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.

 

[I'm A Banana]

there's no bonfire in range, you can't choose a fire elemental. If you're underground in tiny tunnels, you can't choose an air elemental. Furthermore, if you cast it as a 6th level spell on a windy area, there's no guarantee you'll get an invisible stalker: you could get a larger air elemental or some kind of miniature genie or anything else the DM decides to give you.

...which does mean you can be thematic in that if you are an earth wizard or something, you hang out around tunnels or maybe use creation to make a hunk of stone or something. Which is a curious way to do it.

Clearly, it's not "elemental specialist summoning," it's "I turn this bit of something into a monster to beat my enemies to a pulp with." Much more dynamic. Interesting.

You're not supposed to be bringing assumptions based on 3e and 4e.

Old-edition-itis claims another victim. Too young...too young.

 

[Fralex]

Except, it doesn't.

"You call forth an elemental servant. Choose an area of air, earth, fire, or water that fills a 10-foot cube within range. An elemental of challenge rating 5 or less appropriate to the area you chose appears in an unoccupied space within 10 feet of it. For example, a fire elemental emerges from a bonfire, and an earth elemental rises up from the ground."

If there's no bonfire in range, you can't choose a fire elemental. If you're underground in tiny tunnels, you can't choose an air elemental. Furthermore, if you cast it as a 6th level spell on a windy area, there's no guarantee you'll get an invisible stalker: you could get a larger air elemental or some kind of miniature genie or anything else the DM decides to give you.

Oh sure, I just meant you get some modicum of control over what flavor of elemental is summoned, as opposed to conjure minor elementals, where it could be any element. I like the feel of turning a giant rock into a galeb duhr, or a bonfire into a fire snake. Though not being limited to what's around you definitely has its advantages.

 

[Psikerlord#]

You're not supposed to be bringing assumptions based on 3e and 4e. For this sort of issue the game is clearly closer to TSR editions than 3e or 4e. All kinds of stuff in the game wouldn't work right if you bring assumptions from 3e and 4e. Wipe those mindsets out, and just read what it says. Does it say you choose the creature, or instead does it say you choose the category? Now compare it to other spells like Find Familiar, which specifies you choose the creature. Why are they different? Easy conclusion - for one you can choose the creature, for the other it's just a category. Unless you bring assumptions from another game, it reads like Crawford said it's intended to be read. It's only the outside baggage you brought to it, that causes it to read differently that what it says.

As for the rest of your comments concerning balance - none of this is about balance, he's just answering the question he was asked. If it's in the DM control, you get the level of balance the DM wants in their game. For me - if you happen to be in the Feywild, or deep in an Elven forest, you will likely get pixies. I won't care if they are the type that can do that and you get some huge benefit from it - the game won't break if you bypass a challenge faster and easier than the "norm". Who cares, as long as it was fun. Balance is just not that delicate for this game. So great, you have a cool scene, and you move on to another challenge faster, and get more challenges in for that session. That's not a problem for my games. If they are a problem for yours, OK you're free to not have pixies appear or to houserule the orders. But, for me, it works fine and I truly don't care about balance to the extent you do. It's not anywhere close to the top of my list for fun in RPGs.

I care about balance. You cant have a fun campaign without it. As for why woodland beings isnt as specific as find familiar, they were probably a bit lax, too loosely worded, or intentionally vague to let each table decide (like hiding). Given the 2 editions, naturally, most people i know interpreted it as caster chooses. Anyhoo, it is still a bad mechanic for such a spell imo. Better choices inc a table, or caster chooses but delete obey orders. DM chooses is more appropriate for something like Gate.

 

[EroGaki]

Heh, I guess I won't be doing much summoning if my DM chooses to go by that rule; I'd rather not waste one of my few precious spell slots by getting stuck with a mediocre choice by the DM.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Why would you let a jerk be your DM? If he wants to be a jerk, he can punish you in arbitrary ways, with death traps and trick monsters and spheres of annihilation falling from the sky. So yeah, he can create a custom CR 1/4 monster which has the defense of a CR 1/2 and the offense of a CR 0 (i.e. no offensive power) and a movement speed of 10', and that custom CR 1/4 monster will be totally useless to you. And he will laugh at you and point out that he followed Sage Advice and DMG monster creation guidelines to the letter. So what? You don't have to play with that guy.

+100. If the DM is being a complete jerk then someone else can run the game. More complex and precise rules won't fix a jerk, so trying to "DM proof" a game via the rules is a futile exercise.

Doesn't bother me. You can draw back the polearm to strike at a nearby foe, but it takes too much time to do it as a reaction. Polearms should be less effective close-in; a pike is not a close-quarters weapon.

Absolutely. A pole arm such as a pike is generally only useful in a few specific tactical applications and the majority of those involve being part of a mass of other pikes. In small unit close quarter battle a single pole arm is not a good weapon choice and the rules should reflect that.

 

[iserith]

I'm still going to let my players choose what creatures they summon. If I didn't trust them to pick creatures that are appropriate for the campaign and that will be fun to introduce in a scene, I wouldn't be playing with them in the first place.

 

[El Mahdi]

Makes sense to me. A reach weapon (especially a polearm) should have a difficult time reacting to (that is, triggering reactions from) enemies that are within its reach. And, note, the ability to OA an enemy that never even closes to within 5 feet of you has tactical applicability. And tactical applicability is why polearms exist, in the first place.

Except this explanation has nothing to do with how or why it works the way it does; nor is this understanding of polearms (or reach weapons in general) correct.

An enemy moving out of that first five foot area into one ten feet away simply means that they haven't left the area a polearm wielder threatens (their "Reach"). A creature only triggers an AoO if they leave a threatened area (a creatures reach). Period. That's it. There is no other consideration.

And a reach weapon merely adds 5 feet to one's reach. It does not take away the ability to attack creatures, nor penalize such attacks, within 5 feet. Nor should they.

Even in historical combat, a polearm did not add extra difficulty to attacking or defending against enemies "within its reach." In fact, it was quite good at it.

Polearms, same as swords, are not used in one strict manner. Just as swords are commonly used in a half-sword grip (held with a hand on the blade), used to bludgeon with the pommel of the hilt, and even used the quillons/cross-guard to hook a neck, trip a leg, or just poke out an eye, polearms are designed to be used in multiple ways. They can just as effectively be used as a staff for defense, a choked-up grip for close-in fighting (much like half-swording), as a device to trip or hook, or unseat a horseman, and its standard use as a stand-off, "reach" slashing or piercing weapon.

Pole-arms are just as effective against opponents within 5 feet as they are against opponents at the reach of the weapon.

In D&D combat, these type of attacks are happening all of the time, it's just that it's only apparent through narration (whether DM or Player). D&D attack rolls are an abstract quantification; they can be one single attack or a quantification of all of a creature's attempts during a round. Whether stabbing with a sword, slashing with a sword, half-swording or attacking with the hilt/cross-guard, if one makes a successful attack roll, one applies the damage roll of that weapon (or if you prefer: the arbitrarily statistical damage potential of that weapon). That's it. Period. Then narrate it any way one wants to (as long as the narration simply describes the damage and it's mode of delivery, and not an effect or result outside of mere injury).

D&D attacks certainly do not mean that a weapon is always used one way and one way only; nor that they are only effective one way.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Heh, I guess I won't be doing much summoning if my DM chooses to go by that rule; I'd rather not waste one of my few precious spell slots by getting stuck with a mediocre choice by the DM.

8 or 16 "mediocre" CR 1/4 creatures is still a force to be reckoned with. I know people who avoid those spells because they make the game too easy; you're the first person I've encountered who is planning to avoid them because they are too mediocre.

I dare you to name a single CR 1/4 animal from the MM which would be bad to get 16 of from Conjure Animals V--so bad that you wouldn't bother casting the spell.

 

[Mistwell]

I care about balance. You cant have a fun campaign without it.

It's not an on/off switch. It's a continuum, with on one side zero balance and on the other side perfect balance. No game has either extreme, you can just move along the line between the two. A game can be fun without perfect balance - indeed, as no game has perfect balance I'd say all fun games are fun without perfect balance.

You care about balance more than I do. It's not that I have no care for balance, it's just not as important on my list of priorities as it is for you. I am more comfortable with the dial set to something closer to the zero balance end along that continuum, and you are more comfortable with the dial set closer to the perfect balance end of the spectrum. That's OK. You're not more right or more wrong because you care about that criteria for your games more than I do. It's just a preference, and neither is more or less valid than the other.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's not an on/off switch. It's a continuum, with on one side zero balance and on the other side perfect balance. No game has either extreme, you can just move along the line between the two. A game can be fun without perfect balance - indeed, as no game has perfect balance I'd say all fun games are fun without perfect balance.

To elaborate on this idea:

1.) Some people like total balance. No character is allowed to have mechanical capabilities that other characters do not, or could not. You can get this in GURPS where there are no classes and everything is point buy.

2.) Some people like a different kind of total balance, where characters differentiate based on classes, but every class has abilities that are as strong as every other class's abilities in every situation. My understanding is that 4E aimed for this ideal, mostly attained it in the combat pillar, and did a pretty good job at non-combat balance via skill challenges.

3.) Some people like a kind of balance wherein every character has a unique shtick, a thing that they are better at than anyone else in the party. They may want the number of shticks per PC to be roughly balanced as well, so spotlight time is equally distributed. These people are the ones I see complaining in Enworld threads about the 5E fighter's non-combat abilities not being "distinct" from other classes, since everything he's good at comes from feats and backgrounds, all of which are potentially accessible to everyone else.

4.) Some people like a kind of balance wherein every character has things that he's good at, even if he's not the best. These people may be happy to be Conan with good weapons skills, Insight +5, and Stealth +6 at 9th level, because it lets them fulfill their character concept and do cool stuff. They probably don't care that the Lore Bard has Stealth +11, and Stealth +21 when he casts Pass Without Trace.

My informal observation is that the more willing you are to let players do their own thing (including splitting the party or switching PCs), the more able they are to manage their own spotlight expectations and the more you can move towards #4 without any player-dissatisfaction problems.