Except The game has at least partial guidance. Terrains are assigned to creatures in the dmg and continue for successive monster books. Indicating a direct connection between the two.
That's part of the ranger's problem. The way things are laid out, the ranger needs those supplemental books to really shine. Beast Masters, in particular, need the Monster Manual so they have the full range of possible companions. And we didn't have real guidance on where beasts would be found until Xanathar's. Before then, it was left entirely up to the DM.
Beasts had terrains in their descriptions before Xanathar's. I know because I ran stuff before that book came out and I would somtimes use those Terrain listings about where they are more often found for ideas for either random or set encounters that might groups might run into.
A lot of beasts don't get descriptions. Needing to cross-reference between the DMG or Xanathar's isn't fun. It slows the game down. And this is also information the player probably doesn't have access to. They could, and perhaps even should, worth with the DM to get all this hammered out between sessions so there's no breaking the game. But this is another strike against the ranger.
I love the class, but it's weighed down by a lot of work that needs to go into it so it can play smoothly. None of the other classes have that issue.
Except The game has at least partial guidance. Terrains are assigned to creatures in the dmg and continue for successive monster books. Indicating a direct connection between the two.
There are also things like Examples of things that can be encountered in various terrains in things like the DMG and other books. Even the Adventure Modules are ideas and examples about how some things can link together for Natural Explore. And this is all In a pillar of the game that most relies on the imagination of the Group and the type of Story that they are trying to tell so by default it has to be the most open. So the examples can really only go so far.
Yes - and in both those instances that only serves to weaken the feature rather than strengthen it, When I was a kid I read "Choose your own Adventure" books. I would be pretty pissed if at the bottom of the page it said "to turn left, purchase the Guide to Monsters - to turn right purchase Xanathar's Quest". Saying they provide guidance for a class feature of a player character from the PHB because there are examples of animals that can be found in that terrain in OTHER books isn't helping.
and yes, examples can only go so far, but if they had even literally ONE example about wildlife and how NE applies this entire conversation might have been avoided.
Except The game has at least partial guidance. Terrains are assigned to creatures in the dmg and continue for successive monster books. Indicating a direct connection between the two.
That's part of the ranger's problem. The way things are laid out, the ranger needs those supplemental books to really shine. Beast Masters, in particular, need the Monster Manual so they have the full range of possible companions. And we didn't have real guidance on where beasts would be found until Xanathar's. Before then, it was left entirely up to the DM.
Beasts had terrains in their descriptions before Xanathar's. I know because I ran stuff before that book came out and I would somtimes use those Terrain listings about where they are more often found for ideas for either random or set encounters that might groups might run into.
A lot of beasts don't get descriptions. Needing to cross-reference between the DMG or Xanathar's isn't fun. It slows the game down. And this is also information the player probably doesn't have access to. They could, and perhaps even should, worth with the DM to get all this hammered out between sessions so there's no breaking the game. But this is another strike against the ranger.
I love the class, but it's weighed down by a lot of work that needs to go into it so it can play smoothly. None of the other classes have that issue.
Time consumption is a poor excuse. conjure animals, animate dead, Familiar scouting, divination spells all have been accused of slowing down the game but they are all part of it. Any changes from the norm must be specified. There are tools and techniques for being able to deal with it.
As for player information access (both stat blocks and owning books) All creatures are still the dm's responsibility not the players. Natural explorer doesn't have to be a burden on any one because if you treat said Terrain information as a guideline for when the skill applies it becomes simple. Things that exist in the terrain are a part of the terrain and all int and wis prof bonus's apply. Only outsider and "aberrant" entities and scenarios should be denied the bonus. Those said outsiders and "aberrant" entities would get a bonus if they are assigned an applicable terrain as well.
The real problem is complaints that it doesn't work that way. Some dms feel it steps on their toes or ruins their encounters. Some dms don't consider how it connects or worry about the narrative before the mechanics so they default to NO when they shouldn't. In books and stories, Justification/explanation for A Protagonist abilities are often left with narrative holes deliberately to allow for a connection to be explained later.("Kessle run" anybody?) The vagueness of "related" is implemented in the design to do just that. Its a generous term for making connections but also a back up control to allow a dm veto for specific scenarios where it would be a narrative impossibility.
Except The game has at least partial guidance. Terrains are assigned to creatures in the dmg and continue for successive monster books. Indicating a direct connection between the two.
That's part of the ranger's problem. The way things are laid out, the ranger needs those supplemental books to really shine. Beast Masters, in particular, need the Monster Manual so they have the full range of possible companions. And we didn't have real guidance on where beasts would be found until Xanathar's. Before then, it was left entirely up to the DM.
Beasts had terrains in their descriptions before Xanathar's. I know because I ran stuff before that book came out and I would somtimes use those Terrain listings about where they are more often found for ideas for either random or set encounters that might groups might run into.
A lot of beasts don't get descriptions. Needing to cross-reference between the DMG or Xanathar's isn't fun. It slows the game down. And this is also information the player probably doesn't have access to. They could, and perhaps even should, worth with the DM to get all this hammered out between sessions so there's no breaking the game. But this is another strike against the ranger.
I love the class, but it's weighed down by a lot of work that needs to go into it so it can play smoothly. None of the other classes have that issue.
Time consumption is a poor excuse. conjure animals, animate dead, Familiar scouting, divination spells all have been accused of slowing down the game but they are all part of it. Any changes from the norm must be specified. There are tools and techniques for being able to deal with it.
As for player information access (both stat blocks and owning books) All creatures are still the dm's responsibility not the players. Natural explorer doesn't have to be a burden on any one because if you treat said Terrain information as a guideline for when the skill applies it becomes simple. Things that exist in the terrain are a part of the terrain and all int and wis prof bonus's apply. Only outsider and "aberrant" entities and scenarios should be denied the bonus. Those said outsiders and "aberrant" entities would get a bonus if they are assigned an applicable terrain as well.
The real problem is complaints that it doesn't work that way. Some dms feel it steps on their toes or ruins their encounters. Some dms don't consider how it connects or worry about the narrative before the mechanics so they default to NO when they shouldn't. In books and stories, Justification/explanation for A Protagonist abilities are often left with narrative holes deliberately to allow for a connection to be explained later.("Kessle run" anybody?) The vagueness of "related" is implemented in the design to do just that. Its a generous term for making connections but also a back up control to allow a dm veto for specific scenarios where it would be a narrative impossibility.
Spells are a poor comparison to class features in terms of frequency of use...one is usually cast in combat once a day maybe vs. class features that are suppose to be one of the core features of your class. Some of the ones you mentioned (Familar scouting/Divination) give the DM total control of what is happening and what information they parse out so its not that bad at all.
Conjure Animals is not a terrible comparison but I already say the conjure spells should be removed from the game for the exact same reasons: slowing down gameplay and having to find/disperse statblocks, keep track of conditions/HP for all the conjured creatures.
The new summon spells are much better in this regard instead of having to deal with 8 things running around.
Its the same deal with the Ranger though...I have to look through different resources to deal with its core feature and have to put the work in to make it connect in a natural way.
5e is already not very DM friendly and ambiguous stuff like NE do not help when you have to spend extra time to get it work.
Optimus, conjure animals is a HUGE part of the tool kit of the ranger and druid. You can’t remove it. Many non-wizard classes and subclasses rely on proprietary or unique spells available to them to supplement their other features. Trickery domain for instance. Arcana and knowledge domain. Vengeance oath.
The game can be played with the free basic rules. But that is basically monopoly jr. The game assumes the table has the core 3, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and Monster Mannal. That’s it. Everything else is optional supplementary material. If an adventure needs something in addition to the core three it lists it in the adventure. Stat block, magic item, etc.
Optimus, conjure animals is a HUGE part of the tool kit of the ranger and druid. You can’t remove it. Many non-wizard classes and subclasses rely on proprietary or unique spells available to them to supplement their other features. Trickery domain for instance. Arcana and knowledge domain. Vengeance oath.
The fact they have to rely so much on ONE spell speaks to why their design may need a tweak...you should be able to remove a spell and not have it sink two classes...that is poor design IMO.
If the only way for your class to function is to flood the action economy with minionmancy then the system needs to look at that class and fix it.
Optimus, conjure animals is a HUGE part of the tool kit of the ranger and druid. You can’t remove it. Many non-wizard classes and subclasses rely on proprietary or unique spells available to them to supplement their other features. Trickery domain for instance. Arcana and knowledge domain. Vengeance oath.
The fact they have to rely so much on ONE spell speaks to why their design may need a tweak...you should be able to remove a spell and not have it sink two classes...that is poor design IMO.
If the only way for your class to function is to flood the action economy with minionmancy then the system needs to look at that class and fix it.
That’s a fair opinion. Perhaps you’ve had poor interactions with the spell. 8 creatures is rare. And druid and ranger turns typically take less time than rogues, wizards, and fighters for some reason. Why do fighters take so long on their turn? That’s been my experience anyway.
Optimus, conjure animals is a HUGE part of the tool kit of the ranger and druid. You can’t remove it. Many non-wizard classes and subclasses rely on proprietary or unique spells available to them to supplement their other features. Trickery domain for instance. Arcana and knowledge domain. Vengeance oath.
The fact they have to rely so much on ONE spell speaks to why their design may need a tweak...you should be able to remove a spell and not have it sink two classes...that is poor design IMO.
If the only way for your class to function is to flood the action economy with minionmancy then the system needs to look at that class and fix it.
That’s a fair opinion. Perhaps you’ve had poor interactions with the spell. 8 creatures is rare. And druid and ranger turns typically take less time than rogues, wizards, and fighters for some reason. Why do fighters take so long on their turn? That’s been my experience anyway.
I have had druids cast conjure animals and use 8 and it doesn't really slow anything down. Players who know how to play their class take fast turns. Players who don't take longer, regardless of what class.
Optimus, conjure animals is a HUGE part of the tool kit of the ranger and druid. You can’t remove it. Many non-wizard classes and subclasses rely on proprietary or unique spells available to them to supplement their other features. Trickery domain for instance. Arcana and knowledge domain. Vengeance oath.
The fact they have to rely so much on ONE spell speaks to why their design may need a tweak...you should be able to remove a spell and not have it sink two classes...that is poor design IMO.
If the only way for your class to function is to flood the action economy with minionmancy then the system needs to look at that class and fix it.
That’s a fair opinion. Perhaps you’ve had poor interactions with the spell. 8 creatures is rare. And druid and ranger turns typically take less time than rogues, wizards, and fighters for some reason. Why do fighters take so long on their turn? That’s been my experience anyway.
I have had druids cast conjure animals and use 8 and it doesn't really slow anything down. Players who know how to play their class take fast turns. Players who don't take longer, regardless of what class.
Except The game has at least partial guidance. Terrains are assigned to creatures in the dmg and continue for successive monster books. Indicating a direct connection between the two.
There are also things like Examples of things that can be encountered in various terrains in things like the DMG and other books. Even the Adventure Modules are ideas and examples about how some things can link together for Natural Explore. And this is all In a pillar of the game that most relies on the imagination of the Group and the type of Story that they are trying to tell so by default it has to be the most open. So the examples can really only go so far.
Yes - and in both those instances that only serves to weaken the feature rather than strengthen it, When I was a kid I read "Choose your own Adventure" books. I would be pretty pissed if at the bottom of the page it said "to turn left, purchase the Guide to Monsters - to turn right purchase Xanathar's Quest". Saying they provide guidance for a class feature of a player character from the PHB because there are examples of animals that can be found in that terrain in OTHER books isn't helping.
and yes, examples can only go so far, but if they had even literally ONE example about wildlife and how NE applies this entire conversation might have been avoided.
this is kind of a bad argument. If your argument is you don't want to cross reference books over NE. Why are you playing Ranger and more than that don't ever pay a druid.
Books are Referenced all of the time. Whether it's to remember what spells do or what exactly they affect. Information on Creatures, or reminder of a class ability that your still getting used to.
And Druids actually reference things like the Monster Manual and Spells Far more than the Ranger does because both are core backbones to their two biggest features. Wildshape and Spell Casting.
Also. If a DM would get into the habit it doesn't take that long on many entries on creatures that they want to use to jot down a little note saying something like "forest" or "desert" or something to remind them of these things for creatures if they need it. Or to include them in their extra notes on encounters that they have created. More time is likely spent on creating those encounters than figuring out the corresponding Terrains they are associated with anyway.
So no. Referencing other books does not weaken the argument. Things like Regular gameplay and even more importantly encounter building are referencing other books and sources all of the time. The DM to run things should hopefully at least have a note or some idea of these things when using these creatures when they are building encounters. Good Encounters are rarely just slapped together. They usually have to be built with your party in mind or made sure you make them general enough that the party build doesn't matter. If your party is bigger. Add a few more monsters. If you've pushed them ahead of the power curve by a bunch in various ways then pick or alter monsters to be more difficult. This is normal stuff. Making New monsters takes even more work because then you have to decide how they fit in your world and even more classifications that the stat blocks in the PHB, the Monster Manual or othre sources already give you.
Optimus, conjure animals is a HUGE part of the tool kit of the ranger and druid. You can’t remove it. Many non-wizard classes and subclasses rely on proprietary or unique spells available to them to supplement their other features. Trickery domain for instance. Arcana and knowledge domain. Vengeance oath.
The fact they have to rely so much on ONE spell speaks to why their design may need a tweak...you should be able to remove a spell and not have it sink two classes...that is poor design IMO.
If the only way for your class to function is to flood the action economy with minionmancy then the system needs to look at that class and fix it.
That’s a fair opinion. Perhaps you’ve had poor interactions with the spell. 8 creatures is rare. And druid and ranger turns typically take less time than rogues, wizards, and fighters for some reason. Why do fighters take so long on their turn? That’s been my experience anyway.
I have had druids cast conjure animals and use 8 and it doesn't really slow anything down. Players who know how to play their class take fast turns. Players who don't take longer, regardless of what class.
I agree.
This is what I've been sayin is the same as the other core features. NE and FE only takes as much time and difficulty as players or dms make it. with frequency of use and understanding of its function It becomes a really easy to use and fun mechanic. the sad part is some dms or players never really engage with it on a holistic level to understand the benefits and restrictions.
Optimus, conjure animals is a HUGE part of the tool kit of the ranger and druid. You can’t remove it. Many non-wizard classes and subclasses rely on proprietary or unique spells available to them to supplement their other features. Trickery domain for instance. Arcana and knowledge domain. Vengeance oath.
The fact they have to rely so much on ONE spell speaks to why their design may need a tweak...you should be able to remove a spell and not have it sink two classes...that is poor design IMO.
If the only way for your class to function is to flood the action economy with minionmancy then the system needs to look at that class and fix it.
That’s a fair opinion. Perhaps you’ve had poor interactions with the spell. 8 creatures is rare. And druid and ranger turns typically take less time than rogues, wizards, and fighters for some reason. Why do fighters take so long on their turn? That’s been my experience anyway.
I have had druids cast conjure animals and use 8 and it doesn't really slow anything down. Players who know how to play their class take fast turns. Players who don't take longer, regardless of what class.
I agree.
This is what I've been sayin is the same as the other core features. NE and FE only takes as much time and difficulty as players or dms make it. with frequency of use and understanding of its function It becomes a really easy to use and fun mechanic. the sad part is some dms or players never really engage with it on a holistic level to understand the benefits and restrictions.
Optimus, conjure animals is a HUGE part of the tool kit of the ranger and druid. You can’t remove it. Many non-wizard classes and subclasses rely on proprietary or unique spells available to them to supplement their other features. Trickery domain for instance. Arcana and knowledge domain. Vengeance oath.
The fact they have to rely so much on ONE spell speaks to why their design may need a tweak...you should be able to remove a spell and not have it sink two classes...that is poor design IMO.
If the only way for your class to function is to flood the action economy with minionmancy then the system needs to look at that class and fix it.
You mean like fireball, counter spell, or shield? Yes, conjure animals is a powerful spell for the two classes that have it, but it wouldn't sink the class. No more than taking away plate mail for fighters and paladins or the like. The spell doesn't have to take a long time. I find it no slower on a turn than other classes doing things on their turn. Crossbow expert sharpshooter fighter comes to mind, as well as fireball, sneak attack, and large critical hit smites. All of these take as much or more time than conjure animals does. I'm going to go on record saying if conjure animals takes a long time on a particular player's turn then it is most likely that player themself and would take a long time on their turn no matter what they played.
Is it a great spell? You bet! DO you HAVE to conjure 8 wolves to make it "worth while"? Nope. Two dire wolves add all of the damage, tanking, blocking, damage soak, and knockdown effect any character would need to make it worth their time and spell slot.
Optimus, conjure animals is a HUGE part of the tool kit of the ranger and druid. You can’t remove it. Many non-wizard classes and subclasses rely on proprietary or unique spells available to them to supplement their other features. Trickery domain for instance. Arcana and knowledge domain. Vengeance oath.
The fact they have to rely so much on ONE spell speaks to why their design may need a tweak...you should be able to remove a spell and not have it sink two classes...that is poor design IMO.
If the only way for your class to function is to flood the action economy with minionmancy then the system needs to look at that class and fix it.
You mean like fireball, counter spell, or shield? Yes, conjure animals is a powerful spell for the two classes that have it, but it wouldn't sink the class. No more than taking away plate mail for fighters and paladins or the like. The spell doesn't have to take a long time. I find it no slower on a turn than other classes doing things on their turn. Crossbow expert sharpshooter fighter comes to mind, as well as fireball, sneak attack, and large critical hit smites. All of these take as much or more time than conjure animals does. I'm going to go on record saying if conjure animals takes a long time on a particular player's turn then it is most likely that player themself and would take a long time on their turn no matter what they played.
Is it a great spell? You bet! DO you HAVE to conjure 8 wolves to make it "worth while"? Nope. Two dire wolves add all of the damage, tanking, blocking, damage soak, and knockdown effect any character would need to make it worth their time and spell slot.
Shield is in the same boat I agree...but its also a 1st level spell meaning you get it from the start and generally its cost to use is minimal throughout the life cycle of the caster.
Counterspell is not a good example as it only applies if you are in a setting with casters as a main enemy. If not then you will not see it used much. Its highly situational in nature and is in no way compulsory for wizards.
Fireball is a great example though as it is almost exactly like Conjure Animals....too good for its level and is almost compulsory because it is purposefully overtuned. Even then it pales in comparison to the damage offered by 8 creatures from Conjure Animals though so even then Conjure is on a level by itself at 3rd level pretty much. Because druids and rangers do not get great damage options for spells
I agree that 2 animals is enough to make it worth while and I actually limit it to 2 creatures in my own games as I want to avoid the headache of the 8 velociraptors, wolves, or whatever.
As a DM I let the player choose the beasts they want, and they can conjure 1, 2, or 4, of them. I'll allow 8 if I know the specific player has their act together and isn't going to kill the game via cheeseball antics or being unable to manage their turn efficiently. Typically the 8 need to be flying for obvious reasons.
The beasts use average damage but make all the attack rolls, and the player HAS to have multiple d20's and/or use a digital dice roller. The beasts do not get to be super tactical in terms of movement, positioning, and coordination amongst themselves (6 seconds of verbal commands that an animal will understand). The same all applies for woodland beings with the exception of the limited communication and tactics and the addition of NO PIXIES!!!
Fun. Effective. No longer on a turn than anyone else. Thematic. Wins all around.
As a DM I let the player choose the beasts they want, and they can conjure 1, 2, or 4, of them. I'll allow 8 if I know the specific player has their act together and isn't going to kill the game via cheeseball antics or being unable to manage their turn efficiently. Typically the 8 need to be flying for obvious reasons.
The beasts use average damage but make all the attack rolls, and the player HAS to have multiple d20's and/or use a digital dice roller. The beasts do not get to be super tactical in terms of movement, positioning, and coordination amongst themselves (6 seconds of verbal commands that an animal will understand). The same all applies for woodland beings with the exception of the limited communication and tactics and the addition of NO PIXIES!!!
Fun. Effective. No longer on a turn than anyone else. Thematic. Wins all around.
So you do have limitations around 8 creatures and what types they can summon? Then you are very similar to me and overall I would agree....I still hesitate at 4 but if you have someone with their shit together then good on ya. I generally play IRL with people who do not remember their own character sheets betweens sessions and DEFINTATELY not all the different beast stat blocks.
Overall I would say I have seen 8 creatures do more harm in terms of balance than in terms of delayed game time....simply because those who know how to use the spell well typically know 8 creatures are the best option 99.9% of the time due to the damage output and area control it offers.
Optimus, conjure animals is a HUGE part of the tool kit of the ranger and druid. You can’t remove it. Many non-wizard classes and subclasses rely on proprietary or unique spells available to them to supplement their other features. Trickery domain for instance. Arcana and knowledge domain. Vengeance oath.
The fact they have to rely so much on ONE spell speaks to why their design may need a tweak...you should be able to remove a spell and not have it sink two classes...that is poor design IMO.
If the only way for your class to function is to flood the action economy with minionmancy then the system needs to look at that class and fix it.
That’s a fair opinion. Perhaps you’ve had poor interactions with the spell. 8 creatures is rare. And druid and ranger turns typically take less time than rogues, wizards, and fighters for some reason. Why do fighters take so long on their turn? That’s been my experience anyway.
I have had druids cast conjure animals and use 8 and it doesn't really slow anything down. Players who know how to play their class take fast turns. Players who don't take longer, regardless of what class.
I agree.
This is what I've been sayin is the same as the other core features. NE and FE only takes as much time and difficulty as players or dms make it. with frequency of use and understanding of its function It becomes a really easy to use and fun mechanic. the sad part is some dms or players never really engage with it on a holistic level to understand the benefits and restrictions.
I never said NE and FE were complicated or took a lot of time. It takes not time at all to say 'no - NE doesn't apply to that check' lol
Optimus, conjure animals is a HUGE part of the tool kit of the ranger and druid. You can’t remove it. Many non-wizard classes and subclasses rely on proprietary or unique spells available to them to supplement their other features. Trickery domain for instance. Arcana and knowledge domain. Vengeance oath.
The fact they have to rely so much on ONE spell speaks to why their design may need a tweak...you should be able to remove a spell and not have it sink two classes...that is poor design IMO.
If the only way for your class to function is to flood the action economy with minionmancy then the system needs to look at that class and fix it.
That’s a fair opinion. Perhaps you’ve had poor interactions with the spell. 8 creatures is rare. And druid and ranger turns typically take less time than rogues, wizards, and fighters for some reason. Why do fighters take so long on their turn? That’s been my experience anyway.
I have had druids cast conjure animals and use 8 and it doesn't really slow anything down. Players who know how to play their class take fast turns. Players who don't take longer, regardless of what class.
I agree.
This is what I've been sayin is the same as the other core features. NE and FE only takes as much time and difficulty as players or dms make it. with frequency of use and understanding of its function It becomes a really easy to use and fun mechanic. the sad part is some dms or players never really engage with it on a holistic level to understand the benefits and restrictions.
I never said NE and FE were complicated or took a lot of time. It takes not time at all to say 'no - NE doesn't apply to that check' lol
Which says a lot about your mentality throughout this entire thread. "It's easier just to say no." Even though if your prepared and used to it. It doesn't take any longer to actually say yes when it does Apply either. So your logical fallacy is convenient for you but doesn't actually work as advertised.
I never said NE and FE were complicated or took a lot of time. It takes not time at all to say 'no - NE doesn't apply to that check' lol
Which says a lot about your mentality throughout this entire thread. "It's easier just to say no." Even though if your prepared and used to it. It doesn't take any longer to actually say yes when it does Apply either. So your logical fallacy is convenient for you but doesn't actually work as advertised.
I didn't say that I was saying no out of hand or without any consideration, just saying that it isn't complicated for me to know if I think NE should apply and to say yes or no
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A lot of beasts don't get descriptions. Needing to cross-reference between the DMG or Xanathar's isn't fun. It slows the game down. And this is also information the player probably doesn't have access to. They could, and perhaps even should, worth with the DM to get all this hammered out between sessions so there's no breaking the game. But this is another strike against the ranger.
I love the class, but it's weighed down by a lot of work that needs to go into it so it can play smoothly. None of the other classes have that issue.
Yes - and in both those instances that only serves to weaken the feature rather than strengthen it, When I was a kid I read "Choose your own Adventure" books. I would be pretty pissed if at the bottom of the page it said "to turn left, purchase the Guide to Monsters - to turn right purchase Xanathar's Quest". Saying they provide guidance for a class feature of a player character from the PHB because there are examples of animals that can be found in that terrain in OTHER books isn't helping.
and yes, examples can only go so far, but if they had even literally ONE example about wildlife and how NE applies this entire conversation might have been avoided.
Time consumption is a poor excuse. conjure animals, animate dead, Familiar scouting, divination spells all have been accused of slowing down the game but they are all part of it. Any changes from the norm must be specified. There are tools and techniques for being able to deal with it.
As for player information access (both stat blocks and owning books) All creatures are still the dm's responsibility not the players. Natural explorer doesn't have to be a burden on any one because if you treat said Terrain information as a guideline for when the skill applies it becomes simple. Things that exist in the terrain are a part of the terrain and all int and wis prof bonus's apply. Only outsider and "aberrant" entities and scenarios should be denied the bonus. Those said outsiders and "aberrant" entities would get a bonus if they are assigned an applicable terrain as well.
The real problem is complaints that it doesn't work that way. Some dms feel it steps on their toes or ruins their encounters. Some dms don't consider how it connects or worry about the narrative before the mechanics so they default to NO when they shouldn't. In books and stories, Justification/explanation for A Protagonist abilities are often left with narrative holes deliberately to allow for a connection to be explained later.("Kessle run" anybody?) The vagueness of "related" is implemented in the design to do just that. Its a generous term for making connections but also a back up control to allow a dm veto for specific scenarios where it would be a narrative impossibility.
Spells are a poor comparison to class features in terms of frequency of use...one is usually cast in combat once a day maybe vs. class features that are suppose to be one of the core features of your class. Some of the ones you mentioned (Familar scouting/Divination) give the DM total control of what is happening and what information they parse out so its not that bad at all.
Conjure Animals is not a terrible comparison but I already say the conjure spells should be removed from the game for the exact same reasons: slowing down gameplay and having to find/disperse statblocks, keep track of conditions/HP for all the conjured creatures.
The new summon spells are much better in this regard instead of having to deal with 8 things running around.
Its the same deal with the Ranger though...I have to look through different resources to deal with its core feature and have to put the work in to make it connect in a natural way.
5e is already not very DM friendly and ambiguous stuff like NE do not help when you have to spend extra time to get it work.
Optimus, conjure animals is a HUGE part of the tool kit of the ranger and druid. You can’t remove it. Many non-wizard classes and subclasses rely on proprietary or unique spells available to them to supplement their other features. Trickery domain for instance. Arcana and knowledge domain. Vengeance oath.
The game can be played with the free basic rules. But that is basically monopoly jr. The game assumes the table has the core 3, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and Monster Mannal. That’s it. Everything else is optional supplementary material. If an adventure needs something in addition to the core three it lists it in the adventure. Stat block, magic item, etc.
The fact they have to rely so much on ONE spell speaks to why their design may need a tweak...you should be able to remove a spell and not have it sink two classes...that is poor design IMO.
If the only way for your class to function is to flood the action economy with minionmancy then the system needs to look at that class and fix it.
That’s a fair opinion. Perhaps you’ve had poor interactions with the spell. 8 creatures is rare. And druid and ranger turns typically take less time than rogues, wizards, and fighters for some reason. Why do fighters take so long on their turn? That’s been my experience anyway.
I have had druids cast conjure animals and use 8 and it doesn't really slow anything down. Players who know how to play their class take fast turns. Players who don't take longer, regardless of what class.
I agree.
this is kind of a bad argument. If your argument is you don't want to cross reference books over NE. Why are you playing Ranger and more than that don't ever pay a druid.
Books are Referenced all of the time. Whether it's to remember what spells do or what exactly they affect. Information on Creatures, or reminder of a class ability that your still getting used to.
And Druids actually reference things like the Monster Manual and Spells Far more than the Ranger does because both are core backbones to their two biggest features. Wildshape and Spell Casting.
Also. If a DM would get into the habit it doesn't take that long on many entries on creatures that they want to use to jot down a little note saying something like "forest" or "desert" or something to remind them of these things for creatures if they need it. Or to include them in their extra notes on encounters that they have created. More time is likely spent on creating those encounters than figuring out the corresponding Terrains they are associated with anyway.
So no. Referencing other books does not weaken the argument. Things like Regular gameplay and even more importantly encounter building are referencing other books and sources all of the time. The DM to run things should hopefully at least have a note or some idea of these things when using these creatures when they are building encounters. Good Encounters are rarely just slapped together. They usually have to be built with your party in mind or made sure you make them general enough that the party build doesn't matter. If your party is bigger. Add a few more monsters. If you've pushed them ahead of the power curve by a bunch in various ways then pick or alter monsters to be more difficult. This is normal stuff. Making New monsters takes even more work because then you have to decide how they fit in your world and even more classifications that the stat blocks in the PHB, the Monster Manual or othre sources already give you.
This is what I've been sayin is the same as the other core features. NE and FE only takes as much time and difficulty as players or dms make it. with frequency of use and understanding of its function It becomes a really easy to use and fun mechanic. the sad part is some dms or players never really engage with it on a holistic level to understand the benefits and restrictions.
I also agree with this.
You mean like fireball, counter spell, or shield? Yes, conjure animals is a powerful spell for the two classes that have it, but it wouldn't sink the class. No more than taking away plate mail for fighters and paladins or the like. The spell doesn't have to take a long time. I find it no slower on a turn than other classes doing things on their turn. Crossbow expert sharpshooter fighter comes to mind, as well as fireball, sneak attack, and large critical hit smites. All of these take as much or more time than conjure animals does. I'm going to go on record saying if conjure animals takes a long time on a particular player's turn then it is most likely that player themself and would take a long time on their turn no matter what they played.
Is it a great spell? You bet! DO you HAVE to conjure 8 wolves to make it "worth while"? Nope. Two dire wolves add all of the damage, tanking, blocking, damage soak, and knockdown effect any character would need to make it worth their time and spell slot.
Shield is in the same boat I agree...but its also a 1st level spell meaning you get it from the start and generally its cost to use is minimal throughout the life cycle of the caster.
Counterspell is not a good example as it only applies if you are in a setting with casters as a main enemy. If not then you will not see it used much. Its highly situational in nature and is in no way compulsory for wizards.
Fireball is a great example though as it is almost exactly like Conjure Animals....too good for its level and is almost compulsory because it is purposefully overtuned. Even then it pales in comparison to the damage offered by 8 creatures from Conjure Animals though so even then Conjure is on a level by itself at 3rd level pretty much. Because druids and rangers do not get great damage options for spells
I agree that 2 animals is enough to make it worth while and I actually limit it to 2 creatures in my own games as I want to avoid the headache of the 8 velociraptors, wolves, or whatever.
As a DM I let the player choose the beasts they want, and they can conjure 1, 2, or 4, of them. I'll allow 8 if I know the specific player has their act together and isn't going to kill the game via cheeseball antics or being unable to manage their turn efficiently. Typically the 8 need to be flying for obvious reasons.
The beasts use average damage but make all the attack rolls, and the player HAS to have multiple d20's and/or use a digital dice roller. The beasts do not get to be super tactical in terms of movement, positioning, and coordination amongst themselves (6 seconds of verbal commands that an animal will understand). The same all applies for woodland beings with the exception of the limited communication and tactics and the addition of NO PIXIES!!!
Fun. Effective. No longer on a turn than anyone else. Thematic. Wins all around.
So you do have limitations around 8 creatures and what types they can summon? Then you are very similar to me and overall I would agree....I still hesitate at 4 but if you have someone with their shit together then good on ya. I generally play IRL with people who do not remember their own character sheets betweens sessions and DEFINTATELY not all the different beast stat blocks.
Overall I would say I have seen 8 creatures do more harm in terms of balance than in terms of delayed game time....simply because those who know how to use the spell well typically know 8 creatures are the best option 99.9% of the time due to the damage output and area control it offers.
I never said NE and FE were complicated or took a lot of time. It takes not time at all to say 'no - NE doesn't apply to that check' lol
Which says a lot about your mentality throughout this entire thread. "It's easier just to say no." Even though if your prepared and used to it. It doesn't take any longer to actually say yes when it does Apply either. So your logical fallacy is convenient for you but doesn't actually work as advertised.
I didn't say that I was saying no out of hand or without any consideration, just saying that it isn't complicated for me to know if I think NE should apply and to say yes or no