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.
So no we do not "need" conjure spells.
The primary function (or even the desire of many) isn't Combat damage. Its functionality. sometimes you need an NPC Helper. Maybe its 4 horses, maybe its a demon 'crew', a dozen spiders to reinforce a bridge , A group of bats to guide through fog, or a distraction stampede.
Players shouldn't need summons or searching monster books to be combat-viable but the game is more than just damage . I want the functions of conjuring creatures not just another spell that does the same combat thing as other spell.
The conjure spell rewrites are just other spell functions with a different coat of paint and by replacing the conjuration spells there is a new gap in gameplay that now can bog down gameplay with "Can I find X" or "how long for me to X "discussions. Clever conjuration uses allowed players to feel smart without it feeling cheaty.
should options for 8 turns in combat go...... absolutely But they might want 8 turns
should pixies shenanigans go ... absolutely but generic stats can't match worldbuilding function.
should Power balance be dependent on one spell option ...... of course not but some classes it provides an identity option.
do we need the conjure spells and summon spells to fulfill a gameplay role ...... probably if you want a well rounded game.
should they change from 2014 ........Yes but the new options don't satisfy much of the needs.
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.
That's all well and good but here are a list of class features, spells and abilities that require players to reference monster statblocks in the current books:
Wildshape - Beasts CR 0-1 Find Familiar - 15 different Beasts Pact of the Chain - 3 additional Familiars Find Steed - 5 different Beasts Find Greater Steed - 6 different creatures Polymorph - all Beasts Shapechange - all creatures upto CR 20 True Polymorph - all creatures upto CR 20 Beastmaster Ranger - beasts CR 1/4 or lower Animate Dead - zombies & skeletons Danse Macabre - zombies & skeletons Create Undead - 4 types of undead Create Homunculus - homunculus Conjure Celestial - celestials CR 4 or less Conjure Animals - beasts CR 2 or less Conjure Elemental - elemental CR 9 or less Conjure Fey - beasts CR 9 or less Conjure Woodland Beings - Fey CR 2 or less Conjure Minor Elemental - Elemental CR 2 or less Summon Lesser Demon - demons CR 1 or less Summon Greater Demon - demons CR 9 or less Infernal Calling - devils CR 9 or less Planar Ally - celestial, elemental or fiend (any CR)
Equipment section of PHB: 9 different mounts
Seems kind of weird they would "forget" that players should never need to access monster statblock at any time ever, 23 times.
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.
There's no contradiction. "If you have ever thought about running a Dungeons & Dragons game for your friends, this tome contains page after page of inspiration." You can be inspired before being a DM, but it's still a DM book.
Also, specific trumps general. "This is a book for DMs" is a specific as it gets.
Seems kind of weird they would "forget" that players should never need to access monster statblock at any time ever, 23 times.
Wow, it's almost like they're printing new versions of these spells or something! Hey, maybe there's a subforum on this board where we can talk about that!
Out of context, partial quote — it is still a fallacy to cite either of them. Fallacies are poor arguments.
first paragraph is specific, and you did it there as well — it says, point blank, if you are merely thinking about it, take a look. So, like I said, we both got points.
Lastly, AgileMind wasn’t referring to UA spells exclusively. That list is current PHB stuff. Seems pretty design intent that p,Ayer’s access the damn MM.
wanna quote and cite stuff at me, fine. But I don’t give a shit what the current lead thinks about what books should be accessed by whom. I didn’t give a shit when Gygax said th3 same thing to my face, I ain’t gonna give one now. Well, maybe. I do still like Cook’s approaches, but it would still be a fallacy. So quoting it only says to me that argument is weak.
kinda weird hang up, though, to be this vociferous about it being a fact that all the books are DM facing, and so calling one or another that is just silly.
even more so when we are supposed to be cranking over the spell revisions, which do not address all the times when players need to look in the MM. granted, it is a silly argument as well, but at least it has some actual impact on gameplay.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The DMG and MM are designed for DMs isn't a fallacy, it's a statement of fact. That logic informs why they're making the changes they are, such as removing statblocks from conjure. If you don't care about the reasons why the designers are changing things, it's kinda a weird hang up to be on the Unearthed Arcana forum, which is all about changing the game.
As for the "list of current PHB stuff," just like you don't care about what the lead dev thinks about the 2024 books and who they're designed for, I don't care about outdated spell design from 10 years ago. If you and Agile want to go reminisce about the way things were in 2014, that's what General Discussion is for.
The DMG and MM are designed for DMs isn't a fallacy, it's a statement of fact. That logic informs why they're making the changes they are, such as removing statblocks from conjure. If you don't care about the reasons why the designers are changing things, it's kinda a weird hang up to be on the Unearthed Arcana forum, which is all about changing the game.
As for the "list of current PHB stuff," just like you don't care about what the lead dev thinks about the 2024 books and who they're designed for, I don't care about outdated spell design from 10 years ago. If you and Agile want to go reminisce about the way things were in 2014, that's what General Discussion is fo
strawman misrepresentation fallacy now.
I never said anything about the DMG and MM not being designed for use by DMs. That is just outright lying, for a second time, about me.
Nor is that the fallacy I identified or spoke to.
I could point out the third fallacy involved in the response quoted, but at this point, I will conclude that there is no good faith in your arguments and treat them accordingly.
wholly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The primary function (or even the desire of many) isn't Combat damage. Its functionality. sometimes you need an NPC Helper. Maybe its 4 horses, maybe its a demon 'crew', a dozen spiders to reinforce a bridge , A group of bats to guide through fog, or a distraction stampede.
Players shouldn't need summons or searching monster books to be combat-viable but the game is more than just damage . I want the functions of conjuring creatures not just another spell that does the same combat thing as other spell.
The conjure spell rewrites are just other spell functions with a different coat of paint and by replacing the conjuration spells there is a new gap in gameplay that now can bog down gameplay with "Can I find X" or "how long for me to X "discussions. Clever conjuration uses allowed players to feel smart without it feeling cheaty.
should options for 8 turns in combat go...... absolutely But they might want 8 turns
should pixies shenanigans go ... absolutely but generic stats can't match worldbuilding function.
should Power balance be dependent on one spell option ...... of course not but some classes it provides an identity option.
do we need the conjure spells and summon spells to fulfill a gameplay role ...... probably if you want a well rounded game.
should they change from 2014 ........Yes but the new options don't satisfy much of the needs.
There are already spells for NPC Helpers, plus the biggest problem with using conjure spells in this format is that according to guidance from Sage Advice the player doesn’t pick the creature. I need horses, I cast Conjure Animals. DM, “you get a bunch of birds.” The Summon spells are just as good as OoC helpers as most Conjure spells, except the Conjure spells that can’t be cast in combat since those usually last at least an hour. Helper spells are supposed to be like Unseen servant and Tiny Servant. There are already spells to reinforce a bridge according to their spell description. Using spiders to do it is a creative use of a spell that has no mechanical support. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done it means WotC can’t plan for it and keeping a bad spell in the game for potential creative use doesn’t seem smart. Especially when we know the spell can be dysfunctional. When you cut the dysfunctional stuff from the spell you either end up with a curated list of things you can summon or a carbon copy of the Summon Spell. So trying to keep Conjure spells in a format similar to their 2014 version will just have you end up with a list of choices that will be in the PHB and most likely the ability to summon multiple creatures will be gone. That means that it would be pretty much the same as the Summon spell, so why have both?
should options for 8 turns in combat go...... absolutely but nothing it needs to go. I’m sure they are fixing animate objects as well. If not I will be making angry post. 1 player shouldn’t bog down combat with 8 turns.
should pixies shenanigans go ... absolutely but nothing generic stats aren't part of worldbuilding function. Monster’s a mages that create the world can do stuff that’s the players can’t. Example: Where did all the magic weapons and item in the game come from? PC surely did not make them with the stuff in their kit. Not even an Artificer is equipped to make some of the permanent magic items that appear in the game.
should Power balance be dependent on one spell option ...... of course not. No class identity is determined by any of the conjure spells. Even the Conjuration Wizard doesn’t rely on these spells for its identity. The summon spells work just as well for it.
do we need the conjure spells and summon spells to fulfill a gameplay role ...... no. You don’t need both. The Summon spells are clear fix to problematic early design choices.
should they change from 2014 ........Yes, the Summon spells satisfy the needs (a method to summon additional aid in a non gamebreaking method), but clearly don’t satisfy everyone’s wants. The new Conjure spells don’t satisfy everyone’s wants either. So they shouldn’t remain as presented in UA8, but should never go back to 2014 versions.
Also Conjure Elemental and Conjure Celestial aren’t bad, just they are very similar to the Summon versions. So I guess one option is to make all Conjure spells work like Conjure Elemental. 1 minute cast time, 1 hour duration and if you lose concentration the spirit doesn’t leave they become hostile to you. I suppose that’s enough of a difference from the Summon spell version to justify this version Conjure spell. Add no creature summoned by this spell can summon other creatures and I think that fixes 90% of the Conjure Spell’s problems while letting people grab specific MM stat blocks.
should options for 8 turns in combat go...... absolutely but nothing it needs to go. I’m sure they are fixing animate objects as well. If not I will be making angry post. 1 player shouldn’t bog down combat with 8 turns.
In my experience, it has been the proliferation of "pet" classes and the Tasha's summon spells that have most bogged down combat and skewed action economy. Summoning used to be relatively niche - basically just Druid and Necromancer Wizards did it routinely - and players would self-select whether they were equipped to handle that kind of commitment or not. Those that were not just didn't play those classes or didn't use those spells. So in the typical party of 5, I would see: 2 familiars + 1 steed.
Since Tasha's & the artificer were released I now typically see a party of 5: 2 familiars, 2 "pets" (each making an attack), 1-2 Summons (each making 2-3 attacks), + 1 steed
Now, instead of having to discuss with just the Druid player if there was one, about how conjuration should be used so as to not be disruptive. I'm instead having to either having enemies constantly ignore the martials and instead focus fire on the casters since they are taking down 2 for the price of 1, or increasing the number of enemies by ~3 to have fodder to throw at the summons & pets.
I would have preferred that the Conjure spells, at least some of them, to differentiate them from the summoning spells, allowed multiple summoning of creatures (1, 2 or 3) or Swarms, for example:
CONJURE ANIMALS You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range. Choose one of the following options for what appears: One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower Two beasts of challenge rating 1 or lower Three beasts of challenge rating 1/2 or lower ... blah blah blah ... and in an annex have a list of suggested creatures, maybe by default limit it to creatures from the PHB At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using certain higher-level spell slots, The challenge rating of each option is increased, twice as many with a 6th-level slot, and four times as many with a 9th-level slot.
Something similar for Conjure Celestial, Conjure Elemental, Conjure Fey, summoning 1 to 3 creatures and using high-level spell slots only increases the challenge rating of each option. While with Conjure Woodland Beings and Conjure Minor Elementals (and others), They summon a swarm, which may be more similar to this AU.
This way, too many creatures will not be summoned or a swarm will be summoned to simulate a large number of them, differentiating the spells by the "Fantasy" of being able to choose quantity instead of quality, without giving absurd quantities as an option that end up harming the game.
-
Regarding healing spells, I like that they thought about the possibility of improving them a little, although at least with the 1st level ones I think they went a little overboard, comparing the health of the characters in the 1st 2 levels, personally I would have improved them a little less but it would improve the scaling more (and as much as possible giving more reliability to the cured quantity, is heal, no one attack), something like this:
CURE WOUNDS A creature you touch regains a number of Hit Points equal to 1d12(or 3d4) plus your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell has no effect on Constructs and Undead. At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of level 2 or higher, the healing increases by 10 for each slot level above 1.
HEALING WORD A creature of your choice that you can see within range regains a number of Hit Points equal to 1d6 plus your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell has no effect on Constructs and Undead. At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of level 2 or higher, the healing increases by 1d6+1 for each slot level above 1.
MASS CURE WOUNDS Range: 30 feet A wave of healing energy emanates from a point you can see within range. Choose up to six creatures in a 30-foot-radius Sphere centered on that point. Each target regains Hit Points equal to 3d10 plus your spellcasting ability modifier y el modificador de constitución . This spell has no effect on Constructs or Undead. At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of level 6 or higher, the healing increases by 1d10+1 for each slot level above 5.
MASS HEALING WORD equal to 2014
And about the new spell that grants temporary life points, it is designed to reinforce a few creatures, possibly those on the front line, objectives to protect exposed to danger, such as mounts, or an important NPC for a mission, etc., so I see it It is absurd that the maximum is 6 creatures, and to avoid overfeeding the barbarian with vitality it should have a minimum, so perhaps protecting between 2 to 4 creatures is a more appropriate number. (60, 40, 30 temporary each target)
I never said anything about the DMG and MM not being designed for use by DMs. That is just outright lying, for a second time, about me.
Nor is that the fallacy I identified or spoke to.
I could point out the third fallacy involved in the response quoted, but at this point, I will conclude that there is no good faith in your arguments and treat them accordingly.
wholly.
The fallacy you were referring to is Appeal to Authority, which would only matter if I were telling you "X is correct and you should do this because Crawford said so." I'm not opining on whether the DM-facing/Player-facing divide is the correct design intent for the MM, I'm just stating factually that that was their intent when writing it. You can heed or ignore that fact, or continue to reminisce in the nursing home about 2014 spell design, all you want.
should options for 8 turns in combat go...... absolutely but nothing it needs to go. I’m sure they are fixing animate objects as well. If not I will be making angry post. 1 player shouldn’t bog down combat with 8 turns.
In my experience, it has been the proliferation of "pet" classes and the Tasha's summon spells that have most bogged down combat and skewed action economy. Summoning used to be relatively niche - basically just Druid and Necromancer Wizards did it routinely - and players would self-select whether they were equipped to handle that kind of commitment or not. Those that were not just didn't play those classes or didn't use those spells. So in the typical party of 5, I would see: 2 familiars + 1 steed.
Since Tasha's & the artificer were released I now typically see a party of 5: 2 familiars, 2 "pets" (each making an attack), 1-2 Summons (each making 2-3 attacks), + 1 steed
Now, instead of having to discuss with just the Druid player if there was one, about how conjuration should be used so as to not be disruptive. I'm instead having to either having enemies constantly ignore the martials and instead focus fire on the casters since they are taking down 2 for the price of 1, or increasing the number of enemies by ~3 to have fodder to throw at the summons & pets.
Tasha Summons are balanced by needing concentration, and acting on the caster's turn instead of needing their own initiative. If everyone in the party wants to concentrate on having a single minion out, that's perfectly fine, it means you're not having to also track their Haste or Spike Growth or Hypnotic Pattern etc. The added complexity of the extra body is offset by the ease of not needing to track a buff, debuff, zone, wall etc.
should options for 8 turns in combat go...... absolutely but nothing it needs to go. I’m sure they are fixing animate objects as well. If not I will be making angry post. 1 player shouldn’t bog down combat with 8 turns.
In my experience, it has been the proliferation of "pet" classes and the Tasha's summon spells that have most bogged down combat and skewed action economy. Summoning used to be relatively niche - basically just Druid and Necromancer Wizards did it routinely - and players would self-select whether they were equipped to handle that kind of commitment or not. Those that were not just didn't play those classes or didn't use those spells. So in the typical party of 5, I would see: 2 familiars + 1 steed.
Since Tasha's & the artificer were released I now typically see a party of 5: 2 familiars, 2 "pets" (each making an attack), 1-2 Summons (each making 2-3 attacks), + 1 steed
Now, instead of having to discuss with just the Druid player if there was one, about how conjuration should be used so as to not be disruptive. I'm instead having to either having enemies constantly ignore the martials and instead focus fire on the casters since they are taking down 2 for the price of 1, or increasing the number of enemies by ~3 to have fodder to throw at the summons & pets.
Tasha Summons are balanced by needing concentration, and acting on the caster's turn instead of needing their own initiative. If everyone in the party wants to concentrate on having a single minion out, that's perfectly fine, it means you're not having to also track their Haste or Spike Growth or Hypnotic Pattern etc. The added complexity of the extra body is offset by the ease of not needing to track a buff, debuff, zone, wall etc.
All of the Conjure spells also require concentration, so why doesn't this argument hold for e.g. Conjure Elemental or Conjure Fey or Conjure Animals using the CR1/CR2 options?
Everyone having their own Summon and pet is easily more additional attacks per round (2 attacks + often 1 saving throw per Summon) than a 8 minion Conjure Animals is, so I don't understand why one is fine and the other is the worst thing to ever exist in a TTRPG.
All of the Conjure spells also require concentration, so why doesn't this argument hold for e.g. Conjure Elemental or Conjure Fey or Conjure Animals using the CR1/CR2 options?
Because even if you go for a single creature option, quantity wasn't the primary issue that Crawford highlighted. His exact words were:
"Those {Conjure X} spells often created some gameplay headaches because of how open-ended they are in their 2014 form."
Even if you limit yourselves to a single beast of CR 1 or lower purely from the Monster Manual, that's still close to 100 options from one spell.
Everyone having their own Summon and pet is easily more additional attacks per round (2 attacks + often 1 saving throw per Summon) than a 8 minion Conjure Animals is, so I don't understand why one is fine and the other is the worst thing to ever exist in a TTRPG.
Honestly, the summon creatures should probably not have multiattack, it slows them down and causes problematic scaling with higher level spell slots, but the 8 minion conjure animals was 8 creatures (which might have their own multiattack) from one PCs actions.
Everyone having their own Summon and pet is easily more additional attacks per round (2 attacks + often 1 saving throw per Summon) than a 8 minion Conjure Animals is, so I don't understand why one is fine and the other is the worst thing to ever exist in a TTRPG.
Honestly, the summon creatures should probably not have multiattack, it slows them down and causes problematic scaling with higher level spell slots, but the 8 minion conjure animals was 8 creatures (which might have their own multiattack) from one PCs actions.
And 8 initiatives, 8 saving throws, 8 positions on the battlefield...
So before today I haven't had a whole lot of time to really look into these.
Flavor wise I think this works. Conjure spells NEEDED an update as they could be problematic at the table. They do need to remain strong option though because they were premier options for Druids and rangers, especially Conjure animals.
So Conjure animals creates a Large Swarm. A large creature (swarm) takes the space of 4 squares. If an enemy enters or starts its turn within 10 feet of this swarm you make an attack against it. This makes a 4x4 area so pretty big area. The attack means you get no damage on a miss and the damage is only 2d10 + modifier so an average of 15 at level 5, and you CAN crit and you can miss. Compare this to call lightning which is much larger area, does 15.5 on a failed save half on a successful save can't crit and only targets one creature at a time and needs to use your action to get extra use. So it may not be as powerful but it is still a premier Druid spell, still seems to be one of the strongest options at its spell level, not always auto pick, but still good. The only thing I would like to see is giving the enemy disadvantage on strength and dex saves instead of you just getting advantage. Also upcasting seems really weak.
Conjure celestial area is much smaller, but has a power effect. Healing allies and damaging enemies each turn with a single spell seems really good. Conjure elemental does pretty much what you want an elemental to do, really strong damage smaller area of effect than conjure animals, but definitely more powerful. Conjure fey on the other hand just seems like an outright weaker version of Summon fey, it doesn't do what some of these others do where it seems like summoning a swarm, it does less damage than any other conjure spell at this level and just provides the frightened condition and uses your bonus action to move it. Conjure fey is a big miss. Conjure woodland beings just kind of became the druid/ranger version of spirit guardians.
All around this doesn't seem to bad. Some of these need some tweaks but all around this seems like a decent solution.
Fount of Moonlight seems like a good ranger spells.... if only it was on the ranger spell list. Good for moon druid though, and some combat bards will like this. Starry whisp is probably the go to druid and bard cantrip super good.
And that is kind of my thoughts on spells right now.
And 8 initiatives, 8 saving throws, 8 positions on the battlefield...
Not 8 initiatives, the books even tell you to have all the summons act on the same initiative if there is more than 1 of them.
Half the time you don't even need to roll saves for 8 minions because they die regardless of their save. In contrast 2 Tasha's summons will be rolling multiple saves per combat because they will survive several AoEs.
How is 8 positions on the battlefield exceptionally onerous? A typical party will have 4-5 PCs, 1-2 familiars, several on going spell effects that require tokens (like Spiritual Weapon, Moonbeam, Flaming Sphere, etc..), 1-2 mounts / pets, and they'll be facing off against 6-10 enemies? You're already tracking ~18 tokens, why is 8 more going to break your brain?
Not 8 initiatives, the books even tell you to have all the summons act on the same initiative if there is more than 1 of them.
Half the time you don't even need to roll saves for 8 minions because they die regardless of their save. In contrast 2 Tasha's summons will be rolling multiple saves per combat because they will survive several AoEs.
How is 8 positions on the battlefield exceptionally onerous? A typical party will have 4-5 PCs, 1-2 familiars, several on going spell effects that require tokens (like Spiritual Weapon, Moonbeam, Flaming Sphere, etc..), 1-2 mounts / pets, and they'll be facing off against 6-10 enemies? You're already tracking ~18 tokens, why is 8 more going to break your brain?
1) I meant 8 more turns. Even if you have them move and act in concert like it's Swan Lake though, that's still going to bog down combats that already likely take too long.
2) Not all saving throws relate to damage/result in death, and even the ones that do still need to be actually resolved. This isn't 4th Edition where minions all have 1HP.
3) My brain is fine, thanks. Moonbeam and Flaming Sphere (and SW now) are managed by one character concentrating on single spell effect. None of those are spawning 8 charging elks or pack tactics wolves or whatever, that enemies either can't move through at all or need to treat as difficult terrain and that your allies might even be able to use as cover. And god forbid your combat is taking place outside of a featureless white room, say on a wooden bridge with a weight limit.
New conjure animals stinks. I get why they changed it but no. They could nerf conjure animals to summon max 4 cr 1/4 creatures and upcasting increases the CR rather than number of creatures and it would still be good. I play on foundry vtt and this spell was seemless. All I had to do was drag and drop 8 wolves on the screen and the damage and attacks were automated so it never caused any issues. If you are playing in person then I totally get the problem with this spell so it does need to change to accommodate that. It will need more work.
Conjure Celestial - meh. Waiting until a creature starts its turn to deal damage to it is a bad strategy at 13th level or higher as more creatures have legendary movement. Moving it for free is good though.
Conjure elemental - not happy with this. It does not move. Creatures can easily stay away from this and it won't do anything. One of the best combos in 5e is planar binding and conjure elemental. I want that back.
Conjure Fey - 3d12 + wisdom modifier bonus action is pretty good. I like it.
Conjure minor elementals - this is broken when upcast with an upcast scorching ray. This can make your attack based cantrips very strong. Too strong I think. It will need a sizeable nerf.
Conjure woodland beings - I like it but it's too similar to spirit guardians. Kind of takes away something that should be uniquely cleric.
Cure wounds - great
Fount of moonlight - if you are a moon druid bear you can max out with the bears natural attacks plus 2d6 radiant damage per attack for fount of moonlight, plus once per turn 2d8 primal strike damage, plus 1d10 improved lunar radiance damage on each attack. Pretty solid. I like it, even if your not a moon druid.
Healing word - mostly used to bring guys up from zero. The extra d4 means nothing.
Mass cure wounds - I like it. Great with beacon of hope.
Mass healing word - meh.
Power word fortify - very strong if used on one player. Like a barbarian. I like it. If you use this on 6 players it weaker than twilight clerics channel divinity which goes to show you how stupidly strong that ability is.
Starry wisp - great addition for bards. I am playing one now and would have liked this.
How is 8 positions on the battlefield exceptionally onerous? A typical party will have 4-5 PCs, 1-2 familiars, several on going spell effects that require tokens (like Spiritual Weapon, Moonbeam, Flaming Sphere, etc..), 1-2 mounts / pets, and they'll be facing off against 6-10 enemies? You're already tracking ~18 tokens, why is 8 more going to break your brain?
Your idea of typical is... not mine. I rarely see more than ten tokens in a fight, and certainly not more after the first round. Even if the summons all die in one round, which is possible, just resolving them is quite time consuming.
All of the Conjure spells also require concentration, so why doesn't this argument hold for e.g. Conjure Elemental or Conjure Fey or Conjure Animals using the CR1/CR2 options?
Everyone having their own Summon and pet is easily more additional attacks per round (2 attacks + often 1 saving throw per Summon) than a 8 minion Conjure Animals is, so I don't understand why one is fine and the other is the worst thing to ever exist in a TTRPG.
Because everybody in the party having one or two extra actions on their turn is dramatically more tolerable than one single person getting 10+ extra actions and taking an hour to resolve every one of their turns in combat. Spread the load, let everyone have fun instead of just the annoying summoner.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The primary function (or even the desire of many) isn't Combat damage. Its functionality. sometimes you need an NPC Helper. Maybe its 4 horses, maybe its a demon 'crew', a dozen spiders to reinforce a bridge , A group of bats to guide through fog, or a distraction stampede.
Players shouldn't need summons or searching monster books to be combat-viable but the game is more than just damage . I want the functions of conjuring creatures not just another spell that does the same combat thing as other spell.
The conjure spell rewrites are just other spell functions with a different coat of paint and by replacing the conjuration spells there is a new gap in gameplay that now can bog down gameplay with "Can I find X" or "how long for me to X "discussions. Clever conjuration uses allowed players to feel smart without it feeling cheaty.
should options for 8 turns in combat go...... absolutely But they might want 8 turns
should pixies shenanigans go ... absolutely but generic stats can't match worldbuilding function.
should Power balance be dependent on one spell option ...... of course not but some classes it provides an identity option.
do we need the conjure spells and summon spells to fulfill a gameplay role ...... probably if you want a well rounded game.
should they change from 2014 ........Yes but the new options don't satisfy much of the needs.
That's all well and good but here are a list of class features, spells and abilities that require players to reference monster statblocks in the current books:
Wildshape - Beasts CR 0-1
Find Familiar - 15 different Beasts
Pact of the Chain - 3 additional Familiars
Find Steed - 5 different Beasts
Find Greater Steed - 6 different creatures
Polymorph - all Beasts
Shapechange - all creatures upto CR 20
True Polymorph - all creatures upto CR 20
Beastmaster Ranger - beasts CR 1/4 or lower
Animate Dead - zombies & skeletons
Danse Macabre - zombies & skeletons
Create Undead - 4 types of undead
Create Homunculus - homunculus
Conjure Celestial - celestials CR 4 or less
Conjure Animals - beasts CR 2 or less
Conjure Elemental - elemental CR 9 or less
Conjure Fey - beasts CR 9 or less
Conjure Woodland Beings - Fey CR 2 or less
Conjure Minor Elemental - Elemental CR 2 or less
Summon Lesser Demon - demons CR 1 or less
Summon Greater Demon - demons CR 9 or less
Infernal Calling - devils CR 9 or less
Planar Ally - celestial, elemental or fiend (any CR)
Equipment section of PHB: 9 different mounts
Seems kind of weird they would "forget" that players should never need to access monster statblock at any time ever, 23 times.
There's no contradiction. "If you have ever thought about running a Dungeons & Dragons game for your friends, this tome contains page after page of inspiration." You can be inspired before being a DM, but it's still a DM book.
Also, specific trumps general. "This is a book for DMs" is a specific as it gets.
Dave Cook is not currently lead designer of 2024 D&D. Crawford is.
Wow, it's almost like they're printing new versions of these spells or something! Hey, maybe there's a subforum on this board where we can talk about that!
Out of context, partial quote — it is still a fallacy to cite either of them. Fallacies are poor arguments.
first paragraph is specific, and you did it there as well — it says, point blank, if you are merely thinking about it, take a look. So, like I said, we both got points.
Lastly, AgileMind wasn’t referring to UA spells exclusively. That list is current PHB stuff. Seems pretty design intent that p,Ayer’s access the damn MM.
wanna quote and cite stuff at me, fine. But I don’t give a shit what the current lead thinks about what books should be accessed by whom. I didn’t give a shit when Gygax said th3 same thing to my face, I ain’t gonna give one now. Well, maybe. I do still like Cook’s approaches, but it would still be a fallacy. So quoting it only says to me that argument is weak.
kinda weird hang up, though, to be this vociferous about it being a fact that all the books are DM facing, and so calling one or another that is just silly.
even more so when we are supposed to be cranking over the spell revisions, which do not address all the times when players need to look in the MM. granted, it is a silly argument as well, but at least it has some actual impact on gameplay.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The DMG and MM are designed for DMs isn't a fallacy, it's a statement of fact. That logic informs why they're making the changes they are, such as removing statblocks from conjure. If you don't care about the reasons why the designers are changing things, it's kinda a weird hang up to be on the Unearthed Arcana forum, which is all about changing the game.
As for the "list of current PHB stuff," just like you don't care about what the lead dev thinks about the 2024 books and who they're designed for, I don't care about outdated spell design from 10 years ago. If you and Agile want to go reminisce about the way things were in 2014, that's what General Discussion is for.
strawman misrepresentation fallacy now.
I never said anything about the DMG and MM not being designed for use by DMs. That is just outright lying, for a second time, about me.
Nor is that the fallacy I identified or spoke to.
I could point out the third fallacy involved in the response quoted, but at this point, I will conclude that there is no good faith in your arguments and treat them accordingly.
wholly.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
There are already spells for NPC Helpers, plus the biggest problem with using conjure spells in this format is that according to guidance from Sage Advice the player doesn’t pick the creature. I need horses, I cast Conjure Animals. DM, “you get a bunch of birds.” The Summon spells are just as good as OoC helpers as most Conjure spells, except the Conjure spells that can’t be cast in combat since those usually last at least an hour. Helper spells are supposed to be like Unseen servant and Tiny Servant. There are already spells to reinforce a bridge according to their spell description. Using spiders to do it is a creative use of a spell that has no mechanical support. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done it means WotC can’t plan for it and keeping a bad spell in the game for potential creative use doesn’t seem smart. Especially when we know the spell can be dysfunctional. When you cut the dysfunctional stuff from the spell you either end up with a curated list of things you can summon or a carbon copy of the Summon Spell. So trying to keep Conjure spells in a format similar to their 2014 version will just have you end up with a list of choices that will be in the PHB and most likely the ability to summon multiple creatures will be gone. That means that it would be pretty much the same as the Summon spell, so why have both?
should options for 8 turns in combat go...... absolutely but nothing it needs to go. I’m sure they are fixing animate objects as well. If not I will be making angry post. 1 player shouldn’t bog down combat with 8 turns.
should pixies shenanigans go ... absolutely but nothing generic stats aren't part of worldbuilding function. Monster’s a mages that create the world can do stuff that’s the players can’t. Example: Where did all the magic weapons and item in the game come from? PC surely did not make them with the stuff in their kit. Not even an Artificer is equipped to make some of the permanent magic items that appear in the game.
should Power balance be dependent on one spell option ...... of course not. No class identity is determined by any of the conjure spells. Even the Conjuration Wizard doesn’t rely on these spells for its identity. The summon spells work just as well for it.
do we need the conjure spells and summon spells to fulfill a gameplay role ...... no. You don’t need both. The Summon spells are clear fix to problematic early design choices.
should they change from 2014 ........Yes, the Summon spells satisfy the needs (a method to summon additional aid in a non gamebreaking method), but clearly don’t satisfy everyone’s wants. The new Conjure spells don’t satisfy everyone’s wants either. So they shouldn’t remain as presented in UA8, but should never go back to 2014 versions.
Also Conjure Elemental and Conjure Celestial aren’t bad, just they are very similar to the Summon versions. So I guess one option is to make all Conjure spells work like Conjure Elemental. 1 minute cast time, 1 hour duration and if you lose concentration the spirit doesn’t leave they become hostile to you. I suppose that’s enough of a difference from the Summon spell version to justify this version Conjure spell. Add no creature summoned by this spell can summon other creatures and I think that fixes 90% of the Conjure Spell’s problems while letting people grab specific MM stat blocks.
In my experience, it has been the proliferation of "pet" classes and the Tasha's summon spells that have most bogged down combat and skewed action economy. Summoning used to be relatively niche - basically just Druid and Necromancer Wizards did it routinely - and players would self-select whether they were equipped to handle that kind of commitment or not. Those that were not just didn't play those classes or didn't use those spells. So in the typical party of 5, I would see: 2 familiars + 1 steed.
Since Tasha's & the artificer were released I now typically see a party of 5: 2 familiars, 2 "pets" (each making an attack), 1-2 Summons (each making 2-3 attacks), + 1 steed
Now, instead of having to discuss with just the Druid player if there was one, about how conjuration should be used so as to not be disruptive. I'm instead having to either having enemies constantly ignore the martials and instead focus fire on the casters since they are taking down 2 for the price of 1, or increasing the number of enemies by ~3 to have fodder to throw at the summons & pets.
I would have preferred that the Conjure spells, at least some of them, to differentiate them from the summoning spells, allowed multiple summoning of creatures (1, 2 or 3) or Swarms, for example:
CONJURE ANIMALS
You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts and appear in unoccupied spaces that you can see within range. Choose one of the following options for what appears:
One beast of challenge rating 2 or lower
Two beasts of challenge rating 1 or lower
Three beasts of challenge rating 1/2 or lower
... blah blah blah ... and in an annex have a list of suggested creatures, maybe by default limit it to creatures from the PHB
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using certain higher-level spell slots, The challenge rating of each option is increased, twice as many with a 6th-level slot, and four times as many with a 9th-level slot.
Something similar for Conjure Celestial, Conjure Elemental, Conjure Fey, summoning 1 to 3 creatures and using high-level spell slots only increases the challenge rating of each option.
While with Conjure Woodland Beings and Conjure Minor Elementals (and others), They summon a swarm, which may be more similar to this AU.
This way, too many creatures will not be summoned or a swarm will be summoned to simulate a large number of them, differentiating the spells by the "Fantasy" of being able to choose quantity instead of quality, without giving absurd quantities as an option that end up harming the game.
-
Regarding healing spells, I like that they thought about the possibility of improving them a little, although at least with the 1st level ones I think they went a little overboard, comparing the health of the characters in the 1st 2 levels, personally I would have improved them a little less but it would improve the scaling more (and as much as possible giving more reliability to the cured quantity, is heal, no one attack), something like this:
CURE WOUNDS
A creature you touch regains a number of Hit Points equal to 1d12(or 3d4) plus your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell has no effect on Constructs and Undead.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of level 2 or higher, the healing increases by 10 for each slot level above 1.
HEALING WORD
A creature of your choice that you can see within range regains a number of Hit Points equal to 1d6 plus your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell has no effect on Constructs and Undead.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of level 2 or higher, the healing increases by 1d6+1 for each slot level above 1.
MASS CURE WOUNDS
Range: 30 feet
A wave of healing energy emanates from a point you can see within range. Choose up to six creatures in a 30-foot-radius Sphere centered on that point. Each target regains Hit Points equal to 3d10 plus your spellcasting ability modifier y el modificador de constitución . This spell has no effect on Constructs or Undead.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of level 6 or higher, the healing increases by 1d10+1 for each slot level above 5.
MASS HEALING WORD
equal to 2014
And about the new spell that grants temporary life points, it is designed to reinforce a few creatures, possibly those on the front line, objectives to protect exposed to danger, such as mounts, or an important NPC for a mission, etc., so I see it It is absurd that the maximum is 6 creatures, and to avoid overfeeding the barbarian with vitality it should have a minimum, so perhaps protecting between 2 to 4 creatures is a more appropriate number. (60, 40, 30 temporary each target)
The fallacy you were referring to is Appeal to Authority, which would only matter if I were telling you "X is correct and you should do this because Crawford said so." I'm not opining on whether the DM-facing/Player-facing divide is the correct design intent for the MM, I'm just stating factually that that was their intent when writing it. You can heed or ignore that fact, or continue to reminisce in the nursing home about 2014 spell design, all you want.
Tasha Summons are balanced by needing concentration, and acting on the caster's turn instead of needing their own initiative. If everyone in the party wants to concentrate on having a single minion out, that's perfectly fine, it means you're not having to also track their Haste or Spike Growth or Hypnotic Pattern etc. The added complexity of the extra body is offset by the ease of not needing to track a buff, debuff, zone, wall etc.
All of the Conjure spells also require concentration, so why doesn't this argument hold for e.g. Conjure Elemental or Conjure Fey or Conjure Animals using the CR1/CR2 options?
Everyone having their own Summon and pet is easily more additional attacks per round (2 attacks + often 1 saving throw per Summon) than a 8 minion Conjure Animals is, so I don't understand why one is fine and the other is the worst thing to ever exist in a TTRPG.
Because even if you go for a single creature option, quantity wasn't the primary issue that Crawford highlighted. His exact words were:
"Those {Conjure X} spells often created some gameplay headaches because of how open-ended they are in their 2014 form."
Even if you limit yourselves to a single beast of CR 1 or lower purely from the Monster Manual, that's still close to 100 options from one spell.
Honestly, the summon creatures should probably not have multiattack, it slows them down and causes problematic scaling with higher level spell slots, but the 8 minion conjure animals was 8 creatures (which might have their own multiattack) from one PCs actions.
And 8 initiatives, 8 saving throws, 8 positions on the battlefield...
So before today I haven't had a whole lot of time to really look into these.
Flavor wise I think this works. Conjure spells NEEDED an update as they could be problematic at the table. They do need to remain strong option though because they were premier options for Druids and rangers, especially Conjure animals.
So Conjure animals creates a Large Swarm. A large creature (swarm) takes the space of 4 squares. If an enemy enters or starts its turn within 10 feet of this swarm you make an attack against it. This makes a 4x4 area so pretty big area. The attack means you get no damage on a miss and the damage is only 2d10 + modifier so an average of 15 at level 5, and you CAN crit and you can miss. Compare this to call lightning which is much larger area, does 15.5 on a failed save half on a successful save can't crit and only targets one creature at a time and needs to use your action to get extra use. So it may not be as powerful but it is still a premier Druid spell, still seems to be one of the strongest options at its spell level, not always auto pick, but still good. The only thing I would like to see is giving the enemy disadvantage on strength and dex saves instead of you just getting advantage. Also upcasting seems really weak.
Conjure celestial area is much smaller, but has a power effect. Healing allies and damaging enemies each turn with a single spell seems really good. Conjure elemental does pretty much what you want an elemental to do, really strong damage smaller area of effect than conjure animals, but definitely more powerful. Conjure fey on the other hand just seems like an outright weaker version of Summon fey, it doesn't do what some of these others do where it seems like summoning a swarm, it does less damage than any other conjure spell at this level and just provides the frightened condition and uses your bonus action to move it. Conjure fey is a big miss. Conjure woodland beings just kind of became the druid/ranger version of spirit guardians.
All around this doesn't seem to bad. Some of these need some tweaks but all around this seems like a decent solution.
Fount of Moonlight seems like a good ranger spells.... if only it was on the ranger spell list. Good for moon druid though, and some combat bards will like this. Starry whisp is probably the go to druid and bard cantrip super good.
And that is kind of my thoughts on spells right now.
Not 8 initiatives, the books even tell you to have all the summons act on the same initiative if there is more than 1 of them.
Half the time you don't even need to roll saves for 8 minions because they die regardless of their save. In contrast 2 Tasha's summons will be rolling multiple saves per combat because they will survive several AoEs.
How is 8 positions on the battlefield exceptionally onerous? A typical party will have 4-5 PCs, 1-2 familiars, several on going spell effects that require tokens (like Spiritual Weapon, Moonbeam, Flaming Sphere, etc..), 1-2 mounts / pets, and they'll be facing off against 6-10 enemies? You're already tracking ~18 tokens, why is 8 more going to break your brain?
1) I meant 8 more turns. Even if you have them move and act in concert like it's Swan Lake though, that's still going to bog down combats that already likely take too long.
2) Not all saving throws relate to damage/result in death, and even the ones that do still need to be actually resolved. This isn't 4th Edition where minions all have 1HP.
3) My brain is fine, thanks. Moonbeam and Flaming Sphere (and SW now) are managed by one character concentrating on single spell effect. None of those are spawning 8 charging elks or pack tactics wolves or whatever, that enemies either can't move through at all or need to treat as difficult terrain and that your allies might even be able to use as cover. And god forbid your combat is taking place outside of a featureless white room, say on a wooden bridge with a weight limit.
New conjure animals stinks. I get why they changed it but no. They could nerf conjure animals to summon max 4 cr 1/4 creatures and upcasting increases the CR rather than number of creatures and it would still be good. I play on foundry vtt and this spell was seemless. All I had to do was drag and drop 8 wolves on the screen and the damage and attacks were automated so it never caused any issues. If you are playing in person then I totally get the problem with this spell so it does need to change to accommodate that. It will need more work.
Conjure Celestial - meh. Waiting until a creature starts its turn to deal damage to it is a bad strategy at 13th level or higher as more creatures have legendary movement. Moving it for free is good though.
Conjure elemental - not happy with this. It does not move. Creatures can easily stay away from this and it won't do anything. One of the best combos in 5e is planar binding and conjure elemental. I want that back.
Conjure Fey - 3d12 + wisdom modifier bonus action is pretty good. I like it.
Conjure minor elementals - this is broken when upcast with an upcast scorching ray. This can make your attack based cantrips very strong. Too strong I think. It will need a sizeable nerf.
Conjure woodland beings - I like it but it's too similar to spirit guardians. Kind of takes away something that should be uniquely cleric.
Cure wounds - great
Fount of moonlight - if you are a moon druid bear you can max out with the bears natural attacks plus 2d6 radiant damage per attack for fount of moonlight, plus once per turn 2d8 primal strike damage, plus 1d10 improved lunar radiance damage on each attack. Pretty solid. I like it, even if your not a moon druid.
Healing word - mostly used to bring guys up from zero. The extra d4 means nothing.
Mass cure wounds - I like it. Great with beacon of hope.
Mass healing word - meh.
Power word fortify - very strong if used on one player. Like a barbarian. I like it. If you use this on 6 players it weaker than twilight clerics channel divinity which goes to show you how stupidly strong that ability is.
Starry wisp - great addition for bards. I am playing one now and would have liked this.
Your idea of typical is... not mine. I rarely see more than ten tokens in a fight, and certainly not more after the first round. Even if the summons all die in one round, which is possible, just resolving them is quite time consuming.
Because everybody in the party having one or two extra actions on their turn is dramatically more tolerable than one single person getting 10+ extra actions and taking an hour to resolve every one of their turns in combat. Spread the load, let everyone have fun instead of just the annoying summoner.
Please do not contact or message me.