You're being overly dramatic and painting an extreme worst case scenario. All in a forum that is literally named to keep the conversation positive in regards to the use and fun of this spell.
If we take the wonderful example video of how the spell can and should be run on one hand, and we take your nightmare of a combination situation and player on the other hand, we have a potent spell that might take 6 minutes instead of 4 (a typical turn) minutes to run for the average person on their turn.
You're being overly dramatic and painting a extreme worst case scenario. All in a forum that is literally named to keep the conversation positive. If we take the wonderful example of how the spell can and should be run on one hand, and we take your nightmare of a combination situation and player on the other hand, we have a potent spell that might take 6 minutes instead of 4 (a typical turn) minutes to run for the average person.
And he's painting the best....
Both are likely not great ways to look at the spell....
Also notice how that spell is his major go to as well. Shows how much that spell pretty much becomes the only spell you cast in most combat situations.
Even the damage he mentions is nutty... You almost double what you get from a fireball but every turn you can maintain concentration
Overall the spell is problematic to me for several reasons.
Again he is a poor example as he knows what the **** he is doing...
so learn form someone who knows what they are doing. if darksouls taught me any thing its ..... "get good".
How by looking for fast ways to roll lots of dice, by learning tactics, by planing smart and by self limiting options(to avoid overload)
now if only darksouls could teach me spelling and grammar......
or how to deal with trolls........
The "git gud" attitude is toxic and is rightfully criticized in the gaming community.
It's especially horrible in DnD setting as it's a collaborative environment and telling the DM to "just get good" is not only counter productive but extremely toxic.
Please don't tell me you take that attitude to the table?
Again he is a poor example as he knows what the **** he is doing...
so learn form someone who knows what they are doing. if darksouls taught me any thing its ..... "get good".
How by looking for fast ways to roll lots of dice, by learning tactics, by planing smart and by self limiting options(to avoid overload)
now if only darksouls could teach me spelling and grammar......
or how to deal with trolls........
The "git gud" attitude is toxic and is rightfully criticized in the gaming community.
It's especially horrible in DnD setting as it's a collaborative environment and telling the DM to "just get good" is not only counter productive but extremely toxic.
Please don't tell me you take that attitude to the table?
" get good" isn't about enforcing your opinion on others, its about enforcing standards on yourself. As a player this is how I make my turns go faster. Chris provides an example to look at and gave me a better understading of the game. These are raw game mechanics and I have studied and found ways to make them work both RAW and RAI and its been fun at the tables I play at.
. Come to me with a "reasonable thought out counter point" and I will listen because that is me "getting good" aka self inprovement but as of yet I see none.
Again he is a poor example as he knows what the **** he is doing...
so learn form someone who knows what they are doing. if darksouls taught me any thing its ..... "get good".
How by looking for fast ways to roll lots of dice, by learning tactics, by planing smart and by self limiting options(to avoid overload)
now if only darksouls could teach me spelling and grammar......
or how to deal with trolls........
The "git gud" attitude is toxic and is rightfully criticized in the gaming community.
It's especially horrible in DnD setting as it's a collaborative environment and telling the DM to "just get good" is not only counter productive but extremely toxic.
Please don't tell me you take that attitude to the table?
" get good" isn't about enforcing your opinion on others, its about enforcing standards on yourself. As a player this is how I make my turns go faster. Chris provides an example to look at and gave me a better understading of the game. These are raw game mechanics and I have studied and found ways to make them work both RAW and RAI and its been fun at the tables I play at.
. Come to me with a "reasonable thought out counter point" and I will listen because that is me "getting good" aka self inprovement but as of yet I see one.
No the "Get Gud" mentality is absolutely not about self improvement but shaming others for not being good enough to progress in the game....
What is the alternative to "get good"? Is it "stay bad"? Because that is what you are purposing here.
No it's
"Maybe a spell that triples the count of people in the fight is not always a fun experience and maybe should not be used"
But that's not as catchy I guess
An issue I have with your...input...is that it is based on things that can be improved upon with time in the saddle with the game in general, forethought, preparation, and a little extra elbow grease at the table. Your input is it's terrible. I am actively trying to find, explore, and spread around ways for this amazing spell to be used, for lack of a better term, better, at a game.
How many times will you add your input to the conversation that is simply that this spell is terrible for the game because of __________, and it shouldn't be used? You haven't posted new input for a dozen posts now.
What is the alternative to "get good"? Is it "stay bad"? Because that is what you are purposing here.
No it's
"Maybe a spell that triples the count of people in the fight is not always a fun experience and maybe should not be used"
But that's not as catchy I guess
An issue I have with your...input...is that it is based on things that can be improved upon with time in the saddle with the game in general, forethought, preparation, and a little extra elbow grease at the table. Your input is it's terrible. I am actively trying to find, explore, and spread around ways for this amazing spell to be used, for lack of a better term, better, at a game.
How many times will you add your input to the conversation that is simply that this spell is terrible for the game because of __________, and it shouldn't be used? You haven't posted new input for a dozen posts now.
I've stated I think the spell is bloated, overpowered, and altogether a must pick/must play.
Those elements make it a bad spell imo because it slows down the game, makes encounter balancing difficult, and creates a high enough opportunity cost to use literally any other spell too high that rangers/druids have to use it 90% of the time (as evidence in the video you called good)
It's just better left off the table or limiting it to 2 or fewer creatures.
If we all haven't anything new to contribute, let's not simply repeat ourselves in a circular fashion. There is no need to repeat previously stated opinions or links.
Although there are cons to this as well, one advantage of letting a player choose what beasts are conjured by the spell is that (I assume) the player will have many more tools prepared and have better preparation for said beasts and how to run them in general. As shown in the video where the player had some nifty macros ready to go and had tactics all figured out. The player and DM had even previously discussed what could and couldn't be conjured so no one had any nasty surprises during the game.
so, under the asumption that is the spell is R.A.W and we are sticking to that rather than homebrewing.
conjure animals is more than damage on a day that has no combat. There is so. much utility. you can set up watch better than alarm(8 of any thing with keen senses). You can move dirt amost as fast as most earth related spells. (dogs, badgers, weasles and more are all known )
I belive there is a lot more. my point is restricting the spell also hinders a rangers utility. summon statblocks remove that utility which still keeps the game fun and intresting allowing diffrent classes/players to solve problems in diffrent ways.
In that video, several times, and he makes it a point to mention it, any time a conjured creature takes a hit from an enemy, whether a miss or hit, is a huge win for the party. Healing is great, but those giants were hitting with their swords for 30 damage, and I counted at least 4 times they swung at a velociraptor instead of a PC. That is major damage mitigation for a couple of spell slots. Especially considering that first battle came in at 3X the deadly challenge rating for that party.
In my honest opinion, while Conjure Animals is a very strong spell, I would actually put it on one Level with Fireball, when it comes to Level 3 Spells that should be Level 5. And that it is such a strong choise when picked by the Ranger kinda prooved this.
The ranger gets Level 3 Spells when fullcasters get Level 5, and still, it is the best spell in most Situations, just for the pure power and versatility of it, even when not abusing the 8 1/4 CR. Id say though picking the 2 CR1 or 1 CR2 option is never ideal, since most enemys at that Level will just rip a CR1 or 2 beast in half in 1 round...
The main power of this spell is not the power of the creature, but the tipping of the Action economy in your favor. Its power goes down by alot when you DM chooses the Beasts you summon or uses a random table, but if you are allowed to pick yourself, its a Spell that should be used whenever possible.
The only real counterplay against this is an enemy with big AoE attacks, and even that can be played around, by smart placement of your beats.
I'd like to offer a few counter points to your post.
1. I don't think it should be a level 5 spell. That would suck quite a bit out of druids, and especially, rangers. However your table runs the spell, it is a good spell and a big part of these class's kit. Look at 5th levels spells like animate objects. Making CA 5th level spells would basically eliminate it from for rangers. This spell is a big part for the ranger as a martial around level 9-13. Look what fighters and paladins get at level 11. Rangers get conjure animals.
2. I won't get into 8 creatures being an abuse, as I don't think that. But that will start arguments. Besides, if you have found CR 2 and 1 creatures to be ripped in half, how do you think 8 creatures will hold up? Whether it's 8, 4, 2, or 1, damage is a big deal, but the biggest deal(s) for me are the enemy attack and damage soak this spell provides to the party. For me, CA is the equivalent to a cleric's healing and a paladin's lay on hands in this regard. But instead of restoring hp rangers prevent the loss in the first place, and the specific creature doesn't matter in that regard. A giant constrictor snake is no joke.
3. The DM choosing, although I disagree on this for reasons, can greatly impact the direct control the player has, but most of the good of the spell is maintained in my opinion. Almost all of the beasts have something in their favor, pack tactics, multiattack, poison riders, grappling effect, restrained effect, flying, large or larger size, knockdown effect, charge or pounce effect, etc. Unless a DM truly chooses to actively nerf this spell, you should be able to make it work. I have always found a discussion beforehand to be helpful. Either choosing one beast to always conjure, or a player created/DM approved list that is used randomly or picked from by the player seems to work well for everyone. That, and good preparation and efficient use of time on the player's part.
4. I gotta say, if an enemy spellcaster fireballs 8 giant crabs instead of the bulk of the party, I see that as a win! Talk about damage mitigation!
I'd like to offer a few counter points to your post.
1. I don't think it should be a level 5 spell. That would suck quite a bit out of druids, and especially, rangers. However your table runs the spell, it is a good spell and a big part of these class's kit. Look at 5th levels spells like animate objects. Making CA 5th level spells would basically eliminate it from for rangers. This spell is a big part for the ranger as a martial around level 9-13. Look what fighters and paladins get at level 11. Rangers get conjure animals.
2. I won't get into 8 creatures being an abuse, as I don't think that. But that will start arguments. Besides, if you have found CR 2 and 1 creatures to be ripped in half, how do you think 8 creatures will hold up? Whether it's 8, 4, 2, or 1, damage is a big deal, but the biggest deal(s) for me are the enemy attack and damage soak this spell provides to the party. For me, CA is the equivalent to a cleric's healing and a paladin's lay on hands in this regard. But instead of restoring hp rangers prevent the loss in the first place, and the specific creature doesn't matter in that regard. A giant constrictor snake is no joke.
3. The DM choosing, although I disagree on this for reasons, can greatly impact the direct control the player has, but most of the good of the spell is maintained in my opinion. Almost all of the beasts have something in their favor, pack tactics, multiattack, poison riders, grappling effect, restrained effect, flying, large or larger size, knockdown effect, charge or pounce effect, etc. Unless a DM truly chooses to actively nerf this spell, you should be able to make it work. I have always found a discussion beforehand to be helpful. Either choosing one beast to always conjure, or a player created/DM approved list that is used randomly or picked from by the player seems to work well for everyone. That, and good preparation and efficient use of time on the player's part.
4. I gotta say, if an enemy spellcaster fireballs 8 giant crabs instead of the bulk of the party, I see that as a win! Talk about damage mitigation!
The math does suggest that majority of the time 8 creatures is the "right" choice from a perspective of damage, area control, and survivability.
Even with low HP if the creature can move in and out of range of it's target you are going to ensure that one AoE won't hit all 8 creatures and if the creature uses it's reaction to AoO the low HP conjure that's an amazing value as they can no longer AoO anything else and you basically have a free disengage to anyone who wants to step away.
The spell should be compared more closely to Animate Objects as mass summons are typically hitting above their spell level if you look at the DMG suggestions for damage on homebrew spells... Which fireball is guilty of as well.
While I appreciate your feelings for ranger that they would suffer from moving it up a level or 2 I can't help but think that's a poor design choice if the removal of one spell so irrevocably hurts the class.... That's too much reliance on it to be acceptable IMO.
I think the summon spells from Tashas offer a better balance and maybe creating a ranger specific summon spell would be a better approach.
Many classes and subclasses "rely", or perhaps lean on, several spells more so than others. I'm thinking of shield, eldritch blast, mage hand, bolt, dispel magic, hypnotic pattern, banishment, forcecage, invisibility, fly, mage armor, etc. And although not a spell, divine smite is spell slot powered and I would put it in the same category. I think of them more as staples than something that is relied on. Conjure animals is a good spell and a thematic spell. Druids and rangers deserve it. They would need something to take its place if it was eliminated or banned at a table, and although fun and easier to run, the summon spells from Tasha's are NOT the same thing. Not even close.
Many classes and subclasses "rely", or perhaps lean on, several spells more so than others. I'm thinking of shield, eldritch blast, mage hand, bolt, dispel magic, hypnotic pattern, banishment, forcecage, invisibility, fly, mage armor, etc. And although not a spell, divine smite is spell slot powered and I would put it in the same category. I think of them more as staples than something that is relied on. Conjure animals is a good spell and a thematic spell. Druids and rangers deserve it. They would need something to take its place if it was eliminated or banned at a table, and although fun and easier to run, the summon spells from Tasha's are NOT the same thing. Not even close.
And I agree that those spells shouldn't be required either or be given as a class feature instead of forcing it as a spell choice.... Just because it's the way it's always been done doesn't it should continue to be.
Tashas spells are much more in line with the spell level so no they aren't as overtuned as the conjure ones are.... They are what the conjure spells should have been if they actually followed their own design philosophy.
I’m curious as to why you think a class with spellcasting as a class feature shouldn’t have great go to spells available to it. If all of the “good spells” are class features, then what are the other spells for?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You're being overly dramatic and painting an extreme worst case scenario. All in a forum that is literally named to keep the conversation positive in regards to the use and fun of this spell.
If we take the wonderful example video of how the spell can and should be run on one hand, and we take your nightmare of a combination situation and player on the other hand, we have a potent spell that might take 6 minutes instead of 4 (a typical turn) minutes to run for the average person on their turn.
so learn form someone who knows what they are doing. if darksouls taught me any thing its ..... "get good".
How by looking for fast ways to roll lots of dice, by learning tactics, by planing smart and by self limiting options(to avoid overload)
now if only darksouls could teach me spelling and grammar......
or how to deal with trolls........
And he's painting the best....
Both are likely not great ways to look at the spell....
Also notice how that spell is his major go to as well. Shows how much that spell pretty much becomes the only spell you cast in most combat situations.
Even the damage he mentions is nutty... You almost double what you get from a fireball but every turn you can maintain concentration
Overall the spell is problematic to me for several reasons.
The "git gud" attitude is toxic and is rightfully criticized in the gaming community.
It's especially horrible in DnD setting as it's a collaborative environment and telling the DM to "just get good" is not only counter productive but extremely toxic.
Please don't tell me you take that attitude to the table?
" get good" isn't about enforcing your opinion on others, its about enforcing standards on yourself. As a player this is how I make my turns go faster. Chris provides an example to look at and gave me a better understading of the game. These are raw game mechanics and I have studied and found ways to make them work both RAW and RAI and its been fun at the tables I play at.
. Come to me with a "reasonable thought out counter point" and I will listen because that is me "getting good" aka self inprovement but as of yet I see none.
No the "Get Gud" mentality is absolutely not about self improvement but shaming others for not being good enough to progress in the game....
It's toxic there and it's toxic here as well.
What is the alternative to "get good"? Is it "stay bad"? Because that is what you are purposing here.
No it's
"Maybe a spell that triples the count of people in the fight is not always a fun experience and maybe should not be used"
But that's not as catchy I guess
An issue I have with your...input...is that it is based on things that can be improved upon with time in the saddle with the game in general, forethought, preparation, and a little extra elbow grease at the table. Your input is it's terrible. I am actively trying to find, explore, and spread around ways for this amazing spell to be used, for lack of a better term, better, at a game.
How many times will you add your input to the conversation that is simply that this spell is terrible for the game because of __________, and it shouldn't be used? You haven't posted new input for a dozen posts now.
I've stated I think the spell is bloated, overpowered, and altogether a must pick/must play.
Those elements make it a bad spell imo because it slows down the game, makes encounter balancing difficult, and creates a high enough opportunity cost to use literally any other spell too high that rangers/druids have to use it 90% of the time (as evidence in the video you called good)
It's just better left off the table or limiting it to 2 or fewer creatures.
If we all haven't anything new to contribute, let's not simply repeat ourselves in a circular fashion. There is no need to repeat previously stated opinions or links.
Move on.
Although there are cons to this as well, one advantage of letting a player choose what beasts are conjured by the spell is that (I assume) the player will have many more tools prepared and have better preparation for said beasts and how to run them in general. As shown in the video where the player had some nifty macros ready to go and had tactics all figured out. The player and DM had even previously discussed what could and couldn't be conjured so no one had any nasty surprises during the game.
so, under the asumption that is the spell is R.A.W and we are sticking to that rather than homebrewing.
conjure animals is more than damage on a day that has no combat. There is so. much utility. you can set up watch better than alarm(8 of any thing with keen senses). You can move dirt amost as fast as most earth related spells. (dogs, badgers, weasles and more are all known )
I belive there is a lot more. my point is restricting the spell also hinders a rangers utility. summon statblocks remove that utility which still keeps the game fun and intresting allowing diffrent classes/players to solve problems in diffrent ways.
Yes. Major utility.
In that video, several times, and he makes it a point to mention it, any time a conjured creature takes a hit from an enemy, whether a miss or hit, is a huge win for the party. Healing is great, but those giants were hitting with their swords for 30 damage, and I counted at least 4 times they swung at a velociraptor instead of a PC. That is major damage mitigation for a couple of spell slots. Especially considering that first battle came in at 3X the deadly challenge rating for that party.
In my honest opinion, while Conjure Animals is a very strong spell, I would actually put it on one Level with Fireball, when it comes to Level 3 Spells that should be Level 5. And that it is such a strong choise when picked by the Ranger kinda prooved this.
The ranger gets Level 3 Spells when fullcasters get Level 5, and still, it is the best spell in most Situations, just for the pure power and versatility of it, even when not abusing the 8 1/4 CR. Id say though picking the 2 CR1 or 1 CR2 option is never ideal, since most enemys at that Level will just rip a CR1 or 2 beast in half in 1 round...
The main power of this spell is not the power of the creature, but the tipping of the Action economy in your favor. Its power goes down by alot when you DM chooses the Beasts you summon or uses a random table, but if you are allowed to pick yourself, its a Spell that should be used whenever possible.
The only real counterplay against this is an enemy with big AoE attacks, and even that can be played around, by smart placement of your beats.
I'd like to offer a few counter points to your post.
1. I don't think it should be a level 5 spell. That would suck quite a bit out of druids, and especially, rangers. However your table runs the spell, it is a good spell and a big part of these class's kit. Look at 5th levels spells like animate objects. Making CA 5th level spells would basically eliminate it from for rangers. This spell is a big part for the ranger as a martial around level 9-13. Look what fighters and paladins get at level 11. Rangers get conjure animals.
2. I won't get into 8 creatures being an abuse, as I don't think that. But that will start arguments. Besides, if you have found CR 2 and 1 creatures to be ripped in half, how do you think 8 creatures will hold up? Whether it's 8, 4, 2, or 1, damage is a big deal, but the biggest deal(s) for me are the enemy attack and damage soak this spell provides to the party. For me, CA is the equivalent to a cleric's healing and a paladin's lay on hands in this regard. But instead of restoring hp rangers prevent the loss in the first place, and the specific creature doesn't matter in that regard. A giant constrictor snake is no joke.
3. The DM choosing, although I disagree on this for reasons, can greatly impact the direct control the player has, but most of the good of the spell is maintained in my opinion. Almost all of the beasts have something in their favor, pack tactics, multiattack, poison riders, grappling effect, restrained effect, flying, large or larger size, knockdown effect, charge or pounce effect, etc. Unless a DM truly chooses to actively nerf this spell, you should be able to make it work. I have always found a discussion beforehand to be helpful. Either choosing one beast to always conjure, or a player created/DM approved list that is used randomly or picked from by the player seems to work well for everyone. That, and good preparation and efficient use of time on the player's part.
4. I gotta say, if an enemy spellcaster fireballs 8 giant crabs instead of the bulk of the party, I see that as a win! Talk about damage mitigation!
The math does suggest that majority of the time 8 creatures is the "right" choice from a perspective of damage, area control, and survivability.
Even with low HP if the creature can move in and out of range of it's target you are going to ensure that one AoE won't hit all 8 creatures and if the creature uses it's reaction to AoO the low HP conjure that's an amazing value as they can no longer AoO anything else and you basically have a free disengage to anyone who wants to step away.
The spell should be compared more closely to Animate Objects as mass summons are typically hitting above their spell level if you look at the DMG suggestions for damage on homebrew spells... Which fireball is guilty of as well.
While I appreciate your feelings for ranger that they would suffer from moving it up a level or 2 I can't help but think that's a poor design choice if the removal of one spell so irrevocably hurts the class.... That's too much reliance on it to be acceptable IMO.
I think the summon spells from Tashas offer a better balance and maybe creating a ranger specific summon spell would be a better approach.
Have we talked about this before?
Many classes and subclasses "rely", or perhaps lean on, several spells more so than others. I'm thinking of shield, eldritch blast, mage hand, bolt, dispel magic, hypnotic pattern, banishment, forcecage, invisibility, fly, mage armor, etc. And although not a spell, divine smite is spell slot powered and I would put it in the same category. I think of them more as staples than something that is relied on. Conjure animals is a good spell and a thematic spell. Druids and rangers deserve it. They would need something to take its place if it was eliminated or banned at a table, and although fun and easier to run, the summon spells from Tasha's are NOT the same thing. Not even close.
And I agree that those spells shouldn't be required either or be given as a class feature instead of forcing it as a spell choice.... Just because it's the way it's always been done doesn't it should continue to be.
Tashas spells are much more in line with the spell level so no they aren't as overtuned as the conjure ones are.... They are what the conjure spells should have been if they actually followed their own design philosophy.
I’m curious as to why you think a class with spellcasting as a class feature shouldn’t have great go to spells available to it. If all of the “good spells” are class features, then what are the other spells for?