D&D 5E Anyone else annoyed at Wizards lack of Minion summoners?

[Saeviomagy]

Why should Wizards get every single type of summons? This isn't 3E any more. Wizards are scoped down to be kind of sane now.

They shouldn't, but they should get summon monster, a spell that they've had forever. Saying "wizard's just don't summon monsters any more" is like saying "wizards just don't fire magic missiles any more". It's removing the ability for no real reason.

Now if the argument is that summoning bogs down the game and is wildly unbalanced... then maybe make some better rules for doing it, rather than saying "everyone gets summon spells except wizards".

 

[cbwjm]

You could probably get by with at least adding the conjure animals spell to the wizard spell list. I just looked back at 3e and that was mainly summoning animals with celestial or fiendish templates which sounds like it fits with conjure animals being the summoning of fey spirits.

Otherwise, this would be an excellent reason for a player to have their wizard research and create some spells and add their name to it. Sorcha's Hound from Hell or Tamrul's Surprised Goblin could be new spells that get added into a campaign.

 

[ad_hoc]

DnD should be able to handle a broad range of wizardly types depending on the campaign and/or player preference. Delving into dangerous lore and making bargains with powerful, probably evil entities is just one flavour. I really don't think the game is making wizards better by removing the summoning spells.The wizard class should be broad enough to cover the many types of wizards that exist in fiction.

I like having Wizards constrained. They shouldn't just be designed to be able to do anything. Limiting their options strengthens the archetype.

Druids summon the animals, Wizards and Warlocks summon the fiends.

 

[Eltab]

...-Animate Objects- also depends on something there...

{begin scolding professor voice}
Oh come on, you're supposed to be the smart one on your team, THINK! And plan ahead.

Bring your own object to animate.

Pick something with lots of utility, not just a two-handed sword like any old barbarian can use.

{end scold}

 

[Arilyn]

I like having Wizards constrained. They shouldn't just be designed to be able to do anything. Limiting their options strengthens the archetype.

Druids summon the animals, Wizards and Warlocks summon the fiends.

But since DnD is rather generic, wizards need to cover the bases. Constraining them should occur in specific campaigns. Wizards summong non-fiends is a common trope in fantasy fiction, and has traditionally been a part of the DnD wizard class. And looking at all the spell casting classes in 5e, constraint is not what comes to mind with this edition.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Personally, I don't quite get or accept the idea behind spell lists. Spells are more or less balanced against other spells of a given level, rather than balanced based on a given spell list or theme with few exceptions (fireball, eldritch blast, hex, hunter's mark, smite spells, ect). Even the DMG (according to memory rather than looking at the book currently) gives rough guidelines for spell creation by level rather than by class or spell list. As such, there really is no reason outside of thematic preference to say one spellcasting class can or cannot access given spells. But that's just my two copper.

 

[Ancalagon]

Couple of points.

1. It's hardly just a 3e thing. The summoner wizard has been in the game since 1e. 5e is the first edition I actually flat out cannot play a character that I've been playing since early 2e. Well, I could play him as a druid, but, that just felt really wonky.

2. Summoning in 3e was hardly the breaking point of the game. Summoning was never considered a really over powered issue for wizards. Druids maybe, but, not really wizards.

So, I don't see why summoning got stripped entirely (or very nearly) from wizards.

1: I really do sympathize with your loss of your character archetype. I can offer tiny servant, but I know that it's just not the same.

2: I think it's because of the fundamental changes in bounded accuracy. I've been converting a 2e adventure to 5e and there is this big fight where the PCs fight a big bunch of duergar. I had to cut their numbers by about 33%, because of the changes in relatively weak creature's to hit numbers. A goblin or orc used to have a thaco of 20 or 19 (ie, +0 or +1). Well now a goblin has +4, and he has a lot more HP to boot too (same is true for the orc I think). Because of that, summoning a swarm of "weak" creatures is actually quite effective... perhaps too much so.

So because of that design concept (that weak creatures are still a threat even at mid-levels), and also perhaps in that vigorous quest for streamlining, the summoner concept was sort of removed from the game ... :/

 

[Hussar]

I like having Wizards constrained. They shouldn't just be designed to be able to do anything. Limiting their options strengthens the archetype.

Druids summon the animals, Wizards and Warlocks summon the fiends.

True. But, summoning fiends is limited to pretty high level spells. I'd kinda like my summoner archetype to actually see play before double digit levels.

1: I really do sympathize with your loss of your character archetype. I can offer tiny servant, but I know that it's just not the same.

2: I think it's because of the fundamental changes in bounded accuracy. I've been converting a 2e adventure to 5e and there is this big fight where the PCs fight a big bunch of duergar. I had to cut their numbers by about 33%, because of the changes in relatively weak creature's to hit numbers. A goblin or orc used to have a thaco of 20 or 19 (ie, +0 or +1). Well now a goblin has +4, and he has a lot more HP to boot too (same is true for the orc I think). Because of that, summoning a swarm of "weak" creatures is actually quite effective... perhaps too much so.

So because of that design concept (that weak creatures are still a threat even at mid-levels), and also perhaps in that vigorous quest for streamlining, the summoner concept was sort of removed from the game ... :/

That argument doesn't really work though when you have the druid right over there who can summon monsters (or animals I suppose) without breaking the game. If summoning is too powerful for wizards, why is it fine for druids? I mean, heck, druids can literaly summon swarms by 5th level. 4 of them. +4 attack bonus and 4d4 damage. And, effectively, double hit points because of the swarm template.

I'm having a hard time thinking that summoning half a dozen goblins is going to be much stronger than that.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The reason that Wizards don't have those spells is to ensure people who want to play summoner Druids and summoner Clerics have something special that they can do that the Wizard can't. Older editions were terribly bad at keeping magic out of the Wizard's hands.

Yeah I think in prior editions wizard summoners were simply too strong, so they removed them.

 

[mgshamster]

5e is the first edition I actually flat out cannot play a character that I've been playing since early 2e.

2e's first summon monster spell wasn't until 5th level. It was a 3rd level spell, and the best you could do was summon a large rat.