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]

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.

Props for conflict management, man. I learned something from you here.

 

[brehobit]

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.

Mistwell, I generally respect your opinions here, but your posts do come off as seeming to indicate that anyone who has trouble with the conjurations in 5e has issues. May not be your intent, but to me it's coming across pretty strongly. Which is why I didn't reply to your reply to me. I found it mostly thoughtful but also somewhat condescending.

 

[Mistwell]

Mistwell, I generally respect your opinions here, but your posts do come off as seeming to indicate that anyone who has trouble with the conjurations in 5e has issues. May not be your intent, but to me it's coming across pretty strongly. Which is why I didn't reply to your reply to me. I found it mostly thoughtful but also somewhat condescending.

If the dispute as outlined in the post I was replying to is as described, where the Player expects a CR 1 creature with certain abilities, and the DM expects a CR 1/4 creature with accordingly lesser abilities, then yes I think the player and DM have an issue that needs to be resolved. I am saying it's a sign there is a general issue at play with that situation. But I am not saying it's necessarily the player's issue, or "issues" as in "psychological issues". If you cast a spell where Player X expects result Z, and DM Y expects result A, and the difference between Z and A is vast and a serious issue for fun in the game for one or both people, then those two people have an issue that needs to be addressed - an issue that is much more about style of play and gaming preferences in general in my opinion than it is about that single rule.

If you took that as condescending I am sorry, that was not my intent. Can you tell me what words I used that you felt read that way? Here is the post. I'd prefer to know what kinds of things I am saying that come across as condescending so I can try and not do it again in the future. Help me out here, I promise I won't simply outright get defensive and dispute what you have to say. I am listening to what you have to say.

 

[Falling Icicle]

If you took that as condescending I am sorry, that was not my intent. Can you tell me what words I used that you felt read that way? Here is the post. I'd prefer to know what kinds of things I am saying that come across as condescending so I can try and not do it again in the future. Help me out here, I promise I won't simply outright get defensive and dispute what you have to say. I am listening to what you have to say.

The part that hit a nerve with me was where you said that "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." Since I was the person you quoted when you said that, it seemed like you were directing it at me. I was the person who brought up that concern in the first place, so it seemed like you were suggesting that I should leave the hobby.

I apologize for my snarky response. I will make an effort to not be so defensive in the future.

 

[Mistwell]

The part that hit a nerve with me was where you said that "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." Since I was the person you quoted when you said that, it seemed like you were directing it at me. I was the person who brought up that concern in the first place, so it seemed like you were suggesting that I should leave the hobby.

I apologize for my snarky response. I will make an effort to not be so defensive in the future.

Fair enough. You know I can totally see why you read it that way. I shouldn't have said that. It could well be a player is dealing with a DM who is being a jerk, or is new, or whatever. So it wouldn't be that 5e isn't for that player - it could be it's not for that DM, or just that (most likely) the DM and player need to try and resolve that problem, or that the player needs to walk away from that DM. My point is that this version of D&D is more vulnerable to issues revolving around players and DMs not being on the same page on these kinds of issues - tweaking rules is probably less productive than getting the player and DM on the same page, or changing the DM, or the player going to another DM, if they cannot get on the same page.

 

[Falling Icicle]

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.)

I don't think the rules need to be air-tight and DM proof (if such a thing is even possible). There are two extreme ends of this spectrum. On one, the players all sit at the table and listen to the DM tell stories, with no control over what happens at all. On the other, the rulebook is this massive encyclopedia of legal clauses that prevents the DM from doing anything wrong. I wouldn't be happy with either extreme, and have never argued for either. There's a huge middle between those two, and I think both of our positions are much closer to the middle (and to each other) than they are to either of those extreme ends.

There are some decisions that should be made by the DM, and some that should be made by the player. The choice of what creature a player summons with their spells is one that I think the player should make, not the DM. If something like that is going to be specifically taken away from the player and handed over to the DM, there should be a very good reason. There are spells for which that is the case, such as certain divinations. I just don't see a very good reason to do that with summoning spells. I don't see how it makes the game any better, but I do see a lot of potential for it to make the game worse.

 

[Staffan]

I agree that the monsters summoned with the various Conjure spells should be chosen by the DM, though the player can request a particular monster if the PC knows about that kind of thing. The Monster Manual isn't a player's manual, so in general a PC shouldn't be able to say "This would be a great time to have a bunch of sleep spells cast, so I'll summon a bunch of Dust Mephits." On the other hand, the monsters the DM chooses should be of appropriate strength and in an appropriate environment - if the player chooses to summon "Two beasts of CR 1 or lower", a DM who brings in two CR 1/2 creatures is being mean and should have his DMing license revoked.

 

[Mistwell]

If something like that is going to be specifically taken away from the player and handed over to the DM, there should be a very good reason.

So this is where the assumptions from prior editions of the game come into play, I suspect (though maybe not). There have always been spells where the player decides to cast it and the DM or random chance decide the result - like for instance the Reincarnation spell. The only way to conclude something has been "taken away" from the player, is if we assume the player had the choice as to the specific creature to be summoned to begin with. Where does that assumption come from about that choice? It's not specified in the spell description from my read of it (which says the player chooses the category of creature, not the specific creature). So the only thing I can think of is it comes from expectations from prior editions of the game, unless you can offer some other source for that expectation. So if it's from prior versions of the game - is it fair to bring an expectation from a prior version of the game into 5e?

 

[Gadget]

I'm not sure this ruling makes the conjuration spells 'useless' or any such thing. That would assume that there are vastly different options in the summoning options, which may be partially true due to the nature of the lists, does not seem that vast of a difference. Sure, a DM could be a jerk and say you summon a 1/4 CR elemental instead of a 1 CR elemental, but I just don't see it. So you don't get pixies or whatever every time you use the spell, it is still very useful to have 4-8 warm bodies in the fray with 5e's Bounded Accuracy. This just changes the use to not planning on getting the most powerful/useful option when employing the spell. So, while there might be some elements of 'mother may I' in the implementation, I don't feel it is as binary as other abilities that get that label: either your favored enemy features in the campaign or it doesn't.

I guess the question is: does not getting the best option with the summoning spell nerf the spell too much? How much of of a downgrade in the spell's capability is it (assuming the DM is not literally out to screw you, like with the 1/4 CR vs 1 CR above)?

 

[Remathilis]

I agree that the monsters summoned with the various Conjure spells should be chosen by the DM, though the player can request a particular monster if the PC knows about that kind of thing. The Monster Manual isn't a player's manual, so in general a PC shouldn't be able to say "This would be a great time to have a bunch of sleep spells cast, so I'll summon a bunch of Dust Mephits." On the other hand, the monsters the DM chooses should be of appropriate strength and in an appropriate environment - if the player chooses to summon "Two beasts of CR 1 or lower", a DM who brings in two CR 1/2 creatures is being mean and should have his DMing license revoked.

A hundred times this.

Furthermore, if you are using Conjure spells just to get access to a specific creature's SLA's, I'm going to be a lot less forgiving. Pixiemancers trying to get a dozen free polymorph spells for the cost of one spell slot are going to find a few satyrs, sprites, and other fey have a nasty habit of showing up...