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.
I use to make simple cheat sheets for a in store game/ Adventures league game. it had 1 or 2 stat blocks on it and 5-10 HP bars The hp was color coded in groups of 10 so I could quickly mark off HP and had a small notes section at the end of each HP bar. it was also in a plastic sleeve so I could mark it with erasable marker.
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.
He's taking the already conservative estimate from the any dice link and further reducing it every turn by more than half...I'd say if anything he's being overly conservative for an average but I think it's fair to say that the spell does extremely well on average for damage with 8 creatures.
That is not a controversial take or anything as the spell has always been known to be a bit overtuned with 8 creatures.
Even then you didn't address the other issues I addressed.
Yes. We should keep it clear that you have a few issues with the spell, damage output only being one of them.
Regarding damage output, those are average damage rolls for 8 wolves. It also has half dying each round. (Remember that non of this is magical damage, so at level 9, when a ranger gets this, magic resistances is approaching more common than not). Wolves and velociraptors are awesome because of pack tactics. Would this be an issue resolved if certain creatures were limited? Like pixies with conjure woodland beings?
Yes. We should keep it clear that you have a few issues with the spell, damage output only being one of them.
Regarding damage output, those are average damage rolls for 8 wolves. It also has half dying each round. (Remember that non of this is magical damage, so at level 9, when a ranger gets this, magic resistances is approaching more common than not). Wolves and velociraptors are awesome because of pack tactics. Would this be an issue resolved if certain creatures were limited? Like pixies with conjure woodland beings?
I think you nailed it right away with the 2 or less creatures...just give more options for beasts in that range and you get more utility. Overall that fixes 90% of the issues right there.
Yes. We should keep it clear that you have a few issues with the spell, damage output only being one of them.
Regarding damage output, those are average damage rolls for 8 wolves. It also has half dying each round. (Remember that non of this is magical damage, so at level 9, when a ranger gets this, magic resistances is approaching more common than not). Wolves and velociraptors are awesome because of pack tactics. Would this be an issue resolved if certain creatures were limited? Like pixies with conjure woodland beings?
I think you nailed it right away with the 2 or less creatures...just give more options for beasts in that range and you get more utility. Overall that fixes 90% of the issues right there.
Nice.
Also, when a PC really needs or wants CR 1/4 or lower beasts they still can get them. You get CR X or lower. So 2 or 4 elk, giant crabs, or riding horses is 100% doable.
Can we also address how more than two creatures isn’t as big a deal outside of combat encounters? Like 8 horses, 8 rats or snakes, or 8 hawks. Outside combat these can be a fun and useful option for travel, escape, urban scenarios, and dungeon scenarios.
Yes. We should keep it clear that you have a few issues with the spell, damage output only being one of them.
Regarding damage output, those are average damage rolls for 8 wolves. It also has half dying each round. (Remember that non of this is magical damage, so at level 9, when a ranger gets this, magic resistances is approaching more common than not). Wolves and velociraptors are awesome because of pack tactics. Would this be an issue resolved if certain creatures were limited? Like pixies with conjure woodland beings?
I think you nailed it right away with the 2 or less creatures...just give more options for beasts in that range and you get more utility. Overall that fixes 90% of the issues right there.
Nice.
Also, when a PC really needs or wants CR 1/4 or lower beasts they still can get them. You get CR X or lower. So 2 or 4 elk, giant crabs, or riding horses is 100% doable.
Can we also address how more than two creatures isn’t as big a deal outside of combat encounters? Like 8 horses, 8 rats or snakes, or 8 hawks. Outside combat these can be a fun and useful option for travel, escape, urban scenarios, and dungeon scenarios.
I think outside of combat its less of an issue but I still do not see a need for 8 creatures ever TBH.
Mass summons like that are just not good balance for this system...its just not hard coded for that to be balanced. I could see 8 potentially with much higher slots (like 6th level or higher) so that Druids can do this....as I think thats about where it balances with 8 creatures is a 5th or 6th level spell.
I love how may times actual data turns to "I say"... " I think I feel"
since my questions have been sidestepped by others... I will direct them to frank?
Why use the half each round "guess?"......... the turn order will be player using action to cast and commanding the beasts and the enemies will go next (unless the beast roll a initiative between the players and the enemies 10% 15%) the enemies will attack summons (the silly option) or the player(the good option). if the player is attacked and looses concentration all the summons are gone with one attack. even if that only happens a portion of the time DPR calculation norms require you to take that zero turn in consideration. If enemies "take Half" the original 56 damage should also be multiplied by a percent to reflect actual numbers.
IF enemies "take half" on the first turn it will be linear and they will take half the original again (not half the remaining)the second turn meaning for average calculations you get 2 turns max.
I love how may times actual data turns to "I say"... " I think I feel"
since my questions have been sidestepped by others... I will direct them to frank?
Why use the half each round "guess?"......... the turn order will be player using action to cast and commanding the beasts and the enemies will go next (unless the beast roll a initiative between the players and the enemies 10% 15%) the enemies will attack summons (the silly option) or the player(the good option). if the player is attacked and looses concentration all the summons are gone with one attack. even if that only happens a portion of the time DPR calculation norms require you to take that zero turn in consideration. If enemies "take Half" the original 56 damage should also be multiplied by a percent to reflect actual numbers.
IF enemies "take half" on the first turn it will be linear and they will take half the original again (not half the remaining)the second turn meaning for average calculations you get 2 turns max.
Listen do what you want/feel is needed to justify 8 creatures but Frank and I are at least in agreement here that 8 in combat is too much. If you disagree that's fine.
Working from there we do not agree on our of combat but I think that if you make more interesting beasts to work with with better out of combat stuff then the ranger has more unique things to work with... And not just HP bags with damage like they are now.
He's taking the already conservative estimate from the any dice link and further reducing it every turn by more than half...I'd say if anything he's being overly conservative for an average but I think it's fair to say that the spell does extremely well on average for damage with 8 creatures.
That is not a controversial take or anything as the spell has always been known to be a bit overtuned with 8 creatures.
Even then you didn't address the other issues I addressed.
The anydice link makes some interestingly bizarre assumptions I don't think I've ever seen used before, such as assuming the target's AC is uniformly distributed across 10 to 20 - in other words, target AC is effectively 9+1d11. That's really weird. I don't know if "conservative" is a particularly reasonable label to apply to that.
I found at least one straight-up incorrect formula - the damage output for flying snakes is not calculated correctly. I haven't exhaustively gone over the whole thing, but that's another reason to be doubtful of the output, at least for now. I suspect it just needs some proofreading, and, as always, explicitly declaring its assumptions. For example, the anydice link assumes every beast gets to attack, which is a loaded assumption since they roll independent initiative and may not get to act before they die (or the caster loses concentration). That's fine, it should just be explicit in the comments.
Anydice syntax is weird, but I may be able to fix it for the assumptions this thread wants to make. For now, here's a link with fixed flying snakes: https://anydice.com/program/26c19
EDIT: Sharpshooter Samurai was also incorrect, so I fixed it. I did not add Battle Master or Gun Samurai, both of which outperform the listed Samurai build.
There is no basis for assuming you can choose to summon a normal elk but not an awakened elk - the text of the spell has no interaction with this choice.
It is clearly assumed that the caster is ordering the summoned minions to attack, but unless you summon awakened beasts or the DM rules that the summons are a) type Fey as the spell's text implies and b) accordingly are fluent in Sylvan and c) the caster speaks Sylvan, you can't actually order the minions productively - the spell guarantees the summons are obedient, but it doesn't guarantee they can understand the orders they're given. The third option is the DM houserules some other mechanism for your summons obeying you, such as them being telepathic, or understanding all languages their summoner can speak.
It's pointless to discuss spells like Conjure Animals without making explicit assumptions about minion orders. For example, if your minions aren't Awakened and aren't telepathic, you have to overcome a language barrier when issuing your orders, and said barrier is exacerbated (for this spell) by your minions being incredibly stupid. If you're facing a group of bandits, for example, you may play absolute hell trying to convey to your Intelligence 1 minions the difference between what they should attack and what they shouldn't. And if you resort to "kill that one", once the target dies the rest will Dodge.
The Anydice formula makes no allowance for your summons getting confused or failing to attack when they should, just as it makes no allowance for them not getting a turn.
He's taking the already conservative estimate from the any dice link and further reducing it every turn by more than half...I'd say if anything he's being overly conservative for an average but I think it's fair to say that the spell does extremely well on average for damage with 8 creatures.
That is not a controversial take or anything as the spell has always been known to be a bit overtuned with 8 creatures.
Even then you didn't address the other issues I addressed.
The anydice link makes some interestingly bizarre assumptions I don't think I've ever seen used before, such as assuming the target's AC is uniformly distributed across 10 to 20 - in other words, target AC is effectively 9+1d11. That's really weird. I don't know if "conservative" is a particularly reasonable label to apply to that.
I found at least one straight-up incorrect formula - the damage output for flying snakes is not calculated correctly. I haven't exhaustively gone over the whole thing, but that's another reason to be doubtful of the output, at least for now. I suspect it just needs some proofreading, and, as always, explicitly declaring its assumptions. For example, the anydice link assumes every beast gets to attack, which is a loaded assumption since they roll independent initiative and may not get to act before they die (or the caster loses concentration). That's fine, it should just be explicit in the comments.
Anydice syntax is weird, but I may be able to fix it for the assumptions this thread wants to make. For now, here's a link with fixed flying snakes: https://anydice.com/program/26c19
EDIT: Sharpshooter Samurai was also incorrect, so I fixed it. I did not add Battle Master or Gun Samurai, both of which outperform the listed Samurai build.
There is no basis for assuming you can choose to summon a normal elk but not an awakened elk - the text of the spell has no interaction with this choice.
It is clearly assumed that the caster is ordering the summoned minions to attack, but unless you summon awakened beasts or the DM rules that the summons are a) type Fey as the spell's text implies and b) accordingly are fluent in Sylvan and c) the caster speaks Sylvan, you can't actually order the minions productively - the spell guarantees the summons are obedient, but it doesn't guarantee they can understand the orders they're given. The third option is the DM houserules some other mechanism for your summons obeying you, such as them being telepathic, or understanding all languages their summoner can speak.
It's pointless to discuss spells like Conjure Animals without making explicit assumptions about minion orders. For example, if your minions aren't Awakened and aren't telepathic, you have to overcome a language barrier when issuing your orders, and said barrier is exacerbated (for this spell) by your minions being incredibly stupid. If you're facing a group of bandits, for example, you may play absolute hell trying to convey to your Intelligence 1 minions the difference between what they should attack and what they shouldn't. And if you resort to "kill that one", once the target dies the rest will Dodge.
The Anydice formula makes no allowance for your summons getting confused or failing to attack when they should, just as it makes no allowance for them not getting a turn.
Good points on the formulas and I appreciate you actually looking into them and correcting them.
As for the not understanding orders thing.... You lost me.
"They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you). If you don't issue any commands to them, they defend themselves from hostile creatures, but otherwise take no actions."
As they are not real creatures I would assume they understand you or you would literally never get to command the creatures... Which would be incredibly stupid imo and is obviously not the intention of the spell.
So one has to assume they understand you regardless.
Just to be clear, I don’t think that 8 is too many. I do think that 4, 2, and 1 is very functional and fun. I also think that no matter which method anyone uses for “math”, there is no chance that all 8 beasts are going to survival round after round. ESPECIALLY at level 9 when the ranger gets this spell. Even if we only assume 2 of the group getting whacked each round, I still think only the best of the best options for 8 beasts even slightly exceeds a well placed fireball in damage tallied over 3+ rounds. The druid does NOT put out the same amount of damage after casting this spell as a ranger does (cantrip vs ranger attacking), so then getting this at level 5
Just to be clear, I don’t think that 8 is too many. I do think that 4, 2, and 1 is very functional and fun. I also think that no matter which method anyone uses for “math”, there is no chance that all 8 beasts are going to survival round after round. ESPECIALLY at level 9 when the ranger gets this spell. Even if we only assume 2 of the group getting whacked each round, I still think only the best of the best options for 8 beasts even slightly exceeds a well placed fireball in damage tallied over 3+ rounds. The druid does NOT put out the same amount of damage after casting this spell as a ranger does (cantrip vs ranger attacking), so then getting this at level 5
So every fight needs a fireball to counter the animals? Do you even fight casters every fight or face a creature with an AoE? As a DM I think my party would start to see what I had to do to end the spell pretty quickly and likely just not use it then.
My point is that it makes the balance of the encounters have to shift upwards to match it...you bring wolves they have to bring fireballs...it becomes rocket tag.
Just to be clear, I don’t think that 8 is too many. I do think that 4, 2, and 1 is very functional and fun. I also think that no matter which method anyone uses for “math”, there is no chance that all 8 beasts are going to survival round after round. ESPECIALLY at level 9 when the ranger gets this spell. Even if we only assume 2 of the group getting whacked each round, I still think only the best of the best options for 8 beasts even slightly exceeds a well placed fireball in damage tallied over 3+ rounds. The druid does NOT put out the same amount of damage after casting this spell as a ranger does (cantrip vs ranger attacking), so then getting this at level 5
So every fight needs a fireball to counter the animals? Do you even fight casters every fight or face a creature with an AoE? As a DM I think my party would start to see what I had to do to end the spell pretty quickly and likely just not use it then.
My point is that it makes the balance of the encounters have to shift upwards to match it...you bring wolves they have to bring fireballs...it becomes rocket tag.
Lose-lose situations here....
who needs fireball when an improvised rock thrown at the ranger can remove them all?
also you didn't read franks statement. He said conjure animals does about the same damage as fireball.
Just to be clear, I don’t think that 8 is too many. I do think that 4, 2, and 1 is very functional and fun. I also think that no matter which method anyone uses for “math”, there is no chance that all 8 beasts are going to survival round after round. ESPECIALLY at level 9 when the ranger gets this spell. Even if we only assume 2 of the group getting whacked each round, I still think only the best of the best options for 8 beasts even slightly exceeds a well placed fireball in damage tallied over 3+ rounds. The druid does NOT put out the same amount of damage after casting this spell as a ranger does (cantrip vs ranger attacking), so then getting this at level 5
So every fight needs a fireball to counter the animals? Do you even fight casters every fight or face a creature with an AoE? As a DM I think my party would start to see what I had to do to end the spell pretty quickly and likely just not use it then.
My point is that it makes the balance of the encounters have to shift upwards to match it...you bring wolves they have to bring fireballs...it becomes rocket tag.
Lose-lose situations here....
who needs fireball when an improvised rock thrown at the ranger can remove them all?
also you didn't read franks statement. He said conjure animals does about the same damage as fireball.
I thought "smart play" would keep the ranger free from needing to make CON saves?
I do agree that the weak part of ranger is those saves as you get no natural way of improving them. It's one of the biggest weaknesses of the classes.
And as for fireball and conjure.... It really depends but you at least have potential to do a lot more damage with Conjure than fireball and it's better single target damage which is generally better in DnD anyway as dead is always better than hurt.
“My point is that it makes the balance of the encounters have to shift upwards to match it...you bring wolves they have to bring fireballs...it becomes rocket tag.”
This is 100%! Big spells make for big leaps in combat encounter design. Level 5 is huge for most classes. Extra attack, level 3 spells, etc. Not to change the subject, but regarding rocket tag or arms race, this is why multiclassing and feats aren’t my favorite.
“My point is that it makes the balance of the encounters have to shift upwards to match it...you bring wolves they have to bring fireballs...it becomes rocket tag.”
This is 100%! Big spells make for big leaps in combat encounter design. Level 5 is huge for most classes. Extra attack, level 3 spells, etc. Not to change the subject, but regarding rocket tag or arms race, this is why multiclassing and feats aren’t my favorite.
Fair point.
I think feats help martials keep up with casters eventually but they do create their own sort of imbalance.
“My point is that it makes the balance of the encounters have to shift upwards to match it...you bring wolves they have to bring fireballs...it becomes rocket tag.”
This is 100%! Big spells make for big leaps in combat encounter design. Level 5 is huge for most classes. Extra attack, level 3 spells, etc. Not to change the subject, but regarding rocket tag or arms race, this is why multiclassing and feats aren’t my favorite.
Fair point.
I think feats help martials keep up with casters eventually but they do create their own sort of imbalance.
I’m not trying to jerk anyone around. I just wanted to clarify. I know folks do have problems with this spell. And I think using 4, 2, or 1 beast is a great and effective “fix” that also happens to be completely in the player’s control.
“My point is that it makes the balance of the encounters have to shift upwards to match it...you bring wolves they have to bring fireballs...it becomes rocket tag.”
This is 100%! Big spells make for big leaps in combat encounter design. Level 5 is huge for most classes. Extra attack, level 3 spells, etc. Not to change the subject, but regarding rocket tag or arms race, this is why multiclassing and feats aren’t my favorite.
Fair point.
I think feats help martials keep up with casters eventually but they do create their own sort of imbalance.
I’m not trying to jerk anyone around. I just wanted to clarify. I know folks do have problems with this spell. And I think using 4, 2, or 1 beast is a great and effective “fix” that also happens to be completely in the player’s control.
Generally agree.
I stick with 2 but it's still better with 4 than 8.
What's wrong with 4 beasts, letting every PC control one of them?
As for the point about excessive dice rolling for beast saving throws, just use an auto RNG generator or roll for all the beasts at once using more d20s.
How would it effect the gameplay/game balance if the beasts, 2, 4, or whatever, made one roll for anything. Attacking? One attack roll for all of them. Saving throw? One roll for all of them.
Instead of 8 separate attack rolls at advantage for 8 wolves, make a single attack roll at advantage and that is the result for all 8. That would be similar to a target of a spell making a single saving throw, right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I use to make simple cheat sheets for a in store game/ Adventures league game. it had 1 or 2 stat blocks on it and 5-10 HP bars The hp was color coded in groups of 10 so I could quickly mark off HP and had a small notes section at the end of each HP bar. it was also in a plastic sleeve so I could mark it with erasable marker.
He's taking the already conservative estimate from the any dice link and further reducing it every turn by more than half...I'd say if anything he's being overly conservative for an average but I think it's fair to say that the spell does extremely well on average for damage with 8 creatures.
That is not a controversial take or anything as the spell has always been known to be a bit overtuned with 8 creatures.
Even then you didn't address the other issues I addressed.
Yes. We should keep it clear that you have a few issues with the spell, damage output only being one of them.
Regarding damage output, those are average damage rolls for 8 wolves. It also has half dying each round. (Remember that non of this is magical damage, so at level 9, when a ranger gets this, magic resistances is approaching more common than not). Wolves and velociraptors are awesome because of pack tactics. Would this be an issue resolved if certain creatures were limited? Like pixies with conjure woodland beings?
I think you nailed it right away with the 2 or less creatures...just give more options for beasts in that range and you get more utility. Overall that fixes 90% of the issues right there.
Nice.
Also, when a PC really needs or wants CR 1/4 or lower beasts they still can get them. You get CR X or lower. So 2 or 4 elk, giant crabs, or riding horses is 100% doable.
Can we also address how more than two creatures isn’t as big a deal outside of combat encounters? Like 8 horses, 8 rats or snakes, or 8 hawks. Outside combat these can be a fun and useful option for travel, escape, urban scenarios, and dungeon scenarios.
I think outside of combat its less of an issue but I still do not see a need for 8 creatures ever TBH.
Mass summons like that are just not good balance for this system...its just not hard coded for that to be balanced. I could see 8 potentially with much higher slots (like 6th level or higher) so that Druids can do this....as I think thats about where it balances with 8 creatures is a 5th or 6th level spell.
I love how may times actual data turns to "I say"... " I think I feel"
since my questions have been sidestepped by others... I will direct them to frank?
Why use the half each round "guess?"......... the turn order will be player using action to cast and commanding the beasts and the enemies will go next (unless the beast roll a initiative between the players and the enemies 10% 15%) the enemies will attack summons (the silly option) or the player(the good option). if the player is attacked and looses concentration all the summons are gone with one attack. even if that only happens a portion of the time DPR calculation norms require you to take that zero turn in consideration. If enemies "take Half" the original 56 damage should also be multiplied by a percent to reflect actual numbers.
IF enemies "take half" on the first turn it will be linear and they will take half the original again (not half the remaining)the second turn meaning for average calculations you get 2 turns max.
Listen do what you want/feel is needed to justify 8 creatures but Frank and I are at least in agreement here that 8 in combat is too much. If you disagree that's fine.
Working from there we do not agree on our of combat but I think that if you make more interesting beasts to work with with better out of combat stuff then the ranger has more unique things to work with... And not just HP bags with damage like they are now.
The anydice link makes some interestingly bizarre assumptions I don't think I've ever seen used before, such as assuming the target's AC is uniformly distributed across 10 to 20 - in other words, target AC is effectively 9+1d11. That's really weird. I don't know if "conservative" is a particularly reasonable label to apply to that.
I found at least one straight-up incorrect formula - the damage output for flying snakes is not calculated correctly. I haven't exhaustively gone over the whole thing, but that's another reason to be doubtful of the output, at least for now. I suspect it just needs some proofreading, and, as always, explicitly declaring its assumptions. For example, the anydice link assumes every beast gets to attack, which is a loaded assumption since they roll independent initiative and may not get to act before they die (or the caster loses concentration). That's fine, it should just be explicit in the comments.
Anydice syntax is weird, but I may be able to fix it for the assumptions this thread wants to make. For now, here's a link with fixed flying snakes: https://anydice.com/program/26c19
EDIT: Sharpshooter Samurai was also incorrect, so I fixed it. I did not add Battle Master or Gun Samurai, both of which outperform the listed Samurai build.
https://anydice.com/program/26c23
EDIT 2: I'd like to point out some things:
Good points on the formulas and I appreciate you actually looking into them and correcting them.
As for the not understanding orders thing.... You lost me.
"They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you). If you don't issue any commands to them, they defend themselves from hostile creatures, but otherwise take no actions."
As they are not real creatures I would assume they understand you or you would literally never get to command the creatures... Which would be incredibly stupid imo and is obviously not the intention of the spell.
So one has to assume they understand you regardless.
Just to be clear, I don’t think that 8 is too many. I do think that 4, 2, and 1 is very functional and fun. I also think that no matter which method anyone uses for “math”, there is no chance that all 8 beasts are going to survival round after round. ESPECIALLY at level 9 when the ranger gets this spell. Even if we only assume 2 of the group getting whacked each round, I still think only the best of the best options for 8 beasts even slightly exceeds a well placed fireball in damage tallied over 3+ rounds. The druid does NOT put out the same amount of damage after casting this spell as a ranger does (cantrip vs ranger attacking), so then getting this at level 5
So every fight needs a fireball to counter the animals? Do you even fight casters every fight or face a creature with an AoE? As a DM I think my party would start to see what I had to do to end the spell pretty quickly and likely just not use it then.
My point is that it makes the balance of the encounters have to shift upwards to match it...you bring wolves they have to bring fireballs...it becomes rocket tag.
Lose-lose situations here....
who needs fireball when an improvised rock thrown at the ranger can remove them all?
also you didn't read franks statement. He said conjure animals does about the same damage as fireball.
I thought "smart play" would keep the ranger free from needing to make CON saves?
I do agree that the weak part of ranger is those saves as you get no natural way of improving them. It's one of the biggest weaknesses of the classes.
And as for fireball and conjure.... It really depends but you at least have potential to do a lot more damage with Conjure than fireball and it's better single target damage which is generally better in DnD anyway as dead is always better than hurt.
“My point is that it makes the balance of the encounters have to shift upwards to match it...you bring wolves they have to bring fireballs...it becomes rocket tag.”
This is 100%! Big spells make for big leaps in combat encounter design. Level 5 is huge for most classes. Extra attack, level 3 spells, etc. Not to change the subject, but regarding rocket tag or arms race, this is why multiclassing and feats aren’t my favorite.
Fair point.
I think feats help martials keep up with casters eventually but they do create their own sort of imbalance.
I’m not trying to jerk anyone around. I just wanted to clarify. I know folks do have problems with this spell. And I think using 4, 2, or 1 beast is a great and effective “fix” that also happens to be completely in the player’s control.
Generally agree.
I stick with 2 but it's still better with 4 than 8.
What's wrong with 4 beasts, letting every PC control one of them?
As for the point about excessive dice rolling for beast saving throws, just use an auto RNG generator or roll for all the beasts at once using more d20s.
How would it effect the gameplay/game balance if the beasts, 2, 4, or whatever, made one roll for anything. Attacking? One attack roll for all of them. Saving throw? One roll for all of them.
Instead of 8 separate attack rolls at advantage for 8 wolves, make a single attack roll at advantage and that is the result for all 8. That would be similar to a target of a spell making a single saving throw, right?