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.
Good?
They need to be able to stand on their own laurels and not have to rely on one spell to be good.
The class is not very well balanced if it's broken by one spell being removed.
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.
Good?
They need to be able to stand on their own laurels and not have to rely on one spell to be good.
The class is not very well balanced if it's broken by one spell being removed.
Now you and I are repeating ourselves. Many classes and subclasses rely on a spell or ability. Ranger spells are more like class features than spells. It helps if people think that way. Conjure animals is a class feature packaged as a spell. Hindering or removing it would be the equivalent of removing or hindering divine smite or action surge for a paladin or fighter.
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.
Good?
They need to be able to stand on their own laurels and not have to rely on one spell to be good.
The class is not very well balanced if it's broken by one spell being removed.
Now you and I are repeating ourselves. Many classes and subclasses rely on a spell or ability. Ranger spells are more like class features than spells. It helps if people think that way. Conjure animals is a class feature packaged as a spell. Hindering or removing it would be the equivalent of removing or hindering divine smite or action surge for a paladin or fighter.
If you banned 8 animals, then people would just use 4. If you banned 4, then people would just use 2. If you banned 2, then people would just use 1. And they would still use 1 because its a great spell even with only one animal summoned. My group has been playing with limit 2 and its still the most used spell by the Druid.
My answer to what will replace this spell is to look at the summon spells in Tasha's. Those are your replacements, and the reason they made them is because of the dissatisfaction with things like Conjure Animals.
If you banned 8 animals, then people would just use 4. If you banned 4, then people would just use 2. If you banned 2, then people would just use 1. And they would still use 1 because its a great spell even with only one animal summoned. My group has been playing with limit 2 and its still the most used spell by the Druid.
My answer to what will replace this spell is to look at the summon spells in Tasha's. Those are your replacements, and the reason they made them is because of the dissatisfaction with things like Conjure Animals.
Yeah they are better balanced for sure.
I think it's fine to limit to 2 creatures or just let them pick from the summon spells in Tashas.
Of all of the silly OP things in Tasha's, the summon spells aren't one of them. They read and play more as little nods to players so every character can have a pet.
If you banned 8 animals, then people would just use 4. If you banned 4, then people would just use 2. If you banned 2, then people would just use 1. And they would still use 1 because its a great spell even with only one animal summoned. My group has been playing with limit 2 and its still the most used spell by the Druid.
My answer to what will replace this spell is to look at the summon spells in Tasha's. Those are your replacements, and the reason they made them is because of the dissatisfaction with things like Conjure Animals.
Yeah they are better balanced for sure.
I think it's fine to limit to 2 creatures or just let them pick from the summon spells in Tashas.
I again with so many people saying ranger is weak but most of their abilities are too strong to use raw interpretations it makes no sense. lots of counters and weaknesses but also lots of strengths. Franky it sounds balanced to me.
do you ban Necromancers at your table? do you ban Animate objects? at what point have you removed more of the game than was previously there. It clearly is balanced with several other classes.
I would even go so far as to say wotc was actively encouraging Lots of Conjures. they wanted Fireball to be iconic and powerful. Why not animal summons? Also, the weaker ones have severe disadvantages that favor good play. It allows enemies to tear through them faster making the enemies feel like a threat too. Also' look at how in a lot of Chris Perkins games animated objects almost become party members themselves.(see Strad's Chair. DCA) Look up the dozens of creatures and familiars Chris Perkins allows the party to collect.(DCA and Acquisitions inc.) JC also seems to follow the same path.
I've said it with beastmaster and I'll say it with conjure animals. Pc side "deaths" are a good thing. (even if its a simple conjured creature)
If you banned 8 animals, then people would just use 4. If you banned 4, then people would just use 2. If you banned 2, then people would just use 1. And they would still use 1 because its a great spell even with only one animal summoned. My group has been playing with limit 2 and its still the most used spell by the Druid.
My answer to what will replace this spell is to look at the summon spells in Tasha's. Those are your replacements, and the reason they made them is because of the dissatisfaction with things like Conjure Animals.
Yeah they are better balanced for sure.
I think it's fine to limit to 2 creatures or just let them pick from the summon spells in Tashas.
I again with so many people saying ranger is weak but most of their abilities are too strong to use raw interpretations it makes no sense. lots of counters and weaknesses but also lots of strengths. Franky it sounds balanced to me.
do you ban Necromancers at your table? do you ban Animate objects? at what point have you removed more of the game than was previously there. It clearly is balanced with several other classes.
I would even go so far as to say wotc was actively encouraging Lots of Conjures. they wanted Fireball to be iconic and powerful. Why not animal summons? Also, the weaker ones have severe disadvantages that favor good play. It allows enemies to tear through them faster making the enemies feel like a threat too. Also' look at how in a lot of Chris Perkins games animated objects almost become party members themselves.(see Strad's Chair. DCA) Look up the dozens of creatures and familiars Chris Perkins allows the party to collect.(DCA and Acquisitions inc.) JC also seems to follow the same path.
I've said it with beastmaster and I'll say it with conjure animals. Pc side "deaths" are a good thing. (even if its a simple conjured creature)
I think fireball and animate objects are both overpowered as well and yes should be balanced back.
It means no matter what you win with the spell and no other spell comes close.
It's the opposite of balanced because it's always the right answer and if you don't use it you are giving up the best option by a country mile.
Mmm.. I'll drop it I guess. Rangers are underpowered without it and overpowered with it. Whatever.
Yes that's about right.
They have to rely on one overpowered spell to succeed past level 9.
Better design would afford them high level features that are more in line with other martials and other spells that afford more interesting and diverse options.
Of course I disagree with all of that. Spells are class abilities for rangers. Why WOULDN'T they cast conjure animals when they could?! Paladins smite, fighters action surge, barbarians rage, rogues sneak attack. Who cares if rangers cast conjure animals?
There is no more diverse spell than conjure animals.
The fact that you equate an optional spell with core class features says a lot about how important the spell is to ranger.... That's poor design if you have to take a spell to make the class feel complete....
Imagine if the players started saying they didn't like the dm to use more enemies than the number of PCS. Or that damage immunity was too powerful. Also legendary actions/ resistances suck. also dms should never ever have counter spell because it hurts my desired playstyle.
Its time to remember this is an "adventure game." there are great systems that match other playstyles but WOTC (at least with the first few books) Had a vison and balanced system that grew the community. I find many Homebrew changes actually chase people away, even ones that sound good at first.
The fact that you equate an optional spell with core class features says a lot about how important the spell is to ranger.... That's poor design if you have to take a spell to make the class feel complete....
Many classes do this. Wizards and warlocks jump to mind. Clerics too. Collectively, there are dozens of "optional spells" that are core to these classes and many of their subclasses.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Good?
They need to be able to stand on their own laurels and not have to rely on one spell to be good.
The class is not very well balanced if it's broken by one spell being removed.
Well apparently your experience is not universal.
Now you and I are repeating ourselves. Many classes and subclasses rely on a spell or ability. Ranger spells are more like class features than spells. It helps if people think that way. Conjure animals is a class feature packaged as a spell. Hindering or removing it would be the equivalent of removing or hindering divine smite or action surge for a paladin or fighter.
Then let's not reiterate points?
I'm just responding with my thoughts as well.
Ok.
So if/when we ban conjure animals, what should rangers use their 3rd level spell slots on? Fog Cloud upcast? Hail of Thorns upcast?
New/better spells with better design.
AoE spells that impart a rider would be fun.
BA spells that impart damage/effects on weapon attacks unique to ranger.
Or spells that create/exploit weaknesses which would be better in theme for a ranger who knows such things.
Spells that create environmental effects that aren't just damage.
Or use the summon spells of course.
If you banned 8 animals, then people would just use 4. If you banned 4, then people would just use 2. If you banned 2, then people would just use 1. And they would still use 1 because its a great spell even with only one animal summoned. My group has been playing with limit 2 and its still the most used spell by the Druid.
My answer to what will replace this spell is to look at the summon spells in Tasha's. Those are your replacements, and the reason they made them is because of the dissatisfaction with things like Conjure Animals.
Yeah they are better balanced for sure.
I think it's fine to limit to 2 creatures or just let them pick from the summon spells in Tashas.
Of all of the silly OP things in Tasha's, the summon spells aren't one of them. They read and play more as little nods to players so every character can have a pet.
I again with so many people saying ranger is weak but most of their abilities are too strong to use raw interpretations it makes no sense. lots of counters and weaknesses but also lots of strengths. Franky it sounds balanced to me.
do you ban Necromancers at your table? do you ban Animate objects? at what point have you removed more of the game than was previously there. It clearly is balanced with several other classes.
I would even go so far as to say wotc was actively encouraging Lots of Conjures. they wanted Fireball to be iconic and powerful. Why not animal summons? Also, the weaker ones have severe disadvantages that favor good play. It allows enemies to tear through them faster making the enemies feel like a threat too. Also' look at how in a lot of Chris Perkins games animated objects almost become party members themselves.(see Strad's Chair. DCA) Look up the dozens of creatures and familiars Chris Perkins allows the party to collect.(DCA and Acquisitions inc.) JC also seems to follow the same path.
I've said it with beastmaster and I'll say it with conjure animals. Pc side "deaths" are a good thing. (even if its a simple conjured creature)
Well said.
I think fireball and animate objects are both overpowered as well and yes should be balanced back.
https://thinkdm.org/2020/07/11/animate-objects/
And once again if the enemy burns a fireball just to kill your summons.... Then you have won.
They wasted a spell slot to not do damage to you and wasted their turn... You won that exchange.
So honestly I don't see that as "balanced"
That sounds like the very definition of balanced.
Not at all....
It means no matter what you win with the spell and no other spell comes close.
It's the opposite of balanced because it's always the right answer and if you don't use it you are giving up the best option by a country mile.
Mmm.. I'll drop it I guess. Rangers are underpowered without it and overpowered with it. Whatever.
Yes that's about right.
They have to rely on one overpowered spell to succeed past level 9.
Better design would afford them high level features that are more in line with other martials and other spells that afford more interesting and diverse options.
The only martial class worse off is monk.
Of course I disagree with all of that. Spells are class abilities for rangers. Why WOULDN'T they cast conjure animals when they could?! Paladins smite, fighters action surge, barbarians rage, rogues sneak attack. Who cares if rangers cast conjure animals?
There is no more diverse spell than conjure animals.
Monks are fine. Overpowered sans feats.
The fact that you equate an optional spell with core class features says a lot about how important the spell is to ranger.... That's poor design if you have to take a spell to make the class feel complete....
Imagine if the players started saying they didn't like the dm to use more enemies than the number of PCS. Or that damage immunity was too powerful. Also legendary actions/ resistances suck. also dms should never ever have counter spell because it hurts my desired playstyle.
Its time to remember this is an "adventure game." there are great systems that match other playstyles but WOTC (at least with the first few books) Had a vison and balanced system that grew the community. I find many Homebrew changes actually chase people away, even ones that sound good at first.
Many classes do this. Wizards and warlocks jump to mind. Clerics too. Collectively, there are dozens of "optional spells" that are core to these classes and many of their subclasses.