I found the summoned shadow's speed penalty the most useful, but only because we have two more speed reducing auras in or party. We were recently fighting neogi and their umber hulks and the ability to pin them down and stop them from burrowing past our frontline is priceless.
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.
The problem of conjuring swarms of chaff is that they have terrible attack bonuses. Sure, those giant badgers pump out 16 attacks but how many of them would hit an AC 18-21 monster? How much would it hurt when everything is resistant or immune to non-magical damage?
one's turn is 5 to 10 times as long as any other player.
That one is actually very easy top fix if you play in RD20 like most people tend in online groups. We have macrosses for mass-rolling attacks and damage on every mass-summonable monster. It requires the DM to disclose the AC of whatever is attacked, but beats spending 5 minutes on one turn.
There are indeed ways to mass-roll, but unfortunately:
Playing the summoned monsters also means moving them and verifying the moves and positions.
Installing macros is often annoying, buggy, and requires even more configuration, when some players have trouble even using simple commands of VTTs
Minor, but why should the AC be disclosed ?
Rolling for damage is one thing, applying it is another one
It's worse for example with wolves which trip, because of course the annoying summoner will ask to roll one by one to check whether a trip occurs so that the remaining wolves will have advantage on their attack. And I'm not even speaking of the centipede's poison, etc.
So no, there are simple fixes, supported by SAC and a reasonable DM and this is why I welcome Tasha's summons.
- Mass moving is also easy - RD20 have in-built macross functionality on teh third tab of every monster profile. If you have even rudimantary knowladge of programmin g writing a macross is an easy 5-minute job, and once you did it copy-pasting it to another profile is even easier. - because for a macross to output hits/misses/crits you need to input to-hit bonus, AC, advantage/disadvantage - literally 5 seconds to add up all the damage rolls - wolves have advantage on the attacka by default, because pack tactics. you just roll a bucket of dice in one go to see if anyone attacking AFTER wolves get advantage
Also those same tricks are useful for GM to throw hordes of chaff at PCs because blasters and controllers need their time in the limelight.
I'd rather they'd fixed the conjure spells than come up with the whole new family of summons, which have their own issues. The Tasha's summons have this glitch that you should never cast them at odd numbered levels, and actually probably scale too well at high levels, because they gain both damage per attack and number of attacks.
I'd rather they'd fixed the conjure spells than come up with the whole new family of summons, which have their own issues. The Tasha's summons have this glitch that you should never cast them at odd numbered levels, and actually probably scale too well at high levels, because they gain both damage per attack and number of attacks.
Damage on them scales well, bu their HP don't. The higher level you summon the more of a glass cannon it is.
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.
Every time a player is trying to twist the system to extract power, rule-lawyer and annoy the hell out of the DM and the other players just for the sake of demonstrating his cleverness in abusing the rule is a player being unreasonable, so a DM is perfectly right to, in turn, use every tool the game gives him to explain to the player that he is indeed, being unreasonable. And if talking to him out of game is not enough, then too bad for the player, because it's absolutely within the DM's right to even the playing field again.
So no, the SAC rule is not only for pixies, is to show that if you insist on summoning hordes, you don't get only wolves, you'll get boars or any other less annoying creatures. And you'll get also monsters which are resistant to normal weapons, and AoE/Auras which will decimate low-CR summons and incite you to use higher CR creatures.
Again, if the player does not understand reason, there is no reason either for the DM to be reasonable.
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?
See above, conjuring hordes of annoying small beasts because it theoretically improves one's DPR while ensuring that one's turn is 5 to 10 times as long as any other player is adversarial to the table. Too bad for the player if the DM and the table react in adversarial ways to annoyance, they reap exactly what they have sown.
Finally, I agree with Wren_the_Munificent, theorycrafting is really annoying in a game with situations that are so diverse that any computations that you make based on a flat infinite battlefield have an extremely high likelihood to be totally pointless in a real game. And the problem is that, because of a few posts, we have whole troupes of players who try to replicate the silly combos at their tables and end up annoying everyone instead of playing the game the way it is intended.
This is why I welcome Tasha's summons, they are a real upgrade in terms of playability and restoring the spirit of the game, and lessening the amount of theorycrafting / powergaming that had to be curbed in particular by the SAC, although, obviously, some people still think that it does not apply to them.
That’s crazy. I used the word reasonable twice. These are spells that exist in the game. They are meant to be used. These spells are no more game breaking or frequently cheesed then paladin/sorcerer/warlock multiclass silliness.
Fewer animals (like 2 or 4 at a base level casting) is fine for damage and they still block and absorb damage, even when you are fighting creatures with resistances or immunities. They can be fast (mounts), or can fly (mounts!) or swim, and can many have status effects placed on their targets. There are mob rules in the DMG or you can use average damage to speed up the turn. The DM can move them instead of the player, as they are just animals and they surely can’t understand tactics on such a fine level.
A power gamer is a power gamer, whether they play a druid, ranger, or paladin/barbarian/sorcerer. But for everyone else, these are tools of the class trade.
The flexibility is part of the fun/usefulness of these spells. Just to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you, are you against players choosing the animals? If the need/want is to cover overland travel quickly, would you allow 8 giant owls? If the need was protection, would you allow 4 crocodile or 4 war horses?
Yes. The SAC is there to protect the game, but this sounds like an abuse of the game by the DM. The DM also determines if the situation is appropriate for hiding. What if they DM doesn’t like stealth or think the player is power gaming by playing a rogue?
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.
The problem of conjuring swarms of chaff is that they have terrible attack bonuses. Sure, those giant badgers pump out 16 attacks but how many of them would hit an AC 18-21 monster? How much would it hurt when everything is resistant or immune to non-magical damage?
A good way to speed up the turn and increase their attack hit frequency is to have half of the animals use the help action.
The flexibility is part of the fun/usefulness of these spells. Just to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you, are you against players choosing the animals?
Yes.
If the need/want is to cover overland travel quickly, would you allow 8 giant owls? If the need was protection, would you allow 4 crocodile or 4 war horses?
I am not against the player expressing a wish, as long as it is understood that it's only a wish. This is exactly what is in the SAC: "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."
Yes. The SAC is there to protect the game, but this sounds like an abuse of the game by the DM.
There can be no such thing by definition. I know that 3e introduced a player-centric attitude to the game, which has created tons of problems of rule-lawyering and abuse, but it's gone in 5e, there is a DM and he is firmly in command of all the rules decisions: The DM is key. Many unexpected things can happen in a D&D campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become unplayable. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be counter to the open-endedness of D&D. The direction we chose for the current edition was to lay a foundation of rules that a DM could build on, and we embraced the DM’s role as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t.
The DM also determines if the situation is appropriate for hiding. What if they DM doesn’t like stealth or think the player is power gaming by playing a rogue?
Then if the player is abusing, he has the means to put him back into place. Of course, if that makes the game less fun for that player, he is free to leave and seek another game, and if the DM does this to too many players, he will not run a game any more, but if it helps protect the other players from another player's abuse, it all the better.
This is not a symmetrical game, the DM has prerogatives that the players will never had, but he also has to prepare all the games and all the sessions, and try to make sure that the players have fun.
Wow.
Hard disagree.
A DM can certainly abuse and destroy a game.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Also, the DM choosing the animals that show up actually have an effect of slowing down the game even more, as stat blocks, tokens and/or minis, and tactics all have to been pulled out of the air each time the spell is cast. It is way more efficient for the player and DM to work things out before hand. As an example when I am a player, I typically theme a druid or ranger to a specific or genre of types of animals, and conjure that type(s) pretty much all of the time.
Can I remind people that the topic of this thread is critique and discussion of the summon spells found in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, and not a discussion of DM vs Player empowerment, sage advice compendium rulings pertaining to non-Tasha's summon spells, stealth rules etc
I do like the design direction the Summon spells went into. I think that having one powerful creature that increases in power with the slot you use is much better game design.
Like some have stated it does get a bit crazy later on with the number of attacks they can do but overall I feel its still easier on the table as a whole compared to the Conjure spells.
I would have to run the math to see which one offers more damage but I would assume by simple numbers game it would be Conjure spells due to the sheer number of things you can throw out there (Massive amounts of wolves!).
For my own experience I have yet to use my Summon Aberration on my warlock but I am looking forward to it!
I’m personally really excited to use the Tasha summons as well. My warlock will be getting both Summon Fey and Summon Shadowspawn as both mesh well with his combat style of terror and shenanigans.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
There are indeed ways to mass-roll, but unfortunately:
Playing the summoned monsters also means moving them and verifying the moves and positions.
Installing macros is often annoying, buggy, and requires even more configuration, when some players have trouble even using simple commands of VTTs
Minor, but why should the AC be disclosed ?
Rolling for damage is one thing, applying it is another one
It's worse for example with wolves which trip, because of course the annoying summoner will ask to roll one by one to check whether a trip occurs so that the remaining wolves will have advantage on their attack. And I'm not even speaking of the centipede's poison, etc.
So no, there are simple fixes, supported by SAC and a reasonable DM and this is why I welcome Tasha's summons.
- Mass moving is also easy - RD20 have in-built macross functionality on teh third tab of every monster profile. If you have even rudimantary knowladge of programmin g writing a macross is an easy 5-minute job, and once you did it copy-pasting it to another profile is even easier. - because for a macross to output hits/misses/crits you need to input to-hit bonus, AC, advantage/disadvantage - literally 5 seconds to add up all the damage rolls - wolves have advantage on the attacka by default, because pack tactics. you just roll a bucket of dice in one go to see if anyone attacking AFTER wolves get advantage
Also those same tricks are useful for GM to throw hordes of chaff at PCs because blasters and controllers need their time in the limelight.
I agree with Lyxen on this issue. Aside from the fact that no spell should require a "rudimentary knowledge of programming," there are uncountable potential variables that affect this in an actual fight that is not taking place in a featureless white room. Terrain, spell effects, lighting, special senses, the complexities of 3D positioning, and monster abilities are just a few of the things that may complicate moving and attacking with multiple animals.
For the record, I have no qualms with the potential damage or overall strength of Conjure Animals or something with a similar effect like the Horn of Valhalla. My issue is 100% with the way these effect the actual playing experience for the humans at the table. While there are ways to speed it up (and we have tried them), any interesting combat has a lot more going on that causes a player to take quite a while to command 8+ extra creatures.
The Tasha's summons solve this. In general, they have a much lower ceiling of maximum effect and may seem a little disappointing compared to the best conjures. But they are much easier to run and that's a big plus for me.
The problem with Conjure Animals is that 1xCR 2 is in no way equal to 8xCR 1/4 -- in terms of damage it's about equivalent to 3xCR 1/4, in terms of total hp more like 4x. It's a problem when spells include false choices like that, and when the best option is also the most obnoxious to run. 1xCR 2 isn't a balance problem at all.
The problem with Conjure Animals is that 1xCR 2 is in no way equal to 8xCR 1/4 -- in terms of damage it's about equivalent to 3xCR 1/4, in terms of total hp more like 4x. It's a problem when spells include false choices like that, and when the best option is also the most obnoxious to run. 1xCR 2 isn't a balance problem at all.
It's not all about raw damage. A pack of wolves might be able to hit for a lot; if they all hit. But they're also soft and squishy. They'll die quickly. A higher CR creature with 40-50 hit points is more like to survive and stick around. It means a stronger DC for rider effects. And they also don't act on your initiative, so they don't act when you summon them. They roll their own, which means it's possible to have them all killed before they even get to act.
The problem with Conjure Animals is that 1xCR 2 is in no way equal to 8xCR 1/4 -- in terms of damage it's about equivalent to 3xCR 1/4, in terms of total hp more like 4x. It's a problem when spells include false choices like that, and when the best option is also the most obnoxious to run. 1xCR 2 isn't a balance problem at all.
This is the issue mostly...its not just inferior to pick 1 CR 2 its inferior by an exponential magnitude. This makes it a hard sell as a DM to say "How about you pick fewer creatures".
I mostly take issue with the way the spell was originally written as its pretty clear they did not believe the CR 1/4 creatures would last long...which is puzzling as 11 hp isn't something to sneeze at. A lot of AoE spells a level appropriate caster is going to be throwing at the party when the druid gets this spell (Level 5) are going to be generally on the lines of Thunderwave (average 9 hp damage on a failed save). Spells with more damage (Moonbeam = 11 average damage) have a smaller area of effect and may not catch more than one creature. Sure you could Fireball them all....but likely as the wolves will have you surrounded you will have to fireball yourself....
Overall its much much harder to deal with attacking the actual summons as it is to just attack the caster and have them drop the concentration. The issue being that players can mitigate this check in a lot of ways (feats mostly).
I think they overestimated the ability to kill mass conjures.
The problem with Conjure Animals is that 1xCR 2 is in no way equal to 8xCR 1/4 -- in terms of damage it's about equivalent to 3xCR 1/4, in terms of total hp more like 4x. It's a problem when spells include false choices like that, and when the best option is also the most obnoxious to run. 1xCR 2 isn't a balance problem at all.
I agree, it's strange that they have corrected the failure of previous editions not taking action economy into account when calculating encounter difficulty, but have not taken it into account in the summon spells. For me, that is another reason to switch to the new summons.
The whole way encounter difficulty is modified by number of creatures feels jury-rigged to me, I wonder if there was an early draft where 1xCR 2 and 8xCR 1/4 were actually intended to be equal.
I found the summoned shadow's speed penalty the most useful, but only because we have two more speed reducing auras in or party. We were recently fighting neogi and their umber hulks and the ability to pin them down and stop them from burrowing past our frontline is priceless.
The problem of conjuring swarms of chaff is that they have terrible attack bonuses. Sure, those giant badgers pump out 16 attacks but how many of them would hit an AC 18-21 monster? How much would it hurt when everything is resistant or immune to non-magical damage?
That one is actually very easy top fix if you play in RD20 like most people tend in online groups. We have macrosses for mass-rolling attacks and damage on every mass-summonable monster. It requires the DM to disclose the AC of whatever is attacked, but beats spending 5 minutes on one turn.
- Mass moving is also easy
- RD20 have in-built macross functionality on teh third tab of every monster profile. If you have even rudimantary knowladge of programmin g writing a macross is an easy 5-minute job, and once you did it copy-pasting it to another profile is even easier.
- because for a macross to output hits/misses/crits you need to input to-hit bonus, AC, advantage/disadvantage
- literally 5 seconds to add up all the damage rolls
- wolves have advantage on the attacka by default, because pack tactics. you just roll a bucket of dice in one go to see if anyone attacking AFTER wolves get advantage
Also those same tricks are useful for GM to throw hordes of chaff at PCs because blasters and controllers need their time in the limelight.
I'd rather they'd fixed the conjure spells than come up with the whole new family of summons, which have their own issues. The Tasha's summons have this glitch that you should never cast them at odd numbered levels, and actually probably scale too well at high levels, because they gain both damage per attack and number of attacks.
Damage on them scales well, bu their HP don't. The higher level you summon the more of a glass cannon it is.
I know you’re kidding around, but I think 4 crocodiles are one of the stronger options from conjure animals.
That’s crazy. I used the word reasonable twice. These are spells that exist in the game. They are meant to be used. These spells are no more game breaking or frequently cheesed then paladin/sorcerer/warlock multiclass silliness.
Fewer animals (like 2 or 4 at a base level casting) is fine for damage and they still block and absorb damage, even when you are fighting creatures with resistances or immunities. They can be fast (mounts), or can fly (mounts!) or swim, and can many have status effects placed on their targets. There are mob rules in the DMG or you can use average damage to speed up the turn. The DM can move them instead of the player, as they are just animals and they surely can’t understand tactics on such a fine level.
A power gamer is a power gamer, whether they play a druid, ranger, or paladin/barbarian/sorcerer. But for everyone else, these are tools of the class trade.
The flexibility is part of the fun/usefulness of these spells. Just to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you, are you against players choosing the animals? If the need/want is to cover overland travel quickly, would you allow 8 giant owls? If the need was protection, would you allow 4 crocodile or 4 war horses?
Yes. The SAC is there to protect the game, but this sounds like an abuse of the game by the DM. The DM also determines if the situation is appropriate for hiding. What if they DM doesn’t like stealth or think the player is power gaming by playing a rogue?
A good way to speed up the turn and increase their attack hit frequency is to have half of the animals use the help action.
Wow.
Hard disagree.
A DM can certainly abuse and destroy a game.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Also, the DM choosing the animals that show up actually have an effect of slowing down the game even more, as stat blocks, tokens and/or minis, and tactics all have to been pulled out of the air each time the spell is cast. It is way more efficient for the player and DM to work things out before hand. As an example when I am a player, I typically theme a druid or ranger to a specific or genre of types of animals, and conjure that type(s) pretty much all of the time.
Can I remind people that the topic of this thread is critique and discussion of the summon spells found in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, and not a discussion of DM vs Player empowerment, sage advice compendium rulings pertaining to non-Tasha's summon spells, stealth rules etc
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I do like the design direction the Summon spells went into. I think that having one powerful creature that increases in power with the slot you use is much better game design.
Like some have stated it does get a bit crazy later on with the number of attacks they can do but overall I feel its still easier on the table as a whole compared to the Conjure spells.
I would have to run the math to see which one offers more damage but I would assume by simple numbers game it would be Conjure spells due to the sheer number of things you can throw out there (Massive amounts of wolves!).
For my own experience I have yet to use my Summon Aberration on my warlock but I am looking forward to it!
I’m personally really excited to use the Tasha summons as well. My warlock will be getting both Summon Fey and Summon Shadowspawn as both mesh well with his combat style of terror and shenanigans.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
I agree with Lyxen on this issue. Aside from the fact that no spell should require a "rudimentary knowledge of programming," there are uncountable potential variables that affect this in an actual fight that is not taking place in a featureless white room. Terrain, spell effects, lighting, special senses, the complexities of 3D positioning, and monster abilities are just a few of the things that may complicate moving and attacking with multiple animals.
For the record, I have no qualms with the potential damage or overall strength of Conjure Animals or something with a similar effect like the Horn of Valhalla. My issue is 100% with the way these effect the actual playing experience for the humans at the table. While there are ways to speed it up (and we have tried them), any interesting combat has a lot more going on that causes a player to take quite a while to command 8+ extra creatures.
The Tasha's summons solve this. In general, they have a much lower ceiling of maximum effect and may seem a little disappointing compared to the best conjures. But they are much easier to run and that's a big plus for me.
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
The problem with Conjure Animals is that 1xCR 2 is in no way equal to 8xCR 1/4 -- in terms of damage it's about equivalent to 3xCR 1/4, in terms of total hp more like 4x. It's a problem when spells include false choices like that, and when the best option is also the most obnoxious to run. 1xCR 2 isn't a balance problem at all.
It's not all about raw damage. A pack of wolves might be able to hit for a lot; if they all hit. But they're also soft and squishy. They'll die quickly. A higher CR creature with 40-50 hit points is more like to survive and stick around. It means a stronger DC for rider effects. And they also don't act on your initiative, so they don't act when you summon them. They roll their own, which means it's possible to have them all killed before they even get to act.
This is the issue mostly...its not just inferior to pick 1 CR 2 its inferior by an exponential magnitude. This makes it a hard sell as a DM to say "How about you pick fewer creatures".
I mostly take issue with the way the spell was originally written as its pretty clear they did not believe the CR 1/4 creatures would last long...which is puzzling as 11 hp isn't something to sneeze at. A lot of AoE spells a level appropriate caster is going to be throwing at the party when the druid gets this spell (Level 5) are going to be generally on the lines of Thunderwave (average 9 hp damage on a failed save). Spells with more damage (Moonbeam = 11 average damage) have a smaller area of effect and may not catch more than one creature. Sure you could Fireball them all....but likely as the wolves will have you surrounded you will have to fireball yourself....
Overall its much much harder to deal with attacking the actual summons as it is to just attack the caster and have them drop the concentration. The issue being that players can mitigate this check in a lot of ways (feats mostly).
I think they overestimated the ability to kill mass conjures.
The whole way encounter difficulty is modified by number of creatures feels jury-rigged to me, I wonder if there was an early draft where 1xCR 2 and 8xCR 1/4 were actually intended to be equal.
I still think the best thing to do with lots of little zerglings is have spells which only let these things
1.) Move
2.) Take up a square
3.) Help an acyion
and each zergling can take only one hit of damage