Starting a thread to discuss Conjure Animals and why I believe DMs should consider rebalancing or even removing the spell from the game.
1. Spell Balance
The spell can create a wide variety of damage ranges but the "optimal" choice is mostly to go with 8 creatures as the action economy and area controlled offered are generally better in the majority of situations. Damage from these creatures will generally outperform most spells of 3rd level by a significant margin.
This damage comes free of action economy as you can simply command the creatures with no action. So any damage the creatures produce will be on top of the damage the ranger can produce with their action/BA.
2. Minonmancy generally slows the game down
Group attacks, Group saves, AoE spells, tracking individual HP, tracking individual conditions, movement, attacks of opportunity for up to 8 creatures.....
The list goes on unless you plan to just let the enemy get hit by the creatures and not move the potential complications of the spell get exponentially higher the more creatures you summon.
3. DM vs Player
The controversial ruling that the DM gets to choose your summons is RAW and is intended in the balance of the spell but puts the DM in a rough spot where they have to choose player agency vs. game balance.
This creates a no win for the DM.
Of course these things can be addressed individually and adjusted for.... But it's also ok to simply limit the number of creatures summoned (2 max) or simply ban the spell.
Talk it over and don't feel like you are a lessor DM if you feel this spell isn't right for your table.
I think I agree with most of this besides the minion part. I play on Foundry and group rolling is easy.
If you play in real life then yeah don't be a dick and demand wolves all the time cuz you know they get advantage and get 8 of them bastards.
The spell is jacked especially if you play it smart with a group who don't usually play it smart.
Doing like 40-50 damage a round with no action needed is hella broken. But my DM usually tries to break my concentration but I planned for that and took CON resilient.
Now there ain't much he can do unless he just straight up kills me but I have cure wounds so I aint scared lol. My party for sure mentions it constantly that I'm "breaking" encounters but DM doesn't want to ban stuff. Even if he gives me weak creatures 8 of em do enough damage that it's easily the best use.
I've actually stopped using it as much because it makes some encounters just too easy
I haven't had to deal with it, but I am certainly not in favor of 8 of anything. Even with some player streamlining, its just too damn many things to add to the board. I have a druid and a ranger in the party I am DM'ing and I expect it to come up very soon.
Don’t bann it - train your players - if every time they summon up 8 giant elk they have to face the 8 giant elk the evil ranger companion to your bbeg summoned up they will figure out the geese and gander rule and they will tone it down on their own.
Don’t bann it - train your players - if every time they summon up 8 giant elk they have to face the 8 giant elk the evil ranger companion to your bbeg summoned up they will figure out the geese and gander rule and they will tone it down on their own.
I would call this the DM vs. Player mentality and I am not a fan of it personally....making an ability annoying to use is not a great way to balance it.
Overall I would suggest you limit it ahead of time at session 0 instead and loop everyone into the conversation. That way everyone has good baseline expectations when they start.
A spell that has both the player and the dm work together to choose summons causes fights? and then you expect talking in session 0 to fix the problems?
I say if you want to stop controversy - then stop being controversial. stick to the place Where Raw and RAI meet then your just playing the game. The original 5e Material was a pretty solid foundation to work from and lots of people were happy with that game.
There may be summon changes in the future ..... but for now I stick to Raw game features and instead find ways to work with what we are given. there are alot of weaknesses to these "large summon" spells. AOE, concentration, dms building horde encounters, anti-magic fields.
A spell that has both the player and the dm work together to choose summons causes fights? and then you expect talking in session 0 to fix the problems?
I say if you want to stop controversy - then stop being controversial. stick to the place Where Raw and RAI meet then your just playing the game. The original 5e Material was a pretty solid foundation to work from and lots of people were happy with that game.
There may be summon changes in the future ..... but for now I stick to Raw game features and instead find ways to work with what we are given. there are alot of weaknesses to these "large summon" spells. AOE, concentration, dms building horde encounters, anti-magic fields.
Thats part of the problem is how much they interact with the "weaknesses" and how much time it takes to parse it out....AoE alone means you do 8 saves, apply damage and apply any riders...then track the riders. Like Synaptic Static for example...if the big bad uses it on your creatures they may not die (8d6 might not do it with low rolls) and now you have to also roll a d6 and take it off their attack each turn on top of rolling for them?
Even in the cases you are "countering" it then you are spending much more time on that one player and their spell than the rest which is not good.
Also just because the spell is popular does not mean its balanced...its clearly not by any stretch as it does far more damage than it should at level 3 and only exponentially gets better as you can summon more and more creatures.
Also yes Session 0 is EXACTLY where you bring this up...its the perfect time to highlight why you do not feel the spell has a place in your game or it does but at a much more manageable level.
Don’t bann it - train your players - if every time they summon up 8 giant elk they have to face the 8 giant elk the evil ranger companion to your bbeg summoned up they will figure out the geese and gander rule and they will tone it down on their own.
I would call this the DM vs. Player mentality and I am not a fan of it personally....making an ability annoying to use is not a great way to balance it.
Overall I would suggest you limit it ahead of time at session 0 instead and loop everyone into the conversation. That way everyone has good baseline expectations when they start.
Not so much DM vs Player as a realization from 40+ years of playing that we often want one set of rules for us and a very different set for our opposition. All the talk in session 0 doesn’t really change that desire/expectation until it hits a few reality checks in game. Once that happens and the dust settles everyone can settle into a solid smooth running game where player excesses and DM excesses are self limiting.
Starting a thread to discuss Conjure Animals and why I believe DMs should consider rebalancing or even removing the spell from the game.
1. Spell Balance
The spell can create a wide variety of damage ranges but the "optimal" choice is mostly to go with 8 creatures as the action economy and area controlled offered are generally better in the majority of situations. Damage from these creatures will generally outperform most spells of 3rd level by a significant margin.
This damage comes free of action economy as you can simply command the creatures with no action. So any damage the creatures produce will be on top of the damage the ranger can produce with their action/BA.
2. Minonmancy generally slows the game down
Group attacks, Group saves, AoE spells, tracking individual HP, tracking individual conditions, movement, attacks of opportunity for up to 8 creatures.....
The list goes on unless you plan to just let the enemy get hit by the creatures and not move the potential complications of the spell get exponentially higher the more creatures you summon.
3. DM vs Player
The controversial ruling that the DM gets to choose your summons is RAW and is intended in the balance of the spell but puts the DM in a rough spot where they have to choose player agency vs. game balance.
This creates a no win for the DM.
Of course these things can be addressed individually and adjusted for.... But it's also ok to simply limit the number of creatures summoned (2 max) or simply ban the spell.
Talk it over and don't feel like you are a lessor DM if you feel this spell isn't right for your table.
I won't touch on points 2 and 3 as Optimus and I have crossed blades about that already on several occasions.
Point 1 is a good one though. Using no feats, no multiclassing, and no magic weapons, we can draw some average damage comparisons that allow players the mechanical "permission" to NOT take 8 animals. I'm roughly looking at 3 battles totaling 12 rounds with 2 short rests. Again, simple damage output calculations at level 11...
Warlock with eldritch blast, agonizing blast, and hex is 42 DPR. Battle master fighter with a longbow is 42.5. Paladin with a long sword with dueling, two 1st and one 3rd spell slots on divine smite is 35 DPR. A monk just using flurry of blows is 38 DPR. A rogue with a shortbow is 29.5. A hunter ranger with a longbow, colossus slayer, volley once per battle, and conjuring two dire wolves once during the third battle that lasts for 3 rounds is 32.5. (A handbook beast master with a wolf is 36, plus even more opportunity attacks.)
So using similar resources as others (kind of) we can see that dire wolves can be functional and adequate for damage output for the cost of an action, a 3rd level spell slot, and concentration. Add to that opportunity attacks, soaking attacks and damage, and general blocking and cover, and we have a good 3rd level spell.
I disagree that the spell is bad or overpowered or the general comments on points 2 and 3, but each table, DM, and player is totally different, into different things, and at different levels of ability and focus, so we should all follow our own bliss.
Starting a thread to discuss Conjure Animals and why I believe DMs should consider rebalancing or even removing the spell from the game.
1. Spell Balance
The spell can create a wide variety of damage ranges but the "optimal" choice is mostly to go with 8 creatures as the action economy and area controlled offered are generally better in the majority of situations. Damage from these creatures will generally outperform most spells of 3rd level by a significant margin.
This damage comes free of action economy as you can simply command the creatures with no action. So any damage the creatures produce will be on top of the damage the ranger can produce with their action/BA.
2. Minonmancy generally slows the game down
Group attacks, Group saves, AoE spells, tracking individual HP, tracking individual conditions, movement, attacks of opportunity for up to 8 creatures.....
The list goes on unless you plan to just let the enemy get hit by the creatures and not move the potential complications of the spell get exponentially higher the more creatures you summon.
3. DM vs Player
The controversial ruling that the DM gets to choose your summons is RAW and is intended in the balance of the spell but puts the DM in a rough spot where they have to choose player agency vs. game balance.
This creates a no win for the DM.
Of course these things can be addressed individually and adjusted for.... But it's also ok to simply limit the number of creatures summoned (2 max) or simply ban the spell.
Talk it over and don't feel like you are a lessor DM if you feel this spell isn't right for your table.
I won't touch on points 2 and 3 as Optimus and I have crossed blades about that already on several occasions.
Point 1 is a good one though. Using no feats, no multiclassing, and no magic weapons, we can draw some average damage comparisons that allow players the mechanical "permission" to NOT take 8 animals. I'm roughly looking at 3 battles totaling 12 rounds with 2 short rests. Again, simple damage output calculations at level 11...
Warlock with eldritch blast, agonizing blast, and hex is 42 DPR. Battle master fighter with a longbow is 42.5. Paladin with a long sword with dueling, two 1st and one 3rd spell slots on divine smite is 35 DPR. A monk just using flurry of blows is 38 DPR. A rogue with a shortbow is 29.5. A hunter ranger with a longbow, colossus slayer, volley once per battle, and conjuring two dire wolves once during the third battle that lasts for 3 rounds is 32.5. (A handbook beast master with a wolf is 36, plus even more opportunity attacks.)
So using similar resources as others (kind of) we can see that dire wolves can be functional and adequate for damage output for the cost of an action, a 3rd level spell slot, and concentration. Add to that opportunity attacks, soaking attacks and damage, and general blocking and cover, and we have a good 3rd level spell.
I disagree that the spell is bad or overpowered or the general comments on points 2 and 3, but each table, DM, and player is totally different, into different things, and at different levels of ability and focus, so we should all follow our own bliss.
Two things for your example:
1. What did you do for calculations? The fact you do not have an AC range (or mention an AC of enemies at all) leads me to believe you are just using averages...which is a poor way of determining DPR for any class.
2. In your example you use 2 dire wolves....which is exactly what I suggest as a "fix" for the spell by limiting it to 2 creatures. If you use actually powerful choices then its a much different story...which I believe you would have seen in the AnyDice example in the link I provided:
Yes! I purposely used your beast example, as it is a very good one.
you can 100% use to hit averages. As you said, I did not, which I thought I mentioned a couple of times. I like to look at damage over time. This is 3 combats, 3, 4, and 5 rounds each consecutively. Using to not chance is imperative. But I find it can be misleading if it is used exclusively.
Yes! I purposely used your beast example, as it is a very good one.
you can 100% use to hit averages. As you said, I did not, which I thought I mentioned a couple of times. I like to look at damage over time. This is 3 combats, 3, 4, and 5 rounds each consecutively. Using to not chance is imperative. But I find it can be misleading if it is used exclusively.
I find it misleading to use it actually....as it does not account for AC differences.
Sometimes a feat (like sharpshooter for example) will be much better with a lower AC vs. a higher one.
If I just put the averages for damage with Sharpshooter it would appear that its 100% better to use it all the time...which we know is not true.
In my example there you can see that using a higher damage option (wolves for example) will mean that you are putting out 42 points of damage from just the wolves.
This means that your action/BA are free to be used as you please meaning if you were a CBE ranger with SS you could do your big Sharpshooter damage ON TOP OF the 42 damage from the wolves.
If you compare that to fireball with an average damage of 28 (no AC to calculate against here so averages are appropriate) and assume 100% failure rate of the save (won't happen but I am actually giving them benefit here) you are looking at needing to hit at least 3 enemies, have then fail the save, and have no resistances to match what you get from 2 rounds of Conjure Animals spell slot.
Also the spell lasts an hour if you can maintain the concentration...meaning its entirely possible to use one slot for multiple fights which is just straight up impossible for fireball.
I use fireball as an example as its is purposely overtuned and goes over the DMG suggested damage limits for creating 3rd level AoE spells....and conjure animals does the same but worse as you can keep it up and do consistently more damage with that slot than what is intended (if you use the DMG's own damage tables for spells).
Overall the issue with the spell (when used with 8 creatures) are still present and in my opinion it should be reduced to no more than 2 creatures or just banned completely in favor of the better balanced summon spells.
You can always increase the strength or quantity of the opponents the PC's are facing on the fly to account for the spells strength.
I'm not advocating DM vs. player, just balance the encounter as needed.
I agree as I alluded to in my original post:
"Of course these things can be addressed individually and adjusted for.... But it's also ok to simply limit the number of creatures summoned (2 max) or simply ban the spell."
If you are on a VTT, have a sharp player who knows exactly what they are doing, and you feel like upping the CR of every encounter you create once the spell becomes available (and be able to pull it back if they don't use the spell....) then yes you can do it.
Its also ok to say "nah" and just go with a more reasonable version of the spell or simply ban it for the much more balanced summon spells.
Yes! I purposely used your beast example, as it is a very good one.
you can 100% use to hit averages. As you said, I did not, which I thought I mentioned a couple of times. I like to look at damage over time. This is 3 combats, 3, 4, and 5 rounds each consecutively. Using to not chance is imperative. But I find it can be misleading if it is used exclusively.
I find it misleading to use it actually....as it does not account for AC differences.
Sometimes a feat (like sharpshooter for example) will be much better with a lower AC vs. a higher one.
If I just put the averages for damage with Sharpshooter it would appear that its 100% better to use it all the time...which we know is not true.
In my example there you can see that using a higher damage option (wolves for example) will mean that you are putting out 42 points of damage from just the wolves.
This means that your action/BA are free to be used as you please meaning if you were a CBE ranger with SS you could do your big Sharpshooter damage ON TOP OF the 42 damage from the wolves.
If you compare that to fireball with an average damage of 28 (no AC to calculate against here so averages are appropriate) and assume 100% failure rate of the save (won't happen but I am actually giving them benefit here) you are looking at needing to hit at least 3 enemies, have then fail the save, and have no resistances to match what you get from 2 rounds of Conjure Animals spell slot.
Also the spell lasts an hour if you can maintain the concentration...meaning its entirely possible to use one slot for multiple fights which is just straight up impossible for fireball.
I use fireball as an example as its is purposely overtuned and goes over the DMG suggested damage limits for creating 3rd level AoE spells....and conjure animals does the same but worse as you can keep it up and do consistently more damage with that slot than what is intended (if you use the DMG's own damage tables for spells).
Overall the issue with the spell (when used with 8 creatures) are still present and in my opinion it should be reduced to no more than 2 creatures or just banned completely in favor of the better balanced summon spells.
What about others? Like animate objects? Or like animate dead? Several classes/subclasses loose a big thing they have access to if we start down this road of banning. A discussion on limiting is reasonable. But just altering an element of the game is a drastic step, don't you think?
I actually find it misleading to use ONLY to hit chances. I agree with you that using only straight averages is also not the full picture though. But minimums and maximums are also good to look at along with straight averages. Take rogues and barbarians. If you only use to hit chances they seem to put out more damage than you'd find in actual gameplay. And all that is very intentional.
Can we talk about ways to make the spells like these more table friendly? Like your limit to two beasts idea?
So you crunch the numbers for what? Like 8 different ACs for each build? That is a lot. I’m sure it is much more accurate, but I wonder if it’s enough to justify the exponential amount of work.
So you crunch the numbers for what? Like 8 different ACs for each build? That is a lot. I’m sure it is much more accurate, but I wonder if it’s enough to justify the exponential amount of work.
Generally speaking it's not exponential, it's linear. In fact, it's so trivial I've never heard of anyone bothering to do it - once you've picked an AC to target (Treantmonk's 60% is fine, I just think the DMG's 65% is less arbitrary) and done the math out, you don't even need to bother doing the math out on slightly different ACs, you can just mentally ballpark it. AC only gets wonky when it gets very high or very low - unless you're into 95%+ or 5%-, anyone familiar with the rules can look at the output for a given AC and mentally adjust for a slightly different AC.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Starting a thread to discuss Conjure Animals and why I believe DMs should consider rebalancing or even removing the spell from the game.
1. Spell Balance
The spell can create a wide variety of damage ranges but the "optimal" choice is mostly to go with 8 creatures as the action economy and area controlled offered are generally better in the majority of situations. Damage from these creatures will generally outperform most spells of 3rd level by a significant margin.
https://www.reddit.com/r/3d6/comments/blwwcc/a_damage_analysis_of_conjure_animals/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
This damage comes free of action economy as you can simply command the creatures with no action. So any damage the creatures produce will be on top of the damage the ranger can produce with their action/BA.
2. Minonmancy generally slows the game down
Group attacks, Group saves, AoE spells, tracking individual HP, tracking individual conditions, movement, attacks of opportunity for up to 8 creatures.....
The list goes on unless you plan to just let the enemy get hit by the creatures and not move the potential complications of the spell get exponentially higher the more creatures you summon.
3. DM vs Player
The controversial ruling that the DM gets to choose your summons is RAW and is intended in the balance of the spell but puts the DM in a rough spot where they have to choose player agency vs. game balance.
This creates a no win for the DM.
Of course these things can be addressed individually and adjusted for.... But it's also ok to simply limit the number of creatures summoned (2 max) or simply ban the spell.
Talk it over and don't feel like you are a lessor DM if you feel this spell isn't right for your table.
I think I agree with most of this besides the minion part. I play on Foundry and group rolling is easy.
If you play in real life then yeah don't be a dick and demand wolves all the time cuz you know they get advantage and get 8 of them bastards.
The spell is jacked especially if you play it smart with a group who don't usually play it smart.
Doing like 40-50 damage a round with no action needed is hella broken. But my DM usually tries to break my concentration but I planned for that and took CON resilient.
Now there ain't much he can do unless he just straight up kills me but I have cure wounds so I aint scared lol. My party for sure mentions it constantly that I'm "breaking" encounters but DM doesn't want to ban stuff. Even if he gives me weak creatures 8 of em do enough damage that it's easily the best use.
I've actually stopped using it as much because it makes some encounters just too easy
I haven't had to deal with it, but I am certainly not in favor of 8 of anything. Even with some player streamlining, its just too damn many things to add to the board. I have a druid and a ranger in the party I am DM'ing and I expect it to come up very soon.
Don’t bann it - train your players - if every time they summon up 8 giant elk they have to face the 8 giant elk the evil ranger companion to your bbeg summoned up they will figure out the geese and gander rule and they will tone it down on their own.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I would call this the DM vs. Player mentality and I am not a fan of it personally....making an ability annoying to use is not a great way to balance it.
Overall I would suggest you limit it ahead of time at session 0 instead and loop everyone into the conversation. That way everyone has good baseline expectations when they start.
A spell that has both the player and the dm work together to choose summons causes fights? and then you expect talking in session 0 to fix the problems?
I say if you want to stop controversy - then stop being controversial. stick to the place Where Raw and RAI meet then your just playing the game. The original 5e Material was a pretty solid foundation to work from and lots of people were happy with that game.
There may be summon changes in the future ..... but for now I stick to Raw game features and instead find ways to work with what we are given. there are alot of weaknesses to these "large summon" spells. AOE, concentration, dms building horde encounters, anti-magic fields.
Thats part of the problem is how much they interact with the "weaknesses" and how much time it takes to parse it out....AoE alone means you do 8 saves, apply damage and apply any riders...then track the riders. Like Synaptic Static for example...if the big bad uses it on your creatures they may not die (8d6 might not do it with low rolls) and now you have to also roll a d6 and take it off their attack each turn on top of rolling for them?
Even in the cases you are "countering" it then you are spending much more time on that one player and their spell than the rest which is not good.
Also just because the spell is popular does not mean its balanced...its clearly not by any stretch as it does far more damage than it should at level 3 and only exponentially gets better as you can summon more and more creatures.
Also yes Session 0 is EXACTLY where you bring this up...its the perfect time to highlight why you do not feel the spell has a place in your game or it does but at a much more manageable level.
Not so much DM vs Player as a realization from 40+ years of playing that we often want one set of rules for us and a very different set for our opposition. All the talk in session 0 doesn’t really change that desire/expectation until it hits a few reality checks in game. Once that happens and the dust settles everyone can settle into a solid smooth running game where player excesses and DM excesses are self limiting.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I won't touch on points 2 and 3 as Optimus and I have crossed blades about that already on several occasions.
Point 1 is a good one though. Using no feats, no multiclassing, and no magic weapons, we can draw some average damage comparisons that allow players the mechanical "permission" to NOT take 8 animals. I'm roughly looking at 3 battles totaling 12 rounds with 2 short rests. Again, simple damage output calculations at level 11...
Warlock with eldritch blast, agonizing blast, and hex is 42 DPR. Battle master fighter with a longbow is 42.5. Paladin with a long sword with dueling, two 1st and one 3rd spell slots on divine smite is 35 DPR. A monk just using flurry of blows is 38 DPR. A rogue with a shortbow is 29.5. A hunter ranger with a longbow, colossus slayer, volley once per battle, and conjuring two dire wolves once during the third battle that lasts for 3 rounds is 32.5. (A handbook beast master with a wolf is 36, plus even more opportunity attacks.)
So using similar resources as others (kind of) we can see that dire wolves can be functional and adequate for damage output for the cost of an action, a 3rd level spell slot, and concentration. Add to that opportunity attacks, soaking attacks and damage, and general blocking and cover, and we have a good 3rd level spell.
I disagree that the spell is bad or overpowered or the general comments on points 2 and 3, but each table, DM, and player is totally different, into different things, and at different levels of ability and focus, so we should all follow our own bliss.
Two things for your example:
1. What did you do for calculations? The fact you do not have an AC range (or mention an AC of enemies at all) leads me to believe you are just using averages...which is a poor way of determining DPR for any class.
2. In your example you use 2 dire wolves....which is exactly what I suggest as a "fix" for the spell by limiting it to 2 creatures. If you use actually powerful choices then its a much different story...which I believe you would have seen in the AnyDice example in the link I provided:
Yes! I purposely used your beast example, as it is a very good one.
you can 100% use to hit averages. As you said, I did not, which I thought I mentioned a couple of times. I like to look at damage over time. This is 3 combats, 3, 4, and 5 rounds each consecutively. Using to not chance is imperative. But I find it can be misleading if it is used exclusively.
I find it misleading to use it actually....as it does not account for AC differences.
Sometimes a feat (like sharpshooter for example) will be much better with a lower AC vs. a higher one.
If I just put the averages for damage with Sharpshooter it would appear that its 100% better to use it all the time...which we know is not true.
In my example there you can see that using a higher damage option (wolves for example) will mean that you are putting out 42 points of damage from just the wolves.
This means that your action/BA are free to be used as you please meaning if you were a CBE ranger with SS you could do your big Sharpshooter damage ON TOP OF the 42 damage from the wolves.
If you compare that to fireball with an average damage of 28 (no AC to calculate against here so averages are appropriate) and assume 100% failure rate of the save (won't happen but I am actually giving them benefit here) you are looking at needing to hit at least 3 enemies, have then fail the save, and have no resistances to match what you get from 2 rounds of Conjure Animals spell slot.
Also the spell lasts an hour if you can maintain the concentration...meaning its entirely possible to use one slot for multiple fights which is just straight up impossible for fireball.
I use fireball as an example as its is purposely overtuned and goes over the DMG suggested damage limits for creating 3rd level AoE spells....and conjure animals does the same but worse as you can keep it up and do consistently more damage with that slot than what is intended (if you use the DMG's own damage tables for spells).
Overall the issue with the spell (when used with 8 creatures) are still present and in my opinion it should be reduced to no more than 2 creatures or just banned completely in favor of the better balanced summon spells.
You can always increase the strength or quantity of the opponents the PC's are facing on the fly to account for the spells strength.
I'm not advocating DM vs. player, just balance the encounter as needed.
I agree as I alluded to in my original post:
"Of course these things can be addressed individually and adjusted for.... But it's also ok to simply limit the number of creatures summoned (2 max) or simply ban the spell."
If you are on a VTT, have a sharp player who knows exactly what they are doing, and you feel like upping the CR of every encounter you create once the spell becomes available (and be able to pull it back if they don't use the spell....) then yes you can do it.
Its also ok to say "nah" and just go with a more reasonable version of the spell or simply ban it for the much more balanced summon spells.
What about others? Like animate objects? Or like animate dead? Several classes/subclasses loose a big thing they have access to if we start down this road of banning. A discussion on limiting is reasonable. But just altering an element of the game is a drastic step, don't you think?
I actually find it misleading to use ONLY to hit chances. I agree with you that using only straight averages is also not the full picture though. But minimums and maximums are also good to look at along with straight averages. Take rogues and barbarians. If you only use to hit chances they seem to put out more damage than you'd find in actual gameplay. And all that is very intentional.
Can we talk about ways to make the spells like these more table friendly? Like your limit to two beasts idea?
Yes as your example shows limiting to two creatures is pretty good at reigning in the spell so that's typically what I do.
Cool!
For the future, is it acceptable for me to use the Treantmonk version of damage calculation that assumes a 60% chance?
I still prefer the AC range approach myself...
It's far more accurate and gives you an idea of what different fights could bring.
So you crunch the numbers for what? Like 8 different ACs for each build? That is a lot. I’m sure it is much more accurate, but I wonder if it’s enough to justify the exponential amount of work.
Generally speaking it's not exponential, it's linear. In fact, it's so trivial I've never heard of anyone bothering to do it - once you've picked an AC to target (Treantmonk's 60% is fine, I just think the DMG's 65% is less arbitrary) and done the math out, you don't even need to bother doing the math out on slightly different ACs, you can just mentally ballpark it. AC only gets wonky when it gets very high or very low - unless you're into 95%+ or 5%-, anyone familiar with the rules can look at the output for a given AC and mentally adjust for a slightly different AC.