D&D 5E summon animals

[Scorpio616]

So....go after the caster!!!

Yea, see monster show up after a caster wiggles their fingers and shouts gibberish, you know who to take out before they summon more.

 

[brehobit]

Thanks Stalker0, as I said, I'd not done the math, but I was pretty sure it was looking ugly. I think they'd probably beat at level 9 fighter if they got initiative...

Mark

 

[Stalker0]

Thanks Stalker0, as I said, I'd not done the math, but I was pretty sure it was looking ugly. I think they'd probably beat at level 9 fighter if they got initiative...

Mark

Just to see how it scales, I tried the 8 wolves against a CR 9 Fire Giant.

Wolf Init: Giant lives with 69 HP (93 damage dealt)
Giant Init: Giant lives with 103 HP (59 damage dealt)

Still pretty respectable damage. If we take the level 5 version of the spell, I can summon 16 wolves. Fire Giants are huge, so I believe you can get a full 16 surround on a huge creature (can anyone check me on that?)

With that in mind:

Wolf Init: Giant Dies, 12.2 wolves left
Giant Init: Giant Dies with 10.3 wolves left.

In case its only 12 wolves that can surround:

Wolf Init: Giant dies, 6.3 wolves left
Giant Init: Giant lives with 17 hp left (145 damage dealt).

 

[Unwise]

"The summoned creatures are friendly to you and your companions.."
I read this and thought, well sure they are friendly, but no pack of wolves is going to charge in and attack a giant. They might be kindly disposed, but they are not suicidal.

Then I read...

"They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you)..."

So I guess you can make them into kamikaze, but I would think that a druid that does not want a bad rep with they fey would at least take some care to ensure their survival. Fighting with them, or not sending them after huge creatures.

 

[Falling Icicle]

It seems to me that the developers severely underestimated the power of large numbers of weaker creatures in a system with bounded accuracy.

 

[Juriel]

It seems to me that the developers severely underestimated the power of large numbers of weaker creatures in a system with bounded accuracy.

These are the same devs who were surprised when multiple multiattacking, paralyze-on-touch ghouls led into TPK.

'Math, what is that'

Anyway, some form of gang rules would cover these, but if you insist on giving anything a full set of actions and the same rights as a PC, well, there you go.

 

[brehobit]

It seems to me that the developers severely underestimated the power of large numbers of weaker creatures in a system with bounded accuracy.

I think it's a few things. CR is about power wrt a party". I think a 2nd level party would win.
It's just that wow something works against a party doesn't tell you a lot about how it will do against a solo.

Also I think monsters got more difficult late in development.

But yeah I think Bounded accuracy is mostly what's at play here.

That said, The fact it works very well against certain creatures and not so well against others. Is probably a feature not a bug.

 

[Falling Icicle]

These are the same devs who were surprised when multiple multiattacking, paralyze-on-touch ghouls led into TPK.

'Math, what is that'

Anyway, some form of gang rules would cover these, but if you insist on giving anything a full set of actions and the same rights as a PC, well, there you go.

To be fair to the developers, most of 5e's math is pretty good. There are just a few things that are broken, and the summoning/minion creating spells are IMO the biggest offenders.

 

[CapnZapp]

To be fair to the developers, most of 5e's math is pretty good. There are just a few things that are broken, and the summoning/minion creating spells are IMO the biggest offenders.

And it's not the spells in themselves that are the biggest problem - after all, all this math focusses only on the "vs a single baddie" fight - but the thing that nags us the most is the comparison to the animal companion.

Not only is your pet slightly under-powered, and is severely borked because it needs your action, but it's laughably impotent compared to the Summoner.

Who gets all those advantages you can only dream of. Despite how his spells come with all the drawbacks your pet was crippled to avoid...

The sinking feeling you sacrifice your pet only to see the Summoner hog all the attention, game time and DM focus...


//BMX Bandit

 

[Falling Icicle]

And it's not the spells in themselves that are the biggest problem - after all, all this math focusses only on the "vs a single baddie" fight - but the thing that nags us the most is the comparison to the animal companion.

Not only is your pet slightly under-powered, and is severely borked because it needs your action, but it's laughably impotent compared to the Summoner.

Who gets all those advantages you can only dream of. Despite how his spells come with all the drawbacks your pet was crippled to avoid...

The sinking feeling you sacrifice your pet only to see the Summoner hog all the attention, game time and DM focus...


//BMX Bandit

Yeah, I don't understand why they were so strict about the whole action economy thing with the beastmaster ranger, but let spellcasters summon/animate ridiculous numbers of creatures. It's a really bizarre contradiction.

[Edit]I think they got it backwards. The beastmaster's pet is the one that should be able to act independently, while the spellcasters should be the ones that have to use their actions controlling their summoned creatures(s), IMO.