Commanding summons

[Corey]

Poking around the Web, I see rough consensus that summoning/animation spells:

Are really powerful.
Really slow down combat.

I further get the impression that the "really slow down" part comes from the player who summoned them making decisions for the summoned creatures, one after the other, and then rolling on the resulting attacks.

But why does this make sense? If I were shouting orders to a platoon, I usually wouldn't have a chance to direct each soldier as to every specific move s/he makes. Rather, I'd yell a general instruction, and then perhaps a new one after some platoon members had executed on the first.

And that's for human soldiers, who can generally be assumed to have more brains or at least more language skills than rocks or wolves.

So in D&D, shouldn't it be the case that summoned creatures are -- at least by default when they're animals or objects in a group -- DM-controlled NPCs?

I think it makes perfect sense that the PC summoner can yell orders at the creatures' point in the initiative, even though PHB rules seem to say that you can usually only talk on your own turn (there's already a clear exception for spellcasting reactions anyway). And it's probaby best to do it OOC, rather than try to figure out how to shout "Go charge at that spellcaster" in elk-speak.

But it seems sensible for a player to get to give one or at most a few instructions to the horde of summons each round, with the DM then deciding how the creatures interpret them (almost always with player-level intelligence, I'd hope), and then making the rolls herself accordingly.

What am I missing here?

[Unoriginal]

What am I missing here?

Many, but not all, summon spells give direct control of the summons to the PC.

[quindraco]

Poking around the Web, I see rough consensus that summoning/animation spells:

Are really powerful.
Really slow down combat.

I further get the impression that the "really slow down" part comes from the player who summoned them making decisions for the summoned creatures, one after the other, and then rolling on the resulting attacks.

But why does this make sense? If I were shouting orders to a platoon, I usually wouldn't have a chance to direct each soldier as to every specific move s/he makes. Rather, I'd yell a general instruction, and then perhaps a new one after some platoon members had executed on the first.

And that's for human soldiers, who can generally be assumed to have more brains or at least more language skills than rocks or wolves.

So in D&D, shouldn't it be the case that summoned creatures are -- at least by default when they're animals or objects in a group -- DM-controlled NPCs?

I think it makes perfect sense that the PC summoner can yell orders at the creatures' point in the initiative, even though PHB rules seem to say that you can usually only talk on your own turn (there's already a clear exception for spellcasting reactions anyway). And it's probaby best to do it OOC, rather than try to figure out how to shout "Go charge at that spellcaster" in elk-speak.

But it seems sensible for a player to get to give one or at most a few instructions to the horde of summons each round, with the DM then deciding how the creatures interpret them (almost always with player-level intelligence, I'd hope), and then making the rolls herself accordingly.

What am I missing here?

It depends on the spell. Many summon spells aren't used in practice the way the RAW says for them to work, in the same way that many DMs don't operate even simple pets (like buying mastiffs at the puppy shop) RAW. There are various explanations for this depending on context and the table.

One of those is that a DM has a lot to track without also tracking PC minions. Even though many summon spells do summon DM-controlled allies, many DMs just don't want to bother, because of all the headaches they already have running the creatures they planned for. So they hand the reins to the summoner, to keep the hassle to a minimum.

Here's another example: some summon spells summon creatures selected by the DM, not the summoner, but it's logistic nightmare fuel having the DM pick the summon every time, so in the real world, many DMs let the summoner pick what to summon, so the statblock can be ready to go.

[Reynaert]

Poking around the Web, I see rough consensus that summoning/animation spells:

Are really powerful.
Really slow down combat.

I further get the impression that the "really slow down" part comes from the player who summoned them making decisions for the summoned creatures, one after the other, and then rolling on the resulting attacks.

But why does this make sense? If I were shouting orders to a platoon, I usually wouldn't have a chance to direct each soldier as to every specific move s/he makes. Rather, I'd yell a general instruction, and then perhaps a new one after some platoon members had executed on the first.

And that's for human soldiers, who can generally be assumed to have more brains or at least more language skills than rocks or wolves.

So in D&D, shouldn't it be the case that summoned creatures are -- at least by default when they're animals or objects in a group -- DM-controlled NPCs?

I think it makes perfect sense that the PC summoner can yell orders at the creatures' point in the initiative, even though PHB rules seem to say that you can usually only talk on your own turn (there's already a clear exception for spellcasting reactions anyway). And it's probaby best to do it OOC, rather than try to figure out how to shout "Go charge at that spellcaster" in elk-speak.

But it seems sensible for a player to get to give one or at most a few instructions to the horde of summons each round, with the DM then deciding how the creatures interpret them (almost always with player-level intelligence, I'd hope), and then making the rolls herself accordingly.

What am I missing here?

Someone still has to decide what the summons actually do, and then make all those rolls for the summoned creatures. I.E. do the same amount of work. I don't see how burdening the DM with that is going to make this any faster, and it does add a lot of workload to an already heavily loaded person.

That leaves the 'are really powerful' part and again, I don't see how having the DM decide the actions of the summons would greatly reduce their power, unless the DM is being a **** an ass.

edit: Seriously? That word gets censored?? You americans are weird.

[Zuras]

The actual mechanics of summoning stuff varies from table to table. As a DM, I’ve seen players easily manage 16 summons and take their turns quicker than it takes the rogue player to decide where he wants to hide during combat. I steer slower players to using fewer, higher CR creatures.

Since hogging the spotlight is a significant concern with spells like Conjure Animals, I’ve seen most DMs be very generous in managing summons if the summoner wants to give other players control. If the caster summons 8 wolves and says “I send 2 with the fighter, 2 with the Rogue, one to protect the Bard and the rest stay with me,” most DMs will have no issue allowing the rest of the party to control their designated summons on their initiative. It’s just more fun that way.

[Nhym]

I have a section in my Shepherd Guide about controlling summons: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXgYqPxkEHaCisQ0tteFF-KtsmfJxkOQojeWwHf22n4/edit?usp=sharing

[CheddarChampion]

As others have said, summons usually aren't run that way.
If you're in the DM seat and want to control the summons based on what the summoner tells them in a limited time-frame then go ahead. PCs will probably stop summoning when it gets cumbersome.

[Zuras]

As others have said, summons usually aren't run that way.
If you're in the DM seat and want to control the summons based on what the summoner tells them in a limited time-frame then go ahead. PCs will probably stop summoning when it gets cumbersome.

The DM can always win a war of passive-aggressive annoyance, but it’s usually not a game you want to play.

If you don’t like large numbers of summons, just tell the player no. Trying to get players to stop doing stuff by making it annoying is usually a bad plan. If players get overly complex in their orders, gently remind them “no complex tactics, they’re Int 4 and you have 6 seconds to talk”.

It’s a potential rough point in the game design, but you fix it with good communication, like most issues.

[Keltest]

Personally as a DM, i have enough sides of a battle to run as it is. If a player summons a creature, its theirs to control unless the spell specifically says it acts feral or something similar, such as with certain summoned demons and the like. I dont really care to sabotage them by playing their minions badly, and i REALLY dont want to have to keep track of yet another creature on the battlefield.

[greenstone]

To speed up play at the table, I have players controls summons in two groups maximum. If they summon eight wolves, they must order them in two groups of four, with each group getting the same order.

I've also required average damage for all summons, allies, and so on. This cuts down the dice rolling a bit and speeds up play.

I also arbritrarily ruled that if the druid picks 8 creatures, then they are all medium or smaller. Having eight large creatures on a grid slowed play down much, much more than I expected.

[kazaryu]

What am I missing here?

the fact that what slows down play isn't the roleplaying of the orders, its the actual deciding what each summon does, and then rolling its attacks, damages, and potential saves. and it doesn't matter who is 'controlling them' that all still needs to happen. so its still going to bog down play. you just added 8 extra monsters to the initiative order. (and no, it doesn't matter if they're on the same initiative, they're still all there. they still all get a full round of actions.

[sithlordnergal]

Poking around the Web, I see rough consensus that summoning/animation spells:

Are really powerful.
Really slow down combat.

I further get the impression that the "really slow down" part comes from the player who summoned them making decisions for the summoned creatures, one after the other, and then rolling on the resulting attacks.

But why does this make sense? If I were shouting orders to a platoon, I usually wouldn't have a chance to direct each soldier as to every specific move s/he makes. Rather, I'd yell a general instruction, and then perhaps a new one after some platoon members had executed on the first.

And that's for human soldiers, who can generally be assumed to have more brains or at least more language skills than rocks or wolves.

So in D&D, shouldn't it be the case that summoned creatures are -- at least by default when they're animals or objects in a group -- DM-controlled NPCs?

I think it makes perfect sense that the PC summoner can yell orders at the creatures' point in the initiative, even though PHB rules seem to say that you can usually only talk on your own turn (there's already a clear exception for spellcasting reactions anyway). And it's probaby best to do it OOC, rather than try to figure out how to shout "Go charge at that spellcaster" in elk-speak.

But it seems sensible for a player to get to give one or at most a few instructions to the horde of summons each round, with the DM then deciding how the creatures interpret them (almost always with player-level intelligence, I'd hope), and then making the rolls herself accordingly.

What am I missing here?


So, the issue lies in the wording of the spells, and the spell being used. For example, if you're using Animate Dead, Create Undead, or Animate Objects, the spells specify that:


You use your Bonus Action to give verbal or mental commands
You can either command one creature or all creatures created by the spell
If you command all the creatures made by the spell, they all follow the same command



Which means those spells actually do work like a hoard, where you give everyone a single command and all of the creatures follow that command to the best of their ability. You can't command each and every one of your creations on the same turn, and you have to decide between commanding the hoard or commanding one of the creatures.

However, spells like Conjure Animals, Conjure Woodland Beings, and Conjure Elemental do not have that restriction. Instead those spells state "They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you)." Since the spells don't require you to use an action or bonus action to command them, it means you can technically give out as many commands as you like in a turn. Additionally, the spells don't state that you can either command one of the summons or all of them, meaning its up to the player if they want to command each individual summon or just give out a command to all of the summons at once.

Spells always do exactly what they say they do, and if spell A omits something that spell B states you must specifically do to use it, then that means you don't have to do that thing for spell A.

Next, while the DM does, technically, have all of the summoned/created creatures stats, those creatures have to follow whatever orders they're given. The only time they don't follow orders is if:

A) They're not given any orders

or

B) They're a demon, and the spell either has no way to control the summon or states the summon gets a save to do whatever it wants

As a result, Conjure Animals, which can summon up to 8 beasts, lets a player control the actions that each beast will take. Does it make sense RP wise? Not really, but that's what it says RAW. And since players get to control the actions of the summoned creatures, DMs generally just hand over the stat sheet to the player so that the DM doesn't have to juggle those summons on top of everything else they're handling in combat. That's also why DMs generally let players choose their summons.

There are tricks to avoid slowdown in combat, such as giving players a specific amount of time to take their turns in or they lose the turn/its assumed the summons just dodge. That encourages players to preplan their turns and pay attention to what's going on, that way they can immediately give out their orders.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Honestly the dm has a lot on their plate, it may slow combat down more if I had to keep track of all of the enemies and summons. I think the problem with summoners slowing down combat is just the same as any reason combat slows down, players not thinking about their moves ahead of time.

[Tanarii]

DM's call on if they want to give the player direct control of Conjure spells that are verbally commanded (and on their turn, per the 5e general rules on speaking in combat) and then the creature(s) act on their own initiative. The spells don't specify who is in control, unlike say Animate Dead or Animate Objects.

Personally I find I can control or execute faster than most players, so that's not a concern for me. I'm used to handling many monsters at once acting on the same initiative count with (at most) a the equivalent of a few words of command to give them direction.

At the very least, I'd suggest the player of the caster should have to verbally issue the command out loud on their turn, taking into account they have to be short and sweet. Then execute that command in a way that makes sense on the conjured creatures turn. That'll cut down on flawless multipronged tactics that tend to arise otherwise.

[sambojin]

In the Druid's case, where summoning can become problematic, you've also got the verbal commands bit to consider.

If you're wildshaped into an Elk, can you verbally command other Elk? Can Bear form command other animals?

Then there's the edge cases like Firbolg, where anything you say can be understood by animals. Does that transfer over to animal forms? You're still pretty intelligent, even if they aren't. Are you talking very simplified "Bearish" which all other animals can understand, or can you not talk at all? Many animals do communicate to a certain degree. You can sort-of "auto-speak" Druidic as a Druid as well, so that might transfer over to wildshape too (it's verbal, but it can also use natural tools for leaving written messages, and it seems like it could also be somatic/ body language based as well, perhaps, during direct communication? It kind of fits the fluff).

Lots of DMs let you command your conjured summons while in wildshape anyway, some require some form of animal speech to do so, some require telepathy. It's one of those things that you just have to follow the DM's ruling on, but it's probably best not to ask. They may not have thought about it until the point that you do.

And yes, some basic printouts or a phone app makes things way easier for statblock reference, as does simply using average damage rolls on hits. There's enough DC stat checks and condition malarkey going on with some beasts that removing damage rolls speeds things up a fair bit (not to mention the wide range of die sizes needed for them).

[Corey]

the fact that what slows down play isn't the roleplaying of the orders, its the actual deciding what each summon does, and then rolling its attacks, damages, and potential saves. and it doesn't matter who is 'controlling them' that all still needs to happen. so its still going to bog down play. you just added 8 extra monsters to the initiative order. (and no, it doesn't matter if they're on the same initiative, they're still all there. they still all get a full round of actions.

Got it. That's the answer I was looking for. You -- and others -- are saying DMs would decide just as slowly as players do.

Also, the post above calling out the "no action required" wording explains why the player-hogging-spotlight way of doing things may really be RAW.

[kazaryu]

Got it. That's the answer I was looking for. You -- and others -- are saying DMs would decide just as slowly as players do.

Also, the post above calling out the "no action required" wording explains why the player-hogging-spotlight way of doing things may really be RAW.

i mean its possible for a DM to be faster. they certainly can skip the step of 'asking if a given attack roll hits'. but like...its still up to 24 extra things being tossed out there. thats going to take time, regardless how quickly the DM runs a single extra monster.

[Tanarii]

Also, the post above calling out the "no action required" wording explains why the player-hogging-spotlight way of doing things may really be RAW.
No action is required for spells involving verbal commands, but the 5e rules require any speaking to be done on your turn. And many of those spells have the creatures act on their own initiative (and turn).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Poking around the Web, I see rough consensus that summoning/animation spells:

Are really powerful.
Really slow down combat.

I further get the impression that the "really slow down" part comes from the player who summoned them making decisions for the summoned creatures, one after the other, and then rolling on the resulting attacks.

But why does this make sense? If I were shouting orders to a platoon, I usually wouldn't have a chance to direct each soldier as to every specific move s/he makes. Rather, I'd yell a general instruction, and then perhaps a new one after some platoon members had executed on the first.

And that's for human soldiers, who can generally be assumed to have more brains or at least more language skills than rocks or wolves.

So in D&D, shouldn't it be the case that summoned creatures are -- at least by default when they're animals or objects in a group -- DM-controlled NPCs?

I think it makes perfect sense that the PC summoner can yell orders at the creatures' point in the initiative, even though PHB rules seem to say that you can usually only talk on your own turn (there's already a clear exception for spellcasting reactions anyway). And it's probaby best to do it OOC, rather than try to figure out how to shout "Go charge at that spellcaster" in elk-speak.

But it seems sensible for a player to get to give one or at most a few instructions to the horde of summons each round, with the DM then deciding how the creatures interpret them (almost always with player-level intelligence, I'd hope), and then making the rolls herself accordingly.

What am I missing here?

I'm going to disagree with the way you've framed this a bit. Having just DM'ed a campaign with 2 such characters (a Death Cleric and a Shepherd Druid) as well as an Oathbreaker Paladin that tended to have an undead or 2 kicking around, I'd say they slow down combat because they are so powerful and just make battles way bigger. All 3 of my players were prepped, rolled in groups and gave me average damage when they had a horde to speed things along, but the reality was I was probably having to put in close to twice the foes to keep it competitive, which meant I was going a lot slower too. Sometimes I beefed up the quality of the baddies instead of the quantity, but with the extra attacks, legendary actions, etc things still took longer, probably equivalent of tier 3 pacing for battles in tier 2.
My players enjoyed their characters, but I don't think any of us is in a rush to repeat the experience soon.

[sithlordnergal]

No action is required for spells involving verbal commands, but the 5e rules require any speaking to be done on your turn. And many of those spells have the creatures act on their own initiative (and turn).

I mean, the beasts do go on their turn, but the fact that players can, technically, make the commands as complicated as they like since there are no restrictions in the base spell, it can still make a player's turn take a while as they give out tactical instructions. And then the fact the beasts have to follow those instructions on their turn makes it take even longer.

And to slow things down even more, summoning 8 creatures is always better than summoning 1 or 2, and you can even boost that to 16 creatures, unless the DM nerfs it.

[Tanarii]

I mean, the beasts do go on their turn, but the fact that players can, technically, make the commands as complicated as they like since there are no restrictions in the base spell, it can still make a player's turn take a while as they give out tactical instructions. And then the fact the beasts have to follow those instructions on their turn makes it take even longer.They're limited to six seconds by the length of a round though. That's enough to keep a lid on how complicated they can make it.

Add in to that a potentially changing tactical situation between the PCs turn and the summons turn, and you've got a recipe for keeping instructions relatively simple.

[sithlordnergal]

They're limited to six seconds by the length of a round though. That's enough to keep a lid on how complicated they can make it.

Add in to that a potentially changing tactical situation between the PCs turn and the summons turn, and you've got a recipe for keeping instructions relatively simple.

Sure a round takes 6 seconds, but that's sort of only in game. Players usually take longer than 6 seconds to take their turn, and unless the DM implements some sort of timer, or the players lean heavily into RP, there's no RAW limit on what can be said.

Though I fully agree on the keeping instructions flexible to account for the constantly changing battle map.

[KorvinStarmast]

shouldn't it be the case that summoned creatures are -- at least by default when they're animals or objects in a group -- DM-controlled NPCs?
No, overburdening the DM like that is only going to slow play down more. Shedding load to the player who summons the creatures is a good way to avoid that.

Says a DM for this edition, and for three previous ones.

[Tanarii]

Sure a round takes 6 seconds, but that's sort of only in game. Players usually take longer than 6 seconds to take their turn, and unless the DM implements some sort of timer, or the players lean heavily into RP, there's no RAW limit on what can be said.

Though I fully agree on the keeping instructions flexible to account for the constantly changing battle map.
But the player isn't issuing the verbal instructions in player-bullet-time. They specifying the verbal commands the character is issuing during in-game time. So it's still a hard limit.

[sithlordnergal]

But the player isn't issuing the verbal instructions in player-bullet-time. They specifying the verbal commands the character is issuing during in-game time. So it's still a hard limit.

I mean yes, from a fluff standpoint, but there aren't any mechanics to prevent it from being as complicated or as simple as the player wants. As far as I can find, there really isn't a limit on how much a player can say on their turn, outside of DM discretion. Technically, by RAW, a player could give a 3 page speech as near as I can tell, have their character do it in game, still have their actions, and, by RAW, it'd still take 6 seconds to do so, unless the DM says otherwise. Unless there's a rule I'm missing...but I don't think I'm missing any.

So unless the DM is limiting how much a player can say, there's technically no limit on commands given in a mechanical sense. Fluff wise, there are limits, but if you're in a group that doesn't care about fluff very much, then those six seconds don't actually matter, as it still takes 0 actions to do.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean yes, from a fluff standpoint, but there aren't any mechanics to prevent it from being as complicated or as simple as the player wants. As far as I can find, there really isn't a limit on how much a player can say on their turn, outside of DM discretion. Technically, by RAW, a player could give a 3 page speech as near as I can tell, have their character do it in game, still have their actions, and, by RAW, it'd still take 6 seconds to do so, unless the DM says otherwise. Unless there's a rule I'm missing...but I don't think I'm missing any.

So unless the DM is limiting how much a player can say, there's technically no limit on commands given in a mechanical sense. Fluff wise, there are limits, but if you're in a group that doesn't care about fluff very much, then those six seconds don't actually matter, as it still takes 0 actions to do.

The words from the PHB are:


You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn...The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care

Note the "through brief utterances and gestures" part. That's a limit. As well as the "DM might require you to use an action...when it needs special care". And I'd say that speaking more than a sentence or so counts as not a "brief utterance"; giving tactical orders beyond very simple ones definitely "needs special care."

Not only that, but most summons aren't exactly intelligent. So you're limited in how complex of orders you can give; I'd say "nothing that requires any logic or decision-making" unless the target is of normal (ie INT > 6) intelligence and speaks a language. So no "if X then Y" statements.

The mechanics are there, despite not having numerical word count limits. Also note that sending restricts you to 25 words (and happens in an action). I'd say that 25 words is a fair limit on what you can do if you spend your action to do so. Which means that if you also want to do anything else, you're limited to about one short sentence.

[sambojin]

I looked into the "how smart are elementals?" thing at one point (just to see if moon wildshaped ones could use equipment), and tool/ weapon/ armour use seemed to come in at Int8+, with Magma Mephits being Int7 and described as being a bit slow to take up complex concepts and thoughts (though they can).

So Int6 does seem to be the cut-off point for really complicated stuff. "Charge *that* enemy" while pointing, or *those enemies*, or "you two (pointing to which two), you protect the wizard, the rest attack our foes!" isn't that complicated. But full-on strategic battle plans with lots of conditional statements is probably a bit beyond most beasts.

"Attack the nearest enemy, and if they fall, everyone attack the next one", probably isn't too bad for Elk/ Warhorse proning rushes.

Makes stuff like Summon Fey look a bit better, because there's a reasonable chance that the Fey you summoned is actually more intelligent than you are. Complex orders, even including pre-written or discussed instructions are fine. They're PC levels-of-intelligent (Int14/Wis11), and may as well be controlled as such. Summoned Beasts are Int4, and Conjured Animals vary a bit but are usually low Int.

Tressym probably aren't beasts any more and have Int11 (understands but doesn't speak Common, is probably smarter than you), Giant Eagles have Int8 (PC smart! Also has a language), so do Giant Owls (yep, they're as smart some PCs, and have a language), Giant Elk have Int7 (magma mephit smart, and have a language), Apes have Int6 (pseudo-tool-use, but not weapons/armour, just rocks), Dolphins have Int6 (just no hands and they're in water), Giant Vultures have Int6 (superb scavengers, tracking things for days I guess). These are the really smart standouts, so feel free to give them slightly (or very) more complex orders.

Flying Monkeys have Int5(and are the best familiar you'll never be able to use), Baboons/ Crag Cats/ Cranium Rats/ Deinonychus/ Frilled Deathspitters/ Giant Octopuses/ Giant Weasels/ Troodon and Velociraptors have Int4, and these are the "smart beasts". Some have pack tactics or special stuff or really good attack patterns or a bit of basic object manipulation (giant weasels and octopuses make sense on that, surprised normal weasels and octopuses aren't stat'd as smarter actually). Pretty much everything else that is a beast is dumber than this, RAW stat-wise. They do have pretty good Wisdom though, of around 8-14, so ymmv. They might be wiser than some PCs.

So yeah, say the instructions and control them as such, or let your DM, but keep it simple and quick. Or have a chat to them beforehand if you need to and they're intelligent and wise enough to understand. If they're stat'd as near-PC levels of smart and wise, you've got a fair bit of back-up RAW on them simply being a non-talky party member. If they're Int3 and below, they just do stuff. Very cool stuff, but not super complex stuff. It depends on how your table/ DM plays it, but saying "You two, follow *this* person's orders, you two, follow *that* person's orders..." while pointing etc, is a perfectly viable command. Animals/ beasts are fairly self aware and can understand pointing and body language easily.

[Tanarii]

So unless the DM is limiting how much a player can say, there's technically no limit on commands given in a mechanical sense. Fluff wise, there are limits, but if you're in a group that doesn't care about fluff very much, then those six seconds don't actually matter, as it still takes 0 actions to do.


The mechanics are there, despite not having numerical word count limits. Also note that sending restricts you to 25 words (and happens in an action). I'd say that 25 words is a fair limit on what you can do if you spend your action to do so. Which means that if you also want to do anything else, you're limited to about one short sentence.I'm not a fan that they're buried elsewhere instead of specified clearly, either once in Magic section (with a header like "verbal commands") or explicit in each spell. Lots, and I mean lots, of players assume they can directly control the beasts as they see fit without any link to actual limited commands. And many that are aware they verbally command the beasts are surprised to find that speaking occurs on your turn and conjured beasts have their own seperate initiative. (The latter being something they should know, because it's in the spell.)

It doesn't help that speaking happening on your turn and being limited is a rule that is hard to find even within the combat & actions section.

Also it's important to note that in a non-round-by-round situation, you can obviously take as long as you need to issue commands before they act.

[sambojin]

I can see the point of just giving control without verbal commands though. It makes things quicker. It's one of the assumed things that makes stuff quicker and easier in use. You understand that they understand that you did give those commands, it just wasn't RP'd as such. Sort of a broad stroke of the brush, where the finer details are applied without every word said in actuality.

Round-by-round downtime, so to speak, so as not to clog up real-time for the sake of RAW.

You rarely roleplay, in full, all of your downtime activities. This is like that, but it speeds up the bits many players want to/have to play, so it's hand-waved away. My examples above were just RAW justification of some things if you get a very RAW DM.

Mostly it's just "I'll choose them, or you'll choose them, I'll control them, or you'll control them, or various party members will control them, but could you kindly not summon too many of them? It can really slow down play."

Six seconds of speech? Nope. It sort of turns it into infinity/0, as a nice little undefined or equals 1. It's just a thing.

[Tanarii]

Specifying a command such as "attack the Orcs" then having them move in against nearby orcs and attack rarely slows down things as much as having these two wolves go after the caster Orc in the back line provoking OAs to do it, these other two position themselves to block access to your concentrating caster, and the remaining four pair off against two Orcs not engaged by your own meleers.

[sambojin]

True.

As summoners must always consider and respect and appreciate many aspects of how and what and why they've summoned anything, including orders there-of and from and to that summoner, they must also consider the whole table as well. This is the best way to play it.


(For Druid Animal/Woodland Being Conjures, it's always easier to say CR1/2+, or basically, choose 4 CR0-1/2 or 2 CR1 or 1 CR2 beast/fey summons for your level 3/4 spell slot. Unless it's for a specific out-of-combat reason. They still work really well in combat, even used dumbly/speakly, or DMly, or player controlled. Upcast it with a lvl5/6 slot? It just went to 4 CR0-1, or 2 CR2 beasts/fey. Lvl7-8 slot? 4 CR0-2 beasts/fey. Basically, you never have more than four adds, but there's choice in the matter by the player. It's a house-rule, but it works well, and doesn't slow things down as much, or add 8-16-24 mooks to a board, ever. Raises the floor so much that you may as well conjure in something good, or just up-cast Summon Beast/Fey instead, for something specifically generically good at doing stuff. You'll notice to-hit and decent DCs are a thing, a fairly quick thing, rather than "roll all the dice, something might happen, just wait, it might.... I'll be back next week for the next installment of DBZ-me". Options, but without the time blow-out. Monks still get jealous....👍
But are strangely beneficial from it. It's them that stuns/punches the BBEG, you just cast a spell that got the enemy mooks out of the way so that they can do it better 👍)

((As an addition to the above rule, either Pixies don't get Fly and Polymorph, and they stay as CR1/4, or if they do keep those spells, they're CR2. You get four without those problems, or one of them with it as CR2, for the limits above on spellcasting. So four of them or one per level upcast. They're still *really* good, but an Int10/ Wis14/ Cha15/ Dex20 superiorly-invisible Fey isn't your slave. You might learn that, regardless of CR. You may have just gotten NPC'd by the Feywild if you're not careful with what you do. It's always pretty funny when one decides to go invisible, right when you were Polymorphed into a Giant Ape, and are now in the thick of melee. And they just dropped their concentration on that spell to go invisible. Never be rude, where possible))

(((Note: this doesn't actually apply to Conjure Minor Elementals. Why? 1 minute casting time, and them being a bit underpowered in comparison to beasts/fey. Go ham with it. Have 8-16-24 "about to explode" Mephits if you want. Or low HP Gens. Or CR1-2 elementals.

Only joking. The above applies to this spell as well. Seriously, they're "weaker", but nobody nowhere wants super spell batteries, or that many AoE attacks or conditions or spells, having to be rolled or accounted for each/any turn. Sure the DM can knock them down more easily, but they're pretty smart summons, that often fly by default. Legendary Resistances on a boss style encounter? Not any more.... It can get out of hand.
4-8-12 low-DC Fog Clouds (Air Gen/ Ice Mephits), Heat Metals (Fire Gen/ Magma Mephits) or Entangles (Earth Gen) can be a bit much for one lvl4-6-8 spell slot, even with one minute casting time to get them in, for anyone to track. At a max of four, it's not too bad, in some ways. It's still an incredible spell, and it's not like that's all these lower CR summons can do. They're still pretty good at just being there, and rolling dice, or putting conditions on enemies, or doing help actions.
Gen are pretty unofficial/ not AL legal, but Mephits have surprisingly high HP and movement for their CR. So it ain't bad regardless. Azer and Gargoyles fill reasonable roles as well.

You get up-to four summons. It's simple. You can still go ham with it. You still broke the action economy and possibly concentration limits as well. But 4 max is a really simple rule for conjure spells.)))

((((If you really think this nerfs Conjure Spells too much, umm, try it first. You'll probably find it balances them so well that the player can choose their summons and even control them, or split control between party members, without huge "must-give-orders" overhead needed, for any conjured summon. I play Druids mostly, 4-max *is* a huge nerf, but it works great in actual gameplay.

Otherwise, put the cap at 8 summons max. This still works, so you don't completely shonk out combat with 16-24 of them. But 4 max works better. Way better))))