Conjure Animals

[Pex]

Everyone likes to complain about this spell, but I could never understand why. They often talk about conjuring 8 wolves. All I see are AC 13 creatures with 11 hit points and only +4 to hit. I'd rather summon a polar bear, though two giant toads are nice. Have endurance. The wolves are weak, easily killed off. Won't last more than a round or two. I understand lengthening the combat time and the druid's turn because of more creatures on the scene, but having the 8 wolves is more than that they say. Whatever.

For the first time I'm playing a druid in 5E. I just hit 5th level and decided to give this spell a try. We're being attacked by worgs and giant wolves. Alright, fine, I'll cast Conjure Animals for 8 wolves on our side and see what happens.

Oh.

[da newt]

Yeah - 8 attacks at ADV due to pack tactics and a rider for prone can be quite handy and that's before you account for 8 more targets and the 88 extra HP they add to your party - all for the low low cost of a single 3rd level spell and concentration, and some of them may last many rounds. Action economy rules - How many attacks do they absorb ???

The only drawback to the spell is if your DM rules all Conjures are completely random animals, but even then 8 axe beak or giant bats or whatever are plenty handy too ...

[Psyren]

For the first time I'm playing a druid in 5E. I just hit 5th level and decided to give this spell a try. We're being attacked by worgs and giant wolves. Alright, fine, I'll cast Conjure Animals for 8 wolves on our side and see what happens.

Oh.

Oh what? What happened?

[Skrum]

Oh what? What happened?

The conjured wolves turned the fight into a complete joke. If the enemy doesn't have AoE to take out the conjured wolf pack in one shot, they'll get destroyed via action econ. It's outrageous. The fact that the wolves are going to get *at least* 1 turn of all of them attacking due to the timing of their turns, like even if they get wiped out immediately after, it's still a fantastic damage option.

Against AC 16, each wolf's DPR is 5.37. All 8, and it's 42.96. It's likely that this spell will do well over 100 damage. From a 3rd level slot.

[Zuras]

Everyone likes to complain about this spell, but I could never understand why. They often talk about conjuring 8 wolves. All I see are AC 13 creatures with 11 hit points and only +4 to hit. I'd rather summon a polar bear, though two giant toads are nice. Have endurance. The wolves are weak, easily killed off. Won't last more than a round or two. I understand lengthening the combat time and the druid's turn because of more creatures on the scene, but having the 8 wolves is more than that they say. Whatever.

For the first time I'm playing a druid in 5E. I just hit 5th level and decided to give this spell a try. We're being attacked by worgs and giant wolves. Alright, fine, I'll cast Conjure Animals for 8 wolves on our side and see what happens.

Oh.

It’s a powerful spell. On the other hand, low AC, high HP creatures are especially vulnerable,so you had a near ideal situation there.

The really powerful aspect of the spell is no friendly fire issues, and the number of attacks they can soak up. One campaign that was mostly wilderness exploration we jokingly called it “Wall of Meat” because it kept enemies at a distance long enough to be absolutely mauled by the party archers.

[Pex]

The conjured wolves turned the fight into a complete joke. If the enemy doesn't have AoE to take out the conjured wolf pack in one shot, they'll get destroyed via action econ. It's outrageous. The fact that the wolves are going to get *at least* 1 turn of all of them attacking due to the timing of their turns, like even if they get wiped out immediately after, it's still a fantastic damage option.

Against AC 16, each wolf's DPR is 5.37. All 8, and it's 42.96. It's likely that this spell will do well over 100 damage. From a 3rd level slot.

Exactly. I had four wolves each on two enemies. When all hit it was 8d4 + 8 damage, able to kill a giant wolf from full health in one round. Even two hitting for 4d4 + 4 damage meant something two or three rounds later. My wolves being attacked meant a party member not being attack was gravy. Then, when most of my wolves were gone but still a couple of heavy hitter enemies to go, I cast the spell again for a new set of 8. I know this tactic won't be optimal for every fight imaginable at level 5, but yes, this combat was a nothing battle. My party members had their cool things too, but the DM was done with my wolves. I had forgotten about the prone rider on my first set, not that it mattered.

[Psyren]

The conjured wolves turned the fight into a complete joke.


Exactly.

Well, there you go :smalltongue:

[Schwann145]

Now imagine you're a Shepherd Druid and that first casting lasts the entire concentration limit. :smallwink:

[Lord Ruby34]

Is there a way to balance the spell without destroying it? For my own games I was considering the following options, but I'm not sure either of them are a large enough nerf.

1. The spell is now 4th level.
2. Cut the number of creatures summoned in half.
3. Bonus idea: multiple summons share a HP pool, making them easier to take down.

[Psyren]

The way to balance it is toss it in favor of Summon Beast; Bounded Accuracy just does not play well with multiple summons. (See also Animate Objects, and how animating your loose change is generally the optimal combat strategy.)

[stoutstien]

Is there a way to balance the spell without destroying it? For my own games I was considering the following options, but I'm not sure either of them are a large enough nerf.

1. The spell is now 4th level.
2. Cut the number of creatures summoned in half.
3. Bonus idea: multiple summons share a HP pool, making them easier to take down.

Not really. A giant pool of disposable HP, actions/attacks, and bodies is just at odds with the base game engine and can't work as presented regardless on how it's altered.
It's even worse as it is infinitely expandable with new NPC blocks that get printed as it's based on CR and CR is crap as a player facing factor.

[KorvinStarmast]

Everyone likes to complain about this spell, but I could never understand why. They often talk about conjuring 8 wolves. All I see are AC 13 creatures with 11 hit points and only +4 to hit. I'd rather summon a polar bear, though two giant toads are nice. Have endurance. The wolves are weak, easily killed off. Won't last more than a round or two. I understand lengthening the combat time and the druid's turn because of more creatures on the scene, but having the 8 wolves is more than that they say. Whatever.

For the first time I'm playing a druid in 5E. I just hit 5th level and decided to give this spell a try. We're being attacked by worgs and giant wolves. Alright, fine, I'll cast Conjure Animals for 8 wolves on our side and see what happens.

Oh. We found that it was easier to manage two CR 1 beasts at the table. Two dire wolves, two Giant Octopi, Two Giant Eagles, two Brown Bears, etc.

But a swarm of wolves (if the Dm and player can manage pacing) can be a nice zerg rush versus certain foes.

Shepherd druid at level 6 gives them magical attacks. That's a bit of a game changer.

A giant constrictor snake (CR 2) is sized huge so it can wrap up almost any foe (if it's to hit score lands). Handy versus some big critters for a few rounds.

[Darth Credence]

I have a player that pretty much built their existence around this spell (along with another that did it around Animate Objects and a bag of ball bearings).
That was fine - I think having them all on the board bothers the players more than me, as I see combat where they have to deal with a lot of things to move around as a break. They thought animate objects was completely OP, and it's a great spell, but they deal with a lot of priest types that have dispel magic and end it. Wizard was fine with that, and tried to do what they could before it was dispelled, or made sure to counterspell it, and we had fun.
The druid, though, was not nearly as happy when I ended up falling into a counter without realizing it. Again, a lot of fighting against priests, so they came up against hallowed ground a lot, (from the hallow spell). I guess I hadn't read the spell close enough, but those conjured beasts aren't just beasts, they're fey. One of the players mentioned that, and I reviewed the spell. I then told the druid I had missed that, and in the future, they will be treated as fey if that matters. They said fine, sorry they didn't tell me they were fey, I said no worries, we'll just update from here.
They arrived at a major temple of the enemy. Went in, ready to push through it with their standard tactics. Well, as a major temple, it has had forbiddance cast on it every day for a year, and the entire temple and much of the grounds are under the effect of the spell. Forbiddance, if you didn't know, does 5d10 radiant damage to the creature types that the caster selects to forbid, one of those types is fey, and the priests were very much against the fey and included them as an enemy.
Druid conjures animals, gets their initiative which happened to put them after one of the other players, and we move to the next turn. Next player goes, and it's the wolves turn. They all die, and I describe how their bodies rot away from necrosis. Druid explodes - he had never showed a shred of anger the entire time we played, so this was nuts. Yells "what the f was that crap?" I tell them, something happened that caused it, anyone who would like can use their action to make an arcana check to figure it out. No one wants to do so, and we go around, the druid's player muttering about it being bullcrap.
Druid casts it again. Wolves die again. Druid yells a few more choice words. I tell him, I promise you, this is an effect that does this, it has other effects that I don't want to reveal until they happen, but a DC15 arcana check will get you the answer. The wizard decides to do so. Rolls a 2, I think he needed a 5. No one else has great arcana, so they pass on doing it. Druid's turn again. They start to go the same route, until the other players start telling them to do something else. Takes him about 5 minutes of looking through his spells before he decides to summon a Xorn. Guess what? Of course teh forbiddance included elementals. The only one it didn't stop were undead, because they did some light necromancy on the side. Well, Xorn shows up. It rolled better in initiative than the druid, so it ended up going after a bunch of enemies. A couple of the minions, not known for intelligence attacked it, doing very little, while the upper level enemies ignored it - I thought that would be a clue. It's turn comes around, and the first thing that happens is it takes a bunch of damage. Doesn't kill it, but it took over a third of its HP. Druid doesn't even blink, just finishes it's turn. The whole thing dawned on another player, who texted me to ask if they could metagame and give the answer. I said if they do the arcana check, I'll let them take an automatic pass on it and they can say anything they want about what is happening. So they did, and they knew about forbiddance, and told everyone. Next turn, Xorn dies from the aura and some attacks by minions. Druid is livid, and doesn't say anything the rest of the combat. They don't even fight. It was a tough combat, and with one character not playing, it went bad. They fled, druid didn't come back the next week, week after that they were back and had a much wider range of combat methods that didn't rely solely on that spell.

[SharkForce]

The main nerf I would suggest on conjure animals revolves around limiting the number of creatures you get. Making it 1/2/3/5 creatures of CR 2/1/0.5/0.25, for example, to disincentivize summoning a horde of weak monsters.

As mentioned, fewer monsters that are a little tougher are much less of a problem. Less damage, less total HP for enemies to chew through to deal with the problem, less time spent deciding on and resolving actions, and usually less clutter on the battlefield. I do the same (or similar) with all summoning spells that summon more than one creature.

I wouldn't say it perfectly solves the problematic spell, but almost every case I've ever heard of it being a problem spell revolves around a horde of low CR creatures being summoned. I've never once heard someone complain that an encounter was ruined because someone summoned a single CR 2 creature or a pair of CR 1 creatures.

If I was to make other suggestions, they would be that the player is responsible for preparing their own stat block(s) before the game session even begins, and they know what they're going to summon before their turn starts if they're going to use the spell, but that's less to do with balance and more to do with resolving other common problems related to using the spell. If those conditions aren't satisfied, then you prepare a different spell because if I'm running a game, I have far too much on my plate for you to expect me to print off the stat blocks for you in the middle of a session after you've spent a minute sorting through the monster manual.

[kazaryu]

something thats not often talked about is the battlefield control aspect of the spell to. like yeah the wolves can absorb a ton of damage. and can even dish out a bunch. but its also somewhat akin to a wall of stone spell that you can move around. weaker in some ways, for sure. this is particularly exacerbated if you choose to instead summon large creatures that take up 4x the space. like giant bats, owls or lizard (all of which have a decent amount of HP over the wolf) or a bunch of constrictor snakes.




Is there a way to balance the spell without destroying it? For my own games I was considering the following options, but I'm not sure either of them are a large enough nerf.

1. The spell is now 4th level.
2. Cut the number of creatures summoned in half.
3. Bonus idea: multiple summons share a HP pool, making them easier to take down.

in my games i just limit them to 1 summon for combat. they're free to summon a flock of giant eagles for utiltiy purposes out of combat. but once combat starts, they can only focus on 1. and i do allow the tasha's summon's too. but...yeah, thats my solution. 1 extra dude isn't gonna be game breaking. unless literally everyone in the party uses their concentration to summon 1 extra dude. but thats just...not gonna happen so its not something im worried about.

[Skrum]

Personally, I just ban the spell. It's not like this is the only summon spell, and it's not like spellcasters are actually hurting for good options. To me, fixing this spell is well in to "not worth the squeeze" territory

[Eldariel]

I run it at 4/3/2/1 instead of 8/4/2/1. I think WotC forgot to fix these mass minionmancy options when they applied bounded accuracy, since the current numbers would be fine in a game like 3e but in 5e, especially with lots of damage abilities not being accounted for in CR, CR 1/4 creatures can have an offensive CR of 2 (Giant Poisonous Snake, Elk, etc.) and getting 8 CR 2 level attackers for a level 3 spell is obviously absolutely ridiculous.

[SharkForce]

Personally, I just ban the spell. It's not like this is the only summon spell, and it's not like spellcasters are actually hurting for good options. To me, fixing this spell is well in to "not worth the squeeze" territory

For conjure animals specifically I don't entirely agree. "Spellcasters" have lots of good options. Druids have significantly fewer good options at this spell level. You could remove conjure minor elementals and animate objects from wizards and they would be fine, but this is a staple druid spell for a reason. One of their subclasses even pretty much revolves around it.

[Eldariel]

For conjure animals specifically I don't entirely agree. "Spellcasters" have lots of good options. Druids have significantly fewer good options at this spell level. You could remove conjure minor elementals and animate objects from wizards and they would be fine, but this is a staple druid spell for a reason. One of their subclasses even pretty much revolves around it.

Well, Druids DO have some of the other top spells for their levels: PWT, Plant Growth, Spike Growth, Entangle, Antilife Shell, Conjure Woodland Beings (this is probably being subjected to the same treatment as CA of course), etc. It's not THAT bad for them.

[Amnestic]

Druids get both Summon Beast (2nd) and Summon Fey (3rd) to support the 'summoner' playstyle even if you scrap Conjure Animals, they're doing just fine.

[SharkForce]

Well, Druids DO have some of the other top spells for their levels: PWT, Plant Growth, Spike Growth, Entangle, Antilife Shell, Conjure Woodland Beings (this is probably being subjected to the same treatment as CA of course), etc. It's not THAT bad for them.

Pass Without Trace is not exactly comparable. It does an entirely different thing. In fact, spike growth is the only damaging option you mentioned in that list (and even then, the damage only really comes into play if your party has ways to move the enemy around reliably), the rest are control spells or, as you mentioned, probably given the same treatment as conjure animals.

Now, that isn't a *bad* thing by any means for druids to have some decent control spell options, but it still means you're putting a giant gaping hole in the druid's capabilities that wasn't there before. I suppose if you're specifically aiming to remove damage-dealing from the list of things druids are good at entirely that's fine, but personally I feel like the spell really fits the druid conceptually and would rather see it turned into something a little less ridiculous rather than removed entirely.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

The spell feels amazing to use. My pretty suboptimal ranger getting to 3rd level spell slots changed everything. The first fight I used it was against a boss monster in a hallway, conjuring 2 big beasts as meat shields. One of them was some sort of spider too with a web attack to try and immobilize the enemy. That didn't do much, because there were still party members who figured they were going to be most effective also being in the front line, so the boss monster could just hit them. For any random third level spell it was okay, but nothing too amazing. Then the next time I tried summoning 8 creatures. We were fighting werewolves, completely immune to regular physical damage, and the spell still gave me control over the fight. 8 giant... owls I think, maybe bats, started grappling the werewolves and flying them up in the air and away from the fight. The werewolves could free themselves of course, or kill the owls, but that still costs rounds that we're using to slaughter their buddies. This made the fight much more manageable for the characters on the ground. I even had one of the 8 just flying off to scout for more surprises, I could spare that bit of power. At this point I figured my level 3 spell felt like the level 5 spells of the party's casters. And I was okay with that. A few sessions later I destroyed the campaigns boss with charging yaks. The boss only had resistance to regular physical damage. (We used the yaks before for going up a dangerous mountain path, and we had had great fun naming them all, so it was thematically appropriate to let them reappear. I also used some crocodiles to get us down a river ones, and I've done a little flying around on "Don't fail your concentration save Airways".) And after that point honestly it did start to feel a little too strong. Did you know that 8 giant frogs are great for immobilizing a boss that wants to use its mobility?

As a druid you'd probably be a little bothered about it being a concentration spell, preventing you from using much of your other magic in the same fight. But as a ranger? Pick up the resilient (con) feat and go to town. My primary casting stats is constitution, and this spell plays a large part in that, although Spike Growth and even Create Bonfire do their fair share of work too. And every spell slot you don't use because you were concentrating on dominating the action economy is repaid as 10 goodberries for the next day. I have no honor. I also don't have a primary healer in the party anymore, so those goodberries are pretty useful.

My DM eventually decided that by RAW it doesn't actually say I get to choose 8 DC 1/4 beasts to summon, I could just randomly get any 8 creatures of up to DC 1/4. I could get 8 regular rats. I haven't used the spell yet since that change, but I have some doubts about it being the right debuff for this spell. I think the most important reason people don't like the spell is not really its outright power, as large as it is. I think they don't like one player getting 9 turns every round (well, more like 11 turns in my case, as I also got myself a Bag of Tricks now, and on some turns my familiar delivers a goodberry, so max 13 turns) while other people get 1. It slows the fight down, more than say discussing the description of some complicated high level spell with 7 damage dice does. (Although not as much as you'd maybe expect, as long as you don't try to conjure 8 different creatures with different roles in the fight.) With this debuff it's still optimal to choose 8 random creatures of up to DC 1/4 over a single random creature of up to DC 2. I'd rather have 8 rats distracting the enemies by biting their faces than 1 wolf that takes one or two hits for us and maybe gets a bite in.

A different way of changing it I've seen suggested is changing the numbers. 1 DC 2 creature, 2 DC 1, 3 DC 1/2 or 4 DC 1/4. That makes the action economy a bit more manageable. I'd even be fine with doing that and getting random creatures, although I'd probably like them to be random creatures of the right DC, not possibly lower. That would incentivize me a bit more to try and contain myself by casting the less creatures option, rather than risking wasting my super spell on a single not that good creature. But I don't know everything, so I'm just going to try it this way first.

[tokek]

Well, Druids DO have some of the other top spells for their levels: PWT, Plant Growth, Spike Growth, Entangle, Antilife Shell, Conjure Woodland Beings (this is probably being subjected to the same treatment as CA of course), etc. It's not THAT bad for them.

Is anti-life shell actually any good on a Druid?

Its only role seems to be to keep the Druid safe from melee while blasting things - but druids are poor blasters. So really it feels very niche

A lot depends on interpretation. When I tried to use it the spell was interpreted as excluding your allies from it’s protected zone which is probably why I concluded it’s a bit of a useless trap spell

[Amnestic]

Is anti-life shell actually any good on a Druid?

It's niche. In a tight dungeon corridor it can be used to protect the party (and yourself) from enemies entirely, or box them in and prevent an escape, depending on what you're facing. Definitely requires more setup and situation to be 'good' than most spells though.

[Eldariel]

Is anti-life shell actually any good on a Druid?

Its only role seems to be to keep the Druid safe from melee while blasting things - but druids are poor blasters. So really it feels very niche

A lot depends on interpretation. When I tried to use it the spell was interpreted as excluding your allies from it’s protected zone which is probably why I concluded it’s a bit of a useless trap spell

The idea is to indeed block for the party and have your teammates shoot the enemy to shreds while they can do nothing but watch. This works against any living melee enemies, which are literally a legion in this system.

[tokek]

The idea is to indeed block for the party and have your teammates shoot the enemy to shreds while they can do nothing but watch. This works against any living melee enemies, which are literally a legion in this system.

They can just walk around it though. Unless you have a choke point.

[Eldariel]

They can just walk around it though. Unless you have a choke point.

I mean, unless you're fighting in featureless plain, a movable 25' diameter "No-go zone" can seriously hamper just about anything. If you play with circles as squares, it obviously gets much easier to use and much more powerful, but even playing with Euclidian geometry, it works pretty well.

[Hael]

You can definitely make the case that druids are balanced around this spell to some extent, which is why its hard to nerf it.

Druids are basically a class that has full spell casting, and nothing else for combat. Wild shape is great utility, but its not really much use for combat purposes.

So then you compare to the other full spellcasters. Clerics and wizards in particular. Wizards also don’t have much other than spellcasting in their main class, but their subclasses are considerably more powerful and their overall spell list is as well (3rd lvl in particular gives them fireball and hypnotic pattern + a lot more bangers). Clerics of course have much better defense, tend ot have much more martial damage, their resource feature has actual utility in combat. Meanwhile they get another busted 3rd lvl spell (spirit guardians).

The only way for druids to keep up with that, is access to an even better spell. So its one of those things that you can’t really look at in isolation.

[Pex]

Though I'm not playing a Shepherd Druid, I am playing a Variant Human (Resilient Con) Stars Druid. Naturally when I had cast the spell I went into Dragon Constellation form so that any Concentration check I make with a roll of less than 10 would be a 10. With Con 14 my minimum Concentration check is therefore 15, which is enough for taking up to 30 damage and maintain concentration. I was not losing the spell.

I may not have understood the power of Conjure Animals, but I know all about optimization. Teehee

:smallbiggrin::smallyuk:

[Riftwolf]

As a tangent to this: is there anywhere I can get a few dozen animal minis for cheap? Or am I better off with flat beads/card cutouts?

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a tangent to this: is there anywhere I can get a few dozen animal minis for cheap? Or am I better off with flat beads/card cutouts?

I stand by the colored glass floral beads for all sorts of mass monster scenarios. Cheap, markable, come in a variety of colors, and fit well. They even have ones that work as Large creatures.

As for the spell, I'm moving toward cutting out that low end entirely. You get 1x cr 2 or 2x cr 1 from fixed lists. Upcast and you get higher crs, not more.

[Osuniev]

Is there a way to balance the spell without destroying it? For my own games I was considering the following options, but I'm not sure either of them are a large enough nerf.

1. The spell is now 4th level.
2. Cut the number of creatures summoned in half.
3. Bonus idea: multiple summons share a HP pool, making them easier to take down.

What fixed it at my table was to give it a 1 minute casting time, like the similar (but 4th level) spell Conjure Minor Elementals. Suddenly it became this great spell to prepare before combat, but not an option in combat.

[tokek]

You can definitely make the case that druids are balanced around this spell to some extent, which is why its hard to nerf it.

Druids are basically a class that has full spell casting, and nothing else for combat. Wild shape is great utility, but its not really much use for combat purposes.

So then you compare to the other full spellcasters. Clerics and wizards in particular. Wizards also don’t have much other than spellcasting in their main class, but their subclasses are considerably more powerful and their overall spell list is as well (3rd lvl in particular gives them fireball and hypnotic pattern + a lot more bangers). Clerics of course have much better defense, tend ot have much more martial damage, their resource feature has actual utility in combat. Meanwhile they get another busted 3rd lvl spell (spirit guardians).

The only way for druids to keep up with that, is access to an even better spell. So its one of those things that you can’t really look at in isolation.

I wish the Tasha's summon spells filled the gap but I'm not sure that they do - given that really they can barely keep pace with other casters having a wider variety of those spells and they don't work at all well with the summoner subclass (Shepherd)

I find in practice that if you communicate well with your DM and approach it with the spirit of not breaking the game the spell is fine. What that means is that usually you will ask for one or two appropriate animals and your DM will be happy to comply.

If you always want to conjure the maximum number to crush the action economy then I'm not sure the spell is the problem so much as the attitude to the game.

[JNAProductions]

I wish the Tasha's summon spells filled the gap but I'm not sure that they do - given that really they can barely keep pace with other casters having a wider variety of those spells and they don't work at all well with the summoner subclass (Shepherd)

I find in practice that if you communicate well with your DM and approach it with the spirit of not breaking the game the spell is fine. What that means is that usually you will ask for one or two appropriate animals and your DM will be happy to comply.

If you always want to conjure the maximum number to crush the action economy then I'm not sure the spell is the problem so much as the attitude to the game.

If “Using a spell well” creates a problem, that’s a problematic spell.

I’m with you that reasonable players and DMs can avoid its issues, but it’d be better if the spell was better designed in the first place.

[tokek]

If “Using a spell well” creates a problem, that’s a problematic spell.

I’m with you that reasonable players and DMs can avoid its issues, but it’d be better if the spell was better designed in the first place.

This spell has "work with your DM or else" written into it though. The DM has explicit permission in the spell wording to monkey paw any nonsense. Just look at the sample animals - if you are being a jerk the DM is very clearly free to just give you 8 regular frogs and that's what you get for not trying to work together with them and the group.

You cannot "use it well" except with the cooperation of your DM by the design of the spell. So really the balancing factor is right there and I have never had an issue with it either as a DM or a player when using in a reasonable cooperative manner.

[JNAProductions]

This spell has "work with your DM or else" written into it though. The DM has explicit permission in the spell wording to monkey paw any nonsense. Just look at the sample animals - if you are being a jerk the DM is very clearly free to just give you 8 regular frogs and that's what you get for not trying to work together with them and the group.

You cannot "use it well" except with the cooperation of your DM by the design of the spell. So really the balancing factor is right there and I have never had an issue with it either as a DM or a player when using in a reasonable cooperative manner.

If you use it to summon 8 CR 1/2 animals, and your DM gives you 8 CR 0 ones… that’s not a player issue.

[Snivlem]

This spell has "work with your DM or else" written into it though. The DM has explicit permission in the spell wording to monkey paw any nonsense. Just look at the sample animals - if you are being a jerk the DM is very clearly free to just give you 8 regular frogs and that's what you get for not trying to work together with them and the group.

You cannot "use it well" except with the cooperation of your DM by the design of the spell. So really the balancing factor is right there and I have never had an issue with it either as a DM or a player when using in a reasonable cooperative manner.

I don't think that the spell is broken both on the player side on the table AND from the DM side, is an argument for the spell. You basically need both the DM and the player to be in rains for the spell to be kinda balanced.

The spell is just terrible design, and cladly wotc seem to have learned this lesson.
If you arent happy with the tashas summon "fix", I suggest limit it to 1 or 2 creatures and let the player pick.

[tokek]

If you use it to summon 8 CR 1/2 animals, and your DM gives you 8 CR 0 ones… that’s not a player issue.

The spell says

Eight beasts of challenge rating 1/4 or lower

There is no option in the spell to get 8 creatures of any particular CR and never was. You can’t min-max it unless your DM agrees in which case keeping the encounter interesting is now a responsibility they willingly adopted

That’s why all issues aroun min-maxing the spell to break the game look very odd to me.

[JNAProductions]

The spell says

Eight beasts of challenge rating 1/4 or lower

There is no option in the spell to get 8 creatures of any particular CR and never was. You can’t min-max it unless your DM agrees in which case keeping the encounter interesting is now a responsibility they willingly adopted

That’s why all issues aroun min-maxing the spell to break the game look very odd to me.

My bad-that was just me misremembering how many of what CR.

But it never says “DM chooses what animals you get.” That’s not what’s in the book. It’s a POSSIBLE reading, but generally, players control their spells.
And even if you get 8 cattle instead of 8 wolves, it’s STILL overly good.

[tokek]

I don't think that the spell is broken both on the player side on the table AND from the DM side, is an argument for the spell. You basically need both the DM and the player to be in rains for the spell to be kinda balanced.

The spell is just terrible design, and cladly wotc seem to have learned this lesson.
If you arent happy with the tashas summon "fix", I suggest limit it to 1 or 2 creatures and let the player pick.

The spell is definitely built on assumptions of a social contract around the table which the DM enforces. I can see how there could be issues with it if the social contract has broken down but to me that makes the spell a canary in a coal mine not a stick of dynamite. It will clearly show if your social contract is not working and needs fixing.

If this spell breaks your game then your game had deeper problems already - you just didn't notice

[tokek]

My bad-that was just me misremembering how many of what CR.

But it never says “DM chooses what animals you get.” That’s not what’s in the book. It’s a POSSIBLE reading, but generally, players control their spells.
And even if you get 8 cattle instead of 8 wolves, it’s STILL overly good.

The player does not even choose the CR

They only choose the number knowing that this sets an absolute maximum CR for what turns up. It can very obviously be less than that because the spell directly gives examples of suitable animals of a lower CR for the DM to use.

The CR 0 and 1/8 creatures are listed there for a reason. They are not just wasted ink - they are clearly there to be used. Asking for 8 creatures guarantees you won't get anything above CR 1/4 but you can perfectly well get below that as made very clear by the spell.

So this is where you remember its a social game and talk with your DM ahead of time.

There is actually an official rules clarification on this in the sage advice compendium - the example is for conjure minor elemental but applies to any similar conjure spell.


The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option. For example, if you pick the second option, the DM chooses the two elementals that have a challenge rating of 1 or lower.

So yes this is intended to be a case of DM decides and it is clarified to be the case in the official rules errata (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#Spellcasting).

[Eldariel]

The spell is definitely built on assumptions of a social contract around the table which the DM enforces. I can see how there could be issues with it if the social contract has broken down but to me that makes the spell a canary in a coal mine not a stick of dynamite. It will clearly show if your social contract is not working and needs fixing.

If this spell breaks your game then your game had deeper problems already - you just didn't notice

Ah, please explain this. How can this spell be used in a way that's in line with the other 3rd spells with player and DM cooperation? The way I see it, it's either going to make encounters where it's used to get 1/4s really easy compared to any other 3rd level spell (if your DM doesn't give you useless crap, which should never happen if the social contract is in place), or it's going to do nothing. Like if you have a Wolf Druid who always wants to summon his wolfpack (I had a player doing exactly this in one of my games, actually), it's going to wreck any otherwise reasonable encounters. And that's totally in RP and the DM has absolutely no reason to fudge with that. Sure, if the player wants some higher CR creatures it's not broken but...like, the problem is written into the spell itself.

[tokek]

Ah, please explain this. How can this spell be used in a way that's in line with the other 3rd spells with player and DM cooperation? The way I see it, it's either going to make encounters where it's used to get 1/4s really easy compared to any other 3rd level spell (if your DM doesn't give you useless crap, which should never happen if the social contract is in place), or it's going to do nothing. Like if you have a Wolf Druid who always wants to summon his wolfpack (I had a player doing exactly this in one of my games, actually), it's going to wreck any otherwise reasonable encounters. And that's totally in RP and the DM has absolutely no reason to fudge with that. Sure, if the player wants some higher CR creatures it's not broken but...like, the problem is written into the spell itself.

See my previous response. This spell is officially one where the DM decides. It is officially unlike most spells in that regard.

So if a player is trying to push through that then you have a breakdown in the social contract - and a player trying to push the rule beyond what the official rules actually suggest the player be permitted to do.

The DM can decide for any reason that they believe enhances the game. Maybe its for balance, to avoid main character syndrome, maybe its because they find minis an important part of the game and only have certain minis available. Maybe someone at the table has a phobia. Whatever reason. That's up to the DM.

[Eldariel]

See my previous response. This spell is officially one where the DM decides. It is officially unlike most spells in that regard.

So if a player is trying to push through that then you have a breakdown in the social contract - and a player trying to push the rule beyond what the official rules actually suggest the player be permitted to do.

The DM can decide for any reason that they believe enhances the game. Maybe its for balance, to avoid main character syndrome, maybe its because they find minis an important part of the game and only have certain minis available. Maybe someone at the table has a phobia. Whatever reason. That's up to the DM.

What is a player trying to push through? If a player has a theme and wants to play the theme, having DM nuke that and make the spell dysfunction is obviously a breach of said contract. So said contract prevents the DM from balancing the spell.

[tokek]

What is a player trying to push through? If a player has a theme and wants to play the theme, having DM nuke that and make the spell dysfunction is obviously a breach of said contract. So said contract prevents the DM from balancing the spell.

That is where you have the discussion between player and DM. A discussion any DM probably needs to have when a Druid player hits level 5

Wolf theme can be 2 dire wolves. Does not have to be 8 wolves that will break the action economy and the DM does not have to allow it if they have a reason not to allow it. If the player insists on being a jerk after that discussion and say they are summoning 8 creatures, then as a DM I would gently remind them of the discussion and if they insist either just refuse or give them 8 wild dogs using the jackal stat block. Because quite frankly at that point the player is being a jerk if we discussed it and they wilfully ignored the discussion.

[Eldariel]

That is where you have the discussion between player and DM. A discussion any DM probably needs to have when a Druid player hits level 5

Wolf theme can be 2 dire wolves. Does not have to be 8 wolves that will break the action economy and the DM does not have to allow it if they have a reason not to allow it. If the player insists on being a jerk after that discussion and say they are summoning 8 creatures, then as a DM I would gently remind them of the discussion and if they insist either just refuse or give them 8 wild dogs using the jackal stat block. Because quite frankly at that point the player is being a jerk if we discussed it and they wilfully ignored the discussion.

If the whole point is that it's the player's wolfpack, well, it being dires is off and it being only 2 is off. This is basically trying to cobble together a solution by forcing a player to make specific picks, when you could also just change the spell so that it isn't so overpowering in the first place and the player could do what they want to without breaking the game...

[tokek]

If the whole point is that it's the player's wolfpack, well, it being dires is off and it being only 2 is off. This is basically trying to cobble together a solution by forcing a player to make specific picks, when you could also just change the spell so that it isn't so overpowering in the first place and the player could do what they want to without breaking the game...

I just did fix the spell. 8 Jackal stat block creatures does not break the game nearly so much as 8 wolves. Or 2 dire wolves. Or ask for 4 creatures and maybe I will let you have 4 wolves if we have discussed that option.

The only reason to insist on 8 copies of wolf stat block is to break the game after already having had that discussion with the DM. But that is not and never should be in the player's power to decide - because the spell does not put it in their power.

My whole point is that the DM decides what fits in their game - because the rules for the spell officially say so.

[Eldariel]

I just did fix the spell. 8 Jackal stat block creatures does not break the game nearly so much as 8 wolves. Or 2 dire wolves. Or ask for 4 creatures and maybe I will let you have 4 wolves if we have discussed that option.

The only reason to insist on 8 copies of wolf stat block is to break the game after already having had that discussion with the DM. But that is not and never should be in the player's power to decide - because the spell does not put it in their power.

My whole point is that the DM decides what fits in their game - because the rules for the spell officially say so.

The "DM decides"-part seems to me to be more like "If there's no sensible creature in given CR, you can go lower" rather than "be mindful to balance this spell by giving very specific creatures based on power level"; it's not intended that the choice determines the balance but that all the options are balanced. Which doesn't work, of course, which is the issue.

Which is why I suggest that the spell's options be fixed so that any number of any creature it gives be not utterly broken, because otherwise a choice that should be about environment and RP is suddenly about optimization on the DM side, and the DM either has the choice of giving nonsensical options or overpowering the spell.

[Snivlem]

I just did fix the spell. 8 Jackal stat block creatures does not break the game nearly so much as 8 wolves. Or 2 dire wolves. Or ask for 4 creatures and maybe I will let you have 4 wolves if we have discussed that option.

The only reason to insist on 8 copies of wolf stat block is to break the game after already having had that discussion with the DM. But that is not and never should be in the player's power to decide - because the spell does not put it in their power.

My whole point is that the DM decides what fits in their game - because the rules for the spell officially say so.

As long as a player ask for 8 creatures, and the DM gives them cr 1/4 creatures, the spell is pretty much broken, in terms of power and especially in table friendlyness. And if the dm gives cr 0 crearures they are basically beeing jerks. The simple fact that you need all this kind of social contracting to make the spell work, should be enough to tell you it is bad design. Very few other spells and abilities in the game demand from the players to put rains on themselves, and those that do (such as similacrum) are also bad design. Not to mention the fact that the DM is supposed to provide the statblocks. Dms already have enough work.

[Schwann145]

What's the actual problem here? Are we not being fair to DMs? Are they supposed to have better odds of winning fights against PCs and this spell makes that hard?

If Conjure Animals dominates combats, then that is a failure of the DM to prepare suitable combats for the group. Oh, you don't want to do the work of prepping more than a couple enemies? Too bad. This is your job. If you don't want to do that job because it's a lot of work, then fine, but don't complain that the "spell isn't fair" because you didn't want to do your homework before game day.
(And yes, this applies to pre-writen adventures too: If the official writers couldn't be bothered to design encounters, or at the very least provide advice, for groups that utilize large numbers, then that's a failure on their part too!)

The spell is absolutely fine. Do better, DMs.

[SharkForce]

It is reasonable to expect DMs to adjust for odd corner cases that break things when designing a spell. It is nonsense to expect the DM to have to adjust the basic straightforward expected use of a spell by interpreting it in an unfavourable way to the players.

The DM should not be expected to instantly know upon hearing the name of the spell that the listed effects are too strong and adjust the actual effects to be on the lower end of what is possible. Rather, the spell should be designed so that the players can have a reasonable expectation of how it will work, and the DM will not have to do extra work to keep it from being a problem. Frankly, the DM already has enough on their plate. Demanding that *they* go through the monster manual and *they* decide what creatures come out and *they* need to provide the stats is basically doing everything wrong. The busiest person at the table who is juggling the most balls should not be the one who is expected to take on extra work.

Setting things up so that the requirement to make those adjustments comes without advance notice in the middle of a game session makes that even worse.

As for the tasha's summoning spells, I have two main problems with them:

1) some of them do a crappy job on the theme.
2) the spells are quite different in effectiveness offered when they should all ideally be at least somewhat close to each other in effectiveness.

For the summon beast spell in particular (the nominal replacement for conjure animals in the druid list I suppose), you go from having dozens of options to really only having wolfs or eagles. And yeah, I know they don't *say* they're limited to those, but let's be realistic... if I'm summoning a spider I expect it to make webs and be able to climb walls. If I'm summoning a horse, I expect to be able to ride it. If I'm summoning a snake, I expect it to be able to poison or constrict things. If I'm summoning some variety of large cat, I expect it to be able to pounce and sneak around. And so on. The spell does a terrible job of representing the concept of summoning a variety of animals (in fact, I would argue that it doesn't even do a particularly good job of representing summoning the few creatures it actually can simulate). It does a poor job in terms of theme as the spell doesn't really allow you to represent more than a tiny portion of the animal kingdom that a druid is supposed to be interacting with, you mainly just get a blob of meat that does a bit of regular damage and nothing else.

Compared to, say, the summon undead spell (which actually does a moderately decent job of representing a decent spread of what you would expect for the spell name) it's an extreme disappointment. It also has significantly better options, with better HP scaling, a laundry list of condition immunities, and interesting special effects on their attacks.



Anyways, point being: I can agree that nerfing is in order when it comes to the conjure <creature type> spells (particularly to the most problematic option of summoning large numbers of weaker creatures). But there isn't really a good replacement available if you fully remove it and it fills an important space both mechanically and thematically.

[Pex]

See my previous response. This spell is officially one where the DM decides. It is officially unlike most spells in that regard.

So if a player is trying to push through that then you have a breakdown in the social contract - and a player trying to push the rule beyond what the official rules actually suggest the player be permitted to do.

The DM can decide for any reason that they believe enhances the game. Maybe its for balance, to avoid main character syndrome, maybe its because they find minis an important part of the game and only have certain minis available. Maybe someone at the table has a phobia. Whatever reason. That's up to the DM.

Instead of passive aggressively making the spell useless when the player casts it just be upfront and ban the spell already if the DM is so offended by it.

[JNAProductions]

Instead of passive aggressively making the spell useless when the player casts it just be upfront and ban the spell already if the DM is so offended by it.

Or houserule it to be weaker.

But agreed on the gist of the point-make the change official, don’t be sneaky about it.

[Snivlem]

What's the actual problem here? Are we not being fair to DMs? Are they supposed to have better odds of winning fights against PCs and this spell makes that hard?

If Conjure Animals dominates combats, then that is a failure of the DM to prepare suitable combats for the group. Oh, you don't want to do the work of prepping more than a couple enemies? Too bad. This is your job. If you don't want to do that job because it's a lot of work, then fine, but don't complain that the "spell isn't fair" because you didn't want to do your homework before game day.
(And yes, this applies to pre-writen adventures too: If the official writers couldn't be bothered to design encounters, or at the very least provide advice, for groups that utilize large numbers, then that's a failure on their part too!)

The spell is absolutely fine. Do better, DMs.

Seems like a DM vs player mentality, but that is not how this game works. If the DM doesnt manage to adjust in a meaningfull way, that doesnt just hurt the DMs game experience, but the game experience of every single player around the table, including, probably the player who cast this spell.

Remember there are inexperienced DMs.
Remember there are lazy DMs.
Remember there are DMs who have full time jobs and families.
Remember there is a DM shortage for this game.
Remember there is inexperienced players as well.
Remember most players and DMs dont spend their freetime reading around on the internet for ways to balance the spell.
Remember it is the game designers job to actually design the game in a way that doesnt create an unneccessary amount of extra work for players and DMs.
Remember everyone loathes gamekeepers. Dont be one.

It actually seems we agree there is a problem. Your solution to the problem seems to be every single DM, experienced or inexperienced, casual or dedicated, should guess how the player with this spell uses their resources and adjust the difficulty of encounter specificly for this spell. My solution is that the designers should design the spell in a way that makes that extra work unneccessary.
Oh and you are ignoring the 2nd and bigger problem of the spell, its tendency to slow down game play.

[tokek]

Instead of passive aggressively making the spell useless when the player casts it just be upfront and ban the spell already if the DM is so offended by it.

There is no need to ban it. Just have a discussion like reasonable grown-ups

It’s not hard and claiming that having a DM player discussion is somehow passive aggressive makes my point for me - this spell is a canary in the coal mine for tables that are already in trouble because people at the table can’t or won’t talk to each other nicely.

[tokek]

What's the actual problem here? Are we not being fair to DMs? Are they supposed to have better odds of winning fights against PCs and this spell makes that hard?

If Conjure Animals dominates combats, then that is a failure of the DM to prepare suitable combats for the group. Oh, you don't want to do the work of prepping more than a couple enemies? Too bad. This is your job. If you don't want to do that job because it's a lot of work, then fine, but don't complain that the "spell isn't fair" because you didn't want to do your homework before game day.
(And yes, this applies to pre-writen adventures too: If the official writers couldn't be bothered to design encounters, or at the very least provide advice, for groups that utilize large numbers, then that's a failure on their part too!)

The spell is absolutely fine. Do better, DMs.

The problems a pushy player might try to cause are

A. Main player syndrome as they dominate combats mechanically
B. Bogging down combat and slowing it to a crawl

The outcome is all the other players being bored. But there is no real problem - the spell rules officially don’t enable the player to ruin the game with this spell. It doesn’t need to be made weaker, encounters don’t need to be made stronger: people just need to play to the actual official published rules.

[tokek]

Seems like a DM vs player mentality, but that is not how this game works.

Exactly this.

I would place all of these similar conjure spells in the category of things that might catch out an inexperienced DM. But they are hardly unique in that regard, I would say the same about many illusion and enchantment spells.

[Snivlem]

But there is no real problem - the spell rules officially don’t enable the player to ruin the game with this spell. It doesn’t need to be made weaker, encounters don’t need to be made stronger: people just need to play to the actual official published rules.

I dont get this approach at all.
Official rules is players pick the number of creatures.
Dm now has to:
- Decide what creature is appropriate. If they havent prepared, they have to figure it out.
- provide the statistics of those creatures
The player
- now has to run those 8 creatures in combat.
- has 8 new bodies and actions on their side.

All of this is already problematic both in terms of power and for slowing down the game.

Are you suggesting the DM should give cr0 creatures not to cause these problems?

Another point to take into account, is that this isnt actually rules as they are written in the book (the book are not at all clear this is how the spell should work). Not every group will follow online dicussions, erratas and fans, in fact I think most does not.

Are there ways to make this spell work fine in play? Yeah, but the spell (and those like it) is still bonkers broken and probably the worst designed spell in 5e.

[Amnestic]

What's the actual problem here? Are we not being fair to DMs? Are they supposed to have better odds of winning fights against PCs and this spell makes that hard?

If Conjure Animals dominates combats, then that is a failure of the DM to prepare suitable combats for the group. Oh, you don't want to do the work of prepping more than a couple enemies? Too bad. This is your job. If you don't want to do that job because it's a lot of work, then fine, but don't complain that the "spell isn't fair" because you didn't want to do your homework before game day.
(And yes, this applies to pre-writen adventures too: If the official writers couldn't be bothered to design encounters, or at the very least provide advice, for groups that utilize large numbers, then that's a failure on their part too!)

The spell is absolutely fine. Do better, DMs.

Do you think the druid would be happy if every encounter suddenly started having Fireball casters in it? Because that's the answer. That's the answer every time. The counter to Conjure Animals spam is "large AoE damage".

Do you think that sort of design is fun for either side? Do you think that sort of design is good for verisimilitude?

[Schwann145]

Seems like a DM vs player mentality, but that is not how this game works. If the DM doesnt manage to adjust in a meaningfull way, that doesnt just hurt the DMs game experience, but the game experience of every single player around the table, including, probably the player who cast this spell.

Remember there are inexperienced DMs.
Remember there are lazy DMs.
Remember there are DMs who have full time jobs and families.
Remember there is a DM shortage for this game.
Remember there is inexperienced players as well.
Remember most players and DMs dont spend their freetime reading around on the internet for ways to balance the spell.
Remember it is the game designers job to actually design the game in a way that doesnt create an unneccessary amount of extra work for players and DMs.
Remember everyone loathes gamekeepers. Dont be one.
To be fair, my tone on this subject is going to be much more no-nonsense on a GITP forum post than it would be towards any new or unexperienced DM. It's all about the audience. :smalltongue:

•Inexperienced DMs will need guidance from the game about how combats tend to work under it's ruleset. In D&D combat, superior action economy has dominated for literal decades. The fact that the rules don't explicitly prepare DMs for this is a massive failure of the designers, IMO, and unfortunately it's a lesson they'll likely have to learn the hard way.
•Lazy DMs will always exist, but as I said, they have no excuse to complain about the spell.
•Full-time jobs and families has never made much sense as a justification, IMO. If you want to have a hobby, you make time for it. Sometimes real life gets in the way. That's true for DMs, players, everybody. Maybe you have to push game back a week because the DM needs more time to prep properly. That should be fine (and if it's not fine, the player[s] are being unreasonable and are more than welcome to step into the DM seat and see how it is for themself!)
•DM shortage will always exist. There's a lot of work that goes into the role; it's a labor of love. Not everyone is able/willing to do it. But, IMO, offering support is better than dumbing down the game.
•I don't see how inexperienced players could be much of an optimization problem. They're less likely to know how to "abuse" the spells to aggravate the table.
•It's true most people aren't spending their free time on D&D forums, which is why I'm more comfortable being snarkier here, on a D&D forum. If you came here, you're much more likely to be experienced. :smalltongue:
•As for what the designer's job is, it's a TTRPG. There will always be a level of work involved that isn't involved in other mediums.


It actually seems we agree there is a problem. Your solution to the problem seems to be every single DM, experienced or inexperienced, casual or dedicated, should guess how the player with this spell uses their resources and adjust the difficulty of encounter specificly for this spell.
I don't think they should guess at all. I think they should be talking with their players, getting an understanding of what sort of character is being played and what sort of tactics they'll prefer. They should also have an idea of what spells are being prepared, and plan accordingly. That is DMing 101.


My solution is that the designers should design the spell in a way that makes that extra work unneccessary.
The extra work is always necessary, even in a video game, though that extra work is done beforehand by the programmers. This is a TTRPG, where the work is done week to week, and at the table. Again, knowing your players' characters and preparing the game around that knowledge is DMing 101. 5e is the "dumbed down-est" that D&D has ever been, and I simply reject the idea that the solution to an issue like this is that what we really need is to dumb it down even further.


Oh and you are ignoring the 2nd and bigger problem of the spell, its tendency to slow down game play.
Easy as pie to solve. Let the other players control some wolves. The Druid's spell is doing the same amount of work but now the whole table is involved in the gameplay rather than waiting for one person to resolve 9+ "characters" turns.



Do you think the druid would be happy if every encounter suddenly started having Fireball casters in it? Because that's the answer. That's the answer every time. The counter to Conjure Animals spam is "large AoE damage".

Do you think that sort of design is fun for either side? Do you think that sort of design is good for verisimilitude?
Sometimes it's okay for a Fireball to wipe out your wolf army.
Sometimes it's okay for your wolf army to wipe out the enemy.
Sometimes you need to throw numbers at numbers to even the playing field.

Anyone who wants to just be lazy (by needlessly nerfing the spell, by being an ass and granting useless summons, or by just always throwing fireballs) has no leg to stand on, IMO.

[tokek]

I dont get this approach at all.
Official rules is players pick the number of creatures.
Dm now has to:
- Decide what creature is appropriate. If they havent prepared, they have to figure it out.
- provide the statistics of those creatures
The player
- now has to run those 8 creatures in combat.
- has 8 new bodies and actions on their side.

All of this is already problematic both in terms of power and for slowing down the game.

Are you suggesting the DM should give cr0 creatures not to cause these problems?

Another point to take into account, is that this isnt actually rules as they are written in the book (the book are not at all clear this is how the spell should work). Not every group will follow online dicussions, erratas and fans, in fact I think most does not.

Are there ways to make this spell work fine in play? Yeah, but the spell (and those like it) is still bonkers broken and probably the worst designed spell in 5e.

This is DM basics - talk with the player. Agree what is both thematic and reasonable for both the player and the game. Now the player knows what they can summon.

Simple basic stuff for people who actually want to play a cooperative game cooperatively.

Usually I would steer players away from 8 of anything as a DM and usually I avoid it as a player. But there are times when its appropriate and the DM and player can easily agree in the moment that this is the time for it. Yes it was dramatically perfect when my ranger summoned 8 snakes vs an invisible Strahd and one of them grabbed him with an AOO so the rest of the party could smash his invisible face in because you can't walk through walls with a move of 0. I only ever summoned 8 of anything about 3 times with that character who went the full 1-20 - because the DM and I had an understanding that we both wanted to keep things flowing (and the DM didn't want me to summon anything he didn't have a token for on the VTT).

Its a very flexible spell that rewards cooperative play and understanding. Just like many illusion spells and some enchantment spells. But the cries of OP come from people who simply don't want to play the spell as written - and as officially clarified in the Sage Advice compendium. If you don't play by the rules you can't really complain that the rules are bad.

The Summon spells by contrast are far less flexible and will work tolerably in a more DM vs Player situation because they are so tightly bounded but why are you even in that situation? Fix the real problem at your table. Don't fix an out of game problem with in-game hacks or bans - fix the out of game problem with DM vs Player attitude by talking to each other.

[stoutstien]

Why correct outlier features when you can instead have continual monkey paw arguments with back n' forth about floors made of lave and asbestos lined Socks.

WoTC is horrible at intentional interactive counter play and just used a series of "win" buttons that cancel out which isn't interactive nor challenging. Best approach is to remove, or lessen the scale, of those win buttons that start the chain of button mashing.

[Amnestic]

Sometimes it's okay for a Fireball to wipe out your wolf army.
Sometimes it's okay for your wolf army to wipe out the enemy.
Sometimes you need to throw numbers at numbers to even the playing field.

Anyone who wants to just be lazy (by needlessly nerfing the spell, by being an ass and granting useless summons, or by just always throwing fireballs) has no leg to stand on, IMO.

Do you think it's a good idea for a single spell to require the DM to drastically have to rewrite every encounter they plan to account for it? Do you think it's good game design to expect premade modules to account for the party having a druid, the druid casting conjure animals, and that cast involving 8 CR1/4 creatures?

Because anyone could tell you that the gulf between challenging encounters involving CA and not involving CA is vast. If you assume the party's got the freedom to drop 8 wolves on your group, and plan accordingly, then they don't have that, then the difficulty goes from Medium to Deadly real quick. You say the designers of premade modules are being 'lazy' by not accounting for CA, but maybe the designers of CA were being lazy by not writing it better in the first place? If the DM should adjust their combats, why shouldn't they also have the freedom to adjust the spell?

It's not lazy at all to just go "oh, this one spell is badly designed? Then I'll change that" instead of changing literally every encounter you make for the rest of the game. That's efficient.

[tokek]

Do you think it's a good idea for a single spell to require the DM to drastically have to rewrite every encounter they plan to account for it? Do you think it's good game design to expect premade modules to account for the party having a druid, the druid casting conjure animals, and that cast involving 8 CR1/4 creatures?

Because anyone could tell you that the gulf between challenging encounters involving CA and not involving CA is vast. If you assume the party's got the freedom to drop 8 wolves on your group, and plan accordingly, then they don't have that, then the difficulty goes from Medium to Deadly real quick. You say the designers of premade modules are being 'lazy' by not accounting for CA, but maybe the designers of CA were being lazy by not writing it better in the first place? If the DM should adjust their combats, why shouldn't they also have the freedom to adjust the spell?

It's not lazy at all to just go "oh, this one spell is badly designed? Then I'll change that" instead of changing literally every encounter you make for the rest of the game. That's efficient.

The spell would be badly designed if it worked that way - but it does not.

I will just quote the last part of the rules clarification for the spell


A spellcaster can certainly express a preference for what creatures shows up, but it’s up to the DM to determine if they do. The DM will often choose creatures that are appropriate for the campaign and that will be fun to introduce in a scene.

I think these spells pose similar difficulties for inexperienced DMs as illusion spells. The way that the DM chooses to interpret them could in principle vary their power from OP to useless. What the DM should do is of course discuss these things with the players concerned ahead of time. Its almost like having a session 0 would be a good idea or something.

But if as a DM you have discussed it and then the player insists on mucking around and demanding something you did not discuss and agree - well then the wording of the spell (and its clarification) empower the DM to make sure that what happens does not spoil the fun at the table. If that player gets salty then what you have is a problem player not a problem spell.

[Amnestic]

I think these spells pose similar difficulties for inexperienced DMs as illusion spells. The way that the DM chooses to interpret them could in principle vary their power from OP to useless. What the DM should do is of course discuss these things with the players concerned ahead of time. Its almost like having a session 0 would be a good idea or something.

But if as a DM you have discussed it and then the player insists on mucking around and demanding something you did not discuss and agree - well then the wording of the spell (and its clarification) empower the DM to make sure that what happens does not spoil the fun at the table. If that player gets salty then what you have is a problem player not a problem spell.

Love the implication that any DM who just wants rid of the entire conversation is "lazy" or "inexperienced". Perhaps they're not inexperienced - perhaps their experience has taught them that it's a lot better for both parties to just nerf the spell (or point them towards the Summon Beast/Fey instead).

There isn't a balance point with 8 CR1/4 creatures. The game isn't built for it, which means you either take that option off the table (nerfing it) or the player just agrees to not use it (which is the same thing, but more roundabout).

There isn't a single creature you can summon 8 of from the CR1/4 list that isn't going to be a pain.

[tokek]

Love the implication that any DM who just wants rid of the entire conversation is "lazy" or "inexperienced". Perhaps they're not inexperienced - perhaps their experience has taught them that it's a lot better for both parties to just nerf the spell (or point them towards the Summon Beast/Fey instead).

There isn't a balance point with 8 CR1/4 creatures. The game isn't built for it, which means you either take that option off the table (nerfing it) or the player just agrees to not use it (which is the same thing, but more roundabout).

There isn't a single creature you can summon 8 of from the CR1/4 list that isn't going to be a pain.

There is nothing in the spell that says it has to work that way. Quite the contrary.

Although having that there as an occasional option is part of the charm of the spell. Let your Druid/Ranger be awesome in a suitably chosen moment - while not having them dominate the game all the time. Just like illusion spells - sometimes you just let the bad guy fall for the illusion and let the illusionist have a big moment.

The middle ground between it being OP and banned is to do exactly what the game designers suggest. It works perfectly well when used as designed.

[stoutstien]

There is nothing in the spell that says it has to work that way. Quite the contrary.

Although having that there as an occasional option is part of the charm of the spell. Let your Druid/Ranger be awesome in a suitably chosen moment - while not having them dominate the game all the time. Just like illusion spells - sometimes you just let the bad guy fall for the illusion and let the illusionist have a big moment.

The middle ground between it being OP and banned is to do exactly what the game designers suggest. It works perfectly well when used as designed.

"Don't worry guys you can fix the spell by removing player agency all together"

the open-endedness in an RPG relies on the idea that the players and the GMs can assess the likely outcomes and consequences of any imaginable action and that they’ll make pretty similar assessments. If a feature has a wildly large range of outcomes that is only apparent in the meta rather the game itself you have a conflict with this core concept.

[Amnestic]

There is nothing in the spell that says it has to work that way. Quite the contrary.

What do you mean?

The spell says you choose which of the four options for numbers/CR, the DM picks what comes out. The sage advice compendium you quoted confirms it.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/561287824964452363/1170693404208934932/image.png?

Either you're giving them 8 CR1/4s when they ask for it or you decide to start dropping 1/8 or 0 on them instead which uhhh no! That's just nerfing the spell roundabout. It doesn't matter if you "talked to them about it". You're still just nerfing the spell, except in a way where it's random if the player will know about it beforehand or not.

It's sure cool when I, as a player, go "I cast this spell" and the DM goes "cool, except for reasons you won't understand or have any insight on, it's actually more efficient for you to drop concentration next turn and cast something else. Hope that 3rd level spell slot felt like it was worth it!"

[tokek]

What do you mean?

The spell says you choose which of the four options for numbers/CR, the DM picks what comes out. The sage advice compendium you quoted confirms it.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/561287824964452363/1170693404208934932/image.png?

Either you're giving them 8 CR1/4s when they ask for it or you decide to start dropping 1/8 or 0 on them instead which uhhh no! That's just nerfing the spell roundabout. It doesn't matter if you "talked to them about it". You're still just nerfing the spell, except in a way where it's random if the player will know about it beforehand or not.

It's sure cool when I, as a player, go "I cast this spell" and the DM goes "cool, except for reasons you won't understand or have any insight on, it's actually more efficient for you to drop concentration next turn and cast something else. Hope that 3rd level spell slot felt like it was worth it!"

Doing exactly what the wording of the spell says is not nerfing the spell. It is playing the spell correctly as written.

Those CR 1/8 and CR 0 options are there for a reason. The sage advice explains that yes they do mean exactly what they appear to mean - that these are also options for the DM when the spell is cast if that is the best option for everyone to have fun at the table.

[Snivlem]

The extra work is always necessary, even in a video game, though that extra work is done beforehand by the programmers. This is a TTRPG, where the work is done week to week, and at the table. Again, knowing your players' characters and preparing the game around that knowledge is DMing 101. 5e is the "dumbed down-est" that D&D has ever been, and I simply reject the idea that the solution to an issue like this is that what we really need is to dumb it down even further.


This "dumbed down" version of the game has brought more people to the game than any edition prior to it. This attitude is gamekeeping. We are paying the designers to design the game for us, so we have to to do as little work as possible, and so we can focus on the fun part.

If a am paying to play at a golf course, I am expecting the club to keep the coarse tidy and clean. I am happy to admit I am to "lazy" to cut the grass myself.

You are basically saying: just cut the grass yourself, having a hobby takes time and effort, some work is required either way so it does not matter. Talk with your friends and you can cut the grass together. This is golf 101.

Also: We are dicussing what is best for the game as a whole, so the fact that the "audince" on this page are mostly experienced players, is irrelevant.



Easy as pie to solve. Let the other players control some wolves.

I have proposed this "solution" to my players. It has been flatly dismissed.I have never seen a player pleased with this solution. Players (at least my players) want to run their own character and be responsible for their own abilities, they dont feel excited at all having to run other players abilities.

[Eldariel]

Those CR 1/8 and CR 0 options are there for a reason.

Yes, in case there are no reasonable 1/4 options for the terrain at the time. That's literally the ONLY reason. Using that as random balance point is blatantly against the intent.

[tokek]

Yes, in case there are no reasonable 1/4 options for the terrain at the time. That's literally the ONLY reason. Using that as random balance point is blatantly against the intent.

The designers have clearly stated their intent and you are incorrect. The intent is absolutely for the result of the spell to be what most enhances the fun of the game. Balance is certainly one element of what makes the game fun.

[Amnestic]

Doing exactly what the wording of the spell says is not nerfing the spell. It is playing the spell correctly as written.

Those CR 1/8 and CR 0 options are there for a reason. The sage advice explains that yes they do mean exactly what they appear to mean - that these are also options for the DM when the spell is cast if that is the best option for everyone to have fun at the table.

The best option for the druid player - who is the one casting the spell - to have fun is that the spell is good, so they fell empowered in their heroic fantasy roleplay game.

If you make the spell not good (by throwing them CR0 creatures) then it's not fun for them. You're telling them "I'll screw you on this randomly, and it's okay because the spell says I can do it" and the player goes "okay cool, I won't cast that spell then" and it's been effectively deleted, in a roundabout way.

[tokek]

The best option for the druid player - who is the one casting the spell - to have fun is that the spell is good, so they fell empowered in their heroic fantasy roleplay game.

If you make the spell not good (by throwing them CR0 creatures) then it's not fun for them. You're telling them "I'll screw you on this randomly, and it's okay because the spell says I can do it" and the player goes "okay cool, I won't cast that spell then" and it's been effectively deleted, in a roundabout way.

We will have discussed it ahead of time and they will have fun options

If the player is a jerk about it and ignores that discussion well then its up to me as the DM to decide how I respond to keep things fun for everyone. The fun of the player who is currently acting like a jerk is lower priority for me than the other players who are not currently being jerks, which is just my personal DM style.

[Amnestic]

We will have discussed it ahead of time and they will have fun options

If the player is a jerk about it and ignores that discussion well then its up to me as the DM to decide how I respond to keep things fun for everyone. The fun of the player who is currently acting like a jerk is lower priority for me than the other players who are not currently being jerks, which is just my personal DM style.

Can you detail these "fun options" you believe are available as both a player casting the spell and as a DM? You've given nothing but vagueries so far, except a nebulous concept of "fun". Pin down what you think would be fun.

[JackPhoenix]

What is a player trying to push through? If a player has a theme and wants to play the theme, having DM nuke that and make the spell dysfunction is obviously a breach of said contract. So said contract prevents the DM from balancing the spell.

Perhaps the player should pick a theme actually present in the game, then. If you want to play a "wolf druid", you have to consider that you have no way to guarantee you'll get to "summon your pack" (Conjure Animals doesn't give you actual wolves, but some vague spirits taking the form of wolves) without the DM's explicit consent. It's not "DM nuking your theme", it's "making assumption and then whinning when the DM doesn't bend backwards to accomodate them". It's not a "breach of contract" when "the contract" doesn't work the way you want it to work.

[Amnestic]

Perhaps the player should pick a theme actually present in the game, then.

What themes would you suggest are present for them to pick

[JackPhoenix]

What themes would you suggest are present for them to pick

5e isn't designed for hyperspecialization in a single, extremely narrow theme, it usually doesn't provide support for that theme from level 1 to level 20 (I guess you can find a fire damage spell to throw around from cantrip to level 9 spell level), and does encourage (force, really) you to diversify your options (your fire mage WILL run into something immune to fire sooner or later). If you chose such limited theme ANYWAY, you have no right to complain that you don't have enough options for your theme without the DM's explicit, up-front cooperation. The theme is versatility of options, especially among casters, and picking few things you're better at than the average member of your class.

Sure, you can play your "wolf druid", but Wildshaping into a wolf is pretty much obsolete the moment you get it beyond having a HP buffer, the Dire Wolf is available too late for non-moon druids, and will be obsolete by level 6 if you play a moon druid. "Wolf" is not really something you can emulate through spells, Summon Beast's formless stat blob doesn't really resemble a wolf beyond having Pack Tactic, Conjure Animals doesn't let you pick what you summon by RAI and RAW, but even if you do, it's not "your pack" but some fey spirits pretending to be wolves (which on the other hand means you don't have to worry about "your pack" dying to a Fireball or enemies fighting back in the first battle, but on the other, means anti-fey measures work against them), and while you can probably get a wolf pack to follow you through Animal Friendship, Speak with Animals and Animal Handling checks, you'll face the same logistic issues bringing them anywhere as the necromancer with an army of undead, but even worse, because wolves need food, aren't perfectly under your control, and are harder to replace (and you likely have more emotional investment in them) than skeletons when killed.

[Amnestic]

Sorry, I just wanna make sure I'm clear about this:
You said "Instead of picking a wolf theme, the druid should pick a theme actually present in the game".
I ask what themes you would suggest.
And your response appears to be that there...are no themes because 5e isn't a game that supports themes? Not sure why you said they should pick a theme then. And if there are themes for them to pick, seems like it would've been quicker for you to just list a few.

How do you run CA at your table so that it's fun for everyone?

[JackPhoenix]

Sorry, I just wanna make sure I'm clear about this:
You said "Instead of picking a wolf theme, the druid should pick a theme actually present in the game".
I ask what themes you would suggest.
And your response appears to be that there...are no themes because 5e isn't a game that supports themes? Not sure why you said they should pick a theme then. And if there are themes for them to pick, seems like it would've been quicker for you to just list a few.

There are themes, but they are broad rather than narrow and super-specific, especially if you're a spellcaster. A druid is a theme in itself, a natural mage who can turn into animals and doesn't wear metal armor. A druid focused on shapeshifting into a variety of animals (and later, elementals) is a theme. A druid focused on summoning natural spirits who take various forms, in addition to other druids stuff, is a theme. A "wolf druid" is also a theme, but not one that's well supported by the game.


How do you run CA at your table so that it's fun for everyone?

I don't. Not that I ban it or anything, but in the 8 years or so since my group switched to 5e, I think the only one who ever used that spell was me, as a DM. In all that time, I had one druid (and one tempest cleric with druid instead of cleric spell list), but neither was interested in summoning. People are more interested in martials or in blasting directly. The only person who has shown any interest in minionmancy, in the two groups I play with and in PbP games (at least the 5e ones) I was involved in was myself, and the sad truth is that when I do get to play instead of being an eternal DM, I can handle my turn, including summons, faster than some people can swing a sword. Even after 8 years of playing the same game.

[Lord Ruby34]

What fixed it at my table was to give it a 1 minute casting time, like the similar (but 4th level) spell Conjure Minor Elementals. Suddenly it became this great spell to prepare before combat, but not an option in combat.

I don't hate this idea. I like it when my players actually try and prepare for combat.


The spell is definitely built on assumptions of a social contract around the table which the DM enforces. I can see how there could be issues with it if the social contract has broken down but to me that makes the spell a canary in a coal mine not a stick of dynamite. It will clearly show if your social contract is not working and needs fixing.

If this spell breaks your game then your game had deeper problems already - you just didn't notice

Nah, this is incorrect. The spell is a problem. Two sessions into my first time running a game my Druid, in his second ever session, cast this spell for eight wolves and accidentally destroyed an encounter because he thought wolves were cool.

Now the problem is twofold.

1. Having the broken option on the player's sheet, and having to refrain from using it when the going gets tough feels bad for everyone at the table.
2. The spell is objectively broken. I'm attempting to fix the most over and underpowered spells so that my player's can have the maximum number of reasonable options without feeling like they're making intentionally poor choices.

Nothing wrong with the social contract. We're just trying to make a better game for everyone.

[tokek]

What themes would you suggest are present for them to pick

A theme of "your tribe was close to the wolf packs" works to the extent that the fey spirits are likely to take wolf shape when they can

So then the DM and player work out a few reasonable options that are on hand for the player whenever. If I'm the DM then I will make sure that the more cheesy option - 8 wolves - exists but only when the forces of nature are fully committed. i.e. only when it will be fun for the whole group and maybe when its time for the druid to shine for a scene. I come back to the official rules clarification


The DM will often choose creatures that are appropriate for the campaign and that will be fun to introduce in a scene.

My ranger cast the spell fairly frequently and had a snake theme inspired by the old sticks to snakes spell in much older versions of D&D. But I only did the full 8 snakes 3 times that I can recall between 9th and 20th levels. Mostly he summoned one big enormous snake as blocker. One of the times I had all 8 snakes was the climactic battle against Strahd - which the DM had already decided was going to run over two whole sessions so any concerns about slowing things down were secondary.

My stars druid on a westmarches server generally requests 2 animals suitable to the environment they are in at the time. DMs are usually very cool with that and just happy to say yes to a reasonable request that's very much not going to ruin the fun for everyone else. The theme there is visual and stylistic, not really to do with the stat block at all.

[Pex]

Or houserule it to be weaker.

But agreed on the gist of the point-make the change official, don’t be sneaky about it.

That's fine too. I like PhoenixPhyre's idea of only using the CR 2/CR 1 versions then increase the CR with spell level. That's a reasonable change.

In my personal case the DM took it as a lesson learned. He's fine with the spell as is and will learn to adapt to the ramifications. In my approval opinion as a DM should, but I'm ok with a reasonable nerf instead.

[tokek]

Now the problem is twofold.

1. Having the broken option on the player's sheet, and having to refrain from using it when the going gets tough feels bad for everyone at the table.
2. The spell is objectively broken. I'm attempting to fix the most over and underpowered spells so that my player's can have the maximum number of reasonable options without feeling like they're making intentionally poor choices.

Nothing wrong with the social contract. We're just trying to make a better game for everyone.

The option to pick and choose like that is not on your player's sheet and never was. They made very sure we understood that they meant that when they put it in the Sage Advice Compendium, but honestly I always thought it was fairly clear from the spell wording itself.

This seems to be the mistake that people are making - assuming that the player picks the exact stat blocks when they don't. The DM chooses and the CR guide is the maximum you can get - not any sort of guaranteed result.

If you don't play the spell correctly as per the rules then I guess it would be pretty busted but that's not really the fault of the rules.

[Amnestic]

My ranger cast the spell fairly frequently and had a snake theme inspired by the old sticks to snakes spell in much older versions of D&D. But I only did the full 8 snakes 3 times that I can recall between 9th and 20th levels. Mostly he summoned one big enormous snake as blocker. One of the times I had all 8 snakes was the climactic battle against Strahd - which the DM had already decided was going to run over two whole sessions so any concerns about slowing things down were secondary.

My stars druid on a westmarches server generally requests 2 animals suitable to the environment they are in at the time. DMs are usually very cool with that and just happy to say yes to a reasonable request that's very much not going to ruin the fun for everyone else. The theme there is visual and stylistic, not really to do with the stat block at all.

All this is telling me is that the druid has to actively self-nerf (by never choosing the 8 summon option, except "when it's climactic") in order to get to use the spell.

Why aren't you asking to summon 4 or 8 creatures (or, god forbid, 16/24/32 from upcasting) "suitable to the environment"?

[Eldariel]

The designers have clearly stated their intent and you are incorrect. The intent is absolutely for the result of the spell to be what most enhances the fun of the game. Balance is certainly one element of what makes the game fun.

And having your spell be awesome one day and terrible the next, or having it not be predictable, is pretty much the definition of "not fun" for a player.

[tokek]

And having your spell be awesome one day and terrible the next, or having it not be predictable, is pretty much the definition of "not fun" for a player.

That's why the player and DM actually talk. Then everyone knows what to expect.

Which is how the game works. Its not a computer moderated game with a purely mechanical engine, its a game where a set of players and a DM work together to have fun.

[JNAProductions]

That's why the player and DM actually talk. Then everyone knows what to expect.

Which is how the game works. Its not a computer moderated game with a purely mechanical engine, its a game where a set of players and a DM work together to have fun.

Do you have to talk the same way about Fireball? Or Thunderwave? How about Unseen Servant? Foresight? Cone Of Cold?

The fact that this spell absolutely NEEDS discussion is a sign that it's an outlier that should be adjusted. And if a DM told me, who was playing a Druid or Ranger, "You won't always get beasts of the CR indicated-sometimes it'll be lower," my response would be "Then I won't use the spell."

If we're in a bog and I get Giant Frogs instead of Wolves, that's one thing. They're still CR 1/4. They still do damage and have a decent enough rider.
If we're in a bog and I get Frogs instead of Wolves, that's the DM wasting my entire action and Concentration on a joke.

[Snivlem]

D
The fact that this spell absolutely NEEDS discussion is a sign that it's an outlier that should be adjusted.

This. Every spell/abilty that demands you to have a special little talk with your DM, show off a weakness in design:
- How does illusions work in your campaign?
- Can someone else feed a goodberry to an unconscious creature in your campaign?
- How does steel defender work if my small character mounts it?
Etc.
All of these questions illustrates weakness in design. I dont mind them as much as a DM cause I will have prepared answers for them, I hate having to ask them as a player though.

[tokek]

Do you have to talk the same way about Fireball? Or Thunderwave? How about Unseen Servant? Foresight? Cone Of Cold?
.

I do have to have that discussion for a bunch of illusion spells, suggestion and some others. There are just things in the game that need to be ruled on by a DM and it’s wise to discuss that ahead of time.

It’s never been a problem so long as I had that discussion ahead of time.

[tokek]

This. Every spell/abilty that demands you to have a special little talk with your DM, show off a weakness in design:
- How does illusions work in your campaign?
- Can someone else feed a goodberry to an unconscious creature in your campaign?
- How does steel defender work if my small character mounts it?
Etc.
All of these questions illustrates weakness in design. I dont mind them as much as a DM cause I will have prepared answers for them, I hate having to ask them as a player though.

It is a design choice. D&D 5e is designed to have an active DM who makes rulings - not a passive arbitrator who interprets and applies rules.

That is a design choice that they made. Its a matter of taste if you like it, not a matter of weakness or strength.

[NontheistCleric]

It is a design choice. D&D 5e is designed to have an active DM who makes rulings - not a passive arbitrator who interprets and applies rules.

That is a design choice that they made. Its a matter of taste if you like it, not a matter of weakness or strength.

I'd say it's a weak design choice. All versions of D&D have required rulings, when characters use abilities or interact with mechanics in ways that were not anticipated when the rules were written. That is not an excuse for writing abilities that do not account for situations that are likely to come up in play, or that do not properly define what they do.

The whole point of having rules at all is to take some of the strain of adjudicating game events off the DM, and to allow the players to feel that the DM's adjudication is not simply arbitrary. In my opinion, 5E sometimes shirks that duty a little too much.

[Snivlem]

It is a design choice. D&D 5e is designed to have an active DM who makes rulings - not a passive arbitrator who interprets and applies rules.

That is a design choice that they made. Its a matter of taste if you like it, not a matter of weakness or strength.

I dont agree.
In the case of skills, yeah that is how they designed the game.
In the case of spells like illusion and suggestion, yeah you might be right, and probably are.
In the case of most spells and class abilities? No, they are not designed like that at all.
In the other cases I mentioned. No I dont think these are sloppy design by intent at all. They are just mistakes and/or oversights.

[tokek]

I'd say it's a weak design choice. All versions of D&D have required rulings, when characters use abilities or interact with mechanics in ways that were not anticipated when the rules were written. That is not an excuse for writing abilities that do not account for situations that are likely to come up in play, or that do not properly define what they do.

The whole point of having rules at all is to take some of the strain of adjudicating game events off the DM, and to allow the players to feel that the DM's adjudication is not simply arbitrary. In my opinion, 5E sometimes shirks that duty a little too much.

That is a valid opinion but its a subjective one. A matter of taste.

D&D can have some wildly creative stuff in it precisely because it has the sort of flexibility that a rulings rather than rules approach enables. This is true of Conjure Animals as much as it is of Illusion spells. If you don't want to make rulings as a DM then maybe you need to remove a lot of stuff from the game in session zero, that's up to you and that's what session zero is for. There are far more prominent abilities that rely heavily on rulings - I would say that Stealth is the absolute top contender for that award.

[tokek]

I dont agree.
In the case of skills, yeah that is how they designed the game.
In the case of spells like illusion and suggestion, yeah you might be right, and probably are.
In the case of most spells and class abilities? No, they are not designed like that at all.
In the other cases I mentioned. No I dont think these are sloppy design by intent at all. They are just mistakes and/or oversights.

In the case of Conjure Animals it is absolutely the case that they intended it to be subject to DM ruling and they have said so officially in the Sage Advice Compendium. Its not sloppy - they intended it.

[Snivlem]

In the case of Conjure Animals it is absolutely the case that they intended it to be subject to DM ruling and they have said so officially in the Sage Advice Compendium. Its not sloppy - they intended it.

Well they say they intended it.
They also claim they intended for devil sight to not work in dim light.
I dont believe either of those claims.
If they really intended for the DM to pick the creatures when they designed the spell, they would have put that in the rules, because it is not intuitive at all, it isnt even suggested in the actual text. Also, it doesnt really matter, because it is not at all how they designed spells and abilities in general, and if they really did so by intent with this one, that was a bad decision, and wotc clearly regrets this decision now (with reference to tashas and what we so far know about the 2024 edition)

[da newt]

Why hasn't WotC actually published an errata to change conjure animals and the similar spells to SPECIFICALLY read that the caster chooses the CR and # of conjures and then the DM chooses the specific beast?

IMO the sage advice does not match the written spell at all - it's a huge leap of interpretation that is NOT supported by the spell's official wording.

"Conjure Animals
You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range. Choose one of the following options for what appears.

• One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower

• Two beasts of challenge rating 1 or lower

• Four beasts of challenge rating 1/2 or lower

• Eight beasts of challenge rating 1/4 or lower

Each beast is also considered fey, and it disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends.

The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions. Roll initiative for the summoned creatures as a group, which has its own turns. They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you). If you don't issue any commands to them, they defend themselves from hostile creatures, but otherwise take no actions. The DM has the creatures' statistics.

At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using certain higher-level spell slots, you choose one of the summoning options above, and more creatures appear - twice as many with a 5th-level slot, three times as many with a 7th-level slot, and four times as many with a 9th-level slot."


As a caster with this spell's specific verbiage it tells me that one of my options is to choose any 8 beasts of CR 1/4 or lower. The interpretation that the caster can't choose which 8 creatures of CR 1/4 or less requires a very skewed reading of the printed word. The notion that the sentence "The DM has the creature's statistics." means that the DM get to decide what beasts of your requested CR/# answer the call is ludicrous.

If the developers / authors intend for the DM to determine which beasts show up F-in' change the spell and state it specifically!

[Schwann145]

Doing exactly what the wording of the spell says is not nerfing the spell. It is playing the spell correctly as written.

Those CR 1/8 and CR 0 options are there for a reason. The sage advice explains that yes they do mean exactly what they appear to mean - that these are also options for the DM when the spell is cast if that is the best option for everyone to have fun at the table.
Would like your honest take on this hypothetical:
You're playing a Druid that casts Conjure Animals and you opt to conjure 1 Beast of CR2 or lower. Your DM decides to choose a single Beast of CR1/8th to answer your conjuring, and their only reasoning is that they have personal problems with the spell.
What do you feel about that choice? Do you ever bother to prepare Conjure Animals again, knowing that the outcome won't change?


If a am paying to play at a golf course, I am expecting the club to keep the coarse tidy and clean. I am happy to admit I am to "lazy" to cut the grass myself.

You are basically saying: just cut the grass yourself, having a hobby takes time and effort, some work is required either way so it does not matter. Talk with your friends and you can cut the grass together. This is golf 101.
Our perspectives are clearly different here.
To me, it sounds much more like, "all these curves and sand traps and ponds make this golf game way too time-consuming and difficult to play; you need to redesign the course with much straighter lines between the tee and the hole, so that I'm not spending all day. Your job, golf-course-designer, is to make it as easy as possible for me to play the game."


I have proposed this "solution" to my players. It has been flatly dismissed.I have never seen a player pleased with this solution. Players (at least my players) want to run their own character and be responsible for their own abilities, they dont feel excited at all having to run other players abilities.
The characters are expected to work as a team, but that's too much to ask of the players? That's a real shame.

[NontheistCleric]

That is a valid opinion but its a subjective one. A matter of taste.

D&D can have some wildly creative stuff in it precisely because it has the sort of flexibility that a rulings rather than rules approach enables. This is true of Conjure Animals as much as it is of Illusion spells. If you don't want to make rulings as a DM then maybe you need to remove a lot of stuff from the game in session zero, that's up to you and that's what session zero is for.
They could have rules and also allow for rulings. In fact, it's established that the DM can change the rules anytime they like, and there are already spells like Find Steed that give default options while saying the DM can expand those options if desired.

That makes the game better for everyone, no matter whether they prefer rules or rulings, so not including it is a weakness in design.

Enabling flexibility is good, but it is not an excuse for not writing good rules and leaving that task to the people who paid money for your product–and a flurry of dubious errata in the form of tweets only showed how flimsy the actual rules they wrote were.


There are far more prominent abilities that rely heavily on rulings - I would say that Stealth is the absolute top contender for that award.

Really? I should have thought Stealth was quite simple: If you're obscured from someone, you can try to hide from them–nothing more or less. There may be some other niche uses, but that is far and away the most prominent application of the skill.

[Schwann145]

Can we flip the script for a moment?

Are AoE spells unbalanced and in need of nerfing and/or banning because they can easily dominate encounters based on lots of small enemies?
It's the exact same situation as CA is creating, only in reverse. So the logic is the same. Is Shatter, Fireball, Cone of Cold, etc all unfair and poorly designed spells?

If you think CA is, then I don't see how you can say the latter are not.

[JNAProductions]

Can we flip the script for a moment?

Are AoE spells unbalanced and in need of nerfing and/or banning because they can easily dominate encounters based on lots of small enemies?
It's the exact same situation as CA is creating, only in reverse. So the logic is the same. Is Shatter, Fireball, Cone of Cold, etc all unfair and poorly designed spells?

If you think CA is, then I don't see how you can say the latter are not.

Because Conjure works as well or better against hordes too.
Because it takes a ton of time to resolve, rather than a handful of saves and be done.
Because it’s considerably more powerful than just an AoE blast.

There’s a lot of reasons.

[Snivlem]

Our perspectives are clearly different here.
To me, it sounds much more like, "all these curves and sand traps and ponds make this golf game way too time-consuming and difficult to play; you need to redesign the course with much straighter lines between the tee and the hole, so that I'm not spending all day. Your job, golf-course-designer, is to make it as easy as possible for me to play the game."


Yes, our perspective is clearly different.
I would not consider discussing rules,trying to figure out rules, looking up stats. etc. the core game experience, but rather pauses from the game. According to your analogy, these things are a part of the core challenge of your games. That makes little sence to me, but you do you.

To me, your anology with be like asking your DM for soft or no challenges. In game challenges is what is supposed to be challenging in the game, not figuring out and resolving rules.





The characters are expected to work as a team, but that's too much to ask of the players? That's a real shame.

Maybe? Perhaps players would percieve it differently if it was more of a sideways coorpererarion, rahter than just 1 single PCs abilities being a burden on the entire team.

Can we flip the script for a moment?

Are AoE spells unbalanced and in need of nerfing and/or banning because they can easily dominate encounters based on lots of small enemies?
It's the exact same situation as CA is creating, only in reverse. So the logic is the same. Is Shatter, Fireball, Cone of Cold, etc all unfair and poorly designed spells?

If you think CA is, then I don't see how you can say the latter are not.

Really?
All of these spells are:
- quick and simple to resolve.
- have clear cut rules not relying on dm interpretation.
- Work in a single round for a single encounter, not for multiple encounters for 1 hour.
- Not really any better than conjure animals at resolving most encounters with multiple opponents.
I dont really get why you think conjure animals is only good against a single enemy. Are we reading the same spell?

[Schwann145]

All of these spells are:
- quick and simple to resolve.
- have clear cut rules not relying on dm interpretation.
- Work in a single round for a single encounter, not for multiple encounters for 1 hour.
- Not really any better than conjure animals at resolving most encounters with multiple opponents.
I dont really get why you think conjure animals is only good against a single enemy. Are we reading the same spell?

•It's true that Conjure Animals isn't quick or simple to resolve... unless the player comes prepared for it's casting. But this is true for all minion spells, and the "official" advice about how to run said spells (ie: the DM picks the results) is about the worst, slowest, most clunky way to bog down a game imaginable. Imagine, the player has the stats for their summon/conjure all ready to go, but the DM doesn't like the power of that cast, so they have to spend 20 minutes flipping through the MM/DMG choosing alternatives, jotting down their stats, etc.
Worst Sage Advice ever! :smallbiggrin:
•The Conjure spells are all clear cut and don't need to rely on DM interpretation at all. The baggage from these spells has been added from the outside.
•True, Instantaneous is indeed faster than Concentration. That doesn't make it easier, just different (unless Concentration spells are inherently problematic compared to Instantaneous spells, but I don't think you're making that argument).
•Never said it was better. Just that the situation that is "problematic" is basically the same (ie: the players did too good, and now the combat is over too early).

[tokek]

Enabling flexibility is good, but it is not an excuse for not writing good rules and leaving that task to the people who paid money for your product–and a flurry of dubious errata in the form of tweets only showed how flimsy the actual rules they wrote were.

.

The tweets are not official rules - the compendium is.

Anyway we can all agree that the compendium makes it entirely clear that the DM ultimately picks the beasts that are conjured. So the spell cannot break the game unless that’s what the DM wants.

[NontheistCleric]

The tweets are not official rules - the compendium is.
Yes, but the compendium is an extension of the tweets, which used to be official rules. The fact that either were necessary at all is an example of poor design.

[tokek]

Yes, but the compendium is an extension of the tweets, which used to be official rules. The fact that either were necessary at all is an example of poor design.

I’m not really aware of published games that don’t need errata and clarification. It’s normal. There is really no point complaining about what is normal and which the industry considers good practice

[Snivlem]

Worst Sage Advice ever! :smallbiggrin:

At least we agree here.



•The Conjure spells are all clear cut and don't need to rely on DM interpretation at all. The baggage from these spells has been added from the outside.

Kinda true. I know there was discussion on how it should be ruled prior to the sage advice ruling. That is the reason why it was eventually even brought up in sage advice. Also, without this ruling, the spell is just far, far to strong.



•True, Instantaneous is indeed faster than Concentration. That doesn't make it easier, just different (unless Concentration spells are inherently problematic compared to Instantaneous spells, but I don't think you're making that argument).

You are right, I am not making that argument. I am arguing that a spell that is instantaneous with a single damage roll is far easier to resolve than a spell that brings 8 new bodies on a field, and that a spell that both cleans up and an encounter and then sticks around for another hour, is more powerfull than a spell that just cleans up a single encounter.



•Never said it was better. Just that the situation that is "problematic" is basically the same (ie: the players did too good, and now the combat is over too early).
So you would agree spells like fireball isnt actually better at cleaning up hordes of mobs, yet that is the only thing fireball is actually great at. Conjure animals is great in pretty much any combat scenario, and also, if we ignore sage advice (like you suggest?), can provide flight for the entire party at as well as tons of other utility. And yet you ask why we complain about one and not the other?

[NontheistCleric]

I’m not really aware of published games that don’t need errata and clarification. It’s normal. There is really no point complaining about what is normal and which the industry considers good practice

Normal and good practice to have errata at all, yes, but I think the slipshod way in which the errata process was conducted reveals that the designers were not properly thinking things through at many stages. More than once, the man who was supposed to be providing errata contradicted himself or said things that completely failed to illuminate ambiguous rules.

Anyway, getting back to my original point... 'Leave it up to the DM' is a valid design principle in some cases, but not, I think, in the case of a spell like Conjure Animals, where default options could easily have been provided and prevented a lot of potential (and actual) congestion. 'Leave it up to the DM' is really barely a design principle at all. It's basically the designers shirking responsibility for the actual design and balance of the ability.

[stoutstien]

Normal and good practice to have errata at all, yes, but I think the slipshod way in which the errata process was conducted reveals that the designers were not properly thinking things through at many stages. More than once, the man who was supposed to be providing errata contradicted himself or said things that completely failed to illuminate ambiguous rules.

Anyway, getting back to my original point... 'Leave it up to the DM' is a valid design principle in some cases, but not, I think, in the case of a spell like Conjure Animals, where default options could easily have been provided and prevented a lot of potential (and actual) congestion. 'Leave it up to the DM' is really barely a design principle at all. It's basically the designers shirking responsibility for the actual design and balance of the ability.

Leave it for the GM works well if the system actually supports this design approach. At the very least features that interact in a subsystem need to apply this approach consistently. You don't have one class that has the attack action as printed and the another class with an attack action that works on the whim of the DMs option on how much it should impact a given challenge. The more explicit the subsystem gets the more consistent things rules need to be.


This is also why the example of illusions is a Red Herring. The rules are vague and are dependent on the GM but they also, barring explicit and high level exceptions, they can't actually make anything that is real. NPCs might react to illusionary fire differently but can't actually burn anything or anyone. While they can be used in combat they don't interact with those rules outside of time keeping elements.

This is the core issue with the conjure animal/fey spells. They are vague but also interact with the most explicit subsystem(combat).If they were worded in such a way they only interacted with the combat subsystem or exploratory / social pillars then you could cut 90% of the issues off at the knees.

[Damon_Tor]

As a tangent to this: is there anywhere I can get a few dozen animal minis for cheap? Or am I better off with flat beads/card cutouts?

You can get packages of little plastic animals at dollar stores and craft stores. You aren't likely to find perfect 1 inch/5 feet scale, but they work well enough and they're cheap.

[Schwann145]

So you would agree spells like fireball isnt actually better at cleaning up hordes of mobs, yet that is the only thing fireball is actually great at. Conjure animals is great in pretty much any combat scenario, and also, if we ignore sage advice (like you suggest?), can provide flight for the entire party at as well as tons of other utility. And yet you ask why we complain about one and not the other?
Oh, certainly not.
Conjure Animals is good at dealing with mooks in the same way that Fireball is good at damaging a single enemy; technically true but very inefficient and you end up feeling like you wasted a slot doing it.
I also don't believe it provides "tons of other utility" beyond what you already mentioned. Beasts are not particularly useful or powerful creatures so being a weak extra body and possibly flying are about the most you can expect, really.

[Psyren]

Oh, certainly not.
Conjure Animals is good at dealing with mooks in the same way that Fireball is good at damaging a single enemy; technically true but very inefficient and you end up feeling like you wasted a slot doing it.
I also don't believe it provides "tons of other utility" beyond what you already mentioned. Beasts are not particularly useful or powerful creatures so being a weak extra body and possibly flying are about the most you can expect, really.

But it's not inefficient/wasted at that, because it doubles as defense too (the animals can obstruct enemies and absorb attacks, saving party resources like healing), and has a high chance of lasting multiple combats for your spell slot dollar. In fact, it's a natural efficiency hedge - the less incoming damage the summons absorb, the more likely it is they'll be able to last multiple combats. Thus the offensive potential of the summons, even in a distributed / horde vs horde scenario, is only part of their usefulness equation, possibly even the lesser part in that case.

[Schwann145]

Sure, it's an overall better spell, I'm not really disputing that.
But those conjures can't taunt. They can be as focused or ignored as the DM wants, and their low offensive capabilities don't make them a huge threat.

People say it doesn't matter which CR1/4 option you choose, they're all unbalanced and a problem, but that's not really true. People aren't being honest about how much lifting Pact Tactics and a free Trip on every attack is actually doing.
8 Giant Wolf Spiders are significantly less threatening than 8 Wolves. 8 Riding Horses are even less threatening than 8 Giant Wolf Spiders. Etc.

[Psyren]

Sure, it's an overall better spell, I'm not really disputing that.
But those conjures can't taunt. They can be as focused or ignored as the DM wants, and their low offensive capabilities don't make them a huge threat.

They can't be completely ignored. If you park a Small or larger creature in a doorway or other chokepoint, most enemies need to burn their action(s) on dealing with that one way or another, and lots of beasts qualify - and doing that cost no action from you. Similarly, Medium and Large beasts can be used as cover for your ranged teammates pretty easily.


People say it doesn't matter which CR1/4 option you choose, they're all unbalanced and a problem, but that's not really true. People aren't being honest about how much lifting Pact Tactics and a free Trip on every attack is actually doing.
8 Giant Wolf Spiders are significantly less threatening than 8 Wolves. 8 Riding Horses are even less threatening than 8 Giant Wolf Spiders. Etc.

The lack of balance between options is a mark against the spell, not in favor of it. It punishes players and DMs who aren't as familiar with monster abilities to this degree.

[Eldariel]

They can't be completely ignored. If you park a Small or larger creature in a doorway or other chokepoint, most enemies need to burn their action(s) on dealing with that one way or another, and lots of beasts qualify - and doing that cost no action from you. Similarly, Medium and Large beasts can be used as cover for your ranged teammates pretty easily.

Even in a white room, physical 8 medium bodies can completely surround any medium creature making it unable to move. Large bodies can do this for large creatures and huges for huge creatures. Of course, such absurd degree of physical coercion is rarely necessary when the target is also threatened by 8 OAs and the creatures tend to be extremely powerful offensively; provoking off all of them doubles the damage they deal and even without that we're already looking at 40-100ish DPR from just the summons depending on the creature, the target, and the conditions.

If enemy ignores them, you're more than happy; that's one dead enemy. If the enemy attacks them, you're also happy; that's party not taking damage. Honestly, the spell is just so ridiculously reliable that there are only bad options on the opponents' side when you flood the battlefield with nonsense.

[Schwann145]

They can't be completely ignored. If you park a Small or larger creature in a doorway or other chokepoint, most enemies need to burn their action(s) on dealing with that one way or another, and lots of beasts qualify - and doing that cost no action from you. Similarly, Medium and Large beasts can be used as cover for your ranged teammates pretty easily.
Sure, but choke points are quite specific and far from a guarantee on most battlefields.
Cover options are great but you're likely only adding more, not creating, which limits that usefulness.

But, at this point, it's just nitpicking finer details.
Again, CA is a better spell, usually, than Fireball. That doesn't change my point earlier that the contention is essentially the same, yet inequality applied.


The lack of balance between options is a mark against the spell, not in favor of it. It punishes players and DMs who aren't as familiar with monster abilities to this degree.
It really has nothing to do with the spell and everything to do with the core failure of CR design. Riding Horses and Wolves have no business being the same CR, regardless of Conjure Animals.

[Psyren]

Sure, but choke points are quite specific and far from a guarantee on most battlefields.
Cover options are great but you're likely only adding more, not creating, which limits that usefulness.

But, at this point, it's just nitpicking finer details.
Again, CA is a better spell, usually, than Fireball. That doesn't change my point earlier that the contention is essentially the same, yet inequality applied.

Your earlier point is what we're disputing/disagreeing with, yes. There is not a double standard being applied, CA deserving more scrutiny than Fireball is warranted.

Even in a white room (and rooms with obstacles and chokepoints are far more common than I think you care to admit) Eldariel is correct, you can still dish out a lot of damage while simultaneously restricting a lot of enemy movement, especially at the levels CA comes online and flying enemies are less common.



It really has nothing to do with the spell and everything to do with the core failure of CR design. Riding Horses and Wolves have no business being the same CR, regardless of Conjure Animals.

I agree with this, but that's even more reason why spells that make CR into a player-facing statistic are unlikely to be well-designed. Which is why I find statements like this one...



The spell is absolutely fine. Do better, DMs.

...to be not just problematic, but entirely divorced from reality.

[JNAProductions]

I'm trying to think of an appropriate encounter for 5th level PCs where Conjure Animals is a non-factor. Like, it'd be just as hard with or without it.

They'd have to be immune to non-magical damage, otherwise the damage dished out by summons is a considerable factor.
They'd have to be either so big, so small, or otherwise special that they can pass through the space of any summons without being stopped, but since you can summon creatures from Small to Huge, that's practically impossible without Incorporeal Movement.
They'd have to be immune to being tripped or grappled, since even if they're immune to damage and can move through them, animals can still do basic combat actions.

Looking at Incorporeal monsters...
Banshees can be hurt, if at half damage.
Shadow Demons too.
Ghosts as well.
And Wraiths.

Since the damage of Conjure is pretty high, you'd pretty much need to use Were-Creatures (since you can't silver the summons and can't make them magic damage, unless Shepherd Druid) and even then, trips, grapples, and body blocking are all pretty damn useful.

[Zuras]

I'm trying to think of an appropriate encounter for 5th level PCs where Conjure Animals is a non-factor. Like, it'd be just as hard with or without it.

They'd have to be immune to non-magical damage, otherwise the damage dished out by summons is a considerable factor.
They'd have to be either so big, so small, or otherwise special that they can pass through the space of any summons without being stopped, but since you can summon creatures from Small to Huge, that's practically impossible without Incorporeal Movement.
They'd have to be immune to being tripped or grappled, since even if they're immune to damage and can move through them, animals can still do basic combat actions.

Looking at Incorporeal monsters...
Banshees can be hurt, if at half damage.
Shadow Demons too.
Ghosts as well.
And Wraiths.

Since the damage of Conjure is pretty high, you'd pretty much need to use Were-Creatures (since you can't silver the summons and can't make them magic damage, unless Shepherd Druid) and even then, trips, grapples, and body blocking are all pretty damn useful.

It’s not about it being a non-factor, the question is how often would you rather have Call Lightning, an upcast Moonbeam, or an upcast Heat Metal? Maybe a third of the time—CA is pretty strong. How often is it better than other top 3rd level options like Spirit Guardians, Haste, and Fireball though?

I think Conjure Animals definitely verges on being over-powered, but many of my favorite 5e memories are also related to CA shenanigans, so it’s very much a spell governed by the social contract at my table, and normally 2 CR 1 creatures is what you’re allowed to pick till you’ve proven to me the game won’t start dragging on your turn.

[Amnestic]

It’s not about it being a non-factor, the question is how often would you rather have Call Lightning, an upcast Moonbeam, or an upcast Heat Metal? Maybe a third of the time—CA is pretty strong. How often is it better than other top 3rd level options like Spirit Guardians, Haste, and Fireball though?

Assuming your DM doesn't decide to randomly give you CR0 creatures when you ask for 8 CR1/4 creatures?

Incredibly often. Like it blows haste out of the water, it's not even a contest.

[Psyren]

And even if it didn't result in more raw power than Haste and SG - somehow - it's still more of a pain to run round-by-round.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And even if it didn't result in more raw power than Haste and SG - somehow - it's still more of a pain to run round-by-round.

Yeah. Combining the two threads--

It's got all of the following properties

* Causes arguments at the table
* Slows down table play best case
* Is substantially more flexible than the otherwise best 3rd level spells
* Is substantially more powerful even when those other ones apply fully than the otherwise best 3rd level spells
* Has limited counterplay that doesn't cause even more problems
* Can be buffed through the roof (Shepherd druid)

To me, that says that conjure animals as it currently exists is a poor fit for 5e. And instead of contorting ourselves to fix everything it breaks...it's way more cost and time-effective to fix it. Not only that, it has the lowest probability of causing cascading problems.

A fix might be any of
* ban it entirely
* cut out the N > 2 options and have it scale on CR rather on number (which makes way more sense to me anyway)
* explicitly specify what monsters you get for any given choice.
* probably other things I haven't thought of right now.

[Schwann145]

Well, casters who get CA don't get Haste and vice versa. Also, upcasting is never worth the slot you end up at; it's a very underdeveloped strategy.

So better potential comparisons for that 3rd level spell slot are: Aura of Vitality, Call Lightning, Dispel Magic, Elemental Weapon (for low-magic games), Erupting Earth, Plant Growth, Protection From Evil and Good, Revivify, or Sleet Storm.


As for the spell, I'm moving toward cutting out that low end entirely. You get 1x cr 2 or 2x cr 1 from fixed lists. Upcast and you get higher crs, not more.
Out of curiosity, do you honestly think that there are enough Beasts to make this a viable choice? I'm currently on DNDBeyond looking at all the beasts between CR5 and 8 (so, ostensibly, an upcast to level 6 through level 9) and... it's slim pickings at best. There are a ton of sea creatures that won't be viable in most games, there are a ton of dinosaurs that are way off-theme for many games, there are a ton of options buried in supplements that most people won't even be aware exist as they aren't in the MM or DMG, and all this makes the short list so much shorter.
Not only that, is a single T-Rex worth a 9th level spell slot? (I'd be shocked if you said yes, but I'll ask anyway!)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, casters who get CA don't get Haste and vice versa. Also, upcasting is never worth the slot you end up at; it's a very underdeveloped strategy.

So better potential comparisons for that 3rd level spell slot are: Aura of Vitality, Call Lightning, Dispel Magic, Elemental Weapon (for low-magic games), Erupting Earth, Plant Growth, Protection From Evil and Good, Revivify, or Sleet Storm.


Out of curiosity, do you honestly think that there are enough Beasts to make this a viable choice? I'm currently on DNDBeyond looking at all the beasts between CR5 and 8 (so, ostensibly, an upcast to level 6 through level 9) and... it's slim pickings at best. There are a ton of sea creatures that won't be viable in most games, there are a ton of dinosaurs that are way off-theme for many games, there are a ton of options buried in supplements that most people won't even be aware exist as they aren't in the MM or DMG, and all this makes the short list so much shorter.
Not only that, is a single T-Rex worth a 9th level spell slot? (I'd be shocked if you said yes, but I'll ask anyway!)

For the record, Conjure Animals beats the pants off of all of those combined (speaking of sheer power + versatility). Or are completely non-competing.

I'm totally fine with not upcasting indefinitely. Having no increased benefit after ~spell level 5 works just fine for me.


Base effect-- Choose either
* CR 2: One cave bear, giant boar, giant constrictor snake, hunter shark, or saber-toothed tiger.
* CR 1: Two dire wolves, brown bears, giant spiders, giant octopuses, or giant toads.

At 4th level, add:
* CR 3: 1 giant scorpion or killer whale or 2 of the CR 2 options.

At 5th level, add:
* CR 4: 1 elephant or 2 of the CR 3 options.

[sithlordnergal]

I mean...I've personally never had an issue with Conjure Animals. And I'm someone who historically lets players choose the animal they summon, regardless of theme or location. So yes, I have had 16 Wolves...or 16 velociraptors, which make Wolves look like a CR 0 in comparison. But then, I also run a harder DnD then people like Phoenix Phyre. Personally, I always gives NPCs some kind of AoE. Not to counter Conjure Animals mind you, but simply to hit the entire party all at once. I can see why someone who doesn't run a game like that would have trouble with Conjure Animals.

As for my personal thoughts on it:

1) I don't see a need to change Conjure Animals, its fine as it is

2) If a player intends to use it, they need to learn how to be a quick and efficient minionmancer. You wanna control 16 animals? Sure, you can do it. You got 30 seconds to 1 minute max to complete your entire turn. When that timer ends, your turn is over. If you haven't given orders to the animals, they do nothing. If you haven't taken any actions yourself, you do nothing, not even dodge. Next time be faster and preplan your turns.


That said, there are ways to speed up minionmancy:

1) Pre-plan your turn. You should know exactly what you're going to do the very second your turn starts. If you're looking at the game and trying to figure out what you want to do as your turn starts, then you're already behind.

2) Just use a single Initiative for all of the summoned creatures.

2) Roll all the dice at once. Don't waste your time figuring out one attack at a time, figure it all out at the same time. This might require you to download a dice rolling program, or might require you to buy a bunch of dice. But if you've just summoned 16 Raptors, you have 32 attacks to get through, all at advantage. You don't have time to do each attack one at a time. Roll 8 attacks at once, which in this case is 16d20, pair off the dice to account for advantage, mentally add the +4, and start going through the rolls to see what hit.


I suggest ordering the rolls from lowest to highest. The moment you get a hit, you can ignore all rolls lower than that one, unless there's some huge difference between the roll that hit and the last roll that missed. Do it again for the rest of your attacks, then roll all of the damage at once. Yes, you will occasionally overkill a creature and waste damage. Yes, its a lot more work on the player's part. Yes, you need to do that as quickly as possible. Those are the things you need to learn how to deal with when you want to be a minionmancer.

[greenstone]

I had a player take Sheherd Druid, which I liked as I wanted to see it in action.

We played the spell pretty mnuch as written in the book, with two main changes.

First, he'd never get 8 large creatures. This was just a sanity rule for me - I didn't want 8 large creatures on the combat grid.

Second, summoned creatures always operated in two groups. Summon 8 animals, you get two groups of four, each group gets the same orders. Summon 4, get two groups of two. And so on.

We already had a house rule that all summons used average damage, so having 8 extra allies didn't slow stuff down as much, especially when the player worked out to deal with the the d20 rolls in order.

The spell saw action in almost all combats, and was extremely useful as a crowd control and meat shield. Foes attacking summoned beasts meant those foes weren't attacking PCs. The summoned beasts blocked movement very, very effectively (both for foes and for allies :-).

The player pretty much always used it to summon 8 beasts, as more beasts meant more crowd control.

Even with the "attacks are magical" feature, it never felt that the beasts added much to the party's damage output.

If the player felt that lots of damage was called for then he cast lightning storm instead of conjure animals.

[Chaos Jackal]

It’s not about it being a non-factor, the question is how often would you rather have Call Lightning, an upcast Moonbeam, or an upcast Heat Metal? Maybe a third of the time—CA is pretty strong. How often is it better than other top 3rd level options like Spirit Guardians, Haste, and Fireball though?

Less than a third of the time probably - call lightning really isn't a good spell, moonbeam is situational (shapeshifters and/or pushing/dragging enemies through hazards, which requires party synergy) and heat metal is a cheap and effective way to ruin the day of a big fat enemy bruiser in armor, but is considerably less effective if the fight lacks threatening enemies of the type. Meanwhile, conjure animals will just be very effective in any situation that doesn't involve an aoe effect landing right after the cast; at worst, assuming intelligent play, it's a whole bunch of extra hp and bodies to annoy enemies, at best it's an assassin squad eating through everything. Only if the DM gives you absolute trash as summons or if the DM/player treats more advanced tactics as metagaming (for example, one of my DMs doesn't allow surrounding or multiple grapple/shove attempts as an order without burning an action because it's too complex and also gamist in his opinion, even though it would be absolutely natural behavior for, say, wolves) is the spell gonna have questionable value.

Comparing it with the other options you mentioned doesn't have as much value, considering that it's not gonna be very common for a character to have both conjure animals and one of them (not impossible though), but for the sake of it, let's see. Fireball has already been brought up a few times, but to be fair, it does have some merit - it's potentially better if space is limited or if you just want the enemy swarm to die right now and cannot afford to wait for the animals, possibly because you're fighting something fragile but very dangerous, such as a bunch of intellect devourers. Both real situations which can show up decently often, admittedly, particularly the first one. Haste is certainly not a top tier spell - it's just decent - and a single target buff like that cannot possibly match calling down a pack of whatever, unless the hasted target's attacks are absolutely cataclysmic, which isn't gonna be the case the vast majority of the time. Spirit guardians is very strong but funnily enough, it tends to serve pretty similar purposes - providing both damage and control at the same time, possibly across multiple encounters - and it loses out in most metrics. Conjure animals lasts longer, has greater damage potential (though it won't always win out, it will do so often enough) and better control (half speed around you is nice but lots of animals running around blocking, grappling and shoving plus potentially having some special effect is nicer).

The problem with conjure animals' power is twofold. It's quite strong in ideal situations and at the same time it has application in a lot of situations, many of which are ideal or nearly so. It is possible to feel like you've gone wrong with preparing the spell for the day, but it's highly unlikely.

[Pex]

I don't find it fair to compare a spell to another spell you'll never cast. Playing a druid I don't have access to Fireball or Haste, so it doesn't matter if I'm better off casting Conjure Animals. I'd never have the option to choose otherwise. It is more fair to compare would I rather cast Conjure Animals or Call Lightning. As for me it's not a question of which spell is better overall but which spell is more useful for the situation I'm dealing with.

[Schwann145]

The problem with conjure animals' power is twofold. It's quite strong in ideal situations and at the same time it has application in a lot of situations, many of which are ideal or nearly so. It is possible to feel like you've gone wrong with preparing the spell for the day, but it's highly unlikely.

If only more spells could be described as such, we might start seeing actual diversity in player-chosen prepared spells. Alas... :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

I don't find it fair to compare a spell to another spell you'll never cast. Playing a druid I don't have access to Fireball or Haste, so it doesn't matter if I'm better off casting Conjure Animals. I'd never have the option to choose otherwise.

Land Druid exists (and Lore Bard), both of which are core, but that's not even the point. The spell is annoying even if you don't have other options. In fact, alternatives at third level being weaker make it worse, because it means inexperienced players and tables are more likely to prepare the damn thing without being aware of the pitfalls, not less.

Summon Beast, despite being a full spell level lower, is much less likely to need an entire encounter warped around its existence.

[Schwann145]

Question for the topic: How many people regularly cast the high CR version of Conjure Animals and/or Summon Beast regularly?

As I understand it, those options are regarded as so poor to not bother with at all.

If the advice of the thread is, "instead of using CA in this way people find problematic, you should instead be using these versions/spells that are regarded as trash instead," is that really advice one would expect someone to follow?

[Psyren]

Which spells, and "regarded as trash" by who? Schwann145?

[Brookshw]

If the advice of the thread is, "instead of using CA in this way people find problematic, you should instead be using these versions/spells that are regarded as trash instead [using spells that empower harmonious table and increase everyone's enjoyment]," is that really advice one would expect someone to follow?

You spelt a few things oddly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Question for the topic: How many people regularly cast the high CR version of Conjure Animals and/or Summon Beast regularly?

As I understand it, those options are regarded as so poor to not bother with at all.

If the advice of the thread is, "instead of using CA in this way people find problematic, you should instead be using these versions/spells that are regarded as trash instead," is that really advice one would expect someone to follow?

I'd say that the fact that the power changes drastically depending on which of the options you pick is in and of itself a sign of a badly balanced spell. It should be balanced so all the options are roughly the same power, just different use cases.

[Schwann145]

Which spells, and "regarded as trash" by who? Schwann145?

You spelt a few things oddly.

We're not going to pretend that Beasts, as a general rule, are actually good, are we? The only reason CA is particularly good is because of the number of bodies you can put on the battlefield. One CR2 beast is low AC, mid to low HP, poor attack, mid damage at best, with no useful immunities or magical abilities to speak of.

Summon Beast is at least better on the numbers, with scaling values and bigger starting HP, but it's still easily regarded as the worst "Tasha's Summon" option for it's lack of utility/magic/special resistances/etc.

[Psyren]

Summon Beast is at least better on the numbers, with scaling values and bigger starting HP, but it's still easily regarded as the worst "Tasha's Summon" option for it's lack of utility/magic.

Again, according to who? Every handbook and guide I've seen rates Summon Beast quite highly. And even if it truly were somehow "the worst Tasha Summon", that doesn't make it a bad spell in general, much less "trash."

[da newt]

IMO if you change the spell to allow the caster to choose the conjured animals but delete the 8 beasts of CR 1/4 - you have fixed ~ 90% of the issues, and it becomes a much more balanced spell.

[Eldariel]

We're not going to pretend that Beasts, as a general rule, are actually good, are we? The only reason CA is particularly good is because of the number of bodies you can put on the battlefield. One CR2 beast is low AC, mid to low HP, poor attack, mid damage at best, with no useful immunities or magical abilities to speak of.

Summon Beast is at least better on the numbers, with scaling values and bigger starting HP, but it's still easily regarded as the worst "Tasha's Summon" option for it's lack of utility/magic/special resistances/etc.

CR 1/4 beasts have ridiculous damage. Many in the CR2 ballpark with stuff like Charge, poison, pack tactics, etc. making them punch far above their weightclass. Like out of all creatures in the game, I don't think any compare to beasts in that particular CR range. Getting like 1d4+4+3d6 with Con for half or 3d6+3 or even 4 from charge is pretty ridiculous, and those are easy to proc thanks to the positioning the spell enables.

[Amnestic]

I know it's fragile with only 5 hp and "only" 14 AC (not that Shepherd cares) but even the humble Flying Snake at CR1/8 hits hard.

60ft fly speed, blindsight 10ft, Flyby (so no OAs). +6 attack, 3d4 poison + 1 piercing damage (no save on the poison damage).

Multiply that by 8 a turn, every turn. And they can take advantage of any darkness/fog cloud/etc. for easy advantage thanks to their blindsight if it's available.

[Brookshw]

We're not going to pretend that Beasts, as a general rule, are actually good, are we? The only reason CA is particularly good is because of the number of bodies you can put on the battlefield. One CR2 beast is low AC, mid to low HP, poor attack, mid damage at best, with no useful immunities or magical abilities to speak of.

Summon Beast is at least better on the numbers, with scaling values and bigger starting HP, but it's still easily regarded as the worst "Tasha's Summon" option for it's lack of utility/magic/special resistances/etc.

Sure, we won't pretend anything. They're decent and perform their function fine, especially when used en mass via CA. Tasha's version as a 2nd level spell offers effectively a stack of temp hp in the form of a beast which is generally on par/superior to other buff type spells while offering its own offensive abilities and limited utility abilities. It doesn't need to be world melting good to be decent.


I know it's fragile with only 5 hp

Eh, 5 hp doesn't matter as much as it being one less hit, not like excess damage bleeds over (unless you're using optional cleave rules or something).

[SharkForce]

I mean, I hear stories about people using upcasted conjure animals fairly often (never had someone high enough level in my campaigns yet for it to come up personally) 2 spell levels to double the number of creatures summoned means double the HP, double the damage, double the amount of space they occupy, and of course double the headache unfortunately. That isn't a bad deal, unlike, say... fireball which only adds 25% more damage from a 2 level upcast.

as for conjure beast... I don't hear much about it one way or the other at my tables, so I couldn't tell you how people feel about upcasting (my best guess is that it's not popular because summon fey generally gets you stronger, more useful options, so unless you know in advance that you're fighting an anti-fey specialist it almost never comes up).

[stoutstien]

I mean, I hear stories about people using upcasted conjure animals fairly often (never had someone high enough level in my campaigns yet for it to come up personally) 2 spell levels to double the number of creatures summoned means double the HP, double the damage, double the amount of space they occupy, and of course double the headache unfortunately. That isn't a bad deal, unlike, say... fireball which only adds 25% more damage from a 2 level upcast.

as for conjure beast... I don't hear much about it one way or the other at my tables, so I couldn't tell you how people feel about upcasting (my best guess is that it's not popular because summon fey generally gets you stronger, more useful options, so unless you know in advance that you're fighting an anti-fey specialist it almost never comes up).

Summon beast upcasts ok enough to do so when it's applicable but not a given which is what you want from a spell. Summon celestial on the other hand....

Conjure fey is practically in the same boat as conjure animals if not worse as fey have an even worse relationship with CR.

[Eldariel]

The singular great thing about Summon Beast is that it's level 2. This means you get it earlier and from a cheaper slot. Otherwise it gets overshadowed a fair bit by other options.

[Psyren]

The singular great thing about Summon Beast is that it's level 2. This means you get it earlier and from a cheaper slot. Otherwise it gets overshadowed a fair bit by other options.

Again though, even if that makes it the "weakest summon", that's still a really good spell overall. You get an on-demand body that can take the shape of any Small animal you can think of, with 18 strength, that obeys your verbal commands, and lasts up to an hour - there's a lot that can be done with that, including outside of combat. And it has considerably less disruption potential than CA does - only one extra creature to manage on that player's turn, just one player-facing statblock that can be memorized over the course of the campaign, scales smoothly etc.

[Hael]

Again though, even if that makes it the "weakest summon", that's still a really good spell overall. You get an on-demand body that can take the shape of any Small animal you can think of, with 18 strength, that obeys your verbal commands, and lasts up to an hour - there's a lot that can be done with that, including outside of combat. And it has considerably less disruption potential than CA does - only one extra creature to manage on that player's turn, just one player-facing statblock that can be memorized over the course of the campaign, scales smoothly etc.

Its definitely a weak spell after the early game. Its really a filler spell for druids until they get CA. It is completely outclassed by the other Tasha summons later (amusingly all the 3rd lvl and higher spells are all roughly equivalent power wise when upcast, eg summon fey is ~ summon aberation)

Again, I come back to my original point. Nerfing or removing core spells to a class’s identity is problematic and to be done with care. These arent just spells in isolation. If you ban CA, you probably should look at hypnotic pattern/fireball, spirit guardians and the like. Druids power level drops *significantly* (several tiers) without the conjure line of spells.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Druids power level drops *significantly* (several tiers) without the conjure line of spells.
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true (which I don't totally believe), that's a key sign that the conjure line is badly balanced. ANY "must pick or you're dramatically weaker" spell or other optional feature (few individual spells are guaranteed to be known/prepared) is a design smell.

By your logic, any druid who doesn't continuously prepare this line of spells is definitionally as anti optimizing. Which seems...off.

[Psyren]

Its definitely a weak spell after the early game. Its really a filler spell for druids until they get CA. It is completely outclassed by the other Tasha summons later (amusingly all the 3rd lvl and higher spells are all roughly equivalent power wise when upcast, eg summon fey is ~ summon aberation)

Everyone who says SB is weak can't seem to help comparing it to CA, instead of judging the spell on its own merits. CA is 100% getting nerfed, if not outright removed, so I don't think comparing to it is likely to be productive.


Again, I come back to my original point. Nerfing or removing core spells to a class’s identity is problematic and to be done with care. These arent just spells in isolation. If you ban CA, you probably should look at hypnotic pattern/fireball, spirit guardians and the like. Druids power level drops *significantly* (several tiers) without the conjure line of spells.

1) The Druid's identity is being able to summon the forces of nature, yes, but that doesn't mean they need to be able to snap their fingers and spawn an army.

2) I completely disagree that Druid drops "several tiers" without conjure spells. Even without them, the Druid list still has better blasting than most clerics, better healing than most wizards, and better control than most bards.

[Schwann145]

2) I completely disagree that Druid drops "several tiers" without conjure spells. Even without them, the Druid list still has better blasting than most clerics, better healing than most wizards, and better control than most bards.

Better blasting than Clerics is highly debatable: They're both bad at blasting.
Better healing than Wizards: Absolutely true, but you absolutely must mention that the bar for better healing than a Wizard is laying flat on the ground.
Better control than most Bards: You need to explain what your definition of "control" is, because this seems pretty laughable on it's face. (Working assumption that "Control" and "Battlefield Control" are different things.)

[Amnestic]

Summon Beast is usually not preferable to Summon Fey when cast spell slot for spell slot, but SB does have some advantages over SF that makes it worth considering. They're not drastically far apart from each other, ditto for Summon Elemental.

Summon Draconic Spirit does feel a little bit out of whack - higher AC, fly speed, swim speed, grants the caster a resistance type of choice, blindsight 30ft, plus a 2d6 breath weapon every turn and it's large enough to use as a mount, unlike SB/SF.

It also benefits from Shepherd druids +HP feature (though frankly all summon spells should, dunno why that wasn't errata'd).

Even still, SB will do a druid absolutely fine between 3rd and 8th level, which accounts for a significant chunk of gameplay for most groups.

[da newt]

Conjure Animals is at least 2x the power of the other Tasha's Summons of the same level. I don't think anyone can argue that it isn't. Yes there are other iconic spells that punch above thier level (fireball, hypnotic, etc), but CA is completely out of balance where as those are just well above average.


I think the best spell for spell counterpart for CA is Animate Objects - very similar spells in many ways.


As I've said before, I believe CA is OP but could easily be balanced by simply deleting the 8 beasts of CR 1/4 option (and allowing the caster to choose the specific beasts - Crawford's the DM chooses is a crappy ruling and obvious revisionist history). This simple change would bring it inline with the other iconic spells, keep the lore, and speed up game play.

[Eldariel]

Summon Beast is usually not preferable to Summon Fey when cast spell slot for spell slot, but SB does have some advantages over SF that makes it worth considering. They're not drastically far apart from each other, ditto for Summon Elemental.

Summon Beast does have a very powerful ability in Pack Tactics (and less so in Flyby); amounts to about +3-+5 to hit. In many cases more powerful than what many higher level summons get. For purely hitting things for damage in melee, it remains a great choice (of course, other summons do other cool stuff instead but nothing quite obsoletes it).

[stoutstien]

Summon beast is still a "good" spell according to the spell guidelines in the DMG even if you only look at the damage and not the rest of the kit.

Giving the party melee allies advantage via pack tactics alone is worth considering upcasting it for. It has a decent chance to prone thanks to a +4 mod even in flight form.

[da newt]

Lets compare summon beast (land) to summon fey (fuming) at the same level (4):

fey = +1 AC
hp equal (40)
fey has greater mobility (speed and free 'misty step' aka disengage/get out of grapple-restrain)
2x attack each, but fey is 1d6+7+1d6 force (14) vs 1d8+8 (12.5) for beast
beast has ADV on both attacks IF next to an ally, fey has ADV on 1st attack after bamf

pretty darned close to granny smiths vs fuji apples there

Then compare the above to conjure animals (wolf) also at level 4:

wolf AC -1 or 2
wolf hp 8*11 = 88 vs 40
8 attacks but only +4 to hit vs ~+7, but all at ADV if ally is close (and they are their own ally), only 2d4+2 (7) damage but include a ST check vs prone
8(2d4+2) = 56 vs 2(2d6+7) = 28
but every 11 damage to one wolf decreases your # of attacks (when you only have 4 wolves they ~= the beast/fey) and one good AOE can take out a bunch of them, but it's hard to target all 8 wolves vs just one fey/beast ... and 8 animals can do quite a bit of crowd control just via blocking

this is an apples to oranges thing here w/ CA is ~ 2x SF/SB (and this is comparing a level 4 cast of each which is way more favorable for the SB/SF than a 3rd level or 5th level comparo)

[P. G. Macer]

I now have a Conjure Animals story of my own! And it doesn’t involve abusing pack tactics or something similar!

Last night, my fellow players and I were trying to track down a villain in a wilderness pocket dimension, and our PCs’ regular, mundane Perception checks weren’t cutting it thanks to some low rolls, despite high modifiers. While the paladin had Locate Object and was using it to track the villain’s signature weapon, due to RP reasons he was taciturn about letting the rest of the party know what direction the villain was in.

When it came to my 11th-level Ranger’s turn, then, I cast conjure animals to summon eight CR ¼ giant bats and ordered them to spread and fan out over the VTT map we were using, forming a square around our party, and using their blindsight and Keen Hearing traits to detect the villain—which worked! I then was able to have some of the bats mob him, but their low attack and damage modifiers and lack of Pack Tactics meant their primary purpose in this encounter was unrelated to action economy and massive damage, but still immensely useful.

While I acknowledge summon beast is far more balanced than CA, for reasons like this I’ll still be a little disappointed if/when the 2024 PHB removed the ability to use specific beasts in favor of templates that are unlikely to have traits that make the above anecdote possible.

[Pex]

I now have a Conjure Animals story of my own! And it doesn’t involve abusing pack tactics or something similar!

Last night, my fellow players and I were trying to track down a villain in a wilderness pocket dimension, and our PCs’ regular, mundane Perception checks weren’t cutting it thanks to some low rolls, despite high modifiers. While the paladin had Locate Object and was using it to track the villain’s signature weapon, due to RP reasons he was taciturn about letting the rest of the party know what direction the villain was in.

When it came to my 11th-level Ranger’s turn, then, I cast conjure animals to summon eight CR ¼ giant bats and ordered them to spread and fan out over the VTT map we were using, forming a square around our party, and using their blindsight and Keen Hearing traits to detect the villain—which worked! I then was able to have some of the bats mob him, but their low attack and damage modifiers and lack of Pack Tactics meant their primary purpose in this encounter was unrelated to action economy and massive damage, but still immensely useful.

While I acknowledge summon beast is far more balanced than CA, for reasons like this I’ll still be a little disappointed if/when the 2024 PHB removed the ability to use specific beasts in favor of templates that are unlikely to have traits that make the above anecdote possible.

The missing lesson to be learned here is to tell the paladin player stop being so uncooperative and play the game with everyone else. You need to find the bad guy. The paladin has a way to find the bad guy. The paladin doesn't tell the party where to find the bad guy. Remove the paladin from the party. If the player rage quits the group all the better.

[Skrum]

The missing lesson to be learned here is to tell the paladin player stop being so uncooperative and play the game with everyone else. You need to find the bad guy. The paladin has a way to find the bad guy. The paladin doesn't tell the party where to find the bad guy. Remove the paladin from the party. If the player rage quits the group all the better.

Yeah I'm reeeeaallly struggling to imagine a sufficient rp reason for this behavior. Was the bad guy the paladin's brother, and he was conflicted about fighting him? Why was the paladin there at all.

[P. G. Macer]

It’s clear I did a very poor job explaining the rationale for my party’s paladin’s behavior. The Paladin was a Conquest Paladin, and the RP reason was that he was worried the more impulsive party members would jump the gun and blow the lead when acting upon the information.

[Witty Username]

I personally have no issue with the idea of banning spells for gameplay issues.
Conjure animals requires either player buy in to keep it contained or a significant amount of DM prep.

It is fine to cut the spell out for those reasons.

It is also valid to have complaints about the implementation of summon beast as a replacement.

I personally find conjure animals closer to my tastes, but it does pose issues. I wouldn't mind some balance changes.

[sambojin]

Back when I did a campaign as DM, that had a few rotating players, sometimes I'd just dumb the spell down a bit. You can have 1 Giant Elk or Giant Constrictor Snake, 2 Bears or Dire Wolves or Giant Spiders or Giant Eagles or Giant Octopuses, or 4 Warhorses or Apes or Frilled Deathspitters.

Other stuff available on request, but I can say no, and they're all good options for most environments. Still an amazing spell, and my players kind of liked playing it that way (they'd choose what they're getting, but from a limited list of good stuff). Most other stuff was for RP or out-of-combat purposes. Never got clunky, still plenty of combat effects, and didn't slow it down too much.

I also encouraged our druid to make their first order "you, follow that player's commands", so everyone got a bit of summoning fun at higher levels of castings (campaign only went to lvl12).

I eased up a bit later on, allowing Female Steeders, Giant Flying Spiders and stuff, mostly for coolness value (and we had a bit of an mini-underdark anti-Drow portion in the campaign, so it was cool to see the enemy's stuff used against it).

I usually play as a druid when I'm not the DM, so I'm pretty well versed in what works, and it's not just Wolves. Not by half. I was also trying to nudge our regular DM (who was a player in the campaign) in the direction of "See? This doesn't break the game at all!", and it didn't. Kind of. I mean, I made some pretty tough encounters for them, but the party usually had so many tactical options available that combat was a pretty wild time for all the players (and me).

[Psyren]

I also encouraged our druid to make their first order "you, follow that player's commands", so everyone got a bit of summoning fun at higher levels of castings (campaign only went to lvl12).


This strikes me as an unstoppable-force-immovable-object situation. The spell says they obey any verbal commands you issue, and that if you don't issue any, they take no actions. "Follow that other person's commands" does not necessarily override these two requirements/clauses from the spell.

With that said, combat banter is free - so presumably if your ally gives a command you can simply repeat it, provided you're in earshot and capable of speaking.

[Schwann145]

Well, it seems this is no longer going to be an issue for folks, based on the new playtest info.

[Psyren]

Well, it seems this is no longer going to be an issue for folks, based on the new playtest info.

While I'm very in favor of the new Conjure X design philosophy - with their ridiculous 80% acceptance threshold, I'm not holding my breath anymore until they literally stop putting a thing in UA packets entirely.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

What is the playtest info? And what is the new design philosophy?

[Psyren]

What is the playtest info? And what is the new design philosophy?

1) See the first post of this thread. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?662346-Unearthed-Arcana-9-(PH-Playtest-8)-Released)

2) To sum up, the new philosophy per Crawford (35:13) is that "Summon X" (Tasha Summons) gives you an actual minion with a statblock, while "Conjure X" gives you magical spirits that occupy a zone/area on the battlefield, and that do... something else (damage/control/healing/etc.)

[Zuras]

I can’t disagree that Conjure Animals is a bit overpowered for 3rd level, but I haven’t found it to be encounter-breaking after the party hits 7th level. It’s certainly not as absurd as Polymorph.

I’m also reluctant to ban it, given that lots of my favorite 5e gaming moments involved players using summoned beasts creatively. Simply not allowing CR 1/4 options with pack tactics keeps the most ridiculous options off the table.

Additionally, summoned beasts are most effective against low AC creatures without AoE attacks and no multiattack, and big sack of HP monsters are easily the most boring opponents in 5e. The more complex the opponent, the less broken CA is going to be against them.

I’ve found CA letting the party speed-run through boring encounters ends up disrupting less of the fun than Counterspell, which makes complex encounters boring.

[Monster Manuel]

My favorite uses of the conjure spells are the utility options, not the combat options. Conjuring a flock of giant owls to carry the party across a ravine, or giant bat for a clutch blindsight use, or a giant constrictor to grab an opponent is fun, and I have never heard a case where this kind of use of the spell broke anything or slowed down/complicated a game.

My concern is that the fixes that would work to reign in the overreaches of the combat applications of the spell also eliminate the utility flexibility of the spells. The proposed changes in the 2024 UA really kill this; a Spirit Guardians-like zone that has one of a small list of effects will never be as good as conjuring a specific animal that does a specific thing that is useful in the moment; the proposed Conjure Animals creates a zone that does damage, and grants advantage on Strength saves, and nothing else. No more on-the-fly summoning a bunch of donkeys for an hour to help carry loot out of an old temple.

I think the way to fix this is to make the Conjure spells suboptimal for use in-combat. Give them a 1-minute or even a 10-minute casting time, and commanding your summoned creatures uses your action every round. You want a quick summons for use in combat? Summon Beast exists. You want to attack with a horde of 8 wolves? You can, in theory, but it hurts more and you have to set it up ahead of time. The disruptive use of the spell is disincentivized. You want to do something clever with a Giant Eagle or 2? The extra casting time and action economy cost don't really matter out-of-combat, so go ahead and do your thing.

[Just to Browse]

What is the playtest info? And what is the new design philosophy?

The conjure line have been replaced with various death clouds and auras. They're described as elementals, celestials, but operate as zones of damage with some mild control effects on top.

[Amnestic]

My favorite uses of the conjure spells are the utility options, not the combat options. Conjuring a flock of giant owls to carry the party across a ravine, or giant bat for a clutch blindsight use, or a giant constrictor to grab an opponent is fun, and I have never heard a case where this kind of use of the spell broke anything or slowed down/complicated a game..

A constrictor snake? They're CR1/4, you'd be summoning eight of them (with a 3rd level slot, nevermind upcasting), all Large creatures with automatic grapple and restrain on a hit.

Eight Large creatures dumped onto the battlefield, each of which auto-restrains on a hit (which means the enemy needs to spend an Action - not an attack - to escape from each one separately) definitely seems like the sort of thing that would slow things down.

In fact I know it is, I've seen that exact combination used.

[Monster Manuel]

A constrictor snake? They're CR1/4, you'd be summoning eight of them (with a 3rd level slot, nevermind upcasting), all Large creatures with automatic grapple and restrain on a hit.

Eight Large creatures dumped onto the battlefield, each of which auto-restrains on a hit (which means the enemy needs to spend an Action - not an attack - to escape from each one separately) definitely seems like the sort of thing that would slow things down.

In fact I know it is, I've seen that exact combination used.

No, I actually completely agree with you, and that's my point. Summoning a giant constrictor for utility purposes is fun. Summoning 8 of them and having them work together to form a makeshift bridge over a river is kind of cool, and pain-free. Summoning 8 into a combat is an absolute mess. Fixing the combat application is essential, but it is disappointing to see those fixes eliminate the opportunity for utility as well.

That's why I propose an increase in casting time and eating your concentration and you action every round as a possible nerf, that makes the Huge Mess option less viable, but keeps the Fun Utility option on the table. If it takes 10 minutes to cast it, you can't really dump a mass of creatures onto the battlefield anymore. You could pre-summon them, and have them follow you around for an hour in case a combat starts, but that's tactically very different.

I don't think this nerf would fix everything, and we probably need to lower the number of summons and narrow the scope of what creatures are available, too. But we don't want to completely kill the things that make the spell appealing entirely, in the interest of making it better balanced.

*edit* Also, the Giant Constrictor should maybe not be 1/4 CR, but that's another issue entirely...

[stoutstien]

*edit* Also, the Giant Constrictor should maybe not be 1/4 CR, but that's another issue entirely...

Maybe having anything PC facing that is keying off CR isn't such a good idea to begin with especially things that involves with adding new NPC/PC to the mix.

CR is a rough estimate on how much of a challenge they would pose to an average 4 person PHB/no variant party and has no direct parallel to things like spell level value or anything else that you need to create a spell option that does constantly run the risk of blowing things apart at the seams.

CR doesn't even have a real usable ratio to CR.

[Blatant Beast]

I like the idea of adding the condition of requiring one's action, and possibly having the caster make Concentration checks every round, when more that one creature is summoned.

The issue with this approach, is it becomes an option tax, because as the rules currently stand, it is not particularly difficult to boost one's Concentration save.

I will say that the entire notion of people having to talk to their DM about a spell, automatically making the spell problematic, is a little strange to me. My wife expects me to talk to her about our decisions and choices, and potential implications of such. That does not make her problematic, nor does needing to discuss things make the thing being discussed inherently problematic.

This merely indicates the topic being discussed has complexity that needs to be considered. Complex things are not inherently bad.

If all your RPG playing is pickup style games, online or in Adventurer's League style play, then I can understand how "talking about stuff" might impose upon the immediacy of play, but that is an issue more regarding that specific playstyle and player expectation.

[Psyren]

I think this recent UA video is the first time we've heard the designers' direct opinions on Conjure Animals and the like - Crawford said they've "often created some gameplay headaches because of how open-ended they are in their 2014 form." Did I miss any other time they talked about the Conjure line? e.g. Were there UA videos prior to Tasha's where they talked about their reasoning for creating the Tasha Summons as well?


No, I actually completely agree with you, and that's my point. Summoning a giant constrictor for utility purposes is fun. Summoning 8 of them and having them work together to form a makeshift bridge over a river is kind of cool, and pain-free. Summoning 8 into a combat is an absolute mess. Fixing the combat application is essential, but it is disappointing to see those fixes eliminate the opportunity for utility as well.

That's why I propose an increase in casting time and eating your concentration and you action every round as a possible nerf, that makes the Huge Mess option less viable, but keeps the Fun Utility option on the table. If it takes 10 minutes to cast it, you can't really dump a mass of creatures onto the battlefield anymore. You could pre-summon them, and have them follow you around for an hour in case a combat starts, but that's tactically very different.

I don't think this nerf would fix everything, and we probably need to lower the number of summons and narrow the scope of what creatures are available, too. But we don't want to completely kill the things that make the spell appealing entirely, in the interest of making it better balanced.

*edit* Also, the Giant Constrictor should maybe not be 1/4 CR, but that's another issue entirely...

I could go for "Invoke {specific creature} but it takes too long to cast in combat." But it would indeed have to be a specific creature, not an open-ended toolbox the way CA is now, so that that specific creature's statblock would need/be able to be included in the spell entry.

[Blatant Beast]

2) To sum up, the new philosophy per Crawford (35:13) is that "Summon X" (Tasha Summons) gives you an actual minion with a statblock, while "Conjure X" gives you magical spirits that occupy a zone/area on the battlefield, and that do... something else (damage/control/healing/etc.)

The new 1D&D Playtest document would seem to indicate the Devs are considering not even giving a player a Statblock with a so called 'Summoning Spell'.

[Psyren]

The new 1D&D Playtest document would seem to indicate the Devs are considering not even giving a player a Statblock with a so called 'Summoning Spell'.

Where are you getting that from? They've confirmed point blank that the Summon X spells from Tasha's will be in the 2024 Player's Handbook multiple times now, and those spells do have statblocks.

[Blatant Beast]

Where are you getting that from? They've confirmed point blank that the Summon X spells from Tasha's will be in the 2024 Player's Handbook multiple times now, and those spells do have statblocks.

The most recent Playtest docs…Conjure Animals is radically re-envisioned.
Please also consider, that some of us, are only casually following the Playtest docs themselves. I do not read, watch, or particularly pay attention to WotC Press Releases….which probably explains why I do not hold much animosity towards the company :).

The proposed Conjure Animals spell in the test docs summons no actual animals…that is incontestably true.

[Psyren]

The most recent Playtest docs…Conjure Animals is radically re-envisioned.
Please also consider, that some of us, are only casually following the Playtest docs themselves. I do not read, watch, or particularly pay attention to WotC Press Releases….which probably explains why I do not hold much animosity towards the company :).

The proposed Conjure Animals spell in the test docs summons no actual animals…that is incontestably true.

Right, which is why I said the summon spells from Tasha's Cauldron of Everything are meant to occupy that niche instead. For example, Summon Beast is the one you would use if you want an physical animal to assist you on the battlefield.

[Rukelnikov]

I never understood how people can consider a spell that is 90%+ in the hands of the DM as to how effective it will be as OP, but aside from that, is it perhaps the case that the people that find it "OP" play point buy low magic item accessibility, and the people that don't find it OP play with rolled stats and decent or better magic item accessibility?

[JNAProductions]

I never understood how people can consider a spell that is 90%+ in the hands of the DM as to how effective it will be as OP, but aside from that, is it perhaps the case that the people that find it "OP" play point buy low magic item accessibility, and the people that don't find it OP play with rolled stats and decent or better magic item accessibility?

If the spell is fine because the DM can screw you over, it’s not actually fine.

[Dalinar]

I never understood how people can consider a spell that is 90%+ in the hands of the DM as to how effective it will be as OP, but aside from that, is it perhaps the case that the people that find it "OP" play point buy low magic item accessibility, and the people that don't find it OP play with rolled stats and decent or better magic item accessibility?

It is not clear from the wording of 2014 Conjure Animals at all that it is in the hands of the DM which creatures appear. I'm sure that this has been debated to death over the past ten years, but "The DM has the creatures’ statistics" could be taken to mean "the DM picks which specific animals are summoned", or it could be taken to mean "pick which specific creatures you've summoned, and the DM will tell you what their stats are."

More importantly, unless you are going up against big AOE damage anyway, I find it hard to believe there are combat encounters where some form of "summon eight creatures of CR 1/4" isn't extremely potent, even at levels well past when a full caster would get this spell. (Or I guess things like airborne encounters in the "DM picks" case, but also, that seems like a cruel thing for a DM to do? Imagine a flying-heavy encounter, and you try to summon some birds, and the DM goes "okay, but you actually get eight velociraptors, and they all immediately die of fall damage.") Remember that those creatures do quite a bit of damage collectively, and can clog hallways and other chokepoints. And even if they just get Fireballed, congratulations, that's an enemy turn (and possibly limited resource) that they spent doing that instead of, I dunno, mind controlling the barbarian or whatever.

And even more importantly than that, the ability to summon loads of creatures is a massive design problem from the perspective of real-time tempo. That's eight more moves and attack rolls that the CA player has to resolve. You basically HAVE to come up with some sort of "dole control of the creatures out to the other players" houserule, which runs into its own issues if the rest of the table isn't on board with suddenly having an animal buddy to manage.

Being overpowered on its own is one thing; being overpowered and also extremely clunky is another. I used to joke with my DM that Twilight Cleric 2/Shepherd Druid 6 was the build I would bust out if I was trying to be toxic, and that's why.

[sithlordnergal]

I never understood how people can consider a spell that is 90%+ in the hands of the DM as to how effective it will be as OP, but aside from that, is it perhaps the case that the people that find it "OP" play point buy low magic item accessibility, and the people that don't find it OP play with rolled stats and decent or better magic item accessibility?

I mean, even if its 99% in the DM's hands, it can still be pretty darn strong. Heck, being able to summon 8 of anything is handy. Lets say the DM is intentionally trying to screw you over when casting Conjure Animals, and only gives you CR 0. Eight CR 0 Rats can still be handy. Unless the NPC you're facing has an AoE, that's 8 Opportunity attacks at the very least, and 8 attacks. Sure, the attacks only deal 1 point of damage, but its still 8 individual creatures.

And if the DM isn't trying to intentionally screw you, and gives you CR 1/4th beasts? Well...minionmancy is OP for a reason. I can remember going through Tomb of Annihilation as a Moon Druid, and the DM used Dinos instead of regular Beasts because it was thematic. I literally solo'd a Hydra at level 5 via Conjure Animals and my two Combat Wild Shapes. And I didn't even do that much damage myself.

If you've never checked out the old velociraptor stats, they have Pack Tactics, two attacks, and deal an average of 9 damage if they hit with both, and a +4 to hit. That's an average of 72 damage if all of them hit, and with 16 attacks at advantage, chances are they'll not only hit, but they'll crit to make up for any misses.

[Schwann145]

It's just a real shame that the CR math is so screwed in 5e that (as pointed out earlier in the discussion) low numbers of higher CR conjures just are nowhere near as valuable as high numbers of lower CR creatures, unlike prior editions where higher CR meant a lot more value than it does in 5e.

[Trask]

Long ago my table agreed to a gentleman's rule to allow a maximum of 4 summoned creatures with any spell. That goes for conjure animals, conjure woodland beings, animate objects, conjure minor elementals, all of it. I think 4 is a good number because it still preserves some of the non-combat functions, like conjuring 4 horses for a party.

[Rukelnikov]

If the spell is fine because the DM can screw you over, it’s not actually fine.

I don't think the spell is fine and never said that, but I definitely never found it OP.


snip

I find it hard to believe there are combat encounters where some form of "summon eight creatures of CR 1/4" isn't extremely potent, even at levels well past when a full caster would get this spell.

snip

That why I asked about point buy low magic item accessibility vs rolled stats decent or better magic item accessibility. In my group foes with an AC of say 20+ is commonplace at lvl 9, I rememeber fighting a devil with 28 AC at lvl 13, low CR creatures end up having extremely low chance to hit past lvl 7 or 8 and would only be targeted if they are blocking paths and no foe has an AoE option that can deal some damage to the PCs while clearing trash.


I mean, even if its 99% in the DM's hands, it can still be pretty darn strong. Heck, being able to summon 8 of anything is handy. Lets say the DM is intentionally trying to screw you over when casting Conjure Animals, and only gives you CR 0. Eight CR 0 Rats can still be handy. Unless the NPC you're facing has an AoE, that's 8 Opportunity attacks at the very least, and 8 attacks. Sure, the attacks only deal 1 point of damage, but its still 8 individual creatures.

And if the DM isn't trying to intentionally screw you, and gives you CR 1/4th beasts? Well...minionmancy is OP for a reason. I can remember going through Tomb of Annihilation as a Moon Druid, and the DM used Dinos instead of regular Beasts because it was thematic. I literally solo'd a Hydra at level 5 via Conjure Animals and my two Combat Wild Shapes. And I didn't even do that much damage myself.

If you've never checked out the old velociraptor stats, they have Pack Tactics, two attacks, and deal an average of 9 damage if they hit with both, and a +4 to hit. That's an average of 72 damage if all of them hit, and with 16 attacks at advantage, chances are they'll not only hit, but they'll crit to make up for any misses.

But that's the problem with the spell, the DM has to decide how powerful they want the spell to be, giving 8 velociraptors vs a hydra which has lowish AC is effectively ending the encounter, the DM either wasn't very system saavy or did that knowingly. The spot at where the spell doesn't feel useless but doesn't ruin the encounter may be different for the people at the table, so while the DM may pick something they think is fair, the player may fume because they wanted more out of it, or the other players may fume because they think its too powerful and renders them needless.

A player casting the spell at 5th lvl is basically asking the DM "Do you want to end the encounter now, make me waste a 3rd level slot, or choose a spot in the middle?", in a way its a built in panic button for a DM that doesn't want to TPK, they PCs are ok? Give them meh summons, the players are in dire straits? Give them good summons.

[JNAProductions]

What other spell operates like that?

Should a DM declare Fireball does 10d6 this encounter, and 5d6 the next?

Edit: also, 28 AC is bonkers for 5E.

The Tarrasque has 25.
When you’re that far outside how 5E is built and what it supports, it might be better to hop systems entirely.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What other spell operates like that?

Should a DM declare Fireball does 10d6 this encounter, and 5d6 the next?

Edit: also, 28 AC is bonkers for 5E.

The Tarrasque has 25.
When you’re that far outside how 5E is built and what it supports, it might be better to hop systems entirely.

Yeah. This. Especially the edit part.

[Rukelnikov]

What other spell operates like that?

Should a DM declare Fireball does 10d6 this encounter, and 5d6 the next?

No, I think the spell is problematic, but definitely not OP.


Edit: also, 28 AC is bonkers for 5E.

The Tarrasque has 25.
When you’re that far outside how 5E is built and what it supports, it might be better to hop systems entirely.


Yeah. This. Especially the edit part.

It had an abonormally high AC, but our PCs didn't have AC much lower than that (the pally was waking around with 24 and usually got buffed to 26), what little homebrew was involved in our stuff did not touch to hit or AC bonuses, and we still beat that fight which had a couple adds on top of the 28 AC Abishai, so the system provides the means to get and beat those numbers, that's why I think most people that have problem with many low level minions past T2 are probably playing low magic items style games.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It had an abonormally high AC, but our PCs didn't have AC much lower than that (the pally was waking around with 24 and usually got buffed to 26), what little homebrew was involved in our stuff did not touch to hit or AC bonuses, and we still beat that fight which had a couple adds on top of the 28 AC Abishai, so the system provides the means to get and beat those numbers, that's why I think most people that have problem with many low level minions past T2 are probably playing low magic items style games.

Or you're playing in monty haul (for magic item prevalence) campaigns. No, the system should not be balanced around the biggest numbers it's possible to generate. Just because you can eek out those numbers if you stack AC doesn't mean the system should expect you to or DMs should build monsters that way. That's just horribly out of spec for the game as a whole, creating all sorts of degenerate states in the game math..

[JNAProductions]

Part of the change to more bounded numbers is so that low-level/CR minions DO stay a threat, at least in larger quantities, to players and monsters alike.

If you want to be untouchable to lower-level goons, 3.5 and 4th are both designed with that in mind. 5E is not.

[Psyren]

I don't think the spell is fine and never said that, but I definitely never found it OP.


No, I think the spell is problematic, but definitely not OP.

Why is "problematic" acceptable? Why do things have to reach the lofty heights of "OP" (which is subjective anyway) before they can be changed?


It's just a real shame that the CR math is so screwed in 5e that (as pointed out earlier in the discussion) low numbers of higher CR conjures just are nowhere near as valuable as high numbers of lower CR creatures, unlike prior editions where higher CR meant a lot more value than it does in 5e.

They can't even get CR right for DMs, much less trying to make it player-facing.

[Rukelnikov]

Part of the change to more bounded numbers is so that low-level/CR minions DO stay a threat, at least in larger quantities, to players and monsters alike.

If you want to be untouchable to lower-level goons, 3.5 and 4th are both designed with that in mind. 5E is not.

But it is! At lvl 4 the pally already had AC 23 (Plate + Shield + Defensive combat style + Shield of Faith), he was largely immune to mobs, his effective mitigation lowered as we leveld up because he couldn't keep his AC up with the to hit scaling of enemies.


Why is "problematic" acceptable? Why do things have to reach the lofty heights of "OP" (which is subjective anyway) before they can be changed?

When did I say it was acceptable? I think the spell is pretty bad from a design perspective, but most people scream "OP", when that is not the case.

[Psyren]

When did I say it was acceptable? I think the spell is pretty bad from a design perspective, but most people scream "OP", when that is not the case.

I haven't seen anyone "screaming OP" either. I'll use the word Crawford used for it - "headache."

[JNAProductions]

At level four, a Paladin can have static of 21.

And without magic items or temporary buffs, it won’t go up again.

[PhoenixPhyre]

At level four, a Paladin can have static of 21.

And without magic items or temporary buffs, it won’t go up again.

And also importantly, most other builds will struggle to reach 20 (static). And all have to give up significant opportunity cost to do so--defense fighting style, a shield instead of GWM, etc.

For medium or light armor, hitting 20 requires both a fighting style and a shield, or a feat (medium armor master) and a shield and a higher Dex. Going higher statically requires much more optimization and splat diving.

[Rukelnikov]

At level four, a Paladin can have static of 21.

And without magic items or temporary buffs, it won’t go up again.

Yes? That's exactly what I said, he used Shield of Faith as his go to concentration, and had an AC of 23 for almost every encounter where AC was relevant, he was already having some mobs only hit on a crit as low as lvl 4.

And magic items, are in the game, there's almost a hundred pages of the DMG dedicated to them, when said 13th lvl pally had 24 AC base it was from a +1 shield a +1 plate and a ring of protection, nothing really fancy.


And also importantly, most other builds will struggle to reach 20 (static). And all have to give up significant opportunity cost to do so--defense fighting style, a shield instead of GWM, etc.

For medium or light armor, hitting 20 requires both a fighting style and a shield, or a feat (medium armor master) and a shield and a higher Dex. Going higher statically requires much more optimization and splat diving.

Shields make a big difference and that's good, they have to make a big difference to make up for taking up a hand which could be used for somatic components if not cleric or paladin or two handed weapons.

But also, static AC is not as important as the AC you have when you are actually fighting. One of the most untouchable PCs I've seen was a swords bard with bladesinger dip, sure her base AC was low, but who cares, enemies would at times only be able to hit her on a 20, and regularly need 15+

[Witty Username]

5e does seem to have a similar contour to AC as 3.5 did in practice.
Generally, AC increases as the game progresses are monster specific to maintain challenge, while PC AC tends to remain static (most characters with have an AC that varies 1 to 2 points over their entire career).

Meanwhile attack bonuses are expected to grow with level, by both ASis and proficiency bonuses and is a shared system between monsters and PCs.

This means that PCs that do not invest in their core functions fall behind the curve, and AC becomes less relevant to play as the game progresses.

[JNAProductions]

So do you have only three fights a day?
And the Paladin never wanted to smite?

At level four, a Paladin has three first level slots.

[Rukelnikov]

So do you have only three fights a day?
And the Paladin never wanted to smite?

At level four, a Paladin has three first level slots.

One or two, about 10-12 rounds combat a day, and he stuck with Shield of Faith precisely because he really liked smiting so he wanted to save his higher level slots for that.

[JNAProductions]

One or two, about 10-12 rounds combat a day, and he stuck with Shield of Faith precisely because he really liked smiting so he wanted to save his higher level slots for that.

What higher level slots?
We’re talking level four.

[Rukelnikov]

What higher level slots?
We’re talking level four.

Oh at 4 he would use shield of faith and smite on crits, but he stuck with SoF for all that PCs run using his other slots on smites

[Sigreid]

I really don't see the outcome being much different than the party bunching up and the evoker wizard dropping a fireball to do the enemies dirty.

[JNAProductions]

I really don't see the outcome being much different than the party bunching up and the evoker wizard dropping a fireball to do the enemies dirty.

Because Conjure works as well or better on singular powerful foes, unless they’re completely immune to the animals’ damage.

It also gives battlefield control, via bodies blocking the enemy.

[Pex]

I really don't see the outcome being much different than the party bunching up and the evoker wizard dropping a fireball to do the enemies dirty.

Fireball is instantaneous. 8 wolves is persistent round after round. An enemy attack against a wolf is an enemy attack not against a party member.

[Sigreid]

Fireball is instantaneous. 8 wolves is persistent round after round. An enemy attack against a wolf is an enemy attack not against a party member.

Oh, I understand that. Just the scenario described is exactly the kind fireball frequently ends before it even gets rolling. I just don't consider CA unfair.

[Psyren]

Oh, I understand that. Just the scenario described is exactly the kind fireball frequently ends before it even gets rolling. I just don't consider CA unfair.

It's not "unfair."
Nobody is calling (much less screaming) CA "OP."
What it is... is a headache.

[JNAProductions]

It's not "unfair."
Nobody is calling (much less screaming) CA "OP."
What it is... is a headache.

Well, some of us are calling it OP.

It's also a headache in a fight, which is more reason to change it.

[Witty Username]

On the subject of headaches, I have some notes if summon beast is going to be the replacement.

I would like some simplification. All the summon spells have a lot of finicky numbers, three different forms, and the stat block changes fairly significantly with upcasting. I think I would prefer 3 forms and scale the number of creatures with higher slots than the actual block.

Conjure Animals has a lot of weird stuff too, but my point of comparison is more Animate dead. With animate dead, you have two stat blocks to consider. This makes prep and organization a lot faster.

And this may be a personal thing, but groups of identical creatures is pretty easy to run, they have one initiative, and tend to be rewarded by using relatively simple tactics like focus firing or enveloping an opponent. what I find more difficult is when I want to be prepared and need to juggle multiple lines in my head or my notes.

My personal experience is necromancer specifically though. I am running both Summon Undead and Animate Dead. And I like to have note cards of my summons for quick reference. The cognitive load for both spells is so far about the same, mostly because I only use Ghost, if I used skeletal and putrid that would be something like six notecards worth of preprep.

[Kane0]

On the subject of headaches, I have some notes if summon beast is going to be the replacement.

I would like some simplification. All the summon spells have a lot of finicky numbers, three different forms, and the stat block changes fairly significantly with upcasting. I think I would prefer 3 forms and scale the number of creatures with higher slots than the actual block.


That could be a good distinction between conjure and summon spells. Conjure gives you one or two options and makes more of them when upcasting, Summon gives you one or two options that scale as an individual statblock when upcasting.

[P. G. Macer]

Honestly, even though the designers haven’t announced it yet, I wouldn’t be surprised if Animate Dead goes the way of Conjure Animals in terms of “revisions” or is otherwise nerfed to prevent minionmancy.

[Witty Username]

Which is why I tend to push back some on the summon spells. People tend to think of the conjure spells and animate dead as similar.
Which they are in two aspects, they use monster statblocks, and tend to allow multiple creatures.

But they are pretty different in actual play.
A side by side comparison animate dead is literally half the value of conjure animals, and hard blocks splat diving. Both in balance and upkeep Animate Dead is much more reasonable.

In comparison to the summon spells, this actually becomes more apparent, as the limits on Animate Dead are more strict. The only sticking point is multiple creatures, which honestly is very table dependent.

If you go by RAW and use shared initiative for identical creatures, it then amounts to tracking the abilities of each monster you have available, which with the summons balloons very fast.

I do like the choice between the two, since that serves everyones needs better. And more summoning spells that do different things is generally good for Summoner style characters. Heck why I like the necromancer in current state is the nice amount of both tactical and strategic choice. How many spells do I devote to minions, do I use a damage spell for immediate effect or a summon for longevity. The generally acceptable option that Wotc will likely avoid, because it requires nuanced thinking. But it would be nice.

[Pex]

It appears 5.5E will be nerfing Conjure Animals which I'm not opposed to, but I don't care for them making it a weaker Spirit Guardians. "Conjure" is just flavor text, and the spell is not worth casting. I'm fine with them porting in the Tasha Summoning spells as a more balanced means for the spell shtick and would rather they just removed the Conjure spells altogether.

[tokek]

It's not "unfair."
Nobody is calling (much less screaming) CA "OP."
What it is... is a headache.

CA is designed on an assumption of cooperative play between DM and player. It works well enough if you have that. If the player and DM talk it through and agree suitable conjures for the game it’s a nice spell. If you don’t have that cooperation then CA will really highlight the problem.

It’s one of the few places where DnD has anything resembling a free-form magic system. Not that I think DnD is the best baseline game system for free-form.

The new version for 5.5 is very dull but it won’t cause problems. It’s much more in the general spirit of DnD

[Eldariel]

It's not "unfair."
Nobody is calling (much less screaming) CA "OP."
What it is... is a headache.

Compared to the whole baseline of spells on 3rd level, it's definitely "OP" in addition to being terribly designed.

[Amnestic]

It appears 5.5E will be nerfing Conjure Animals which I'm not opposed to, but I don't care for them making it a weaker Spirit Guardians. "Conjure" is just flavor text, and the spell is not worth casting. I'm fine with them porting in the Tasha Summoning spells as a more balanced means for the spell shtick and would rather they just removed the Conjure spells altogether.

The new conjure spells in 5.5 feel like they should be called Manifest X instead, since it seems closer to creating an Eberron-style Manifest Zone.

With the way they changed wild shape to just be specific PHB animals I'm a little surprised they didn't do the same thing for CA (though with a creature cap that's more reasonable), since druids were already looking at those statblocks for wild shape.


CA is designed on an assumption of cooperative play between DM and player. It works well enough if you have that.

A spell that is one of the flagship, "iconic" spells of the druid (their spirit guardians, their fireball) shouldn't require so many caveats and discussions to ensure it doesn't leave one or both sides frustrated because it's so outside of the standard for how spells work.

[tokek]

A spell that is one of the flagship, "iconic" spells of the druid (their spirit guardians, their fireball) shouldn't require so many caveats and discussions to ensure it doesn't leave one or both sides frustrated because it's so outside of the standard for how spells work.

That's why they are replacing the whole conjure set of spells. I was just saying that at the tables I play at its not really a problem, its just unusual within DnD.

If you have ever played a more free-form game with magic their approach would fit better there. I even like free-form magic but I don't think it was ever a very comfortable fit with the rather wargame-like roots of DnD.

To an extent I think they just failed to flag up that these spells were different in design philosophy and were to be handled differently around the table. Lack of DM guidance was definitely an issue with 5e - no doubt about that.

[Psyren]

Well, some of us are calling it OP.


Compared to the whole baseline of spells on 3rd level, it's definitely "OP" in addition to being terribly designed.

Okay fine, some people are calling it that. Haven't seen screaming though.


CA is designed on an assumption of cooperative play between DM and player. It works well enough if you have that. If the player and DM talk it through and agree suitable conjures for the game it’s a nice spell. If you don’t have that cooperation then CA will really highlight the problem.

It’s one of the few places where DnD has anything resembling a free-form magic system. Not that I think DnD is the best baseline game system for free-form.

The new version for 5.5 is very dull but it won’t cause problems. It’s much more in the general spirit of DnD

All of D&D is based on an assumption of cooperative play between DM and player, that's a pretty banal observation. Some spells still have more potential to be problematic than others and thus deserve to be redesigned, this is one of them.



With the way they changed wild shape to just be specific PHB animals I'm a little surprised they didn't do the same thing for CA (though with a creature cap that's more reasonable), since druids were already looking at those statblocks for wild shape.

The PHB statblocks solves the book diving problem but not the others (e.g. initiative, battlefield clutter, bloating rolls etc.) And there are indeed balance issues against monsters that lack AoE tactics.

[Eldariel]

The PHB statblocks solves the book diving problem but not the others (e.g. initiative, battlefield clutter, bloating rolls etc.) And there are indeed balance issues against monsters that lack AoE tactics.

And even against AOE, if they just act before the monster they can more than make up for the cost of 3rd level slot in damage by attacking just once. Which speaks volumes for how ridiculous the spell is. If they remade the spell and wanted to keep multisummon, making more in line with 3e would probably be the way to go; 1 of strong or 2 of slightly weaker or 3 of slightly weaker and cap it there. Then upcasting would just get you higher level stuff instead of more stuff, since this system is soft to "more stuff" and "more stuff" exasperates the logistical issues should they come up.

[Schwann145]

Sometimes I genuinely think that D&D players would just prefer if the game didn't have spells.
I know that will probably be taken as snark, but I promise I don't mean it to be. =/

The spell, as published, doesn't really have any problems that weren't either invented by the overall shift in design philosophy seen in 5e, or caused by simple lack of easily-found statistical information.
To the former, why didn't spell design philosophy change with the edition?
To the latter, why can't we see information in more easily/readily accessible areas instead of buried under multiple different leads?

If the "5.5" (whatever we end up calling it) changes are actually seen as good changes, then the answer is really simply just, "spells should be less interesting; convert to more blasting." Because blasting is all these new versions of the Conjure line are, minor additional riders aside.
I can only speak for myself here, but that sort of change would be wildly disappointing IMO. Spellcasting is one of the last interesting areas of the game, so much so that the general lament is that non-casters don't have the same freedom of creativity! If "fixing the issue" means further stifling one of the last areas of character expression-through-mechanics, how can that be anything but bad for the game?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sometimes I genuinely think that D&D players would just prefer if the game didn't have spells.
I know that will probably be taken as snark, but I promise I don't mean it to be. =/

The spell, as published, doesn't really have any problems that weren't either invented by the overall shift in design philosophy seen in 5e, or caused by simple lack of easily-found statistical information.
To the former, why didn't spell design philosophy change with the edition?
To the latter, why can't we see information in more easily/readily accessible areas instead of buried under multiple different leads?

If the "5.5" (whatever we end up calling it) changes are actually seen as good changes, then the answer is really simply just, "spells should be less interesting; convert to more blasting." Because blasting is all these new versions of the Conjure line are, minor additional riders aside.
I can only speak for myself here, but that sort of change would be wildly disappointing IMO. Spellcasting is one of the last interesting areas of the game, so much so that the general lament is that non-casters don't have the same freedom of creativity! If "fixing the issue" means further stifling one of the last areas of character expression-through-mechanics, how can that be anything but bad for the game?

I agree that the spell design philosophy should have changed with the editions, and it did mostly do so. With some outliers where they just didn't think. Like with so many other things, WotC tends to half-bake their thinking about how spells should work.

On the flip side...I've never understood the idea that spell-casting is interesting. There's no creativity to "push win button, win." Spells are black boxes that don't actually compose in any way and are do exactly what they say they do. There's nothing creative about using something that says "win" to win. And that's most of what I see in actual games; online, there's an additional pathological case of "twist the wording of the spells to heck and back to break settings and cause arguments."

Spell-casting is the most poorly-designed, pathological system D&D has. It has never worked right, it's never fit the rest of the game. In large part because it tried (in earlier editions) to marry setting fiat (ie powers that NPCs need to have to be effective villains) with game pieces for PCs in an atmosphere of a squad-based wargame. And then add in the slot/level paradigm with no kinds of prerequisites or thematic requirements and you are asking players to pick entirely based on power and not theme or setting or anything else. You have to intentionally nerf yourself to be thematic. And for me, that's a huge problem. And one that does require substantial changes. But those changes would transgress on the feeding grounds of legacy bovines with intent to murder. And would require creativity...from WotC. Something sorely lacking in this focus-group-driven-development world.

[Witty Username]

Having features that apply to a situation is more interesting than not having features that apply to a situation. Which is why there has been a push since 3.5 to give all classes interesting active features.
Spellcasting also has strategic depth. Preparing one spell means not preparing another. Shield is the best first level spell, but it ultimately doesn't do stuff. So often spells like sleep, magic missle, thunderwave, greese etc. get prepared ahead of it. And there is slot use, no caster of any level, can cast their best spells all the time, this means deciding what encounters and obstacles to use spells and when to not.

All non-casters either have mechanics to have the same game functions as spells, so most of this applies or have no tactical considerations, they have one thing they are expeced to do all the time with no variation.

[stoutstien]

Having features that apply to a situation is more interesting than not having features that apply to a situation. Which is why there has been a push since 3.5 to give all classes interesting active features.
Spellcasting also has strategic depth. Preparing one spell means not preparing another. Shield is the best first level spell, but it ultimately doesn't do stuff. So often spells like sleep, magic missle, thunderwave, greese etc. get prepared ahead of it. And there is slot use, no caster of any level, can cast their best spells all the time, this means deciding what encounters and obstacles to use spells and when to not.

All non-casters either have mechanics to have the same game functions as spells, so most of this applies or have no tactical considerations, they have one thing they are expeced to do all the time with no variation.

The issue is it's *all* strategic and void of tactical depth. You can't have massive lists of explicit features slapped on a system that is primarily built on adjudication and have it any other way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having features that apply to a situation is more interesting than not having features that apply to a situation. Which is why there has been a push since 3.5 to give all classes interesting active features.
Spellcasting also has strategic depth. Preparing one spell means not preparing another. Shield is the best first level spell, but it ultimately doesn't do stuff. So often spells like sleep, magic missle, thunderwave, greese etc. get prepared ahead of it. And there is slot use, no caster of any level, can cast their best spells all the time, this means deciding what encounters and obstacles to use spells and when to not.

All non-casters either have mechanics to have the same game functions as spells, so most of this applies or have no tactical considerations, they have one thing they are expeced to do all the time with no variation.

The problem is that spells aren't well defined in what they can do. So instead, anything other than basic attacks gets lumped into the spell system. Or gets obviated by it.

And that strategic depth isn't any different than any other limited use thing. And only a couple casters can even change any spells each day, and in my experience they rarely do. So really there isn't any strategic depth there. They just take the best spells and spam them whenever possible.

Edit: the most interesting things from my last combat were grapples and shoving people (one pc and one NPC) into lava. Everything the spells did could have been done as well or better with other effects.

[ZRN]

The spell, as published, doesn't really have any problems that weren't either invented by the overall shift in design philosophy seen in 5e

Dude, if they made a whole new edition and just copy-pasted old spells without considering their actual design philosophy, that IS a real problem.



If the "5.5" (whatever we end up calling it) changes are actually seen as good changes, then the answer is really simply just, "spells should be less interesting; convert to more blasting." Because blasting is all these new versions of the Conjure line are, minor additional riders aside.
I can only speak for myself here, but that sort of change would be wildly disappointing IMO. Spellcasting is one of the last interesting areas of the game, so much so that the general lament is that non-casters don't have the same freedom of creativity! If "fixing the issue" means further stifling one of the last areas of character expression-through-mechanics, how can that be anything but bad for the game?

You know they're adding in the Summon spells from Tasha's, right? That's the replacement for the Conjure line; the only reason we're getting these new Conjure spells is because they couldn't just cut them out without screwing up backward compatibility (e.g. for monsters that cast them).

[TaiLiu]

I agree that the spell design philosophy should have changed with the editions, and it did mostly do so. With some outliers where they just didn't think. Like with so many other things, WotC tends to half-bake their thinking about how spells should work.

On the flip side...I've never understood the idea that spell-casting is interesting. There's no creativity to "push win button, win." Spells are black boxes that don't actually compose in any way and are do exactly what they say they do. There's nothing creative about using something that says "win" to win. And that's most of what I see in actual games; online, there's an additional pathological case of "twist the wording of the spells to heck and back to break settings and cause arguments."

Spell-casting is the most poorly-designed, pathological system D&D has. It has never worked right, it's never fit the rest of the game. In large part because it tried (in earlier editions) to marry setting fiat (ie powers that NPCs need to have to be effective villains) with game pieces for PCs in an atmosphere of a squad-based wargame. And then add in the slot/level paradigm with no kinds of prerequisites or thematic requirements and you are asking players to pick entirely based on power and not theme or setting or anything else. You have to intentionally nerf yourself to be thematic. And for me, that's a huge problem. And one that does require substantial changes. But those changes would transgress on the feeding grounds of legacy bovines with intent to murder. And would require creativity...from WotC. Something sorely lacking in this focus-group-driven-development world.
I have mixed feelings about your review of D&D magic.

You're right—spellcasting in D&D sucks. Vance's magic system is cool and fits his world. D&D takes that magic system, distorts it, and throws it into worlds that don't make the same assumptions. The end result is boring spells and an incoherent metaphysics of magic.

But also—magic offers options. Maybe it's problematic that magic is a catch-all for mechanical variety, but that's what it is. Magic is necessary to teleport, to divine the future, to commune with the dead. A DM can let a player do those things without spells, but a character with access to certain spells knows that those are options.

Magic itself may be dull, but some spells open up possibilities. I think that's what some people mean when they say spellcasting is interesting.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have mixed feelings about your review of D&D magic.

You're right—spellcasting in D&D sucks. Vance's magic system is cool and fits his world. D&D takes that magic system, distorts it, and throws it into worlds that don't make the same assumptions. The end result is boring spells and an incoherent metaphysics of magic.

But also—magic offers options. Maybe it's problematic that magic is a catch-all for mechanical variety, but that's what it is. Magic is necessary to teleport, to divine the future, to commune with the dead. A DM can let a player do those things without spells, but a character with access to certain spells knows that those are options.

Magic itself may be dull, but some spells open up possibilities. I think that's what some people mean when they say spellcasting is interesting.

The problem is that an ill defined magic swallows everything else. As a result, anything that offers options must compete with the spells which can do anything. Which makes everything "interesting" into a spell, and anyone who conceptually doesn't fit casting spells is left out in the cold.

The answer is two-fold then. Set limits for spells and make non-spell options for those interesting things. My path for the latter has been expanded 4e style rituals that anyone can learn and do, moving most of the "utility" magic out of the spell system entirely.

[Witty Username]

To shift track a bit.
For Conjure Animals, I notice some of people's concerns with the spell are also present in Animate Objects. What are people's opinions of that getting nerfs/revisions?

[PhoenixPhyre]

To shift track a bit.
For Conjure Animals, I notice some of people's concerns with the spell are also present in Animate Objects. What are people's opinions of that getting nerfs/revisions?

My current plan is to do something similar, ie no Tiny option, and then rebalance (for good and bad) the other options.

Animate Objects does have the (small) saving grace (ish) that it's higher level. And many campaigns end before it's really a big deal (ie 10+ where you actually have more than 1 5th level slot). Whereas 3rds are much cheaper. Additionally, while the Tiny version (the most damaging) has way better DPR than Conjure Animals and can fly, it's also Tiny, so it doesn't block spaces effectively even against Medium creatures. While many of the low-CR Conjure Animals options are Medium or bigger, meaning they act as battlefield control much more effectively.

[Haggo]

To shift track a bit.
For Conjure Animals, I notice some of people's concerns with the spell are also present in Animate Objects. What are people's opinions of that getting nerfs/revisions?

It shpuld get nerfed and revised like Conjure does

[Psyren]

To shift track a bit.
For Conjure Animals, I notice some of people's concerns with the spell are also present in Animate Objects. What are people's opinions of that getting nerfs/revisions?

It's way too powerful/numerous currently, particularly the 10 Tiny / 10 Small object options. When you can empty your coinpurse on the ground and do up to 10d4+40 damage per round with a 5th-level spell, especially one that costs no actions to command, something has gone wrong somewhere. And if that weren't bad enough, you can boost it further via upcasting.

So the number you can animate needs to be drastically cut down, and Tiny / Small objects need to be weakened drastically as well. Decent damage/tanking from this should ideally start at Medium. But getting rid of Tiny/Small entirely is tricky. because everyone wants to animate a bunch of daggers or swords too.

Despite these issues, it doesn't share some of the problems the conjure spells does, like needing to book dive or the resultant creatures having potentially disruptive abilities.

[Witty Username]

My current plan is to do something similar, ie no Tiny option, and then rebalance (for good and bad) the other options.


That is probably fair, I have emotional attachment to Tiny, since I have a character I like to animate daggers with for dramatic effect (carnival themed bard so bits of knife thrower along with other tropes). But it is the best option, by a significant margin. I did use huge objects at one point to block movement but it doesn't come up much.

I actually think the control aspect is overshadowed on tiny because they don't interfere with eachother and can move through spaces more easily. Conjure Animals has tiny options I think, but most of them are going to represent alot of space, which limits its effectiveness.

[Psyren]

I'd be fine with Tiny remaining if the quantity were reduced and also did less damage per object. Getting a Huge object should take up the entire spell as well.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd be fine with Tiny remaining if the quantity were reduced and also did less damage per object. Getting a Huge object should take up the entire spell as well.

Yeah. Having Tiny be hands-down the best option is just weird.

[Witty Username]

Maybe 4 tiny/small, 2 medium, 1 large/huge?
Or 1 huge, 2 large, 3 medium, 4 small, 5 tiny?

Quick checking numbers, I think I like the second one more. The gap between tiny and huge is still present but alot more manageable. And at 4 tiny objects that may be an overcorrection. 5 with 16 dex, so it is 1d4+3 and +7 to hit, so 22 damage average ish, vs huge 17 ish average. So tiny would still be the best damage option but is much closer to a tactical choice than a one and done.

That feels like it may be an over correction though. How is that for numbers and effect?

[TaiLiu]

The problem is that an ill defined magic swallows everything else. As a result, anything that offers options must compete with the spells which can do anything. Which makes everything "interesting" into a spell, and anyone who conceptually doesn't fit casting spells is left out in the cold.

The answer is two-fold then. Set limits for spells and make non-spell options for those interesting things. My path for the latter has been expanded 4e style rituals that anyone can learn and do, moving most of the "utility" magic out of the spell system entirely.
I know. I agree with your diagnosis. Like you say, D&D's magic system swallows everything else—which is why people say it's interesting. Not cuz the magic system itself is interesting but cuz you need magic to do so many things.

[Psyren]

Maybe 4 tiny/small, 2 medium, 1 large/huge?
Or 1 huge, 2 large, 3 medium, 4 small, 5 tiny?

I would probably do 1 Huge, 2 Large, 3 Medium, 4 Small, 4 Tiny. Small and Tiny are okay being interchangeable quantity-wise, because their differences would come down to less numerically quantifiable things, like the latter being able to move through allies while the former can block enemies etc.

[Kane0]

Or just limit to large, medium, small. Or huge, medium, tiny even. Might better fit the broad pattern of three options for a summon spell.

Edit: then upcasting could add more or make better, but not both.

[tokek]

To shift track a bit.
For Conjure Animals, I notice some of people's concerns with the spell are also present in Animate Objects. What are people's opinions of that getting nerfs/revisions?

I would have them use the caster’s spell attack bonus to hit and have smaller numbers of them. That would streamline it a bit,

It’s a powerful spell but for whatever reason I don’t see it getting abused that often.

[Schwann145]

I find it interesting that 10 objects, doing a measly 1d4+4 each is considered the problem, and not that a huge object is only doing 2d12+4!

If I'm literally slamming the broad side of a barn into you, it should do significantly more damage than that!

One more thing I'm going to blame on the "HP system." :smalltongue:


(Edit to add: For all the people who complain about the availability of coins/marbles/whatever... it would be totally reasonable to rule such items too small. Sure, 5e got rid of "diminutive" as a size, but there's absolutely no reason to let a player get away with a coin doing as much damage as a dagger, if you don't want to!)

[tokek]

I find it interesting that 10 objects, doing a measly 1d4+4 each is considered the problem, and not that a huge object is only doing 2d12+4!

If I'm literally slamming the broad side of a barn into you, it should do significantly more damage than that!

One more thing I'm going to blame on the "HP system." :smalltongue:


(Edit to add: For all the people who complain about the availability of coins/marbles/whatever... it would be totally reasonable to rule such items too small. Sure, 5e got rid of "diminutive" as a size, but there's absolutely no reason to let a player get away with a coin doing as much damage as a dagger, if you don't want to!)

As I recall the history - the spell was invented for the 10 tiny objects and all the other sizes were an afterthought for RP and utility.

It was invented for 10 coins. It was then extended for bigger things and for whatever reason was made weaker for those.

But its a long time ago and I think I just read it in a Dragon magazine or something.

[Amnestic]

(Edit to add: For all the people who complain about the availability of coins/marbles/whatever... it would be totally reasonable to rule such items too small. Sure, 5e got rid of "diminutive" as a size, but there's absolutely no reason to let a player get away with a coin doing as much damage as a dagger, if you don't want to!)

Once you're 9th+ level to cast Animate Objects, a bag of 10 daggers (or a quiver of 10 arrows) isn't really a cost in gold or weight that matters any more than a bag of 10 coins. The daggers cost more, but not in any way that actually has a material impact.

[Schwann145]

Once you're 9th+ level to cast Animate Objects, a bag of 10 daggers (or a quiver of 10 arrows) isn't really a cost in gold or weight that matters any more than a bag of 10 coins. The daggers cost more, but not in any way that actually has a material impact.

Two thoughts:

1)You're not wrong, though I do believe DMs award *way* too much money-per-level in 5e. Buying things shouldn't be an afterthought from level 2 onward, yet that's exactly how it seems to go.
2) The material cost may not matter any longer, but carrying around a full bandoleer of daggers, and then subsequently unleashing them all so that they can be targeted by the spell, is significantly more cumbersome than throwing a handful of coins from your belt pouch onto the ground.

[Haggo]

Two thoughts:

1)You're not wrong, though I do believe DMs award *way* too much money-per-level in 5e. Buying things shouldn't be an afterthought from level 2 onward, yet that's exactly how it seems to go.
2) The material cost may not matter any longer, but carrying around a full bandoleer of daggers, and then subsequently unleashing them all so that they can be targeted by the spell, is significantly more cumbersome than throwing a handful of coins from your belt pouch onto the ground.
When something is too cumbersome is comes right back to being simplified in TTRPGs by DMs and players alike. Most people just see those daggers sliding out and then handwave having to pull them back.

[PhoenixPhyre]

When something is too cumbersome is comes right back to being simplified in TTRPGs by DMs and players alike. Most people just see those daggers sliding out and then handwave having to pull them back.

Yeah. Balance by annoyance doesn't work very well--there are a few possible outcomes for a powerful (ie beyond the normal accepted bounds) ability held back by something annoying in how you use it.

1. As you say, groups handwave the annoying part. Then you have an unbalanced-strong ability with no counterweight.
2. Or the groups decide the hassle is too much and just don't use the ability. Which is banning it, but less effective. You've got deadweight in your system for those groups.
3. Or the groups/players find a way to circumvent the annoying part (this is very common with flaws that give "build points"--no one cares if you take a penalty to your attacks if you never attack). Now you've got an unbalanced-strong ability with only a couple restraints. Better than #1, but not great. And incentives to play the tricky wording game.
4. For the very few groups that actually use it as written and experience the annoying part...they get a (hopefully) balanced ability plus annoyance! Annoying your players is never a good thing.

Just write the ability to be balanced across the board. A couple of the key questions to ask when writing an ability (which WotC rarely does) are:

1. Would it be ok if this ability were used basically every fight?
2. Would it be ok if this ability only got used rarely?

If #1 isn't true, it needs hard resource limits. Not spell slots--those are way too cheap and fungible. If #2 isn't true, it needs to apply more than situationally. 3e -> 5e's Sneak Attack is a good example of removing limits to make things less situational. But there are many others that fall into this trap. Even a very powerful ability that you can only use once per campaign at most is...well...underwhelming.

Of course there's the flip side--WotC has a bad habit of overestimating how effective spell-slot limits are (and thus making spell-slot uses too powerful in a less-constrained environment) and overestimating how powerful at-will abilities are. Which leads to those at-wills being weaker than they should be.

[Schwann145]

If having and using gear is considered an "annoyance," then one should really stick to video games and put the TTRPGs down.
The game isn't supposed to be overly hard or burdensome, but at the same time it's not supposed to hold your hand and play itself for you. You are expected to manage your character, which is entirely reasonable, and demanding the game default to doing it for you is poor gamesmanship.


Annoying your players is never a good thing.
We have to be careful to differentiate "annoying your players" and "your players being annoyed." Because, of course, if your players are annoyed by utterly reasonable situations, that's not the DMs fault, that's the player being an ass, and they shouldn't be rewarded for it.

[Psyren]

How's this for a compromise:

The Conjure spells, as well as the Tiny and Small variations of Animate Objects, summon a 10x10 swarm with a statblock that scales with the spell level. This will give you a way to attack with a bunch of squirrels, or pixies, or your loose change, or even a pack of wolves, that both addresses the "actual creature" crowd while making these spells much more manageable at the table.

The statblocks would each include a limited toolbox of abilities, like Celestial's healing or Elemental's vacuum effect - but ultimately you'd be controlling one (contiguous) minion.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If having and using gear is considered an "annoyance," then one should really stick to video games and put the TTRPGs down.
The game isn't supposed to be overly hard or burdensome, but at the same time it's not supposed to hold your hand and play itself for you. You are expected to manage your character, which is entirely reasonable, and demanding the game default to doing it for you is poor gamesmanship.


We have to be careful to differentiate "annoying your players" and "your players being annoyed." Because, of course, if your players are annoyed by utterly reasonable situations, that's not the DMs fault, that's the player being an ass, and they shouldn't be rewarded for it.

It's not the gear in this case, it's a nitpicky insistence on particular interpretations of action economy. Having lots of daggers is easy and no issue. Requiring them to all be drawn a couple at a time is more annoying, even if in the grand scheme of things not all that annoying. But the issue is that it's being insisted on to nerf the spell. That's fundamentally annoying to me --if the ability is too strong, adjust it openly. Don't hide behind nitpicky interpretations of other, mostly unrelated rules to stealth nerf it. Especially when "I drop the bandolier" works just fine.

And I always presume good faith from players. When that's falsified, then we have conversations about whether we should continue to play together.

[Kane0]

How's this for a compromise:

The Conjure spells, as well as the Tiny and Small variations of Animate Objects, summon a 10x10 swarm with a statblock that scales with the spell level.

Sounds good to me, especially if animate objects is the only one that generates a swarm that makes it even more unique

[Captain Panda]

Exactly. I had four wolves each on two enemies. When all hit it was 8d4 + 8 damage, able to kill a giant wolf from full health in one round. Even two hitting for 4d4 + 4 damage meant something two or three rounds later. My wolves being attacked meant a party member not being attack was gravy. Then, when most of my wolves were gone but still a couple of heavy hitter enemies to go, I cast the spell again for a new set of 8. I know this tactic won't be optimal for every fight imaginable at level 5, but yes, this combat was a nothing battle. My party members had their cool things too, but the DM was done with my wolves. I had forgotten about the prone rider on my first set, not that it mattered.

While I do agree that Conjure Animals can be excessive, I don't think your example actually proves that point. Velociraptors and things that can restrain on a hit are the things that I find most overpowered about the spell, and the mass of bodies you can field quickly.

The damage being enough to take down a giant wolf in one round? A fighter can do that (on average) every round for free with an archery build. No concentration or spell required.

The damage done in a round is 40-50? That's fine, but imagine you have eight hobgoblins charging at you and they get hit with a fireball. Even assuming every single one makes the saving throw, that's 112 damage.

Or imagine a cleric has three rounds of spirit guardians against five targets. Even if they all make every save, which won't happen, that's 202 damage.

The third level "signature" spells for the various types of casting are all really strong (fireball, hypnotic pattern, spirit guardians, conjure animals). The problem I have here is they are taking a spell that genuinely does need to be retuned a bit and killing it in the new UA. I just straight would stop playing the class if that change went live and I had to use those new rules.

My proposed fix for Conjure Animals is just to remove the 1/4 option. 1/2 creatures kind of suck, so that means most people will be picking 1 or 2, and none of them break anything.

[Amnestic]

Two thoughts:

1)You're not wrong, though I do believe DMs award *way* too much money-per-level in 5e. Buying things shouldn't be an afterthought from level 2 onward, yet that's exactly how it seems to go.

Other people have spoken on your second point and I mostly agree with them on it, but just to touch on this one - this is a system "issue" rather than a DM one. If they follow the DMG guidance on treasure hoards by tier, they'll outstrip any and all 'mundane' equipment expenditure very quickly outside of plate armour during tier 1, and outstrip plate by the start of tier 2.

I don't blame DMs for following the DMG guidance on it, I blame the system for not adequately adding in more things to spend gold on that aren't magic items or adjusting gold rewards down accordingly (though by the sounds of it, 5.5e does address this - how well remains to be seen, but at least they're aware of it).

[Aimeryan]

While I do agree that Conjure Animals can be excessive, I don't think your example actually proves that point. Velociraptors and things that can restrain on a hit are the things that I find most overpowered about the spell, and the mass of bodies you can field quickly.

The damage being enough to take down a giant wolf in one round? A fighter can do that (on average) every round for free with an archery build. No concentration or spell required.

The damage done in a round is 40-50? That's fine, but imagine you have eight hobgoblins charging at you and they get hit with a fireball. Even assuming every single one makes the saving throw, that's 112 damage.

Or imagine a cleric has three rounds of spirit guardians against five targets. Even if they all make every save, which won't happen, that's 202 damage.

The third level "signature" spells for the various types of casting are all really strong (fireball, hypnotic pattern, spirit guardians, conjure animals). The problem I have here is they are taking a spell that genuinely does need to be retuned a bit and killing it in the new UA. I just straight would stop playing the class if that change went live and I had to use those new rules.

My proposed fix for Conjure Animals is just to remove the 1/4 option. 1/2 creatures kind of suck, so that means most people will be picking 1 or 2, and none of them break anything.

This is an interesting post, since you are correct that Level 3 Spells are a huge power-up. I guess the major difference is that Fireball, Hypnotic Pattern, Spirit Guardians are all great for AOE, which is the caster forte. Meanwhile, the martials still stand strong against powerful single creatures - which casters can find difficult to effect; although Web against a T-Rex might be quite effective if it fails the Dex saving throw (likely) and continues to fail the Strength check round after round (highly unlikely), it can also be a complete wash with the T-Rex not failing those and only having its 50ft speed facing some difficult terrain.

Conjure Animals, meanwhile, says no to that balance and screams "I have the martial power!!!", but better because those single damage attacks from that powerful melee creature mean the spell also acts as an amazing tank that you don't need to spend further resources on. If its an multi-target encounter? Then the Druid uses AOE instead - the martials hopefully get to hit one or two of them before the combat is over.

[Haggo]

If having and using gear is considered an "annoyance," then one should really stick to video games and put the TTRPGs down.
The game isn't supposed to be overly hard or burdensome, but at the same time it's not supposed to hold your hand and play itself for you. You are expected to manage your character, which is entirely reasonable, and demanding the game default to doing it for you is poor gamesmanship.


We have to be careful to differentiate "annoying your players" and "your players being annoyed." Because, of course, if your players are annoyed by utterly reasonable situations, that's not the DMs fault, that's the player being an ass, and they shouldn't be rewarded for it.
You don't know video games my man,the freeform of rpg makes 'ignoring' it easy. While in a video game it's likely for me to have to manually input buttons to get all my daggers back, a group can just... handwave it. "Yep, you got all your daggers back"