The downside of this method though is that it's still slowing the game down, and you have to make sure everybody has access to the stat block.
Access to the stat block is not a massively insurmountable obstacle; if it's a basic rules block then anyone with a smart device can look the info up, if your group is using digital resources they can either use a content sharing feature or screenshots of the stat block, and I expect most pen and paper groups also have at least one player with access to a printer. Worst case someone can buy a stack of index cards and write up HP, AC, speed, to hit/damage, and ability scores if those are considered relevant.
The entire point of the Tasha's summon spells having the stat block right in the spell description is to avoid needing any of that. At most the stat block should be in the PHB, if the player gets to be the one to choose. And I suspect they're doing away with forcing the decision on the DM to make it less of a hassle.
I mean, that's a valid option for people who can't be bothered to take any extra effort at all to have interesting and engaging effects, but you cannot seriously tell me what I've described is particularly onerous or demanding.
The downside of this method though is that it's still slowing the game down, and you have to make sure everybody has access to the stat block.
Access to the stat block is not a massively insurmountable obstacle; if it's a basic rules block then anyone with a smart device can look the info up, if your group is using digital resources they can either use a content sharing feature or screenshots of the stat block, and I expect most pen and paper groups also have at least one player with access to a printer. Worst case someone can buy a stack of index cards and write up HP, AC, speed, to hit/damage, and ability scores if those are considered relevant.
The entire point of the Tasha's summon spells having the stat block right in the spell description is to avoid needing any of that. At most the stat block should be in the PHB, if the player gets to be the one to choose. And I suspect they're doing away with forcing the decision on the DM to make it less of a hassle.
I mean, that's a valid option for people who can't be bothered to take any extra effort at all to have interesting and engaging effects, but you cannot seriously tell me what I've described is particularly onerous or demanding.
This is a game, not a job (at least not for the players, as I know there are people who DM for a living). It's generally not a bad thing to make things more convenient for the player or the DM as long as it doesn't do something game-breaking.
Which is why you provide the option of Tasha's summons; that doesn't mean they can't literally just leave a pre-existing alternative option in place for people who care to invest a bit of time and effort to get more from the concept of summoning.
Also, there is arguably a threshold where "making things easier" becomes "removing player engagement or accomplishment".
Which is why you provide the option of Tasha's summons; that doesn't mean they can't literally just leave a pre-existing alternative option in place for people who care to invest a bit of time and effort to get more from the concept of summoning.
Also, there is arguably a threshold where "making things easier" becomes "removing player engagement or accomplishment".
They ARE leaving the pre-existing option in place! The 2014 spell isn't going anywhere!
I'm not sure why that's so impossible for folks to grasp - the revised Conjure spells are in the 2024 books but this isn't a typical edition changeover. They're leaving the existing game infrastructure in place and explicitly laying out the expectation that players continue to use pre-revision resources as they need/desire. Not even "converting" them - J-Craw's said that he expects people to use 2014 stuff as is, without touching it, in concert with the new rules.
If you absolutely cannot live without your druid being able to do the Eight Pixies Into T-Rexes dumbass meme, you can still do that with the old spell. There's no bloody reason to reprint it when they can make a version that might let people do something new and interesting rather than making yet more DMs hate DMing with the old crap versions of the spells they can't get rid of even if they wanted to.
Which is why you provide the option of Tasha's summons; that doesn't mean they can't literally just leave a pre-existing alternative option in place for people who care to invest a bit of time and effort to get more from the concept of summoning.
Also, there is arguably a threshold where "making things easier" becomes "removing player engagement or accomplishment".
They ARE leaving the pre-existing option in place! The 2014 spell isn't going anywhere!
I'm not sure why that's so impossible for folks to grasp - the revised Conjure spells are in the 2024 books but this isn't a typical edition changeover. They're leaving the existing game infrastructure in place and explicitly laying out the expectation that players continue to use pre-revision resources as they need/desire. Not even "converting" them - J-Craw's said that he expects people to use 2014 stuff as is, without touching it, in concert with the new rules.
If you absolutely cannot live without your druid being able to do the Eight Pixies Into T-Rexes dumbass meme, you can still do that with the old spell. There's no bloody reason to reprint it when they can make a version that might let people do something new and interesting rather than making yet more DMs hate DMing with the old crap versions of the spells they can't get rid of even if they wanted to.
Yurei, I've repeatedly said that 8 Pixies is an example of a bad effect, so please try to keep your accusations at least grounded in grandiose hypotheticals rather than claiming I want things I've said numerous times I think are detrimental to the game. And, if the current iterations get Legacied, they're going to be harder to access for anyone who doesn't already have the 2014 book plus these new spells using their names pushes the narrative that they are the "correct"/"improved" versions and creates a bias against using the prior ones, if only by implication. If leaving them in place is fine, then they can just rename these new effects and create a positive for everyone in the new book: Conjure remains accessible for people who want it going forward, there's Summon for people who want the simple version, and there's a few more spells in the game.
Yurei, I've repeatedly said that 8 Pixies is an example of a bad effect, so please try to keep your accusations at least grounded in grandiose hypotheticals rather than claiming I want things I've said numerous times I think are detrimental to the game. And, if the current iterations get Legacied, they're going to be harder to access for anyone who doesn't already have the 2014 book plus these new spells using their names pushes the narrative that they are the "correct"/"improved" versions and creates a bias against using the prior ones, if only by implication. If leaving them in place is fine, then they can just rename these new effects and create a positive for everyone in the new book: Conjure remains accessible for people who want it going forward, there's Summon for people who want the simple version, and there's a few more spells in the game.
Leaving them for existing players via a legacy tag, and intentionally steering brand new players towards them via a reprint or a rename, are two different things. Same logic behind what they did to VGtM and MToF - your prior purchase is valid, but that doesn't mean they want to keep selling more of them.
The animate object fix is simple. Move their turn to share initiative with the caster And make it so that while all of them can move each turn only on animated object can use an Action and/or bonus action on their turn and they share 1 reaction.
Allowing only a single one to attack per turn defeats the point of the spell. If I want hold concentration to do about 6 extra damage a turn, I'll use Flaming Sphere and save myself 3 spell levels.
I wonder if they could up the damage of the single hit to make it balanced.
Doesn't really fix the issue there, imo; you can upcast Flaming Sphere and there's other spells that let you use your bonus action for a single instance of extra damage. If you can't make multiple attacks with Animate Objects, it has nothing to offer that isn't already on the table, mechanically speaking. Heck, it'd arguably be worse than something like Spiritual Weapon or Flaming Sphere since those can't be targeted for attacks or caught in AoE's to end the effect early.
Now turn off your combat only brain and realize there are other things you can do with animate objects that can’t be done with spiritual weapon. Also in combat animated objects can help provide flanking, also small or larger objects can be used to prevent flanking, clog passage ways or deliver objects to allies. Things spiritual weapon or flaming sphere can’t do.
Now turn off your combat only brain and realize there are other things you can do with animate objects that can’t be done with spiritual weapon. Also in combat animated objects can help provide flanking, also small or larger objects can be used to prevent flanking, clog passage ways or deliver objects to allies. Things spiritual weapon or flaming sphere can’t do.
The problem with Animate Objects is that the 10 tiny objects are better in everyway than the larger objects and because you need the actual objects to animate, it is by far easier to carry tiny objects with you for the spell than larger objects. So while I have seen Conjure Animals used for all kinds of different creatures, I have only ever seen Animate Objects used for the 10 tiny objects.
Now turn off your combat only brain and realize there are other things you can do with animate objects that can’t be done with spiritual weapon. Also in combat animated objects can help provide flanking, also small or larger objects can be used to prevent flanking, clog passage ways or deliver objects to allies. Things spiritual weapon or flaming sphere can’t do.
The problem with Animate Objects is that the 10 tiny objects are better in everyway than the larger objects and because you need the actual objects to animate, it is by far easier to carry tiny objects with you for the spell than larger objects. So while I have seen Conjure Animals used for all kinds of different creatures, I have only ever seen Animate Objects used for the 10 tiny objects.
This is what happens when we trim a conversation. People jump in and say stuff that makes no sense because they missed all the important information for context. I was literally arguing that animate objects should be limited to one action and/or bonus action and one shared reaction, no matter how many objects you animate. Bard said that it wouldn’t work because they might as well just cast spiritual weapon or flaming sphere. I was explaining that there are other uses for animate object even if it was limited to one attack. This proves that trimming quotes is pointless. It just leads to out of context replies. That lead to more out of context replies. *Facepalm*
Now turn off your combat only brain and realize there are other things you can do with animate objects that can’t be done with spiritual weapon. Also in combat animated objects can help provide flanking, also small or larger objects can be used to prevent flanking, clog passage ways or deliver objects to allies. Things spiritual weapon or flaming sphere can’t do.
The problem with Animate Objects is that the 10 tiny objects are better in everyway than the larger objects and because you need the actual objects to animate, it is by far easier to carry tiny objects with you for the spell than larger objects. So while I have seen Conjure Animals used for all kinds of different creatures, I have only ever seen Animate Objects used for the 10 tiny objects.
This is what happens when we trim a conversation. People jump in and say stuff that makes no sense because they missed all the important information for context. I was literally arguing that animate objects should be limited to one action and/or bonus action and one shared reaction, no matter how many objects you animate. Bard said that it wouldn’t work because they might as well just cast spiritual weapon or flaming sphere. I was explaining that there are other uses for animate object even if it was limited to one attack. This proves that trimming quotes is pointless. It just leads to out of context replies. That lead to more out of context replies. *Facepalm*
The alternate uses for Animate Object are even more niche than the alternate uses for multi-summons. The spell lasts for 1 minute, that's a very clear "this is a combat spell" flag. Telekinesis is a far better pick at the same level for general object manipulation. The primary purpose of Animate Objects is to produce multiple additional attacks during combat. Attempting to remove that gives the spell pretty much no niche whatsoever that is not already better covered by something else.
Now turn off your combat only brain and realize there are other things you can do with animate objects that can’t be done with spiritual weapon. Also in combat animated objects can help provide flanking, also small or larger objects can be used to prevent flanking, clog passage ways or deliver objects to allies. Things spiritual weapon or flaming sphere can’t do.
The problem with Animate Objects is that the 10 tiny objects are better in everyway than the larger objects and because you need the actual objects to animate, it is by far easier to carry tiny objects with you for the spell than larger objects. So while I have seen Conjure Animals used for all kinds of different creatures, I have only ever seen Animate Objects used for the 10 tiny objects.
This is what happens when we trim a conversation. People jump in and say stuff that makes no sense because they missed all the important information for context. I was literally arguing that animate objects should be limited to one action and/or bonus action and one shared reaction, no matter how many objects you animate. Bard said that it wouldn’t work because they might as well just cast spiritual weapon or flaming sphere. I was explaining that there are other uses for animate object even if it was limited to one attack. This proves that trimming quotes is pointless. It just leads to out of context replies. That lead to more out of context replies. *Facepalm*
The alternate uses for Animate Object are even more niche than the alternate uses for multi-summons. The spell lasts for 1 minute, that's a very clear "this is a combat spell" flag. Telekinesis is a far better pick at the same level for general object manipulation. The primary purpose of Animate Objects is to produce multiple additional attacks during combat. Attempting to remove that gives the spell pretty much no niche whatsoever that is not already better covered by something else.
If this was a game of optimal picks we can reduce all spell lists by 2/3rds. Also if the goal of the spell was just to produce multiple attacks why give you size options with different stats. There are multiple reasons to use animate object over telekinesis. Using telekinesis to open a massive door could fail if the door is too heavy. The same door will just open itself if you animate it. Telekinesis can only move one object at a time and another creature could grab it and attempt to take it from your telekinetic hold. An animated objects are creatures and depending on size you can move multiple of them. They also can’t just be grabbed and taken from you. Animate the keys the guard needs to open the door to allow reinforcements into the room and now it’s going to be chasing them around for a chinch of the combat and you don’t need to use your action each turn to tell the keys what to do. There are plenty of inventive uses for animating objects. I would also make the same change on Animate object that I would make on conjure animals. Instead of increasing the number of animated objects I would increase the duration for higher level castings.
Now turn off your combat only brain and realize there are other things you can do with animate objects that can’t be done with spiritual weapon. Also in combat animated objects can help provide flanking, also small or larger objects can be used to prevent flanking, clog passage ways or deliver objects to allies. Things spiritual weapon or flaming sphere can’t do.
The problem with Animate Objects is that the 10 tiny objects are better in everyway than the larger objects and because you need the actual objects to animate, it is by far easier to carry tiny objects with you for the spell than larger objects. So while I have seen Conjure Animals used for all kinds of different creatures, I have only ever seen Animate Objects used for the 10 tiny objects.
This is what happens when we trim a conversation. People jump in and say stuff that makes no sense because they missed all the important information for context. I was literally arguing that animate objects should be limited to one action and/or bonus action and one shared reaction, no matter how many objects you animate. Bard said that it wouldn’t work because they might as well just cast spiritual weapon or flaming sphere. I was explaining that there are other uses for animate object even if it was limited to one attack. This proves that trimming quotes is pointless. It just leads to out of context replies. That lead to more out of context replies. *Facepalm*
The alternate uses for Animate Object are even more niche than the alternate uses for multi-summons. The spell lasts for 1 minute, that's a very clear "this is a combat spell" flag. Telekinesis is a far better pick at the same level for general object manipulation. The primary purpose of Animate Objects is to produce multiple additional attacks during combat. Attempting to remove that gives the spell pretty much no niche whatsoever that is not already better covered by something else.
If this was a game of optimal picks we can reduce all spell lists by 2/3rds
It's not just "sub optimal"; it's literally all but useless. If I can use an lower level spell for better damage and an equal level spell for better utility, there's basically no reason to take the spell.
Now turn off your combat only brain and realize there are other things you can do with animate objects that can’t be done with spiritual weapon. Also in combat animated objects can help provide flanking, also small or larger objects can be used to prevent flanking, clog passage ways or deliver objects to allies. Things spiritual weapon or flaming sphere can’t do.
The problem with Animate Objects is that the 10 tiny objects are better in everyway than the larger objects and because you need the actual objects to animate, it is by far easier to carry tiny objects with you for the spell than larger objects. So while I have seen Conjure Animals used for all kinds of different creatures, I have only ever seen Animate Objects used for the 10 tiny objects.
This is what happens when we trim a conversation. People jump in and say stuff that makes no sense because they missed all the important information for context. I was literally arguing that animate objects should be limited to one action and/or bonus action and one shared reaction, no matter how many objects you animate. Bard said that it wouldn’t work because they might as well just cast spiritual weapon or flaming sphere. I was explaining that there are other uses for animate object even if it was limited to one attack. This proves that trimming quotes is pointless. It just leads to out of context replies. That lead to more out of context replies. *Facepalm*
The alternate uses for Animate Object are even more niche than the alternate uses for multi-summons. The spell lasts for 1 minute, that's a very clear "this is a combat spell" flag. Telekinesis is a far better pick at the same level for general object manipulation. The primary purpose of Animate Objects is to produce multiple additional attacks during combat. Attempting to remove that gives the spell pretty much no niche whatsoever that is not already better covered by something else.
If this was a game of optimal picks we can reduce all spell lists by 2/3rds
It's not just "sub optimal"; it's literally all but useless. If I can use an lower level spell for better damage and an equal level spell for better utility, there's basically no reason to take the spell.
I already said increase the damage for balance, so come up with a better argument. There is no reason to have multiple creatures making actions each turn. The conjure spells and animate objects are bad.
I already said increase the damage for balance, so come up with a better argument. There is no reason to have multiple creatures making actions each turn. The conjure spells and animate objects are bad.
TBH there is no need for them to take actions at all. We already have insect plague that models a swarm of tiny things attacking. So we can just make Animate Objects work nearly identically to that spell to 'fix' it, just like how the other conjure spells were fixed:
So Animate Objects: 5th level Transmutation spell
You magically animate a swarm of tiny objects such as coins, pebbles, or twigs in a 5ft radius sphere. A creature that enters the swarms space on a turn or starts its turn there must make a Dexterity saving throw or take 10d4 bludgeoning damage on a failure or half as much on a success. As a bonus action of your turn you can move the swarm 30ft in a direction of your choice.
If you cast the spell with a higher level spell slot increase the damage by 2d4 for each level above 5th.
I already said increase the damage for balance, so come up with a better argument. There is no reason to have multiple creatures making actions each turn. The conjure spells and animate objects are bad.
TBH there is no need for them to take actions at all. We already have insect plague that models a swarm of tiny things attacking. So we can just make Animate Objects work nearly identically to that spell to 'fix' it, just like how the other conjure spells were fixed:
So Animate Objects: 5th level Transmutation spell
You magically animate a swarm of tiny objects such as coins, pebbles, or twigs in a 5ft radius sphere. A creature that enters the swarms space on a turn or starts its turn there must make a Dexterity saving throw or take 10d4 bludgeoning damage on a failure or half as much on a success. As a bonus action of your turn you can move the swarm 30ft in a direction of your choice.
If you cast the spell with a higher level spell slot increase the damage by 2d4 for each level above 5th.
At which point it's substantially pointless to have the spell at all because it's only marginally different from Insect Plague. Why do people keep thinking turning existing and interesting spells that a few tables can't be bothered to deal with into literaly copies of existing spells is anything like an improvement? If you really think the spell is bad, just pull it, don't turn it into something that already exists elsewhere and tell us you've made it better.
I do wonder if the problem they're trying to solve is one that needs to go further, as even with Tasha's summons some casters can have a concentration summon, a familiar, an unseen servant, plus maybe an accompanying pet or a hireling etc. which is still on the unwieldy side in combat.
What if they actually introduced an "Ally" keyword, and specified that in combat each player gets their own turn, then one "Ally" turn immediately after, meaning they can only ever control a single recruited/summoned/etc. creature per round in combat for a maximum of two turns each. Out of combat it wouldn't matter so much if you have a whole horde of summons as you don't need to worry about the turns, so you still have full utility in those cases.
With rules to combine identical creatures into a fully functional swarm, or mismatched creatures into a "convenience" swarm (for movement purposes) this would allow for a massive simplification and hard limits on summons meaning we can at most only double the number of player turns.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I do wonder if the problem they're trying to solve is one that needs to go further, as even with Tasha's summons some casters can have a concentration summon, a familiar, an unseen servant, plus maybe an accompanying pet or a hireling etc. which is still on the unwieldy side in combat.
What if they actually introduced an "Ally" keyword, and specified that in combat each player gets their own turn, then one "Ally" turn immediately after, meaning they can only ever control a single recruited/summoned/etc. creature per round in combat for a maximum of two turns each. Out of combat it wouldn't matter so much if you have a whole horde of summons as you don't need to worry about the turns, so you still have full utility in those cases.
With rules to combine identical creatures into a fully functional swarm, or mismatched creatures into a "convenience" swarm (for movement purposes) this would allow for a massive simplification and hard limits on summons meaning we can at most only double the number of player turns.
Yeah, Wizards are still a problem for turn complexity. A wizard can simultaneously have:
a familiar (or a flock of them)
a Phantom Steed
an unseen servant
one or more Tiny Servants
a Homunculus
a Faithful Hound
a Tasha's Summon (or up to 10 Animated Objects)
one or more zombies/skeletons/ghouls
Plus they can have a Simulacrum with all of those again.
If we really want to limit turn complexity as well as balance action economy, the most effective way to do it is to make it require a Bonus action to command any/every summon or companion.
I know I’m late to this party and haven’t read through everything but I'm ok with the new conjure spells. I think they could use a different wording, but Conjure Animals was always a group of Fey spirits that took animal form. I think they could have worded this version similar but have them all act as one group and share the same space, like they do in this version.
Other ideas may work better as well, so I will try and get caught up on this thread.
I already said increase the damage for balance, so come up with a better argument. There is no reason to have multiple creatures making actions each turn. The conjure spells and animate objects are bad.
TBH there is no need for them to take actions at all. We already have insect plague that models a swarm of tiny things attacking. So we can just make Animate Objects work nearly identically to that spell to 'fix' it, just like how the other conjure spells were fixed:
So Animate Objects: 5th level Transmutation spell
You magically animate a swarm of tiny objects such as coins, pebbles, or twigs in a 5ft radius sphere. A creature that enters the swarms space on a turn or starts its turn there must make a Dexterity saving throw or take 10d4 bludgeoning damage on a failure or half as much on a success. As a bonus action of your turn you can move the swarm 30ft in a direction of your choice.
If you cast the spell with a higher level spell slot increase the damage by 2d4 for each level above 5th.
At which point it's substantially pointless to have the spell at all because it's only marginally different from Insect Plague. Why do people keep thinking turning existing and interesting spells that a few tables can't be bothered to deal with into literaly copies of existing spells is anything like an improvement? If you really think the spell is bad, just pull it, don't turn it into something that already exists elsewhere and tell us you've made it better.
I don’t want to turn it into a copy of another spell. I’m just trying fix the part that is clearly a problem at any table that has more than 2 players. Just because you haven’t had a problem with it doesn’t mean it’s not a problem. Also as you a talk about making sure spells aren’t near copies of other spells why does 5e have animate objects and conjure animals. Clearly flavor matters. Things can have the same mechanical effect, but deserve existence because they have different flavor. 5e Conjure Animals is bad and so is Animate Objects. They can fixed in a way that they still function to some degree of what they do in 5e while not being disruptive. They didn’t need the full change the UA presents for Conjure Spells or the type of fix that Agilemind suggested where it doesn’t really animate anything and can only be used as a combat spell.
I already said increase the damage for balance, so come up with a better argument. There is no reason to have multiple creatures making actions each turn. The conjure spells and animate objects are bad.
TBH there is no need for them to take actions at all. We already have insect plague that models a swarm of tiny things attacking. So we can just make Animate Objects work nearly identically to that spell to 'fix' it, just like how the other conjure spells were fixed:
So Animate Objects: 5th level Transmutation spell
You magically animate a swarm of tiny objects such as coins, pebbles, or twigs in a 5ft radius sphere. A creature that enters the swarms space on a turn or starts its turn there must make a Dexterity saving throw or take 10d4 bludgeoning damage on a failure or half as much on a success. As a bonus action of your turn you can move the swarm 30ft in a direction of your choice.
If you cast the spell with a higher level spell slot increase the damage by 2d4 for each level above 5th.
At which point it's substantially pointless to have the spell at all because it's only marginally different from Insect Plague. Why do people keep thinking turning existing and interesting spells that a few tables can't be bothered to deal with into literaly copies of existing spells is anything like an improvement? If you really think the spell is bad, just pull it, don't turn it into something that already exists elsewhere and tell us you've made it better.
While I think far more people than a few have had problems with these spells and I think something should be done to change that I do not like the solution of just reflavoring other spells in their place whether its insect swarm for this or spirit shroud for minor elemental etc. I think we need a fix, but this aint it imo.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I mean, that's a valid option for people who can't be bothered to take any extra effort at all to have interesting and engaging effects, but you cannot seriously tell me what I've described is particularly onerous or demanding.
Which is why you provide the option of Tasha's summons; that doesn't mean they can't literally just leave a pre-existing alternative option in place for people who care to invest a bit of time and effort to get more from the concept of summoning.
Also, there is arguably a threshold where "making things easier" becomes "removing player engagement or accomplishment".
They ARE leaving the pre-existing option in place! The 2014 spell isn't going anywhere!
I'm not sure why that's so impossible for folks to grasp - the revised Conjure spells are in the 2024 books but this isn't a typical edition changeover. They're leaving the existing game infrastructure in place and explicitly laying out the expectation that players continue to use pre-revision resources as they need/desire. Not even "converting" them - J-Craw's said that he expects people to use 2014 stuff as is, without touching it, in concert with the new rules.
If you absolutely cannot live without your druid being able to do the Eight Pixies Into T-Rexes dumbass meme, you can still do that with the old spell. There's no bloody reason to reprint it when they can make a version that might let people do something new and interesting rather than making yet more DMs hate DMing with the old crap versions of the spells they can't get rid of even if they wanted to.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yurei, I've repeatedly said that 8 Pixies is an example of a bad effect, so please try to keep your accusations at least grounded in grandiose hypotheticals rather than claiming I want things I've said numerous times I think are detrimental to the game. And, if the current iterations get Legacied, they're going to be harder to access for anyone who doesn't already have the 2014 book plus these new spells using their names pushes the narrative that they are the "correct"/"improved" versions and creates a bias against using the prior ones, if only by implication. If leaving them in place is fine, then they can just rename these new effects and create a positive for everyone in the new book: Conjure remains accessible for people who want it going forward, there's Summon for people who want the simple version, and there's a few more spells in the game.
Leaving them for existing players via a legacy tag, and intentionally steering brand new players towards them via a reprint or a rename, are two different things. Same logic behind what they did to VGtM and MToF - your prior purchase is valid, but that doesn't mean they want to keep selling more of them.
Now turn off your combat only brain and realize there are other things you can do with animate objects that can’t be done with spiritual weapon. Also in combat animated objects can help provide flanking, also small or larger objects can be used to prevent flanking, clog passage ways or deliver objects to allies. Things spiritual weapon or flaming sphere can’t do.
The problem with Animate Objects is that the 10 tiny objects are better in everyway than the larger objects and because you need the actual objects to animate, it is by far easier to carry tiny objects with you for the spell than larger objects. So while I have seen Conjure Animals used for all kinds of different creatures, I have only ever seen Animate Objects used for the 10 tiny objects.
Yep
This is what happens when we trim a conversation. People jump in and say stuff that makes no sense because they missed all the important information for context. I was literally arguing that animate objects should be limited to one action and/or bonus action and one shared reaction, no matter how many objects you animate. Bard said that it wouldn’t work because they might as well just cast spiritual weapon or flaming sphere. I was explaining that there are other uses for animate object even if it was limited to one attack. This proves that trimming quotes is pointless. It just leads to out of context replies. That lead to more out of context replies. *Facepalm*
The alternate uses for Animate Object are even more niche than the alternate uses for multi-summons. The spell lasts for 1 minute, that's a very clear "this is a combat spell" flag. Telekinesis is a far better pick at the same level for general object manipulation. The primary purpose of Animate Objects is to produce multiple additional attacks during combat. Attempting to remove that gives the spell pretty much no niche whatsoever that is not already better covered by something else.
If this was a game of optimal picks we can reduce all spell lists by 2/3rds. Also if the goal of the spell was just to produce multiple attacks why give you size options with different stats. There are multiple reasons to use animate object over telekinesis. Using telekinesis to open a massive door could fail if the door is too heavy. The same door will just open itself if you animate it. Telekinesis can only move one object at a time and another creature could grab it and attempt to take it from your telekinetic hold. An animated objects are creatures and depending on size you can move multiple of them. They also can’t just be grabbed and taken from you. Animate the keys the guard needs to open the door to allow reinforcements into the room and now it’s going to be chasing them around for a chinch of the combat and you don’t need to use your action each turn to tell the keys what to do. There are plenty of inventive uses for animating objects. I would also make the same change on Animate object that I would make on conjure animals. Instead of increasing the number of animated objects I would increase the duration for higher level castings.
It's not just "sub optimal"; it's literally all but useless. If I can use an lower level spell for better damage and an equal level spell for better utility, there's basically no reason to take the spell.
I already said increase the damage for balance, so come up with a better argument. There is no reason to have multiple creatures making actions each turn. The conjure spells and animate objects are bad.
TBH there is no need for them to take actions at all. We already have insect plague that models a swarm of tiny things attacking. So we can just make Animate Objects work nearly identically to that spell to 'fix' it, just like how the other conjure spells were fixed:
So Animate Objects:
5th level Transmutation spell
You magically animate a swarm of tiny objects such as coins, pebbles, or twigs in a 5ft radius sphere. A creature that enters the swarms space on a turn or starts its turn there must make a Dexterity saving throw or take 10d4 bludgeoning damage on a failure or half as much on a success. As a bonus action of your turn you can move the swarm 30ft in a direction of your choice.
If you cast the spell with a higher level spell slot increase the damage by 2d4 for each level above 5th.
At which point it's substantially pointless to have the spell at all because it's only marginally different from Insect Plague. Why do people keep thinking turning existing and interesting spells that a few tables can't be bothered to deal with into literaly copies of existing spells is anything like an improvement? If you really think the spell is bad, just pull it, don't turn it into something that already exists elsewhere and tell us you've made it better.
I do wonder if the problem they're trying to solve is one that needs to go further, as even with Tasha's summons some casters can have a concentration summon, a familiar, an unseen servant, plus maybe an accompanying pet or a hireling etc. which is still on the unwieldy side in combat.
What if they actually introduced an "Ally" keyword, and specified that in combat each player gets their own turn, then one "Ally" turn immediately after, meaning they can only ever control a single recruited/summoned/etc. creature per round in combat for a maximum of two turns each. Out of combat it wouldn't matter so much if you have a whole horde of summons as you don't need to worry about the turns, so you still have full utility in those cases.
With rules to combine identical creatures into a fully functional swarm, or mismatched creatures into a "convenience" swarm (for movement purposes) this would allow for a massive simplification and hard limits on summons meaning we can at most only double the number of player turns.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Yeah, Wizards are still a problem for turn complexity. A wizard can simultaneously have:
Plus they can have a Simulacrum with all of those again.
If we really want to limit turn complexity as well as balance action economy, the most effective way to do it is to make it require a Bonus action to command any/every summon or companion.
I know I’m late to this party and haven’t read through everything but I'm ok with the new conjure spells. I think they could use a different wording, but Conjure Animals was always a group of Fey spirits that took animal form. I think they could have worded this version similar but have them all act as one group and share the same space, like they do in this version.
Other ideas may work better as well, so I will try and get caught up on this thread.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I don’t want to turn it into a copy of another spell. I’m just trying fix the part that is clearly a problem at any table that has more than 2 players. Just because you haven’t had a problem with it doesn’t mean it’s not a problem. Also as you a talk about making sure spells aren’t near copies of other spells why does 5e have animate objects and conjure animals. Clearly flavor matters. Things can have the same mechanical effect, but deserve existence because they have different flavor. 5e Conjure Animals is bad and so is Animate Objects. They can fixed in a way that they still function to some degree of what they do in 5e while not being disruptive. They didn’t need the full change the UA presents for Conjure Spells or the type of fix that Agilemind suggested where it doesn’t really animate anything and can only be used as a combat spell.
While I think far more people than a few have had problems with these spells and I think something should be done to change that I do not like the solution of just reflavoring other spells in their place whether its insect swarm for this or spirit shroud for minor elemental etc. I think we need a fix, but this aint it imo.