It's no secret that the shepherd druid is a fantastic summoner; that's kind of what it's designed for. But now that we have the twilight cleric, it becomes even more potent.
Let's say you conjure eight wolves, as that's a fairly common choice when the DM allows players to choose. The base wolf stat block has 11 hit points and two hit dice. With the level 6 mighty summoner feature, each wolf would have a total of 15 hit points. Not a ton more, but it makes a difference. At level 10, your summoned wolves regain 5 hit points when they end their turn inside your spirit totem aura. Now let's add twilight cleric to the mix. At level 2, your channel divinity allows you to grant your wolves temporary hit points when they end their turn inside your twilight sanctuary. With an even split of shepherd 10/twilight 10, you can grant them 1d6+10 temporary hit points, on top of their already increased and regenerating health pool. Now those are some super summons.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to notice this fun little combo, but it's worth pointing out for anyone who may be interested. Probably ask your DM first out of courtesy before doing this lol.
At level 20, say you’re fighting a CR 20 dragon (realistically you’ll be fighting something even higher). How many of those wolves makes the save to overcome the frightful presence? How many of the rest get 1-shot by the breath weapon (avg damage 56)?
How many CR 20 plus creatures are resistant/immune to non magical damage, or can fly, or have plenty of other tricks so the wolves don’t actually do anything useful in combat?
If you were still fighting goblins and orcs, they’d be great, but the numbers only sound good until you consider the enemies you’ll be facing.
It's not gonna help much fighting the boss, but will make it easier for everyone in the party to make it to the boss with more HP and spell slots, I think.
It's not gonna help much fighting the boss, but will make it easier for everyone in the party to make it to the boss with more HP and spell slots, I think.
actually with the shepherd it gives your summons the ability to ignore the immunity and resistance with their atks.
At level 20, say you’re fighting a CR 20 dragon (realistically you’ll be fighting something even higher). How many of those wolves makes the save to overcome the frightful presence? How many of the rest get 1-shot by the breath weapon (avg damage 56)?
How many CR 20 plus creatures are resistant/immune to non magical damage, or can fly, or have plenty of other tricks so the wolves don’t actually do anything useful in combat?
If you were still fighting goblins and orcs, they’d be great, but the numbers only sound good until you consider the enemies you’ll be facing.
Wait, this is simply a bad argument.
There are various other summons which can fly and maybe do other tricks, and after your 6th level of shepherd druid, your summons' attacks are magical.
It's no secret that the shepherd druid is a fantastic summoner; that's kind of what it's designed for. But now that we have the twilight cleric, it becomes even more potent.
Let's say you conjure eight wolves, as that's a fairly common choice when the DM allows players to choose. The base wolf stat block has 11 hit points and two hit dice. With the level 6 mighty summoner feature, each wolf would have a total of 15 hit points. Not a ton more, but it makes a difference. At level 10, your summoned wolves regain 5 hit points when they end their turn inside your spirit totem aura. Now let's add twilight cleric to the mix. At level 2, your channel divinity allows you to grant your wolves temporary hit points when they end their turn inside your twilight sanctuary. With an even split of shepherd 10/twilight 10, you can grant them 1d6+10 temporary hit points, on top of their already increased and regenerating health pool. Now those are some super summons.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to notice this fun little combo, but it's worth pointing out for anyone who may be interested. Probably ask your DM first out of courtesy before doing this lol.
The main problem with summoning is that RAW, you dont get to decide what you summon. I see players and DMs get this wrong more often than they get it right. If the player decides, then Shep Druid is way OP regardless of any multiclass.
Summon 16 velociraptors that have pack tactics?!? Not uncommon to hit for 100 hps a round.
While technically true that RAW, the choice isn't described as yours, any DM that is giving a player who built a summoner character intentionally bad summons is not playing for the enjoyment of that character.
While technically true that RAW, the choice isn't described as yours, any DM that is giving a player who built a summoner character intentionally bad summons is not playing for the enjoyment of that character.
The alternative of giving the player what they want is not intentionally giving them something bad.
I've seen too many players say, "I summon X# of great owls that do flyby attacks," or "I summon X# velociraptors..." The spell doesn't work that way. You summon X# of beasts of a CR or LOWER. You are not being a bad DM if you simply let it be random.
No, coming to an agreement doesn't mean "I always get the best thing" or "I always get the worst thing". Don't try to put words into my mouth.
Certainly when you select a CR 2 or lower monster and your DM gives you a single rat, you've been had. Players and DMs don't have to be quite so adversarial in everything. Aren't you both trying to have fun?
No, coming to an agreement doesn't mean "I always get the best thing" or "I always get the worst thing". Don't try to put words into my mouth.
Certainly when you select a CR 2 or lower monster and your DM gives you a single rat, you've been had. Players and DMs don't have to be quite so adversarial in everything. Aren't you both trying to have fun?
???
Your words are, "[DM giving] intentionally bad summons." There is no ambiguity there. Those are your words. You introduced the idea that the DM is being adversarial, not me.
I simply pointed out that a DM need not be defined as adversarial if they chose to let the summons be random or something other than giving the player the exact summons they desire each time. The DM is following RAW.
While technically true that RAW, the choice isn't described as yours, any DM that is giving a player who built a summoner character intentionally bad summons is not playing for the enjoyment of that character.
My point from the beginning was that DMs don't have to be an absolute adversary to their players, and coming to some sort of agreement is better than the DM fleecing the player or the other way around. Why can't the goal be fun for everyone again?
While technically true that RAW, the choice isn't described as yours, any DM that is giving a player who built a summoner character intentionally bad summons is not playing for the enjoyment of that character.
My point from the beginning was that DMs don't have to be an absolute adversary to their players, and coming to some sort of agreement is better than the DM fleecing the player or the other way around. Why can't the goal be fun for everyone again?
Maybe you should start by NOT DEFINING fun as the DM being required to homebrew the rules. Perhaps the other players at the table don't enjoy their agency being reduced significantly by a DM allowing one player to summon whatever they want and decimating combat encounters.
Again, you build this straw man where if the DM isn't making it "fun" for this player that they are being, and I quote, "an absolute adversary to their players."
A DM following RAW is not an "absolute adversary." If you can't see that, then there is no further discussion to be had.
Maybe you should start by NOT DEFINING fun as the DM being required to homebrew the rules. Perhaps the other players at the table don't enjoy their agency being reduced significantly by a DM allowing one player to summon whatever they want and decimating combat encounters.
Again, you build this straw man where if the DM isn't making it "fun" for this player that they are being, and I quote, "an absolute adversary to their players."
A DM following RAW is not an "absolute adversary." If you can't see that, then there is no further discussion to be had.
Strictly, RAW doesn't tell you who chooses the actual creatures, only that "The GM has the creatures' statistics[.]" and that you "[c]hoose one of the following options for what appears." You are absolutely between what the rules actually say and what you think they say when you imply either way who gets to decide, even if you are Jeremy Crawford.
In fact, it is reasonable that when people interpret something along the lines of "you choose a CR 2 or two CR 1 creatures to appear," they'd assume that they got to choose the creatures. Again, this is true regardless of sage advice.
Beyond that, just because the DM might be in charge of deciding at one game, that doesn't imply that they can't take input from the player. Having a summoner in your party has to have a little group buy in, a bit like having another caster focusing on illusion and enchantment. Most easily this is accomplished for the druid by not *always* taking the largest number of lowest CR creatures. But really, if you are finding that a summoner isn't working at your group, the answer isn't to make them wish they didn't build that character.
8 really bad animals take just as long to manage and get just as many turns as 8 excellent animals, so the other players who were hypothetically already mad at the summoner for taking their agency aren't put in a better position. In fact, if a thinking player asked for 8 wolves and got 8 rats, they would make the best out of those rats' turns, right? Figuring out what to do with them when they were expecting something else might take longer than just doing what they had planned.
Making a player feel punished for how they've built their character is a good way to lose a player. In some groups, a random table of summons (or a limited subset of options) might work, or having the DM choose something reasonable for the CR selected, or having the DM take advisement from the player, or even just letting the player choose for themselves. In no case is making the player feel punished for using the spell going to work out for the health of the group.
To the OP's question, an even split between Cleric and Druid levels sounds fun if you only focus on the summons, but then you are really missing out on the higher level spells from either class. Channel Divinity is also tied to having more levels in Cleric. I don't think this is actually OP at high levels when most enemies are spellcasters or have obscenely high AC and resistance/immunity to a lot of forms of damage.
Let's say you conjure eight wolves, as that's a fairly common choice when the DM allows players to choose.
I should point out that I never assumed one way or another. I know that there are plenty of DMs out there who allow players to choose their summons, and plenty of DMs who run it by RAW and choose for their players. That said, when the DM does allow the player to choose, wolves are a common choice. It's simply an example for the sake of demonstration.
Additionally, whether or not this build is actually effective at higher levels wasn't the point, I was just bringing attention to a nice synergy that would be fun to play around with.
I think a build like this could be effective. I pretty much stop thinking about the game post level 12. In that world, I see a shepherd 7/ twilight 5+ being pretty strong. Rush to level 7 of druid and then go to cleric once you've got your power spells. Upcast conjure spells compare quite well to 5th and 6th level spells, so I think there is plenty of power to lean on. Spiritual Weapon helps fill in the bonus action as well. I don't think it's better than sticking to a straight druid build, but the synergy is definitely powerful.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are using a Bear spirit, you're already getting 5 + your druid level in THP for your summons. That's better than what the Twilight Cleric is offering, and THP doesn't stack. At best, splitting your level lets you use use the THP generation method twice instead of once per rest (or grant access to a different spirit effect), though its half as effective.
I dunno, I'm just not sure what splitting with Twilight Cleric offers that base Shepherd Druid doesn't get.
Well bear isn't the only spirit. Throwing up the Twilight Cleric ability allows you to use unicorn and create super tanky troops. Again, I don't think this is better than going straight druid, but there is some power there
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's no secret that the shepherd druid is a fantastic summoner; that's kind of what it's designed for. But now that we have the twilight cleric, it becomes even more potent.
Let's say you conjure eight wolves, as that's a fairly common choice when the DM allows players to choose. The base wolf stat block has 11 hit points and two hit dice. With the level 6 mighty summoner feature, each wolf would have a total of 15 hit points. Not a ton more, but it makes a difference. At level 10, your summoned wolves regain 5 hit points when they end their turn inside your spirit totem aura. Now let's add twilight cleric to the mix. At level 2, your channel divinity allows you to grant your wolves temporary hit points when they end their turn inside your twilight sanctuary. With an even split of shepherd 10/twilight 10, you can grant them 1d6+10 temporary hit points, on top of their already increased and regenerating health pool. Now those are some super summons.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to notice this fun little combo, but it's worth pointing out for anyone who may be interested. Probably ask your DM first out of courtesy before doing this lol.
Oh man, this is gonna frustrate some DMs I know :D
At level 20, say you’re fighting a CR 20 dragon (realistically you’ll be fighting something even higher). How many of those wolves makes the save to overcome the frightful presence? How many of the rest get 1-shot by the breath weapon (avg damage 56)?
How many CR 20 plus creatures are resistant/immune to non magical damage, or can fly, or have plenty of other tricks so the wolves don’t actually do anything useful in combat?
If you were still fighting goblins and orcs, they’d be great, but the numbers only sound good until you consider the enemies you’ll be facing.
It's not gonna help much fighting the boss, but will make it easier for everyone in the party to make it to the boss with more HP and spell slots, I think.
actually with the shepherd it gives your summons the ability to ignore the immunity and resistance with their atks.
Wait, this is simply a bad argument.
There are various other summons which can fly and maybe do other tricks, and after your 6th level of shepherd druid, your summons' attacks are magical.
The main problem with summoning is that RAW, you dont get to decide what you summon. I see players and DMs get this wrong more often than they get it right. If the player decides, then Shep Druid is way OP regardless of any multiclass.
Summon 16 velociraptors that have pack tactics?!? Not uncommon to hit for 100 hps a round.
While technically true that RAW, the choice isn't described as yours, any DM that is giving a player who built a summoner character intentionally bad summons is not playing for the enjoyment of that character.
The alternative of giving the player what they want is not intentionally giving them something bad.
I've seen too many players say, "I summon X# of great owls that do flyby attacks," or "I summon X# velociraptors..." The spell doesn't work that way. You summon X# of beasts of a CR or LOWER. You are not being a bad DM if you simply let it be random.
No, coming to an agreement doesn't mean "I always get the best thing" or "I always get the worst thing". Don't try to put words into my mouth.
Certainly when you select a CR 2 or lower monster and your DM gives you a single rat, you've been had. Players and DMs don't have to be quite so adversarial in everything. Aren't you both trying to have fun?
???
Your words are, "[DM giving] intentionally bad summons." There is no ambiguity there. Those are your words. You introduced the idea that the DM is being adversarial, not me.
I simply pointed out that a DM need not be defined as adversarial if they chose to let the summons be random or something other than giving the player the exact summons they desire each time. The DM is following RAW.
My point from the beginning was that DMs don't have to be an absolute adversary to their players, and coming to some sort of agreement is better than the DM fleecing the player or the other way around. Why can't the goal be fun for everyone again?
Maybe you should start by NOT DEFINING fun as the DM being required to homebrew the rules. Perhaps the other players at the table don't enjoy their agency being reduced significantly by a DM allowing one player to summon whatever they want and decimating combat encounters.
Again, you build this straw man where if the DM isn't making it "fun" for this player that they are being, and I quote, "an absolute adversary to their players."
A DM following RAW is not an "absolute adversary." If you can't see that, then there is no further discussion to be had.
Strictly, RAW doesn't tell you who chooses the actual creatures, only that "The GM has the creatures' statistics[.]" and that you "[c]hoose one of the following options for what appears." You are absolutely between what the rules actually say and what you think they say when you imply either way who gets to decide, even if you are Jeremy Crawford.
In fact, it is reasonable that when people interpret something along the lines of "you choose a CR 2 or two CR 1 creatures to appear," they'd assume that they got to choose the creatures. Again, this is true regardless of sage advice.
Beyond that, just because the DM might be in charge of deciding at one game, that doesn't imply that they can't take input from the player. Having a summoner in your party has to have a little group buy in, a bit like having another caster focusing on illusion and enchantment. Most easily this is accomplished for the druid by not *always* taking the largest number of lowest CR creatures. But really, if you are finding that a summoner isn't working at your group, the answer isn't to make them wish they didn't build that character.
8 really bad animals take just as long to manage and get just as many turns as 8 excellent animals, so the other players who were hypothetically already mad at the summoner for taking their agency aren't put in a better position. In fact, if a thinking player asked for 8 wolves and got 8 rats, they would make the best out of those rats' turns, right? Figuring out what to do with them when they were expecting something else might take longer than just doing what they had planned.
Making a player feel punished for how they've built their character is a good way to lose a player. In some groups, a random table of summons (or a limited subset of options) might work, or having the DM choose something reasonable for the CR selected, or having the DM take advisement from the player, or even just letting the player choose for themselves. In no case is making the player feel punished for using the spell going to work out for the health of the group.
To the OP's question, an even split between Cleric and Druid levels sounds fun if you only focus on the summons, but then you are really missing out on the higher level spells from either class. Channel Divinity is also tied to having more levels in Cleric. I don't think this is actually OP at high levels when most enemies are spellcasters or have obscenely high AC and resistance/immunity to a lot of forms of damage.
It's funny how a single line of my original post sparked a whole argument:
I should point out that I never assumed one way or another. I know that there are plenty of DMs out there who allow players to choose their summons, and plenty of DMs who run it by RAW and choose for their players. That said, when the DM does allow the player to choose, wolves are a common choice. It's simply an example for the sake of demonstration.
Additionally, whether or not this build is actually effective at higher levels wasn't the point, I was just bringing attention to a nice synergy that would be fun to play around with.
You tried Temery2383
I think a build like this could be effective. I pretty much stop thinking about the game post level 12. In that world, I see a shepherd 7/ twilight 5+ being pretty strong. Rush to level 7 of druid and then go to cleric once you've got your power spells. Upcast conjure spells compare quite well to 5th and 6th level spells, so I think there is plenty of power to lean on. Spiritual Weapon helps fill in the bonus action as well. I don't think it's better than sticking to a straight druid build, but the synergy is definitely powerful.
Umm.....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are using a Bear spirit, you're already getting 5 + your druid level in THP for your summons. That's better than what the Twilight Cleric is offering, and THP doesn't stack. At best, splitting your level lets you use use the THP generation method twice instead of once per rest (or grant access to a different spirit effect), though its half as effective.
I dunno, I'm just not sure what splitting with Twilight Cleric offers that base Shepherd Druid doesn't get.
Well bear isn't the only spirit. Throwing up the Twilight Cleric ability allows you to use unicorn and create super tanky troops. Again, I don't think this is better than going straight druid, but there is some power there