ranger used Conjure Animals to summon Giant Spiders for a spelunking mission through the Underdark. It was flavorful, fun, and effective without being overpowered. Randomly summoned swarms of quippers would have ruined it, and I'm not comfortable with the DM arbitrarily choosing what a player gets as a rule. It can put the DM in an awkward position, and gives wangrod DMs one more way to screw their players. I let PCs pick what they summon (like with Conjure Elemental), unless it clearly imbalances the game (as Pixie swarms do).

[Segev]

If the spell really requires the DM to be keeping a handle on what gets summoned, the best approach is probably to negotiate at each casting for what is available. If there is a particular entry that is just too overpowered, an understanding that it is gone from the list, or maybe counts as a higher CR, is appropriate.

[MaxWilson]

DM should just change the CR on Pixies. I make them CR 2 (450 XP), on the basis that eight orcs is NOT the same difficulty for players as six orcs and four pixies. Adding 36 1st-4th level spells including Confusion, Dispel Magic, Entangle, and Sleep to the combat increases its difficulty far more than two more d12+3 axe attacks.

The DMG encourages you to tweak CR based on playtesting. Raising Pixie CR should have been done before the MM was published, but better late than never.

I do adhere also to the "DM picks the summons" philosophy, in theory... but in practice I just ask the caster what they're aiming for and leave it at that unless there's a specific reason it makes sense not to. (E.g. try to summon giant owls in a spooky enough place and you may get mutated giant bats that fill a similar ecological niche instead.)

[JackPhoenix]

DM should just change the CR on Pixies. I make them CR 2 (450 XP), on the basis that eight orcs is NOT the same difficulty for players as six orcs and four pixies. Adding 36 1st-4th level spells including Confusion, Dispel Magic, Entangle, and Sleep to the combat increases its difficulty far more than two more d12+3 axe attacks.

On the other hand, encountering 8 orcs makes sense. Encountering 4 pixies hanging around 6 orcs and aiding them in combat doesn't.

[MaxWilson]

On the other hand, encountering 8 orcs makes sense. Encountering 4 pixies hanging around 6 orcs and aiding them in combat doesn't.

In what way does that excuse a faulty CR calculation? You do realize the exact same problem occurs in every similar scenario, e.g. substituting evil pixies in for Darklings?

Objection overruled.

[JackPhoenix]

In what way does that excuse a faulty CR calculation? You do realize the exact same problem occurs in every similar scenario, e.g. substituting evil pixies in for Darklings?

Objection overruled.

It's not a faulty CR calculation. CR calculations account for a single creature, not for any possible combinations with other creatures. And on its own, a pixie lacks both survivability and damage, the only things CR cares about.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It's not a faulty CR calculation. CR calculations account for a single creature, not for any possible combinations with other creatures. And on its own, a pixie lacks both survivability and damage, the only things CR cares about.

Isn't that the exact reason that the CR calculation has failed so substantially here?

They don't actually lack either of those things in practice, it's a surface analysis that makes them appear to be frail and harmless.

Also I don't agree with the premise that CR should be looked at in a vacuum of single creatures. Encounters calculate using CR regardless of creature type, meaning any CR 2 creature should theoretically fit in place for another CR 2 creature. In most cases, this works well enough to consider it within a margin of error, not so in the case of pixies

[PhantomSoul]

Adding 36 1st-4th level spells including Confusion, Dispel Magic, Entangle, and Sleep to the combat increases its difficulty far more than two more d12+3 axe attacks.

Another option to deal with this madness is to just treat summon spellcasting differently, either:
(a) It's like Polymorph, Wild Shape and the like, where you just don't get fancy stuff. Ergo, your summon has no spellcasting.
(b) They have spells but not spell slots/uses. Instead, the spellcaster expends the spell slots for the summon's spellcasting.

Both options let you still break the action economy (and (b) still lets you multiply your concentration slots), but at least it's a bit more toned down in how much you break just with a single spell slot.


EDIT:


Isn't that the exact reason that the CR calculation has failed so substantially here?

They don't actually lack either of those things in practice, it's a surface analysis that makes them appear to be frail and harmless.

Also I don't agree with the premise that CR should be looked at in a vacuum of single creatures. Encounters calculate using CR regardless of creature type, meaning any CR 2 creature should theoretically fit in place for another CR 2 creature. In most cases, this works well enough to consider it within a margin of error, not so in the case of pixies

Agreed (with you, not the CR, evidently). Hell, the designers even give examples of cases where the CR was adjusted because the calculation didn't take into account an important consideration, and spells basically just being ignored on the pixie is nonsense (that's a failure of CR and CR calculation at that point!).

Granted, you could roll for HP and I can't say I wouldn't chuckle (even as a non-DM) when the Pixie's max HP is rolled as being 0. (In the case where it showed up in my game we just had a laugh and concluded it was an immortal or cursed pixie, but hey, a 25% instant loss rate on your summoned pixies is at least a start -- and even then pixies are strong enough that it would be the go-to!)

[Segev]

I think ruling that the creatures that show up will typically be fitting to the environment is a good start. If the player asks for something thematic to the area, the DM should probably just give it to him. If he asks for something problematic, that's when the DM starts to discuss what's available. Probably should still give the player options to pick between, or ask for what the player is looking for, but not permit everything (if, as those posting in this thread seem to, you believe that "anything" that fits the spell's bill is too good).

[DrFunkenstein]

A lot of the responses here are not RAW/SA-compliant, which put them outside the intended scope of this thread. If you wanna rewrite the rules, be my guest, but I'm hoping for your thoughts on how to make the game work within the rules and Mearls'/Crawford's stated interpretations thereof.


I think ruling that the creatures that show up will typically be fitting to the environment is a good start. If the player asks for something thematic to the area, the DM should probably just give it to him. If he asks for something problematic, that's when the DM starts to discuss what's available. Probably should still give the player options to pick between, or ask for what the player is looking for, but not permit everything (if, as those posting in this thread seem to, you believe that "anything" that fits the spell's bill is too good).

I'd say that's a good answer to Conjure Animals, as animals have known habitats. Summoning a Polar Bear in the desert seems like a stretch, and I would respect a DM disallowing it. Personally, I am open to it, as the spell doesn't actually conjure animals, per se: it conjures fey spirits that take the form of animals. Fey spirits can pop up anywhere and do whatever they want, and are known to be chaotic.

However, if the question is, "What's more fitting here: Pixies, Sprites, or Blink Dogs?" then I don't think there's a clear answer. I maintain that rolling randomly with even chances for each is a better option for Conjure Woodland Beings (8 Fey of CR1/4), which is the focus of the OP.

[PhantomSoul]

A lot of the responses here are not RAW/SA-compliant, which put them outside the intended scope of this thread. If you wanna rewrite the rules, be my guest, but I'm hoping for your thoughts on how to make the game work within the rules and Mearls'/Crawford's stated interpretations thereof.


Ah, at this point I just think the two best RAW-compliant solutions are (a) banning the spell, or (b) just never giving the problematic options (except with the power of the action economy, frankly, anything giving you a mob of minions is pretty likely to be problematic).

[MaxWilson]

Another option to deal with this madness is to just treat summon spellcasting differently, either:
(a) It's like Polymorph, Wild Shape and the like, where you just don't get fancy stuff. Ergo, your summon has no spellcasting.
(b) They have spells but not spell slots/uses. Instead, the spellcaster expends the spell slots for the summon's spellcasting.

Both options let you still break the action economy (and (b) still lets you multiply your concentration slots), but at least it's a bit more toned down in how much you break just with a single spell slot.


But now you've still got overpowered Pixies every time they don't come from a summoning spell. Why not fix the root cause and just raise the CR?


It's not a faulty CR calculation. CR calculations account for a single creature, not for any possible combinations with other creatures. And on its own, a pixie lacks both survivability and damage, the only things CR cares about.

The DMG disagrees with you. Per the last step in the CR process, the three things CR cares about are offensive CR (damage), defensive CR (survivability), and DM judgment / playtesting. This is the latter.


A lot of the responses here are not RAW/SA-compliant...

It's hard to know who you're talking to here but for the record, adjusting monster CR based on DM judgment/playtesting is 100% RAW and the final step in the DMG's CR assignment procedure.

[PhantomSoul]

But now you've still got overpowered Pixies every time they don't come from a summoning spell. Why not fix the root cause and just raise the CR?


Oh, I think that should happen too! :)

[Segev]

A lot of the responses here are not RAW/SA-compliant, which put them outside the intended scope of this thread. If you wanna rewrite the rules, be my guest, but I'm hoping for your thoughts on how to make the game work within the rules and Mearls'/Crawford's stated interpretations thereof.



I'd say that's a good answer to Conjure Animals, as animals have known habitats. Summoning a Polar Bear in the desert seems like a stretch, and I would respect a DM disallowing it. Personally, I am open to it, as the spell doesn't actually conjure animals, per se: it conjures fey spirits that take the form of animals. Fey spirits can pop up anywhere and do whatever they want, and are known to be chaotic.

However, if the question is, "What's more fitting here: Pixies, Sprites, or Blink Dogs?" then I don't think there's a clear answer. I maintain that rolling randomly with even chances for each is a better option for Conjure Woodland Beings (8 Fey of CR1/4), which is the focus of the OP.

The reason I dislike rolling randomly is because it makes the spell little more than a combat spell. Combat is the only time you can be sure that anything that puts bodies on the field is useful. There's no way to make it reliably a utility spell.

Calling a bunch of flying creatures as mounts may be obvious, while calling cave spiders large enough to ride is less so, but both should be viable uses of the spell, in my opinion. It's frustrating to wind up with giant owls and a few snakes when what you really wanted was a pack of wolves to hunt something by its scent.

[Tanarii]

DM should just change the CR on Pixies. I make them CR 2 (450 XP), on the basis that eight orcs is NOT the same difficulty for players as six orcs and four pixies. Adding 36 1st-4th level spells including Confusion, Dispel Magic, Entangle, and Sleep to the combat increases its difficulty far more than two more d12+3 axe attacks.
Doesn't that just let them Polymorph themselves into tougher creatures? Now they can become a CR 2 creature instead of a CR 1/4 Wolf or whatever.

[MaxWilson]

Doesn't that just let them Polymorph themselves into tougher creatures? Now they can become a CR 2 creature instead of a CR 1/4 Wolf or whatever.

But they could already Polymorph CR 2 creatures into other CR 2 creatures, or CR 7 into Giant Apes. Now it at least gives the players 4.5x as much XP for every Pixie, and increases the DMG difficulty rating by more.

Fighting fewer Pixies at a time is better.

[Tanarii]

But they could already Polymorph CR 2 creatures into other CR 2 creatures, or CR 7 into Giant Apes. Now it at least gives the players 4.5x as much XP for every Pixie, and increases the DMG difficulty rating by more.

Fighting fewer Pixies at a time is better.
Or just fix the Polymorph spell.

[MaxWilson]

Or just fix the Polymorph spell.

I disagree that that's a root cause--even if Polymorph could only turn you into CR 0 mice, it and other spells like Confusion and Greater Invisibility are inappropriately strong for a supposedly CR 1/4 creature.

[JackPhoenix]

Isn't that the exact reason that the CR calculation has failed so substantially here?

No. CR only measures how dangerous a single creature is in a white room scenario. That's all its for, and the failure is with people who try to use it for something it's not for. It does not account for enviroment, other creatures or tactics.


They don't actually lack either of those things in practice, it's a surface analysis that makes them appear to be frail and harmless.

It's got no offensive options beyond Phantasmal Force 1/day (well, technically it can also use unarmed attacks at -2 to hit for 0 damage), and while it's got magic resistance, invisibility (assuming it doesn't use any of its spells that require concentration too) and (not especially fast) flight speed, it's got 1 hp. It can also Polymorph itself into CR 1/4 beast, but then it's not harder to deal with than actual beast of the same type (with 1 HP in true form, killing the beast will most likely also kill the pixie throgh overkill). It *is* frail and harmless.


Also I don't agree with the premise that CR should be looked at in a vacuum of single creatures. Encounters calculate using CR regardless of creature type, meaning any CR 2 creature should theoretically fit in place for another CR 2 creature. In most cases, this works well enough to consider it within a margin of error, not so in the case of pixies

Encounter building *does* account for enviroment, other creatures and tactics, not just CR. Force multipliers are a thing, but there needs to be a force to multiply, and pixies lack that. There are many other examples where the combination of monsters is more dangerous than the sum of its parts. Flesh golem/shambling mound and something that does (preferably AoE) lightning damage, beholder and something immune to non-magic weapons... compare that to a flesh golem and something with AoE fire damage or a beholder and something that relies primarily on spellcasting.


But now you've still got overpowered Pixies every time they don't come from a summoning spell. Why not fix the root cause and just raise the CR?

Because that's not the root cause. And you're fixing a badly designed spell by breaking other things.


The DMG disagrees with you. Per the last step in the CR process, the three things CR cares about are offensive CR (damage), defensive CR (survivability), and DM judgment / playtesting. This is the latter.

And you're telling me that you, as a GM, judge that a single pixie is just as dangerous to a group of 4 characters as an ogre (which isn't properly CR 2 either, so it's a fitting example)? That two pixies, two ogres and an ogre and a pixie are just as dangerous? 2 ogres are supposed to be a deadly threat to 4 CR 2 characters. Enviroment plays a role in such a situation, encountering 2 ogres 600' away on an empty plain is something different than being stuck with 2 ogres in a 20'x20' room, but 2 pixies are little more than an annoyance to level 1 party in either scenario. Pixie and an ogre as compared to two ogres... eh, I could see it go either way, depending on situation.


I disagree that that's a root cause--even if Polymorph could only turn you into CR 0 mice, it and other spells like Confusion and Greater Invisibility are inappropriately strong for a supposedly CR 1/4 creature.

I agree that the pixie shouldn't have access to level 4 spells, but having those spells is no justification for raising its CR by 3 steps. And even then, it's one specific spell, Polymorph, that is the real issue. Pixie doesn't really have Greater Invisibility (its self-only version is a bit different) and Confusion isn't especially powerful for its level.

[ProsecutorGodot]

No. CR only measures how dangerous a single creature is in a white room scenario. That's all its for, and the failure is with people who try to use it for something it's not for. It does not account for enviroment, other creatures or tactics.

You know that's not true, bounded accuracy is a core tenant of the design for 5E and one of the main reasons it exists is to keep lower CR creatures as relevant "pieces" to slot into an encounter. A DM is encouraged to pad out an encounter with lower CR enemies if they wish. If all it takes for a pixie to show up as a substantially more threatening monster than it appears to be at a glance is for it to show up with other higher CR creatures (where another 1/4 CR monster would be a speed bump at best) then you should know the CR for a Pixie is at best misleading or at worst completely wrong.

To be completely clear with the meaning of a "failed CR calculator" I'm referencing the fact that a Pixie is not equal to other 1/4 CR monsters in all applicable cases. That's how the calculator is intended to function. I'm not concerned with the fact that the Pixie's CR is "correct" in relation to the calculators parameters because the fact that the parameters can reach CR 1/4 for a creature with the ability to Polymorph another creature, potentially adding dozens or hundreds of hit points to an encounter, is flawed.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You know that's not true, bounded accuracy is a core tenant of the design for 5E and one of the main reasons it exists is to keep lower CR creatures as relevant "pieces" to slot into an encounter. A DM is encouraged to pad out an encounter with lower CR enemies if they wish. If all it takes for a pixie to show up as a substantially more threatening monster than it appears to be at a glance is for it to show up with other higher CR creatures (where another 1/4 CR monster would be a speed bump at best) then you should know the CR for a Pixie is at best misleading or at worst completely wrong.

To be completely clear with the meaning of a "failed CR calculator" I'm referencing the fact that a Pixie is not equal to other 1/4 CR monsters in all applicable cases. That's how the calculator is intended to function. I'm not concerned with the fact that the Pixie's CR is "correct" in relation to the calculators parameters because the fact that the parameters can reach CR 1/4 for a creature with the ability to Polymorph another creature, potentially adding dozens or hundreds of hit points to an encounter, is flawed.

I think you mistake the meaning of CR. CR is not intended to take into account "all applicable cases". It specifically and intentionally is limited to a small selection of individual parameters:
* adjusted HP for that single creature -- HP, modified by personal AC, resistances, vulnerabilities and specific defensive traits.
* adjusted DPR for that single creature -- raw DPR (average of best 3 rounds) modified by personal ATK and specific offensive traits.

That's it. Synergy with other creatures is specifically excluded from consideration. CR is intentionally only the first part of judging an encounter. It's a filter for new DMs when compared to baseline parties. That is all it is intended to do. It is not intended to try to take into consideration other creatures (because that's a combinatorial explosion problem). Nor is it intended to take into account "smart" tactics on either side. Those sorts of things are explicitly out of scope.

[MaxWilson]

And you're telling me that you, as a GM, judge that a single pixie is just as dangerous to a group of 4 characters as an ogre (which isn't properly CR 2 either, so it's a fitting example)? That two pixies, two ogres and an ogre and a pixie are just as dangerous?

Ogre and a Pixie together is probably more dangerous than either separately. Pixies can put you to Sleep and then drown you or set you on fire; Ogres can whack you for auto-crits while asleep; Pixie + Ogre together can do put you to sleep and auto-crit you while the Pixie has you Entangled in stuff; or have the Ogre grapple somebody (especially a Small character) and Dash into the sky with them for falling damage when the Ogre eventually dies.


2 ogres are supposed to be a deadly threat to 4 CR 2 characters.

*snort* For 5E values of Deadly, anyway. But yes, as shown above, Pixie + Ogre has as much deadly potential for 2nd level PCs as two Ogres do. 6d6 to 12d6 falling damage for example is pretty threatening to level 2 PCs.


Enviroment plays a role in such a situation, encountering 2 ogres 600' away on an empty plain is something different than being stuck with 2 ogres in a 20'x20' room, but 2 pixies are little more than an annoyance to level 1 party in either scenario. Pixie and an ogre as compared to two ogres... eh, I could see it go either way, depending on situation.

I agree that the pixie shouldn't have access to level 4 spells, but having those spells is no justification for raising its CR by 3 steps. And even then, it's one specific spell, Polymorph, that is the real issue. Pixie doesn't really have Greater Invisibility (its self-only version is a bit different) and Confusion isn't especially powerful for its level.

You're far too focused on Polymorph.

And BTW, two (evil) pixies while swimming or rowing across a lake is far more dangerous to 2nd level PCs than two Ogres in a 20' x 20' room, because Polymorph + Sleep + water = potential TPK.

================================


I think you mistake the meaning of CR. CR is not intended to take into account "all applicable cases". It specifically and intentionally is limited to a small selection of individual parameters:
* adjusted HP for that single creature -- HP, modified by personal AC, resistances, vulnerabilities and specific defensive traits.
* adjusted DPR for that single creature -- raw DPR (average of best 3 rounds) modified by personal ATK and specific offensive traits.

That's it. Synergy with other creatures is specifically excluded from consideration. CR is intentionally only the first part of judging an encounter. It's a filter for new DMs when compared to baseline parties. That is all it is intended to do. It is not intended to try to take into consideration other creatures (because that's a combinatorial explosion problem). Nor is it intended to take into account "smart" tactics on either side. Those sorts of things are explicitly out of scope.

Evidence for this specific exclusion please? My DMG explicitly says on page 275 that creating a monster isn't just a number-crunching exercise, and that you might want to adjust the CR up or down for other reasons. Where does your DMG tell you otherwise?

[Edenbeast]

Conjure Woodland Beings...

I think the most important aspect is choosing creatures appropriate to the setting. I like your spiders examples, they really seem to fit the setting and I would have no problem with it as DM. I am still in favour with the DM deciding what is summoned though. But I think a good DM is a reasonable DM. Then again, a good player should too...
Rules wise, the conjure woodland beings requires one holly berry per summoned creature. Now these are not a costly component, but since holly berries are specifically mentioned, I find it appropriate that the PC actually has enough, or any at all. It's a small thing, but I'm a fan of enforcing the players to actual gather and make sure they have the components. It can be done as part of the camping and gathering food for example, no big deal. It's a role-playing game after all, if everything just works it becomes so bog-standard, you can just as well play a video game.
Besides RAW and compliance, I also tend to take the PC's alignment into account. Pixies are NG, and don't like violence. Yes I know the description says the summoned creature(s) follow your command, but that's nonsense in my opinion, you summon them to your aid, you better make sure you are worthy of their aid. Pixies are not stupid.
Also, questionable compliance, but since it doesn't say anything about what those pixies have been doing before they are summoned, you can just as well roll a d8 and see how many can still use their 1/day spell.

[Nhym]

For other summoning spells, I think Crawford's policy that players don't choose what they summon (unless specifically stated) is a crappy mechanic. For example, in my own campaign, the Ranger used Conjure Animals to summon Giant Spiders for a spelunking mission through the Underdark. It was flavorful, fun, and effective without being overpowered. Randomly summoned swarms of quippers would have ruined it, and I'm not comfortable with the DM arbitrarily choosing what a player gets as a rule. It can put the DM in an awkward position, and gives wangrod DMs one more way to screw their players. I let PCs pick what they summon (like with Conjure Elemental), unless it clearly imbalances the game (as Pixie swarms do).

I Agree. It takes player agency and skill out of the equation in favor of randomness, and I'm not playing a Wild Magic Sorcerer.

I think the problem most people have with this spell, and Conjure Animals as well, is that it either allows the DM much more control over the actions and impact of a PC than they should probably have (if you rule that the DM chooses), or it allows the player to manipulate combat like a mini-DM.

My response is that it's OK for players to exercise digression in the same way that DMs do. DMs are typically the people that worry about appropriate balance in games and try not to make things too easy or too difficult for the players, and I think it worries them if players are given the same choice.

Granted, if your player is abusing the hell out of summons to a point that everything is trivial and nobody is having fun, then yeah, it's a problem. But as a player who both values individual agency, game balance, and the fun of everyone else, I enjoy finding an appropriate response to each situation.

That does require discretion on my (the players) part though. I like to think about it like this: Druids draw their power from nature, and are subsequently bound to maintaining some sort of balance in the natural order. Pixies are extremely powerful spellcasting creatures, and a Druid would be aware of this. It doesn't make sense for a druid to respond to every threat with overwhelming power, but rather to balance the threat posed. That kind of thinking allows my Shepherd to not overshadow their allies and not abuse their spells.

[SharkForce]

pixies *aren't* actually correct for their CR.

no really. run them through the calculator. with their AC, hit points, flight, natural invisibility, and the ability to inflict 1d6 damage per round at range (CR calculations assume saving throws are failed), pixies are at *minimum* CR 1/2, possibly as high as CR 1, without taking into account the sleep spell that technically doesn't do damage but certainly interacts with hit points in a manner similar to dealing damage (the other spells technically don't cause problems with the calculator because the save DC is too low, never you mind that it includes level 4 spells).

therefore, the solutions is obvious:

declare that pixies don't exist in your world. create a new creature with the exact same stat block. call them pixies (since pixies don't exist, that name from RL folklore is freed up). decide that the powerful spells they get are sufficient to use the higher of the two possible CR values instead of the lower one.

being CR 1, the spell no longer allows you to summon 8 pixies. problem solved.

(but seriously, I'm not joking. add up all their abilities, calculate their offensive and defensive CR, average it, and you land between 1/2 and 1. if WotC actually used their own guidelines, pixies would at the very least have a CR *closer* to reasonable. so if you have ever felt like a group of pixies punch FAR above their CR, that's because their CR is genuinely lower than it should be).

[Tanarii]

Defensive CR 1 (0+4 steps for AC, Superior Invisibility, and Magic Resistance, Flight)
Offensive CR 0 (no attacks, no spells that automatically do damage) or 1/8 (3.5 and DC 12 for Phantasmal Force)

4 steps between 0 and 1, 3 between 1/8 and 1. CR 1/4 sounds right to me. I can see an argument for CR 1/2 if you believe somehow PF can damage every round.


That's it. Synergy with other creatures is specifically excluded from consideration. CR is intentionally only the first part of judging an encounter. It's a filter for new DMs when compared to baseline parties. That is all it is intended to do. It is not intended to try to take into consideration other creatures (because that's a combinatorial explosion problem). Nor is it intended to take into account "smart" tactics on either side. Those sorts of things are explicitly out of scope.Well said. Whereas Encounter difficulty determinations really should take all those things into account. And the biggest wildcard is how certain spells and monster features interact when you put together certain different kinds of creatures,

But more importantly, it makes CR a poor value to use for Conjure spells / Polymorph. Because it doesn't determine how useful the conjured creature or Polymorphed into creature will be to a creative player.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But more importantly, it makes CR a poor value to use for Conjure spells / Polymorph. Because it doesn't determine how useful the conjured creature or Polymorphed into creature will be to a creative player.

Right. I'm of the opinion that the Tasha's Summon spells were the way to go with "conjuring help" type spells. As much as people dislike them. First, the reduction in table time is tremendous. Second, anything that requires/benefits from MM diving is an unbounded source of bad things. Because it means that now
1) publishers have to check for weird interactions before publishing any new monsters
2) players that dive through books can (and will) find cases that are fine...as monsters. But not fine for polymorph/summoning.

Alternatively, using PF's fixed-list summons would work. Chose a few iconic animals. That's what you get.

Polymorph should be split in two. Baleful polymorph, which turns enemies into (fixed list of CR 0 critters). And "friendly" polymorph which changes friends into fixed list of creatures.

[SharkForce]

Defensive CR 1 (0+4 steps for AC, Superior Invisibility, and Magic Resistance, Flight)
Offensive CR 0 (no attacks, no spells that automatically do damage) or 1/8 (3.5 and DC 12 for Phantasmal Force)

4 steps between 0 and 1, 3 between 1/8 and 1. CR 1/4 sounds right to me. I can see an argument for CR 1/2 if you believe somehow PF can damage every round.

must be that "new math" I've been hearing so much about, because when I was growing up, the average of 1 and 1/8 was 9/16, which puts it between CR 1/2 and CR 1. (and yes, you do assume it can cause its damage with their ability every round so long as it isn't impossible. that's how the assumptions for CR work).

and considering this doesn't account for the rest of the spell arsenal in the slightest, including some that can potentially remove a person from the fight entirely (sleep is *particularly* devastating at low levels, but confusion, polymorph, and entangle all remain relevant indefinitely), I for one am heavily disinclined to treat those the same as if they were command or faerie fire.

frankly, if we were to attempt to quantify the damage of their other spells, I think we'd probably wind up with a substantially higher CR. sleep, for example, is not really worth 5d8 damage since it can potentially be removed with no resource cost beyond a single action, but it is almost definitely worth more than the 1d6 from phantasmal force. polymorph almost depends on the target, in the sense that you can potentially remove their entire hit point pool from a fight... it is hard to quantify as a result, but again, I find it highly probable that it is worth considerably more than 1d6 damage.

now, this is not to say that the official method of calculating CR is *good* or anything. as written, you could give a CR 0 creature power word kill at-will and it would not increase the CR in the slightest since it technically doesn't do any damage at all or have any saving throw. the calculator is definitely flawed.

but even this calculator tells us that no, CR 1/4 is not the correct value for pixies.

[Tanarii]

You don't average CR when its below CR 1, you move it up and down steps in the CR table: 0 <-> 1/8 <-> 1/4 <-> 1/2 <-> 1

IMO assuming PF will cause damage isnt reasonable.

[DrFunkenstein]

The reason I dislike rolling randomly is because it makes the spell little more than a combat spell. Combat is the only time you can be sure that anything that puts bodies on the field is useful. There's no way to make it reliably a utility spell.

Calling a bunch of flying creatures as mounts may be obvious, while calling cave spiders large enough to ride is less so, but both should be viable uses of the spell, in my opinion. It's frustrating to wind up with giant owls and a few snakes when what you really wanted was a pack of wolves to hunt something by its scent.

I agree with this, though your examples here all seem to be for Conjure Animals, for which I also agree, players should decide within any bounds the DM feels reasonable.

For Conjure Woodland Beings (8 Creatures of CR1/4), though, you can confidently get utility even with the random distribution. If you're hoping for some Pixies to cast/concentrate on Fly or Polymorph for you and your friend(s), you will probably get 2+ Pixies when you cast it. Yes there's a risk you wind up with one or none, but there's also the potential reward that you get 4+. It's dicier than casting Conjure Animals would be, but I consider this fair thanks to the risk/reward balance, and flavorful, as Fey magic is often chaotic.

Have a good one, Segev.

[Beelzebubba]

The way I handle it now, from an idea in a thread here from way back is:

The rolls and actions for all the summoned creatures are resolved by the other players.


They basically become a 'second party' for that initiative number each round - so everyone else participates,
rather than sitting back and watching the Druid roll a ****-ton of rolls.
So, it's not a thing that's monopolized by one player, they all get involved.
And, they can have some fun roleplaying it.


Totally changes the tone of the summons. Hearing the whole table howl like wolves for fun is amazeballs.