I'm glad you fine them to be so, but having played a druid in a big campaign and played with druids in several campaigns, the only 3rd level spells I've seen them cast are Conjure Animals and Dispel Magic.
That's beyond sad, but it does explain where you're coming from at least. Hopefully you're beginning to realize this is a fringe experience for druids in play though.
I’ve been playing a Land druid for years now and I have to say, at least for Sleet Storm, it is a good spell but situational because of the sheer size of it. I used it once or twice to very great effect but ended up unpreparing it since once or twice in levels 5-16 didn’t make it worth keeping. We tend not to have large maps in the campaign I’m in. And even on the one big map we did fight on about 1/4-1/3 of it’s area was off the map to divide and conquer without affecting my own party.
And, same goes for Conjure Animals. I used it a handful of times before unpreparing it just because it did slow down play.
I’m glad they changed the conjure spells. Not just Conjure Animals, but some of the others that the conjures turned hostile when you lost concentration.
An interesting idea but I think this would be too much. Plant Growth has the one additional thing it can do, improve crops in a large area. Handy if you are trying to get assistance from farmers, etc but it is very limited. Unless I’m just not being creative enough.
Let these combat spells do that and other spells fill the utility you mention.
I don't mind spells that can be used for both combat and out of combat utility, but depending upon the potential of that utility they ought to be balanced accordingly; i.e- a "pure" combat summon can be stronger since it's only doing one thing for the same cost in occupying one of your prepared spells.
A spell that can summon for combat but also be used to do a bunch of things as well shouldn't have the same peak on combat performance, since it's equivalent to getting several spells for a single prepared choice. Current some of the conjure spells are arguably both stronger in combat, and give much, much more utility out of combat, so there's definitely a need to rebalance them.
Versatility vs. power is kind of how I've tended to view prestidigitation vs. minor illusion as cantrip choices; the latter is far better at the things it does well (distractions or enhancing performances etc.) but the prestidigitation is almost constiously usable with a bit of creativity, and even has a few combat applications (though nothing major, mostly much weaker distractions or lighting/snuffing candles etc.).
I definitely get the desire to simplify the conjure spells and distinguish them from the newer summon spells, but there's scope for them to be simplified without losing all of their versatility, and instead be balanced as a "weaker but more flexible" option, ideal for casters who have fewer spells known/prepared, whereas the Tasha's summon spells will be ideal for the caster who's looking more specifically to summon things for combat.
To be honest I am OK with conjure animals being barely ever optimal in combat, As long We have the tasha's spells too. I prefer it as a creative utility spell.
Different spells have different uses but to maintain compatibility (for old adventurer references) it should have a little of the old functionality.
so much talk of conjuring specifically animals makes me wonder if there needs to be a book out soon with greater emphasis on training animals as hireling party members. something to highlight animal companions (and hirelings in general). some major NPC in the first level of a free adventure or a ranger/druid magic item for coordinating animals. just something that could highlight what two or three sheepdogs, for example, might look like in combat: protect target, harry target, intimidate targets into movement, split the herd, etc. not so much unchaining the slavering hounds to fight to the death, but rather controlling the battlefield with flanks and harassment. ranger / druid stuff. maybe include some DC checks for a non-exhaustive list of animals (perhaps similar to the druid wildform list that should exist) and their trainability, upkeep costs, etc. but, has to be in official media or else it won't get traction.
less powerful than ranger companion, but available to a ranger as well. not as convenient as poof/un-poof'd conjured spirits, not there to provide mounts or dig to fantasy china. but maybe the target of growth spells or illusions? eh, i don't know. it's so rare that i play at a table with hirelings or non-familiar pets. everyone wants the pet that can be re-summoned and can speak common. animal handling should get some time to shine, especially if they're removing the hordes of conjured animals. shrug.
If The goal is to simplify combat... adding more npcs is actually worse than the conjure spells.
Frankly I think alot of the complanits about "seaching stat blocks" or "time consumption" is an exaggeration but I don't mind a little cleanup. Even if I never had such problems, I'm not going to say there aren't other options.
Frankly I think alot of the complanits about "seaching stat blocks" or "time consumption" is an exaggeration but I don't mind a little cleanup.
Why do you think it's an exaggeration?
This is a game played by millions of people. If you personally never experienced issues with these, that doesn't mean no-one did.
I don't have a problem with Polymorph personally, but I've seen in other games online how easily that spell can trivialize challenges set out by the DM. That's not the same kind of issue as Conjure Animals, but it's just an example.
so much talk of conjuring specifically animals makes me wonder if there needs to be a book out soon with greater emphasis on training animals as hireling party members. something to highlight animal companions (and hirelings in general). some major NPC in the first level of a free adventure or a ranger/druid magic item for coordinating animals. just something that could highlight what two or three sheepdogs, for example, might look like in combat: protect target, harry target, intimidate targets into movement, split the herd, etc. not so much unchaining the slavering hounds to fight to the death, but rather controlling the battlefield with flanks and harassment. ranger / druid stuff. maybe include some DC checks for a non-exhaustive list of animals (perhaps similar to the druid wildform list that should exist) and their trainability, upkeep costs, etc. but, has to be in official media or else it won't get traction.
less powerful than ranger companion, but available to a ranger as well. not as convenient as poof/un-poof'd conjured spirits, not there to provide mounts or dig to fantasy china. but maybe the target of growth spells or illusions? eh, i don't know. it's so rare that i play at a table with hirelings or non-familiar pets. everyone wants the pet that can be re-summoned and can speak common. animal handling should get some time to shine, especially if they're removing the hordes of conjured animals. shrug.
If The goal is to simplify combat... adding more npcs is actually worse than the conjure spells.
Frankly I think alot of the complanits about "seaching stat blocks" or "time consumption" is an exaggeration but I don't mind a little cleanup. Even if I never had such problems, I'm not going to say there aren't other options.
so, as if they were reading along, the front page gets this recent article: "Druid 201: Best Spells" where conjure animals is described as soaking damage, gaining action-economy superiority, and surmounting environmental challenges (including as flying mounts). "easily one of fifth edition's most versatile and economical spells," they say. personally, i think the clunk and drag of picking animals and then running those animals in combat was hand-waved as just a cost of doing business... right up until someone's boss decided the revised edition shouldn't have best-in-class leveled spells so efficient that that they obviated many, many other choices. and i can't say they would be wrong in that crusade.
i can like the UA conjure spells and also wish rangers (and druids) were better represented as the pet class(es). in fact, if it's difficult to accomplish, then all the better: less chance of fair weather pet owners trying this out and then abandoning their no-longer-wild battle sheep in a jungle somewhere. won't someone think of the fictional animals??
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Frankly I think alot of the complanits about "seaching stat blocks" or "time consumption" is an exaggeration but I don't mind a little cleanup.
Why do you think it's an exaggeration?
This is a game played by millions of people. If you personally never experienced issues with these, that doesn't mean no-one did.
I don't have a problem with Polymorph personally, but I've seen in other games online how easily that spell can trivialize challenges set out by the DM. That's not the same kind of issue as Conjure Animals, but it's just an example.
Just because one table has a bad experience it doesn't equate to it being bad. Yes the same can be said for the good experiences.
Even trivialize encounters are actually good to have for concepts involved with narrative pacing. Fireball is thematically designed to be slightly more powerful. As a ranger or druid their animal interactions are supposed to be sublime.
Even then conjure spells are Often not played at the place where "Raw and RAI meet." When done so, tables regularly described it as fine. People who take shortcuts often describe it as broken.
Now I'm willing to accept a new design because of such desire for shortcuts indicates a type of play that needs cleaner functionality. I am not ok with is removing playspaces that are some people's "fun points" (creative tools, synergies seeking, tonal choices etc) in favor of a percentage of the community over an option for everyone.
Just because one table has a bad experience it doesn't equate to it being bad. Yes the same can be said for the good experiences.
Even trivialize encounters are actually good to have for concepts involved with narrative pacing. Fireball is thematically designed to be slightly more powerful. As a ranger or druid their animal interactions are supposed to be sublime.
Even then conjure spells are r
Often not played at the place where "Raw and RAI meet." When done so it's described as fine. People who take shortcuts describe it as broken. Now I'm willing to accept a new design because of such desire for shortcuts what I am not ok with is removing playspaces that are some people's "fun points" (creative tools, synergies seeking, tonal choices etc)
The issue isn't really whether most people have a good or bad experience with the spell(s); whether you've had a good or bad experience, it's still fair to point out that it can slow the game down more than it needs to, and that the most powerful options are the ones that slow the game down the most.
On that basis it's reasonable to look at options for improving it. I think most people aren't necessarily opposed to the spells as such, they just want to see the potential for disruption reduced. And really that disruption is mostly in combat, where resolving 8 extra turns can transform an exciting half hour battle into an hour or longer slog.
Some people will be happy with the highly simplified options presented in the latest playtest, but others like me think it's gone too far in that direction. They've mostly just been turned into pretty boring copies of other spells for the most part; some aren't terrible but they've lost all of the character and versatility the original versions had.
This is why I'd prefer to see them meet somewhere in the middle; "swarm" monsters are much easier to run in combat for actual fighting purposes, but can still be used narratively out of combat to do a lot more than a single creature. This would reduce it to being no slower to run than other summons, without crippling its identity.
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.
Just because one table has a bad experience it doesn't equate to it being bad. Yes the same can be said for the good experiences.
Even trivialize encounters are actually good to have for concepts involved with narrative pacing. Fireball is thematically designed to be slightly more powerful. As a ranger or druid their animal interactions are supposed to be sublime.
Even then conjure spells are r
Often not played at the place where "Raw and RAI meet." When done so it's described as fine. People who take shortcuts describe it as broken. Now I'm willing to accept a new design because of such desire for shortcuts what I am not ok with is removing playspaces that are some people's "fun points" (creative tools, synergies seeking, tonal choices etc)
The issue isn't really whether most people have a good or bad experience with the spell(s); whether you've had a good or bad experience, it's still fair to point out that it can slow the game down more than it needs to, and that the most powerful options are the ones that slow the game down the most.
On that basis it's reasonable to look at options for improving it. I think most people aren't necessarily opposed to the spells as such, they just want to see the potential for disruption reduced. And really that disruption is mostly in combat, where resolving 8 extra turns can transform an exciting half hour battle into an hour or longer slog.
Some people will be happy with the highly simplified options presented in the latest playtest, but others like me think it's gone too far in that direction. They've mostly just been turned into pretty boring copies of other spells for the most part; some aren't terrible but they've lost all of the character and versatility the original versions had.
This is why I'd prefer to see them meet somewhere in the middle; "swarm" monsters are much easier to run in combat for actual fighting purposes, but can still be used narratively out of combat to do a lot more than a single creature. This would reduce it to being no slower to run than other summons, without crippling its identity.
I am fine with changing it as well. Adjustments are needed. The question is how it should function? Often mass surveys identify the existence of problems but with incorrect reasons or locations because of bad associations.
I was just attempting to respond to the "millions of players agree x is bad, Therfore b is bad" tactics.
i think the new conjure animals and woodland beings spells are not my cup of tea. i would suggest listing tables for each CR choice for the DM to roll on, and if the player wants a specific creature, do a luck roll at the dm's discretion. if the DM is too lazy or the table is too attention deficient to deal with 8 creatures, the DM can limit it to 1,2 or 4. any conjure spell that only summons one creature at its base level should not be touched. i'm okay with the new fey conjure, but the celestial conjure is bad imo in terms of flavor.
Limiting the number of creatures summoned based on the group’s preferences is also a wise move. It keeps the game flowing smoothly and prevents combat from becoming too cumbersome. ProCADIS Adobe Creative Suite deals. Regarding the new fey and celestial conjure spells, it’s important to remember that flavor can be subjective. If the celestial conjure spell doesn’t fit the theme of your campaign or your taste, you could consider tweaking it or discussing with your players to find a version that everyone enjoys.
so much talk of conjuring specifically animals makes me wonder if there needs to be a book out soon with greater emphasis on training animals as hireling party members. something to highlight animal companions (and hirelings in general). some major NPC in the first level of a free adventure or a ranger/druid magic item for coordinating animals. just something that could highlight what two or three sheepdogs, for example, might look like in combat: protect target, harry target, intimidate targets into movement, split the herd, etc. not so much unchaining the slavering hounds to fight to the death, but rather controlling the battlefield with flanks and harassment. ranger / druid stuff. maybe include some DC checks for a non-exhaustive list of animals (perhaps similar to the druid wildform list that should exist) and their trainability, upkeep costs, etc. but, has to be in official media or else it won't get traction.
less powerful than ranger companion, but available to a ranger as well. not as convenient as poof/un-poof'd conjured spirits, not there to provide mounts or dig to fantasy china. but maybe the target of growth spells or illusions? eh, i don't know. it's so rare that i play at a table with hirelings or non-familiar pets. everyone wants the pet that can be re-summoned and can speak common. animal handling should get some time to shine, especially if they're removing the hordes of conjured animals. shrug.
If The goal is to simplify combat... adding more npcs is actually worse than the conjure spells.
Frankly I think alot of the complanits about "seaching stat blocks" or "time consumption" is an exaggeration but I don't mind a little cleanup. Even if I never had such problems, I'm not going to say there aren't other options.
so, as if they were reading along, the front page gets this recent article: "Druid 201: Best Spells" where conjure animals is described as soaking damage, gaining action-economy superiority, and surmounting environmental challenges (including as flying mounts). "easily one of fifth edition's most versatile and economical spells," they say. personally, i think the clunk and drag of picking animals and then running those animals in combat was hand-waved as just a cost of doing business... right up until someone's boss decided the revised edition shouldn't have best-in-class leveled spells so efficient that that they obviated many, many other choices. and i can't say they would be wrong in that crusade.
i can like the UA conjure spells and also wish rangers (and druids) were better represented as the pet class(es). in fact, if it's difficult to accomplish, then all the better: less chance of fair weather pet owners trying this out and then abandoning their no-longer-wild battle sheep in a jungle somewhere. won't someone think of the fictional animals??
TBH the explosion of "pet" classes is why I no longer buy the "conjuring 8 things slows down combat too much" argument. At some of my tables every PC has at least one permanent or semi-permanent companion: - Necromancer Wizard has 4-6 undead + a familiar - Paladin has their Find Steed mount - Ranger has their Beast Companion - Warlock has their Pact of the Chain familiar - Druid has their WildFire companion - Artificer has their steel defender
Then if you add in semi-autonomous spell effects - the Cleric's Spiritual Weapon, the Wizard's Earthen Hand, the Druid's Flaming Sphere, the Warlock's Tasha's summon, and you've already got a ton of extra turns added to the combat.
That's before considering NPCs, Side-kicks, pets, and purchased mounts.
TBH the explosion of "pet" classes is why I no longer buy the "conjuring 8 things slows down combat too much" argument. At some of my tables every PC has at least one permanent or semi-permanent companion: - Necromancer Wizard has 4-6 undead + a familiar - Paladin has their Find Steed mount - Ranger has their Beast Companion - Warlock has their Pact of the Chain familiar - Druid has their WildFire companion - Artificer has their steel defender
Then if you add in semi-autonomous spell effects - the Cleric's Spiritual Weapon, the Wizard's Earthen Hand, the Druid's Flaming Sphere, the Warlock's Tasha's summon, and you've already got a ton of extra turns added to the combat.
That's before considering NPCs, Side-kicks, pets, and purchased mounts.
My Strixhaven Wizard can easily have 5 or 6 as Order of Scribes thanks to find familiar, unseen servant (ritual so can easily recast when it's useful to have available), phantom steed (ditto), a Strixhaven mascot, and my choice of the Tasha's summon spells. I feel like there's a least one other option but I don't remember off hand – and that's before counting regular pets (befriended creatures) or recruited allies, because why not?
But of course I'm not limited to only a single creature summon spell even in the UA because I could throw down animate objects if I want to, which IIRC they didn't change in the playtest, and that's a spell that is usually at its best when animating eight tiny objects because it's maximum chaff for single target attacks, joint best attack modifier and best average damage (because they each get their own chance to hit or miss, so you'd have to be very unlucky to miss with them all). You only go bigger if you need the size, or more durability (enemy likely to have area damage).
That said, I wouldn't argue that this makes it okay for these spells to summon so many extras, it just means the problem goes beyond just these spells, as even if you fix all the offending spells to be run as one swarm creature or something else, you'd still have the ability to summon multiple creatures on several classes (plus magic initiates). Meanwhile a College of Eloquence Bard could theoretically recruit literally everyone they ever meet to fight alongside you, so the problem isn't even close to being fixed.
If they wanted to tackle it properly they really need to introduce a combat rule for allies, e.g- limit players to one ally turn per round, but that turn can be used by an ad-hoc swarm of identical (or at least similar) creatures, ideally with some sample stat blocks to make it easier/quicker if you just need something "close enough" in the moment. So the necromancer can still have their undead minions, it just runs a lot faster, meanwhile a wizard or whatever with a bunch of different minions that might be useful in combat has to be more tactical about which one they activate, though the others can still act as chaff by being in the way.
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.
TBH the explosion of "pet" classes is why I no longer buy the "conjuring 8 things slows down combat too much" argument.
Those pets do slow down combat, but the key difference is that extra time is spread across all the PCs, whereas the conjure spells make one specific player's turn particularly slow.
I suspect the easiest option would be to make all allies work on a 'bonus action to command' rule (and don't give them reactions at all; they can use their owner's reaction). A lot of them already work that way and the exceptions wouldn't really be a loss.
TBH the explosion of "pet" classes is why I no longer buy the "conjuring 8 things slows down combat too much" argument.
Those pets do slow down combat, but the key difference is that extra time is spread across all the PCs, whereas the conjure spells make one specific player's turn particularly slow.
I suspect the easiest option would be to make all allies work on a 'bonus action to command' rule (and don't give them reactions at all; they can use their owner's reaction). A lot of them already work that way and the exceptions wouldn't really be a loss.
Two rules I think would fix it for combat: 1) commanding something always requires a BA 2) something commanded with a BA can only make 1 attack - if it would normally make more than 1 attack combine the damage dice for all of its attacks for 1 attack roll.
TBH the explosion of "pet" classes is why I no longer buy the "conjuring 8 things slows down combat too much" argument.
Those pets do slow down combat, but the key difference is that extra time is spread across all the PCs, whereas the conjure spells make one specific player's turn particularly slow.
I suspect the easiest option would be to make all allies work on a 'bonus action to command' rule (and don't give them reactions at all; they can use their owner's reaction). A lot of them already work that way and the exceptions wouldn't really be a loss.
Two rules I think would fix it for combat: 1) commanding something always requires a BA 2) something commanded with a BA can only make 1 attack - if it would normally make more than 1 attack combine the damage dice for all of its attacks for 1 attack roll.
If commands always require a bonus action rangers can suffer because they have so many bonus action spells. There are other fun but not op choices that are ba heavy as well.
I don't think any pets have to slow down combat any more than any other builds. And judging based on actions isn't too bad. Just look at the "wall" spells or even some regular aoe spells take more time than 8 wolves to hit.
Clarification on "commands" like attack nearest enemy or block this point can really speed up play. The key is reducing indecision points or vague "can they do x?" Questions.
If commands always require a bonus action rangers can suffer because they have so many bonus action spells. There are other fun but not op choices that are ba heavy as well.
Bonus action seems fair when you consider the pet/summon/whatever attacking as being like an extra weapon attack, not unlike spiritual weapon. Pretty sure that's the rationale behind how beast master has always worked, they just seemed to immediately forget that when it came to adding a bunch of summon spells to the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
If commands always require a bonus action rangers can suffer because they have so many bonus action spells. There are other fun but not op choices that are ba heavy as well.
Bonus action seems fair when you consider the pet/summon/whatever attacking as being like an extra weapon attack, not unlike spiritual weapon. Pretty sure that's the rationale behind how beast master has always worked, they just seemed to immediately forget that when it came to adding a bunch of summon spells to the game.
Beast Master had the advantage of not tying up your concentration slot and being at risk of dropping after any hit.
Beast Master had the advantage of not tying up your concentration slot and being at risk of dropping after any hit.
Meanwhile full spellcasters can summon stronger and more specialised creatures, so the concentration requirement is really just a counter to that. Plus it's not really that major a cost; you're only at risk of losing the summon through being hit if you're summoning a creature and then leaving yourself in a position to be hit. Plus it's not as though most full casters have a lot of competition for their bonus action anyway (unlike Rangers).
Plus a beast master's pet should have some benefits compared to a full caster taking a summon spell, because for the beast master, having a companion creature is literally their whole deal. For a caster taking summon spells it's just one of several options they can choose to use when they need to, it's only costing them one spell learned/prepared (of which they have more) if they don't use it.
The main thing is to limit it to one summon turn per player turn; while it could just be a once-per-turn free action (with Beast Master becoming the same) that would only disadvantage classes with little or no access to combat pets, unless we made a push to formalise those classes having access to regular allies/pets, but if we did that it would penalise Beast Master for having a major feature that literally everyone else can do for free. So really making it a bonus action makes a fair amount of sense, because non-spellcasting classes tend to have more they can do as standard with their bonus action (though some could still do with more) to compensate.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I’ve been playing a Land druid for years now and I have to say, at least for Sleet Storm, it is a good spell but situational because of the sheer size of it. I used it once or twice to very great effect but ended up unpreparing it since once or twice in levels 5-16 didn’t make it worth keeping. We tend not to have large maps in the campaign I’m in. And even on the one big map we did fight on about 1/4-1/3 of it’s area was off the map to divide and conquer without affecting my own party.
And, same goes for Conjure Animals. I used it a handful of times before unpreparing it just because it did slow down play.
I’m glad they changed the conjure spells. Not just Conjure Animals, but some of the others that the conjures turned hostile when you lost concentration.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
To be honest I am OK with conjure animals being barely ever optimal in combat, As long We have the tasha's spells too. I prefer it as a creative utility spell.
Different spells have different uses but to maintain compatibility (for old adventurer references) it should have a little of the old functionality.
If The goal is to simplify combat... adding more npcs is actually worse than the conjure spells.
Frankly I think alot of the complanits about "seaching stat blocks" or "time consumption" is an exaggeration but I don't mind a little cleanup. Even if I never had such problems, I'm not going to say there aren't other options.
Why do you think it's an exaggeration?
This is a game played by millions of people. If you personally never experienced issues with these, that doesn't mean no-one did.
I don't have a problem with Polymorph personally, but I've seen in other games online how easily that spell can trivialize challenges set out by the DM. That's not the same kind of issue as Conjure Animals, but it's just an example.
so, as if they were reading along, the front page gets this recent article: "Druid 201: Best Spells" where conjure animals is described as soaking damage, gaining action-economy superiority, and surmounting environmental challenges (including as flying mounts). "easily one of fifth edition's most versatile and economical spells," they say. personally, i think the clunk and drag of picking animals and then running those animals in combat was hand-waved as just a cost of doing business... right up until someone's boss decided the revised edition shouldn't have best-in-class leveled spells so efficient that that they obviated many, many other choices. and i can't say they would be wrong in that crusade.
i can like the UA conjure spells and also wish rangers (and druids) were better represented as the pet class(es). in fact, if it's difficult to accomplish, then all the better: less chance of fair weather pet owners trying this out and then abandoning their no-longer-wild battle sheep in a jungle somewhere. won't someone think of the fictional animals??
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Just because one table has a bad experience it doesn't equate to it being bad. Yes the same can be said for the good experiences.
Even trivialize encounters are actually good to have for concepts involved with narrative pacing. Fireball is thematically designed to be slightly more powerful. As a ranger or druid their animal interactions are supposed to be sublime.
Even then conjure spells are Often not played at the place where "Raw and RAI meet." When done so, tables regularly described it as fine. People who take shortcuts often describe it as broken.
Now I'm willing to accept a new design because of such desire for shortcuts indicates a type of play that needs cleaner functionality. I am not ok with is removing playspaces that are some people's "fun points" (creative tools, synergies seeking, tonal choices etc) in favor of a percentage of the community over an option for everyone.
The issue isn't really whether most people have a good or bad experience with the spell(s); whether you've had a good or bad experience, it's still fair to point out that it can slow the game down more than it needs to, and that the most powerful options are the ones that slow the game down the most.
On that basis it's reasonable to look at options for improving it. I think most people aren't necessarily opposed to the spells as such, they just want to see the potential for disruption reduced. And really that disruption is mostly in combat, where resolving 8 extra turns can transform an exciting half hour battle into an hour or longer slog.
Some people will be happy with the highly simplified options presented in the latest playtest, but others like me think it's gone too far in that direction. They've mostly just been turned into pretty boring copies of other spells for the most part; some aren't terrible but they've lost all of the character and versatility the original versions had.
This is why I'd prefer to see them meet somewhere in the middle; "swarm" monsters are much easier to run in combat for actual fighting purposes, but can still be used narratively out of combat to do a lot more than a single creature. This would reduce it to being no slower to run than other summons, without crippling its identity.
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 am fine with changing it as well. Adjustments are needed. The question is how it should function? Often mass surveys identify the existence of problems but with incorrect reasons or locations because of bad associations.
I was just attempting to respond to the "millions of players agree x is bad, Therfore b is bad" tactics.
i think the new conjure animals and woodland beings spells are not my cup of tea. i would suggest listing tables for each CR choice for the DM to roll on, and if the player wants a specific creature, do a luck roll at the dm's discretion. if the DM is too lazy or the table is too attention deficient to deal with 8 creatures, the DM can limit it to 1,2 or 4. any conjure spell that only summons one creature at its base level should not be touched. i'm okay with the new fey conjure, but the celestial conjure is bad imo in terms of flavor.
Limiting the number of creatures summoned based on the group’s preferences is also a wise move. It keeps the game flowing smoothly and prevents combat from becoming too cumbersome. ProCADIS Adobe Creative Suite deals. Regarding the new fey and celestial conjure spells, it’s important to remember that flavor can be subjective. If the celestial conjure spell doesn’t fit the theme of your campaign or your taste, you could consider tweaking it or discussing with your players to find a version that everyone enjoys.
TBH the explosion of "pet" classes is why I no longer buy the "conjuring 8 things slows down combat too much" argument. At some of my tables every PC has at least one permanent or semi-permanent companion:
- Necromancer Wizard has 4-6 undead + a familiar
- Paladin has their Find Steed mount
- Ranger has their Beast Companion
- Warlock has their Pact of the Chain familiar
- Druid has their WildFire companion
- Artificer has their steel defender
Then if you add in semi-autonomous spell effects - the Cleric's Spiritual Weapon, the Wizard's Earthen Hand, the Druid's Flaming Sphere, the Warlock's Tasha's summon, and you've already got a ton of extra turns added to the combat.
That's before considering NPCs, Side-kicks, pets, and purchased mounts.
My Strixhaven Wizard can easily have 5 or 6 as Order of Scribes thanks to find familiar, unseen servant (ritual so can easily recast when it's useful to have available), phantom steed (ditto), a Strixhaven mascot, and my choice of the Tasha's summon spells. I feel like there's a least one other option but I don't remember off hand – and that's before counting regular pets (befriended creatures) or recruited allies, because why not?
But of course I'm not limited to only a single creature summon spell even in the UA because I could throw down animate objects if I want to, which IIRC they didn't change in the playtest, and that's a spell that is usually at its best when animating eight tiny objects because it's maximum chaff for single target attacks, joint best attack modifier and best average damage (because they each get their own chance to hit or miss, so you'd have to be very unlucky to miss with them all). You only go bigger if you need the size, or more durability (enemy likely to have area damage).
That said, I wouldn't argue that this makes it okay for these spells to summon so many extras, it just means the problem goes beyond just these spells, as even if you fix all the offending spells to be run as one swarm creature or something else, you'd still have the ability to summon multiple creatures on several classes (plus magic initiates). Meanwhile a College of Eloquence Bard could theoretically recruit literally everyone they ever meet to fight alongside you, so the problem isn't even close to being fixed.
If they wanted to tackle it properly they really need to introduce a combat rule for allies, e.g- limit players to one ally turn per round, but that turn can be used by an ad-hoc swarm of identical (or at least similar) creatures, ideally with some sample stat blocks to make it easier/quicker if you just need something "close enough" in the moment. So the necromancer can still have their undead minions, it just runs a lot faster, meanwhile a wizard or whatever with a bunch of different minions that might be useful in combat has to be more tactical about which one they activate, though the others can still act as chaff by being in the way.
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.
Those pets do slow down combat, but the key difference is that extra time is spread across all the PCs, whereas the conjure spells make one specific player's turn particularly slow.
I suspect the easiest option would be to make all allies work on a 'bonus action to command' rule (and don't give them reactions at all; they can use their owner's reaction). A lot of them already work that way and the exceptions wouldn't really be a loss.
Two rules I think would fix it for combat:
1) commanding something always requires a BA
2) something commanded with a BA can only make 1 attack - if it would normally make more than 1 attack combine the damage dice for all of its attacks for 1 attack roll.
If commands always require a bonus action rangers can suffer because they have so many bonus action spells. There are other fun but not op choices that are ba heavy as well.
I don't think any pets have to slow down combat any more than any other builds. And judging based on actions isn't too bad. Just look at the "wall" spells or even some regular aoe spells take more time than 8 wolves to hit.
Clarification on "commands" like attack nearest enemy or block this point can really speed up play. The key is reducing indecision points or vague "can they do x?" Questions.
The point is to make using an ally a choice and a tradeoff, rather than just automatically beneficial.
Bonus action seems fair when you consider the pet/summon/whatever attacking as being like an extra weapon attack, not unlike spiritual weapon. Pretty sure that's the rationale behind how beast master has always worked, they just seemed to immediately forget that when it came to adding a bunch of summon spells to the game.
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.
Beast Master had the advantage of not tying up your concentration slot and being at risk of dropping after any hit.
Meanwhile full spellcasters can summon stronger and more specialised creatures, so the concentration requirement is really just a counter to that. Plus it's not really that major a cost; you're only at risk of losing the summon through being hit if you're summoning a creature and then leaving yourself in a position to be hit. Plus it's not as though most full casters have a lot of competition for their bonus action anyway (unlike Rangers).
Plus a beast master's pet should have some benefits compared to a full caster taking a summon spell, because for the beast master, having a companion creature is literally their whole deal. For a caster taking summon spells it's just one of several options they can choose to use when they need to, it's only costing them one spell learned/prepared (of which they have more) if they don't use it.
The main thing is to limit it to one summon turn per player turn; while it could just be a once-per-turn free action (with Beast Master becoming the same) that would only disadvantage classes with little or no access to combat pets, unless we made a push to formalise those classes having access to regular allies/pets, but if we did that it would penalise Beast Master for having a major feature that literally everyone else can do for free. So really making it a bonus action makes a fair amount of sense, because non-spellcasting classes tend to have more they can do as standard with their bonus action (though some could still do with more) to compensate.
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.