You know, despite you constantly buzzwording it, "DM facing" is not some vast and immutable barrier that says no player content should interact with stat blocks from the MM or other books. As I've already gone over, Moon Druids are already getting far deeper into your alleged "DM facing" content than any single Conjure spell, so claiming that the designers are intending for this stuff to only be used by DMs is demonstrably not true up to and including in the current playtest.
1) Except they're not. Reread Wildshape from the latest UA, you can only choose beasts from the PHB by default, that applies to Moon Druids too. The DM may allow beasts from the MM or other sources, but now they are default-banned instead of default-allowed.
2) Both Crawford and the MM itself state that the MM is DM-facing. You may hate the concept for some reason I can't fathom, but I'm not going to stop using it.
I will point out that all the books are DM facing, both functionally and factually. As a distinction, it is meaningless.
That it's meaningless to you does not make it meaningless for D&D. You are free to let your players metagame every statblock you want at your table, and read ahead in every adventure path, all you want.
Conjure Fey (previously) Spell Level 6 Conjuration (Druid) hit something for psychic damage and maybe frighten it. bonus action to teleport it to a different place and attack again. for comparison, Spiritual weapon upcast to 6th would be doing 3d8+mod compared to this fey thing's 3d12+mod ((edit: with no concentration in 2014 version but yes concentration in UA3))
I find this frustrating as they nerf Spiritual Weapon by adding in Concentration yet keeping the low movement speed while giving druid a teleporting Spiritual Weapon. If this is how they are going to balance or tweak spells then either remove the Concentration for Spiritual Weapon or raise its movement speed!
You know, despite you constantly buzzwording it, "DM facing" is not some vast and immutable barrier that says no player content should interact with stat blocks from the MM or other books. As I've already gone over, Moon Druids are already getting far deeper into your alleged "DM facing" content than any single Conjure spell, so claiming that the designers are intending for this stuff to only be used by DMs is demonstrably not true up to and including in the current playtest.
1) Except they're not. Reread Wildshape from the latest UA, you can only choose beasts from the PHB by default, that applies to Moon Druids too. The DM may allow beasts from the MM or other sources, but now they are default-banned instead of default-allowed.
2) Both Crawford and the MM itself state that the MM is DM-facing. You may hate the concept for some reason I can't fathom, but I'm not going to stop using it.
I will point out that all the books are DM facing, both functionally and factually. As a distinction, it is meaningless.
That it's meaningless to you does not make it meaningless for D&D. You are free to let your players metagame every statblock you want at your table, and read ahead in every adventure path, all you want.
When choosing a new form, you may look in the Monster Manual or elsewhere for eligible Beasts if the DM permits you to do so.
As you noted, the DM may allow them to use the MM -- but that doesn't change the fact that factually they are not limited that way -- many DMs may choose not to just as many DMs may choose to allow it. Since it is not a fixed concept, logically, it cannot be a "not allowed" by default. That is the semantic value of "may", after all. Furthermore, that list only applies at 2nd level -- you can limit it (and your players) at your discretion, but that isn't a default, it is a start.
My reference to it being a meaningless concept isn't about me at all. Logically, and factually, it is a meaningless terminology, meant to indicate something that is only visible to the DM -- except there is no way to ensure that.
As for my players, I give them a 500 page book of lore and table rules and provide them an entirely new 600 page PHB -- metagaming for my folks is way harder than you seem to think it is, lol.
IT was argued that "something like this should not appear in a DM facing work" -- which is asinine since all the books are DM facing. As a distinction, it is meant to convey something that is only for the DM's eyes, and given the structure of the game, that's functionally impossible, and so without merit beyond simply deciding, on a table by table basis, much like the access to the MM for choosing a new form, that players and DMs will obey a table rule about looking or not looking.
ergo, while it may have value for you at your table, it isn't a reliable or useful concept with real, practical value throughout the game as a whole.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman
As for Player facing vs dm facing, there are too many people who are both to be worth a strict distinction. In my groups players thinking about becoming a dm would try running multiple creatures as a druid or ranger as a test phase. Or dms on a break would get some of the rewards of their dm experience by playing Conjure builds.
As for the rest of conjuration, I really loved the Utility of the conjure spells over their combat potential. Giant badgers to dig tunnels or Moats, Horses for the whole party in a short burst. Ravens to recreate "Amigos, amigos, Amigos!" distractions. Monkeys to Recreate Drummers and background Accompaniment(or as pirate assistants). And this diatribe is just for animals, each other conjuration spell covered unique utility options and tones. IN a sense it was really a lesser version of Planar ally using your magic to solve problems.
Simply put there is a part of normal play dependent on on the conjure spells. The creative thinking/solution space which IMO was the original draw of Tabletop RPGS.
(on a side note; Its scary when Agile and I even partially agree. so the sky is probably falling.)
When choosing a new form, you may look in the Monster Manual or elsewhere for eligible Beasts if the DM permits you to do so.
As you noted, the DM may allow them to use the MM -- but that doesn't change the fact that factually they are not limited that way -- many DMs may choose not to just as many DMs may choose to allow it. Since it is not a fixed concept, logically, it cannot be a "not allowed" by default. That is the semantic value of "may", after all. Furthermore, that list only applies at 2nd level -- you can limit it (and your players) at your discretion, but that isn't a default, it is a start.
My reference to it being a meaningless concept isn't about me at all. Logically, and factually, it is a meaningless terminology, meant to indicate something that is only visible to the DM -- except there is no way to ensure that.
As for my players, I give them a 500 page book of lore and table rules and provide them an entirely new 600 page PHB -- metagaming for my folks is way harder than you seem to think it is, lol.
IT was argued that "something like this should not appear in a DM facing work" -- which is asinine since all the books are DM facing. As a distinction, it is meant to convey something that is only for the DM's eyes, and given the structure of the game, that's functionally impossible, and so without merit beyond simply deciding, on a table by table basis, much like the access to the MM for choosing a new form, that players and DMs will obey a table rule about looking or not looking.
ergo, while it may have value for you at your table, it isn't a reliable or useful concept with real, practical value throughout the game as a whole.
Well of course they can't "ensure" anything; the Pinkertons aren't going to appear at your table just because your player decided to flip through the MM or DMG*. But they're still allowed to provide designer intent, and they did so extremely plainly:
Crawford: "A thing that we are addressing in The Druid's design with some of the new material people are going to see here is - in the last eight years as we've looked at player data - we have found that as beloved as the Druid is from a sentiment standpoint, in actual play the Druid is the least played class in Fifth Edition, of the classes that are in the Player's Handbook. And a lot of that can be boiled down to the complexity of wildshape. The 2014 version of wildshape requires the player to not only figure out how their class works...they also need to figure out how to go diving into pools of stat blocks-"
Todd: "Yes, welcome to the Monster Manual, and you better understand your CR ratings!"
Crawford: "-Exactly, and that pool is a pool that is largely designed for Dungeon Masters. And so, there are fun things to be discovered in that pool, and many Druid players over the last eight years have discovered fun animal options, either in the Monster Manual or in another book - but it's also just as easy to find an option that is not actually that effective, or not on theme with the Druid"
And if that somehow isn't enough for you, the MM itself says it is DM-facing. MM pg. 4, "How To Use This Book":
"The Monster Manual, like the Dungeon Master’s Guide, is a book for DMs. Use it to populate your D&D adventures with pesky goblins, stinky troglodytes, savage orcs, mighty dragons, and a veritable horde of creepy crawlies."
No one is saying you have to abide by designer intent. That's precisely what home rules are for. But what we're discussing is what the printed rules and guidance should say, and mean, especially now before the new books are enshrined in print.
I will point out that all the books are DM facing, both functionally and factually. As a distinction, it is meaningless.
And the MM is also Player facing -- it would be a function of wealth, not access. If you want to keep monsters out of plyer's hands, you have to keep them hidden entirely, which means creating all of them from scratch, and if you are doing that, crafting a list isn't a problem.
as a thought experiment, imagine a new group is purchasing books. the players might be encouraged to purchase players handbooks. the dm might be encouraged to purchase the dungeon master's guide (and, sure, the PHB too). but, who buys the monster manual? that depends. are the players the ones who need to prepare their characters for nothic and mimic and werebear encounters? or is it the dm who needs to plan out an exiting ride?
come on. 'DM facing' isn't such dense jargon that we can't interpret it from context to mean it's a resource that beginning and average players aren't expected to have on hand. not every novel reader is expected to flip through the last pages to better inform their gasps of surprise later. some do. it's not even wealth gated. but not most. it's not the expectation.
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!
When choosing a new form, you may look in the Monster Manual or elsewhere for eligible Beasts if the DM permits you to do so.
As you noted, the DM may allow them to use the MM -- but that doesn't change the fact that factually they are not limited that way -- many DMs may choose not to just as many DMs may choose to allow it. Since it is not a fixed concept, logically, it cannot be a "not allowed" by default. That is the semantic value of "may", after all. Furthermore, that list only applies at 2nd level -- you can limit it (and your players) at your discretion, but that isn't a default, it is a start.
My reference to it being a meaningless concept isn't about me at all. Logically, and factually, it is a meaningless terminology, meant to indicate something that is only visible to the DM -- except there is no way to ensure that.
As for my players, I give them a 500 page book of lore and table rules and provide them an entirely new 600 page PHB -- metagaming for my folks is way harder than you seem to think it is, lol.
IT was argued that "something like this should not appear in a DM facing work" -- which is asinine since all the books are DM facing. As a distinction, it is meant to convey something that is only for the DM's eyes, and given the structure of the game, that's functionally impossible, and so without merit beyond simply deciding, on a table by table basis, much like the access to the MM for choosing a new form, that players and DMs will obey a table rule about looking or not looking.
ergo, while it may have value for you at your table, it isn't a reliable or useful concept with real, practical value throughout the game as a whole.
Well of course they can't "ensure" anything; the Pinkertons aren't going to appear at your table just because your player decided to flip through the MM or DMG*. But they're still allowed to provide designer intent, and they did so extremely plainly:
Crawford: "A thing that we are addressing in The Druid's design with some of the new material people are going to see here is - in the last eight years as we've looked at player data - we have found that as beloved as the Druid is from a sentiment standpoint, in actual play the Druid is the least played class in Fifth Edition, of the classes that are in the Player's Handbook. And a lot of that can be boiled down to the complexity of wildshape. The 2014 version of wildshape requires the player to not only figure out how their class works...they also need to figure out how to go diving into pools of stat blocks-"
Todd: "Yes, welcome to the Monster Manual, and you better understand your CR ratings!"
Crawford: "-Exactly, and that pool is a pool that is largely designed for Dungeon Masters. And so, there are fun things to be discovered in that pool, and many Druid players over the last eight years have discovered fun animal options, either in the Monster Manual or in another book - but it's also just as easy to find an option that is not actually that effective, or not on theme with the Druid"
And if that somehow isn't enough for you, the MM itself says it is DM-facing. MM pg. 4, "How To Use This Book":
"The Monster Manual, like the Dungeon Master’s Guide, is a book for DMs. Use it to populate your D&D adventures with pesky goblins, stinky troglodytes, savage orcs, mighty dragons, and a veritable horde of creepy crawlies."
No one is saying you have to abide by designer intent. That's precisely what home rules are for. But what we're discussing is what the printed rules and guidance should say, and mean, especially now before the new books are enshrined in print.
(*The released ones, anyway.)
Don't the examples of Designer Intent you cite require one to step outside the printed books? And if we are discussing what the printed books should say, wouldn't that be material explicitly in the books themselves (like the this book is for DMs in the DMG)? THe MM says it is for those who have thought about running a game, for worldbuilders and such -- and if all it takes is thinking about doing so, that's good enough reason to crack it open, even if you are not a DM yet.
Huh. Funny that.
it also doesn't change anything about the terminology being functionally useless for an argument that states that "this material shouldn't be in a DM facing book". Nor does it change the functional reality that as a bit of terminology it is vacuous.
rumloverum's argument is better, since it predicated on a general expectation, but even their argument doesn't change the fact that all the books are DM facing, and, therefore, trying to argue that something shouldn't be in a book that is DM facing when it is also Player facing (which is also all the books, because even as a thought experiment, folks gonna buy the stuff eventually, since the more you know the more successful you can be is a rather constant process) makes the whole point of that previous argument even less germane, and renders the effectiveness of it even more sublimely foolish.
This is the third response in a chain, however, about a minor point -- you want to use the terminology, I ain't stopping you. All I did was point out a factual truth: all the books are DM facing. Trying to say that some book isn't is just, well, silly.
Arguing into the abstract really sucks when someone grounds it in reality.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman
Conjure Fey (previously) Spell Level 6 Conjuration (Druid) hit something for psychic damage and maybe frighten it. bonus action to teleport it to a different place and attack again. for comparison, Spiritual weapon upcast to 6th would be doing 3d8+mod compared to this fey thing's 3d12+mod ((edit: with no concentration in 2014 version but yes concentration in UA3))
I find this frustrating as they nerf Spiritual Weapon by adding in Concentration yet keeping the low movement speed while giving druid a teleporting Spiritual Weapon. If this is how they are going to balance or tweak spells then either remove the Concentration for Spiritual Weapon or raise its movement speed!
Well, in your defense, they haven't nerfed it officially yet.
Spiritual Weapon isn't in this UA, and I don't recall them saying anything about how well it was received, so they may make that change.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman
come on. 'DM facing' isn't such dense jargon that we can't interpret it from context to mean it's a resource that beginning and average players aren't expected to have on hand. not every novel reader is expected to flip through the last pages to better inform their gasps of surprise later. some do. it's not even wealth gated. but not most. it's not the expectation.
This leads to an implied fallacy that all the player content has to service new players or simple playstyles. (I am uncertain at to this being your opinion). IMO, Its ok to have player content that is more advanced. Some players will want extra complexity and some players won't. Crossing the lines of playerfacing and dm facing content is good for the game not bad. Players should be able to use just the hand book but for players that want more designs can be implemented for a more advanced approach.
Using critters from the monster manual is problematic for balance reasons, particularly once you get out of the realm of animals, either because the critter has the spellcasting trait, or because it has some weird capability that they never considered being usable by PCs. You could solve most of that by disallowing abilities that require recharge, but not all.
Not really, because all of those spells had the caveat that the DM decides what type of creature is summoned. So the DM can either give a list of what can be summoned, or a list of what cannot be summoned. Or the DM can allow whatever, and reward the creative player who finds some weird broken thing to summon with one wacky skewed combat then say tell the player afterwards that they can't summon those again b/c it was game breaking. Only toxic players want to break the game, because a broken game is unfun for everyone else and will get them kicked out of the group. However all of those spells should have a list of "recommended" creatures attached to them so the busy DM can just say "you must pick from the recommended list" if they don't want to deal with the hassle of checking each monster the player comes up with.
No, it's currently (2014 rules) busted. And you don't even need to be a toxic player. You can be a complete novice and simply follow one of the many guides out there which dole out game-breaking advice.
Case in point, a wolf is only CR 1/4 when by itself. Give it an ally, so Pack Tactics applies, and it mathematically jumps to CR 1/2. Summoning 8 of them immediately breaks the spell's power level, and that was left in by WotC on purpose.
These spells don't actually say who chooses which creatures are summoned. We take the SAC as Gospel, but the truth is we needed an article simply for the intent to be made clear. The language is imprecise, and that's the rub. None of us are obligated to run these spells that way, and I've had people argue the opposite to me. The only tables you can claim always run them as intended are for organized play, and only because the rules must be standardized across all tables.
I get changing the Conjure spells, since they were pretty disruptive overall. But honestly... at this point just cut them and give all these new spells their own name. These don't feel at all like updates to the original spells... they're just wholly original spells that happen to have the same name as an existing spell.
This leads to an implied fallacy that all the player content has to service new players or simple playstyles. (I am uncertain at to this being your opinion). IMO, Its ok to have player content that is more advanced. Some players will want extra complexity and some players won't. Crossing the lines of playerfacing and dm facing content is good for the game not bad. Players should be able to use just the hand book but for players that want more designs can be implemented for a more advanced approach.
I'm fine with players who want "advanced content." Nothing is stopping tables that want their conjure spells or wildshape to pull directly from the MM from doing so. So long as the default rule does not carry that expectation, I promise, I could not care less what you all do at your tables.
But Crawford explicitly stated that 8 years of player data show that advanced content and MM diving is the reason the Druid is the least popular class in core, and that they are trying to fix that. Given that fixing this is, you know, his job and everything, these changes shouldn't be surprising.
If we were moving on to 6e they would simply take the name of the Conjure spell and give it the functionality of the summon spell. They want to Keep the Conjure spells because of tradition. I just thought of another way to fix some of the Conjure spells. Just make them function like the summon spell, but the statblocks are for a swarm. So Summon Beast gives you a single small animal, and Conjure Animals gives you a large swarm of the animals. Summon Fey gives you one fey creature while Conjure Woodland Beings gives you a large swarm of fey creatures and conjure fey would give you a huge swarm of fey creatures. The problem comes up when we get to summon elemental and conjure elemental because conjure minor elemental would be the large swarm spell. Conjure Elemental has always been a single creature but I would prefer to make it a swarm spell than what they have done with it in this UA. Conjure Celestial is also a odd one to make a swarm spell, but again I would prefer a troop of angelic beings to what was offered in this UA.
Honestly we don’t need the conjure spells since the summon spells cover their primary intent. The only reason to keep them is tradition. If we must keep conjure spells I would make them all no concentration instantaneous spells.
Yes, we do need the Conjure spells, because there's a large difference between summmoning a generic entity that makes a few standard attacks and summoning some flavor of Hag, a Coatl, Hollyphant, one of the interesting Elemental variants, an Abashi, or any of the other fun options out there. You might be content with generic summons, but please don't try to speak for everyone that the ability to summon specific creatures with specific powers was just a meaningless ribbon. That's the entire appeal of the Conjure spells, and it's something Summon is wholly incapable of capturing.
And exactly that's the reason why conjure spells were just a cluster fart. As long as conjure spells get creatures from the MM they will remain problematic.
Huh. My note was from a couple paragraphs above. Almost as if there is conflicting information in there.
But it does say it, so we both get that point.
Jeremy Crawford: "The Monster Manual is for DMs."
The Monster Manual: "This book is for DMs."
AEDorsay: "This is conflicting information."
🤨
MM, page 4, 1st paragraph.
The MM says it is for those who have thought about running a game, for worldbuilders and such -- and if all it takes is thinking about doing so, that's good enough reason to crack it open, even if you are not a DM yet.
Crawford's status as end all/be all or useless is wholly and solely a matter of opinion. I could just as easily cite Dave Cook. It is always an appeal to authority external to the actual authority, which is the books, and is therefore a fallacy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman
It is an anti-Tasha's summons argument. I don't know why people think they "fix" summoning and having played with people using them (and having used them myself) ... they definitely make martials feel kinda obsolete. Conjure spells were interesting with risk/reward and creative uses, Tasha's Summon spells are replacement martials.
Agreed, they are too good. While yes they wont fully replace a martial its close enough that many martials will feel their toes stepped on. Upcast to 4th level and a summoned fey which is not exactly the best of the summons its getting 2 attacks and hitting for 2d6+7. A raging barbarian will coincidentally be hitting for 2d6+7(plus magic weapon bonuses), sure maybe they will out do it a bit with their feats or if they are zealots or something that increase their damage. But that will be close enough that when players get its a disposable summon taking up a fraction of the wizards spell budget and only 1 action they will feel their toes stepped upon fairly frequently.
Hey a properly designed martial can bring more to the table than a single 4th level spell slot that mimics their abilities and gets within 70% of their output. Woo, thanks guys. And yes, yes their AC/Hp will suck in comparison. But eating damage meant for the rest of the party has a lot of value to so great. And the wizard can summon another one pretty easy.
Maybe one will boost martials enough its not even close, they are getting boosts I'm just not sure its there yet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1) Except they're not. Reread Wildshape from the latest UA, you can only choose beasts from the PHB by default, that applies to Moon Druids too. The DM may allow beasts from the MM or other sources, but now they are default-banned instead of default-allowed.
2) Both Crawford and the MM itself state that the MM is DM-facing. You may hate the concept for some reason I can't fathom, but I'm not going to stop using it.
That it's meaningless to you does not make it meaningless for D&D. You are free to let your players metagame every statblock you want at your table, and read ahead in every adventure path, all you want.
This say more about what you want then what about a "summoning spell" should be
I find this frustrating as they nerf Spiritual Weapon by adding in Concentration yet keeping the low movement speed while giving druid a teleporting Spiritual Weapon. If this is how they are going to balance or tweak spells then either remove the Concentration for Spiritual Weapon or raise its movement speed!
Upcast spells are always weaker than on-level spells, so this nothing new. Compare upcast Burning Hands or Scorching Ray to a Fireball.
When choosing a new form, you may look in the Monster Manual or elsewhere for eligible Beasts if the DM permits you to do so.
As you noted, the DM may allow them to use the MM -- but that doesn't change the fact that factually they are not limited that way -- many DMs may choose not to just as many DMs may choose to allow it. Since it is not a fixed concept, logically, it cannot be a "not allowed" by default. That is the semantic value of "may", after all. Furthermore, that list only applies at 2nd level -- you can limit it (and your players) at your discretion, but that isn't a default, it is a start.
My reference to it being a meaningless concept isn't about me at all. Logically, and factually, it is a meaningless terminology, meant to indicate something that is only visible to the DM -- except there is no way to ensure that.
As for my players, I give them a 500 page book of lore and table rules and provide them an entirely new 600 page PHB -- metagaming for my folks is way harder than you seem to think it is, lol.
IT was argued that "something like this should not appear in a DM facing work" -- which is asinine since all the books are DM facing. As a distinction, it is meant to convey something that is only for the DM's eyes, and given the structure of the game, that's functionally impossible, and so without merit beyond simply deciding, on a table by table basis, much like the access to the MM for choosing a new form, that players and DMs will obey a table rule about looking or not looking.
ergo, while it may have value for you at your table, it isn't a reliable or useful concept with real, practical value throughout the game as a whole.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman
Wyrlde.com
.-=] Lore Book | Ruleset | PC Book [=-.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
As for Player facing vs dm facing, there are too many people who are both to be worth a strict distinction. In my groups players thinking about becoming a dm would try running multiple creatures as a druid or ranger as a test phase. Or dms on a break would get some of the rewards of their dm experience by playing Conjure builds.
As for the rest of conjuration, I really loved the Utility of the conjure spells over their combat potential. Giant badgers to dig tunnels or Moats, Horses for the whole party in a short burst. Ravens to recreate "Amigos, amigos, Amigos!" distractions. Monkeys to Recreate Drummers and background Accompaniment(or as pirate assistants). And this diatribe is just for animals, each other conjuration spell covered unique utility options and tones. IN a sense it was really a lesser version of Planar ally using your magic to solve problems.
Simply put there is a part of normal play dependent on on the conjure spells. The creative thinking/solution space which IMO was the original draw of Tabletop RPGS.
(on a side note; Its scary when Agile and I even partially agree. so the sky is probably falling.)
Well of course they can't "ensure" anything; the Pinkertons aren't going to appear at your table just because your player decided to flip through the MM or DMG*. But they're still allowed to provide designer intent, and they did so extremely plainly:
Crawford: "A thing that we are addressing in The Druid's design with some of the new material people are going to see here is - in the last eight years as we've looked at player data - we have found that as beloved as the Druid is from a sentiment standpoint, in actual play the Druid is the least played class in Fifth Edition, of the classes that are in the Player's Handbook. And a lot of that can be boiled down to the complexity of wildshape. The 2014 version of wildshape requires the player to not only figure out how their class works...they also need to figure out how to go diving into pools of stat blocks-"
Todd: "Yes, welcome to the Monster Manual, and you better understand your CR ratings!"
Crawford: "-Exactly, and that pool is a pool that is largely designed for Dungeon Masters. And so, there are fun things to be discovered in that pool, and many Druid players over the last eight years have discovered fun animal options, either in the Monster Manual or in another book - but it's also just as easy to find an option that is not actually that effective, or not on theme with the Druid"
And if that somehow isn't enough for you, the MM itself says it is DM-facing. MM pg. 4, "How To Use This Book":
"The Monster Manual, like the Dungeon Master’s Guide, is a book for DMs. Use it to populate your D&D adventures with pesky goblins, stinky troglodytes, savage orcs, mighty dragons, and a veritable horde of creepy crawlies."
No one is saying you have to abide by designer intent. That's precisely what home rules are for. But what we're discussing is what the printed rules and guidance should say, and mean, especially now before the new books are enshrined in print.
(*The released ones, anyway.)
as a thought experiment, imagine a new group is purchasing books. the players might be encouraged to purchase players handbooks. the dm might be encouraged to purchase the dungeon master's guide (and, sure, the PHB too). but, who buys the monster manual? that depends. are the players the ones who need to prepare their characters for nothic and mimic and werebear encounters? or is it the dm who needs to plan out an exiting ride?
come on. 'DM facing' isn't such dense jargon that we can't interpret it from context to mean it's a resource that beginning and average players aren't expected to have on hand. not every novel reader is expected to flip through the last pages to better inform their gasps of surprise later. some do. it's not even wealth gated. but not most. it's not the expectation.
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!
Don't the examples of Designer Intent you cite require one to step outside the printed books? And if we are discussing what the printed books should say, wouldn't that be material explicitly in the books themselves (like the this book is for DMs in the DMG)? THe MM says it is for those who have thought about running a game, for worldbuilders and such -- and if all it takes is thinking about doing so, that's good enough reason to crack it open, even if you are not a DM yet.
Huh. Funny that.
it also doesn't change anything about the terminology being functionally useless for an argument that states that "this material shouldn't be in a DM facing book". Nor does it change the functional reality that as a bit of terminology it is vacuous.
rumloverum's argument is better, since it predicated on a general expectation, but even their argument doesn't change the fact that all the books are DM facing, and, therefore, trying to argue that something shouldn't be in a book that is DM facing when it is also Player facing (which is also all the books, because even as a thought experiment, folks gonna buy the stuff eventually, since the more you know the more successful you can be is a rather constant process) makes the whole point of that previous argument even less germane, and renders the effectiveness of it even more sublimely foolish.
This is the third response in a chain, however, about a minor point -- you want to use the terminology, I ain't stopping you. All I did was point out a factual truth: all the books are DM facing. Trying to say that some book isn't is just, well, silly.
Arguing into the abstract really sucks when someone grounds it in reality.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman
Wyrlde.com
.-=] Lore Book | Ruleset | PC Book [=-.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Well, in your defense, they haven't nerfed it officially yet.
Spiritual Weapon isn't in this UA, and I don't recall them saying anything about how well it was received, so they may make that change.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman
Wyrlde.com
.-=] Lore Book | Ruleset | PC Book [=-.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
No, the second quote I provided is literally from the beginning of the Monster Manual. I even provided you the page number.
Huh. My note was from a couple paragraphs above. Almost as if there is conflicting information in there.
But it does say it, so we both get that point.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman
Wyrlde.com
.-=] Lore Book | Ruleset | PC Book [=-.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
This leads to an implied fallacy that all the player content has to service new players or simple playstyles. (I am uncertain at to this being your opinion). IMO, Its ok to have player content that is more advanced. Some players will want extra complexity and some players won't. Crossing the lines of playerfacing and dm facing content is good for the game not bad. Players should be able to use just the hand book but for players that want more designs can be implemented for a more advanced approach.
No, it's currently (2014 rules) busted. And you don't even need to be a toxic player. You can be a complete novice and simply follow one of the many guides out there which dole out game-breaking advice.
Case in point, a wolf is only CR 1/4 when by itself. Give it an ally, so Pack Tactics applies, and it mathematically jumps to CR 1/2. Summoning 8 of them immediately breaks the spell's power level, and that was left in by WotC on purpose.
Or what about some of the not suggested creatures which can be summoned by Conjure Woodland Beings, like the pixie and 8+ castings of Polymorph?
These spells don't actually say who chooses which creatures are summoned. We take the SAC as Gospel, but the truth is we needed an article simply for the intent to be made clear. The language is imprecise, and that's the rub. None of us are obligated to run these spells that way, and I've had people argue the opposite to me. The only tables you can claim always run them as intended are for organized play, and only because the rules must be standardized across all tables.
I get changing the Conjure spells, since they were pretty disruptive overall. But honestly... at this point just cut them and give all these new spells their own name. These don't feel at all like updates to the original spells... they're just wholly original spells that happen to have the same name as an existing spell.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Jeremy Crawford: "The Monster Manual is for DMs."
The Monster Manual: "This book is for DMs."
AEDorsay: "This is conflicting information."
🤨
I'm fine with players who want "advanced content." Nothing is stopping tables that want their conjure spells or wildshape to pull directly from the MM from doing so. So long as the default rule does not carry that expectation, I promise, I could not care less what you all do at your tables.
But Crawford explicitly stated that 8 years of player data show that advanced content and MM diving is the reason the Druid is the least popular class in core, and that they are trying to fix that. Given that fixing this is, you know, his job and everything, these changes shouldn't be surprising.
If we were moving on to 6e they would simply take the name of the Conjure spell and give it the functionality of the summon spell. They want to Keep the Conjure spells because of tradition. I just thought of another way to fix some of the Conjure spells. Just make them function like the summon spell, but the statblocks are for a swarm. So Summon Beast gives you a single small animal, and Conjure Animals gives you a large swarm of the animals. Summon Fey gives you one fey creature while Conjure Woodland Beings gives you a large swarm of fey creatures and conjure fey would give you a huge swarm of fey creatures. The problem comes up when we get to summon elemental and conjure elemental because conjure minor elemental would be the large swarm spell. Conjure Elemental has always been a single creature but I would prefer to make it a swarm spell than what they have done with it in this UA. Conjure Celestial is also a odd one to make a swarm spell, but again I would prefer a troop of angelic beings to what was offered in this UA.
And exactly that's the reason why conjure spells were just a cluster fart. As long as conjure spells get creatures from the MM they will remain problematic.
So no we do not "need" conjure spells.
MM, page 4, 1st paragraph.
The MM says it is for those who have thought about running a game, for worldbuilders and such -- and if all it takes is thinking about doing so, that's good enough reason to crack it open, even if you are not a DM yet.
Crawford's status as end all/be all or useless is wholly and solely a matter of opinion. I could just as easily cite Dave Cook. It is always an appeal to authority external to the actual authority, which is the books, and is therefore a fallacy.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000 Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman
Wyrlde.com
.-=] Lore Book | Ruleset | PC Book [=-.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Agreed, they are too good. While yes they wont fully replace a martial its close enough that many martials will feel their toes stepped on. Upcast to 4th level and a summoned fey which is not exactly the best of the summons its getting 2 attacks and hitting for 2d6+7. A raging barbarian will coincidentally be hitting for 2d6+7(plus magic weapon bonuses), sure maybe they will out do it a bit with their feats or if they are zealots or something that increase their damage. But that will be close enough that when players get its a disposable summon taking up a fraction of the wizards spell budget and only 1 action they will feel their toes stepped upon fairly frequently.
Hey a properly designed martial can bring more to the table than a single 4th level spell slot that mimics their abilities and gets within 70% of their output. Woo, thanks guys. And yes, yes their AC/Hp will suck in comparison. But eating damage meant for the rest of the party has a lot of value to so great. And the wizard can summon another one pretty easy.
Maybe one will boost martials enough its not even close, they are getting boosts I'm just not sure its there yet.