So you crunch the numbers for what? Like 8 different ACs for each build? That is a lot. I’m sure it is much more accurate, but I wonder if it’s enough to justify the exponential amount of work.
Generally speaking it's not exponential, it's linear. In fact, it's so trivial I've never heard of anyone bothering to do it - once you've picked an AC to target (Treantmonk's 60% is fine, I just think the DMG's 65% is less arbitrary) and done the math out, you don't even need to bother doing the math out on slightly different ACs, you can just mentally ballpark it. AC only gets wonky when it gets very high or very low - unless you're into 95%+ or 5%-, anyone familiar with the rules can look at the output for a given AC and mentally adjust for a slightly different AC.
That’s kind of what I thought. Given the possible thousands of variables in any given combat encounter I just can’t see crunching upwards of a dozen different numbers to account for such a wide array of armor class.
It is so incredibly easy to do the calculations with access to a spreadsheet for a wide variety of AC ranges I wonder why anyone wouldn't?
Comparing tables to X can sometimes obfuscate the results. It is also a great way to derail the conversation and stop it because some people can't work a spreadsheet or do matrices related math. its a way some people just tell some others to go away and when someone actually comes in with the effort done...... the discussion goal posts switch.
I have done the range of AC's spreadsheet and simplified off a 60% to hit. Sometimes I want the granular information vs AC, and sometimes I am looking at something more complicated on the front end, and the 60% simplifies the back end.
Both are useful approaches. For the granular AC approach I found it was really useful in analyzing Hunter's Mark vs. Bless. Presuming a round of prep (so you don't just lose a round of damage), HM only does better at low AC's.
In the case of Conjure Animals given the number of critters and changing stats this just seems like a ton of work. Then again I don't generally enjoy using summon spells as a player.
I have done the range of AC's spreadsheet and simplified off a 60% to hit. Sometimes I want the granular information vs AC, and sometimes I am looking at something more complicated on the front end, and the 60% simplifies the back end.
Both are useful approaches. For the granular AC approach I found it was really useful in analyzing Hunter's Mark vs. Bless. Presuming a round of prep (so you don't just lose a round of damage), HM only does better at low AC's.
In the case of Conjure Animals given the number of critters and changing stats this just seems like a ton of work. Then again I don't generally enjoy using summon spells as a player.
This a great example of how numbers can be altered quite a bit, even unintentionally. “A round of prep” makes a HUGE difference. A round of prep is like a melee build versus a ranged build in a battle that starts 60’ apart. That ranged build is going to have “better” DPR for that particular battle. A bonus action damage boost, like it or not, supersedes pure math due to in game situation. Whether that bonus action is XBE or hunter’s mark, a boost from a bonus action is more valuable more often than an action boost no matter what a spreadsheet spits out.
It is so incredibly easy to do the calculations with access to a spreadsheet for a wide variety of AC ranges I wonder why anyone wouldn't?
Comparing tables to X can sometimes obfuscate the results. It is also a great way to derail the conversation and stop it because some people can't work a spreadsheet or do matrices related math. its a way some people just tell some others to go away and when someone actually comes in with the effort done...... the discussion goal posts switch.
The point is resources exist that make it trivial to calculate, give better/more accurate results, and can account for more (ADV/DIS, superiority die, bless, etc...).
If you are going to spend the time to critically evaluate the balance of a feature it's only right imo to give the whole picture.
The eyeball/ballpark approach doesn't account for any of that and thus is far less accurate at giving numbers on actual play imo
It's also why people don't think though all the possible complications that can occur with a group of conjures...
Having to do all these extra rolls/conditions/HP for 8 creatures will on average add time if I had to guess.
When I see videos like Treantmonk videos where he has a straight fight with no AoE or conditions/effects, has a VTT that does all the rolls for you, and he knows the creatures inside and out including their unique features and then says "oh yeah took me no time" I laugh because he set himself up perfectly to reduce time.
I only the average player will not spend that time to set up macros, learn the statblocks, and position perfectly.
They just won't.... So when I see him try to convince every DM to allow it I think it's doing harm. He should at least be honest and say it took time upfront to save time later
If your going to be using summoning it can help to make a cheat sheet with the info ( creatures, HP,s, damage, actions, etc) already listed - then hand it to your DM (or send them a digital copy) so they can use it when you summon.
To get away from math a bit and back to the point Optimus is trying to drive home. If a DM, player, or table is having issues with spells like these (conjure animals, animate undead, flock of familiars, conjure woodland beings, animate objects, etc.) then a great strength of some of these spells is the ability to bring forth only one or two options. This was stated in the thesis of the original post. Look a the options of the spell conjure animals. The options that get you 2 or 1 beast(s) (CR 1 and CR 2, respectively) are not ever going to be useless. Personally, I am a big fan of the giant constrictor snake. Most of these tougher creatures are, well, tougher. Since CR is literally a measure of combat effectiveness (yes I know all about action economy. blah blah blah), these higher CR beasts automatically solve some of the most common complaints by critics of these spells. Fireball does like 28 damage on a full hit. Most of these tougher beasts laugh that off, even on a failed save. You have huge creatures, so if you're using the spell for cover or blocking, you still can even with less of them. Several of these creatures still grapple, knock down, and even restrain (see my favorite above), so all of the battle control riders are in place. You have options for the sky and for the sea still as well. The ONLY thing you "loose" is damage output. But I would argue that 8 beasts with a handful of hit points each need to be calculated as having something along the lines of a half life, as there is almost zero chance that all 8 are going to last even 3 rounds, let alone 4+ rounds, so that "big damage output" of 8 wolves is going to be more like 56+28+14, etc.
To get away from math a bit and back to the point Optimus is trying to drive home. If a DM, player, or table is having issues with spells like these (conjure animals, animate undead, flock of familiars, conjure woodland beings, animate objects, etc.) then a great strength of some of these spells is the ability to bring forth only one or two options. This was stated in the thesis of the original post. Look a the options of the spell conjure animals. The options that get you 2 or 1 beast(s) (CR 1 and CR 2, respectively) are not ever going to be useless. Personally, I am a big fan of the giant constrictor snake. Most of these tougher creatures are, well, tougher. Since CR is literally a measure of combat effectiveness (yes I know all about action economy. blah blah blah), these higher CR beasts automatically solve some of the most common complaints by critics of these spells. Fireball does like 28 damage on a full hit. Most of these tougher beasts laugh that off, even on a failed save. You have huge creatures, so if you're using the spell for cover or blocking, you still can even with less of them. Several of these creatures still grapple, knock down, and even restrain (see my favorite above), so all of the battle control riders are in place. You have options for the sky and for the sea still as well. The ONLY thing you "loose" is damage output. But I would argue that 8 beasts with a handful of hit points each need to be calculated as having something along the lines of a half life, as there is almost zero chance that all 8 are going to last even 3 rounds, let alone 4+ rounds, so that "big damage output" of 8 wolves is going to be more like 56+28+14, etc.
But that's still almost 100 damage from a single third level spell.... And that's if you don't have something like a twilight cleric that can greatly extend their life.
You would need to hit 4 creatures and have them fail the save for fireball for that to be equal.... Which you won't do very often unless you have an evocation wizard or careful metamagic.... And there are 0 ranger spells at that level that will even get remotely close to those numbers.
I agree that the two creature option is the best thing if you don't want to ban the spell outright. I think it's still a good use of the spell and you get good value without going into crazy town.
I agree it's mostly damage difference... But it is quite a difference for a free action as you still get your full turn with no economy loss.
What's 100 damage? From the snake?! No way. Even average damage is doing only 13 damage a round. Less if you factor in to-hit chance. Also, I have never seen conjure animals last more than 4 rounds. And when using 8 beasts that length of time decreases.
What's 100 damage? From the snake?! No way. Even average damage is doing only 13 damage a round. Less if you factor in to-hit chance. Also, I have never seen conjure animals last more than 4 rounds. And when using 8 beasts that length of time decreases.
What's 100 damage? From the snake?! No way. Even average damage is doing only 13 damage a round. Less if you factor in to-hit chance. Also, I have never seen conjure animals last more than 4 rounds. And when using 8 beasts that length of time decreases.
The numbers you put up....
56+28+14 = 96 damage....
Right. That's from wolves. I thought the point here was to NOT use 8 animals. SO a giant snake does 13 damage. That's 39 damage over 3 rounds. LESS than fireball (most of the time).
What's 100 damage? From the snake?! No way. Even average damage is doing only 13 damage a round. Less if you factor in to-hit chance. Also, I have never seen conjure animals last more than 4 rounds. And when using 8 beasts that length of time decreases.
The numbers you put up....
56+28+14 = 96 damage....
Right. That's from wolves. I thought the point here was to NOT use 8 animals. SO a giant snake does 13 damage. That's 39 damage over 3 rounds. LESS than fireball (most of the time).
Those damage numbers are definitely off of standard calculations. The initiative of beast group means most of the time the ranger and beasts have enemies between them. So the enemies will go first either reducing the numbers OR just hitting the pc and removing.... every... single.. beast.... before they even get a turn.
This is roughly equivalent to "save for no damage"
Just like any ranger abilities it's only op if you're smart and play tactically. If you don't play tactically it is grossly disappointing.
Those damage numbers are definitely off of standard calculations. The initiative of beast group means most of the time the ranger and beasts have enemies between them. So the enemies will go first either reducing the numbers OR just hitting the pc and removing.... every... single.. beast.... before they even get a turn.
This is roughly equivalent to "save for no damage"
Just like any ranger abilities it's only op if you're smart and play tactically. If you don't play tactically it is grossly disappointing.
No where near off "standard".... In fact they are very good estimate of "average" by a very good amount.
If you open the any dice link you will see that it's based on a wide variety of AC.
They account for a variety of AC you will face. And if you are saying the creatures will be killed by your enemy between your turn and theirs....good?
That means the damage meant for you is being absorbed by the conjures. This is a good thing and it's also why more is better almost always.
You will always win the action economy battle in this case as the conjures out number the economy of your enemy by a large margin.
As for positioning... You do get to summon the creatures where you like so it's not like you can't just surround something from the get go... That way if they want to AoE they have to do it on themselves which is not good.
Enemy attack and party damage mitigation is a huge bonus to the spell. The spell is worth the slot even if you just have the animals there and dodging.
Those damage numbers are definitely off of standard calculations. The initiative of beast group means most of the time the ranger and beasts have enemies between them. So the enemies will go first either reducing the numbers OR just hitting the pc and removing.... every... single.. beast.... before they even get a turn.
This is roughly equivalent to "save for no damage"
Just like any ranger abilities it's only op if you're smart and play tactically. If you don't play tactically it is grossly disappointing.
No where near off "standard".... In fact they are very good estimate of "average" by a very good amount.
If you open the any dice link you will see that it's based on a wide variety of AC.
They account for a variety of AC you will face. And if you are saying the creatures will be killed by your enemy between your turn and theirs....good?
That means the damage meant for you is being absorbed by the conjures. This is a good thing and it's also why more is better almost always.
You will always win the action economy battle in this case as the conjures out number the economy of your enemy by a large margin.
As for positioning... You do get to summon the creatures where you like so it's not like you can't just surround something from the get go... That way if they want to AoE they have to do it on themselves which is not good.
if you are sure "56+28+14 = 96 damage...." is correct can you show it mathematically? can you do it taking into account probability of turn order? did you factor in the zeo damage turns or Damage immunity? this spell has some surprising weaknesses that just seem to disappear when trying to prove its a " OP problem".
almost everyone knows Frank is "optimistic" when it comes to ranger specific things I just don't trust his math.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That’s kind of what I thought. Given the possible thousands of variables in any given combat encounter I just can’t see crunching upwards of a dozen different numbers to account for such a wide array of armor class.
It is so incredibly easy to do the calculations with access to a spreadsheet for a wide variety of AC ranges I wonder why anyone wouldn't?
Because it’s one more flipping window to switch between on an iPad and setting up the calculations is as time consuming as doing them.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Because the level of information that yields, and what the information does or doesn’t provide, isn’t worth my time.
Comparing tables to X can sometimes obfuscate the results. It is also a great way to derail the conversation and stop it because some people can't work a spreadsheet or do matrices related math. its a way some people just tell some others to go away and when someone actually comes in with the effort done...... the discussion goal posts switch.
I have done the range of AC's spreadsheet and simplified off a 60% to hit. Sometimes I want the granular information vs AC, and sometimes I am looking at something more complicated on the front end, and the 60% simplifies the back end.
Both are useful approaches. For the granular AC approach I found it was really useful in analyzing Hunter's Mark vs. Bless. Presuming a round of prep (so you don't just lose a round of damage), HM only does better at low AC's.
In the case of Conjure Animals given the number of critters and changing stats this just seems like a ton of work. Then again I don't generally enjoy using summon spells as a player.
This a great example of how numbers can be altered quite a bit, even unintentionally. “A round of prep” makes a HUGE difference. A round of prep is like a melee build versus a ranged build in a battle that starts 60’ apart. That ranged build is going to have “better” DPR for that particular battle. A bonus action damage boost, like it or not, supersedes pure math due to in game situation. Whether that bonus action is XBE or hunter’s mark, a boost from a bonus action is more valuable more often than an action boost no matter what a spreadsheet spits out.
The point is resources exist that make it trivial to calculate, give better/more accurate results, and can account for more (ADV/DIS, superiority die, bless, etc...).
If you are going to spend the time to critically evaluate the balance of a feature it's only right imo to give the whole picture.
The eyeball/ballpark approach doesn't account for any of that and thus is far less accurate at giving numbers on actual play imo
It's also why people don't think though all the possible complications that can occur with a group of conjures...
Having to do all these extra rolls/conditions/HP for 8 creatures will on average add time if I had to guess.
When I see videos like Treantmonk videos where he has a straight fight with no AoE or conditions/effects, has a VTT that does all the rolls for you, and he knows the creatures inside and out including their unique features and then says "oh yeah took me no time" I laugh because he set himself up perfectly to reduce time.
I only the average player will not spend that time to set up macros, learn the statblocks, and position perfectly.
They just won't.... So when I see him try to convince every DM to allow it I think it's doing harm. He should at least be honest and say it took time upfront to save time later
Players that don't prepare take ages to take their turns, unless they are playing very basic fighters or rogues, summon spell or not
If your going to be using summoning it can help to make a cheat sheet with the info ( creatures, HP,s, damage, actions, etc) already listed - then hand it to your DM (or send them a digital copy) so they can use it when you summon.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To get away from math a bit and back to the point Optimus is trying to drive home. If a DM, player, or table is having issues with spells like these (conjure animals, animate undead, flock of familiars, conjure woodland beings, animate objects, etc.) then a great strength of some of these spells is the ability to bring forth only one or two options. This was stated in the thesis of the original post. Look a the options of the spell conjure animals. The options that get you 2 or 1 beast(s) (CR 1 and CR 2, respectively) are not ever going to be useless. Personally, I am a big fan of the giant constrictor snake. Most of these tougher creatures are, well, tougher. Since CR is literally a measure of combat effectiveness (yes I know all about action economy. blah blah blah), these higher CR beasts automatically solve some of the most common complaints by critics of these spells. Fireball does like 28 damage on a full hit. Most of these tougher beasts laugh that off, even on a failed save. You have huge creatures, so if you're using the spell for cover or blocking, you still can even with less of them. Several of these creatures still grapple, knock down, and even restrain (see my favorite above), so all of the battle control riders are in place. You have options for the sky and for the sea still as well. The ONLY thing you "loose" is damage output. But I would argue that 8 beasts with a handful of hit points each need to be calculated as having something along the lines of a half life, as there is almost zero chance that all 8 are going to last even 3 rounds, let alone 4+ rounds, so that "big damage output" of 8 wolves is going to be more like 56+28+14, etc.
But that's still almost 100 damage from a single third level spell.... And that's if you don't have something like a twilight cleric that can greatly extend their life.
You would need to hit 4 creatures and have them fail the save for fireball for that to be equal.... Which you won't do very often unless you have an evocation wizard or careful metamagic.... And there are 0 ranger spells at that level that will even get remotely close to those numbers.
I agree that the two creature option is the best thing if you don't want to ban the spell outright. I think it's still a good use of the spell and you get good value without going into crazy town.
I agree it's mostly damage difference... But it is quite a difference for a free action as you still get your full turn with no economy loss.
What's 100 damage? From the snake?! No way. Even average damage is doing only 13 damage a round. Less if you factor in to-hit chance. Also, I have never seen conjure animals last more than 4 rounds. And when using 8 beasts that length of time decreases.
The numbers you put up....
56+28+14 = 96 damage....
Right. That's from wolves. I thought the point here was to NOT use 8 animals. SO a giant snake does 13 damage. That's 39 damage over 3 rounds. LESS than fireball (most of the time).
That's my point yes....
Those damage numbers are definitely off of standard calculations. The initiative of beast group means most of the time the ranger and beasts have enemies between them. So the enemies will go first either reducing the numbers OR just hitting the pc and removing.... every... single.. beast.... before they even get a turn.
This is roughly equivalent to "save for no damage"
Just like any ranger abilities it's only op if you're smart and play tactically. If you don't play tactically it is grossly disappointing.
No where near off "standard".... In fact they are very good estimate of "average" by a very good amount.
If you open the any dice link you will see that it's based on a wide variety of AC.
They account for a variety of AC you will face. And if you are saying the creatures will be killed by your enemy between your turn and theirs....good?
That means the damage meant for you is being absorbed by the conjures. This is a good thing and it's also why more is better almost always.
You will always win the action economy battle in this case as the conjures out number the economy of your enemy by a large margin.
As for positioning... You do get to summon the creatures where you like so it's not like you can't just surround something from the get go... That way if they want to AoE they have to do it on themselves which is not good.
Enemy attack and party damage mitigation is a huge bonus to the spell. The spell is worth the slot even if you just have the animals there and dodging.
if you are sure "56+28+14 = 96 damage...." is correct can you show it mathematically? can you do it taking into account probability of turn order? did you factor in the zeo damage turns or Damage immunity? this spell has some surprising weaknesses that just seem to disappear when trying to prove its a " OP problem".
almost everyone knows Frank is "optimistic" when it comes to ranger specific things I just don't trust his math.