Streamlining is good, but only to a degree. IMO, the new summoning spells are overly homogenized, flavorless, and basically taken from a videogame.
You can construct varied, fun, and most importantly effective/high-DPR-and-utile builds around the Tasha's summons, and they're a lot less disruptive at the table than summoning 16 wolves or whatever - which on top of being a pain in the posterior every time that player's turn rolls around, completely shatter bounded accuracy into smithereens. Trust me, the new summoning designs are here to stay.
The modern summons are definitely better in a number of aspects, with their easy-to-reference statblocks and single-creature summoning. The problem is, they're all pretty much the same, with just a couple different stats or abilities. I think that giving each summoning spell some unique part outside of the stat block would make them much more interesting. Fiends being difficult to control and staying after concentration ends is a very interesting and pretty simple simple way to add a lot of flavor to differentiate the spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The modern summons are definitely better in a number of aspects, with their easy-to-reference statblocks and single-creature summoning. The problem is, they're all pretty much the same, with just a couple different stats or abilities. I think that giving each summoning spell some unique part outside of the stat block would make them much more interesting. Fiends being difficult to control and staying after concentration ends is a very interesting and pretty simple simple way to add a lot of flavor to differentiate the spells.
I disagree, they're not the same at all. Some are melee, some are ranged, some are pure damage, some come packaged with (de)buffs or battlefield control effects, some are physical, some are elemental, and some have special senses, defenses, and/or movement modes. They have some common features, like their multiattack and lasting for an hour with concentration, but the one you choose and the builds you combine them with can vary from one another considerably - as can their impact on a given fight or even some non-combat encounters, since they're likely to hang around for a while.
I disagree, they're not the same at all. Some are melee, some are ranged, some are pure damage, some come packaged with (de)buffs or battlefield control effects, some are physical, some are elemental, and some have special senses, defenses, and/or movement modes. They have some common features, like their multiattack and lasting for an hour with concentration, but the one you choose and the builds you combine them with can vary from one another considerably - as can their impact on a given fight or even some non-combat encounters, since they're likely to hang around for a while.
What Quar1on meant was that despite purely mechanical/tactical differences, they're all the same in essence - they're just obedient walking stat blocks. You can have your summoned celestial attack a church, and your summoned shadowspawn will appear anywhere and won't affect anyone other than what you order them to. In other words, summons don't behave as creatures of their type. Would be nice if, say, shadowspawn could only be summoned from an area of darkness, and would, say, cause people around it to experience fear, apathy, or fits of rage according to the shadowspawn's nature.
What Quar1on meant was that despite purely mechanical/tactical differences, they're all the same in essence - they're just obedient walking stat blocks. You can have your summoned celestial attack a church, and your summoned shadowspawn will appear anywhere and won't affect anyone other than what you order them to. In other words, summons don't behave as creatures of their type. Would be nice if, say, shadowspawn could only be summoned from an area of darkness, and would, say, cause people around it to experience fear, apathy, or fits of rage according to the shadowspawn's nature.
Um...shadowspawn do have two of those features (they don't have a rage trigger).
Um...shadowspawn do have two of those features (they don't have a rage trigger).
That's just movement speed reduction of a Despair variant, a purely mechanical, basic, and combat-only thing. There's no flavor, just bare stats. Read about the actual sorrowsworn that these summons try to emulate, there's so much more interesting stuff going on, they embody the emotion that created them, spread it and thrive on it, and wither if denied that emotion. So for example, a fear variant could have a temptingly powerful ability that also causes fear, and if it succeeds, it makes the shadowspawn stronger, but at a certain point it might break out of control if it feeds on too much fear. A celestial might have strong moral code that prohibits it from causing harm - and you could use its insight to tell who deserves of punishment and who's innocent in the deities' eyes. A fey might have an urge for pranks or hedonism and might get distracted if something piques its interest, but is fun at parties.
Summons shouldn't be just stat blocks, they should have out of combat uses and at least some personality, flavor, and agency. This is why it's a pen-and-paper RPG and not a videogame about clearing dungeons.
Nothing's stopping someone from doing exactly that with the Tasha summons. A DM can refluff them however they like, even add mechanical weirdness or make the summoner fulfill conditions to gain access to the spell. Perhaps the pricy material component had to be gifted by the entity that grants access to the summoned creatures, in exchange for a price paid by the summoner in coin other than gold.
Sure it's homebrew, but it's homebrew of the lightest dort. And really. Truly. R5e summoning spells are an *awful* slog that makes the game actively worse every time they're used. Flavorful, certainly, but game-bogging migraines every time someone actually tries to use one. Summoning needed fixing somehow or other, and following the new Standard Companion Critter rules works as well as anything else mechanically.
What Quar1on meant was that despite purely mechanical/tactical differences, they're all the same in essence - they're just obedient walking stat blocks. You can have your summoned celestial attack a church, and your summoned shadowspawn will appear anywhere and won't affect anyone other than what you order them to. In other words, summons don't behave as creatures of their type. Would be nice if, say, shadowspawn could only be summoned from an area of darkness, and would, say, cause people around it to experience fear, apathy, or fits of rage according to the shadowspawn's nature.
The spell specifically states the spirit is celestial, so your commands to it should be in line with that. Not everything the DM controls needs to be written into every spell, we'd have 500 pages of contract terms and disclaimers for every summon if that was the case.
If you're a good cleric or paladin and make your summoned celestial attack an (allied) church or orphanage or whatever, I'd expect your deity to have something to say about that.
As for out of combat uses, the summons all have stats, and they last for a whole hour each. Be creative.
But no one is advocating 'that [Fighters should] be taken away from them and replaced with one that is not nearly as enjoyable. ' We are simply asking for the Fighter, and possibly the Warrior group in general, to have more options. Not to radically change the class, not to take anything away, nor to make them vastly more complex, simply to expand upon what we already have. I think the insistence that newer players will lose all attachment to the game because the fighter gained a new use for their reaction or an optional extra for when they make an attack is absurd.
A number of people have actually advocated in favor of drastically increasing the complexity of Fighter. This would ensure that it would no longer be a viable option for the audience it has appealed to for years and take it away from those who want to play a simple class.
I am fine with adding small amounts of complexity to Fighter, as I said above. However, this should A) Preferably be optional and done for a good reason (such as giving Fighters more options outside of combat) and B) Be done in manageable and smaller amounts so that the class does not get messed up on accident.
Why does the Fighter have to be the Warrior that becomes super complex though?
I don't know man, maybe Yurei was a bit exaggerated in their statement, but this entire thread could be summed up with "Martials can't have options to take in combat, because that would make them, like, super-powered-anime-wizard-4e-peope, and you don't want that."
We seem to be involved in and reading very different versions of the same thread, then. The statement you are referring to was exaggerated far more than just "a bit".
And I don't understand why you think Fighter should be the simple class. I'll let the official description of Fighters speak for me:
"...as fighters, they all share an unparalleled mastery with weapons and armor, and a thorough knowledge of the skills of combat." PHB, page 70 (bolded for emphasis)
Fighters do not currently display an unparalleled mastery with weapons or armor, nor any exceptional skills in combat. Fighters currently have the same options everyone else does, but with the added benefit of being able to whack slightly faster than everyone else, and sometimes they can whack even faster, but they have to have a nap afterwards. To live up to that fantasy, they need some more options. The simple 'Attack until I can't Attack any more' play style is most definitely better suited to the Barbarian class.
Nothing in that description says that Fighter needs to be complex. It needs to be skilled in combat and use weapons and armor well. The class is currently able to do this, and the chief concerns about it are not that it's weak or lame in combat but far less useful outside of fights. So, nothing about that line in the description mandates, or even really implies, that Fighter cannot be a simple class.
I am fine with carefully adding a bit of complexity to Fighter, but it needs to be for a purpose. This will allow the outside of combat weakness to potentially be - at least somewhat - fixed. However, that line you quoted does not necessitate any of that.
As to it being hard or risky to implement, is that not why we are currently play-testing new content? And I still don't understand these 'very negative effects.' I understand that someone has to speak on behalf of the new players, but I think we need to give new players more credit that they currently get.
Playtesting content is imperfect, and the main negative effect of trying to add complexity to Fighter and messing that up would be overdoing it and pushing simpler leaning players away from the class. Not only would this bias their perspective of Fighter and push them away from the class in future, but it is likely that the problem would go uncorrected or unnoticed by the developers and permanently alter things for the worse.
And finally, although those graphs you provided were cool, they don't support your point in any meaningful way. The top subclass for every single class, with the exception of druid because they split the 'land' subclass into sub-sub-classes, is the subclass provided in the basic rules. All that suggests to me is that more people on here don't own the books than do. Furthermore, if you scroll down to the chart from the previous year, (The article was published in 2020, so the charts from 2019, before Phandelver + starter set were free on DDB, iirc) the most popular subclass is actually the Battlemaster.
They do support my point, actually. For one, the fact that some of the classes experienced players denounce as "too simple" are actually quite well enjoyed and played. This logically disproves the personal anecdote that there is less of an audience for simple classes. Also, with D&DB's exponential growth over the past couple of years, more recent data is going to be far more reliable and accurate. Additionally, the results will likely be skewed slightly towards more complex classes, since people will use digital toolsets made to make things easier for more confusing classes than they would in a pen and paper game, and they are more likely to experiment with a complex class and not play because it was too complicated than they were if the class were simpler.
The main point to take away from this though is that Fighters are the most played class, and that a very significant number of people who play them play Champion. Both on and away from D&D Beyond. Though this number can almost certainly be increased by buffing the subclass, what it shows is that, in total the option of a simple Fighter has been used by a lot of people. Even if, percentage wise, it's relatively on par to other Basic Rules subclasses.
If a class is enjoyed and used by a certain, large type of the player base, then that class should not be taken away from them and transformed into a style they do not want to play. Fighter is successful and enjoyable, and it can and has helped provide a nice and kind welcome to the game for people like me. It, as well as the few other options in the game that have been laid aside for simple players should remain preserved. Fighter more so than Barbarian, because at least looking at the data now, the class seems to be more enjoyed, loved and successful precisely for being simple. Perhaps because it's more open concept is able to appeal to more people than Barbarian is.
---
Since I began drafting this post, more relevant comments have been made. The first thing I would like to say is that if your comments are responding to utter mockeries and distorted or nonexistent views, then I will probably not bother replying to you. Saying that people who are in favor of simplicity want to tune out of the game, ignore it, and will attack anyone or anything that makes them make decisions is A) Ridiculous and B) Seems remarkably like inventing things for the mere purpose of mocking those with a different playing style.
On other points: People who like simplicity should not have to suffer mechanically and have less of a fun time due to that. This is why telling someone to play a Wizard simply by not using any of their spells or abilities won't work.
Again, I will repeat that everyone needs options. Both for people that like simpler options and options that are more complex. The Fighter is a great option for one of those groups, and it is successful for it. Let's not take it away from those who need it, because there are many people like me have loved and had a great experience with this version of Fighter and are still playing the game because of it.
Nothing's stopping someone from doing exactly that with the Tasha summons. A DM can refluff them however they like, even add mechanical weirdness or make the summoner fulfill conditions to gain access to the spell. Perhaps the pricy material component had to be gifted by the entity that grants access to the summoned creatures, in exchange for a price paid by the summoner in coin other than gold.
Sure it's homebrew, but it's homebrew of the lightest dort. And really. Truly. R5e summoning spells are an *awful* slog that makes the game actively worse every time they're used. Flavorful, certainly, but game-bogging migraines every time someone actually tries to use one. Summoning needed fixing somehow or other, and following the new Standard Companion Critter rules works as well as anything else mechanically.
Sure, you can always homebrew the whole game from the ground up, but it's nice to have something to tie the stat blocks and roleplay. Like Summon Greater Demon requiring blood of a recently slain humanoid. It's just a material component, but it already puts some RP weight into something that only needed to put a stat block onto the table. It's a little story hook in itself. And it's about identity. It should matter who you summon.
Consider even the Burning Hands spell. It is designed to deal fire damage to the enemies, and it does exactly that. But it also has this line that says that it ignites flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried. It already makes the caster consider how and when to use it, and ties it to the world the characters are in. In a videogame, you can cast burning hands anywhere, fire damage and area of effect is all that matters. In a TTRPG, good luck using it inside a wooden building.
Nothing's stopping someone from doing exactly that with the Tasha summons. A DM can refluff them however they like, even add mechanical weirdness or make the summoner fulfill conditions to gain access to the spell. Perhaps the pricy material component had to be gifted by the entity that grants access to the summoned creatures, in exchange for a price paid by the summoner in coin other than gold.
Sure it's homebrew, but it's homebrew of the lightest dort. And really. Truly. R5e summoning spells are an *awful* slog that makes the game actively worse every time they're used. Flavorful, certainly, but game-bogging migraines every time someone actually tries to use one. Summoning needed fixing somehow or other, and following the new Standard Companion Critter rules works as well as anything else mechanically.
Sure, you can always homebrew the whole game from the ground up, but it's nice to have something to tie the stat blocks and roleplay. Like Summon Greater Demon requiring blood of a recently slain humanoid. It's just a material component, but it already puts some RP weight into something that only needed to put a stat block onto the table. It's a little story hook in itself. And it's about identity. It should matter who you summon.
This. Would it really be too tough to take summon greater demon and stick the summon fiend stat block onto it? It would make it really feel like you're summoning a creature of the lower planes instead of just a stat block.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
There is a certain subset of players, IG, who espouse that "forcing" someone to make decisions in their game of decisions and consequences is a heinous crime. That all players inherently deserve the right to fiddle on their phone and check out of the game until initiative is rolled, clock back in just long enough to punch whatever monster the rest of the party found, and then check right back out the very microinstant that initiative and combat is done. Asking a player to get invested in their game, to care enough to pay attention? Straight-up gatekeeping heresy.
Lol, at least 25% of players I have played with do not make tactical decisions in combat. They make RP driven choices, or the most whacky/chaotic option, or just whatever they think is cool. And they are adults! A large portion of the D&D community are children who just want to pretend to slay a dragon with a giant sword.
Lol, at least 25% of players I have played with do not make tactical decisions in combat. They make RP driven choices, or the most whacky/chaotic option, or just whatever they think is cool. And they are adults! A large portion of the D&D community are children who just want to pretend to slay a dragon with a giant sword.
Here's the thing.
Those people will act the way they act regardless of what their class features do. They will deliberately make bad choices no matter what the game rules say they can or cannot do because they're Bohemian failure monkeys actively chasing disaster, and someone doing that will get it no matter what's written on their character sheet. If someone actively diswants to use the tools they're given, it doesn't matter which tools they've been given.
The rest of us? The people who want to engage with the game, to make use of the tools we're given to craft splendid stories and solve interesting challenges? The people who take the game seriously? What's written on our sheets matters. We use what's written on our sheets, alongside our wit, our wiles, and our style to make memorable moments, tell tales, and emerge victorious or die trying.
You can't cater to the Whacky Lolrandom Chaos Yaybos who ignore the rules of the game because they'll ignore anything you write for them anyways. They'll have their fun the same way no matter what you write or produce or sell. But you can try and do better by the people who play the game more akin to the way it was intended to be played. The people who use what you sell to tackle challenges and try to create more even-toned stories. Those folks deserve better than Bard's whole "all complexity of any sort should be stripped from every class, every species, every book, and every rule of D&D forever because complexity is bad and anyone who thinks otherwise is a terrible person who should just quit D&D" bit. They deserve better than Linear Warrior Quadratic Wizard. But they're never going to get it because the Whacky Lolrandom Chaos Yaybos keep insisting that Wizards should stop printing new rules so they have less to ignore.
Nothing's stopping someone from doing exactly that with the Tasha summons. A DM can refluff them however they like, even add mechanical weirdness or make the summoner fulfill conditions to gain access to the spell. Perhaps the pricy material component had to be gifted by the entity that grants access to the summoned creatures, in exchange for a price paid by the summoner in coin other than gold.
Sure it's homebrew, but it's homebrew of the lightest dort. And really. Truly. R5e summoning spells are an *awful* slog that makes the game actively worse every time they're used. Flavorful, certainly, but game-bogging migraines every time someone actually tries to use one. Summoning needed fixing somehow or other, and following the new Standard Companion Critter rules works as well as anything else mechanically.
Sure, you can always homebrew the whole game from the ground up, but it's nice to have something to tie the stat blocks and roleplay. Like Summon Greater Demon requiring blood of a recently slain humanoid. It's just a material component, but it already puts some RP weight into something that only needed to put a stat block onto the table. It's a little story hook in itself. And it's about identity. It should matter who you summon.
...No one is saying these kinds of weighty conjurations can't still exist alongside the far more practical and useful summons. And this one is at least only one creature as opposed to Conjure Animals' annoying menagerie.
This is literally how 3.5 summoning worked, my guy. Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally were there as the workaday "I want to be a summoning-focused Pokemon Trainer" line, and then the more involved ritualistic Planar Ally and Entice Fey and Call Zelekhut-type stuff was there for when you and your DM felt like doing the whole "bring me a unicorn heart steeped in the fresh tears of a maiden as payment" song and dance. The game does have room for both. But I don't think the latter needs to be in core, either, because not every table wants to deal with that just to have a summoner, nor is every player or DM equipped to deal with that stuff. Wear someone else's shoes once in awhile for Ao's sake.
Incidentally, on the Champion fighter, I think you could accomplish almost everything the Champion is meant to do with a couple of new Battle Master techniques:
Critical Strike
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you may expend one superiority die and add the superiority die to the d20 roll. If this increases the d20 roll to a 20 or higher, your attack is a critical hit.
Remarkable Athlete
When you make an Athletics, Acrobatics or Strength ability check, you can expend one superiority die and add the superiority die to the ability check. Alternately, you may spend a superiority die and add its type(so +8 for a d8) to your Strength when using strength for effects that normally do not require a roll, such as lifting or jumping.
Speaking of the battle master, just rescaling it would help significantly with the martial vs caster divide. At third level, a battle master fighter is incredibly powerful, but it scales very poorly. Yes, 6d12 is better than 4d8, but it's hardly fifteen levels of better.
...No one is saying these kinds of weighty conjurations can't still exist alongside the far more practical and useful summons. And this one is at least only one creature as opposed to Conjure Animals' annoying menagerie.
This is literally how 3.5 summoning worked, my guy. Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally were there as the workaday "I want to be a summoning-focused Pokemon Trainer" line, and then the more involved ritualistic Planar Ally and Entice Fey and Call Zelekhut-type stuff was there for when you and your DM felt like doing the whole "bring me a unicorn heart steeped in the fresh tears of a maiden as payment" song and dance. The game does have room for both. But I don't think the latter needs to be in core, either, because not every table wants to deal with that just to have a summoner, nor is every player or DM equipped to deal with that stuff. Wear someone else's shoes once in awhile for Ao's sake.
Let's just put aside Conjure Animals, because we all agree that adding 16 more actors into action economy of a fight has always been a terrible idea.
Thing is, simplifying things is easier than creating something more complex from scratch. You could always ignore the need for unicorn heart steeped in the fresh tears of a maiden or say that the vendor next door just happens to have one for 10 gold a piece. No problem. Anyone can do that. But I think there is a place for that golden middle ground that combines stats and engagement with the game world. Burning Hands could just do fire damage, but it also has a line that says that it ignites flammable objects. Why would you need that? It wouldn't matter if it was a videogame, because only enemies and red barrels are interactive. But this line is there because this spell isn't just orange damage dice, it interacts with the game world. It's one of the examples of side effects and consequences. If damage type matters, and they work differently, then monster type should, too. And this should be codified in the rules at least on a basic level, for players to have guidelines to spur their imagination.
Otherwise, why bother with actual characters and things like background or name, why do guidelines for those things exist iin the books? PCs are just stat blocks and spell lists for those who want it simple, aren't they?
So "interact with the game world" means "all summons must spell out every circumstance in which they may refuse the summoner's orders, as well as being capable of griefing the party if the summoner loses control?"
Because, bluntly, screw that. There's a place in the game for those kinds of summons, sure. There's also a place for the Tasha' Summons that are easy for players to control, easy for DMs to adjudicate, and Just Work. And if that sounds like a "video game" to you - well, video games are fun. Remember, fun? That thing we're all here for? What a concept!
My main problem with Tasha's summons is that they kinda messed up the power scaling -- they're lousy with 3rd level spell slots and at really high levels they're maybe too good. I'd probably go with number of attacks = 1 + (spell level)/3 instead of (spell level)/2 (makes them stronger with a level 3 slot, weaker with a level 8 slot; otherwise no change).
There is a certain subset of players, IG, who espouse that "forcing" someone to make decisions in their game of decisions and consequences is a heinous crime. That all players inherently deserve the right to fiddle on their phone and check out of the game until initiative is rolled, clock back in just long enough to punch whatever monster the rest of the party found, and then check right back out the very microinstant that initiative and combat is done. Asking a player to get invested in their game, to care enough to pay attention? Straight-up gatekeeping heresy.
Lol, at least 25% of players I have played with do not make tactical decisions in combat. They make RP driven choices, or the most whacky/chaotic option, or just whatever they think is cool. And they are adults! A large portion of the D&D community are children who just want to pretend to slay a dragon with a giant sword.
Are you sure that a large portion of D&D players are children?
When I started playing it was definitely like that. Most D&D players were either children or young adults. But my impression today, at least in my country, is that the vast majority of gamers are adults over 30, with a portion of gamers being young adults.
One of my best friends works at the biggest RPG store in my city. A huge store, which is the main reference in the area. Upstairs there are rooms to play, and you hardly ever see children or teenagers there. Some more you see hanging around on the floor below, which is the actual store. And many of these are accompanied by an adult, probably because they are the parents who are going to buy with their children. Also, talking about this with my friend, he confirms that the majority of clients are adults over 30, with a significant portion of young people between 20 and 30 years old.
That pattern may not be repeated in the USA or other countries. And it may also be that children and teenagers do not play in a store, or buy in physical stores. But my impression is that that pattern is a true representation of today's roleplaying community. At least, as I say, in my country.
That's why I'm surprised you'd say that a large portion of D&D players are children. And my question is genuine. Out of curiosity, why do you say that a large portion of players are children? Do you have any data or personal experience that supports that opinion? Because my impression is exactly the opposite, something that I have discussed many times with other players. We started as children and, back then, playing role-playing was a thing for children and teenagers. But that is no longer the case, in our opinion.
Edit: I have been looking for data since it is a topic that interests me. A 2019 survey by "The Orr Group" found that the average age of roleplayers was 30, with the majority of gamers (close to 65%) being over 25. In another study of "Quantic Foundry" the average age is established at 31,
So "interact with the game world" means "all summons must spell out every circumstance in which they may refuse the summoner's orders, as well as being capable of griefing the party if the summoner loses control?"
Because, bluntly, screw that. There's a place in the game for those kinds of summons, sure. There's also a place for the Tasha' Summons that are easy for players to control, easy for DMs to adjudicate, and Just Work. And if that sounds like a "video game" to you - well, video games are fun. Remember, fun? That thing we're all here for? What a concept!
I dunno, Summon Greater Demon spells out every circumstance in just four paragraphs. And it's fun. It has a condition - someone must die for the summoning to happen. Also, it has an option to risk it or to play it safe by staying within the circle of sacrifical blood. And it even offers a way to upgrade the spell by finding the demon's true name. Not to mention that you can summon quite a range of monsters. It can be simplified. I would even like it to be simplified a bit. Like, you could summon it without the blood and struggle for control, or murder someone and make the spell safe for you with their blood. That alone is quite enough to bake in a moral choice and a feeling of wrongness and evilness in summoning a demon.
If I want to play a videogame, I go and play a videogame. It's that simple. And when I want something more than a videogame, something that isn't limited by current tech, I play TTRPGs. Treating DnD like a videogame is like marrying a beautiful woman and never having sex with her.
Edit: I have been looking for data since it is a topic that interests me. A 2019 survey by "The Orr Group" found that the average age of roleplayers was 30, with the majority of gamers (close to 65%) being over 25. In another study of "Quantic Foundry" the average age is established at 31,
I found another article saying for D&D 40% of players are 25 or younger, 49% are 25-40, 11% are 40+. An average age of 31 means a lot of young people since the handful of 60+ players will skew the average to the right of the median. In the US there are a lot of D&D clubs run in highschools and universities. I'm not at all surprised children of the helicopter parents aren't going to game stores and playing with strangers, but that doesn't mean they aren't playing. IME it is quite common for people to drop out of D&D groups when they start their own families and all their recreational time is spent with their baby which these days is usually in people's 30s thus the highest concentration of players is 20-30 yro.
Edit to add: Found another press release by WotC with a more stratified breakdown: 15-19yro = 12% 20-24yro = 24% 25-29yro = 18% 30-34yro = 18% 35-39yro = 14% 40+ = 13%
The modern summons are definitely better in a number of aspects, with their easy-to-reference statblocks and single-creature summoning. The problem is, they're all pretty much the same, with just a couple different stats or abilities. I think that giving each summoning spell some unique part outside of the stat block would make them much more interesting. Fiends being difficult to control and staying after concentration ends is a very interesting and pretty simple simple way to add a lot of flavor to differentiate the spells.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I disagree, they're not the same at all. Some are melee, some are ranged, some are pure damage, some come packaged with (de)buffs or battlefield control effects, some are physical, some are elemental, and some have special senses, defenses, and/or movement modes. They have some common features, like their multiattack and lasting for an hour with concentration, but the one you choose and the builds you combine them with can vary from one another considerably - as can their impact on a given fight or even some non-combat encounters, since they're likely to hang around for a while.
What Quar1on meant was that despite purely mechanical/tactical differences, they're all the same in essence - they're just obedient walking stat blocks. You can have your summoned celestial attack a church, and your summoned shadowspawn will appear anywhere and won't affect anyone other than what you order them to. In other words, summons don't behave as creatures of their type. Would be nice if, say, shadowspawn could only be summoned from an area of darkness, and would, say, cause people around it to experience fear, apathy, or fits of rage according to the shadowspawn's nature.
Um...shadowspawn do have two of those features (they don't have a rage trigger).
That's just movement speed reduction of a Despair variant, a purely mechanical, basic, and combat-only thing. There's no flavor, just bare stats. Read about the actual sorrowsworn that these summons try to emulate, there's so much more interesting stuff going on, they embody the emotion that created them, spread it and thrive on it, and wither if denied that emotion. So for example, a fear variant could have a temptingly powerful ability that also causes fear, and if it succeeds, it makes the shadowspawn stronger, but at a certain point it might break out of control if it feeds on too much fear. A celestial might have strong moral code that prohibits it from causing harm - and you could use its insight to tell who deserves of punishment and who's innocent in the deities' eyes. A fey might have an urge for pranks or hedonism and might get distracted if something piques its interest, but is fun at parties.
Summons shouldn't be just stat blocks, they should have out of combat uses and at least some personality, flavor, and agency. This is why it's a pen-and-paper RPG and not a videogame about clearing dungeons.
Nothing's stopping someone from doing exactly that with the Tasha summons. A DM can refluff them however they like, even add mechanical weirdness or make the summoner fulfill conditions to gain access to the spell. Perhaps the pricy material component had to be gifted by the entity that grants access to the summoned creatures, in exchange for a price paid by the summoner in coin other than gold.
Sure it's homebrew, but it's homebrew of the lightest dort. And really. Truly. R5e summoning spells are an *awful* slog that makes the game actively worse every time they're used. Flavorful, certainly, but game-bogging migraines every time someone actually tries to use one. Summoning needed fixing somehow or other, and following the new Standard Companion Critter rules works as well as anything else mechanically.
Please do not contact or message me.
The spell specifically states the spirit is celestial, so your commands to it should be in line with that. Not everything the DM controls needs to be written into every spell, we'd have 500 pages of contract terms and disclaimers for every summon if that was the case.
If you're a good cleric or paladin and make your summoned celestial attack an (allied) church or orphanage or whatever, I'd expect your deity to have something to say about that.
As for out of combat uses, the summons all have stats, and they last for a whole hour each. Be creative.
A number of people have actually advocated in favor of drastically increasing the complexity of Fighter. This would ensure that it would no longer be a viable option for the audience it has appealed to for years and take it away from those who want to play a simple class.
I am fine with adding small amounts of complexity to Fighter, as I said above. However, this should A) Preferably be optional and done for a good reason (such as giving Fighters more options outside of combat) and B) Be done in manageable and smaller amounts so that the class does not get messed up on accident.
Why does the Fighter have to be the Warrior that becomes super complex though?
We seem to be involved in and reading very different versions of the same thread, then. The statement you are referring to was exaggerated far more than just "a bit".
Nothing in that description says that Fighter needs to be complex. It needs to be skilled in combat and use weapons and armor well. The class is currently able to do this, and the chief concerns about it are not that it's weak or lame in combat but far less useful outside of fights. So, nothing about that line in the description mandates, or even really implies, that Fighter cannot be a simple class.
I am fine with carefully adding a bit of complexity to Fighter, but it needs to be for a purpose. This will allow the outside of combat weakness to potentially be - at least somewhat - fixed. However, that line you quoted does not necessitate any of that.
Playtesting content is imperfect, and the main negative effect of trying to add complexity to Fighter and messing that up would be overdoing it and pushing simpler leaning players away from the class. Not only would this bias their perspective of Fighter and push them away from the class in future, but it is likely that the problem would go uncorrected or unnoticed by the developers and permanently alter things for the worse.
They do support my point, actually. For one, the fact that some of the classes experienced players denounce as "too simple" are actually quite well enjoyed and played. This logically disproves the personal anecdote that there is less of an audience for simple classes. Also, with D&DB's exponential growth over the past couple of years, more recent data is going to be far more reliable and accurate. Additionally, the results will likely be skewed slightly towards more complex classes, since people will use digital toolsets made to make things easier for more confusing classes than they would in a pen and paper game, and they are more likely to experiment with a complex class and not play because it was too complicated than they were if the class were simpler.
The main point to take away from this though is that Fighters are the most played class, and that a very significant number of people who play them play Champion. Both on and away from D&D Beyond. Though this number can almost certainly be increased by buffing the subclass, what it shows is that, in total the option of a simple Fighter has been used by a lot of people. Even if, percentage wise, it's relatively on par to other Basic Rules subclasses.
If a class is enjoyed and used by a certain, large type of the player base, then that class should not be taken away from them and transformed into a style they do not want to play. Fighter is successful and enjoyable, and it can and has helped provide a nice and kind welcome to the game for people like me. It, as well as the few other options in the game that have been laid aside for simple players should remain preserved. Fighter more so than Barbarian, because at least looking at the data now, the class seems to be more enjoyed, loved and successful precisely for being simple. Perhaps because it's more open concept is able to appeal to more people than Barbarian is.
---
Since I began drafting this post, more relevant comments have been made. The first thing I would like to say is that if your comments are responding to utter mockeries and distorted or nonexistent views, then I will probably not bother replying to you. Saying that people who are in favor of simplicity want to tune out of the game, ignore it, and will attack anyone or anything that makes them make decisions is A) Ridiculous and B) Seems remarkably like inventing things for the mere purpose of mocking those with a different playing style.
On other points: People who like simplicity should not have to suffer mechanically and have less of a fun time due to that. This is why telling someone to play a Wizard simply by not using any of their spells or abilities won't work.
Again, I will repeat that everyone needs options. Both for people that like simpler options and options that are more complex. The Fighter is a great option for one of those groups, and it is successful for it. Let's not take it away from those who need it, because there are many people like me have loved and had a great experience with this version of Fighter and are still playing the game because of it.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Sure, you can always homebrew the whole game from the ground up, but it's nice to have something to tie the stat blocks and roleplay. Like Summon Greater Demon requiring blood of a recently slain humanoid. It's just a material component, but it already puts some RP weight into something that only needed to put a stat block onto the table. It's a little story hook in itself. And it's about identity. It should matter who you summon.
Consider even the Burning Hands spell. It is designed to deal fire damage to the enemies, and it does exactly that. But it also has this line that says that it ignites flammable objects that aren't being worn or carried. It already makes the caster consider how and when to use it, and ties it to the world the characters are in. In a videogame, you can cast burning hands anywhere, fire damage and area of effect is all that matters. In a TTRPG, good luck using it inside a wooden building.
This. Would it really be too tough to take summon greater demon and stick the summon fiend stat block onto it? It would make it really feel like you're summoning a creature of the lower planes instead of just a stat block.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Lol, at least 25% of players I have played with do not make tactical decisions in combat. They make RP driven choices, or the most whacky/chaotic option, or just whatever they think is cool. And they are adults! A large portion of the D&D community are children who just want to pretend to slay a dragon with a giant sword.
Here's the thing.
Those people will act the way they act regardless of what their class features do. They will deliberately make bad choices no matter what the game rules say they can or cannot do because they're Bohemian failure monkeys actively chasing disaster, and someone doing that will get it no matter what's written on their character sheet. If someone actively diswants to use the tools they're given, it doesn't matter which tools they've been given.
The rest of us? The people who want to engage with the game, to make use of the tools we're given to craft splendid stories and solve interesting challenges? The people who take the game seriously? What's written on our sheets matters. We use what's written on our sheets, alongside our wit, our wiles, and our style to make memorable moments, tell tales, and emerge victorious or die trying.
You can't cater to the Whacky Lolrandom Chaos Yaybos who ignore the rules of the game because they'll ignore anything you write for them anyways. They'll have their fun the same way no matter what you write or produce or sell. But you can try and do better by the people who play the game more akin to the way it was intended to be played. The people who use what you sell to tackle challenges and try to create more even-toned stories. Those folks deserve better than Bard's whole "all complexity of any sort should be stripped from every class, every species, every book, and every rule of D&D forever because complexity is bad and anyone who thinks otherwise is a terrible person who should just quit D&D" bit. They deserve better than Linear Warrior Quadratic Wizard. But they're never going to get it because the Whacky Lolrandom Chaos Yaybos keep insisting that Wizards should stop printing new rules so they have less to ignore.
It is, to put it mildly, a little frustrating.
Please do not contact or message me.
...No one is saying these kinds of weighty conjurations can't still exist alongside the far more practical and useful summons. And this one is at least only one creature as opposed to Conjure Animals' annoying menagerie.
This is literally how 3.5 summoning worked, my guy. Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally were there as the workaday "I want to be a summoning-focused Pokemon Trainer" line, and then the more involved ritualistic Planar Ally and Entice Fey and Call Zelekhut-type stuff was there for when you and your DM felt like doing the whole "bring me a unicorn heart steeped in the fresh tears of a maiden as payment" song and dance. The game does have room for both. But I don't think the latter needs to be in core, either, because not every table wants to deal with that just to have a summoner, nor is every player or DM equipped to deal with that stuff. Wear someone else's shoes once in awhile for Ao's sake.
Incidentally, on the Champion fighter, I think you could accomplish almost everything the Champion is meant to do with a couple of new Battle Master techniques:
Critical Strike
When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you may expend one superiority die and add the superiority die to the d20 roll. If this increases the d20 roll to a 20 or higher, your attack is a critical hit.
Remarkable Athlete
When you make an Athletics, Acrobatics or Strength ability check, you can expend one superiority die and add the superiority die to the ability check. Alternately, you may spend a superiority die and add its type(so +8 for a d8) to your Strength when using strength for effects that normally do not require a roll, such as lifting or jumping.
Speaking of the battle master, just rescaling it would help significantly with the martial vs caster divide. At third level, a battle master fighter is incredibly powerful, but it scales very poorly. Yes, 6d12 is better than 4d8, but it's hardly fifteen levels of better.
Let's just put aside Conjure Animals, because we all agree that adding 16 more actors into action economy of a fight has always been a terrible idea.
Thing is, simplifying things is easier than creating something more complex from scratch. You could always ignore the need for unicorn heart steeped in the fresh tears of a maiden or say that the vendor next door just happens to have one for 10 gold a piece. No problem. Anyone can do that. But I think there is a place for that golden middle ground that combines stats and engagement with the game world. Burning Hands could just do fire damage, but it also has a line that says that it ignites flammable objects. Why would you need that? It wouldn't matter if it was a videogame, because only enemies and red barrels are interactive. But this line is there because this spell isn't just orange damage dice, it interacts with the game world. It's one of the examples of side effects and consequences. If damage type matters, and they work differently, then monster type should, too. And this should be codified in the rules at least on a basic level, for players to have guidelines to spur their imagination.
Otherwise, why bother with actual characters and things like background or name, why do guidelines for those things exist iin the books? PCs are just stat blocks and spell lists for those who want it simple, aren't they?
So "interact with the game world" means "all summons must spell out every circumstance in which they may refuse the summoner's orders, as well as being capable of griefing the party if the summoner loses control?"
Because, bluntly, screw that. There's a place in the game for those kinds of summons, sure. There's also a place for the Tasha' Summons that are easy for players to control, easy for DMs to adjudicate, and Just Work. And if that sounds like a "video game" to you - well, video games are fun. Remember, fun? That thing we're all here for? What a concept!
My main problem with Tasha's summons is that they kinda messed up the power scaling -- they're lousy with 3rd level spell slots and at really high levels they're maybe too good. I'd probably go with number of attacks = 1 + (spell level)/3 instead of (spell level)/2 (makes them stronger with a level 3 slot, weaker with a level 8 slot; otherwise no change).
Are you sure that a large portion of D&D players are children?
When I started playing it was definitely like that. Most D&D players were either children or young adults. But my impression today, at least in my country, is that the vast majority of gamers are adults over 30, with a portion of gamers being young adults.
One of my best friends works at the biggest RPG store in my city. A huge store, which is the main reference in the area. Upstairs there are rooms to play, and you hardly ever see children or teenagers there. Some more you see hanging around on the floor below, which is the actual store. And many of these are accompanied by an adult, probably because they are the parents who are going to buy with their children. Also, talking about this with my friend, he confirms that the majority of clients are adults over 30, with a significant portion of young people between 20 and 30 years old.
That pattern may not be repeated in the USA or other countries. And it may also be that children and teenagers do not play in a store, or buy in physical stores. But my impression is that that pattern is a true representation of today's roleplaying community. At least, as I say, in my country.
That's why I'm surprised you'd say that a large portion of D&D players are children. And my question is genuine. Out of curiosity, why do you say that a large portion of players are children? Do you have any data or personal experience that supports that opinion? Because my impression is exactly the opposite, something that I have discussed many times with other players. We started as children and, back then, playing role-playing was a thing for children and teenagers. But that is no longer the case, in our opinion.
Edit: I have been looking for data since it is a topic that interests me. A 2019 survey by "The Orr Group" found that the average age of roleplayers was 30, with the majority of gamers (close to 65%) being over 25. In another study of "Quantic Foundry" the average age is established at 31,
I dunno, Summon Greater Demon spells out every circumstance in just four paragraphs. And it's fun. It has a condition - someone must die for the summoning to happen. Also, it has an option to risk it or to play it safe by staying within the circle of sacrifical blood. And it even offers a way to upgrade the spell by finding the demon's true name. Not to mention that you can summon quite a range of monsters. It can be simplified. I would even like it to be simplified a bit. Like, you could summon it without the blood and struggle for control, or murder someone and make the spell safe for you with their blood. That alone is quite enough to bake in a moral choice and a feeling of wrongness and evilness in summoning a demon.
If I want to play a videogame, I go and play a videogame. It's that simple. And when I want something more than a videogame, something that isn't limited by current tech, I play TTRPGs. Treating DnD like a videogame is like marrying a beautiful woman and never having sex with her.
I found another article saying for D&D 40% of players are 25 or younger, 49% are 25-40, 11% are 40+. An average age of 31 means a lot of young people since the handful of 60+ players will skew the average to the right of the median. In the US there are a lot of D&D clubs run in highschools and universities. I'm not at all surprised children of the helicopter parents aren't going to game stores and playing with strangers, but that doesn't mean they aren't playing. IME it is quite common for people to drop out of D&D groups when they start their own families and all their recreational time is spent with their baby which these days is usually in people's 30s thus the highest concentration of players is 20-30 yro.
Edit to add: Found another press release by WotC with a more stratified breakdown:
15-19yro = 12%
20-24yro = 24%
25-29yro = 18%
30-34yro = 18%
35-39yro = 14%
40+ = 13%
men = 60%, women = 40%