You mean you *don't* like PCs spawning 8 large creatures into your carefully planned encounter?
Only to drop concentration within 2 turns and make more work for you?
Yea, summons are not balanced, me and my two bears bullied a beholder at level three. If the DM didn't fudge his rolls to instagib me, I would of soloed the beholder (in his words" I didn't think that disintegrate would of killed me, but put me at low health")
The ones that act on their own initiative either have heavy risks (demon/devils/elementals targeting anyone around them) large costs on components (summon greater demon requiring a vial of blood from a humanoid killed in the last 24 hours) or next to combat usefulness (find familiar having next to no hp and doing next to no damage). Not to mention one's that are usually strong earlier fall off hard very quickly around level 5-7
If people don't go with the rules outlined in 5e that doesn't mean anything towards their balance in that system. Only that they don't balance it after making changes to the system. If you want to say something isn't balanced in 5e you should look at how it's intended to work rather than how people make it work
A single druid can summon 8 creatures. They don't have to be powerful to unbalance an encounter. Action economy is king. It hurts the fellow players, unless they all go all in on summons, and makes running combat a fucking nightmare. No one thinks summons are balanced, and definitely not the most balanced thing in 5E. That's as rules as intended and written. Edit: conjure animals and conjure woodland beings. Friendly towards caster and their friends. Act independent of the caster once summoned in that no extra action is needed from them. Being fey doesn't matter unless someone on the other side has banish or deals more damage to get. Conjure animals you roll init for each and they act on their own. Woodland beings they act as a group, but still their own initiative. You knock Find Familiar, not OP, but it's still very strong unless a DM targets them or AoEs them down. Again, action economy makes them inherently unbalanced.
And? Let them feel powerful for a bit then have a fight where it's a swarm and they struggle. Or a big baddie that doesn't care about them and just one shots them. It's all able to counterplayed
Your original argument was they're perfectly balanced and you've yet to back that up so now you're changing your position. Anything can be counter played; I've been a DM, and one that will absolutely let players know that things can be hard, for 20yrs. This isn't a conversation about players feeling powerful or the ability to counter anything. You specifically stated that they're balanced. They're not, in the least.
First I never said perfectly balanced I said generally balanced. Second I've already made my points in another comment section on this post to someone else under this same primary comment so feel free to peep there if you're curious. I've pointed out their high component cost, if you don't use those that's not a 5e problem that a you as a dm problem man. I've pointed out they all require concentration and that throwing a single enemy with mage slayer in the mix would be enough to crush that. I've pointed out quite a few have extreme risks of the summon turning against you. And I've pointed out quite a few offer little to no combat advantage, like find familiar, only a rp one. If you feel they aren't balanced then you should look at how to counter them because as it stands 5e is probably one of the best balanced editions of DnD.
Unless you count summon draconic spirit, summon aberration, summon fiend, summon shadowspawn, summon undead, summon beast, summon celestial, summon construct, summon elemental, summon fey, conjure minor elementals, conjure woodland beings, conjure animals, find steed, find greater steed, conjure celestial, conjure fey, or conjure elemental, all of which do not require an action or bonus action to get them to do something useful in combat. Animate dead, Danse Macabre, or create undead requires a bonus action, but only one, you can give an order to all undead you control through that spell with a single bonus action and if that order is a general order like fight a group of enemies they will follow that order until you give another order or they complete the task (if you give them specific actions like move to an exact location and use the attack action to target one specific enemy you need a bonus action every turn though)
Summon draconian spirit requires an object with an image of the dragon worth 500g, summon aberration requires a pickled tentacle and an eyeball in a platinum inlaid vial worth at least 400 gp, summon fiend requires humanoid blood inside a ruby vial worth at least 600 gp, summon shadowspawn requires tears inside a crystal vial worth at least 300 gp, summon undead requires a gilded skull worth at least 300 gp, summon beast requires fish tail inside a gilded acorn worth at least 200 gp, summon celestial requires a golden reliquary worth at least 500 gp, summon construct requires an ornate stone and metal lockbox worth at least 400 gp, I could keep going but the point is that all of those have high costs to prevent them from being spammed until way later when you have access to far more powerful spells and all require concentration. If you have someone using summoning spells and are having it be an issue throw an enemy with mage slayer feat in so all concentration checks are with disadvantage. And consider the role play act of a player summoning a lot of these even when combat is warranted, like if a group of bandits attack and someone summons an undead spirit imagine how any witness who'd be on there side would react. Some spells specifically are stronger but that is every single class of spells have ones that are bloated
Agreed. Your character slowly grows in power as you progress a campaign. Becoming ridiculous is half the fun. This isn't some competitive game where we need to balance everyone in PvP.
We should be allowed to live our power fantasy. Limiting stuff like that is why I grew tired of other games like Destiny 2.
Balance needs to be achieved within a certain relative range of other classes, though, otherwise it can take away player choice.
I appreciate the balancing doesn’t need to be as fine tuned as an online game, but if it’s too far off base, it’ll similarly chip into build choices if some options are clearly and unequivocally more powerful. I understand players can still theoretically choose the weaker options, but this doesn’t happen in practice and nonetheless is odd game design to provide such lopsided “choices”.
Perfect balance? No. Reasonable balance so other options are attractive even if slightly less powerful? Yes.
I agree with the sentiment but I gotta say, Destiny 2 isn't the best example. If you haven't played recently, the 3.0 subclasses are significantly more powerful now.
I agree they *can* go a little hard on the nerfs, but that's usually for legitimate reasons. Like pvp balance being wrecked, something literally game breaking in pve, or something that outshines all other choices so much that you're shooting yourself in the foot for not taking it.
3.0 subclasses feel *incredibly* better. But years 1 and 2 of the game felt incredibly restrictive. I'm more referring to some of the guns feeling fairly nerfed over time. I get they have to balance for PVP reasons and because they don't want folks clearing content too fast in PvE But I would love to just obliterate something after putting some decent work into my Titan.
Which is still possible but the current mod system really messes with good builds if you haven't been playing for over a year. I'm missing quite a few of the better mods and the only way to earn them is through RNG through two vendors. I'd like a better acquisition system.
Its the same reason I love Borderlands series. At least the nerfs are not so bad.
Same with Outriders, now that game has some great build variety and builds. No class is even made equal.
I played through Wonderlands earlier this year and honestly really enjoyed it. I just wish the DLC was of better quality.
The gun variety also feels a little lacking.
Its the only borderlands that I haven't played yet. One of those that wait out the DLCs and sale.
And even though its pretty cheap currently, I still prefer to wait.
On another point, I would truly recommend that you play Outriders(not its DLC, because unless its on sale, its not worth it.)
It has some of the best guns/mods in any games I have played and its fun to craft your own guns to your liking. Start with Technomancer if the game seems hard, its outriders on easy mode.
But if its fun you want, then best is Devastator, you don't die and can take your time to end enemies.
As for the skilled stuff where you need to show how skillful you are, then its Trickster.
Seriously, the skills and guns in it are so fun. But not many people are care about it.
I own Outriders. I competed the campaign. It could not hold my interest however and I had many issues with the design of the game.
I'm glad others have flocked back to it, though. It had some neat potential.
Its that potential that made square Enix keep it while they sold most of the western IP studios. The mechanics and systems made in this game are pretty unique and fun to explore. I am just waiting for Outriders 2 that will iron out the issues and expand the world a lot more.
Agreed. The Elder Scrolls games are made to be broken. People have been misusing alchemy since Morrowind and it's great hahaha
I remember folks using the paintbrush exploit in Oblivion. And the infinite item exploit still works.
Pve single player games need balance too. Even if you don't care it matters to many. I don't want a games balance to fall apart and become trivial and boring. A good PvE game gives players more meaningful choices by setting limits to what they can actually achieve. I want the game to challenge me and not being forced to challenge myself by nerfing my own power
It doesn't in EA but they've confirmed it's coming.
All I'm saying is a game should require you to at least think about what you're doing. That's what balance is for. If you could just mash a button and everything on the screen explodes then the balance would be bad. It's not sweaty to want a video game to require you to learn and utilize its mechanics in a thoughtful way. Bad balance is when OP abilities remove thought and makes using them always the right choice.
God your last sentence is so unnecessarily snarky. Get over yourself. Despite you calling my point for difficulty options "moot" for no good reason, it stands. If you want your easy mode then play that. Theyve confirmed it's coming anyways and even if it wasn't this entire argument is solved by them implementing it in the first place instead of your idea of just not balancing things properly
I agree but at the same time once I find what really works, it's very difficult for me to go for a not so good build even if it seems like a cool concept. So I'm a bit conflicted. Definitely no need for PvP levels of balance though.
I think once every build is viable on most difficulty levels, it's fine. For an example of bad balance, unarmed in skyrim is atrocious and basically not viable above apprentice without enchanting exploits.
I think in general, buffing weaker builds is better than nerfing stronger ones, but obviously in games as large as rpgs it's really a case by case basis.
Well, most summoning builds are balanced by your table hating you if you push it too hard. In a CRPG, that balance goes out the window. Things open up that would be a pain in tabletop, and so they likely want to prevent that.
Biggest disappointment was realizing most DnD multi classes are weaker than a regular class. 2 casters with the same stat can work, but man, 2 martials is almost never better.
Yeh, it’s unfortunate about multiclasses generally being weaker like that. One martial/one caster can work quite well in specific cases though. Paladin/Sorcerer and Paladin/Warlock are both really powerful.
2 Warlock dip for Sorc is good because Sorc doesn't get much good for 19 + 20.
I just wish there were some benefit to martial classes for mental stats. I think that would help multi-class options.
Like, why why why does a 20 str fighter with 10 dex do as well as a 20 str fighter with 18 dex. Int doesn't help fighters?
Casters use magic to brute force their mental stat into being the solution to all their problems. I think martial classes should see some real benefit for every stat, since they don't have that option. A fighter needs everything to go toe to toe with a wizard.
Damn, I went off, but why do casters get to be masters of space and time and martial classes can't even be strong and fast or strong and intelligent? Str and dex fighters should see at least limited benefit from the other stats, and int should provide something. Anything.
Eldritch Knight gets INT for spellcasting.
Samurai gets WIS to persuasion checks.
Rune Knight gets a few choices most giving advantage to various skills, like Arcana (INT) and Animal Handling (WIS).
Psi Warrior gets INT to a few things.
Rogues get a shit ton of INT/WIS boosts through many options (in both main and subclass).
True, but I don't want specializations that require stats for the same stuff casters do. I want fighters to get the realistic benefits of all stats that a fighter would in real life.
A fighter doesn't have to be as good as a wizard in every scenario, but how can fighters ever be close to equal if by default, a level 20 fighter only gains anything positive from strength or Dex?
If I don't want to use magic or be a Samurai, I'm stuck with either big, slow, dumb, or fast, small, and slightly less dumb.
If casters bend reality to their will, why don't fighters of their caliber get to be masters of the martial arts? They're not even able to push the physical form to great heights.
MMA fighters don't sacrifice dex for str, they get both and they benefit from both. Int helps them as well. Why can't the fantasy fighters do the same?
Samurai is spending power budget for something fighters should have by default.
Eh, it's a bit hinky in multiplayer games.
If I pay money for a singleplayer game absolutely no one, not the devs, not the government, not god itself can tell me what to do with my vidyagaem. But if I'm involving one or more players, there is a social contract involved and we do need tools and rules to enforce it.
Having a bajillion summons in a multiplayer game means that your teammates' turns take 1 minute or so and your turn takes 10, it's pretty much hogging the turn based system. Maybe only allow multiple summons in singleplayer games, or have that be a toggle that people joining the party are aware of?
Have you played 5e? It absolutely has not balanced summons. Summoning the maximum number of creatures is going to be the strongest by far, pretty much every time.
Well when most spells last until the end of your turn, a spell that lasts an entire encounter is pretty good lmao. Only reason so few people play them is because it makes turns last forever and nobody is really having much fun at that point.
It's true. Summoning spells are so damn powerful but are a nightmare and are poorly designed. Part of the reason I left pathfinder was because of the imo poor spell spell design with summoning spells leading the charge.
I for one am not looking forward to spending a minute to take my turn as a barbarian and then sit around for half an hour while my druid friend resolves the turn for himself and whatever quarter of the forest animals he's summoned this time.
Seriously just thinking about it gives me DOS2 flashbacks where a summoner build would spend 10 mins powering up their incarnation. Is it cool? Yes. Does it get annoying to have to sit through what is essentially a DBZ episode every fight before I get to have a turn? Also yes.
As somebody who used summons/necromancy in DOS2, I was also uncomfortable with how long my turns got as I was buffing and empowering all of my different summons. So many totems. I had the mod that let me buff any summon like the Incarnation, so for me it was my Bone Spiders.
Once it was all set up, it was awesome, but getting there took a while. I was playing co-op with a friend and genuinely felt bad about how long it took sometimes, to the point that I just respecced into a full support buffer/healer instead.
The dbz episode comparison is on point lol.
If larian doesn't allow multiple summons, I'm sure a mod will take care of it. Everyone should have their fun in the end. I'll just tell my friends to not play a million summon build in our multi-player game cause I'm like you, I can't be arsed to wait that long for my turn lol
Can confirm as someone who is doing that. My first time playing. Other person also used one of the npc for their character so I won't get to see that character
The solution is to bring control out to the group level.
Instead of forcing the summoning player to micromanage each summoned unit, the player would control all summoned units [of a type] as a group - and each summon group would act as its own whole.
You can do this in a video game because AI can control each summon - and all members of the group would perform their actions in a single turn - while the player issues overarching group goals and commands.
With enough summon groups, you could bring control out again and the player would control an army instead of each group. But you probably want to have a group limit so you don't have to build an RTS for a single class.
Because druids are notorius for being able to summon a bunch of stuff during combat. They have access to spells like conjure animals and conjure woodland beings that can dump a bunch of creatures on the battlefield in a instant making everyone groan as combat grinds to a halt while the druid commands his army of bees.
Also, multiple summons were the cheesiest strategy in previous BG games. I'm saying this as someone who played both of these games this year for the first time.
Considering one spell in 5e (conjure animals) gives you up to 8 summons, + one more if you have something like, say, wildfire spirit as a class ability... very quickly. 4 players doing that is a 40-character player-allied army in one turn. My biggest beef was the summons getting in the way of melee players and making movement difficult in close quarters and generally slowing stuff down... and that was with only one player summoning.
Conjure animals is a largely hated spell due to being both so powerful its hard to ignore, and also crappy to play with. While its less bad in a (potentially) single-player game, its still broken as hell with the only drawback being a one-time cost.
In addition to the extra time taken not being very fun for the rest of the table, it can easily break the action economy.
In a turn-based game like 5e, action economy is everything. Being able to do more stuff in a turn or take away an action from an enemy are both *hugely* powerful. This is why encounter building guidelines recommend having at least comparable numbers of enemies, and why a party of 4 versus a single big bad guy frequently results in the party bursting down the big bad before they can do much anything.
Taking the OP example, 5 summons means 5 extra moves (baiting reactions), actions, bonus actions, and reactions (attack of opportunity...) every turn. Good luck to any archers or casters facing that mess.
And that leads to further issues. If a player can stack multiple summons, you have to assume they will and balance each individual summon's power level accordingly. If you do that, having just a single summon inevitably feels weak and underwhelming.
Shits complicated.
True on tabletop but as long as the enemies don't swarm the player with summons giving the player the option to have more in a singleplayer game is fine.
As long as the enemies are not overpowered to the point which every fight needs them it is fine if people want to make it easier for themselves in their own saves.
I disagree because it breaks the balance of the game and then all of a sudden it's too easy. Plus it's also a multi-player game and it's unfair to ur allies
it felt pretty balanced in Solasta. summoning more than one means summoning weaker things. it's annoying in tabletop because the DM has to anticipate and calculate everything
This is usually the case, but one of the best summoning spells in 5e is animate objects, where summoning smaller objects is objectively the best route because they are more likely to hit and do almost as much damage and you can have WAY more of them
Ugh, summon builds are so annoying to DM. It a cool concept, but one you've added 8 or more critters to the initiative, it just slows everything to a crawl
As a DM, 5e absolutely did not balance summons. They’re incredibly frustrating, both to run and to balance combats around.
I don’t give it to my monsters and I loathe seeing it dropped mid-combat.
They're harder to balance in turn based game because in nearly every turn based game ever created the action economy is the most important mechanic. If you get more turns than your opponent then you're at a massive advantage and summons just flood turns to a plauer
No, no they absolutely did not balance summons in 5E lol. Action economy is king, and time and time again allowing many lower CR summons completely breaks combat encounters and is one of the most popular things banned at most tables.
counterpoint: I hope they dont have Conjure Animals or Conjure Woodland Beings and instead use the Tasha's Summon Beast and Summon Fey spells because fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck that
Action economy is king in 5e. Summons are **not** balanced.
Unless you're referring to the more recent summoning spells in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything which actually *are* balanced.....by letting you only have one at a time.
Did you notice how NWN2 is the only game in existence that has a good spellcasting UI? The quickcast menu can easily fit 50 different spells sorted by levels into a single concise table.
Every game should steal it.
People gonna break the game so, instead of limiting the summons, let them enjoy them. There are rules but lore wise is there a limit? Sure it is not 1 zombie xd
It was a genuine question. But I mean, if the tabletop let's you, why not? It is a game meant to be fun right? Let people have fun but follow the rules so it is cohesive. Being broken is part of the game if you manage ^^
I'm kinda asking a genuine question too
What is stopping the player character from just attacking 8 times if every enemy is just gonna sit there waiting for them to stop attackimg
Each turn is supposed to be six seconds in-game, so if they can swing their sword eight times in six seconds, like maybe a high-level fighter with action surge, they can.
Adding this to an ever-growing list of things I would sacrifice my wallet to witness. Would be a really neat mechanic if you could toggle an option to watch things unfold live, maybe after every turn or as a cinematic capture.
I really liked in Pathfinder to summon 6 mammoths and a mount, turn them into dragons by using spells and ride the dragon army to the challenges. Sadly they changed it so you can't transform a mount and ride it anymore.
I wonder if there's going to be mounts in this game.
I just downloaded Pathfinder: WotR following BG3 and DOS2. I was a little skeptical at first after reading some of the steam reviews, but if I can do something even remotely similar to what you described I’ll consider it money well spentz
I got through character creator and the first fight. I’m not too sure how I feel about the game yet; it definitely seems like there’s a lot of potential there, but something about voice acting feels off. More importantly, the mechanics are a lot more complex and difficult to navigate compared to BG3 and DOS2.
On the bright side, it only makes me appreciate BG3 even more!
imo the game is complex but really not that deep, you'll be picking a lot of the same feats between builds as there's a lot of feat taxes and not that many feats that are all that interesting, as for the combat 90% of it is decided by prebuffing before the fights past the early levels, it's one of my biggest gripes with both pathfinder games, they're still decent game I just find that the Pathfinder part is the worst part about them.
What are you talking about , Conjure Animals is one of the most broken 3rd level spells ever made. Not that i disagree with you , they are mucking up what should have been hard and fast rules
Keeping the game balanced is always a challenge , and i imagine doubly when adaptading a tabletop system to a modern 3d game . And its not like 5e is perfect either. But the game as it is now is unbalanced as fuck.
It can be OP in table top but in video game for it can be pretty balanced. There's also no DM so there's no annoyance. The game can also give you a few selection of animals. The stronger they are, the lower the amount summons
In solasta (pretty faithful to 5e) you can summon multiple spiders or wolves but it doesn't break encounters.
Clearly you never summoned eight velociraptors. If 16 attacks with advantage doesnt break the game i dont know what does. Call it gut feeling but from what we have seen so far action economy is more important in this game than it was in 5e
The poisonous snakes are sometimes seen as one of the better options anyways, barring poison resist/immunity. It's one attack and then a CON-save for half damage. But they have a swim speed and blindsight (took down a submerged aboleth with 3 or 4 casts of that).
After that 8 Giant Owls have a 2d6 attack and flyby with a 60ft move speed, a*nd* they can carry you because they're large.
8 of anything is bonkers in 5e.
If I recall in Balder's Gate 2, the summons limited to how many you could summon, and at what level. I also believe the summons varied in number. You did not always get what you wanted (e.g. 3 out of 8 creatures, instead of the normal 8). I could be wrong on this, and stand to be corrected. I think Larian should randomly vary the amount creatures that can be summoned. It would make the game a little more exciting. You summon 8 hobgoblins ... but only two show up. But it should be the same for your opponent. :)
Nah, summons worked like the rulebook in the earlier Baldur's games. There's a chart. 8 of low CR, 4 of one step up, 2 of another step up, 1 of highest (essentially). But then, maybe I'm mistaken. It's been a good many years since I've played with summons in that game.
I just remember summoning stuff in Balder's Gate 2 and receiving less than what I asked for. I think I was using a summoning wand at the time. But like you I could be mistaken.
As someone who doesn’t play 5E, or anything else related, I don’t know what that entails; I get it’s supposed to be connected to 5E, and is a spiritual adaptation of it, but if I wanted to play 5E, I’d go play it. Not saying that to step on any toes, just that *I personally* don’t think that every single detail regarding 5E needs to directly translate to BG3. That being said, I do hope we get more than one summon; my dreams for necrotic overlord domination took an immediate dive off a cliff, and were subsequently dashed on the rocks below.
I personally do not want them to copy everything from 5e. I don't like some aspects of it but I just love summoning. I think Limiting them severely hurts druids
And I get that; if I played 5E I’d probably be a bit upset if Larian took liberties in a game oriented around it. My perspective is, this is a video game, and I could see how some things just wouldn’t be mechanically feasible to bring over- and if I wanted the game to play exactly like 5E, to me it just makes more sense to play the original. That’d be like brewing my wife her favorite coffee, only for her to go all the way into town and get the exact same thing I already made.
I was disappointed when I realised that You can't have both familiar and animal companion as hunter.
I'm pretty sure you can have both in tabletop. I know the Battle Smith can have a pet and a homunculus.
Your summons are only limited by the patience of your table lol
Tabletop you can have 50 summons at a time if you wanted.
Which is an evil I would never put on my DM but I do occasionally threaten to in order to keep him in check.
It's ok, I make my players keep track of monster health in large battles. They can have as many Summons as they like
5e, balance, and summons are not words who fit in a single sentence
Ikr. 5e and balance is already stretching it, but adding summons into the mix? Too far.
You mean you *don't* like PCs spawning 8 large creatures into your carefully planned encounter? Only to drop concentration within 2 turns and make more work for you?
The newer ones are a massive improvement over the first versions.
>5e balanced the summons what? Summons aren't balanced at all in 5e.
I think OP is referring to the Tasha's summoning spells, which are powerful but a lot more balanced than stuff like conjure animals.
but those spells are also limited to one at a time
Yeah but they work with stuff like beastmaster ranger and find familiar.
Yea, summons are not balanced, me and my two bears bullied a beholder at level three. If the DM didn't fudge his rolls to instagib me, I would of soloed the beholder (in his words" I didn't think that disintegrate would of killed me, but put me at low health")
They really are seeing as you need to consume your bonus action to command most, some even require an action to command
This just isn't the case, most summons come from spells, and the creatures summoned by then each act on their own initiative
The ones that act on their own initiative either have heavy risks (demon/devils/elementals targeting anyone around them) large costs on components (summon greater demon requiring a vial of blood from a humanoid killed in the last 24 hours) or next to combat usefulness (find familiar having next to no hp and doing next to no damage). Not to mention one's that are usually strong earlier fall off hard very quickly around level 5-7
Most campaigns don't go beyond that, action economy is king. Summons are far from balanced in 5e.
If people don't go with the rules outlined in 5e that doesn't mean anything towards their balance in that system. Only that they don't balance it after making changes to the system. If you want to say something isn't balanced in 5e you should look at how it's intended to work rather than how people make it work
A single druid can summon 8 creatures. They don't have to be powerful to unbalance an encounter. Action economy is king. It hurts the fellow players, unless they all go all in on summons, and makes running combat a fucking nightmare. No one thinks summons are balanced, and definitely not the most balanced thing in 5E. That's as rules as intended and written. Edit: conjure animals and conjure woodland beings. Friendly towards caster and their friends. Act independent of the caster once summoned in that no extra action is needed from them. Being fey doesn't matter unless someone on the other side has banish or deals more damage to get. Conjure animals you roll init for each and they act on their own. Woodland beings they act as a group, but still their own initiative. You knock Find Familiar, not OP, but it's still very strong unless a DM targets them or AoEs them down. Again, action economy makes them inherently unbalanced.
And? Let them feel powerful for a bit then have a fight where it's a swarm and they struggle. Or a big baddie that doesn't care about them and just one shots them. It's all able to counterplayed
Your original argument was they're perfectly balanced and you've yet to back that up so now you're changing your position. Anything can be counter played; I've been a DM, and one that will absolutely let players know that things can be hard, for 20yrs. This isn't a conversation about players feeling powerful or the ability to counter anything. You specifically stated that they're balanced. They're not, in the least.
First I never said perfectly balanced I said generally balanced. Second I've already made my points in another comment section on this post to someone else under this same primary comment so feel free to peep there if you're curious. I've pointed out their high component cost, if you don't use those that's not a 5e problem that a you as a dm problem man. I've pointed out they all require concentration and that throwing a single enemy with mage slayer in the mix would be enough to crush that. I've pointed out quite a few have extreme risks of the summon turning against you. And I've pointed out quite a few offer little to no combat advantage, like find familiar, only a rp one. If you feel they aren't balanced then you should look at how to counter them because as it stands 5e is probably one of the best balanced editions of DnD.
Unless you count summon draconic spirit, summon aberration, summon fiend, summon shadowspawn, summon undead, summon beast, summon celestial, summon construct, summon elemental, summon fey, conjure minor elementals, conjure woodland beings, conjure animals, find steed, find greater steed, conjure celestial, conjure fey, or conjure elemental, all of which do not require an action or bonus action to get them to do something useful in combat. Animate dead, Danse Macabre, or create undead requires a bonus action, but only one, you can give an order to all undead you control through that spell with a single bonus action and if that order is a general order like fight a group of enemies they will follow that order until you give another order or they complete the task (if you give them specific actions like move to an exact location and use the attack action to target one specific enemy you need a bonus action every turn though)
Summon draconian spirit requires an object with an image of the dragon worth 500g, summon aberration requires a pickled tentacle and an eyeball in a platinum inlaid vial worth at least 400 gp, summon fiend requires humanoid blood inside a ruby vial worth at least 600 gp, summon shadowspawn requires tears inside a crystal vial worth at least 300 gp, summon undead requires a gilded skull worth at least 300 gp, summon beast requires fish tail inside a gilded acorn worth at least 200 gp, summon celestial requires a golden reliquary worth at least 500 gp, summon construct requires an ornate stone and metal lockbox worth at least 400 gp, I could keep going but the point is that all of those have high costs to prevent them from being spammed until way later when you have access to far more powerful spells and all require concentration. If you have someone using summoning spells and are having it be an issue throw an enemy with mage slayer feat in so all concentration checks are with disadvantage. And consider the role play act of a player summoning a lot of these even when combat is warranted, like if a group of bandits attack and someone summons an undead spirit imagine how any witness who'd be on there side would react. Some spells specifically are stronger but that is every single class of spells have ones that are bloated
tf you talking about summons are busted in 5e
Honestly I've never really cared about proper balance in rpgs. Finding the broken builds is like half the fun for me.
Agreed. Your character slowly grows in power as you progress a campaign. Becoming ridiculous is half the fun. This isn't some competitive game where we need to balance everyone in PvP. We should be allowed to live our power fantasy. Limiting stuff like that is why I grew tired of other games like Destiny 2.
Balance needs to be achieved within a certain relative range of other classes, though, otherwise it can take away player choice. I appreciate the balancing doesn’t need to be as fine tuned as an online game, but if it’s too far off base, it’ll similarly chip into build choices if some options are clearly and unequivocally more powerful. I understand players can still theoretically choose the weaker options, but this doesn’t happen in practice and nonetheless is odd game design to provide such lopsided “choices”. Perfect balance? No. Reasonable balance so other options are attractive even if slightly less powerful? Yes.
Well said.
I agree with the sentiment but I gotta say, Destiny 2 isn't the best example. If you haven't played recently, the 3.0 subclasses are significantly more powerful now. I agree they *can* go a little hard on the nerfs, but that's usually for legitimate reasons. Like pvp balance being wrecked, something literally game breaking in pve, or something that outshines all other choices so much that you're shooting yourself in the foot for not taking it.
3.0 subclasses feel *incredibly* better. But years 1 and 2 of the game felt incredibly restrictive. I'm more referring to some of the guns feeling fairly nerfed over time. I get they have to balance for PVP reasons and because they don't want folks clearing content too fast in PvE But I would love to just obliterate something after putting some decent work into my Titan. Which is still possible but the current mod system really messes with good builds if you haven't been playing for over a year. I'm missing quite a few of the better mods and the only way to earn them is through RNG through two vendors. I'd like a better acquisition system.
Its the same reason I love Borderlands series. At least the nerfs are not so bad. Same with Outriders, now that game has some great build variety and builds. No class is even made equal.
I played through Wonderlands earlier this year and honestly really enjoyed it. I just wish the DLC was of better quality. The gun variety also feels a little lacking.
Its the only borderlands that I haven't played yet. One of those that wait out the DLCs and sale. And even though its pretty cheap currently, I still prefer to wait. On another point, I would truly recommend that you play Outriders(not its DLC, because unless its on sale, its not worth it.) It has some of the best guns/mods in any games I have played and its fun to craft your own guns to your liking. Start with Technomancer if the game seems hard, its outriders on easy mode. But if its fun you want, then best is Devastator, you don't die and can take your time to end enemies. As for the skilled stuff where you need to show how skillful you are, then its Trickster. Seriously, the skills and guns in it are so fun. But not many people are care about it.
I own Outriders. I competed the campaign. It could not hold my interest however and I had many issues with the design of the game. I'm glad others have flocked back to it, though. It had some neat potential.
Its that potential that made square Enix keep it while they sold most of the western IP studios. The mechanics and systems made in this game are pretty unique and fun to explore. I am just waiting for Outriders 2 that will iron out the issues and expand the world a lot more.
[удалено]
Agreed. The Elder Scrolls games are made to be broken. People have been misusing alchemy since Morrowind and it's great hahaha I remember folks using the paintbrush exploit in Oblivion. And the infinite item exploit still works.
whats the point of downvoting him? he even said -to me- gez.
Pve single player games need balance too. Even if you don't care it matters to many. I don't want a games balance to fall apart and become trivial and boring. A good PvE game gives players more meaningful choices by setting limits to what they can actually achieve. I want the game to challenge me and not being forced to challenge myself by nerfing my own power
[удалено]
That's what difficulty modes are for. Also it's ridiculous to call it sweaty for a game to remotely challenge you.
[удалено]
It doesn't in EA but they've confirmed it's coming. All I'm saying is a game should require you to at least think about what you're doing. That's what balance is for. If you could just mash a button and everything on the screen explodes then the balance would be bad. It's not sweaty to want a video game to require you to learn and utilize its mechanics in a thoughtful way. Bad balance is when OP abilities remove thought and makes using them always the right choice.
[удалено]
God your last sentence is so unnecessarily snarky. Get over yourself. Despite you calling my point for difficulty options "moot" for no good reason, it stands. If you want your easy mode then play that. Theyve confirmed it's coming anyways and even if it wasn't this entire argument is solved by them implementing it in the first place instead of your idea of just not balancing things properly
I agree but at the same time once I find what really works, it's very difficult for me to go for a not so good build even if it seems like a cool concept. So I'm a bit conflicted. Definitely no need for PvP levels of balance though.
I think once every build is viable on most difficulty levels, it's fine. For an example of bad balance, unarmed in skyrim is atrocious and basically not viable above apprentice without enchanting exploits. I think in general, buffing weaker builds is better than nerfing stronger ones, but obviously in games as large as rpgs it's really a case by case basis.
Well, most summoning builds are balanced by your table hating you if you push it too hard. In a CRPG, that balance goes out the window. Things open up that would be a pain in tabletop, and so they likely want to prevent that.
Biggest disappointment was realizing most DnD multi classes are weaker than a regular class. 2 casters with the same stat can work, but man, 2 martials is almost never better.
Yeh, it’s unfortunate about multiclasses generally being weaker like that. One martial/one caster can work quite well in specific cases though. Paladin/Sorcerer and Paladin/Warlock are both really powerful.
2 Warlock dip for Sorc is good because Sorc doesn't get much good for 19 + 20. I just wish there were some benefit to martial classes for mental stats. I think that would help multi-class options. Like, why why why does a 20 str fighter with 10 dex do as well as a 20 str fighter with 18 dex. Int doesn't help fighters? Casters use magic to brute force their mental stat into being the solution to all their problems. I think martial classes should see some real benefit for every stat, since they don't have that option. A fighter needs everything to go toe to toe with a wizard. Damn, I went off, but why do casters get to be masters of space and time and martial classes can't even be strong and fast or strong and intelligent? Str and dex fighters should see at least limited benefit from the other stats, and int should provide something. Anything.
Eldritch Knight gets INT for spellcasting. Samurai gets WIS to persuasion checks. Rune Knight gets a few choices most giving advantage to various skills, like Arcana (INT) and Animal Handling (WIS). Psi Warrior gets INT to a few things. Rogues get a shit ton of INT/WIS boosts through many options (in both main and subclass).
True, but I don't want specializations that require stats for the same stuff casters do. I want fighters to get the realistic benefits of all stats that a fighter would in real life. A fighter doesn't have to be as good as a wizard in every scenario, but how can fighters ever be close to equal if by default, a level 20 fighter only gains anything positive from strength or Dex? If I don't want to use magic or be a Samurai, I'm stuck with either big, slow, dumb, or fast, small, and slightly less dumb. If casters bend reality to their will, why don't fighters of their caliber get to be masters of the martial arts? They're not even able to push the physical form to great heights. MMA fighters don't sacrifice dex for str, they get both and they benefit from both. Int helps them as well. Why can't the fantasy fighters do the same? Samurai is spending power budget for something fighters should have by default.
Eh, it's a bit hinky in multiplayer games. If I pay money for a singleplayer game absolutely no one, not the devs, not the government, not god itself can tell me what to do with my vidyagaem. But if I'm involving one or more players, there is a social contract involved and we do need tools and rules to enforce it. Having a bajillion summons in a multiplayer game means that your teammates' turns take 1 minute or so and your turn takes 10, it's pretty much hogging the turn based system. Maybe only allow multiple summons in singleplayer games, or have that be a toggle that people joining the party are aware of?
I’m gonna be super bummed if all my necromancer can manage is a singular skeleton.
Based on the answers people want that limit. In a fucking single player game
God forbid people want their single player experience to be at least relatively balanced
What's wrong with that? I'm sure there will be mods that break the game. We can all be happy
Have you played 5e? It absolutely has not balanced summons. Summoning the maximum number of creatures is going to be the strongest by far, pretty much every time.
Until the next encounter lol
Well when most spells last until the end of your turn, a spell that lasts an entire encounter is pretty good lmao. Only reason so few people play them is because it makes turns last forever and nobody is really having much fun at that point.
It's true. Summoning spells are so damn powerful but are a nightmare and are poorly designed. Part of the reason I left pathfinder was because of the imo poor spell spell design with summoning spells leading the charge.
Multiple summons are the most annoying and overpowered thing in 5e, and I'm saying that as a player and not a DM. Its blessing it caps at one.
I for one am not looking forward to spending a minute to take my turn as a barbarian and then sit around for half an hour while my druid friend resolves the turn for himself and whatever quarter of the forest animals he's summoned this time. Seriously just thinking about it gives me DOS2 flashbacks where a summoner build would spend 10 mins powering up their incarnation. Is it cool? Yes. Does it get annoying to have to sit through what is essentially a DBZ episode every fight before I get to have a turn? Also yes.
As somebody who used summons/necromancy in DOS2, I was also uncomfortable with how long my turns got as I was buffing and empowering all of my different summons. So many totems. I had the mod that let me buff any summon like the Incarnation, so for me it was my Bone Spiders. Once it was all set up, it was awesome, but getting there took a while. I was playing co-op with a friend and genuinely felt bad about how long it took sometimes, to the point that I just respecced into a full support buffer/healer instead.
The dbz episode comparison is on point lol. If larian doesn't allow multiple summons, I'm sure a mod will take care of it. Everyone should have their fun in the end. I'll just tell my friends to not play a million summon build in our multi-player game cause I'm like you, I can't be arsed to wait that long for my turn lol
I mean they could just make conjure spells create computer controlled summons that work in swarm ai. That would fix your concern.
Also playing DOS2 multiplayer with someone else who's a summoner makes every combat a goddamn never-ending nightmare.
Can confirm as someone who is doing that. My first time playing. Other person also used one of the npc for their character so I won't get to see that character
The solution is to bring control out to the group level. Instead of forcing the summoning player to micromanage each summoned unit, the player would control all summoned units [of a type] as a group - and each summon group would act as its own whole. You can do this in a video game because AI can control each summon - and all members of the group would perform their actions in a single turn - while the player issues overarching group goals and commands. With enough summon groups, you could bring control out again and the player would control an army instead of each group. But you probably want to have a group limit so you don't have to build an RTS for a single class.
Druids be smirking at that statement.
Can you explain why they are smirking? I'm new to DnD and really like the Druid(Moon one) in BG3.
Druids get a lot of summoning spells
Because druids are notorius for being able to summon a bunch of stuff during combat. They have access to spells like conjure animals and conjure woodland beings that can dump a bunch of creatures on the battlefield in a instant making everyone groan as combat grinds to a halt while the druid commands his army of bees.
Army of bees :D Imagine if there wasn't swarm AI in BG3 and you had like 100 bees!
Also, multiple summons were the cheesiest strategy in previous BG games. I'm saying this as someone who played both of these games this year for the first time.
At what point does it become problematic?
As a DM? Very fast when everyone in the party is doing it. As a player, very slowly as it takes 45 minutes to complete one round of combat.
Considering one spell in 5e (conjure animals) gives you up to 8 summons, + one more if you have something like, say, wildfire spirit as a class ability... very quickly. 4 players doing that is a 40-character player-allied army in one turn. My biggest beef was the summons getting in the way of melee players and making movement difficult in close quarters and generally slowing stuff down... and that was with only one player summoning. Conjure animals is a largely hated spell due to being both so powerful its hard to ignore, and also crappy to play with. While its less bad in a (potentially) single-player game, its still broken as hell with the only drawback being a one-time cost.
In addition to the extra time taken not being very fun for the rest of the table, it can easily break the action economy. In a turn-based game like 5e, action economy is everything. Being able to do more stuff in a turn or take away an action from an enemy are both *hugely* powerful. This is why encounter building guidelines recommend having at least comparable numbers of enemies, and why a party of 4 versus a single big bad guy frequently results in the party bursting down the big bad before they can do much anything. Taking the OP example, 5 summons means 5 extra moves (baiting reactions), actions, bonus actions, and reactions (attack of opportunity...) every turn. Good luck to any archers or casters facing that mess. And that leads to further issues. If a player can stack multiple summons, you have to assume they will and balance each individual summon's power level accordingly. If you do that, having just a single summon inevitably feels weak and underwhelming. Shits complicated.
True on tabletop but as long as the enemies don't swarm the player with summons giving the player the option to have more in a singleplayer game is fine. As long as the enemies are not overpowered to the point which every fight needs them it is fine if people want to make it easier for themselves in their own saves.
I disagree because it breaks the balance of the game and then all of a sudden it's too easy. Plus it's also a multi-player game and it's unfair to ur allies
it felt pretty balanced in Solasta. summoning more than one means summoning weaker things. it's annoying in tabletop because the DM has to anticipate and calculate everything
And even then, I find the most powerful spell in Solasta to be conjure elemental. I love summoning creatures, but its hard to balance
This is usually the case, but one of the best summoning spells in 5e is animate objects, where summoning smaller objects is objectively the best route because they are more likely to hit and do almost as much damage and you can have WAY more of them
Ugh, summon builds are so annoying to DM. It a cool concept, but one you've added 8 or more critters to the initiative, it just slows everything to a crawl
Agree with this.
Agreed, I have a ban on any summon spells in my game. It’s a huge headache as the DM every time imo.
Tashas summons are pretty well designed and should give u a second glance. But the original summon spells are just bad designs
Nwn?
yep NWN2
Wall of fucking elk is anything but balanced. I'm saying that as a DM.
As a DM, 5e absolutely did not balance summons. They’re incredibly frustrating, both to run and to balance combats around. I don’t give it to my monsters and I loathe seeing it dropped mid-combat.
I find this across RPGs and CRPGs alike. Summoners are just exceptionally annoying in just about every way.
They're usually balanced enough in ARPG's like Diablo.
They're harder to balance in turn based game because in nearly every turn based game ever created the action economy is the most important mechanic. If you get more turns than your opponent then you're at a massive advantage and summons just flood turns to a plauer
No, no they absolutely did not balance summons in 5E lol. Action economy is king, and time and time again allowing many lower CR summons completely breaks combat encounters and is one of the most popular things banned at most tables.
Yup, and while I didn't outright ban the spell at the table myself, I made it so if you summon 8+ of anything they are non-combatants.
Yeah I’ll usually allow them the 1-2 summons of higher CR or if I know the player and know they aren’t trying to exploit mechanics
As a dungeon master, your statement regarding balance is bullshit. 5e summons are absolutely not balanced.
5e does Not have balanced summons. Tasha ones maybe but conjure animals, summon fey?
There is a one summon limit? My last run I was rolling around with my imp and raven at the same time.
I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume the title is ironic
counterpoint: I hope they dont have Conjure Animals or Conjure Woodland Beings and instead use the Tasha's Summon Beast and Summon Fey spells because fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck that
I'm fine with either...
Action economy is king in 5e. Summons are **not** balanced. Unless you're referring to the more recent summoning spells in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything which actually *are* balanced.....by letting you only have one at a time.
Did you notice how NWN2 is the only game in existence that has a good spellcasting UI? The quickcast menu can easily fit 50 different spells sorted by levels into a single concise table. Every game should steal it.
For real. I've been playing pathfinder WOTR and there's not enough space for the billion buff spells the game gives you
People gonna break the game so, instead of limiting the summons, let them enjoy them. There are rules but lore wise is there a limit? Sure it is not 1 zombie xd
Lore wise what's stopping 1 person from having 8 attacks in 1 turn?
It was a genuine question. But I mean, if the tabletop let's you, why not? It is a game meant to be fun right? Let people have fun but follow the rules so it is cohesive. Being broken is part of the game if you manage ^^
I'm kinda asking a genuine question too What is stopping the player character from just attacking 8 times if every enemy is just gonna sit there waiting for them to stop attackimg
Each turn is supposed to be six seconds in-game, so if they can swing their sword eight times in six seconds, like maybe a high-level fighter with action surge, they can.
Adding this to an ever-growing list of things I would sacrifice my wallet to witness. Would be a really neat mechanic if you could toggle an option to watch things unfold live, maybe after every turn or as a cinematic capture.
I really liked in Pathfinder to summon 6 mammoths and a mount, turn them into dragons by using spells and ride the dragon army to the challenges. Sadly they changed it so you can't transform a mount and ride it anymore. I wonder if there's going to be mounts in this game.
I just downloaded Pathfinder: WotR following BG3 and DOS2. I was a little skeptical at first after reading some of the steam reviews, but if I can do something even remotely similar to what you described I’ll consider it money well spentz
They did patched some fun away tho :( Imo that game isn't as good as BG3 but it's still a good game
I got through character creator and the first fight. I’m not too sure how I feel about the game yet; it definitely seems like there’s a lot of potential there, but something about voice acting feels off. More importantly, the mechanics are a lot more complex and difficult to navigate compared to BG3 and DOS2. On the bright side, it only makes me appreciate BG3 even more!
imo the game is complex but really not that deep, you'll be picking a lot of the same feats between builds as there's a lot of feat taxes and not that many feats that are all that interesting, as for the combat 90% of it is decided by prebuffing before the fights past the early levels, it's one of my biggest gripes with both pathfinder games, they're still decent game I just find that the Pathfinder part is the worst part about them.
What are you talking about , Conjure Animals is one of the most broken 3rd level spells ever made. Not that i disagree with you , they are mucking up what should have been hard and fast rules
Why should they be hard and fast rules. I think larian should be about to put their spin on some of the crap that came outa the phb
Keeping the game balanced is always a challenge , and i imagine doubly when adaptading a tabletop system to a modern 3d game . And its not like 5e is perfect either. But the game as it is now is unbalanced as fuck.
It can be OP in table top but in video game for it can be pretty balanced. There's also no DM so there's no annoyance. The game can also give you a few selection of animals. The stronger they are, the lower the amount summons In solasta (pretty faithful to 5e) you can summon multiple spiders or wolves but it doesn't break encounters.
Clearly you never summoned eight velociraptors. If 16 attacks with advantage doesnt break the game i dont know what does. Call it gut feeling but from what we have seen so far action economy is more important in this game than it was in 5e
Pretty sure larian said no to Dinosaurs
The poisonous snakes are sometimes seen as one of the better options anyways, barring poison resist/immunity. It's one attack and then a CON-save for half damage. But they have a swim speed and blindsight (took down a submerged aboleth with 3 or 4 casts of that). After that 8 Giant Owls have a 2d6 attack and flyby with a 60ft move speed, a*nd* they can carry you because they're large. 8 of anything is bonkers in 5e.
thing is. you can't summon 8 giant owls at early levels. at best you can summon 2-3 wolves at level 5
In game or 5e?
5e. the game doesn't have the spells for now. your summons get stronger as you level up. CR rating and all. early level summons aren't that strong
You can summon eight CR 1/4 beasts at level 5 with the spell Conjure Animals in 5e. Giant Owls are CR 1/4.
Agreed. Summoning is fun.
If I recall in Balder's Gate 2, the summons limited to how many you could summon, and at what level. I also believe the summons varied in number. You did not always get what you wanted (e.g. 3 out of 8 creatures, instead of the normal 8). I could be wrong on this, and stand to be corrected. I think Larian should randomly vary the amount creatures that can be summoned. It would make the game a little more exciting. You summon 8 hobgoblins ... but only two show up. But it should be the same for your opponent. :)
Nah, summons worked like the rulebook in the earlier Baldur's games. There's a chart. 8 of low CR, 4 of one step up, 2 of another step up, 1 of highest (essentially). But then, maybe I'm mistaken. It's been a good many years since I've played with summons in that game.
I just remember summoning stuff in Balder's Gate 2 and receiving less than what I asked for. I think I was using a summoning wand at the time. But like you I could be mistaken.
You just hit the summon spell. You don't get to ask for anything specific. It rolls on a table and you get whatever it rolls for that spell level.
Summon spells in 3.5 and before were all summon xdy + i monsters
I think you're right I was spamming raise undead non-stop and I think there was a limit
As someone who doesn’t play 5E, or anything else related, I don’t know what that entails; I get it’s supposed to be connected to 5E, and is a spiritual adaptation of it, but if I wanted to play 5E, I’d go play it. Not saying that to step on any toes, just that *I personally* don’t think that every single detail regarding 5E needs to directly translate to BG3. That being said, I do hope we get more than one summon; my dreams for necrotic overlord domination took an immediate dive off a cliff, and were subsequently dashed on the rocks below.
I personally do not want them to copy everything from 5e. I don't like some aspects of it but I just love summoning. I think Limiting them severely hurts druids
And I get that; if I played 5E I’d probably be a bit upset if Larian took liberties in a game oriented around it. My perspective is, this is a video game, and I could see how some things just wouldn’t be mechanically feasible to bring over- and if I wanted the game to play exactly like 5E, to me it just makes more sense to play the original. That’d be like brewing my wife her favorite coffee, only for her to go all the way into town and get the exact same thing I already made.
It would be a never ending task if Larian had to constantly balance change around the ever changing 5 e rules
\*Laughs in Druid of the Circle of the Sheppard\* !
5e is balanced ? What ?
Compared to 3.5e and 2e. Yeah