D&D 5E (2014) Conjure Woodland Beings - Where is the "DM chooses the monster" clause?

[Paul Farquhar]

What exactly is the problem with a player preparing some lists beforehand? Is it just the Pixie cheese?

There isn't a "problem", other than a player trying to summon something the DM doesn't have the start block for. The rule is what it is, if the DM wants to give the player what they ask for they are free to do that.

 

[TheSword]

I really hate this spell, but I love Concentration.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

This is a tricky spell. On the one hand I'd want the player to do all the legwork, and conjuring just 1 type saves everyone hassle. Otoh, 8 Pixies offer unbalanced spell options for their CR, and choosing them again and again is boring.

I'd probably ask the player for a table of choices and roll a d3 against the chosen CR.

Alternatively, the player could use downtime to search for limited rare components to guarantee summons - for when they must have X.

 

[MarkB]

The spell has to be a little LOOSE due to having cover all types of terrain. Jungle, pine woods, urban fey, underground fey. Fey created by that evil nasty dm.

How so? The spell says nothing about the conjured creatures being appropriate to your current environment - it just conjures woodland beings.

 

[BlivetWidget]

This is a Rules-as-Intended (RAI) item from the Sage Advice Compendium, which nobody in this thread has quoted yet so I will provide it to you here.

When you cast a spell like conjure woodland beings , does the spellcaster or the DM choose the creatures that are conjured?
A number of spells in the game let you summon creatures. Conjure animals, conjure celestial, conjure minor elementals, and conjure woodland beings are just a few examples.

Some spells of this sort specify that the spellcaster chooses the creature conjured. For example, find familiar gives the caster a list of animals to choose from.

Other spells of this sort let the spellcaster choose from among several broad options. For example, conjure minor elementals offers four options. Here are the first two:

• One elemental of challenge rating 2 or lower
• Two elementals of challenge rating 1 or lower

The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option. For example, if you pick the second option, the DM chooses the two elementals that have a challenge rating of 1 or lower.

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.

Being RAI means it is not explicitly called out in the rules and thus whether or not someone agrees with this ruling is up in the air. This is a large part of the problem with 5e's use of natural language in spell descriptions, wherein Crawford acts as if he used formal language. For instance, a Druid's Wild Shape says "Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before" but doesn't explicitly say it's the player's choice. We all know it's the player's choice, but the same sort of logic being used to argue the point in the excerpt above could easily lead you to the conclusion that it isn't. Natural language is, and always will be, open to interpretation. If they wanted to use natural language, they should have been prepared to explicitly define every intent.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Even without the sage advice,

This tells you - if the player doesn't choose then who does? Call out for the DM's Mom?

I think you’re supposed to ask Jeremy Crawford on Twitter.

 

[Undrave]

This is a Rules-as-Intended (RAI) item from the Sage Advice Compendium, which nobody in this thread has quoted yet so I will provide it to you here.

When you cast a spell like conjure woodland beings , does the spellcaster or the DM choose the creatures that are conjured?
A number of spells in the game let you summon creatures. Conjure animals, conjure celestial, conjure minor elementals, and conjure woodland beings are just a few examples.

Some spells of this sort specify that the spellcaster chooses the creature conjured. For example, find familiar gives the caster a list of animals to choose from.

Other spells of this sort let the spellcaster choose from among several broad options. For example, conjure minor elementals offers four options. Here are the first two:

• One elemental of challenge rating 2 or lower
• Two elementals of challenge rating 1 or lower

The design intent for options like these is that the spellcaster chooses one of them, and then the DM decides what creatures appear that fit the chosen option. For example, if you pick the second option, the DM chooses the two elementals that have a challenge rating of 1 or lower.

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.

Being RAI means it is not explicitly called out in the rules and thus whether or not someone agrees with this ruling is up in the air. This is a large part of the problem with 5e's use of natural language in spell descriptions, wherein Crawford acts as if he used formal language. For instance, a Druid's Wild Shape says "Starting at 2nd level, you can use your action to magically assume the shape of a beast that you have seen before" but doesn't explicitly say it's the player's choice. We all know it's the player's choice, but the same sort of logic being used to argue the point in the excerpt above could easily lead you to the conclusion that it isn't. Natural language is, and always will be, open to interpretation. If they wanted to use natural language, they should have been prepared to explicitly define every intent.

Personally, I think this advice is BS.

Not only does it mean the spell is just badly worded (why doesn't it specifies it instead of this ambivalent thing?) but if you pick say 'One X type of creature of challenge rating 2 or lower' then the DM can screw you over and just give you a single 1/4 creature instead, or give you a fish out of water and so forth. It's just a recipe for arguments at the table and wasting spell slots.

It also totally fails at its intended archetype of the Summoner. Players who want to play the Summoner don't want to gamble with what they can summon, they want to be able to be strategic and pick the right creature for the job.

And if the player can take care of the stats it's a lower burden on the DM. I mean, the PHB already has animals for Conjure Animals.

Now, granted, some options are just too good. When I had a Druid I quickly realized there wasn't much that 8 wolves couldn't solve. Me and the Warlock took out two slavers caravan with nothing but my wolves and me and some Eldritch Blasts. After that my go-to was Giant spiders or Giant Frogs for the range grapple options. But i don't thnk that's the fault of the summoning mechanic and more of the specific options available.

Anyway, if a spell is meant to be unreliable, it should say so clearly AND give you something pretty darn powerful for that element of randomness.

 

[rgoodbb]

I really hate this spell, but I love Concentration.

Funny. I really hate Concentration, but I love this spell.

More so Conjure Animals actually. But I have a soft spot for Crocodiles. Snappy, Swampy, Hissy and Missy.

 

[MarkB]

Personally, I think this advice is BS.

Not only does it mean the spell is just badly worded (why doesn't it specifies it instead of this ambivalent thing?) but if you pick say 'One X type of creature of challenge rating 2 or lower' then the DM can screw you over and just give you a single 1/4 creature instead, or give you a fish out of water and so forth. It's just a recipe for arguments at the table and wasting spell slots.

It also totally fails at its intended archetype of the Summoner. Players who want to play the Summoner don't want to gamble with what they can summon, they want to be able to be strategic and pick the right creature for the job.

And if the player can take care of the stats it's a lower burden on the DM. I mean, the PHB already has animals for Conjure Animals.

Now, granted, some options are just too good. When I had a Druid I quickly realized there wasn't much that 8 wolves couldn't solve. Me and the Warlock took out two slavers caravan with nothing but my wolves and me and some Eldritch Blasts. After that my go-to was Giant spiders or Giant Frogs for the range grapple options. But i don't thnk that's the fault of the summoning mechanic and more of the specific options available.

Anyway, if a spell is meant to be unreliable, it should say so clearly AND give you something pretty darn powerful for that element of randomness.

Yeah, for elementals in particular, I'm probably conjuring them for a specific utility need based upon the type of elemental. If I'm trying to conjure a water elemental to douse a conflagration, having a fire elemental turn up isn't of use.

 

[TheSword]

Funny. I really hate Concentration, but I love this spell.

More so Conjure Animals actually. But I have a soft spot for Crocodiles. Snappy, Swampy, Hissy and Missy.

Lol. I suspect you mainly play and I mainly DM lol