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.
This was exactly the case in 3e and was the basis for all the computations. And it worked out of the box at the time because CRs actually scaled in terms of Attacks, AC and defenses, making higher CRs really tougher and balancing the equation. But in 5e, with bounded accuracy, the only thing that really scales directly are hit points, all the other effects are marginal for such small differences in CR, meaning that the action economy becomes a very critical part of the danger of an encounter. They have corrected this as well as they could in the encounter calculation
They could have corrected it directly, by just changing CRs. Part of the problem is that they tried to normalize for 'CR X is a challenge for a party of level X', but that doesn't matter for CR less than 1, so they could have changed those from ½, ¼, ⅛ to ⅔, ½, ⅓ (which slightly overestimates swarms of small creatures, because of AoEs, but not by very much).
This was exactly the case in 3e and was the basis for all the computations. And it worked out of the box at the time because CRs actually scaled in terms of Attacks, AC and defenses, making higher CRs really tougher and balancing the equation. But in 5e, with bounded accuracy, the only thing that really scales directly are hit points, all the other effects are marginal for such small differences in CR, meaning that the action economy becomes a very critical part of the danger of an encounter. They have corrected this as well as they could in the encounter calculation
They could have corrected it directly, by just changing CRs. Part of the problem is that they tried to normalize for 'CR X is a challenge for a party of level X', but that doesn't matter for CR less than 1, so they could have changed those from ½, ¼, ⅛ to ⅔, ½, ⅓ (which slightly overestimates swarms of small creatures, because of AoEs, but not by very much).
The problem is that it's not linear, unfortunately. Everything was linear in 3e, so everything scaled well. but 5e progression is not linear, only HP are linear. Or, to be more precise, the rate of scaling of the other factors are very dissimilar. This is why, in the encounter calculator, it's not linear either according to the number of creatures, because of the action economy.
What worked well in 3e (and the reason for having CRs 1/8, 1/4 and 1/2 (which honestly really complicates the naming of these when 8 x 1/8 does not equal one)) but it does not any more, and it only works in the encounter calculator when it's relative to the Level of the PC. But here, you need an absolute modifier for lower quantities, which would not be the same for all the levels. 8 wolves are really nasty at level 5, but 16 wolves are really not that bad joke at level 9, and 32 wolves are an absolute joke at lvl 17 (if still annoying to manage), but because of other factors that the encounter calculator bravely tries to take into account and barely manages to because of the imprecision of the computations. So maybe it would be better with:
One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower
Two beasts of challenge rating 1 or lower
Three beasts of challenge rating 1/2 or lower
Four beasts of challenge rating 1/4 or lower
In any case, the new summons avoid that particular headache. :D
16 wolves is still extremely viable damage wise at level 9.
You are looking at 85 damage per round with the wolves attacking at ADV which they will due to pack tactics....even if you only manage one round of that damage that is insane.
Even if you force the enemy to use an AoE on the wolves they will have to target themselves or waste an action dealing with the summons.
Hell even at level 17 you are talking an insane 113 points of damage per round with a creature that has an AC of 20: https://imgur.com/vhwJLmx
That is NOT a joke at all. Especially for a Shepard Druid who can make those attacks magical and boost their HP.
Now flying creatures are pretty much immune to this...unless you summon a crap ton of blood hawks which also have pack tactics: https://imgur.com/Fb7OjJ1
Which means you are doing 70 points of magical piercing damage a round with a bunch of hawks that can outfly a lot of creatures (60ft fly speed)
Overall its easy to see how the conjure spells are stupidly overtuned.
I don't fault your computations, but remember that 16 wolves will not be able to attack one target, even less 22, that getting into position is going to get them killed and that a single AoE from that level will wipe them out. That being said, I agree with the fact that we should switch to the Tasha's summons. :)
1. Every encounter will have an enemy with AoE soley for the use of destroying Conjures? 2. Creatures can move in/out of spaces to allow others to attack. They only get one AoO so you can kill one wolf per turn....its completely possible for all 32 to attack a single target if they move in attack then move out.
I don't fault your computations, but remember that 16 wolves will not be able to attack one target, even less 22, that getting into position is going to get them killed and that a single AoE from that level will wipe them out. That being said, I agree with the fact that we should switch to the Tasha's summons. :)
1. Every encounter will have an enemy with AoE soley for the use of destroying Conjures?
No, but the likelihood of having one at a higher level is really high.
2. Creatures can move in/out of spaces to allow others to attack. They only get one AoO so you can kill one wolf per turn....its completely possible for all 32 to attack a single target if they move in attack then move out.
That's a good point, really, this does not really work for wolves who would lose their pack tactics (and doing differently would really be too much to ask for simple beasts), but still extremely annoying indeed.
I would argue wolves would have an instinct to ALWAYS get their pack tactics as that is their nature so it makes a lot of sense for them to shift around to allow another wolf in for the bite.
Overall I just think it shows that the spells are way overtuned for a spell that level if you follow the DMG guides on damage per spell level.
I am in full agreement that these summon spells are by far a better solution and honestly I would be in favor of removing most if not all of the conjure spells in the game.
I do not impose a lot of restrictions as a DM as I only have 3:
1. PCs with flight speed is limited to 30ft of flight until level 5.
2. Conjure spells can summon no more than 3 creatures
3. Animate Objects is Medium creatures or larger.
I do feel that "minonmancy" is a bane on the system.
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.
They could have corrected it directly, by just changing CRs. Part of the problem is that they tried to normalize for 'CR X is a challenge for a party of level X', but that doesn't matter for CR less than 1, so they could have changed those from ½, ¼, ⅛ to ⅔, ½, ⅓ (which slightly overestimates swarms of small creatures, because of AoEs, but not by very much).
16 wolves is still extremely viable damage wise at level 9.
Based on CR averages for AC:
And the DPR output of 16 wolves: https://imgur.com/6lLcxcu
You are looking at 85 damage per round with the wolves attacking at ADV which they will due to pack tactics....even if you only manage one round of that damage that is insane.
Even if you force the enemy to use an AoE on the wolves they will have to target themselves or waste an action dealing with the summons.
Hell even at level 17 you are talking an insane 113 points of damage per round with a creature that has an AC of 20: https://imgur.com/vhwJLmx
That is NOT a joke at all. Especially for a Shepard Druid who can make those attacks magical and boost their HP.
Now flying creatures are pretty much immune to this...unless you summon a crap ton of blood hawks which also have pack tactics: https://imgur.com/Fb7OjJ1
Which means you are doing 70 points of magical piercing damage a round with a bunch of hawks that can outfly a lot of creatures (60ft fly speed)
Overall its easy to see how the conjure spells are stupidly overtuned.
1. Every encounter will have an enemy with AoE soley for the use of destroying Conjures?
2. Creatures can move in/out of spaces to allow others to attack. They only get one AoO so you can kill one wolf per turn....its completely possible for all 32 to attack a single target if they move in attack then move out.
I would argue wolves would have an instinct to ALWAYS get their pack tactics as that is their nature so it makes a lot of sense for them to shift around to allow another wolf in for the bite.
Overall I just think it shows that the spells are way overtuned for a spell that level if you follow the DMG guides on damage per spell level.
I am in full agreement that these summon spells are by far a better solution and honestly I would be in favor of removing most if not all of the conjure spells in the game.
I do not impose a lot of restrictions as a DM as I only have 3:
1. PCs with flight speed is limited to 30ft of flight until level 5.
2. Conjure spells can summon no more than 3 creatures
3. Animate Objects is Medium creatures or larger.
I do feel that "minonmancy" is a bane on the system.
One of the design goals of 5e was to make minions a threat, so it's working as designed.
Fair....it just swung too far the other way for most of these spells.