D&D 5E Party flight at 5th? Druid summoned giant vultures

[Paul Farquhar]

The spell does not say the DM picks the creature, and I have never actually seen that happen in play. It is clear to me that the intent of the spell is for the caster to choose the type of beast, especially since it isn't even an issue of whether the beast actually lives in the area since they are really fey spirits.

Some DMs seem way too quick to limit player agency.

Actually, there are two reasons why the DM chooses:

Legacy: in earlier editions, the summoned animals where actual animals, not fey spirits. Thus, they had to be animals that are normally found in that location: tigers in the jungle, polar bears in the arctic, giant rats down a dungeon etc.

Practicality: Only animals that the DM has stats for can be summoned.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Responding to OP: why limit it to giant vultures:



Quetzalcoatlus, CR2 beast.

 

[Yunru]

If these are more than just "throw ins to posture for argument" and are actual representations of how these things are valued in your games, we have very radically different games indeed.

Enjoy.

Yes indeed. It sounds like my games are actually logical.

 

[5ekyu]

I am not sure it presents a balance problem if you treat all the conjure spells the same. It's true druids get their first conjure as a 3rd level spell rather than a 4th like the wizard does, but beats are also significantly less versatile than, say, an elemental type creatures. But I see your point if you are inclined to not have PCs have access to broadly applicable magical solutions. In that case, i think the fair thing to do is definitely randomly roll the creatures from a predefined list.

Part of "player agency" (which you seem to dislike) is having meaningful choices. Meaningful choices require information. If the conjuror can't know for certain what sorts of creatures are going to appear, then they should at least know what the range of possibility is. I mean, by your interpretation of the spell, a druid could cast conjure animals in a desert and the DM can have a shark appear. Of course a DM would not likely do that, but it is among the broad list of possibilities, which means that there's uncertainty in the casting, which means the player has less agency. Similarly, though, I can see the problem of the ever expanding repertoire. Every creature of the appropriate type statted up in a source approved for the campaign becomes another option for the conjuror, and that is a problem of the opposite sort. It is actually a bit of a conundrum.

Fantastic troll bait there - posture this again as a discussion of like or dislike of player agency when i actually pointed out that its expanding the meaning of player agency into some form of "all the power i want" kind of positioning and anti-Gm balance that i have a problem is.

My issue with how its presented here is also not about "meaningful choices" (which the spell as presented and confirmed by sage allows) or "informed choices" (which the spell as presented and confirmed by sage allows) but about the relative scope and power of choices at levels and their impact on the relative power and effect in the game - you know - balance - apparantly to some the arch-nemesis of player agency.

As for Gms sharking the players over this spell or other spells, again i point to the trivialization of "player agency" since a Gm wanting to shark the players has a gazillion more effective ways to do it that are no where near as obvious as a shark in the desert. the answer to that Gm is the ultimate player agency - saying "goodbye".

but calling player agency over not getting to dial up your choice of every and any animal within the MM within the spells potential scope - again - trivializing what player agency was about - not "i always get what i want" but "i get to matter" at least for some. For some it may be the former.

Go figure.

Again tho, if the example you choose is representative of how your game actually plays when you are not foruming your cause - then hey - our games are very very different. If they are not and sharking the players is an example not of play but that you have to go that far to support your point - thats says something too.

 

[Yunru]

Fantastic troll bait there - posture this again as a discussion of like or dislike of player agency when i actually pointed out that its expanding the meaning of player agency into some form of "all the power i want" kind of positioning and anti-Gm balance that i have a problem is.

There's only one troll here, and that's the one expanding the meaning of player agency. And you can find them by looking in a mirror.

 

[Reynard]

Again tho, if the example you choose is representative of how your game actually plays when you are not foruming your cause - then hey - our games are very very different. If they are not and sharking the players is an example not of play but that you have to go that far to support your point - thats says something too.

You may want to reread my final paragraph. Or not.

 

[5ekyu]

Yes indeed. It sounds like my games are actually logical.

Hmmm... the specific claims referenced included:
combat gains - don't matter or dismissed cuz CR
darkvison blindsight "don't matter" unless communicate
smell tracking advantage questions if ever been used?
massive carry capacity with an action cast - hire hirelings

perhaps in your games these kinds of results/conclusion, happenings (having hirelings able to pop-in and be hired on the fly in the field) do indeed pass for what you and yours call "logical".

Like i said, my games play very very differently.

thats why i was giving you the benefit of the doubt that maybe these were just "forum weapons" and not apparently what you see as logical in your games.

Not surprised.

All types play and find their own games, after all.

 

[Coroc]

Expert heavy crossbow archers (2 attacks 1d10+4) on riding flying manticores (Tail spikes ranged attack ftw ) are fair game versus level 5 party, I done that although the party was on a boat that time.

Let us see how long the bird survives

If you want to be really mean let the party spot some big coloured dragon in the distance from time to time, that will make them think twice about whether to use the airways.

 

[Yunru]

Hmmm... the specific claims referenced included:
combat gains - don't matter or dismissed cuz CR
darkvison blindsight "don't matter" unless communicate
smell tracking advantage questions if ever been used?
massive carry capacity with an action cast - hire hirelings

Well let's see shall we, we'll break it down:
Combat gains don't matter. The entire point of the challenge rating system is that monsters of equal challenge pose roughly equivalent threats. That's not me dismissing anything, that's me acknowledging what the system is for.

Darkvision or Blindsight don't matter unless the beast can communicate with you. "You enter the vault when suddenly the door slams closed, trapping you in darkness." "I summon [beast with blindsight]. What do I see?" "The [beast with blindsight] looks around, unnerved at being trapped." No information gained. At best it might react audibly to a threat it can detect.

Let's say you want to track a scent. You have a sample of the scent to start with? You'll need one. You sure your target went by land? They'll need to off. Etc.

As for carry capacity. I scoff, scoff at that. Unless you're within one hour of civilisation, using Conjure Animals to carry stuff just delays the problem by the hour, or until your concentration breaks. Whereas you can just hire hirelings to carry stuff for you. It costs, what, 1gp/day?

 

[5ekyu]

You may want to reread my final paragraph. Or not.

To see what? An example case you chose that is so very implausible it would not occur in game in any rational context?

i still say if that is an example from your game - that puts us on massively different tables.
if its not an example from actual play but an indication of how far away from that you see you need to go to make your point - that says something.

What are the key points missed (whole post not just last graph)?
the player should have an idea of what range of creatures is possible? The player chooses the CR!!! Does he not know what beats are what CR?
the Gm should be forced to roll randomly? When in the name of Tymora's one night stand did "random" become the hallmark of player agency? Random is like almost the opposite of player agency? Choice, meaningful choices and reasonable consistent expectations for gains from efforts/resources and choices - that is a core thing at the heart of player agency - not random rolls.
can't know for certain - against player agency - against choices - Every fireball thrown at 3rd level without features rolls 8d6 can do from 8-64. You do not get to know for certain what the damage will be. Every stinking cloud thrown may take out everyone inside it or no one or tons in between. there are lots and lots of spells that do not provide "certainty" that you seek here and they are much much smaller in scope than the combined in-combat and out-of-combat of this similarly leveled spell.

If you are running a druid, have prepared conjure animals and dont know the range of creatures that are available within your CR choice - your trouble is not a GM attacking your player agency.

If your Gm is sharking you in the desert as you suggested - the way he handles they conjure animals spell is just the tip of the iceberg.

i would say something about forest for the trees but i am not sure the druid described above would get the reference.