As written, there are some decisions that are explicitly up to the caster, and everything else is unspecified. The decisions that are explicitly up to the caster:
@SagaTympana Do not put words in my mouth. I said that he never presents evidence to support the claimed intent, which should be easy given his position, since he would have the authority to look into design notes, prior 5e versions, and any recorded discussions. Heck, given his position, he should have the authority to ensure that the texts he claims intent on are revised to explicitly match that claimed intent.
They've clarified their intent, but they've still left it open to DM's preference, which might be best. It's usually easier/more intuitive to let the player to decide (until it gets too powerful).
My question to those who think the Player should specify: How do you justify the PC knowing about the summoned creatures enough to specify them when casting? Its one thing for beasts and natural creatures, but fey, fiends, or elementals? Unless the PC has a specific history of encounters with these creatures or of study of these creatures there's no way they would know enough to attempt to summon them specifically. Heck, as a DM i didn't even know what a chwinga was until reading threads in these forums, as I don't have that particular sourcebook; so if a player wants to cast the spell and asks for them, 1) I don't have the stats, and 2) even if I did how do you justify a PC knowing about the creature requested?
If a DM wants to allow the players to choose, that's on them, but there has to be a separation of PC knowledge and Meta-knowledge, especially when it comes to power-gaming summoning strategies like these. Personally, I would allow for 1 of the following each time the PC casts the spell: 1) the player determines the summon, but is limited to only creatures the PC has seen or that can be tied to the players backstory (no immediate improv here either), which is similar to a druid's wildshape, or 2) they specify what is explicitly allowed in the spell (location, CR and number, specific creatures mentioned in the spell description, etc) and the DM determines the creature.
@iconarising Honestly, this is why I think they included "The GM has the creature's statistics." As a way to say that what creatures are eligible for the spell are determined by the GM, but of course that sentence has turned out not clear enough.
As for myself, I would say something close to 1). So when the player picks the spell the first time, likely work with them to choose 6-12 beasts (maybe more depending on background) (assuming Conjure Animals) that they would be familiar with (which they keep a list of for future reference), then they can add to that list either by encountering a beast, or by researching it during downtime.
As with many things in 5e, these spells involve conferring with the GM (who allowed the spell in the first place). Any players that fail to do this really should pick a different spell, and if the GM wont confer, the player should either pick a different spell, or a different GM.
Question to those who argue that the GM picks: If the spells were limited to summoning no more than 3 creatures, would you consider it fair for the player to pick specific creatures, barring cases like sprites (think that was the Fey in contention)?
I would actually be tempted to make Conjure Animals produce a random beast that is appropriate to the terrain, using the lists in Xanatar's Guide as a first guess about what is on the list.
My question to those who think the Player should specify: How do you justify the PC knowing about the summoned creatures
Note: player knowledge and PC knowledge might be different. I typically advocate for the Player choosing if the Player has knowledge of the summon creatures (as that's just easier). The PC could certainly easily have knowledge of the existence of various summonable creatures (just from training in their class... indeed, they'd probably be more educated in this area than their Player), but that's less important to me.
My question to those who think the Player should specify: How do you justify the PC knowing about the summoned creatures
Note: player knowledge and PC knowledge might be different. I typically advocate for the Player choosing if the Player has knowledge of the summon creatures (as that's just easier). The PC could certainly easily have knowledge of the existence of various summonable creatures (just from training in their class... indeed, they'd probably be more educated in this area than their Player), but that's less important to me.
What you are suggesting is called meta-gaming, and I don’t support that at my table (nor do the majority of DMs, I would think).
Regarding PC knowledge exceeding player knowledge I agree a PC might know more than a player might, which is why certain skill checks exist. In general though, unless the is an established reason for the knowledge, most level 1 PCs will be very likely to not know the nature of extraplanar creatures, so a campaign will likely contain all the encounters with such creatures and there will be clear precedent for the PC to have that knowledge (or not)
I typically advocate for the Player choosing if the Player has knowledge of the summon creatures (as that's just easier).
What you are suggesting is called meta-gaming, and I don’t support that at my table (nor do the majority of DMs, I would think).
I think you misunderstand: handling those animals efficiently can require a lot of mechanical competence. If a player demonstrates such aptitude, I can rely on them handle more. I play with pretty mature players, so yeah: I trust (and even encourage) my players to handle meta-aspects of the game once they become proficient in the rules.
I'm always interested in hearing what a player is interested in specifically summoning, but the spell itself doesn't let the character address specific entities (it's not Gate). I as the DM have a much greater ability to know what creatures could reasonably answer the caster's call.
For example, in a recent adventure our druid wanted to summon some panthers, and I had to say "You're 70 degrees north, literally above the arctic circle, there are no panthers here, you can have wolves." It's important to me that I respect how the spell actually works.
I respect your choices as DM ... but that isn't how the spell actually works.
The spell is "Conjure Animals" in this edition, not "Summon Animals".
"You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range."
You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts. The DM decides the form but because they are fey spirits, the geographical location of the conjuration, the local weather, local species and other factors that might affect a "summoning" spell ... wouldn't necessarily affect a "conjuration" spell that summons fey spirits unless the DM decides to impose some additional wording or decides that the summoned spirits will only take on the form of beasts local to the area. However, that gets into problems if you try to use "Conjure animals" in regions that don't have any appropriate creatures (various planes, various terrain types etc).
It is perfectly ok for a DM to say No to panthers or whatever creature is requested ... but the DM needs to be aware of implications of any reasoning given for that decision, like the creature needs to be native to the region ... this can be very limiting in later circumstances and doesn't actually fit the spell description.
I'm always interested in hearing what a player is interested in specifically summoning, but the spell itself doesn't let the character address specific entities (it's not Gate). I as the DM have a much greater ability to know what creatures could reasonably answer the caster's call.
For example, in a recent adventure our druid wanted to summon some panthers, and I had to say "You're 70 degrees north, literally above the arctic circle, there are no panthers here, you can have wolves." It's important to me that I respect how the spell actually works.
I respect your choices as DM ... but that isn't how the spell actually works.
You're misunderstanding my point.
The spell is "Conjure Animals" in this edition, not "Summon Animals".
There is no appreciable difference between these things.
"You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range."
You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts. The DM decides the form but because they are fey spirits, the geographical location of the conjuration, the local weather, local species and other factors that might affect a "summoning" spell ... wouldn't necessarily affect a "conjuration" spell that summons fey spirits unless the DM decides to impose some additional wording or decides that the summoned spirits will only take on the form of beasts local to the area. However, that gets into problems if you try to use "Conjure animals" in regions that don't have any appropriate creatures (various planes, various terrain types etc).
None of that is relevant to the rules discussion. The rules are that the player chooses number of creatures and CR. That is the extent of the player decision. My reasons for using one animal over another are personal and not relevant to the rules. I offer them as points of interest and perspective. The DM can be as arbitrary as they want in determining what the caster actually summons. Rather than being arbitrary, I find it useful to have actual reasons. The rule is just "whatever I want."
It is perfectly ok for a DM to say No to panthers or whatever creature is requested ... but the DM needs to be aware of implications of any reasoning given for that decision, like the creature needs to be native to the region ... this can be very limiting in later circumstances and doesn't actually fit the spell description.
The DM doesn't need to be aware of anything, because again, the rule is just "whatever the DM's whims spur them toward in that particular moment." My preference is that my whims be sensible. I'd appreciate it if you would be less patronizing toward people who are only talking about the sorts of reasoning they personally use to guide the decisions the rules empower them to make.
There are a couple of monsters that are the reason why the Sage Advice ruled that the DM picks instead of the player. One is the Pixie that has the ability to cast Polymorph and 8 Polymorph spells is over powered. The other one is the Chwinga that has the ability to grant a Magical Gift and 8 Magical Gifts is also over powered.
They goofed when they created those two monsters and made it so that they can be summoned with 4th level spells. Their solution was to retroactively say that the DM gets to pick what is summoned instead of the player to let the DM not allow those two monsters to be summoned.
@Tim Indeed, rather than revising the monsters, or revising the spell, they (yet again) claim a contradictory intent, but still cannot be bothered to provide any evidence to support the claim (design notes, statement from confirmed author).
Just want to point out that the solution of letting the DM choose is not just a retroactive choice to fix existing "broken" summons, it also prevents future issues.
New monsters will continue to be added to the game for as long as it is in production. Assigning CR to monsters is already a messy business, and having to consider how a new monster could be exploited through any number of spells or features is extremely restrictive - I'm convinced the primary reason the Monstrosity category was created was to differentiate which beasts should be accessible to Wild Shape and which shouldn't. This allowed them to take some liberties with Monstrosities that frankly makes them a lot more interesting than Beasts.
PCs and monsters will just never be on equal footing and that's how it should be. It allows more creative, effective and evocative monster design. The cost of this is that you can't just allow PCs to conjure any monster they want because you will have edge cases that are broken. To allow the cool, weird monsters to exist you must restrict their access. I think this choice makes the best overall game.
Part of the problem with Conjure Animals is that it's balanced to favor swarms that are annoying to deal with on the battlefield; absent things like damaging zones that instantly kills the small stuff, 8x CR 1/4 is by far the most powerful option. To use directly comparable monsters, 8x Wolf is attack +4, damage 56, HP 88, adjusted XP value 1,000; 2x Dire Wolf is attack +5, damage 20, HP 74, adjusted xp 600.
If the options were
1x CR 3 (700 xp)
2x CR 1 (600 xp)
3x CR 1/2 (600 xp)
5x CR 1/4 (500 xp)
8x CR 1/8 (500 xp)
there's a lot more reason to use smaller numbers that are less of a hassle to resolve on the battlefield. 5x Wolf is probably still better than 2x Dire Wolf, but at least it's closer.
And this is why once more the DM's choice is important, remember that it's CR 1/4 or lower, which means that if the player abuses this, the fey spirits, bored by wolves, might start to become capricious and manifest as CR 0 frogs able to play hopscotch and leapfrog but not much more. Annoy the faeries at your own peril... :p
That's abuse of discretion. Players using the spell as design isn't an abuse, it just means the spell is poorly designed.
It's not like this is limited to Conjure Animals, all the spells that let you create varying numbers of minions are balanced to favor swarms. Animate Objects is ridiculous and includes nothing like the DM discretion that can limit Conjure Animals, because you can just bring your own objects.
There are a couple of monsters that are the reason why the Sage Advice ruled that the DM picks instead of the player. One is the Pixie that has the ability to cast Polymorph and 8 Polymorph spells is over powered. The other one is the Chwinga that has the ability to grant a Magical Gift and 8 Magical Gifts is also over powered.
They goofed when they created those two monsters and made it so that they can be summoned with 4th level spells. Their solution was to retroactively say that the DM gets to pick what is summoned instead of the player to let the DM not allow those two monsters to be summoned.
Chwingas are elementals, not beasts, so you need a level 5 spell (Conjure Elemental), and you can only summon 1. There are two problems, though: 1) which element is appropriate? Earth? Air? Water? Fire? It's not obvious. In fact, it might be none. Chwingas don't appear to be elementals of a specific element. 2) you still can't choose. You only choose which element, and only by targeting a 10' cube of the chosen element, so you're still limited by what's available for that choice.
There are a couple of monsters that are the reason why the Sage Advice ruled that the DM picks instead of the player. One is the Pixie that has the ability to cast Polymorph and 8 Polymorph spells is over powered. The other one is the Chwinga that has the ability to grant a Magical Gift and 8 Magical Gifts is also over powered.
They goofed when they created those two monsters and made it so that they can be summoned with 4th level spells. Their solution was to retroactively say that the DM gets to pick what is summoned instead of the player to let the DM not allow those two monsters to be summoned.
Chwingas are elementals, not beasts, so you need a level 5 spell (Conjure Elemental), and you can only summon 1. There are two problems, though: 1) which element is appropriate? Earth? Air? Water? Fire? It's not obvious. In fact, it might be none. Chwingas don't appear to be elementals of a specific element. 2) you still can't choose. You only choose which element, and only by targeting a 10' cube of the chosen element, so you're still limited by what's available for that choice.
Conjure Minor Elemental is a 4th level spell. That’s the one used to summon Chwingas.
I did indeed forget about that spell, my mistake. Although, for Conjure Minor Elementals, the rules are similar to (the same as?) the ones for Conjure Animals, in that the caster has the option to pick number and CR.
@Tonio Not once does either spell say the DM/GM chooses, in fact, the only mention of the GM is "The GM has the creature's statistics." Keep in mind, the GM also has the races', classes', etc. statistics, but the GM doesnt choose the PCs' race, class, etc. That line simply means that the creatures chosen must be ones that the GM has info for.
It also does not say the player chooses the creature. It also does not say the player's third cousin twice removed chooses the creature. Given no indication of who chooses, it is therefore up to the DM to decide. The DM can decide to let the player choose, certainly. But the rules do not state so, nor do they even hint at it.
As for player choice, the spell says "Choose one of the following options for what appears:" Notice something missing in that sentence, it doesnt say who chooses. When that happens, you have to look at the previous sentences from closest to furthest until you find who is being told. In this case "You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range.", which means the spell is explicitly saying that the user chooses, and explicitly does not say the GM does. The problem you and so many others make, is you are confusing options with criteria. Criteria being the variables that limit a choice, while options are the possible choices. The spell explicitly lists 'options', not criteria, and each option includes its own criteria (type, number of creatures, max CR per creature).
The spell descriptions are written as addressing the caster. This is why, for example, Mirror Image says it creates duplicates of "yourself". A sentence stating "Choose one of the following options" indicates the caster chooses. Interpreting that otherwise requires heavy duty mental gymnastics, and ignoring a convention used throughout the rules. Nevertheless, we all agree the caster gets to choose between those options. Nobody is contesting that. On the other hand, very few people insist that being given a choice of number and CR is the same as being given a choice of specific creature, mostly because it simply does not follow.
You accuse me of confusion options with criteria. You seem to believe that exclusive options somehow include more than they state, which I find very odd. The player is given a choice of options, they pick one, end of story. Nowhere is it stated that after picking an option, they get to pick a creature based on the criteria established by their option. You seem to think that given the spell description ("you summon fey spirits..."), the player should -- no, must get to choose which fey spirits are summoned. Why you think that is beyond me. If a creature casts the spell, the player picks an option, and the GM picks or randomly selects a creature that fits that option's criteria, how is "you summon fey spirits" not fulfilled? Since you seem to be hung up on that part of the spell's description... notice how it does not say "You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts of your choosing".
For this reason, this spell really needs a revision for clarity, either 'You choose one of the following options for what specific beasts appear, according to the listed criteria', or 'You choose one of the following criteria for what appears, and your GM picks creatures appropriate to that choice'. Which revision to be applied depending on if you want to keep the original structure of the spell, or apply the claimed intent of GM choice.
The spell does not need that revision. Such a revision would eliminate this type of rules discussion. On the other hand, such a revision would turn the opposite choice into a house rule, rather than an explicit DM choice. As it is right now, the DM gets to decide which method to use for choosing the creature(s) that appear: they can decide to pick the creature themselves, they can select it randomly, or they can leave the decision to their players; and all while remaining strictly RAW, without introducing house rules or homebrew content.
Finally, I frankly do not care for your circular logic statement. You say the spell should be revised, then go on to state it could be revised as you interpret it, conflating that with "the original structure of the spell", a fact which not only have you not proved, but has been disproven multiple times, or it could be revised to the "claimed intent of GM choice", using charged language to imply that was not the original intent of the spell, based, apparently, solely on your individual interpretation of it.
4th, do not confuse RAW and claims of intent. RAW is the text itself, devoid of opinions, even those of the staff. SAC is claimed intent (from what I have seen, always presented without any evidence).
Actually SAC can be considered RAW, based on the opening statement in the Official Rulings section of the SAC.
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium ... A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
I did indeed forget about that spell, my mistake. Although, for Conjure Minor Elementals, the rules are similar to (the same as?) the ones for Conjure Animals, in that the caster has the option to pick number and CR.
Fair, but the extent of that is the issue of the thread. To that end, it should be discussed in correct context. Chwinga are CR 0 elementals.
4th, do not confuse RAW and claims of intent. RAW is the text itself, devoid of opinions, even those of the staff. SAC is claimed intent (from what I have seen, always presented without any evidence).
Actually SAC can be considered RAW, based on the opening statement in the Official Rulings section of the SAC.
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium ... A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.
I will point out to both Lyxen and Farling that there are some people on this forum who will never accept SAC as anything more than "advice from a guy on the internet," which makes the argument by some other guy on the internet that it should be ignored truly ironic. But anyway, those people will dismiss wholesale any argument based on SAC because that does not appear in any printing of any books, whereas errata will be included in future book printings.
I'm not sure what WotC has for criteria to make something an errata vs simply an entry into the SAC, but many errata are simply mistakes in the text that needed correcting (wrong die numbers for features, etc) or problem areas that were actually incomprehensible prior to errata (see contagion and its errata).
I'm not sure what WotC has for criteria to make something an errata vs simply an entry into the SAC, but many errata are simply mistakes in the text that needed correcting (wrong die numbers for features, etc) or problem areas that were actually incomprehensible prior to errata (see contagion and its errata).
In general the situation where you need errata is when the existing text is inconsistent with intent, and sage advice is for when the existing text is merely unclear.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As written, there are some decisions that are explicitly up to the caster, and everything else is unspecified. The decisions that are explicitly up to the caster:
@SagaTympana Do not put words in my mouth. I said that he never presents evidence to support the claimed intent, which should be easy given his position, since he would have the authority to look into design notes, prior 5e versions, and any recorded discussions. Heck, given his position, he should have the authority to ensure that the texts he claims intent on are revised to explicitly match that claimed intent.
They've clarified their intent, but they've still left it open to DM's preference, which might be best. It's usually easier/more intuitive to let the player to decide (until it gets too powerful).
My question to those who think the Player should specify: How do you justify the PC knowing about the summoned creatures enough to specify them when casting? Its one thing for beasts and natural creatures, but fey, fiends, or elementals? Unless the PC has a specific history of encounters with these creatures or of study of these creatures there's no way they would know enough to attempt to summon them specifically. Heck, as a DM i didn't even know what a chwinga was until reading threads in these forums, as I don't have that particular sourcebook; so if a player wants to cast the spell and asks for them, 1) I don't have the stats, and 2) even if I did how do you justify a PC knowing about the creature requested?
If a DM wants to allow the players to choose, that's on them, but there has to be a separation of PC knowledge and Meta-knowledge, especially when it comes to power-gaming summoning strategies like these. Personally, I would allow for 1 of the following each time the PC casts the spell: 1) the player determines the summon, but is limited to only creatures the PC has seen or that can be tied to the players backstory (no immediate improv here either), which is similar to a druid's wildshape, or 2) they specify what is explicitly allowed in the spell (location, CR and number, specific creatures mentioned in the spell description, etc) and the DM determines the creature.
@iconarising Honestly, this is why I think they included "The GM has the creature's statistics." As a way to say that what creatures are eligible for the spell are determined by the GM, but of course that sentence has turned out not clear enough.
As for myself, I would say something close to 1). So when the player picks the spell the first time, likely work with them to choose 6-12 beasts (maybe more depending on background) (assuming Conjure Animals) that they would be familiar with (which they keep a list of for future reference), then they can add to that list either by encountering a beast, or by researching it during downtime.
As with many things in 5e, these spells involve conferring with the GM (who allowed the spell in the first place). Any players that fail to do this really should pick a different spell, and if the GM wont confer, the player should either pick a different spell, or a different GM.
Question to those who argue that the GM picks: If the spells were limited to summoning no more than 3 creatures, would you consider it fair for the player to pick specific creatures, barring cases like sprites (think that was the Fey in contention)?
I would actually be tempted to make Conjure Animals produce a random beast that is appropriate to the terrain, using the lists in Xanatar's Guide as a first guess about what is on the list.
Note: player knowledge and PC knowledge might be different. I typically advocate for the Player choosing if the Player has knowledge of the summon creatures (as that's just easier). The PC could certainly easily have knowledge of the existence of various summonable creatures (just from training in their class... indeed, they'd probably be more educated in this area than their Player), but that's less important to me.
What you are suggesting is called meta-gaming, and I don’t support that at my table (nor do the majority of DMs, I would think).
Regarding PC knowledge exceeding player knowledge I agree a PC might know more than a player might, which is why certain skill checks exist. In general though, unless the is an established reason for the knowledge, most level 1 PCs will be very likely to not know the nature of extraplanar creatures, so a campaign will likely contain all the encounters with such creatures and there will be clear precedent for the PC to have that knowledge (or not)
I think you misunderstand: handling those animals efficiently can require a lot of mechanical competence. If a player demonstrates such aptitude, I can rely on them handle more. I play with pretty mature players, so yeah: I trust (and even encourage) my players to handle meta-aspects of the game once they become proficient in the rules.
I'm definitely not concerned about the animal knowledge of a 5th level druid (i.e. minimum required to cast Conjure Animals)
I respect your choices as DM ... but that isn't how the spell actually works.
The spell is "Conjure Animals" in this edition, not "Summon Animals".
"You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range."
You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts. The DM decides the form but because they are fey spirits, the geographical location of the conjuration, the local weather, local species and other factors that might affect a "summoning" spell ... wouldn't necessarily affect a "conjuration" spell that summons fey spirits unless the DM decides to impose some additional wording or decides that the summoned spirits will only take on the form of beasts local to the area. However, that gets into problems if you try to use "Conjure animals" in regions that don't have any appropriate creatures (various planes, various terrain types etc).
It is perfectly ok for a DM to say No to panthers or whatever creature is requested ... but the DM needs to be aware of implications of any reasoning given for that decision, like the creature needs to be native to the region ... this can be very limiting in later circumstances and doesn't actually fit the spell description.
You're misunderstanding my point.
There is no appreciable difference between these things.
None of that is relevant to the rules discussion. The rules are that the player chooses number of creatures and CR. That is the extent of the player decision. My reasons for using one animal over another are personal and not relevant to the rules. I offer them as points of interest and perspective. The DM can be as arbitrary as they want in determining what the caster actually summons. Rather than being arbitrary, I find it useful to have actual reasons. The rule is just "whatever I want."
The DM doesn't need to be aware of anything, because again, the rule is just "whatever the DM's whims spur them toward in that particular moment." My preference is that my whims be sensible. I'd appreciate it if you would be less patronizing toward people who are only talking about the sorts of reasoning they personally use to guide the decisions the rules empower them to make.
Just want to point out that the solution of letting the DM choose is not just a retroactive choice to fix existing "broken" summons, it also prevents future issues.
New monsters will continue to be added to the game for as long as it is in production. Assigning CR to monsters is already a messy business, and having to consider how a new monster could be exploited through any number of spells or features is extremely restrictive - I'm convinced the primary reason the Monstrosity category was created was to differentiate which beasts should be accessible to Wild Shape and which shouldn't. This allowed them to take some liberties with Monstrosities that frankly makes them a lot more interesting than Beasts.
PCs and monsters will just never be on equal footing and that's how it should be. It allows more creative, effective and evocative monster design. The cost of this is that you can't just allow PCs to conjure any monster they want because you will have edge cases that are broken. To allow the cool, weird monsters to exist you must restrict their access. I think this choice makes the best overall 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
Part of the problem with Conjure Animals is that it's balanced to favor swarms that are annoying to deal with on the battlefield; absent things like damaging zones that instantly kills the small stuff, 8x CR 1/4 is by far the most powerful option. To use directly comparable monsters, 8x Wolf is attack +4, damage 56, HP 88, adjusted XP value 1,000; 2x Dire Wolf is attack +5, damage 20, HP 74, adjusted xp 600.
If the options were
there's a lot more reason to use smaller numbers that are less of a hassle to resolve on the battlefield. 5x Wolf is probably still better than 2x Dire Wolf, but at least it's closer.
That's abuse of discretion. Players using the spell as design isn't an abuse, it just means the spell is poorly designed.
It's not like this is limited to Conjure Animals, all the spells that let you create varying numbers of minions are balanced to favor swarms. Animate Objects is ridiculous and includes nothing like the DM discretion that can limit Conjure Animals, because you can just bring your own objects.
I did indeed forget about that spell, my mistake. Although, for Conjure Minor Elementals, the rules are similar to (the same as?) the ones for Conjure Animals, in that the caster has the option to pick number and CR.
It also does not say the player chooses the creature. It also does not say the player's third cousin twice removed chooses the creature. Given no indication of who chooses, it is therefore up to the DM to decide. The DM can decide to let the player choose, certainly. But the rules do not state so, nor do they even hint at it.
The spell descriptions are written as addressing the caster. This is why, for example, Mirror Image says it creates duplicates of "yourself". A sentence stating "Choose one of the following options" indicates the caster chooses. Interpreting that otherwise requires heavy duty mental gymnastics, and ignoring a convention used throughout the rules. Nevertheless, we all agree the caster gets to choose between those options. Nobody is contesting that. On the other hand, very few people insist that being given a choice of number and CR is the same as being given a choice of specific creature, mostly because it simply does not follow.
You accuse me of confusion options with criteria. You seem to believe that exclusive options somehow include more than they state, which I find very odd. The player is given a choice of options, they pick one, end of story. Nowhere is it stated that after picking an option, they get to pick a creature based on the criteria established by their option. You seem to think that given the spell description ("you summon fey spirits..."), the player should -- no, must get to choose which fey spirits are summoned. Why you think that is beyond me. If a creature casts the spell, the player picks an option, and the GM picks or randomly selects a creature that fits that option's criteria, how is "you summon fey spirits" not fulfilled? Since you seem to be hung up on that part of the spell's description... notice how it does not say "You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts of your choosing".
The spell does not need that revision. Such a revision would eliminate this type of rules discussion. On the other hand, such a revision would turn the opposite choice into a house rule, rather than an explicit DM choice. As it is right now, the DM gets to decide which method to use for choosing the creature(s) that appear: they can decide to pick the creature themselves, they can select it randomly, or they can leave the decision to their players; and all while remaining strictly RAW, without introducing house rules or homebrew content.
Finally, I frankly do not care for your circular logic statement. You say the spell should be revised, then go on to state it could be revised as you interpret it, conflating that with "the original structure of the spell", a fact which not only have you not proved, but has been disproven multiple times, or it could be revised to the "claimed intent of GM choice", using charged language to imply that was not the original intent of the spell, based, apparently, solely on your individual interpretation of it.
Actually SAC can be considered RAW, based on the opening statement in the Official Rulings section of the SAC.
Fair, but the extent of that is the issue of the thread. To that end, it should be discussed in correct context. Chwinga are CR 0 elementals.
I will point out to both Lyxen and Farling that there are some people on this forum who will never accept SAC as anything more than "advice from a guy on the internet," which makes the argument by some other guy on the internet that it should be ignored truly ironic. But anyway, those people will dismiss wholesale any argument based on SAC because that does not appear in any printing of any books, whereas errata will be included in future book printings.
I'm not sure what WotC has for criteria to make something an errata vs simply an entry into the SAC, but many errata are simply mistakes in the text that needed correcting (wrong die numbers for features, etc) or problem areas that were actually incomprehensible prior to errata (see contagion and its errata).
In general the situation where you need errata is when the existing text is inconsistent with intent, and sage advice is for when the existing text is merely unclear.