5E: Summons still suck

[Harshax]

Is my DM not enforcing action economy or do summons and independent items still sucking the life out of my soul?

I am a player in a 5E game. There's a player in the group who is always using a summon, minion, or device to get an extra token on the board and their actions take forever to resolve.

I thought action economy meant that Minions, Summons, Mooks didn't provide a player with additional action-decisions above their own. But I think a proper action economy should include all of these:

* Regardless the number of entities in a summon these should operate as a single unit. The number of entities could determine the size of that unit, but it's just one unit on the board.
* Their action requires a caster action. The summoner must spend an action to make them do a thing.
* They don't get saving throws. The receive a fixed amount of damage from spells.
* They don't get attack rolls. They do a fixed amount of damage to enemies in range/melee.
* The don't have an Armor Class. Attacks against summons do a fixed amount of damage to them.

By 'fixed', I feel like that it should be the average or mean damage roll. Maybe adjusted for level, but however the fuck it is figured out, it should just move forward. A DM should just be able to say, 'This monster engages the swarm of berserkers or whatever.

Thoughts?

EDIT: calmed down a bit.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I am a player in a 5E game.

I found your actual problem.

More seriously, what are the odds that you're going to be able to get your table to adopt whatever you come up with?

[Harshax]

I am a player in a 5E game.

I found your actual problem.

Thank you, doctor. I'll stop doing that.

More seriously, what are the odds that you're going to be able to get your table to adopt whatever you come up with?

Probably zero chance. But the DM is an author and I was thinking about collaborating with them after brainstorming the idea with denners to see if the idea had any legs.

[angelfromanotherpin]

For treating a pile of guys as a single game entity, I would start by checking out the rules for Mobs in Godbound, a game which is conveniently free.

[Kaelik]

I don't know if Godbound changes the RNG relative to D&D in some significant way, but if your mob AC's are 4-9, I definitely think it could be improved by just removing the attack roll.

I'm sympathetic to people who want to remove a bunch of rolls and 4e Minions where a bad method of doing that, but for something specific like summons you could imagine balancing them from the first point as not needing as many rolls.

[Koumei]

Godbound has an identity crisis where it desperately wants to appeal to people who play X, Y and also Z so it flutters its eyes at all of them. AC is "low is good", where you add your AC (which is fairly rigidly fixed, in the 2E style) to the attack roll. Meanwhile, saving throws are all listed as X+ to succeed (but it uses Fort Ref Will by any other name), and skills are stat rolls of stat+d20 with a universal target of 21 (and some things optionally give a +4 IIRC), so you write Stat, number, bonus (you still have that for your saves and damage and attack rolls), X+ to succeed on skills. It's a bit of a fucking mess, to be honest, but anyway, AC 9 is "bad for a player, but you'll find enemies that easy to hit" and AC 4 is "almost as good as it gets for a player".

As for the proposed solutions:
1. If the summoned creatures use up the actions of the caster, they need to be as good as full player characters, because they're using full player character actions (while still allowing enemies to hit the summoner in the face if that's more convenient than the monster). Are you okay with that kind of compromise?
2. Having a limit of one at a time, or having multiple summons automatically form a mob, is absolutely reasonable and the former one doesn't really involve having to change anything in the game other than the rule itself. Mobs take a bit more, you argue over what remains "literally the same" (probably saving throws, movement speed, uses/day of abilities) and what gets adjusted (probably bigger area taken up, probably add their combined HP together or something to that effect, arguably increase the AoE of abilities (they all cast the same spell or use their breath weapon on the same turn or whatever, so instead of having more uses, it's hitting a wider area)). AC and attack rolls and such are "I dunno maybe?" Presumably normal attacks either do more damage or target multiple things at the same time. It's work, but it's not a whole world of work.
3. Decreasing the amount of dice rolled is all well and good (and obviously an easy way to save time at the table), but honestly if it's only one summoned creature/mob it shouldn't be necessary. When the game is based on the assumptions of everyone rolling attack rolls and saving throws, it's kind of weird to make exceptions, just like it was weird in 4E that minions only have 1 HP and immunity to "still take damage on a miss". Averaging damage rolls would work well for the attacks of the creatures - you write the averages down when you summon them or when you decide it's something that can be summoned. It works less well when they're receiving said attacks, because any time they get attacked by a new source of damage, the DM invariably has to go "hold up, let me work out the average of 3d8+2" or whatever.

[NOTNOThyzmarca]

Simpler solution: Summons, minions, and mooks are under the control of the DM, not the player who summoned/hired them. They're friendly but the player can't micromanage and doesn't make their rolls for them.

[Dean]

That's not really a solution, you're just probably a skilled DM. If things are getting cluttered down with lots of extra npcs to handle it probably won't improve the situation to hand all those npc's to the person who's already handling the most npcs. I'd say one of the most boring things in D&D is when the DM is rolling goodguy npc attacks/abilities against their own badguy npc's. It's the just DM sitting there rolling against himself.

[OgreBattle]

D&D tends to be taken as "Rules as second by second inch by inch physics simulation", so multiple thingies running around is a pain to manage and when you abstract them there will be enough internet folks to go "BUT REALISTICALLY..."

I've been enjoying using a Wildfire Druid with Fire Spirit and regular spell Beast Spirit, having 3 miniatures to control on the tabletop is all I want.
In the past I've played a Bladesinger with Animate Objects, I kept things simple by never moving the 10 flying daggers apart.

3 active actions is about the limit for me.... on a tangent I'd say the Mundane Warriors could do with 2-3 actions all the time to keep up.

If there were some big revamp, then having summons as a hazard sounds like the simplest idea, Flaming Sphere is like that and I've used it to secure areas from fire vulnerable ice monsters. A crowd of skeletons creates a zone of danger for moving through or ending near, but you don't roll for 12 skeleton militia attacks.

[Thaluikhain]

As for the proposed solutions:
1. If the summoned creatures use up the actions of the caster, they need to be as good as full player characters, because they're using full player character actions (while still allowing enemies to hit the summoner in the face if that's more convenient than the monster). Are you okay with that kind of compromise?

I was thinking of a system where every level of monster you're controlling temporarily takes something from the controller, because of the concentration/distraction involved. So you have to decide how many living statues to throw at the enemy and how good your fireballs would be while you're bossing people about. Though keeping that simple and easy to work out on the fly and balanced would be trifficult.

And it means that your controller gets more powerful (personally) for each controlled that goes down, which you may or may not want. Though presumably the controller thinks the controlled are worth having around, or they wouldn't have them around.

[JonSetanta]

I like the proposal Harshax. Seems good, I'll suggest it to my DM and respond with results.

[deaddmwalking]

I was thinking of a system where every level of monster you're controlling temporarily takes something from the controller, because of the concentration/distraction involved. So you have to decide how many living statues to throw at the enemy and how good your fireballs would be while you're bossing people about. Though keeping that simple and easy to work out on the fly and balanced would be trifficult.

And it means that your controller gets more powerful (personally) for each controlled that goes down, which you may or may not want. Though presumably the controller thinks the controlled are worth having around, or they wouldn't have them around.

For our heartbreaker a number of spells are 'upkeep', meaning the caster either has to spend an action maintaining the spell or pay a spell point to keep the spell active. If a caster has, say, 10 spell points and they spent 3 to cast the spell, they'll have potentially 7 left. Casting additional spells means they can't spend the action to upkeep the spell for free, so they'd be down 1 for upkeep plus the new spell cost (say 3). With 3 spell points left they could cast that spell again, but they'll lose their upkeep spell.

Essentially, maintaining their reserve pool for spells is pretty important, so paying upkeep meaningfully reduces how many other spells they can use; they're encouraged (but not required) to cast an upkeep spell and focus on that.

[Harshax]

I've been so very sick (not rona) since Saturday and I thought I posted this already.

It seems like summons can be categorized into various types of 'barriers'

* Can cause damage if passing through it. (clutching skeletal hands that rise up from the ground, blade-barrier)
* Can cause damage to adjacent opponents. (a wall of flesh wielding polearms)
* Can be moved as a reaction. (a murder of crows that can deflect hits)
* Can be moved as a bonus action. (horn of valhala)
* Can be moved as a standard action. (a summoned golem that has melee and breath weapon options)

Then there are summons that provide AOE effects while active. Like screaming ghosts or a chorus of angels that cause bane/bless effects.

When I think about spells (no books in front of me), ones that automatically do damage do d4 or d6 per caster level such as magic missile (no save) or fireball (reflex for half, reaction can reduce this further)

So maybe there's room here to suggest that summons should have a set number of hit points per caster level. The Hit Point math is still baffling to me. Immobile Summons would have 9 HP/L. Reactive Summons 5HP/L. Bonus Summons 6 HP/L. Standard 7HP/L. In other words, the more effort a summoner has to take to control their minions, the more powerful that minion.

Summons can be hacked/magicked to death with attacks. Summons with resistances would be higher level spells or have less hit points.
Summons would do d4 - d12 damage/L divided by 4, and this scales with there hit point total.

Then just tweak the values and skin them to be summon wolves or skeletons or gibbering mouthers or whatever.

Make all summons concentration spells. I think that pretty much sums up a solution that solves all of my complaints.

Example:

An Iron Horn of Valhalla summons 5d4+5 20' swarm of berserkers. The swarm has 63 Hit Points (7 x 9). At the end of the caster's turn, any creature adjacent to the swarm would take 2d12+6 damage. The swarm can be commanded to move as a Standard Action.

EDIT: My math almost matches up with a Beserker's Stats RAW

[JonSetanta]

Don't forget one-shot summons like FF style. Big AOE for one turn, with or without debuffs.

[Thaluikhain]

Hmmm...as a sorta cop out, could you have summons work as a buff? Possibly with their own HP so fighters can sword the buff away which makes them different from other buffs.

[merxa]

generally 5e treats summons in two different ways, either it is part of your class kit and usually takes your bonus action to interact with, or you are using a spell or similar to summon critters and those roll initiative and act independently with the caster getting various levels of control, and these spells require concentration instead of consuming a bonus action. Overall 5e did fix summon action economy over say 3e where someone could, if they wanted, summon and bind an army's worth of critters, or just expend a few spell slots for a dozen creatures that could stick around for the adventuring day.

It is incumbent upon the player using summons to efficiently run their turn and their summons (unless the GM takes over those directly), and if its truly slow, best thing to do is bring it up and ask if the player and/or the GM can help speed up their turn resolution. Depending on the player, letting other players help run summons can also speed up play because summons in 5e will generally move and do their attack routine, some things have extra abilities, but overall doing their attack routine is better. If you end up summoning lots of low level critters because you upcasted some summon or used the option that brings more adds at lower CR, then individually rolling them all can take too much time, and tables should probably roll these large groups of summons in clumps, ie instead of rolling dex saves for all the summons, just roll once for the group.

I would like to see some rules for 5e on final fantasy style mega summons, IE you summon some high CR monster that sits on the field for 1,2, maybe even 3 rounds. Because of how flat 5e is, PCs putting down a monster above their CR for a couple rounds isn't all that unbalancing.

[Omegonthesane]

Don't forget one-shot summons like FF style. Big AOE for one turn, with or without debuffs.

I'm not sure FF is a good example - the "summons" there are not game mechanically summons in the D&D sense for the most part. Sure the flavour is that an otherworldly being shows up and performs a previously agreed upon service, but the effect isn't really contingent on that flavour in the same way that "add a new participant to combat" would be.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

What's the difference between summoning a human with a sword and shield via magick versus giving him like... 100 gold?

[Omegonthesane]

What's the difference between summoning a human with a sword and shield via magick versus giving him like... 100 gold?

There are two important distinctions.

One, the spell gives a reason why your summon remains loyal unto death and follows your commands even when it loses all its hit points doing so; whereas a human who you hired for 100 gold might either flee when faced with the reality of mortal combat; prioritise their safety over good tactics for the "real" party members and disobey you on that basis; decide you've had your 100 gold's worth at an inconvenient moment; or just take the money and run at the first opportunity.

Two, the summoning spell means you didn't have to feed and clothe your extra person or explicitly inform any potential spies that you had a potential extra blob of action economy with you. It's the difference between having a bodyguard at your side VS having a Pokéball with a Machamp at your belt.

[JonSetanta]

Hmmm...as a sorta cop out, could you have summons work as a buff? Possibly with their own HP so fighters can sword the buff away which makes them different from other buffs.

On turns the summon isn't used to attack they could stay close for shielding.

[JonSetanta]

Don't forget one-shot summons like FF style. Big AOE for one turn, with or without debuffs.

I'm not sure FF is a good example - the "summons" there are not game mechanically summons in the D&D sense for the most part. Sure the flavour is that an otherworldly being shows up and performs a previously agreed upon service, but the effect isn't really contingent on that flavour in the same way that "add a new participant to combat" would be.

Sorry for the double post, but I meant "as an option" rather than default.
Like, a summon spell or contract or pact could do everything mentioned in this thread, or one big attack or effect for one turn.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

What's the difference between summoning a human with a sword and shield via magick versus giving him like... 100 gold?

There are two important distinctions.

One, the spell gives a reason why your summon remains loyal unto death and follows your commands even when it loses all its hit points doing so; whereas a human who you hired for 100 gold might either flee when faced with the reality of mortal combat; prioritise their safety over good tactics for the "real" party members and disobey you on that basis; decide you've had your 100 gold's worth at an inconvenient moment; or just take the money and run at the first opportunity.

Two, the summoning spell means you didn't have to feed and clothe your extra person or explicitly inform any potential spies that you had a potential extra blob of action economy with you. It's the difference between having a bodyguard at your side VS having a Pokéball with a Machamp at your belt.

To me, that sounds like one just has a maxed out/infinite Morale score or something, PLUS you have to waste an action to actually bring your Machamp out. Once they're both on the field, are they handled differently?

[merxa]

one compels creatures with magic and the other doesn't?

I think 5e could handle a FF style summoner very easily -- let the class form pacts with entities and summon them 1/long rest for 2 or 3 rounds, could even take the summoner off the table during the summon. Ballpark-wise, probably target allowing the summoner to bring in a CR creature thats double or maybe 1.5x level.

[Harshax]

What's the difference between summoning a human with a sword and shield via magick versus giving him like... 100 gold?

What?

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

One would assume that a system capable of letting players control NPCs would make a distinction between mundane mercenaries you buy at an inn versus summoning demons from the hell versus conjuring 50 sentient flying daggers.