New Sage Advice: Class Features, Combat, Spells, & Monsters

There's a new Sage Advice column up from D&D designer Jeremy Crawford. This month he tackles class features, combat (bonus actions; reach weapons), spellcasting, and monsters. It's quite a long edition, covering 18 questions in total, all questions asked via Twitter.

You'lll find the article here. All Sage Advice material is added to the Sage Advice Compendium, which is a 6-page PDF of questions and answers.

 

[iserith]

Crawford did not create the rule because he didn't trust players. He created it because that was the intent behind the spell and the game is meant to be played in a somewhat theatrical manner where the DM describes the conjured creatures appearing from the environment. Some DMs may not bother to use the ruling because it creates extra detail work for them.

It's good you know his intent with such certainty. I was not able to discern it from the Rules Answers article in as much detail as you suggest above. Good on you, man.

Regardless of his intent, what I'm seeing a lot of on this forum and others are DMs going, "Oh thank the gods, now I have an official source that I can use to curb the worst excesses of my players!" To which I can only scratch my head and suggest that maybe another rule (or clarification of an existing rule) isn't necessarily the best fix to the underlying problem.

But, hey, whatever works. I'm just glad that's not a struggle I'm forced to endure.

 

[Jester David]

It's good you know his intent with such certainty. I was not able to discern it from the Rules Answers article in as much detail as you suggest above. Good on you, man.

Regardless of his intent, what I'm seeing a lot of on this forum and others are DMs going, "Oh thank the gods, now I have an official source that I can use to curb the worst excesses of my players!" To which I can only scratch my head and suggest that maybe another rule (or clarification of an existing rule) isn't necessarily the best fix to the underlying problem.

But, hey, whatever works. I'm just glad that's not a struggle I'm forced to endure.

So far, Sage Advice has been neutral in the Player/DM arm's race, with some rulings favouring players and some favouring DMs. It hasn't been a series of articles offering stealth patches, but clarification based on RAW influenced by RAI. Trust and the abuse of the mechanics doesn't enter into the matter. The fact it curbs abuse is either a perk or a sign of what was intended.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Apologies for the tangent, but Devil's Sight is not as good as it looks in my experience, at least after low levels. Many of the things that you really want to put down quickly have Blindsight or Truesight already: slimes, dragons, devils, yugoloths, etc. In fact there are a number of monsters such as Nycaloths and Glabrezu who can themselves pull off the Devil's Sight combo.

Building your character around an ability which works only against low-level foes is kind of like building a character around Fireball and Fiendlock temp HP: you'll have fun and you'll be a rock star in regular easy fights, but at the most critical moments someone else will have to carry the heaviest load because your shtick looses oomph against tough opponents.

You're probably right, but most of my games are low level ones.

 

[Falling Icicle]

As both a player and a DM, I'm very displeased with the summoning spells ruling. Instead of fixing the underlying problems with these spells, they took the cop out of just handing the entire burden over to the DM. A table of monsters, like they had in 3e, would have excluded game-breaking creatures (i.e. pixies) while preserving player choice and strategy. If they really felt they had to take that choice out of the players' hands, they could have at least provided a table to roll on to see what creatures appear. Instead, they left it entirely up to DM fiat, without even giving any guidelines or suggestions on how to handle it. That is bound to create an adversarial relationship between many DMs and players. At least with random tables, the dice are a neutral arbiter and the players know what to expect.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't hate the ruling on conjuring creatures. I'd appreciate a chart to roll on as a DM just to make my job easier, but every spell you cast should have some degree of variance - not every spell you cast has to be directly useful, and I like both the wide variety that a random roll would create and the encouragement of creative thinking on behalf of a character who uses this spell.

For those players who want more precision with their summoning, I think a spell or a series that could specify a monster would suit that goal - not a general "any creature of CR X" but some specific creature. That way we get the best of both worlds.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

As both a player and a DM, I'm very displeased with the summoning spells ruling. Instead of fixing the underlying problems with these spells, they took the cop out of just handing the entire burden over to the DM. A table of monsters, like they had in 3e, would have excluded game-breaking creatures (i.e. pixies) while preserving player choice and strategy. If they really felt they had to take that choice out of the players' hands, they could have at least provided a table to roll on to see what creatures appear. Instead, they left it entirely up to DM fiat, without even giving any guidelines or suggestions on how to handle it. That is bound to create an adversarial relationship between many DMs and players. At least with random tables, the dice are a neutral arbiter and the players know what to expect.

You could use the DMG tables for the terrain you're in, and just exclude all non-beasts.

 

[Eric V]

As both a player and a DM, I'm very displeased with the summoning spells ruling. Instead of fixing the underlying problems with these spells, they took the cop out of just handing the entire burden over to the DM. A table of monsters, like they had in 3e, would have excluded game-breaking creatures (i.e. pixies) while preserving player choice and strategy. If they really felt they had to take that choice out of the players' hands, they could have at least provided a table to roll on to see what creatures appear. Instead, they left it entirely up to DM fiat, without even giving any guidelines or suggestions on how to handle it. That is bound to create an adversarial relationship between many DMs and players. At least with random tables, the dice are a neutral arbiter and the players know what to expect.

Same here. Just ignore it, it's a dumb rule change.

 

[Mistwell]

As both a player and a DM, I'm very displeased with the summoning spells ruling. Instead of fixing the underlying problems with these spells, they took the cop out of just handing the entire burden over to the DM.

This is, again, an unfounded assumption. You think the answer was to solve some problem. It doesn't appear to be. He's answering a question about what the intent is for these spells - not trying to solve a problem. It's not a cop out to just answer what the intent is.

Instead, they left it entirely up to DM fiat, without even giving any guidelines or suggestions on how to handle it.

His answer does have guidelines. "A spellcaster can certainly express a preference for what creatures shows up, but it’s up to the DM to determine if they do. The DM will often choose creatures that are appropriate for the campaign and that will be fun to introduce in a scene." So that's your guidelines and suggestions: 1) Appropriate for the campaign, and 2) fun to introduce in a scene.

 

[Falling Icicle]

This is, again, an unfounded assumption. You think the answer was to solve some problem. It doesn't appear to be. He's answering a question about what the intent is for these spells - not trying to solve a problem. It's not a cop out to just answer what the intent is.

Ok, I'll admit that I was making an assumption. I suspect that this ruling was a way for them to fix the 8 pixie power play without errata. I could be wrong. Maybe this was the way they intended for these spells to work all along, and it just took them almost a year to decide to tell us. Either way, I still don't like it.

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

The problem with random tables for summoning/conjuring monsters is, that they are obsolete as soon as new monsters are released (or homebrewed).

I personally think it is good to leave it to the DM which creatures show up, just like it is a DM call which beasts a druid has seen and can shapechange into.