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?
There are certainly some spell saving throws where rolling for all the minion beasts would be a problem. Things like Mass Suggestion or Confusion, for instance, where you'd get completely *****ed if all your beasts lost all their saving throws in one shot, or conversely, the DM's caster has basically blown a 4th or 5th level slot to no effect.
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?
There are certainly some spell saving throws where rolling for all the minion beasts would be a problem. Things like Mass Suggestion or Confusion, for instance, where you'd get completely *****ed if all your beasts lost all their saving throws in one shot, or conversely, the DM's caster has basically blown a 4th or 5th level slot to no effect.
Why would that be any different that any "save or suck" spell effect?
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?
There are certainly some spell saving throws where rolling for all the minion beasts would be a problem. Things like Mass Suggestion or Confusion, for instance, where you'd get completely *****ed if all your beasts lost all their saving throws in one shot, or conversely, the DM's caster has basically blown a 4th or 5th level slot to no effect.
Why would that be any different that any "save or suck" spell effect?
It's different cause Mass Suggestion and Confusion can easily lose you the battle if Everyone caught in the AoE fail the save. On average, that doesn't happen if you're rolling 4 times. IOW, multi-creature control spells that take over the minds of controlled creatures become very swingy if you only do one roll.
That is why it should be a tactical choice for the player to "Put all their eggs in one basket" or not. I am more in favor of average damage on attacks rather than rolling and I believe its within the rules because the dm is providing the stats. so if they want flat damage that is their choice.
it isn't that broken honestly, you summon a bunch of creature onto the field, they have to be determined by the DM or the PC will just choose wolves every time or velociraptor's. After summoning the enemy creatures, who have a intelligence higher then a gold fish will go after the PC that did it, because that player had to verbally tell all those beasties to go kill them. If the player goes down before losing concentration then there fault for making them selves a target. Also it is a spell which can do absolutely nothing.
at 5th level it can be annoying to some degree but even then it isn't that bad.
also there is the intellegence of the creature they some which matters alot for its behaviour and the player wouldn't control it they wouldn't fight optimally they would do as there ordered to the letter then thats it if there told to kill that orc they will kjill that one then nothing else. Also the PC has direct control over the pets so they would dumblyt do whatefver is told to them and only that if they said klill those infront of me you could take that to mean kill only those infront of him not anyone else
Also the PC doesn't choose where they spawn they just appear with in your line of sight and within 60 feet of you. So put them where ever you want some could die spawning on traps or be next to the big dumb ogre who will squash them if they leave. this spell has many downside's for the player but most of those Dm's wont exploit because they don't want to be mean or ruin the experience of the player's which is in my opinion the dumbest mindset for a DM to have.
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?
What that does is leave the average alone and radically increase the variance. To simplify, suppose you are flipping a coin 8 times. The average number of heads is 4 and the average number of tails is 4. Now suppose you flip 1 coin and multiply the result by 8. Your average is still 4 heads and 4 tails (a 50% chance of each with 8 of each on each result), but your variance is much higher - your flips are much "swingier", in gamer parlance. Higher variance means you are much less likely to actually roll the average (in my example here, you literally can't) - instead, you are likely to roll some extreme, but the extremes balance out to the average.
On the actual tabletop, that means if you have 8 monsters attack with 50% accuracy, rolling individually means it's much more likely you'll actually have 4 hit and 4 miss. With all 8 hinging on 1 die roll, they all hit or they all miss, so for the same average result, everything is much more chaotic. It's also of dubious utility, because instead of having it rely on 1 die, you could roll 8 dice at once and very quickly count how many hit.
it isn't that broken honestly, you summon a bunch of creature onto the field, they have to be determined by the DM or the PC will just choose wolves every time or velociraptor's. After summoning the enemy creatures, who have a intelligence higher then a gold fish will go after the PC that did it, because that player had to verbally tell all those beasties to go kill them. If the player goes down before losing concentration then there fault for making them selves a target. Also it is a spell which can do absolutely nothing.
at 5th level it can be annoying to some degree but even then it isn't that bad.
also there is the intellegence of the creature they some which matters alot for its behaviour and the player wouldn't control it they wouldn't fight optimally they would do as there ordered to the letter then thats it if there told to kill that orc they will kjill that one then nothing else. Also the PC has direct control over the pets so they would dumblyt do whatefver is told to them and only that if they said klill those infront of me you could take that to mean kill only those infront of him not anyone else
Also the PC doesn't choose where they spawn they just appear with in your line of sight and within 60 feet of you. So put them where ever you want some could die spawning on traps or be next to the big dumb ogre who will squash them if they leave. this spell has many downside's for the player but most of those Dm's wont exploit because they don't want to be mean or ruin the experience of the player's which is in my opinion the dumbest mindset for a DM to have.
I have never had, nor heard of, a DM purposefully making the creatures so stupid that they cannot follow orders like "Kill that thing then that thing". I reached out to a few discords to see if I was in the minority and I got 0 responses with people who actually play it this way.
Also they summon where you want them too. If your reading of the spell is consistent with your logic then NO spell that has that language would be able to pick their space which is just not the case.
Also if you are saying that the DM won't squash the spell normally when the player uses it...good I guess? If that is the only way for one to "balance" the spell then its poorly designed and should go IMO.
One order allowed is exactly how most DMs I've seen rule Animate objects or how animate dead is written. Allowing a person to chain or split commands is certainly a benefit. That benefit is not expressed or actively taken away from the druid or ranger Conjure spells. (as far as I remember). This is why I belive that adjustment to be a fair thing for the dm to decide on but not allowing the dm to have any say on the number of creatures.
If I want 8 I am following the rules, if the dm wants all 8 to have to do the exact same thing he is following the rules.
I agree about summoning location being Players choice. (I can see the argument otherwise but believe it falls flat) but most likely they will all move straight towards an enemy or location per commands.
Also, Narratively these are not actually the creatures only a magical representation of them so a reduced intelligence is fine. Also since they are not those creatures it also "solves" the "conjured poison harvesting problem".
TLDR: I think the problem isn't the way the spell is written or intended to function, I think the problem is certain untrue assumptions that are glossed over.
They obey the commands but if you tell them to kill the lich they will go for the lich ignoring all other targets and do nothing once he is dead they would also run through other enemies to get to him. kill all they would just go for the closest targets
"You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range." doesn't say anything about picking a space, people assume and play it as such that you pick a space you can see based on the wording but the wording doesn't say that. yes most conjuration spells would fall into this category. also this isn't as big a deal as you make it out to be most combat takes place in small area's not in wide open ones where there would be tons of area's they could spawn. also letting the player cherry pick the locations is what i was maingly getting at the spell not doing you dont summon 8 wolves around the orc.
Im saying spells are inherentrly written in ways that leave it up to interpretation of the players you can interpret the spell any way you want and play it any way you want. but if a person thinks the spell is broken and shouldn't be allowed then there a fool.
They obey the commands but if you tell them to kill the lich they will go for the lich ignoring all other targets and do nothing once he is dead they would also run through other enemies to get to him. kill all they would just go for the closest targets
"You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range." doesn't say anything about picking a space, people assume and play it as such that you pick a space you can see based on the wording but the wording doesn't say that. yes most conjuration spells would fall into this category. also this isn't as big a deal as you make it out to be most combat takes place in small area's not in wide open ones where there would be tons of area's they could spawn. also letting the player cherry pick the locations is what i was maingly getting at the spell not doing you dont summon 8 wolves around the orc.
Im saying spells are inherentrly written in ways that leave it up to interpretation of the players you can interpret the spell any way you want and play it any way you want. but if a person thinks the spell is broken and shouldn't be allowed then there a fool.
This just feels passive-agressive to me. If you think the spell would be too strong in an encounter so you spawn the summons 120 feet away from where the player obviously wanted them to be, the player is absolutely going to feel like the DM is screwing them over. It's a great way to develop table animosity and just an overall bad relationship with the player.
And this is part of design too. The built-in ways to nerf the spell have undesired side effects that impact the overall fun of the game. The spell creates negative tension between the player and DM where the player is asking for more than the DM wants to give, and the DM is a jerk when they don't give it to them. That kind of social dynamic is a part of game design, and is why this is badly designed.
Talking with the player and setting expectations for what the spell can deliver ahead of time is infinitely more healthy for your game.
Every spell with a range allows the caster to choose the target. there is no reason why this spell is any different. Players get to pick the locations the creatures spawn at.
IMO. the dm should then choose creatures fitting to the environment or something in line with the player intent. following those rules there should be less tension between the player and dm than just taking away a RAW spell unique to two classes.
If we removed everything in the game that isn’t crystal clear by RAW and/or not under any debate or interpretation, we would have to remove most of the game.
A degree of flexibility is good for the game. various interpretations allow for various narratives. the scope however is clearly defined. Players cast the spell and get choices. the dm chooses the stat blocks (or they can let the player). they beasts must be commanded to act. Minimum of 1 command DMs may allow more.
The spell is only troublesome if people fight over it and I see more "dm perspective fights" than players complaining about RAW restrictions.
If we removed everything in the game that isn’t crystal clear by RAW and/or not under any debate or interpretation, we would have to remove most of the game.
That's a pretty big simplification....
Certainly there is a gradient with "unclear but it doesn't really matter" to "unclear with big implications on what the spell can do"
If we removed everything in the game that isn’t crystal clear by RAW and/or not under any debate or interpretation, we would have to remove most of the game.
That's a pretty big simplification....
Certainly there is a gradient with "unclear but it doesn't really matter" to "unclear with big implications on what the spell can do"
Conjure Animals is definitely on the latter.
YMMV
I think the internet has blown the perception of this spell's out of proportion quite a bit.
The implication of this entire thread is that the spell is either too strong, too much of a time sink, or both. Ok. Each to their own. But this is a part of the ranger's kit. A big part. Like it or hate it, changing, removing, or severely nerfing this spell has major implications and negative effects on rangers, druids, and I would even argue some bard builds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There are certainly some spell saving throws where rolling for all the minion beasts would be a problem. Things like Mass Suggestion or Confusion, for instance, where you'd get completely *****ed if all your beasts lost all their saving throws in one shot, or conversely, the DM's caster has basically blown a 4th or 5th level slot to no effect.
Why would that be any different that any "save or suck" spell effect?
It's different cause Mass Suggestion and Confusion can easily lose you the battle if Everyone caught in the AoE fail the save. On average, that doesn't happen if you're rolling 4 times. IOW, multi-creature control spells that take over the minds of controlled creatures become very swingy if you only do one roll.
That is why it should be a tactical choice for the player to "Put all their eggs in one basket" or not. I am more in favor of average damage on attacks rather than rolling and I believe its within the rules because the dm is providing the stats. so if they want flat damage that is their choice.
it isn't that broken honestly, you summon a bunch of creature onto the field, they have to be determined by the DM or the PC will just choose wolves every time or velociraptor's. After summoning the enemy creatures, who have a intelligence higher then a gold fish will go after the PC that did it, because that player had to verbally tell all those beasties to go kill them. If the player goes down before losing concentration then there fault for making them selves a target. Also it is a spell which can do absolutely nothing.
at 5th level it can be annoying to some degree but even then it isn't that bad.
also there is the intellegence of the creature they some which matters alot for its behaviour and the player wouldn't control it they wouldn't fight optimally they would do as there ordered to the letter then thats it if there told to kill that orc they will kjill that one then nothing else. Also the PC has direct control over the pets so they would dumblyt do whatefver is told to them and only that if they said klill those infront of me you could take that to mean kill only those infront of him not anyone else
Also the PC doesn't choose where they spawn they just appear with in your line of sight and within 60 feet of you. So put them where ever you want some could die spawning on traps or be next to the big dumb ogre who will squash them if they leave. this spell has many downside's for the player but most of those Dm's wont exploit because they don't want to be mean or ruin the experience of the player's which is in my opinion the dumbest mindset for a DM to have.
What that does is leave the average alone and radically increase the variance. To simplify, suppose you are flipping a coin 8 times. The average number of heads is 4 and the average number of tails is 4. Now suppose you flip 1 coin and multiply the result by 8. Your average is still 4 heads and 4 tails (a 50% chance of each with 8 of each on each result), but your variance is much higher - your flips are much "swingier", in gamer parlance. Higher variance means you are much less likely to actually roll the average (in my example here, you literally can't) - instead, you are likely to roll some extreme, but the extremes balance out to the average.
On the actual tabletop, that means if you have 8 monsters attack with 50% accuracy, rolling individually means it's much more likely you'll actually have 4 hit and 4 miss. With all 8 hinging on 1 die roll, they all hit or they all miss, so for the same average result, everything is much more chaotic. It's also of dubious utility, because instead of having it rely on 1 die, you could roll 8 dice at once and very quickly count how many hit.
I have never had, nor heard of, a DM purposefully making the creatures so stupid that they cannot follow orders like "Kill that thing then that thing". I reached out to a few discords to see if I was in the minority and I got 0 responses with people who actually play it this way.
Also they summon where you want them too. If your reading of the spell is consistent with your logic then NO spell that has that language would be able to pick their space which is just not the case.
Also if you are saying that the DM won't squash the spell normally when the player uses it...good I guess? If that is the only way for one to "balance" the spell then its poorly designed and should go IMO.
One order allowed is exactly how most DMs I've seen rule Animate objects or how animate dead is written. Allowing a person to chain or split commands is certainly a benefit. That benefit is not expressed or actively taken away from the druid or ranger Conjure spells. (as far as I remember). This is why I belive that adjustment to be a fair thing for the dm to decide on but not allowing the dm to have any say on the number of creatures.
If I want 8 I am following the rules, if the dm wants all 8 to have to do the exact same thing he is following the rules.
I agree about summoning location being Players choice. (I can see the argument otherwise but believe it falls flat) but most likely they will all move straight towards an enemy or location per commands.
Also, Narratively these are not actually the creatures only a magical representation of them so a reduced intelligence is fine. Also since they are not those creatures it also "solves" the "conjured poison harvesting problem".
TLDR: I think the problem isn't the way the spell is written or intended to function, I think the problem is certain untrue assumptions that are glossed over.
They obey the commands but if you tell them to kill the lich they will go for the lich ignoring all other targets and do nothing once he is dead they would also run through other enemies to get to him. kill all they would just go for the closest targets
"You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range." doesn't say anything about picking a space, people assume and play it as such that you pick a space you can see based on the wording but the wording doesn't say that. yes most conjuration spells would fall into this category. also this isn't as big a deal as you make it out to be most combat takes place in small area's not in wide open ones where there would be tons of area's they could spawn. also letting the player cherry pick the locations is what i was maingly getting at the spell not doing you dont summon 8 wolves around the orc.
Im saying spells are inherentrly written in ways that leave it up to interpretation of the players you can interpret the spell any way you want and play it any way you want. but if a person thinks the spell is broken and shouldn't be allowed then there a fool.
This just feels passive-agressive to me. If you think the spell would be too strong in an encounter so you spawn the summons 120 feet away from where the player obviously wanted them to be, the player is absolutely going to feel like the DM is screwing them over. It's a great way to develop table animosity and just an overall bad relationship with the player.
And this is part of design too. The built-in ways to nerf the spell have undesired side effects that impact the overall fun of the game. The spell creates negative tension between the player and DM where the player is asking for more than the DM wants to give, and the DM is a jerk when they don't give it to them. That kind of social dynamic is a part of game design, and is why this is badly designed.
Talking with the player and setting expectations for what the spell can deliver ahead of time is infinitely more healthy for your game.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Every spell with a range allows the caster to choose the target. there is no reason why this spell is any different. Players get to pick the locations the creatures spawn at.
IMO. the dm should then choose creatures fitting to the environment or something in line with the player intent. following those rules there should be less tension between the player and dm than just taking away a RAW spell unique to two classes.
This is why the spell ends up being troublesome... There is varying opinions on how it "should" work and can create animosity.
I know a lot of spells are like this but in this case there is more issues to resolve potentially.
Imo it's just easier to reduce the number to something more manageable or simply remove the spell
If we removed everything in the game that isn’t crystal clear by RAW and/or not under any debate or interpretation, we would have to remove most of the game.
A degree of flexibility is good for the game. various interpretations allow for various narratives. the scope however is clearly defined. Players cast the spell and get choices. the dm chooses the stat blocks (or they can let the player). they beasts must be commanded to act. Minimum of 1 command DMs may allow more.
The spell is only troublesome if people fight over it and I see more "dm perspective fights" than players complaining about RAW restrictions.
That's a pretty big simplification....
Certainly there is a gradient with "unclear but it doesn't really matter" to "unclear with big implications on what the spell can do"
Conjure Animals is definitely on the latter.
YMMV
I think the internet has blown the perception of this spell's out of proportion quite a bit.
Honestly I feel like the Ranger class needs as much as it can get.
Compared to what?
Agreed, I’ve never had a problem playing a ranger. Good, contro, good damage, good skills, great exploration/survival and travel. What’s not to like?
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The implication of this entire thread is that the spell is either too strong, too much of a time sink, or both. Ok. Each to their own. But this is a part of the ranger's kit. A big part. Like it or hate it, changing, removing, or severely nerfing this spell has major implications and negative effects on rangers, druids, and I would even argue some bard builds.