D&D 5E Conjure Animals NERFED

[Beleriphon]

The DMG are OPTIONAL rules, and monsters aren't really "rules". How am I as a player supposed to find any equilibrium in the shifting ground you describe? How am I supposed to make a character or make intelligent, informed character choices in that situation?

Don't play with dinks. That's my best advice.

Trust me, I have had this happen with DMs where my character was totally invalidated because "no, that power doesn't work that way in my world". But it says how it works right in the book! "So? The rules say I can ignore them as much as I want". So I just wasted all tjese experience points building this character BY THE RULES and you say no...

Again, don't play with people that are dinks.

This is why I play and DM as RAW as possible unless I have a very good reason. I want players to know what to expect and be on the same page as to how things work.

I get the impression you are not a dink. Good for you.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Everyone says trust the DM. Some of us don't have that luxury. ?

Uh, yeah we do. Every one of us who plays the game, and goes to AL games or FLGS, are in the same boat. If you are taking the position that you automatically don't trust who you're playing with until they pass whatever threshold you've set, that says more about you than them. I've been playing for over 35 years, with hundreds of gamers over the years, and the % that were bad and didn't deserve trust was only a tiny amount. Trusting or not trusting the people you're playing with isn't a luxury; that doesn't even make sense. It's your (general you) attitude towards others. I hate to break it to you, but most people in society trust everyone else to be generally fair until AFTER they do something to break that. I can't even imagine going through life with the position that if someone doesn't know me, they won't trust me. If we were at a game table for the first time in an AL game, I would trust you as my base assumption. I don't think that's unusual. So for you to say that if a person doesn't know the other person well, they automatically distrust each other strikes me as very odd.

Above all else, D&D is a social game. And if your position is one where you assume the worst about the people you end up playing with (the social part), then you're doomed to failure.

 

[Unwise]

Certainly in my games the DM always controls what turns up and where it turns up. Sometimes if placement is important, the caster makes and arcana/religion/nature roll to reflect finesse in their spell casting and plop a creature in a certain place. More often than not this placement is advantageous, as the creatures come from multiple directions, often opening up new avenues of attack.

Furthermore, as a DM and as a player, I am so glad when DMs just take control of the animals themselves too. The animals follow commands, but the rolling, or lack there of is done by the DM to speed things up. For instance if you are fighting orcs, I look at it and think, yep, two young bears equals one orc. So I just have them engage and narrate the outcome as a close battle, effectively taking all involved parties out of the combat.

None of my players want to sit around while the Druid or Mage rolls 8 sets of dice for their snakes or zombies or whatever. Nor do they really care if an orc hits the summoned bear for 5 damage or 10. If players don't like these rules, the other players just encourage them to pick other spells or play another class.

 

[Dausuul]

thank you for the previous blazing quick answers...here is therefore another question: my DM has nerfed the conjure animals spell for my druid significantly by wanting to determine each time what animals appear and also position them on the battlefield... given that's one of the goto signature spells for my lvl8 druid, i feel a little deflated. it's like the DM choosing the fighter's weapon in each fight... however, the DM says it's not strictly speaking a NERF, only a reasonable interpretation of RAW, since RAW is written ambiguously as regards to the actual beasts appearing. it only lists the CR but does not say anywhere that the player has a choice...what argument would you use to counter?

By RAW and according to Sage Advice, your DM is correct that he gets to pick the animals, and I agree with him. I have seen horrendous abuse of conjure animals when the caster gets to pick every time. You get to choose the CR and number.

Many spells that clearly intend you to pick the target area do not specifically state that you choose where they are targeted (e.g., fog cloud), so I agree with you on that one. Especially since conjure animals specifies that you must be able to see where the animals appear. That restriction makes little sense if you don't get to choose.

 

[Xeviat]

I'd always let the player pick, but I don't want to have any more work on my plate. If I find an option to be overpowered, I'll look at that and potentially nerf the monster (like the giant poisonous snake; according to the DMG CR guidelines, it's not a CR 1/4 monster).

DMs aren't infallible gods who all went to school for advanced degrees in DMing. The DM is a player playing the game just like anyone else. Anyone should be able to pick up the DMG and PHB, read them over, and give it a shot. If the spell had random tables, then sure. But even if the spell said for the DM to choose, I'd just let the player choose. I have enough on my plate as it is.

 

[FrogReaver]

Let the DM choose. Or if you use the spell alot you may could convince your DM to to give you a small list of area appropriate creatures to choose from whenever you cast the spell.

I think it doesn't work so well if you give player total control to pick any monster in the monster manual that meets the spell requirements.

Likewise the player could have a preferred list of animals that the DM can pick from.

 

[vlysses]

thank you all for the thought- and plentiful answers.

I'm only just starting to play a druid (next week) for the first time in 5e, and we had a few chats ahead of the first game with the DM.

I especially liked [MENTION=45197]pming[/MENTION] response...

I agree that it's resonable to "send" animals that live in the area, and not descend into cheeze with conjuring, which i can see could happen. I think that will work for both sides, to have a general idea of what the purpose of the conjured animal should serve, but within that to have the DM's discretion.

thanks again for all the answers, followed by the interesting debate about the princiles of DM-ing under 5e rules ;-)

 

[Blue]

That's a fair way to handle it, but not the only way. And, I'd argue, not quite the way 5e was designed for, ideally. You certainly can run 5e with above-board formal house rules. You might find you need a lot of 'em. IMHO, running 5e on "rulings not rules" works even better. You do lose the implied consistency of formally changing the rules, but you're not boxed in by those changes, either.

But being "boxed in" is a feature. What it says is that the DM has communicated clearly to the players so they know what to expect. I'm all for the DM making rulings, especially in a game like 5e. Even ones that differ from the written rules, not just clearing out ambiguity. But if you change from the written rules, tell the players and stay consistent. That's what a house rule is. I find it hard to argue against either of those.

BTW, "stay consistant" doesn't mean that if a ruling (either in the books or by the DM) doesn't work it can't be changed. Goes back to communicating. "I know last week I said X, but Pat brought up that could really be abused so I'm making it Y." That's fine.

It may well be that there is a good reason for the DM ruling differently at different times. (Of course, there could be a 'bad reason,' that's why the afore-mentioned trust is so important.)

[/quote]

If by "good reason" you mean ruling a different way in different circumstances, sure. If you mean "the same thing acts differently for some players than others", "acts differently for foes and players" or "acts differently over time without notice", then I would have to disagree. Again, if something is broken than fix it. But otherwise the rules are supposed to be a shared understanding of the mechanics.

There's no need to 'prove' or even argue that RAW goes one way or another, for instance.

If I sit down at my FLGS to play an AL game and the DM that week tells me that an 18 Str doesn't add to attack with my longsword because the DM feels like dex should control all to-hit, then yes, there is a definite need to "prove or argue RAW". On the other hand, if a DM started a campaign and told us ahead of creating characters "all weapons use DEX to hit and STR to damage", then that's a different story.

The rules are there for all of the people playing, not just the DM. That's why we chose a game system. We can RP and tell collaborative stories no matter what rule-set or even none, but we pick rule-sets the table likes and having that mechanical framework adds to the experience.

 

[SkidAce]

Like so many things in life, gaming, and society where people argue right or wrong, black or white, the truth is usually in the middle. I.e. a blend of both sides. Not an absolute.





"Truth is a three edged sword" - Sir William Marcus duBlade, of Alfaysia.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But being "boxed in" is a feature.

Sure, a 'player empowerment feature,' say. 5e focuses more on 'DM empowerment features.' They don't always have to be at cross purposes like that, but in this case I guess they are.

If you mean "the same thing acts differently for some players than others", "acts differently for foes and players" or "acts differently over time without notice", then I would have to disagree.

One example that's gained some traction around here lately is the idea that the DM should set different DCs for different PCs for the same task, based on their proficiencies. (Not that I endorse that idea, just that it's gotten some play in discussions lately.)

If I sit down at my FLGS to play an AL game

AL is, of course, a different beast, that sacrifices some DM freedom to facilitate portability of characters and consistency of experience for organized play.