D&D 5E Am I missing something about Conjure Animal

[Prakriti]

For combat, I'm going off of the idea of assuming over time the rolls you get will average out. So, if the wolves need to roll 16+ to hit their target, then 25% of them will hit each round. So then roll the d8 to see which ones hit, and apply the average damage as per the MM.

As far as running them at the table... I'd control them as DM. Probably wouldn't even roll to hit for each summon. I'd have some work to provide advantage for the others (cutting down to hit rolls), use average damage(cutting down damage rolls) and maybe just assume like 3/4 or half the summons hit with their attacks(not roll at all).

That's pretty much how the "Handling Mobs" rule works in the DMG (p. 250). You just assume that a certain number of the creatures hit depending on their attack bonus and the target's AC. For example, for every 3 orcs surrounding a fighter with AC 19, 1 will hit; the others will miss (there's a handy chart for quick referencing).

This could work really well for Conjure Animals if the summoned animals are handled by the DM. But it could bite the player in the %*# if you don't tell them how the rules work. If the player spreads their elk too thin, such as 1 or 2 per enemy, then, "Sorry, they all miss." So if you want to involve the player, then you should do the calculation yourself, and tell the player how the math works out: "For every 3 elk on a target, 1 will hit." Then use the average damage instead of rolling.

 

[Gadget]

I've been playing 5e for about the last two years and have yet to see any of the summon spells cast at our table. I'm playing a Moon Duid now, so I guess I'll get to see what all the fuss is about at level 5. However I won't be casting for more than 4 critters at a time, because I don't want a bunch of ineffective ankle-biters on the battlefield, anyway.

Your games may be different (more optimized PCs, therefore much higher CR encounters than normal), but Bounded Accuracy does make numbers count in 5e, more so than other editions imo. So they can be quite effective at wearing down opponents even if they are not super sturdy. They also soak up hits that would be directed at party members, which always helps. Sure, they won't take down Orcus for you, but when you first get the spell, the "ankle-biters" can be quite effective, as demonstrated by this thread.

As to the OP, I can only echo what some others have said: Don't allow too detailed micromanagement, these are animals with animal Int after all, remember concentration, they can be dispelled, banished, protection from Good/evil can all affect them. And the DM get's to choose the animals. If a character was hanging too far back/ around a corner all the time, I would lesson the control and/or the ability to issue orders to the summons and play them less effectively and maybe have an unpleasant mini-encounter just for that PC (you're ambushed by a bugbear that slipped around the back), if appropriate.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

The spell is overwhelmingly powerful at first...but it does get a bit better as party and challenge level increases (while remaining merely...incredibly powerful). Dealing with the logistics of the spell is my biggest headache, like that of many other DMs. My general DM table rules to streamline the spell and combat in general are:

1) If you can't resolve the spell, or any other tactic within 1 minute...your turn ends and anything else gets "lost in the confusion of combat." One minute is actually a pretty long amount of time...I try to aim for 5-10 second combat turns.

2) I expect any PCs that use the spell to have the animal listings ready before they use the spell. If the player doesn't own the appropriate book, I hand them a pencil, notecards, and my copy of the monster manual before the session begins and tell them to get writing. (Not directly pertaining to this spell - I expect PCs who use any spell to either know the effects or to have the spell listing readily available when their turn comes around)

3) I expect PCs that use the spell to have multiple d20s and other dice on hand, so as to be able to make multiple attack rolls at once. If the PC doesn't possess the needed dice...they borrow some of mine for the entire session and keep them close at hand if they want to use the spell.

4) I don't allow fine control over the animals conjured. The character can effectively point and say "You go there", and/or "Attack that enemy". Or "Carry me over there". Or something similar.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, this is something we call "Wall of Elk". DMs deal with it by killing the creatures, dispelling them or breaking caster concentration. If you're having issues with it then it's time to raise your encounter CRs.

Or we could discuss if perhaps *the spell* is the culprit....?

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[devincutler]

A few points:

In 3rd edition, a moderate level druid could fill the battlefield with far more chaff than it can in 5e. And with no concentration required. This is just to point out that it got a lot better in 5e as compared to 3.5.

It is tough to judge overpowerdness at 5th level, which is one of the largest bumps in power in the 5e game. Martial types double their attacks per turn, wizards and sorcerers get fireball, clerics get spirit guardians, and cantrips do double damage. PCs take a geometric leap while monster CRs progress linearly. This means you shouldn't judge power leaps at 5th level. These powers tend to not scale up similarly at higher levels. For example, cantrips are quite powerful at 5th level, less so at 6th, and much less so at 7th and 8th and so on. So, in the same light, conjure animals is a big power leap for a druid at 5th level that settles down relative to the campaign as the PCs rise in level.

If the issue is just the slowness of combat, rather than the power level, then there are a variety of measures that can be taken that do not actually nerf the spell:

A) Have the DM decide not only the type of animal but the CR and number as well. Let the druid call out to the gods or nature itself and even request a certain number of a certain animal type, but then have the DM respond with whatever beasts, number, and CR he likes, as long as the CR and number match with the guidelines of the spell. In this way, the PC is still getting the full use of the spell, but possibly with 1 or 2 stronger critters than 8 lower level ones.

B) The animals have the Int and Wis of normal animals (despite their being considered fey) and should act accordingly. Commands should be very general and the animals should usually act in the most direct manner (close and attack, rinse and repeat).

C) Use average damage instead of rolling for it. Saves a lot of time. If the 8 animals are subject to an AOE, roll 1 save for the lot of them.

 

[Pickles III]

Sorry to pick on you Devincutler it's just you are most recent. The posts on the last page have largely suggested work-arounds which is pretty much accepting that there is an issue

A few points:

In 3rd edition, a moderate level druid could fill the battlefield with far more chaff than it can in 5e. And with no concentration required. This is just to point out that it got a lot better in 5e as compared to 3.5.

Irrelevant really though very true. & the 5e designers have been extremely careful with the action economy in the other aspects of this edition why on earth is this one still here?

It is tough to judge overpowerdness at 5th level, which is one of the largest bumps in power in the 5e game. Martial types double their attacks per turn, wizards and sorcerers get fireball, clerics get spirit guardians, and cantrips do double damage. PCs take a geometric leap while monster CRs progress linearly. This means you shouldn't judge power leaps at 5th level. These powers tend to not scale up similarly at higher levels. For example, cantrips are quite powerful at 5th level, less so at 6th, and much less so at 7th and 8th and so on. So, in the same light, conjure animals is a big power leap for a druid at 5th level that settles down relative to the campaign as the PCs rise in level.

True but they remain powerful at 8th (as far as I got before losing the will) & at higher levels you can double the number of critters - very vulnerable to AOE but stupid strong & tedious in other circumstances

If the issue is just the slowness of combat, rather than the power level, then there are a variety of measures that can be taken that do not actually nerf the spell:

A) Have the DM decide not only the type of animal but the CR and number as well. Let the druid call out to the gods or nature itself and even request a certain number of a certain animal type, but then have the DM respond with whatever beasts, number, and CR he likes, as long as the CR and number match with the guidelines of the spell. In this way, the PC is still getting the full use of the spell, but possibly with 1 or 2 stronger critters than 8 lower level ones.

Except then the DM has to make those decisions every time the spell is cast which is hardly fast. Just always getting 1 critter is much faster, far less broken & the player could choose from a list of eg 3.

Maybe adding a 1 minute casting time so it's a precombat buff rather than a super combat spell would help here. It does last an hour.

B) The animals have the Int and Wis of normal animals (despite their being considered fey) and should act accordingly. Commands should be very general and the animals should usually act in the most direct manner (close and attack, rinse and repeat).

Which is all they need to do to be a massive buffer of HP & Damage.

C) Use average damage instead of rolling for it. Saves a lot of time. If the 8 animals are subject to an AOE, roll 1 save for the lot of them.

We did the damage. Saves I would be reluctant to use like that as they often live or die on the result & I would prefer more granularity - but still they also often just die to AOE regardless of saves.

 

[Werebat]

A *CREATIVE* DM can find ways to challenge a party that uses this spell on a regular basis.

You're not an uncreative DM -- are you?

 

[Prakriti]

A *CREATIVE* DM can find ways around broken and/or unfun mechanics. Therefore, broken and/or unfun mechanics are perfectly acceptable!

 

[ad_hoc]

3rd level spells are very powerful. Much more so than 2nd level ones.

The cleric also gets great spells such as Spirit Guardians.

At my table we have houseruled the spell to exclude the multiple animal choice just for the sake of time spent, not for its power. Though I would allow 4 or 8 animals if the player wanted them for exploration or something like that.

 

[Jer]

I'm left wondering if 4E style summons, where you had an action to sustain them, would have been easier to balance.

What? Something that 4e did right? Never have I heard such a thing

Yes summoning mechanics in 4e were overall much better and easier to balance. This is one of the areas where 5e design completely drops the ball and there really is no excuse for it. Because 4e had really good solutions to these problems that allowed you to be a Pokemon Master if you really wanted to without making the game slow and ponderous for everyone else, and instead they've chosen to just go back to what 3e did with summoning and leave it busted. (I would probably hack together 4e style action economy rules if I had a summoner in my D&D game. Fortunately for me nobody in my current D&D game is interested in it.)