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.

 

[Celtavian]

It's good you know his intent with such certainty. I was not able to discern it from the Rules Answers article in as much detail as you suggest above. Good on you, man.

Regardless of his intent, what I'm seeing a lot of on this forum and others are DMs going, "Oh thank the gods, now I have an official source that I can use to curb the worst excesses of my players!" To which I can only scratch my head and suggest that maybe another rule (or clarification of an existing rule) isn't necessarily the best fix to the underlying problem.

But, hey, whatever works. I'm just glad that's not a struggle I'm forced to endure.

How could you not discern it? Or do you think a game designer would design a game thinking, "I don't trust the players, better change this spell?"

The following bolded part shows pretty clearly he wasn't distrusting players. Just trying to create a cooperative piece of fiction rather than a purely mechanical one:

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.

 

[Celtavian]

Ok, I'll admit that I was making an assumption. I suspect that this ruling was a way for them to fix the 8 pixie power play without errata. I could be wrong. Maybe this was the way they intended for these spells to work all along, and it just took them almost a year to decide to tell us. Either way, I still don't like it.

And you certainly don't have to use Crawford's ruling. I know those that played 3E/Pathfinder are accustomed to picking their creatures.

Some of us that have played older editions are accustomed to rolling or picking. Summoning was random prior to 3rd.

Given how I see D&D being played by Perkins, Matt Mercer on Critical Role, and even The Provokers on Youtube, I can see why Crawford ruled as he did. The idea of things being introduced in an appropriate theatrical way seems to be something they are pushing in this edition of D&D. They want to encourage DMs to have fun describing things. It isn't very fun if 16 owls or wolves are showing up every single combat, level after level.

 

[iserith]

How could you not discern it? Or do you think a game designer would design a game thinking, "I don't trust the players, better change this spell?"

The following bolded part shows pretty clearly he wasn't distrusting players. Just trying to create a cooperative piece of fiction rather than a purely mechanical one:

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.

My comments weren't about Crawford's intent. I don't care that it was intended for the DM to choose monsters for the players - I won't be doing that as I don't need to. My comments were about the plethora of posts I've seen where DMs are relieved that the ball is "officially" in their court with regard to choosing the creatures players are summoning to curb abuse. I see the willingness to abuse as the underlying problem not the vagueness of the rule.

 

[Celtavian]

My comments weren't about Crawford's intent. I don't care that it was intended for the DM to choose monsters for the players - I won't be doing that as I don't need to. My comments were about the plethora of posts I've seen where DMs are relieved that the ball is "officially" in their court with regard to choosing the creatures players are summoning to curb abuse. I see the willingness to abuse as the underlying problem not the vagueness of the rule.

Either you are new or play in very tight groups. I don't know. Player abuse has been common in every edition of D&D dating back to the earliest editions. The entire reason two-weapon fighting has been reduced in effectiveness to where it is now is because it was abused in the earliest editions. The abuse complaints about casters has been there since 2E and reached its apex in 3E. The section you keep citing on goals of play, "play for group fun", and every other iteration of that idea has been talked about in every edition for three decades. Doesn't matter. Many players, I have no idea what percentage, have fun trying to make the most powerful character they possibly can. They will push the DM to the limits even if other players don't like it. They won't rein it in unless the DM forces them to rein it in. Maybe you kick players like this from your group, but such players will find new groups. Thus they become another DM's problem. And thus the complaints on this thread.

 

[iserith]

Either you are new or play in very tight groups. I don't know.

I've been at it for over 25 years now. In addition to my regular groups, I've had the pleasure of running pickup games for hundreds of players on Roll20 (if my stats are accurate).

Player abuse has been common in every edition of D&D dating back to the earliest editions. The entire reason two-weapon fighting has been reduced in effectiveness to where it is now is because it was abused in the earliest editions. The abuse complaints about casters has been there since 2E and reached its apex in 3E. The section you keep citing on goals of play, "play for group fun", and every other iteration of that idea has been talked about in every edition for three decades. Doesn't matter. Many players, I have no idea what percentage, have fun trying to make the most powerful character they possibly can. They will push the DM to the limits even if other players don't like it. They won't rein it in unless the DM forces them to rein it in. Maybe you kick players like this from your group, but such players will find new groups. Thus they become another DM's problem. And thus the complaints on this thread.

During my time playing D&D and other RPGs, I have encountered players like the ones you describe. But every single one of them was a reasonable person when, as a player or DM, I spoke to them about the goals of play which, as you say, have been around for a very long time. Once the goals of the group are aligned, players can indeed create "the most powerful character they can" and still make choices that help the group achieve the goals of play. I didn't need to "put my foot down." I didn't need more rules or rules clarifications. I just needed to assume the best of them and speak to them on a person-to-person level and seek their buy-in, then watch with pride as they rose to the occasion. I've seen the pixie trick in my game - once - and it was awesome. It led to an incredibly fun scene and the introduction of a whole fey subplot in the campaign. After that point, the player never used it again because he made a decision that while it was a powerful gimmick, it wouldn't be fun for everyone and wouldn't lead to exciting, memorable stories to use it all the time. In my last campaign, two of the players decided that their characters had to die because that was what would make for the best story at that moment. We "won" D&D by the definition of winning in the Basic Rules, in part, because of their choices.

If the players and DM don't agree on what it means to "win" or "lose" D&D, then perhaps it is inevitable to see the abuse that so many people have mentioned in this thread and others. But it's spelled out right in the rules for all to see, discuss, and agree upon. Perhaps a discussion is in order for such groups rather than more rules or rules clarifications. It has worked for me and maybe it will work for others. And I hope it does - not having to be on guard for player abuse makes it a lot easier and more fun to run the game for me.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem with random tables for summoning/conjuring monsters is, that they are obsolete as soon as new monsters are released (or homebrewed).

I personally think it is good to leave it to the DM which creatures show up, just like it is a DM call which beasts a druid has seen and can shapechange into.

Personally, I don't find them obsolete - if I want new monsters to show up on those charts, I just add 'em to the charts. By the same token, I don't have to add any monster to the charts that I don't want to - a book of 63 new pixie variants doesn't just get added because they're the right CR.

Combined with specific spells for conjuring specific creatures, for those who prefer reliability, I think that would be a nice solution to both the problem of pixiemancers - you don't want everyone summoning pixies because they're the best choice, but you do want characters whose story for some reason involves pixies to be able to conjure them. So we keep pixies on a random/dm-selected chart, and we make a separate spell at probably a higher level that lets you summon a pixie (or a few) specifically.

 

[evilbob]

I have not read all 10 pages, but I am disappointed in the conjure ruling - although I very much appreciate how the actual sage advice was worded, and I find it simple and well-justified to continue to interpret it the way we have before, as I would suggest anyone else should do if they would like.

The reason I am disappointed is that it potentially sets up a point of conflict between the player and the DM. Specifically, that spell is either completely worthless or amazingly overpowered and it 100% depends on what you conjure (or rather, it depends on if you conjure pixies or anything else). That means your spell is going to be AWESOME or a complete waste and his advice says that it should be up to the DM to determine if your contribution in battle is great or worthless based on how the spell is interpreted. That is a very poor way to adjudicate a game in my opinion.

A much better solution would have been to change this spell. Do something different with it - even if all you change is "actually, you can't summon pixies" because at least then the expectation of what the spell can do would be set. (It would be worthless and no one would use it, but the expectation would be set.) But as it stands, the spell is just too good and leaving it up to the DM to determine if you get AWESOME or worthless results just promotes poor feelings and bad gameplay.

Also see: moonbeam.

 

[evilbob]

keep pixies on a random/dm-selected chart, and we make a separate spell at probably a higher level that lets you summon a pixie (or a few) specifically.

I actually dislike the random chart solution for anything other than a wild sorcerer. Randomness is not what you want in a spell, especially one that can have super amazing results or very poor results. And there's very little practical difference between a random chart and a DM choosing the result: you still ultimately don't get pixies 100% of the time, which is what the spell is all about. So that means it's failing the expectations.

I wouldn't mind letting pixies be ineligible for the spell and then making a higher level spell that only summoned pixies. That nerfs the spell pretty badly, but it's a solution. I suspect there are other, better solutions, though.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Given we haven't seen the Monster Manual errata yet, I expect we may still see a direct 'fix' for the 'pixiemancer' problem.

Looking at their stats, sure they only have 1 hp, but Invis plus some potent spells seems to warrant a CR change compared to something like the Sprite. CR1 or CR2 from CR 1/4 would basically make it a non-issue.

 

[the Jester]

does it work with a Shield/cover? unclear as written and I've seen vehement arguments on this very board for both ways.

Does it work with wild shape? Same thing.

I think there may have been a couple of other nuances and issues with it, but that is the gist of it as far as I can recall.

Huh. I think it's pretty clear: Calculate your AC normally. Is it lower than 16? Then it's 16. But I agree that some of these things, like cover, add interesting quirks to the mix.