Issues with Summon Monster/Summon Nature's Ally (2004 Thread)

[Will]

The best defence is a good offense? Do you see how tautological you are being? No _wonder_ you think certain classes are just 'better.'

And, right midstream, you use a barbarian's damage with a two handed weapon (if I read that right). Should he be using a shield or not??

Nevermind, I should have stuck with my first instinct. Ciao and good gaming.

 

[CPXB]

The best defence is a good offense? Do you see how tautological you are being? No _wonder_ you think certain classes are just 'better.'

And, right midstream, you use a barbarian's damage with a two handed weapon (if I read that right). Should he be using a shield or not??

Nevermind, I should have stuck with my first instinct. Ciao and good gaming.

If its good enough for Patton, its good enough for me. And it isn't a tautology, it's a <I>contradiction</i> at worst. Though I don't even think that is the case. But, discard it. I concede my post was not particularly well designed.

However, barbarians have plenty of defense -- damage reduction, uncanny dodge, tons of hit points, and ACs on par with monks, sheild or not. I'd say that matches fairly nicely with a monk's improves saves and evasion. And two-handed weapon or not -- so instead of doing 1d12+9 he does a mere 1d8+6 and is *still* doing more than twice as much damage as the monk at the same AC. Either way, advantage: barbarian by a mile.

I mean, if it came down to a fight, I'd much rather have the barbarian dishin' out tons of damage compared to some monk doing 1d8 points of damage. Even if the monk was getting hit 10% less of the time.

He should be using a shield as appropriate to the situation. The CHOICE to use a shield is part of the class, as is the choice to use a one handed or two handed weapon. Options monks don't have.

 

[CPXB]

Not to mention, Will, you're bringing up the fighter type with the lowest AC of the lot.

 

[Will]

CPXB, I didn't start comparing barbarians and monks.

 

[CPXB]

CPXB, I didn't start comparing barbarians and monks.

Neither did I! The only class to which I explicitly compared the monk was paladin, pages and pages ago at this point.

However, while you did not bring up the barbarian, you entered into the discussion about it and I think it is fair to say that you didn't mention all the elements that make up a barbarian's defense. Nor a monk's. You started your comparison strictly on the grounds of AC -- and I think its fair to say if you're going to maximize for AC (neither of your examples included people buying magic weapons, which we all know is what people prefer to buy with their gold, hehe) it is fair to give the barbarian a shield.

My post before last was muddied and incoherent -- my concentration was divided -- but I just don't think its fair to say that a monk's defenses are actually better than barbarians. Either taken strictly from the POV of AC or including other defensive abilities. The monk has better saves, evasion and still mind but the barbarian has many more hit points, uncanny dodge and damage reduction.

 

[jgsugden]

Dudes.

Look. It's Easter here in the US. A day for celebration of the most important monk in history (robes, no weapons, performs a few things that seem impossible, got around, etc ...)

At least you can put off the monk bashing until tomorrow ...

 

[Majere]

Ooo Oo can I play ? (I only have SRD bear with me)

32 point monk buy, level 12:
Halfling "Lucky the unkillable"

Point Buy: Str: 12 Dex: 16 Con:14 Wis:16 Int: 10 Cha:10
Level 12 : Str: 10 Dex: 21 Con:14 Wis:16 Int: 10 Cha:10

Wealth: (88k)
Wand of mage armor (750)
Wand or barkskin (4500)
Belt, Monks (13k)
Boots of speed (12k)
Glove of Dex +4 (16k)
Periapt of wisdom +4 (16k)
cloak of resistance +5(25k)

==Stats: Str: 10 Dex: 25 Con:14 Wis:20 Int:10 cha:40
==Ac: 10+ 4(mage armor)+2(barkskin)+7(Dex) +3(monk) +5(wis)+1(small)+1(haste from boots)+1(dodge feat) = 34 (32 touch,26 flatfooted)

Note to the above you can easily add luck and deflection, I chose to buy wands of spells so I wasnt a drain on the casters but to the above you can add a ring of deflection instead of the wands for another 1 ac.
Also not when fighting defensively the monk has enough ranks to add another 4 ac to the above. Or full defensive you can add 6, great for blocking off a wall or corridor while the spell slingers throw attacks beyond you.

== Saves: Fort: +17 Ref: +22 Will:+20

Wow .. those look respectable dont they
Plus you have:
Improved eavsion
Immune to non magical diseases
Immune to poison
Deflect Arrows

And next level you get SR..
Wow looks like your pretty magic resistant too

==HP 12d8+24 -78

Respectable, you havent boosted con at all so really not too bad. An amulet of heath might be a nice trade in if you prefer 24hp to 2ac Also balances your saves out some as you have still mind for will saves

==Attacks
+17/+17/+17/+12
2d6+0
Stunning fist DC- 21
Pretty bad but this guy was built to survive. Not do cool damage

==Feats
Iron Will,Great fortitude,Lightning reflexes
Weapon finesse, Weapon focus (Unarmed attack)

This isnt everyones cup of tea.. but hey he does a job
He is a damn good tank.
Other buys for higher levels
- Animated shield -YET MORE AC !
- Deflection Ring -AND MORE !
- Luckstone - AND MORE !!

Im sure there are other builds out there if you take the time to look

Majere

 

[Diirk]

32 point monk buy, level 12:
Halfling "Lucky the unkillable"

Point Buy: Str: 12 Dex: 16 Con:14 Wis:16 Int: 10 Cha:10
Level 12 : Str: 10 Dex: 21 Con:14 Wis:16 Int: 10 Cha:10

This doesn't add up.. you don't get 5 stat boosts between 1 and 12. Lvl 12 he'd have 19 dex, not 21. And his str would be 12, not 10...

It looks like you added racial modifiers after your point buy figures, but that would make it +4 (str), +10 (dex), +6 (con), +10 (wis), +2 (int), +2 (cha) = 34.. Whereas if you assume the point buy figures have racial mods included already it adds up to 32.

Regardless, try...
druid, level 12
Gnome

Point Buy: 10 str, 10 dex, 16 con, 13 int, 17 wis, 10 cha (including racial mods)
After Level ups: 10 str, 10 dex, 16 con, 13 int, 20 wis, 10 cha

Wild +1 Wooden Fullplate (16k) (cast ironwood once a week or so)
Animated +2 Darkwood Large Shield (16k)

AC: Shambling mound form - 10 (base) -1 (size) +11 (natural) + 9 (armour) +4 (shield) +5 (barkskin) (+1 from boots of speed if your DM thinks shambling mounds could use them)... 38/39.

Plus the potential to use combat expertise which the monk can't access. The touch ac is terrible, and the saves aren't anywhere near the monks, but the damage is decent. Alternatively Dire Bear form for 3 less ac (-4 nat armour, +1 dex) and a lot more damage output. Thats 2 items.

Plus this guy gets 6th level spells, and 7th level ones next level.

 

[Epametheus]

Diirk -- that's more of a reflection of druids being incredibly powerful than it is a reflection of monks being gimps.

Lucky the Unkillable does have a rather important flaw as a tank, though -- he's completely dismissible as a threat.

Tanks that aren't worth the enemy's attention aren't good tanks.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

If you don't mind my asking, Majere, what's your native language? You have one of the weirder writing styles I've seen.

Oh, and:

Pretty bad but this guy was built to survive. Not do cool damage

Which is funny, because the very first post in this thread was from a player who was unhappy that, while his character was really survivable, he couldn't hit or do much damage and consequently wasn't having any fun playing that character in a fight. And then we had pages and pages of really terminally dull analyses of the relative damage-dealing capabilities and "combat oomph" of the monk vs. the various melee classes.

And now that the stat-tweakers have moved on and are trying to put together impressive-looking monk characters on a point buy system, here comes the very thing advertised at the beginning of the thread, a monk whose main contribution in a fight is likely to be that he won't be hit, fail a saving throw, or be much of a threat to any of the bad guys.

He looks like a lovely supporting character, able to slightly enhance the performance of the characters whose actions can make a serious contribution to the party's success, and whose minimal intelligence and charisma mean that he will be as consistently outperformed out-of-combat as he is on the battlefield. Very cool, but I think that particular monk-archetype horse has already been bludgeoned to death in this thread.

So, uh...I guess this must be some more of that famous relevance you were bragging about earlier.

--
or maybe we should just file it under "obvious, repeatedly stating the"