D&D 5E Is the Help action broken?

[KarinsDad]

Though what this essentially says is: summons are OP.

(I mean, once they're summoned, having them help out as opposed to making their own attacks isn't particularly OP.

At low levels, abstaining from their own attack is a significant cost. At high level, it isn't, but at that stage having the Summoner hide to avoid losing Concentration becomes a cost in itself. Plus, foes with area attacks that can clear out all summons on one swoop are no longer rare)

But yes, you're basically right: using your Familiar to gain advantage in combat is discussed much more often than the utility of the tactic really deserves. (Unless your DM is afraid to slay the familiar, of course)

I wouldn't say that summons are OP, but if used well, they can become very potent.

Just using them to attack is not always the best strategy. I have seen a line of them being used to split up a large group of monsters using the Dodge action. It takes a while for the foes to bust through that line and in the meantime, the PCs can focus fire.

I suspect that many players use them only to attack whereas the Help and Dodge actions can be used in special circumstances.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I wouldn't say that summons are OP, but if used well, they can become very potent.

Just using them to attack is not always the best strategy. I have seen a line of them being used to split up a large group of monsters using the Dodge action. It takes a while for the foes to bust through that line and in the meantime, the PCs can focus fire.

I suspect that many players use them only to attack whereas the Help and Dodge actions can be used in special circumstances.

That's making those verbal commands do a lot of work. Nothing about conjures improves the intelligence of the conjured creatures, so until you get the higher level ones, complicated verbal orders are a waste. At the higher end, I suppose you can issue precise battle plans, but in a few moments? Recall that the conjerer doesn't gain control of the conjured creatures like an avatar extension of their character, but must instead issue verbal commans to otherwise independant creatures.

I find the above still make conjures very useful but restrains the precise tactical control that makes them overpowered. "Help Bob the Fighter" makes for a different situation than precise positioning and action usage.

And, no, I don't try to screw players with this. It's a restraint, not a wedge for DM insertion of bastardliness.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's making those verbal commands do a lot of work. Nothing about conjures improves the intelligence of the conjured creatures, so until you get the higher level ones, complicated verbal orders are a waste. At the higher end, I suppose you can issue precise battle plans, but in a few moments? Recall that the conjerer doesn't gain control of the conjured creatures like an avatar extension of their character, but must instead issue verbal commans to otherwise independant creatures.

I find the above still make conjures very useful but restrains the precise tactical control that makes them overpowered. "Help Bob the Fighter" makes for a different situation than precise positioning and action usage.

And, no, I don't try to screw players with this. It's a restraint, not a wedge for DM insertion of bastardliness.

If you say so.

Personally, the Conjure Animal spell states that the creatures appear in unoccupied spaces that you see. To me, this sounds like the caster can control exactly which spaces when he casts the spell, just like most other spells.

The spell also states that they obey ANY verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you).

I can see where a DM might say that all of the summoned creatures has to obey the same command, but on the other hand, no action is required. The caster is concentrating on the spell and should be able to command each creature individually, but even without that, the command "Dodge attacks, but don't move" doesn't seem that unreasonable because regardless of creature intelligence, the spell is magic and allows them to understand any verbal command given. How can they obey it if they don't understand it? Taking your restraints to their logical conclusion, creatures with Int 2 wouldn't understand any command. Meh.

A restraint? I didn't read that restraint in the spell description.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you say so.

Personally, the Conjure Animal spell states that the creatures appear in unoccupied spaces that you see. To me, this sounds like the caster can control exactly which spaces when he casts the spell, just like most other spells.

The spell also states that they obey ANY verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you).

I can see where a DM might say that all of the summoned creatures has to obey the same command, but on the other hand, no action is required. The caster is concentrating on the spell and should be able to command each creature individually, but even without that, the command "Dodge attacks, but don't move" doesn't seem that unreasonable because regardless of creature intelligence, the spell is magic and allows them to understand any verbal command given. How can they obey it if they don't understand it? Taking your restraints to their logical conclusion, creatures with Int 2 wouldn't understand any command. Meh.

A restraint? I didn't read that restraint in the spell description.

Sure, you have no problem with the conjured creatures being perfect tactical avatars of the players. I read they act independently but follow verbal orders. What do you shout to brown bears to tell them to move individually to different locations and perform different actions along the way and still fit in the general rules for talking in a round?

From the SRD, under Combat:

"You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure, you have no problem with the conjured creatures being perfect tactical avatars of the players. I read they act independently but follow verbal orders. What do you shout to brown bears to tell them to move individually to different locations and perform different actions along the way and still fit in the general rules for talking in a round?

From the SRD, under Combat:

"You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn."

Specific trumps general. The general rule is that you can communicate brief utterances. The specific rule is that when commanding the conjured creatures, they will obey any verbal command. Any.

It's magic. It allows for verbal commands. I don't really see how Fireballing a bunch of enemies and taking some of them out because they fail their save is not overpowered, but putting a line of dodging wolves that aren't attacking is (note: in our game, the player doesn't decide on the exact creature, just the CR and any movement type like flying creatures).


Do you seriously stop your players from communicating more than 5 or 6 words and quote the brief utterances rule?

Steve: "Everyone fall back to the..."

DM: "That's it Steve. No more talking unless you want to use your action."

 

[CapnZapp]

Why are you arguing to make an already very powerful spell even more powerful?

Personally, the only application of summon spells that aren't completely OP is when you can issue only the simplest of commands, and only to the group as a whole.

And even then the DM needs to babysit the spell (selecting middling creatures of each CR) because WotC couldn't be bothered to make the spell(s) work right out of the gate!

This argument makes no sense in that regard. If you can position summons so that monsters must hack through them, the battle is already won.

 

[Belfast Biker]

Strictly speaking, we're summoning fey.
"You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts"

Fey have at least 10 int, I guess that's how they can understand any verbal command.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Specific trumps general. The general rule is that you can communicate brief utterances. The specific rule is that when commanding the conjured creatures, they will obey any verbal command. Any.

Yes, specifuc trumps general, but there's no such conflict here. You have 1)The conjured creatures obey any spoken command, and; 2) you make freely speak in brief utterances during your turn. These don't conflict at all, so no trumping necessary.

It's magic. It allows for verbal commands. I don't really see how Fireballing a bunch of enemies and taking some of them out because they fail their save is not overpowered, but putting a line of dodging wolves that aren't attacking is (note: in our game, the player doesn't decide on the exact creature, just the CR and any movement type like flying creatures).

Nothing here contradicts any of my points. I agree with just about all of it. Still, verbal commands are limited to brief utterences during a turn. Sure, that means you can drop a line of conjured wolves (or bears) and yell "dodge!" However, you've also said directing the conjured cretures to help is valid. And it is, in a more limited way, as you can say things like, "help Bob hit that troll," easily enough, but not, "Wolf 1, help Bob hit that troll by standing due east of it, Wolf 2, help Bobette hit that other troll by standing due north of it, and the rest of you close up your line along a NE to SW axis between me and the third troll, centered on me, and continue to dodge!"

Do you seriously stop your players from communicating more than 5 or 6 words and quote the brief utterances rule?

Yes and no. I don't mind free discussion between players, but do limit what characters can communicate in combat. Usually, this means it only matters when communicating with NPCs, like conjured creatures. The rules are there for reasons, and dismissing then can allow for some things to become more unbalanced (the system isn't well balanced to begin with). Conjuring is already one of the best plays, and allowing precise tactical control only makes it more so.

Steve: "Everyone fall back to the..."

DM: "That's it Steve. No more talking unless you want to use your action."

Strawman is made of straw.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Strictly speaking, we're summoning fey.
"You summon fey spirits that take the form of beasts"

Fey have at least 10 int, I guess that's how they can understand any verbal command.

1. Fey do not have at least a 10 INT.

b) The conjured fey have the exact statblock of the beast whose form they take, which includes INT.

iii, We don't need them to have INT to follow verbal commands, the spell does this. INT only comes up in how they may execute complicated verbal commands that have elements of individual initiative, and then only maybe.

 

[KarinsDad]

Strawman is made of straw.

You call it a strawman, but it has the exact same 5 words as my example of "Dodge attacks, but don't move".

You don't have an official definition of how many words are in a brief utterance. In real life, someone can both do actions and talk. So, most people would assume that PCs and NPCs can say in combat what can be said in real life in 6 seconds. In real life, normal conversation is about 11 to 14 words in 6 seconds. So, 5 words is more than reasonable. It could even be called a brief utterance.

Strawman or no strawman, your interpretation of the brief utterance phrase is not actually RAW with regard to what commands can be given with the Conjure Animals spell, rather it is merely the interpretation that supports your rules restraint preference.

I seriously doubt that you would limit the Message spell, or Animal Messenger, or any other spell that allows for words to be spoken. In 6 seconds, Animal Messenger allows for 25 words. Magic. Conjure Animals allows for verbal commands. Magic.