Ya know, people are comparing the Conjure spells that summon hoards of minor critters. How about we compare them to the Conjure Fey spell, that only gets one critter, instead of Conjure Minor Fey and Conjure Beasts? Or Conjure Elemental instead of Conjure Minor Elementals?
Lets be fair here. 5e's bounded accuracy very much gives more power to monster swarms, barring the use of AoEs, traps, or breaking Concentration, at which point the tiny swarms are easily wiped out. The more you can break the action economy in your favor, the better you are. No question about it.
So, lets compare the Summon spells to the Conjure spells that only summon one critter and compare those. That's equal.
Ya know, people are comparing the Conjure spells that summon hoards of minor critters. How about we compare them to the Conjure Fey spell, that only gets one critter, instead of Conjure Minor Fey and Conjure Beasts? Or Conjure Elemental instead of Conjure Minor Elementals?
Lets be fair here. 5e's bounded accuracy very much gives more power to monster swarms, barring the use of AoEs, traps, or breaking Concentration, at which point the tiny swarms are easily wiped out. The more you can break the action economy in your favor, the better you are. No question about it.
So, lets compare the Summon spells to the Conjure spells that only summon one critter and compare those. That's equal.
Well, that assumes people want to cast them. However, the short answer is that the Summon spells have better level scaling, so at level 4-5 they have similar damage output but the Conjure spells have a lot more hit points, at level 6+ the Summon spells have superior damage output but the Conjures have superior toughness (this is rarely relevant, as killing summons is usually a waste of time).
I prefer a Conjure which does more damage than other spells of its level, but which you can lose control of. Conjuration should feel very “Constantine” - risky but powerful. Else-wise, they are boring and flavorless.
And the creatures you summon shouldn’t feel as generic as the Tasha’s spells do. I swear, Tasha’s summons feel like condiment cheese, as if they were written by a 4e developer.
I do support the idea of limiting summoning a lot of creatures. I’ve got no problem with a spell that summons 8 creatures, but they shouldn’t be able to do anything but move and help and they die after one hit.
I prefer a Conjure which does more damage than other spells of its level, but which you can lose control of. Conjuration should feel very “Constantine” - risky but powerful. Else-wise, they are boring and flavorless.
And the creatures you summon shouldn’t feel as generic as the Tasha’s spells do. I swear, Tasha’s summons feel like condiment cheese, as if they were written by a 4e developer.
I do support the idea of limiting summoning a lot of creatures. I’ve got no problem with a spell that summons 8 creatures, but they shouldn’t be able to do anything but move and help and they die after one hit.
Yeah that's ultimately my problem with the Conjure Spells is that they punch so damn hard because of action economy. You don't have to do much damage if there's 8 of them doing it. It's just that certain classes need them to keep up in damage output at higher levels so the summons seems weak by comparison. They do just fine in the damage department but since it's less than conjure it's seen as worse when in reality the conjure spells were stupid stronk to begin with
8 wolves do the most damage. True. But 2 brown bears or 4 warhorses do "enough damage" to put ranger's total damage output right in line with a level 11+ paladin or fighter, so that should "be enough" damage without ruining the game for others. As mentioned in other threads, there are mob rules in the DMG, and taking average damage for the beasts is always faster, WAY faster than rolling all those dice. One of the greatest thing about the conjure animals though is the utility. Mounts of the land, sea, or air, furry shields, grappling and restraining, even just outright deterrence. A giant constrictor snake is really fun!
All well and good to theorise what might turn up, but the DM gets to choose what turns up so you can't rely on getting what you were hoping for.
8 wolves do the most damage. True. But 2 brown bears or 4 warhorses do "enough damage" to put ranger's total damage output right in line with a level 11+ paladin or fighter, so that should "be enough" damage without ruining the game for others. As mentioned in other threads, there are mob rules in the DMG, and taking average damage for the beasts is always faster, WAY faster than rolling all those dice. One of the greatest thing about the conjure animals though is the utility. Mounts of the land, sea, or air, furry shields, grappling and restraining, even just outright deterrence. A giant constrictor snake is really fun!
All well and good to theorise what might turn up, but the DM gets to choose what turns up so you can't rely on getting what you were hoping for.
Since when does the DM decide what the spell provides? That's not in the spell description for conjure animals. It says the spellcaster chooses. And the conjured creatures aren't necessarily native to wherever you are. They're not mere beasts; they're fey.
8 wolves do the most damage. True. But 2 brown bears or 4 warhorses do "enough damage" to put ranger's total damage output right in line with a level 11+ paladin or fighter, so that should "be enough" damage without ruining the game for others. As mentioned in other threads, there are mob rules in the DMG, and taking average damage for the beasts is always faster, WAY faster than rolling all those dice. One of the greatest thing about the conjure animals though is the utility. Mounts of the land, sea, or air, furry shields, grappling and restraining, even just outright deterrence. A giant constrictor snake is really fun!
All well and good to theorise what might turn up, but the DM gets to choose what turns up so you can't rely on getting what you were hoping for.
Since when does the DM decide what the spell provides? That's not in the spell description for conjure animals. It says the spellcaster chooses.
The spellcaster chooses the number summoned. The spell is silent on who chooses what creatures actually arrive.
Also Druid and Ranger rely on Conjure Spells for damage output past level 11.
I want to second that, balance wise, the conjure spells are what the druids and rangers rely on for damage output, at least in terms of using their spells to fuel their damage output. And the official sage advice compendium (not some silly tweet or interview) does say the DM decides what is conjured after the caster chooses the CR level. But: 1: That official sage advice is in there 99% because of that damned pixie nonsense (they even use conjure woodland beings as the example spell). 2. Any reasonable DM should let any reasonable player choose what is summoned. 3. Just about anything from each of those CR categories will be awesome, because of the action economy. Unless the DM picks salmon or something.
Ya know, people are comparing the Conjure spells that summon hoards of minor critters. How about we compare them to the Conjure Fey spell, that only gets one critter, instead of Conjure Minor Fey and Conjure Beasts? Or Conjure Elemental instead of Conjure Minor Elementals?
Lets be fair here. 5e's bounded accuracy very much gives more power to monster swarms, barring the use of AoEs, traps, or breaking Concentration, at which point the tiny swarms are easily wiped out. The more you can break the action economy in your favor, the better you are. No question about it.
So, lets compare the Summon spells to the Conjure spells that only summon one critter and compare those. That's equal. He
Also Druid and Ranger rely on Conjure Spells for damage output past level 11.
I’m not convinced that that’s true. Druids don’t even have a Conjure / Summon spell past level 6. Further, your statement seems to be based on theorycrafting, not actual practice. It seems to be based on the assumption that the GM isn’t an intelligent entity capable of responding to a player’s gimmick. There are simply too many things that render a zergling attack useless (AoE, even in some cases simply flying).
Ya know, people are comparing the Conjure spells that summon hoards of minor critters. How about we compare them to the Conjure Fey spell, that only gets one critter, instead of Conjure Minor Fey and Conjure Beasts? Or Conjure Elemental instead of Conjure Minor Elementals?
Lets be fair here. 5e's bounded accuracy very much gives more power to monster swarms, barring the use of AoEs, traps, or breaking Concentration, at which point the tiny swarms are easily wiped out. The more you can break the action economy in your favor, the better you are. No question about it.
So, lets compare the Summon spells to the Conjure spells that only summon one critter and compare those. That's equal. He
Also Druid and Ranger rely on Conjure Spells for damage output past level 11.
I’m not convinced that that’s true. Druids don’t even have a Conjure / Summon spell past level 6. Further, your statement seems to be based on theorycrafting, not actual practice. It seems to be based on the assumption that the GM isn’t an intelligent entity capable of responding to a player’s gimmick. There are simply too many things that render a zergling attack useless (AoE, even in some cases simply flying).
Ya know, people are comparing the Conjure spells that summon hoards of minor critters. How about we compare them to the Conjure Fey spell, that only gets one critter, instead of Conjure Minor Fey and Conjure Beasts? Or Conjure Elemental instead of Conjure Minor Elementals?
Lets be fair here. 5e's bounded accuracy very much gives more power to monster swarms, barring the use of AoEs, traps, or breaking Concentration, at which point the tiny swarms are easily wiped out. The more you can break the action economy in your favor, the better you are. No question about it.
So, lets compare the Summon spells to the Conjure spells that only summon one critter and compare those. That's equal. He
Also Druid and Ranger rely on Conjure Spells for damage output past level 11.
I’m not convinced that that’s true. Druids don’t even have a Conjure / Summon spell past level 6. Further, your statement seems to be based on theorycrafting, not actual practice. It seems to be based on the assumption that the GM isn’t an intelligent entity capable of responding to a player’s gimmick. There are simply too many things that render a zergling attack useless (AoE, even in some cases simply flying).
Ya know, people are comparing the Conjure spells that summon hoards of minor critters. How about we compare them to the Conjure Fey spell, that only gets one critter, instead of Conjure Minor Fey and Conjure Beasts? Or Conjure Elemental instead of Conjure Minor Elementals?
Lets be fair here. 5e's bounded accuracy very much gives more power to monster swarms, barring the use of AoEs, traps, or breaking Concentration, at which point the tiny swarms are easily wiped out. The more you can break the action economy in your favor, the better you are. No question about it.
So, lets compare the Summon spells to the Conjure spells that only summon one critter and compare those. That's equal. He
Also Druid and Ranger rely on Conjure Spells for damage output past level 11.
I’m not convinced that that’s true. Druids don’t even have a Conjure / Summon spell past level 6. Further, your statement seems to be based on theorycrafting, not actual practice. It seems to be based on the assumption that the GM isn’t an intelligent entity capable of responding to a player’s gimmick. There are simply too many things that render a zergling attack useless (AoE, even in some cases simply flying).
Your link shows the highest level Conjure / Summoning to be Conjure Fey which, as I said, is 6th level.
You're right Druid actually requires it earlier than level 11 but the thing is they keep getting conjure spells and have an entire subclass that is dedicated to beefing up conjure spells.
Also upcasting goes a long way as you get a shit ton of creatures with higher slots.
Using a 5th level slot gets you 16 wolves which is insanely good DPR and it's also your best use of a 5th level slot for pure damage and it's not even close.
8 wolves do the most damage. True. But 2 brown bears or 4 warhorses do "enough damage" to put ranger's total damage output right in line with a level 11+ paladin or fighter, so that should "be enough" damage without ruining the game for others. As mentioned in other threads, there are mob rules in the DMG, and taking average damage for the beasts is always faster, WAY faster than rolling all those dice. One of the greatest thing about the conjure animals though is the utility. Mounts of the land, sea, or air, furry shields, grappling and restraining, even just outright deterrence. A giant constrictor snake is really fun!
All well and good to theorise what might turn up, but the DM gets to choose what turns up so you can't rely on getting what you were hoping for.
Since when does the DM decide what the spell provides? That's not in the spell description for conjure animals. It says the spellcaster chooses.
The spellcaster chooses the number summoned. The spell is silent on who chooses what creatures actually arrive.
You can't honestly be this pedantic. I mean, I'm pedantic and even I think this is obvious.
Is the spellcaster just saying, "Give me [X] beast(s), I'm good"? Or are they saying, "I'm choosing these [X] beasts"?
Ya know, people are comparing the Conjure spells that summon hoards of minor critters. How about we compare them to the Conjure Fey spell, that only gets one critter, instead of Conjure Minor Fey and Conjure Beasts? Or Conjure Elemental instead of Conjure Minor Elementals?
Lets be fair here. 5e's bounded accuracy very much gives more power to monster swarms, barring the use of AoEs, traps, or breaking Concentration, at which point the tiny swarms are easily wiped out. The more you can break the action economy in your favor, the better you are. No question about it.
So, lets compare the Summon spells to the Conjure spells that only summon one critter and compare those. That's equal. He
Also Druid and Ranger rely on Conjure Spells for damage output past level 11.
I’m not convinced that that’s true. Druids don’t even have a Conjure / Summon spell past level 6. Further, your statement seems to be based on theorycrafting, not actual practice. It seems to be based on the assumption that the GM isn’t an intelligent entity capable of responding to a player’s gimmick. There are simply too many things that render a zergling attack useless (AoE, even in some cases simply flying).
Your link shows the highest level Conjure / Summoning to be Conjure Fey which, as I said, is 6th level.
You're right Druid actually requires it earlier than level 11 but the thing is they keep getting conjure spells and have an entire subclass that is dedicated to beefing up conjure spells.
Also upcasting goes a long way as you get a shit ton of creatures with higher slots.
Using a 5th level slot gets you 16 wolves which is insanely good DPR and it's also your best use of a 5th level slot for pure damage and it's not even close.
I hate theorycrafting. It seems so utterly pointless to me. If your claim is that Druids are so powerful because they can liter the map with 16 little guys, I, as a GM, am going to respond with a few AoEs so that the rest of the players don’t have to waste time dreaming up new ways of making you eat your dice bag.
Ya know, people are comparing the Conjure spells that summon hoards of minor critters. How about we compare them to the Conjure Fey spell, that only gets one critter, instead of Conjure Minor Fey and Conjure Beasts? Or Conjure Elemental instead of Conjure Minor Elementals?
Lets be fair here. 5e's bounded accuracy very much gives more power to monster swarms, barring the use of AoEs, traps, or breaking Concentration, at which point the tiny swarms are easily wiped out. The more you can break the action economy in your favor, the better you are. No question about it.
So, lets compare the Summon spells to the Conjure spells that only summon one critter and compare those. That's equal. He
Also Druid and Ranger rely on Conjure Spells for damage output past level 11.
I’m not convinced that that’s true. Druids don’t even have a Conjure / Summon spell past level 6. Further, your statement seems to be based on theorycrafting, not actual practice. It seems to be based on the assumption that the GM isn’t an intelligent entity capable of responding to a player’s gimmick. There are simply too many things that render a zergling attack useless (AoE, even in some cases simply flying).
Your link shows the highest level Conjure / Summoning to be Conjure Fey which, as I said, is 6th level.
You're right Druid actually requires it earlier than level 11 but the thing is they keep getting conjure spells and have an entire subclass that is dedicated to beefing up conjure spells.
Also upcasting goes a long way as you get a shit ton of creatures with higher slots.
Using a 5th level slot gets you 16 wolves which is insanely good DPR and it's also your best use of a 5th level slot for pure damage and it's not even close.
I hate theorycrafting. It seems so utterly pointless to me. If your claim is that Druids are so powerful because they can liter the map with 16 little guys, I, as a GM, am going to respond with a few AoEs so that the rest of the players don’t have to waste time dreaming up new ways of making you eat your dice bag.
This is exactly my point.... The conjure spells are extremely powerful but also clutter everything up. I think the new summons are a lot less clunky.
Also AoE on yourself is perfectly fine by me!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ya know, people are comparing the Conjure spells that summon hoards of minor critters. How about we compare them to the Conjure Fey spell, that only gets one critter, instead of Conjure Minor Fey and Conjure Beasts? Or Conjure Elemental instead of Conjure Minor Elementals?
Lets be fair here. 5e's bounded accuracy very much gives more power to monster swarms, barring the use of AoEs, traps, or breaking Concentration, at which point the tiny swarms are easily wiped out. The more you can break the action economy in your favor, the better you are. No question about it.
So, lets compare the Summon spells to the Conjure spells that only summon one critter and compare those. That's equal.
How about one CR 2 beast used a comparison?
Well, that assumes people want to cast them. However, the short answer is that the Summon spells have better level scaling, so at level 4-5 they have similar damage output but the Conjure spells have a lot more hit points, at level 6+ the Summon spells have superior damage output but the Conjures have superior toughness (this is rarely relevant, as killing summons is usually a waste of time).
I prefer a Conjure which does more damage than other spells of its level, but which you can lose control of. Conjuration should feel very “Constantine” - risky but powerful. Else-wise, they are boring and flavorless.
And the creatures you summon shouldn’t feel as generic as the Tasha’s spells do. I swear, Tasha’s summons feel like condiment cheese, as if they were written by a 4e developer.
I do support the idea of limiting summoning a lot of creatures. I’ve got no problem with a spell that summons 8 creatures, but they shouldn’t be able to do anything but move and help and they die after one hit.
Yeah that's ultimately my problem with the Conjure Spells is that they punch so damn hard because of action economy. You don't have to do much damage if there's 8 of them doing it. It's just that certain classes need them to keep up in damage output at higher levels so the summons seems weak by comparison. They do just fine in the damage department but since it's less than conjure it's seen as worse when in reality the conjure spells were stupid stronk to begin with
Which classes would those be?
All well and good to theorise what might turn up, but the DM gets to choose what turns up so you can't rely on getting what you were hoping for.
Since when does the DM decide what the spell provides? That's not in the spell description for conjure animals. It says the spellcaster chooses. And the conjured creatures aren't necessarily native to wherever you are. They're not mere beasts; they're fey.
The Sage Advice ays DM chooses. You just pick how many and the DM picks "up to CR"... So it can be a lower CR.
Source: http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium_1.02.pdf
Also Druid and Ranger rely on Conjure Spells for damage output past level 11.
The spellcaster chooses the number summoned. The spell is silent on who chooses what creatures actually arrive.
I want to second that, balance wise, the conjure spells are what the druids and rangers rely on for damage output, at least in terms of using their spells to fuel their damage output. And the official sage advice compendium (not some silly tweet or interview) does say the DM decides what is conjured after the caster chooses the CR level. But: 1: That official sage advice is in there 99% because of that damned pixie nonsense (they even use conjure woodland beings as the example spell). 2. Any reasonable DM should let any reasonable player choose what is summoned. 3. Just about anything from each of those CR categories will be awesome, because of the action economy. Unless the DM picks salmon or something.
I’m not convinced that that’s true. Druids don’t even have a Conjure / Summon spell past level 6. Further, your statement seems to be based on theorycrafting, not actual practice. It seems to be based on the assumption that the GM isn’t an intelligent entity capable of responding to a player’s gimmick. There are simply too many things that render a zergling attack useless (AoE, even in some cases simply flying).
.... What are you talking about?
Druids for sure have more : http://imgur.com/a/C2hwBK7
Your link shows the highest level Conjure / Summoning to be Conjure Fey which, as I said, is 6th level.
Since when is using a spell on a class spell list a gimmick that the DM has to respond to in some kind of adversarial way?
You're right Druid actually requires it earlier than level 11 but the thing is they keep getting conjure spells and have an entire subclass that is dedicated to beefing up conjure spells.
Also upcasting goes a long way as you get a shit ton of creatures with higher slots.
Using a 5th level slot gets you 16 wolves which is insanely good DPR and it's also your best use of a 5th level slot for pure damage and it's not even close.
You can't honestly be this pedantic. I mean, I'm pedantic and even I think this is obvious.
Is the spellcaster just saying, "Give me [X] beast(s), I'm good"? Or are they saying, "I'm choosing these [X] beasts"?
Of course, they get to choose.
I hate theorycrafting. It seems so utterly pointless to me. If your claim is that Druids are so powerful because they can liter the map with 16 little guys, I, as a GM, am going to respond with a few AoEs so that the rest of the players don’t have to waste time dreaming up new ways of making you eat your dice bag.
Everyone knows the best use of conjure animals is getting crocodile mounts for your party.
This is exactly my point.... The conjure spells are extremely powerful but also clutter everything up. I think the new summons are a lot less clunky.
Also AoE on yourself is perfectly fine by me!