Saying the DM has the stats basically is not saying the Dm will decide.
Not by itself, no. But when the spell says the following things in combination: A) Player chooses CR and thus number of monsters (end of statements regard what the player is in control of choosing); B) The DM has the statistics.
You reach a point where there is an implication that could go either way - the text might be read as the player choosing what they summon,or as the DM choosing because they are answering the player's choice of "I summon 8 creatures of CR 1/4" with "here's the stats for sprite" rather than what the player was hoping to get.
How do we figure out which implication to have be actually the case? We either decide what works for our group regardless of what the guy in charge of the rules says on the matter, or we decide what works for our group after weighing the guy in charge of the rules' commentary on what the intended process was. And in a game like D&D, where the rules are phrased to tell a player what they can do rather than what they can't, the spell not saying explicitly that the player gets to choose the exact creature(s) summoned is usually all it takes for someone to see that the player isn't meant to be making that choice (Note: I as a DM fully support allowing your players to choose, and I do that myself; it makes it easier for me to DM because the player can open the Monster Manual to the page for the creature summoned and reference it themself rather than me having to add one more thing to keep track of to my already inherently larger pile - plus 5th edition isn't so fragile as to be broken by a spell even if that spell is used to summon pixies that are operating at maximum potential).
But where is that in the rules? Under the spell description it does not state that the Dm decides.
Granted it doesn't explicitly state that the PCs decide either beyond the "a woodland being of cr..." but I think a natural reading would indicate the pc decides.
It's in the part where Jeremy Crawford (the guy who makes the rules) stated it as such:
When you cast a spell like conjure woodland beings, does the spellcaster or the DM choose the creatures that are conjured?
A number of spells in the game let you summon creatures. Conjure animals, conjure celestial, conjure minor elementals, and conjure woodland beings are just a few examples. Some spells of this sort specify that the spellcaster chooses the creature conjured. For example, find familiar gives the caster a list of animals to choose from. Other spells of this sort let the spellcaster choose from among several broad options. For example, conjure minor elementals offers four options. Here are the first two: • One elemental of challenge rating 2 or lower • Two elementals of challenge rating 1 or lower The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option. For example, if you pick the second option, the DM chooses the two elementals that have a challenge rating of 1 or lower. A spellcaster can certainly express a preference for what creatures shows up, but it’s up to the DM to determine if they do. The DM will often choose creatures that are appropriate for the campaign and that will be fun to introduce in a scene?
Well that's lame. You could say "1 up to CR 2 creature" and the dm just gives you a mouse. "Hey, CR 0 is up to CR 2!"
What Crawford says is irrelevant unless it is written in the rule book. No where in the rules does it say that the DM decides which creature is summoned. It says you summon a creature with a certain CR which clearly implies you the caster determines which creature is summoned.
Also the OP clearly took this as what the rules state (as well as a lot of other people) since asking staring the spell was overpowered.
Crawford even has to state "the design intent was" which indicates they failed to convey that in the rules.
Even awake seems to indicate a position of the rules indicating the PC decides by stating it was "subject to a nerf" which indicates the rule was changed.
What Crawford says in Sage Advice is as much a part of the official rules as anything in any book. If you were to play any official game, that would be the rule. So what exactly is your argument? That if it's not in a book, then it isn't a rule? What if you had an older edition and someone else has an errata-corrected edition. Would the older edition be equally as official?
Does the errata not matter if it's not in a book? Or is it just Sage Advice that you don't count?
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
I'm not really a fan of changes to the rules after the initial printing as that just gets confusing and usually the answer is always the book the Dm has in front of them not any other book and not the errata they would have to keep searching for. So generally speaking your typical game is going to go by the book the Dm has.
Official games clearly wouldn't always go by sage advice. Especially when you have Mearls and Crawford disagreeing with each other.
Errata and Sage Advice are two different things, but both official (those documents are both published in the official website). While the Errata is a mistake or a missing wording in earlier printings, the Sage Advice is a collection of clarification for the rules.
Also the tweets are different. JC always gives answers in those tweets always for the official intention of the rules. MM sometimes says "I would allow it", meaning that he gives not the rule as intended but his personal feeling as DM.
Mearls and Perkins have stated multiple times that only Crawford's answers are official. So them disagreeing wouldn't matter. Again, any Crawford Sage Advice IS official, whether you are "a fan" of it or not.
The second it became an official ruling is the second this whole discussion stopped mattering. It's not overpowered, because it's not a viable combo per the official rules. If you want to ignore the official rules, then anything can be overpowered. I can house rule that rogues always sneak attack, that paladins' smiting doesn't use up spell slots, and wizards start with 9th level spell slots. That doesn't mean that the official rules allow it (no matter where the official rules happen to be).
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
But where is that in the rules? Under the spell description it does not state that the Dm decides.
Granted it doesn't explicitly state that the PCs decide either beyond the "a woodland being of cr..." but I think a natural reading would indicate the pc decides.
It's in the part where Jeremy Crawford (the guy who makes the rules) stated it as such:
When you cast a spell like conjure woodland beings, does the spellcaster or the DM choose the creatures that are conjured?
A number of spells in the game let you summon creatures. Conjure animals, conjure celestial, conjure minor elementals, and conjure woodland beings are just a few examples. Some spells of this sort specify that the spellcaster chooses the creature conjured. For example, find familiar gives the caster a list of animals to choose from. Other spells of this sort let the spellcaster choose from among several broad options. For example, conjure minor elementals offers four options. Here are the first two: • One elemental of challenge rating 2 or lower • Two elementals of challenge rating 1 or lower The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option. For example, if you pick the second option, the DM chooses the two elementals that have a challenge rating of 1 or lower. A spellcaster can certainly express a preference for what creatures shows up, but it’s up to the DM to determine if they do. The DM will often choose creatures that are appropriate for the campaign and that will be fun to introduce in a scene?
Well that's lame. You could say "1 up to CR 2 creature" and the dm just gives you a mouse. "Hey, CR 0 is up to CR 2!"
I mean, they could do that, but if they do that you probably don't want to play with them anymore, because they are a bad DM.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
If Crawford mattered at all later printings would not contradict him. Clearly there is someone over his head in charge of rule clarifications other than him in the final printed product.
Also its not like everyone in the world goes and downloads sage advice and all the answers to have in a game.
Odds are unless your Dm is super into following every word Crawford says, odds are at your game table and at official events, what's written in the printing of the book the dm has is going to matter a lot more.
Biggest problem is with later printings contradicting what Crawford publishes in sage advice. And those times it seems Crawford hasn't actually read the rulebook.
If Crawford mattered at all later printings would not contradict him. Clearly there is someone over his head in charge of rule clarifications other than him in the final printed product.
Also its not like everyone in the world goes and downloads sage advice and all the answers to have in a game.
Odds are unless your Dm is super into following every word Crawford says, odds are at your game table and at official events, what's written in the printing of the book the dm has is going to matter a lot more.
Later printings contradict Crawford???? Not true at all.
Again, Sage Advice is not about changing previous rules, they are clarifications.
They do. Crawford said that a long rest doesn't require sleep however according to the latest printing of the rules a long rest does require sleep. What's worse is Crawford seems to think that wasn't a substantial change to the rules even though he ruled it differently.
Well that's lame. You could say "1 up to CR 2 creature" and the dm just gives you a mouse. "Hey, CR 0 is up to CR 2!"
The rules of 5th edition don't waste the time and effort of trying to jerk-proof themselves because jerks will find a way to be jerks no matter what the rules are. So while I agree that it would be lame for a player to pick one creature of CR 2 or lower and the DM to provide them only the "or lower", I don't agree that it is the rules that are the problem - a non-jerk DM would use the "or lower" as a means to insert a more helpful (given the situation) or more interesting (given the current course of narrative) monster, or to insert the highest CR actually available (given the campaign setting and the monsters the DM has for use), rather than slavishly sticking to only CR 2 and giving the player a "nothing shows up" result if they pick a CR that isn't actually an option (given the above details).
Well that's lame. You could say "1 up to CR 2 creature" and the dm just gives you a mouse. "Hey, CR 0 is up to CR 2!"
The rules of 5th edition don't waste the time and effort of trying to jerk-proof themselves because jerks will find a way to be jerks no matter what the rules are. So while I agree that it would be lame for a player to pick one creature of CR 2 or lower and the DM to provide them only the "or lower", I don't agree that it is the rules that are the problem - a non-jerk DM would use the "or lower" as a means to insert a more helpful (given the situation) or more interesting (given the current course of narrative) monster, or to insert the highest CR actually available (given the campaign setting and the monsters the DM has for use), rather than slavishly sticking to only CR 2 and giving the player a "nothing shows up" result if they pick a CR that isn't actually an option (given the above details).
They're magical conjurations, so it's not like they need to be creatures that would normally be in the area. I could see limiting it to "only creatures from the monster manual, no volo's guide" if the DM doesn't have a copy of Volo's, but the DM picking for you what they want rather than what you want is still kind of lame.
...but the DM picking for you what they want rather than what you want is still kind of lame.
Not unless the group is playing in the DM vs. the Players, rather than the assumed DM and Players working together toward the goal of a fun time, way.
I.e. it's not lame if your buddy Jerry always picks the movie for movie night, because Jerry knows what kind of movies you like and is trying to make movie night fun. Jerry just happens to be the one picking because he's really into movies and is probably also the one organizing and hosting movie nights too as a result.
Except for apparently in this case Pixie is the fun result anything else is the lame not fun result.
The options are Pixie or Blink Dog or a combination of the two. (at least as far as what the SRD has)
It's basically does the DM give you want you want that would make his life harder or does he give you Blink Dogs and makes you feel like you wasted the spell for some dogs.
There isnt a third option that the Pc didn't know about that would be more helpful than the pixies.
The only possible exception is if the DM runs the blink dogs expertly. But a player who really wanted to polymorph the party may still feel cheated.
The player may have even have used it as a way to save the cleric at one hp but not getting the pixies makes the spell wasted.
If you are a dm on the players side you let the players pick. If there is a better option let them know but still give them the final choice of what shows up.
Except for apparently in this case Pixie is the fun result anything else is the lame not fun result.
The options are Pixie or Blink Dog or a combination of the two. (at least as far as what the SRD has)
It's basically does the DM give you want you want that would make his life harder or does he give you Blink Dogs and makes you feel like you wasted the spell for some dogs.
There isnt a third option that the Pc didn't know about that would be more helpful than the pixies.
The only possible exception is if the DM runs the blink dogs expertly. But a player who really wanted to polymorph the party may still feel cheated.
The player may have even have used it as a way to save the cleric at one hp but not getting the pixies makes the spell wasted.
If you are a dm on the players side you let the players pick. If there is a better option let them know but still give them the final choice of what shows up.
The idea that anything else is lame shows a lack of ingenuity. Literally any combination of viable creatures is/can be useful.
Both the Conjure spell and the Polymorph spell are 4th level spells. The idea that you can have a single 4th level spell apply 8 different 4th level concentration spells is not only OK but also a blatant misuse of the intention of the spell. So, if that is the only reason for taking the spell, then you deserve to feel cheated when the DM decides to give you something more reasonable.
If ignoring the official rules is the only way to "save the cleric at one hit point" then the DM might choose to do it. But the idea that you know you have 8 4th level spells automatically available to you for a single spell slot is beyond the point of absurdity, and shouldn't be able to be relied on.
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Your point was to work toward a fun time. Clearly the players idea of fun is using the spell to summon pixies to do something absurd. But the rules allow that.
The Dm could always have blink dogs show up, but that's not letting the player have their fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
That's absolutely the problem with the DM deciding. They aren't going to always let you have anything that might be extra helpful.
I'm not really a fan of changes to the rules after the initial printing as that just gets confusing and usually the answer is always the book the Dm has in front of them not any other book and not the errata they would have to keep searching for. So generally speaking your typical game is going to go by the book the Dm has.
Official games clearly wouldn't always go by sage advice. Especially when you have Mearls and Crawford disagreeing with each other.
Errata and Sage Advice are two different things, but both official (those documents are both published in the official website). While the Errata is a mistake or a missing wording in earlier printings, the Sage Advice is a collection of clarification for the rules.
Also the tweets are different. JC always gives answers in those tweets always for the official intention of the rules. MM sometimes says "I would allow it", meaning that he gives not the rule as intended but his personal feeling as DM.
Mearls and Perkins have stated multiple times that only Crawford's answers are official. So them disagreeing wouldn't matter. Again, any Crawford Sage Advice IS official, whether you are "a fan" of it or not.
The second it became an official ruling is the second this whole discussion stopped mattering. It's not overpowered, because it's not a viable combo per the official rules. If you want to ignore the official rules, then anything can be overpowered. I can house rule that rogues always sneak attack, that paladins' smiting doesn't use up spell slots, and wizards start with 9th level spell slots. That doesn't mean that the official rules allow it (no matter where the official rules happen to be).
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
If Crawford mattered at all later printings would not contradict him. Clearly there is someone over his head in charge of rule clarifications other than him in the final printed product.
Also its not like everyone in the world goes and downloads sage advice and all the answers to have in a game.
Odds are unless your Dm is super into following every word Crawford says, odds are at your game table and at official events, what's written in the printing of the book the dm has is going to matter a lot more.
Biggest problem is with later printings contradicting what Crawford publishes in sage advice. And those times it seems Crawford hasn't actually read the rulebook.
They do. Crawford said that a long rest doesn't require sleep however according to the latest printing of the rules a long rest does require sleep. What's worse is Crawford seems to think that wasn't a substantial change to the rules even though he ruled it differently.
Again not true. Neither in the Sage Advice compendium nor in tweets JC changes his mind about the long rest:
http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SA-Compendium.pdf
https://twitter.com/search?q=jeremyecrawford long rest sleep&src=typd
It has been an errata, that is true. But an errata is a mistake in the wording and has been corrected.
Except for apparently in this case Pixie is the fun result anything else is the lame not fun result.
The options are Pixie or Blink Dog or a combination of the two. (at least as far as what the SRD has)
It's basically does the DM give you want you want that would make his life harder or does he give you Blink Dogs and makes you feel like you wasted the spell for some dogs.
There isnt a third option that the Pc didn't know about that would be more helpful than the pixies.
The only possible exception is if the DM runs the blink dogs expertly. But a player who really wanted to polymorph the party may still feel cheated.
The player may have even have used it as a way to save the cleric at one hp but not getting the pixies makes the spell wasted.
If you are a dm on the players side you let the players pick. If there is a better option let them know but still give them the final choice of what shows up.
Click Here to Download my Lancer Class w/ Dragoon and Legionnaire Archetypes via DM's Guild - Pay What You Want
Click Here to Download the Mind Flayer: Thoon Hulk converted from 4e via DM's Guild
“It is a better world. A place where we are responsible for our actions, where we can be kind to one another because we want to and because it is the right thing to do instead of being frightened into behaving by the threat of divine punishment.” ― Oramis, Eldest by Christopher Paolini.
Your point was to work toward a fun time. Clearly the players idea of fun is using the spell to summon pixies to do something absurd. But the rules allow that.
The Dm could always have blink dogs show up, but that's not letting the player have their fun.