D&D General Reification versus ludification in 5E/6E


log in or register to remove this ad

Conjure Animals?

Summon Beast was what was mentioned.

They can absolutely do both. They can swim and they can breathe air. They move as you direct them. They're intangible animal spirits. I suppose, as such, technically, they neither breathe or swim, but, that seems a rather pointless distinction.

How is this not 100% reified? I summoned a pack of animal spirits that attack enemies and help me. How would it be more reified?

Where can I find the stats for spirit animals? Where do they come from? Is there a spirit animal somewhere in the MM that deals Force damage?
 



"5.5e" is a pretty commonly used shorthand so everyone will know what you mean. No one really uses "6e" that I've seen, so generally people will be confused.

I read the original post shortly after it was posted and there wasn't any clarification yet, I found the topic interesting but didn't bother responding because I initially read it thinking he was discussing now vs future DnD, then picked up that maybe he was just using 6e incorrectly, then just gave up trying to figure it out so didn't respond even though it seemed interesting.
6e like 5.5 is basically only used by edition warriors who want to poop on the current state of the game. It’s pretty rare to see anyone use 5.5 in a positive sense. Not impossible but rare.

It’s basically become edition warring dog whistle.
 

I want there to be spells that summon actual animals and ones that summon a pack of spirit animals with special Force damage attacks. But if I had to choose one, for my own preferred flavor I'd pick the former. But then again, I have no fear of cheese weasels. When a druid in my game wildshapes into a rat, we let them squeeze through just about anywhere because we know rats can do that. It doesn't matter that the stat block doesn't give it a squeezing power. Seems reasonable to me and leads to fun play.

BTW, I think he was referring to Summon Beast.
As someone who just finished Decent into Avernus playing a Druid, being able to summon animals that deal force damage would have been nice.
 

Whatever happened to the idea that summoning monsters got you something random either from a chart or from what tends to live in the area?

There ain't much cheese-weeseling you can do if you've no way of being sure what you'll get - or how many - when you cast the spell.
That hasn’t been true in almost thirty years.
 

Why not instead use real definitions when they make sense, i.e. "invisible" means you're transparent and can't be seen but can still be heard smelled etc., and when a term is needed for something game-related either use a different word or - better yet - make up something new. We all know what "hit points" are, for example specifically because it's a bespoke term created for the specific purpose of referring to what it refers to and nothing else.

Here, the term "unseen" could be used as a term for someone who can't be seen due to cover or hiding-in-shadows or lack of light whatever but who is not actually invisible. The spell that already uses that term would need to have its name changed to Invisible Servant, of course, but whatever.
But invisible in plain English doesn’t mean transparent. It just means something cannot be seen. You’re trying to force a game definition on the word. Something might be invisible because it’s transparent or because it’s really foggy.
 



Remove ads

Top