D&D 5E Conjure Animals NERFED

[Psikerlord#]

In my view, on the face of it the conjure spells suggest the player chooses, there is no mention of the DM choosing anything. I think however because this meant conjure fey was broken (due to pixies), they retro nerfed it with the Sage ruling.

I prefer the OSR method of random tables to determine the monster, and the player chooses where they appear.

 

[ccs]

I wouldn't try & argue/counter it.
Because I don't believe that what appears is up to the player.

As a player I might play trying to summon a specific animal.
But I'll take whatever help mother nature/the gods choose to send.
If they send what I request? Great!
If they send something weak? Then I'll interpret that as meaning I didn't really need much help.
If they send something.....odd? I'll look for a use that I hadn't thought of.

 

[darjr]

I also was letting the player choose, but i think it makes more sense that the GM choose. The down with D&D podcast had an interesting option. If the same monsters appeared then they would be the same, i.e. pixies that showed earlier in the day are the same Ines to show up later, and if they used their polymorph power then they wouldn't have it now. Oh and summoned things that were treated badly would remember.

Anyway a set of tables for a GM to roll on based on terrain type and CR would be cool.

 

[Uchawi]

It sounds like more detail is needed, since it would be cool to specialize with specific animals, but 5E and the spell does not offer that depth. So as a DM, knowing my player likes that option, I would meet somewhere in the middle. Where you need special components or specific environments to summon what you want, or base it on level of the caster. I never liked the option of random tables. That goes against the grain of the majority of spells being more predictable.

 

[KahlessNestor]

As a DM I think I would be like "Another thing for me to keep track of?" Not sure why the DM should pick. I don't think I like the removal of player agency in his own actions in this case. Sometimes I think 5e goes a bit too far in its DM empowerment craze. It's loke why bother having players at all then?

 

[Sacrosanct]

As a DM I think I would be like "Another thing for me to keep track of?" Not sure why the DM should pick. I don't think I like the removal of player agency in his own actions in this case. Sometimes I think 5e goes a bit too far in its DM empowerment craze. It's loke why bother having players at all then?

Seriously?

 

[feartheminotaur]

Someone somewhere made a random table for all the 5e conjure spells. I copied it and let the player roll on that. I also bring back the same creatures, so they're familiar with the players (and cuts down on the number of characters I have to play). Never had a complaint - of course, the player in question is 9 years old.

He is always excited when he rolls for his saber-toothed tiger buddy, Fangster.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

...what argument would you use to counter?

I wouldn't...your DM is correct. When I read it, it says what you can do...you can choose the CR and you can choose what it does by issuing a verbal command. By excluding saying that you can choose what exactly and where, to me, that is telling.

Now, that said, I believe the spirit of the rules should allow for the druid to choose a general 'purpose' of creature...as that makes sense in a narrative way to me. I can see a druid that is laying there, left for dead with two broken legs, "asking the spirits of the Fey to send a swift beast that can deliver a message to someone" (e.g., the player says "I want something fast, preferably a bird"). Or a druid who is going into a desperate battle asking for a "ferocious beast to fight by his side". Then the intent of the druid's wishes are used by the DM to choose an animal...so a hawk maybe in the first example, or some wolves, apes, or bear for the second.

If you present this argument (that you should be able to have some say in the type) to your DM , you probably won't be completely happy and neither will he...making it a perfect compromise. Oh, and the whole "choose the location" thing? Just make sure you are looking down at the ground in front of you so that the only thing "within sight" is maybe 20' or so directly in front of you.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Blue]

It's not the player's place to argue rules interpretations with the DM like a lawyer making a case to a judge or jury. The 5e DM's role is to interpret (and change and add to and overrule and outright ignore and change his mind about later) the rules as he sees fit, it's the "DM Empowerment" feature of 5e.

I've played in an RPG where the players knew no rules and the DM, [MENTION=813]jmucchiello[/MENTION] , adjudicated everything. It was a lot of fun, but there was trust and consistency from him.

In an RPG with written rules, that's a common foundation for everyone playing the game, with the DM both as arbiter and custodian of the rules. If there is ambiguity, like in this case, it's up to the DM to decided how to run it. And if there is no ambiguity but the DM wants to run it otherwise, they can do that as well as a house rule.

However, it's the shared understanding of the rules that allows things to flow smoothly. If different people in the group interpret a rule differently, there should be a discussion. Yes, the DM has final say, but I've made mistakes running before and had the correct rule pointed out to me. And there have been ambiguous things (like this spell) that players have convinced me are either fine or cooler run a way different than my default would have been.

Also, if the DM runs a rule one way in one circumstance and another way at a different time, the players need to bring that up as well. "But you said two weeks ago this worked one way when that wizard cast it on us, that's why I paid to copy the spell. Why does it work differently now?" (Or worse, when there may be bias for/against a player and the rules are applied to them differently than to others.) That is in the realm of players to bring up and require a set ruling.

Not saying a DM can't change how they handle something, but it should be like the OP - the DM comes out and says "I'm going to be doing X differently because of Y and Z". Because at the end of the day RPGs are a social game and everyone has a say.

 

[Jester David]

He's fine to decide on what animals.
But you could argue that you should be whole to place them, as a compromise, or at least pick the general area. Request that you pick the number & CR and rough area for the spell effect (before you know what animals) and he picks appropriate creatures and exact squares. That seems like a decent compromise.