New Summon Spells

[Civis Mundi]

Hey y'all!

Life took me away from the playground for a while, but Tasha's dragged me back in.

I wanted to discuss people's opinions on the new summoning spells. I'm a huge fan, as I think it makes the archetype of a summoner about a thousand times more playable, and it looks like there's a lot of different ways to build one.

But I started asking myself -- besides flavor and spell level, what differentiates the different summons?

Which summon spells would you rank as strongest, and which fall behind? In what circumstances would you favor this or that summoned creature? Do you think any particular spell or summoned creature leans towards a particular build?

Since the UA came out, I thought Putrid Spirit from summon undead seemed very promising, and I still think that's the case. Poison immunity's still a huge problem for it, but if you can find a reliable way to poison creatures who are suscepitble, that's a lot of paralysis to throw around without expending too many resources at a time. My personal favorite is combining the spell with Investment of the Chain Master and a Sprite familiar for a free attempt to poison each round, with a chance of straight-up knocking someone out. For best results, precede with mind sliver.

[Nhym]

I'll post what I wrote on another thread, but I really hate when people say Conjure Animals and Woodland beings clog up combat. If it's causing a problem, it's the player, not the spell. It's like giving a gun to a child: a lot of power if the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use it. An experienced Shepherd Druid, for example: can take turns with 8 summons in less time than a player who isn't prepared for their turn, knows when it's appropriate to summon 2 Brown Bears over 8 Pixies and knows exactly what they intend to do on their turn before their turn starts. If you have a problem with Conjure Animals or Conjure Woodland beings, then you shouldn't be using it. Fight me.

Now for my post on another thread

For Shepherd druids, the Summon X spells are flat worse than their normal summon spells. The only thing that they have going for them is that Summon Beast comes online 2 levels before Conjure Animals. Summon Fey doesn't have the utility that Conjure Woodland Beings is used for and even the two CR 1 option of Conjure Animals is stronger than Summon Beast of the same level. That's not even to mention the Mighty Summoner HP doesn't work with the Summon X spells.

The point of spells like Conjure Animals is the ability to find the right tool for the right job. Summon beast is like crappy amalgamation of every feature. For example considering a 3rd level spell slot:

Want a tanky summon? Summon Beast has an AC of 14 and HP of 25. Dire Wolves have an AC of 14 and 47 health with mighty summoner.... and you get two of them.
Want a damage summon? Summon Beast makes one attack, lets be generous and say a +5 to hit, and does 1d8+7 damage which averages to 12 pierce damage. Brown Bears have a +6 to hit, multiattack, and average 8 pierce and 11 slashing damage with their attacks.... and you get two of them too.
Need a scout? Giant Owls have Flyby and twice as good darkvision and you can have 8 of them, or Giant Eagles fly faster and you can have 2 of them.
Need a mount? All horses are faster and you can have multiples.

Yes the single Bestial Spirit has better all-around stats than any single creature, but that's not what Conjure X are used for. You pick the best summon for the situation; that's what makes Shepherds so fun since they can constantly adapt and change to the environment. And before you say it, yes the DM is suppose to choose the summon, but in practice you can certainly suggest summons and I have never seen a DM bar anything other than Pixies if the player can handle their summons efficiently.

Also anyone interested in Shepherd druids, here's my guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

[MaxWilson]

Hey y'all!

Life took me away from the playground for a while, but Tasha's dragged me back in.

I wanted to discuss people's opinions on the new summoning spells. I'm a huge fan, as I think it makes the archetype of a summoner about a thousand times more playable, and it looks like there's a lot of different ways to build one.

But I started asking myself -- besides flavor and spell level, what differentiates the different summons?

Which summon spells would you rank as strongest, and which fall behind? In what circumstances would you favor this or that summoned creature? Do you think any particular spell or summoned creature leans towards a particular build?

Since the UA came out, I thought Putrid Spirit from summon undead seemed very promising, and I still think that's the case. Poison immunity's still a huge problem for it, but if you can find a reliable way to poison creatures who are suscepitble, that's a lot of paralysis to throw around without expending too many resources at a time. My personal favorite is combining the spell with Investment of the Chain Master and a Sprite familiar for a free attempt to poison each round, with a chance of straight-up knocking someone out. For best results, precede with mind sliver.

We just had a thread on this a couple days ago, may interest you: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...-Summon-spells

[Civis Mundi]

We just had a thread on this a couple days ago, may interest you: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...-Summon-spells

Thanks for the link! I did see that thread, but it's not quite what I'm looking for. That thread is mainly comparing the new summon spells to the pre-existing conjure spells. I'm not really interested in comparing the two. I'd rather compare the various summon spells to each other. Lots of people like the existing conjure options, great, but they wouldn't have released a bunch of summon spells if some people didn't. So, assuming a player wants to take these new options rather than the old ones -- when do you want summon construct, when do you want summon fey, et c.?

If you have a problem with Conjure Animals or Conjure Woodland beings, then you shouldn't be using it. Fight me.

I appreciate the passion, but I'd rather not fight you and just not use them instead. I have a problem with them, but I don't have a problem with you enjoying them. I wouldn't mind receiving that same courtesy.

[Nod_Hero]

Also anyone interested in Shepherd druids, here's my guide: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

I have it bookmarked already but for that particular link =

Sorry, the file you have requested does not exist.

Make sure that you have the correct URL and the file exists.

[MaxWilson]

I have it bookmarked already but for that particular link =

Corrected link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...eWwHf22n4/edit

Thanks for the link! I did see that thread, but it's not quite what I'm looking for. That thread is mainly comparing the new summon spells to the pre-existing conjure spells. I'm not really interested in comparing the two. I'd rather compare the various summon spells to each other. Lots of people like the existing conjure options, great, but they wouldn't have released a bunch of summon spells if some people didn't. So, assuming a player wants to take these new options rather than the old ones -- when do you want summon construct, when do you want summon fey, et c.?

Ah.

Well, one issue is that the expanded spell lists are explicitly optional class features--by default, nobody has access to any of the new summon spells except (1) bards, via Magical Secrets, and (2) Aberrant Mind Sorcerers, who get Summon Aberration as a bonus spell.

That issue aside, it seems to me that warlocks would probably rather cast Summon Shadowspawn than Fear now, even though Fear is a somewhat stronger effect, because summoning a Shadowspawn and having it immediately use its 1/day Fear ability creates a similar effect (movement control, disadvantage on attacks) in a larger AoE, and also creates a tank.

Necromancers obviously would prefer Summon Undead over the other summon spells (although Danse Macabre is still better, if it's available) because of the synergy with Undead Thralls and possibly Grim Harvest.

Fey have some interesting teleportation abilities plus the ability to create magical darkness, which you can use to gain advantage (make sure the darkness is further away than enemies' darkvision range and then just go stand in the magical darkness and now you have advantage on all of your attacks against them).

Beast and elemental are both pretty trashy even compared to other summon spells, but at least beast comes online early.

Celestial gives clerics a half-decent way to spend higher-level spell slots, and quite a good way to generate minions for Planar Binding. It's probably better to create a celestial via Summon Celestial IX than to irritate a real celestial by Gating it in or summoning it via Planar Ally/Conjure Celestial and then binding it. This way you get a theoretically good-natured protective spirit with a nice ranged attack, good AC, and decent durability, and you don't make any enemies in the process. Couatls are nice too, especially when they Polymorph into elephants and quetzalcouatls and such, but ranged attacks scale better. I'd rather have a dozen Summon Celestial IX celestials (48 attacks per round) than a dozen Couatls, for instance.

Aberration's (Slaad) regeneration ability is mildly interesting, although it would be much more interesting on a stronger chassis that's likely to survive more than a few rounds.

Summon Fiend is pretty weak--there's no good reason for it to be 6th level. A 6th level Summon Fiend produces an AC 18, 40 HP flying fiend attacking at 3x +9ish for 2d6+9 (16) fire per hit, which is effectively CR 5. That's not terrible, but it's not significantly better than a 6th level Summon Undead's AC 17, 50 HP skeleton archer attacking 3x +9ish for 2d4+9 (14) necrotic per hit, also CR 5, or an AC 17, 60 HP Summon Aberration beholderkin attacking 3x +9ish for 1d8+9 (13.5) psychic per hit, also CR 5. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. They're all pretty samey except for their utility abilities like teleportation or incorporeal movement.

[Civis Mundi]

To some degree, I understand the lack of engagement. For the most part, there isn't a whole lot to differentiate one summon from the other.

But there are some slight differences. Given I much prefer these to the old conjure spells, these are things I'd like to keep in the back of my head. More power to you if you prefer the conjure spells and have a DM who doesn't interpret them into oblivion (literally, more power to you--they're a lot stronger, as other posters have discussed in other threads). Personally, I prefer the less variable power of the newer spells.

Summon undead: As mentioned, I think this one could have the most potential. The ability to inflict paralysis with Putrid Spirit is definitely not something the other summons can come close to. I also think Ghostly Spirit's incorporeal passage makes for some flavorful scouting, though kind of an underwhelming use of a spell. To note, summon undead is necromancy rather than conjuration, which makes it suboptimal for a Conjurer.

Summon beast: Nhym went into more detail here, but summon beast is pretty weak when you compare it to conjure animals. Even if you're not using those spells, it definitely pales in comparison to the other summons. At least it's only a 2nd level spell, which can make for a lot of fun on lower-level builds. Speaking from experience, fighting alongside a summoned beast as a Wild Shaped Moon Druid is a lot of fun, whether or not it's less optimal than conjure animals.

Ranged options: Skeletal Spirit from summon undead seems by far the weakest, with lower HP and damage than its competitors. At least it's the lowest-level ranged option. Summon fiend (Devil) has the highest ranged DPS, though it's neck and neck with Celestial Spirit (Avenger), which also sports a long range of 600'.

Tanking options: Despite the general lack of variation, I think there are a few interesting options here. Summon aberration (Slaad) has regeneration to keep it tanking. Summon construct has the highest AC and the most HP at higher levels, with a host of resistances and immmunities. (Metal) and (Stone) both seem look good choices, though not terribly different. Summon elemental is pretty tanky as well, but all in all seems a little weaker than summon construct.

Weak links: Besides summon beast which seems purposefully weaker to justify its lower spell level, I struggle to find a good niche for summon fey. A mobile skirmisher detracts from one of a summon's chief purposes -- to draw fire from the enemy -- and besides its mobility, I can't see much to recommend it. Plus, it lacks any actual flying or climbing or the like, making it less mobile than other options anyway. Summon shadowspawn is a little disappointing, with weak and limited control options, no ranged option, no extra mobility, no impressive defenses, et c. Summon elemental seems a little weak as well -- it fills a similar defensive summon niche as summon construct, but summon construct seems better in most regards. Besides, it's not going to be functionally that different from just casting conjure elemental at 5th level, and that's going to be a lot stronger. At least it scales? I'm at a loss.

EDIT: Ninja'd! Thank you for the level of detail, MaxWilson. I especially appreciate your notes on Shadowspawn -- I didn't see much use for them, but it actually looks like a pretty attractive option.

[Nhym]

I have it bookmarked already but for that particular link =

Thanks for the heads up! I fixed the link in the post. Must have broken from the copy/paste.

I appreciate the passion, but I'd rather not fight you and just not use them instead. I have a problem with them, but I don't have a problem with you enjoying them. I wouldn't mind receiving that same courtesy.

That post was a copy/paste from the previous thread which was more...heated.

[Necromas]

One thing I want to chime in on too is just that I feel better with a summon spell that is nice and consistent compared to ones that can range wildly in power level. I'd be worried more about my two brown bears or 8 pixies or whatever making one of the other players at the table feel overshadowed than I am about it making turns take too long.

[MaxWilson]

One thing I want to chime in on too is just that I feel better with a summon spell that is nice and consistent compared to ones that can range wildly in power level. I'd be worried more about my two brown bears or 8 pixies or whatever making one of the other players at the table feel overshadowed than I am about it making turns take too long.

Yeah, the paradox here is that some players (possibly including myself) will use the new spells specifically BECAUSE they are weaker, while also appreciating the old, big guns for what they are (and perhaps never using them). Conjure Animals can feel a lot like playing the game on easy mode, but winning with Conjure Beast is more like [TVTropes alert!] Cherry Tapping.

[Civis Mundi]

Yeah, the paradox here is that some players (possibly including myself) will use the new spells specifically BECAUSE they are weaker, while also appreciating the old, big guns for what they are (and perhaps never using them). Conjure Animals can feel a lot like playing the game on easy mode, but winning with Conjure Beast is more like [TVTropes alert!] Cherry Tapping.

My feelings exactly. This thread might not be about comparing the two -- but what you and Necromas describe is why I have an interest in exploring these spells, rather than disregarding them.

One thing you mentioned re: magical darkness I'm a bit confused about. I'd get putting a 5' cube of magical darkness in an enemy's space, rendering them blind and thus granting advantage on attacks against them. But if you were in the 5', wouldn't you be the one who can't see (without something like Devil's Sight)? I think I'm just slow today, because I'm not quite getting how putting yourself within the darkness grants you advantage.

[MaxWilson]

My feelings exactly. This thread might not be about comparing the two -- but what you describe is why I have an interest in exploring these spells, rather than disregarding them.

One thing you mentioned re: magical darkness I'm a bit confused about. I'd get putting a 5' cube of magical darkness in an enemy's space, rendering them blind and thus granting advantage on attacks against them. But if you were in the 5', wouldn't you be the one who can't see (without something like Devil's Sight)? I think I'm just slow today, because I'm not quite getting how putting yourself within the darkness grants you advantage.

No, it's just magical darkness, not a wall. Now that 5E's PHB has been errata'ed not to have darkness work backwards, darkness prevents you from being seen--it doesn't prevent you from seeing. Magical darkness is an area that's inexplicably dark where it shouldn't be dark, which is enough to avoid being seen and therefore enough (at least by RAW) to get advantage on your attacks.

Your DM may rule it differently of course, but the rationale which approximately half of all DMs use to conclude that the Darkness spell is opaque (because it specifically calls out that creatures with darkvision cannot see through the darkness, and they interpret "see through" as meaning "see in or out" as opposed to "see in spite of, ignore") does not apply to this kind of darkness, which has no special darkvision-interacting properties. It's just plain dark where it shouldn't be.

[Civis Mundi]

No, it's just magical darkness, not a wall. Now that 5E's PHB has been errata'ed not to have darkness work backwards, darkness prevents you from being seen--it doesn't prevent you from seeing. Magical darkness is an area that's inexplicably dark where it shouldn't be dark, which is enough to avoid being seen and therefore enough (at least by RAW) to get advantage on your attacks.

Your DM may rule it differently of course, but the rationale which approximately half of all DMs use to conclude that the Darkness spell is opaque (because it specifically calls out that creatures with darkvision cannot see through the darkness, and they interpret "see through" as meaning "see in or out" as opposed to "see in spite of, ignore") does not apply to this kind of darkness, which has no special darkvision-interacting properties. It's just plain dark where it shouldn't be.

Ah, thank you for the clarification! I didn't realize that was errata'd, and I also overlooked that crucial wrinkle about darkness. It's not magical darkness in general that's opaque, just the darkness spell.

That makes sense to me now. I can imagine some DMs might not love this particular interaction, but I see how it works by RAW. I don't think my table would take issue with it, seems like a creative use of summon fey.

[MaxWilson]

That makes sense to me now. I can imagine some DMs might not love this particular interaction, but I see how it works by RAW. I don't think my table would take issue with it, seems like a creative use of summon fey.

Most monsters have darkvision so it doesn't matter much against them unless you're 60'+ away, but there are some that don't (IIRC all giants except Stone Giants, plus dinosaurs and many humanoids).

[Civis Mundi]

Most monsters have darkvision so it doesn't matter much against them unless you're 60'+ away, but there are some that don't (IIRC all giants except Stone Giants, plus dinosaurs and many humanoids).

Good point -- considering the niche use, I'd personally find it pretty unreasonable to ban this particular trick.

Thinking more on summon fey, I dismissed it in my earlier post since being so elusive seemed counter-intuitive when you're using a summon as a meatshield. But considering that even the strongest summons won't be the toughest creatures in the world, I suppose it does make sense to try and get more bang for your buck by avoiding getting your summons popped. If you've got enough frontline, making your summon a less attractive target is not the worst idea.

[MaxWilson]

Good point -- considering the niche use, I'd personally find it pretty unreasonable to ban this particular trick.

Thinking more on summon fey, I dismissed it in my earlier post since being so elusive seemed counter-intuitive when you're using a summon as a meatshield. But considering that even the strongest summons won't be the toughest creatures in the world, I suppose it does make sense to try and get more bang for your buck by avoiding getting your summons popped. If you've got enough frontline, making your summon a less attractive target is not the worst idea.

Fey also works well if your own personal defense is based on elusiveness: a Skulker Goblin warlock or a Mobile Human Wizard both combine well with said 40' move + 30' teleporting fey. Too bad it's only got a melee attack, but you can still bait monsters into Dashing after you and make the human warlock/wizard punish them with Eldritch Blast/Fire Bolt if they don't, while using the fey spirit to punish them if they do. (Just don't ever let anyone end their turn within 55' of an enemy.)

Not all meatshields are static and unmoving.

However, this obviously doesn't work well if other PCs ARE static and unmoving, especially if they're also squishy. You either need a mobile party to make this work, or you need to temporarily split the party and take only the mobile elements with you.

[Bilbron]

Hey y'all!

Life took me away from the playground for a while, but Tasha's dragged me back in.

I wanted to discuss people's opinions on the new summoning spells. I'm a huge fan, as I think it makes the archetype of a summoner about a thousand times more playable, and it looks like there's a lot of different ways to build one.

But I started asking myself -- besides flavor and spell level, what differentiates the different summons?

Which summon spells would you rank as strongest, and which fall behind? In what circumstances would you favor this or that summoned creature? Do you think any particular spell or summoned creature leans towards a particular build?

Since the UA came out, I thought Putrid Spirit from summon undead seemed very promising, and I still think that's the case. Poison immunity's still a huge problem for it, but if you can find a reliable way to poison creatures who are suscepitble, that's a lot of paralysis to throw around without expending too many resources at a time. My personal favorite is combining the spell with Investment of the Chain Master and a Sprite familiar for a free attempt to poison each round, with a chance of straight-up knocking someone out. For best results, precede with mind sliver.

I'm actually working on a Deep Dive on the new Summon spells! I like them a lot and could only find room for one, so I looked at them all quite deeply and settled on Summon Aberration, but it was a tough call!

[Mitchellnotes]

I just wanted to add 2 things to this thread. The first is that the slow on summon shadowspawn seems really, really good. I haven't gotten my book yet, but if it is reduced speed by 20' with no save, that seems amazing

The other thing is that on one hand, while i really appreciate the warlock getting a lot more summoning support, it is also infuriating. The new summon spells really, really want to be cast from even level slots... the lock caps at 5 ::shakes fist:: Also, while adding planar binding is nice, it is significantly hurt by the 24 hour limit because, yet again, level 5 spell cap. (Unless you can cast a conjure spell and bind it by yourself w/o a magic circle. That wouldnt be bad to do then take a short rest)

[Civis Mundi]

Fey also works well if your own personal defense is based on elusiveness...not all meatshields are static and unmoving.

However, this obviously doesn't work well if other PCs ARE static and unmoving, especially if they're also squishy. You either need a mobile party to make this work, or you need to temporarily split the party and take only the mobile elements with you.

Some excellent points. With the right coordination during character creation, a hyper-mobile party like that sounds like a lot of fun. I think it definitely requires more conscious effort on everyone's part to make that work, but ends up a lot stronger and more flexible than a static defense.

I'm actually working on a Deep Dive on the new Summon spells! I like them a lot and could only find room for one, so I looked at them all quite deeply and settled on Summon Aberration, but it was a tough call!

It seems fitting that a deep dive would lead you to aberrations. I'm looking forward to seeing the dive in full!

I just wanted to add 2 things to this thread. The first is that the slow on summon shadowspawn seems really, really good. I haven't gotten my book yet, but if it is reduced speed by 20' with no save, that seems amazing

An ability with no save is always potent, it's true. It certainly helps make Shadowspawn (Despair) stickier as a tank, though I worry about it going down too fast.

The other thing is that on one hand, while i really appreciate the warlock getting a lot more summoning support, it is also infuriating. The new summon spells really, really want to be cast from even level slots... the lock caps at 5 ::shakes fist:: Also, while adding planar binding is nice, it is significantly hurt by the 24 hour limit because, yet again, level 5 spell cap. (Unless you can cast a conjure spell and bind it by yourself w/o a magic circle. That wouldnt be bad to do then take a short rest)

Oof, you're right, that is a pain. Those short rest slots go great with the summon spells' hour-long durations, but the level cap hurts.

[ZiddyT]

I think the ease of access to friendly Planar Binding targets is worth the cost of entry alone. A Cleric with a few thousand gold could make an army celestial archers that can also heal. I definitely think they're being underrated. Sure, at low levels they might not compete well against the conjure spells, but at some point you're going to start running into non-magical damage resistance, AC enough to make those pitiful attack bonuses useless, etc. Against those enemies, the summon spells are still viable.

Obviously there's a couple exceptions - Conjure Fey is always going to be incredibly strong, but it's limited to two classes' spell lists. Shepard will obviously prefer conjure spells, and Necromancer will want to Animate Dead and Danse Macabre, but I see there also being room for Summon Undead on the Necromancer's playlist.

[MaxWilson]

An ability with no save is always potent, it's true. It certainly helps make Shadowspawn (Despair) stickier as a tank, though I worry about it going down too fast.

Mage Armor it to give it AC 16, give it Inspiring Leader temp HP, and then have it Dodge. Should last a while against most enemies.

Another option: instead of Dodging, knock a 30' move enemy prone and then reduce its move even further via Ray of Frost/Slasher feat/etc. Now it can't even stand up and your Despair Spirit can murder it to death at advantage while it attacks weakly back at disadvantage.

If you cast at 5th or 6th level you don't need the Mage Armor. Arguably you don't need it at all even at 3rd level.

Get partial cover between the spirit and enemies if you can, even if it's just a bench or sofa. +2 AC makes a big difference when disadvantage is already in play. Also, Lore Bards' Cutting Words could help.

[Civis Mundi]

Mage Armor it to give it AC 16, give it Inspiring Leader temp HP, and then have it Dodge. Should last a while against most enemies.

Another option: instead of Dodging, knock a 30' move enemy prone and then reduce its move even further via Ray of Frost/Slasher feat/etc. Now it can't even stand up and your Despair Spirit can murder it to death at advantage while it attacks weakly back at disadvantage.

If you cast at 5th or 6th level you don't need the Mage Armor. Arguably you don't need it at all even at 3rd level.

Get partial cover between the spirit and enemies if you can, even if it's just a bench or sofa. +2 AC makes a big difference when disadvantage is already in play. Also, Lore Bards' Cutting Words could help.

Ooh, I really like combining prone with Despair. Nice catch. All this stuff makes me glad I started this thread -- the more we discuss the possibilities, the less samey the summons seem.