New Sage Advice: Class Features, Combat, Spells, & Monsters

There's a new Sage Advice column up from D&D designer Jeremy Crawford. This month he tackles class features, combat (bonus actions; reach weapons), spellcasting, and monsters. It's quite a long edition, covering 18 questions in total, all questions asked via Twitter.

You'lll find the article here. All Sage Advice material is added to the Sage Advice Compendium, which is a 6-page PDF of questions and answers.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

My basic complaint about conjuration spells under this clarification is that as a caster I don't have any reasonable expectations about what the effect of my spells will be.

Use science. Tell your DM you're spending a week casting Conjure Animals over and over, looking for patterns in what you get, and trying to find ways to affect the outcome.

 

[Mistwell]

The biggest concern I have with the conjuration ruling is this part: "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." (emphasis mine)

The "or lower" part means the DM may pick something much weaker than the CR option the player chose. The player could choose to summon a CR 2 elemental and get a CR 1/4 mephit instead. That's crap. A player never has to worry about casting fireball and getting a 1d6 mini-fireball instead of an 8d6 fireball. By the same token, a player that casts conjure elemental shouldn't ever have to worry about getting a CR 2 gargoyle instead of a CR 5 earth elemental.

This seems to be a recurring theme - that unless it's spelled out in ways that make it hard for the DM to "screw the player", people should be concerned about DMs screwing players. In this case, by selecting a CR 1/4 creature instead of a CR 1 creature.

5e is built on an assumption your DM isn't looking to screw the players. If it's a paramount concern for someone, 5e may not be the game for that person. If it's an ongoing fear, fixing this thing won't alleviate the general sense of DMs trying to screw players. If a person doesn't have a trust relationship with their DM, then that's what needs to be focused on, and not these kinds of rules. This version of the game is not going to change from a basic assumption that the DM has a lot more authority, will make judgement calls, those judgement calls will impact players, and a person needs to have mutual trust between the players and DM for the game to function well. No amount of tweaking precise wording will fix that issue, for this version of the game.

Specifically for spells, conjurations (due to their nature) just require more trust in the DM than evocations. Similarly, illusions require more trust in DM than evocations, and so do divinations. It's just something that comes with some classes of spells. It's not a bad thing, it's just a thing.

 

[brehobit]

This seems to be a recurring theme - that unless it's spelled out in ways that make it hard for the DM to "screw the player", people should be concerned about DMs screwing players. In this case, by selecting a CR 1/4 creature instead of a CR 1 creature.

Specifically for spells, conjurations (due to their nature) just require more trust in the DM than evocations. Similarly, illusions require more trust in DM than evocations, and so do divinations. It's just something that comes with some classes of spells. It's not a bad thing, it's just a thing.

Sure, when it comes to playing illusionists, I have no control over how people will react in the world. But I _do_ have control over the spell. In this case the player is giving up control of the spell to the DM. As I mentioned above, it becomes more of a game of "mother may I" than I find fun even if I trust the DM entirely (which I have with all DMs I've played with more than once).

And I've played with DMs where I'd never play an illusionist because I've found that people react to illusions in a way that I think is unrealistic. Still a good DM, but makes playing an illusionist with them much less fun for me so I don't.

Illusions almost have to be that way (and are in almost every game system). I think it's poor design to need that same level of understanding with the DM (or in fact more in this case) for conjurations. I just don't see the need for it there.

Again, it's not about being "screwed" by the DM, it's about having expectation mismatches that don't exist to the same degree other places in the game...

Plus, honestly, I think the conjuration spells are a royal pain in game play in 5e. Should have limited each spell to a max of 4 creatures. Any more just slows down the game too much. 3e had similar problems, but bounded accuracy means that summoning a lot of CR 1/4 creatures can be hugely powerful. I don't know this got past them in play testing. Too powerful (with picking your own creatures) at least for druids and too slow is a fairly obvious problem. I really like 5e, but seems like this needed a bit more thought.

 

[Mistwell]

Sure, when it comes to playing illusionists, I have no control over how people will react in the world. But I _do_ have control over the spell. In this case the player is giving up control of the spell to the DM. As I mentioned above, it becomes more of a game of "mother may I" than I find fun even if I trust the DM entirely (which I have with all DMs I've played with more than once).

It's a game, and I think you should be having fun with it. If I find a style of game isn't fun for me, I don't play that game. I think it would be really hard to get away from this concept in 5e - it seems to me to be a recurring theme of this version of the game. I don't like the phrase "mother may I", but if someone finds they don't like that style, that's OK. I just suspect there is a lot of work that would need to be done to get to the point where that particular theme is downplayed from the baseline it currently enjoys for this version of the game.

Illusions almost have to be that way (and are in almost every game system). I think it's poor design to need that same level of understanding with the DM (or in fact more in this case) for conjurations. I just don't see the need for it there.

OK, so if you think the style can be fixed by just tweaking that rule, obviously tweak the rule. I just suspect this issue will come up again and again throughout the rules - I see it in many threads. It's not something focused on just a couple of rules, it's a theme that puts more decisionmaking in the hands of the DM. Some people are good with that, others are not. I think it's a judgement call as to whether the work to address that theme wherever it pops up is worth addressing.

Again, it's not about being "screwed" by the DM, it's about having expectation mismatches that don't exist to the same degree other places in the game...

Then when you read the phrase "screwed by the DM" from me (a phrase I didn't invent I was just quoting someone else who has a similar issue), you can fairly read it instead as "mismatch in expectations that don't exist to the same degree in other places in the game". I think that's a pretty good description of what I mean. Whatever you want to call it, I feel the shift in focus towards the DM in this edition is real. For me, I love it. But I can understand it rubbing some people the wrong way, and I don't think it's easily addressed by some simple rules patches here and there. This version of the game, in my experience, requires some changes in expectations, or else a whole lot of work to alter the game to meet those expectations. In my view, you sacrifice a small amount of precision and control, for a larger amount of speed in action resolution and game flow. But if precision and control are more important to someone, it may not work great with your preferences.

Plus, honestly, I think the conjuration spells are a royal pain in game play in 5e. Should have limited each spell to a max of 4 creatures. Any more just slows down the game too much. 3e had similar problems, but bounded accuracy means that summoning a lot of CR 1/4 creatures can be hugely powerful. I don't know this got past them in play testing. Too powerful (with picking your own creatures) at least for druids and too slow is a fairly obvious problem. I really like 5e, but seems like this needed a bit more thought.

I don't think it got past them in playtest, I think they view it as a feature and not a bug. And the style of play which is more encouraged by this version of the game gets more away from the grid and towards non-grid play where it's a lot easier to handle a bunch of creatures swarming a target. DM estimates how many can attack a target and whether they can roughly get to them, PC throws out a handfull of d20s and damage dice (often d6s), and do a quick count of hits and total damage. It only becomes a thing that bogs the game down when you bother with precise positioning of summoned creatures and such. For me, those things don't add enough to the game to justify the slow-down, when it comes to summonings. Rough estimates without a grid work much better in my games for such things.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This seems to be a recurring theme - that unless it's spelled out in ways that make it hard for the DM to "screw the player", people should be concerned about DMs screwing players. In this case, by selecting a CR 1/4 creature instead of a CR 1 creature.

5e is built on an assumption your DM isn't looking to screw the players. If it's a paramount concern for someone, 5e may not be the game for that person. If it's an ongoing fear, fixing this thing won't alleviate the general sense of DMs trying to screw players. If a person doesn't have a trust relationship with their DM, then that's what needs to be focused on, and not these kinds of rules. This version of the game is not going to change from a basic assumption that the DM has a lot more authority, will make judgement calls, those judgement calls will impact players, and a person needs to have mutual trust between the players and DM for the game to function well. No amount of tweaking precise wording will fix that issue, for this version of the game.

Specifically for spells, conjurations (due to their nature) just require more trust in the DM than evocations. Similarly, illusions require more trust in DM than evocations, and so do divinations. It's just something that comes with some classes of spells. It's not a bad thing, it's just a thing.

TLR version: No rule will fix a broken player.

 

[Mistwell]

TLR version: No rule will fix a broken player.

Maybe. Or maybe a whole lot of rules tweaks could address it enough to alleviate the feeling sufficiently for them to enjoy the game again (but you have to consider if that many rules tweaks is worth it).

To be fair, I think a lot of people who feel the way I described, got there because they had one more more very bad DM interactions. I don't think people start out mistrusting DMs - it's usually, in my experience and from what I've read, because something genuinely bad happens to cause them to feel that way. One thing I think D&D's been pretty weak on is teaching people how to be good DMs. I actually thought 4e did a good job in the DMG trying to address this issue, and 5e does a good job as well. But, it's probably been a weak area for D&D in general.

 

[Falling Icicle]

5e is built on an assumption your DM isn't looking to screw the players. If it's a paramount concern for someone, 5e may not be the game for that person.

Just because someone doesn't like a bad rule doesn't mean they're a dysfunctional player with trust issues.

How would you feel if WotC decided to release a "clarification" that players no longer get to choose their character's race, class, feats, etc. Instead, the DM gets to choose. The player can make suggestions, but it's the DM's decision, not the player's. Would you be okay with that? Why not? Don't you trust your DM? Maybe this isn't the game for you. /sarcasm

Why is this all about the DM, anyway? What about trusting the player? Why are DMs assumed to be angels and players assumed to be villains? Why is a player the bad guy because he wants to choose what he summons with his own spells, rather than having the DM make that decision for him? As a player, I don't want the DM making those choices for me. He controls enough of the world already. All I get to control is my character. I'm the one who should decide whether or not to cast fireball. Maybe the fireball won't be very effective. Maybe the DM has thrown the party up against monsters that are immune or resistant to fire. I can't control that. What's important is that the decision was mine. If the DM decided for me that my character is going to cast lightning bolt instead, I wouldn't be very happy. I feel the same way about playing a summoner that can't even pick what I summon as I do about playing an evoker and having the DM decide for me whether I cast fireball or lightning bolt. The game is much less fun that way.

I will also point out again that I am a DM. I am a DM as often as or more often than I am a player. I don't like this ruling any more as a DM than I do as a player. I don't want to make those kinds of decisions for my players. Trust goes both ways. If I thought that a certain type of creature was a problem, such as pixies, I'd just talk to the player about it and work something out, or inform them from the very beginning that those creatures are banned. What I would never do is say to the player "oh you thought you were going to get owls, did you? Nope, you're getting badgers instead." I can't think of a time when it would ever be a good idea for a DM to do that to a player. Yet, that's what this ruling went out of its way to give DMs license to do. Sadly, there are probably some impressionable DMs out there that will read that and think that it's what they should do.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Just because someone doesn't like a bad rule doesn't mean they're a dysfunctional player with trust issues.

How would you feel if WotC decided to release a "clarification" that players no longer get to choose their character's race, class, feats, etc. Instead, the DM gets to choose.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I'd be fine with it. It basically means either the DM hands out pre-gens to start every campaign (which can be fun in itself), or the DM (if he's a good DM) asks his/her players what they wish to play and then builds characters for them under their specifications.

A good player and a good DM can still get what a player wants, even if the rules clarify that this is how character creation is meant to be with the DM doing all the "build" work.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why is this all about the DM, anyway?

I can't think of a time when it would ever be a good idea for a DM to do that to a player. Yet, that's what this ruling went out of its way to give DMs license to do. Sadly, there are probably some impressionable DMs out there that will read that and think that it's what they should do.

You just answered your own question.

You think this ruling allow for inexperienced DMs to screw over their players (accidentally or not), just like other people above are worried about bad DMs not giving them what they want.

But it's not WotC's job to write the 5E rules such that bad/inexperienced/vindictive DMs are physically prohibited from screwing over their players. That was a hallmark of 4E's design... it was made in such a way that so that anyone could DM the game (regardless of knowledge or experience level) just by reading and following along with the pretty air-tight rules for combat. 5E doesn't do that. There *are* places where the players can screw over the DM via bad play, just like there are places where the DM can screw over the players the same way. So it's up to every player and DM to decide just who exactly they going to choose to play with so that screwing over doesn't actually happen (rather than WotC deciding for all of us by constantly tweaking rules to close up loopholes that might allow for it.)

 

[Mistwell]

Just because someone doesn't like a bad rule doesn't mean they're a dysfunctional player with trust issues.

Woah dude. I didn't call anyone dysfunctional or describe it as a player "trust issues". In fact, that's pretty clear when you don't clip the rest of my post that explains that. What I said is that if there isn't enough mutual trust between the players and DM such that this is an issue, and given how many different rules require that mutual trust in 5e (more than just this one), it's probably more productive to focus on that more general issue than in chasing specific rules to patch. I didn't call it a "player" issue - it may well be it's the DM, or they just don't know each other very well, or a number of things.

How would you feel if WotC decided to release a "clarification" that players no longer get to choose their character's race, class, feats, etc. Instead, the DM gets to choose. The player can make suggestions, but it's the DM's decision, not the player's. Would you be okay with that? Why not? Don't you trust your DM? Maybe this isn't the game for you. /sarcasm

So you thought starting with a strawman was best followed by sarcasm?

I didn't mean to hit a nerve with you. Sorry if what I wrote made you upset. That was not my intent. I was trying to be understanding, and helpful.

Why is this all about the DM, anyway? What about trusting the player? Why are DMs assumed to be angels and players assumed to be villains?

Why are you still putting words in my mouth? I didn't say anything like that!

You know, it's not sounding like this is a topic we can talk about without butting heads a lot. Maybe best for me to take a step back.