-2
\$\begingroup\$

My question is here: What DnD 5e build (with minimum number of combined levels over all classes) is needed to summon all summonable monsters?

I do not believe my question needs any changes.


The question is totally answerable if you consider the question as given and not try to make say something it doesn't like what class do want, do you want use all summoning spells, summon all monster.

Here is a possible solution using DnD Core only.
Given Summoning is kind of vaguely defined in D&D 5e- I just considered it as creating any monster in the monster manual
Druid 20 Cleric 9

Giving you Conjure Animals which allows 1/4,1/2,1,2 Challenge Rating beasts.
Conjure Celestial using 9th level spell slot which allows 5th CR Celestial
Conjure Elemental
Conjure Fey
Create Undead which using a 9th level allows ghouls, ghasts, wrights, mummies.
Animate Dead which gives skeletons and zombies.


Can my question be reopened?

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm not quite sure what you're asking here. Are you wanting help in how to get it reopened or are you pleading a case for it's fine as-is? \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch May 5 at 13:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ I want it reopened. I don't think my answer is perfect. \$\endgroup\$ – user2617804 May 5 at 13:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ I added that into your question here, but please edit or roll back if you don't agree. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch May 5 at 14:02
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ While it's great that you've at least partially taken the advice given in comments (in taking it to meta), you're still insistent that the question is answerable in its current form (when we're telling you it's not) and demanding that it be reopened instead of asking what can be done to improve the question to get it reopened. As you seem unwilling to make the necessary changes, or if you believe they change your question into something it's not, may I suggest taking the question to a forum instead. Here's a curated list of recommended forums. \$\endgroup\$ – Purple Monkey May 5 at 23:47
10
\$\begingroup\$

Experienced site users--importantly, ones with the privilege to cast close- and reopen-votes--think this question isn't currently in a good stat for the Stack. And I'm not sure I see anything here that's really designed to sway their opinions.

I think the question you're posing might find its best reception if viewed through the frame of a "theoretical character optimization" problem. And we've got some guidance on how to do those well.

I suggest taking a look there, taking a look at some of the highly-voted charop questions on the main site, then taking a look at your own question.


Alternatively...

you could kill your darling and start fresh.

Right now this meta post reads like "this is my question, even if it's a round peg and you're a square hole, how can we bang it in?"

It may be easier and more satisfying to take a moment and reset everything: edit this post to say

I want to see how a 5e character can summon the most things. How do I ask that question on mainsite to get good answers? (I think blah-blah does a lot, but here's why I think someone's going to do better, and I'm hoping to discover some amazing cheese that one of you comes up with.)

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Let us now sing Amazing cheese, how sweet the breeze in three part harmony \$\endgroup\$ – KorvinStarmast May 6 at 12:41
5
\$\begingroup\$

Unclear questions can be reopened once the unclear parts are clarified.

Your question has been asked twice (here and here), and both times been closed because it "needs details or clarity". The community feedback has been mostly unanimous in saying that the question is unclear. There are enough users here who don't understand your question, such that it had to be closed.

It can only be reopened once you clarify whatever issues are unclear to the site users. Those users are the ones who are expected to write answers. If you don't clarify the confusing parts, then it would remain unclear.

Usually it's expected that querents edit their own question so it can be reopened. Alternatively, you can instead leave clarifications in comments (or here in this meta question) and other site users can edit the question for you. And once it's edited to be clearer, then it can be reopened.

Based on what you've said so far, here is an example of what your question could be:

I want to build a character with every spell that summons creatures, without using Wish or magic items.

  • This includes all conjuration spells that summon creatures, and all necromancy spells that make undead creatures.

  • They don't need to summon everything simultaneously, so if a wizard had these spells in their spellbook, then it would qualify.

  • Every summoned creature needs to have a stat block, so this does not include spells like Faithful Hound.

  • No Unearthed Arcana.

What character (class levels, background, etc) do I need to do this? I want to achieve this with the fewest total levels, with multiclassing if necessary.

Is that similar to what you are asking? If not, please clarify what you are trying to ask.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ That seems good. Is there any problem with leaving it open for magic items or unearthed arcana to be included in some answers or does it need a totally separate set of questions? \$\endgroup\$ – user2617804 May 6 at 0:54
  • \$\begingroup\$ @user2617804 Not sure. If it's one question, you could include some optional criteria like "no magic items preferred" so you could get either type of answer. Allowing UA would mean accounting for more summoning spells. Allowing magic items would mean more flexibility, so the build won't need as many levels. But why ask for separate cases? How does that help you? \$\endgroup\$ – MikeQ May 6 at 17:35
4
\$\begingroup\$

You need to Edit the question to address the concerns

The question(s) have a great number of comments which are asking for clarifications which are necessary for the question to be clearly enough understood to be answerable. You need to edit the question so make it answerable. Specifically, we need to understand what it is to be answered.

Starting from your own meta question, taking some unaddressed comments, etc.:

  • From your meta question's suggested answer: "Summoning is kind of vaguely defined in D&D 5e". This means you need to more clearly indicate what you mean and what you are trying to accomplish. Set bounds and you may want to use examples. (Conjure animals summons beasts, create undead is considered summoning undead, faithful hound is not because it isn't a stat block from MM, etc.)

  • From a comment: "By "Summ[on]ing School" do you mean the School of Conjuration?" This may not be vital to the question, but it muddies the position you are coming from. As a reader I might think there's homebrew muddled in, or something else that isn't clear to me. That makes it harder to know what an answer is supposed to look like.

  • From the main site question: "has to choose between demons and animals at level 4." What does this refer to? It is unfamiliar to me (and I'm sure other readers) so naming the class feature in question can be a great help in clarifying what you are saying.

| |
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ By "Summ[on]ing School" do you mean the School of Conjuration?" This may not be vital to the question, but it muddies the position you are coming from. As a reader I might think there's homebrew muddled in, or something else that isn't clear to me. That makes it harder to know what an answer is supposed to look like. "has to choose between demons and animals at level 4." What does this refer to? It is unfamiliar to me (and I'm sure other readers) so naming the class feature in question can be a great help in clarifying what you are saying.- I didn't include that the first edit \$\endgroup\$ – user2617804 May 5 at 14:43
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @user2617804 What are you trying to say in that comment? (those points are taken from a comment and from your mainsite question) \$\endgroup\$ – Someone_Evil May 5 at 14:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ I only found summoning was kind of vague in DnD 5e after considerable research. No moderator said summoning is a vague concept. They asked if I wanted any creature that had a stat block in the monster manual and I replied definitely yes. So problem fixed but still the question was stuck in limbo once before. The only comments were about changing the intent of the question. \$\endgroup\$ – user2617804 May 5 at 14:52
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @user2617804 Please be aware moderators are the users with diamonds next to their name - the rest of us are just users like you. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch May 5 at 14:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ @user2617804 If it's not important to include your questions on what WIzard subclasses can summon, then I'd recommend removing it from your question - that was the point of that comment I believe. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch May 5 at 14:57
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @user2617804 I didn't see the question originally, and sometimes things don't show up as ambiguous until you have other clarifications and/or examples. The original comments seem to me to be trying to understand the question and clarify its intent, with many of the same points being brought up as with your new posting. \$\endgroup\$ – Someone_Evil May 5 at 14:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .