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

[hong]

No, that is your problem hong.

My problem hong is well hong indeed.

Its clear that we play the game for very different reasons.
You play it so that other people turn to you and tell you how great you are, and how kick ass your character is.

Please to work on your ranting skills. I mean, Bendy Noulg does this better than you.

I play it to spend time with my friends, chill out, and kill crap for fun and exp. Spotlight time is never a consideration when I build a character.

Sure, sure. You want to kill crap for fun, but you also don't care that you can't kill crap for fun.

Infact I always pick my character last so that I can look at the party and pick a class to give the party good balance.

Whatever you say, RIFTS boy.

I DO remeber the time I rolled a natural 20 to save vs aging 500 years.I DO remeber the time I manaed to go 5 rounds flanked by two drow rogues while on singe fugure HP and not get hit, even if all I did was survive.

But, as we have already established, you also play RIFTS. And thus you are a long, long way from being representative of normal people.

Oh Take the monk I built

What, you mean the one that demonstrated the full extent of your cluelessness of the situation?

(If you wont allow the shield take out the shield give him a ring of force shield and a tome of dex +% and his AC is unchanged). Apart from the fact a fighter with maxed out STR and starting STR of 18 cant hit him except on a natural 20 where as the monk will hit a maxed out fighter on a 10. Yeah monks suck in combat

Why do you persist in using a metric that has no relevance to the issue except for yourself?

The fighter will also have trouble against the stunning first dc of 28

Finally, some hint of comprehension. It took some time, but you got there!

Sure the monk might take twice as many hits, but if the enemy cant hit you that is no a problem.

Did you somehow fail to notice:

Horrid wilting. 'nuff said.

Power word stun. 'nuff said.

Power word kill. 'nuff said.

As for all those 9th level spells you boasted about.

Have you ever actually read the PHB?

How exactly is the monk doing any worse than the fighter apart from having spell resistance and better saves ?

Because you are defining a monk's niche solely in terms of survivability (regardless of the irrelevance of excess survivability to most people except yourself), and thus demonstrating that such survivability still has its limits goes much further to demonstrating the limits of its niche, compared to limiting the niche of the fighter.

And dont say he has less HP,

You're funny!

because Ill ask you how you propose to hit a guy with ac 60, SR, High saves, evasion and immunity to all spells below 8th level.

What "immunity to spells below 8th level"? And why should I care how unhittable this guy is, if he also can't hit anything worth a damn?

His touch Ac is so high even with true strike most casters cant hit him.

Did I mention any spells that involve touch AC? Try again, RIFTS boy.

Monks are the most defensive melee class, and barbarians the most offensive. If you happen to think that the fact all classess dont do the same damage is broken so be it.

You have confused "the monk is outclassed by the barbarian in offensive terms" with "the monk needs to be fully competitive with the barbarian in offensive terms". Clearly more severe application of the cluebat is needed.

And please dont spout that stuff about kung-fu movies. When in those movies do you ever see bruce lee kick the ass of someone in full plate and shield with a magical flaming sword who can fly, or kick the ass of a colossal frost worm.

The ability to kick butt is relative to other participants in the game. D&D departs from wuxia and martial arts movies by making the opponents generally large monsters and/or characters in armour. However, if D&D is going to do this, then the right thing to do, assuming one wants a martial artist-type in the game, is to design the class so that it retains that core theme to it, of being able to hold its own in combat. If this cannot be done, then the class should be dropped, because doing otherwise simply means people are misled as to their intended role in the party. Regardless of what the opposition is, martial artists are generally portrayed as combatants who take on a primary fighting role, and that is what people who play monks will want to do.

If anything the movies suggest you can kick the ass of lightly armoured,humanoid, unarmed mooks in a variety of interesting ways, while the enemy somehow fail to hit you for a full 45 minutes.

Everyone, with some exceptions, can kick the ass of lightly armoured mooks. Mooks are irrelevant to the role the class.

At other times the hero is being sneaky in a ninja type way. And LO.. isnt that what the monk does ?

Ninja == rogue.

 

[hong]

It really sounds like the thing that would fix the monk, in a lot of peoples opinion here, would be to simply change the monks BAB from medium to good.

This would allow him an attack routine of something like +20/+20/+20/+15/+10 (possibly an extra +5 at the end as well).

At this point the monk has a much better attack routine than the other fighter types, does equivalent damage, has a better ac, better saves, better speed, better defensive capabilities, and a cooler haircut.

but if that is what you all want then go for it, it definately seems like that will push the monk way over the top to me. Whatever floats your boat though I suppose.

If you're going to increase BAB, you would also remove some of the special abilities. There have been plenty of alt.monks/martial artists floated since 3E's release (eg Beyond Monks, Quint. Monk). All of them take this route.

 

[CPXB]

It really sounds like the thing that would fix the monk, in a lot of peoples opinion here, would be to simply change the monks BAB from medium to good.

This would allow him an attack routine of something like +20/+20/+20/+15/+10 (possibly an extra +5 at the end as well).

At this point the monk has a much better attack routine than the other fighter types, does equivalent damage, has a better ac, better saves, better speed, better defensive capabilities, and a cooler haircut.

but if that is what you all want then go for it, it definately seems like that will push the monk way over the top to me. Whatever floats your boat though I suppose.

I'm already aware of this and have told my DM. I think our fix for our fix is going to be to scale back the damage a monk does at higher levels. I mean, right now, its not a big deal -- at 7th level pretty much anyone can do 1d8 in damage. But, yeah, eventually a monk does 2d10 damage and that's KRAY-Z and the fists are magic, lawful and adamantine.

I'm thinking that the multiple stat dependency of monks might make up for it. In any event, every so often (at my DM's request) I'm going to update Pally the Paladin so my DM can do a comparison and she'd told me the moment Pally is obviously less useful than Adamantine Moneybags she's gonna cut some of the stuff she's generously given me. Which is, I think, fair.

Also, I don't think we're proposing that our fixes are for everyone's game -- just that they're for OUR game.

 

[CPXB]

If you're going to increase BAB, you would also remove some of the special abilities. There have been plenty of alt.monks/martial artists floated since 3E's release (eg Beyond Monks, Quint. Monk). All of them take this route.

I'm not entirely sure that's a good idea. I have been distinctly unimpressed by the variant martial artist core classes -- stuff like, well, yours and Midnight's defender (or whatever they call it) and what I remember from Quint. Monk. It takes a lot in class abilities to get an unarmed fighter, in D&D, to roughly the same point an armed fighter is. So the upshot of those alternate classes is, IMO, to once again create inferior fighters to the figher types (altho' the disparity might not be as great).

 

[hong]

I'm not entirely sure that's a good idea. I have been distinctly unimpressed by the variant martial artist core classes -- stuff like, well, yours and Midnight's defender (or whatever they call it) and what I remember from Quint. Monk. It takes a lot in class abilities to get an unarmed fighter, in D&D, to roughly the same point an armed fighter is. So the upshot of those alternate classes is, IMO, to once again create inferior fighters to the figher types (altho' the disparity might not be as great).

Well, eventually you're going to run into the brick wall that is D&D's combat system. Attack and damage bonuses relate to Str, and defense doesn't scale with level: these are things that naturally mitigate against a light/no-armoured, high-Dex fighter, regardless of class. Similarly, the fact that a lot of damage potential is derived from weapon enchantments makes life hard if you want to design a viable unarmed combatant.

What you can do is shift the balance point from where it is for the monk (highly defense-oriented) to something a bit more conducive to the role of the class, and players' tastes. And besides, if you take it too far, you end up treading on the toes of the fighter. Whatever other considerations may exist, the fighter's role should still be as the name suggests: the primary fighting class in the game. Unless you intend to rejig the system completely and/or remove the fighter class, there's a limit to what can be done.

 

[CPXB]

Well, eventually you're going to run into the brick wall that is D&D's combat system. Attack and damage bonuses relate to Str, and defense doesn't scale with level: these are things that naturally mitigate against a light/no-armoured, high-Dex fighter, regardless of class. Similarly, the fact that a lot of damage potential is derived from weapon enchantments makes life hard if you want to design a viable unarmed combatant.

What you can do is shift the balance point from where it is for the monk (highly defense-oriented) to something a bit more conducive to the role of the class, and players' tastes. And besides, if you take it too far, you end up treading on the toes of the fighter. Whatever other considerations may exist, the fighter's role should still be as the name suggests: the primary fighting class in the game. Unless you intend to rejig the system completely and/or remove the fighter class, there's a limit to what can be done.

It just seems to me that all the monk variant classes are very shy about giving enough class features to actually make going unarmed worth it offensively or defensively. Probably to avoid people going, "Wow! Those class features are way better than a fighters!" Yeah.

I had this discussion with my GM. After our tweaks, my monk had more bonus feats than a fighter of the same level would have. I shrugged and said, "And a fighter would be wearing full plate armor, be carrying a large shield and a magic sword -- for which he would have specialization." I said I would be more than happy to stat out a sixth level fighter for purposes of comparison, but since I had already shown her Pally the Paladin she conceded that, even with more feats, my monk was an inferior fighter to a sixth level fighter.

I think, when people are redesigning the monk, they just aren't letting the numbers speak for themselves. They look at the list of class features it would take to make a monk as good as a paladin (not a fighter, but a paladin) and since it seemed so . . . well, large, they shied away from doing it. Thus sorta perpetrating the problem.

I mean, I *seriously* looked at your character class. My DM would have had precisely zero problem with me remaking Rashad as a martial artist from your page, or a Midnight defender, but I looked at what was actually being offered and went, "Huh, sort of a lateral move."

 

[Majere]

"What "immunity to spells below 8th level"? And why should I care how unhittable this guy is, if he also can't hit anything worth a damn?"

Glad you actually read my post hong. The monk has a green and lavender Iuan Stone, which absorbes all spells of 8th or lower level.

No I dont care if "I" kill crap, as long as the party kills crap Im happy. I help that along in the way best suited to whatever Im playing, be that by healing people or (In the case of my rogue) just by detecting and disarming traps. My rogue is beyond useless in combat, but has a nifty +68 on hiding and +32 on search so he makes a decent scout.
I cant remeber any game where "disabling the trap" was as cool as doing 150 damage on a crit, but it still needs doing.

"Because you are defining a monk's niche solely in terms of survivability"
That is the monks niche, first man in last man out.
LOOK AT THE CLASS.
It is clearly far more defensive than any other melee class so how can you possibly argue it should be as offensive as well. That is clearly unbalanced, you appear to define the "balance" of a class purely by the damage is can deal, if something deals less damage then something else.. must be unbalanced !?

As as I demonstrated the monk can have an almost identical attack routine to the fighter, so he is just as likely to hit as the fighter. There are also feats for such fun shindigs as vorpal fists. Just because the monk I put down didnt bother upping his str doesnt mean I couldnt have increased his damage. However lowering the Ac of the monk is a poor option due to low HP. although, again. There are ways to take from ac and give to hp and I put in the post. If you read my post I suggested ideas that would drop the monks ac to the mid 50's (still 10 points more than the fighter and the fighter can only hit on a 20), while raising the hp to over 200.
Maybe you didnt bother to read that ?

"What "immunity to spells below 8th level"? And why should I care how unhittable this guy is, if he also can't hit anything worth a damn?"
Actually he has the same to hit bonuses and DRbypass as any fighter.
He does less damage yes, but he still does a respectable amount. Infact if the creature has a few energy resistances then the monk does about 2/3 to 3/4 of the fighters damage on each hit. And that is a monk who is deliberately with a very low Str.
An enlarged half-orc monk with a higher starting Str stat could well be doing damage almost as good as a fighters while enjoying far better speed and defences.

"Did I mention any spells that involve touch AC? Try again, RIFTS boy."
One word
Harm
Your fighter just lost 75hp
The clerice cant touch the monk except on a natural 20.
Not to mention the monk is a far superior fighter against undead or anything with touch attacks. Ray of enfeeblement will make a mess of your fighter, but will only hit me on a natural 20. The list does go on

"Why do you persist in using a metric that has no relevance to the issue except for yourself?"
Its entirely relevent if you are going to compare classess that I compare classes. Just because you dont have a good counter to my example doesnt make it irrelevent.

" However, if D&D is going to do this, then the right thing to do, assuming one wants a martial artist-type in the game, is to design the class so that it retains that core theme to it, of being able to hold its own in combat. If this cannot be done, then the class should be dropped, because doing otherwise simply means people are misled as to their intended role in the party."
Here you probably have a point.
But in fantasy books mages are all powerful, wishes can do anything and so on. You never see a character shout "I wish my friends were alive again.. oh wait thats in a prohibited class for me so I can only replicate 5th level spells not 7th, erm wait a second.. I erm wish they had made their saves.. oh no I cant do that either".
D&D moved away from steriotypes quite a while ago. So Im not sure how tightly you can use them to back up any argument.

Majere

 

[Epametheus]

Don't the Ioun Stones work like a Rod of Absorption -- i.e., you need to use a Readied Action to actually absorb spells? Okay, yeah, they do.

A cleric buffed with Divine Favor and Divine Might is more than capable of getting around the monk's touch AC, as is a wizard with Quickened True Strike spells prepped.

The trick to Meteor Swarm is to just target the 4 spheres on 1 person; the targets takes 24d6, no save. The 24d6 area damage is just a bonus.

If your goal is to be a nuisance support character that the enemy completely ignores, you could probably do just as well as a bard.

 

[jgsugden]

For those complaining that monks do not hit enough, rememeber to consider that they gain 2 melee advantages in exchange for their reduced AB: Increased attacks (with the best BAB bonus) and increased base damage.

Actual 20th level monk (hasted):

Natural attacks: +30/+30/+30/+30/+25/+20 (2d10+10 - average 21) plus 1 stun attempt per round.
AC: 39

Actual 20th level sword and shield fighter (hasted) with full specilization and flaming +5 longsword:

Longsword attack: +37/+37/+32/+27/+22 (d8+d6fire+18 - average 26).
AC: 36

Using optimal power attack versus an AC of 25 (ignoring critcals for the moment to keep things simple):
Monk PAs for 6 - 133.65 damage (plus stun & quivering)
Fighter PAs for 8 - 136 damage.

When you factor in critical hits, the edge for the fighter increases (assuming a 17-20 crit range for fighter and 19-20 crit range for the monk), but the monk is only slightly behind the highly specialized fighter. If the AC of the enemy increases dramatically, the monk falls farther behind. OTOH, if the AC drops, the monk gets farther ahead.

The monk can be plenty effective. I've seen it many times. Beyond the numbers above, you have to figure in that the damage from the monk comes in smaller baskets in more attacks, so that when he drops a foe, he has less overblow (lost damage) and can make greater use out of a feat like great cleave in games with medium hit die foes in high level games.

I have REPEATEDLY seen monks shine in combat. Having seen it, I can (with 100% accuracy) say that it can be done under the core rules. Anyone that says that it can not happen can not speak with such authority - failing to see something does not prove that it does not exist. It just says that you have not seen it.

To summarize the entire thread:

1.) Monks can be as effective as the other melee classes. Many people have yet to see it, but many people have seen it. If people have seen it, it must be possible. If it is impossible in your game, that is a result of the way your game is run.

2.) High level spellcasters tend to be more powerful than other classes because DMs tend to make it easy for them to rest and replenish their power reserves, allowing them to run at full power at all times. If they had to ration out their power over time, those spellcasters would end up being less powerful.

3.) People hate Hong and Hong hates people.

 

[Majere]

Don't the Ioun Stones work like a Rod of Absorption -- i.e., you need to use a Readied Action to actually absorb spells? Okay, yeah, they do.

A cleric buffed with Divine Favor and Divine Might is more than capable of getting around the monk's touch AC, as is a wizard with Quickened True Strike spells prepped.

The trick to Meteor Swarm is to just target the 4 spheres on 1 person; the targets takes 24d6, no save. The 24d6 area damage is just a bonus.

If your goal is to be a nuisance support character that the enemy completely ignores, you could probably do just as well as a bard.

No you Dont
": This rod acts as a magnet, drawing spells or spell-like abilities into itself. The magic absorbed must be a single-target spell or a ray directed at either the character possessing the rod or her gear. The rod then nullifies the spell’s effect and stores its potential until the wielder releases this energy in the form of spells of her own. She can instantly detect a spell’s level as the rod absorbs that spell’s energy. Absorption requires no action on the part of the user if the rod is in hand at the time."

In particular read the last sentence

The touch Ac of the monk I posted is 56. A trues striking mage May have an attack bonus of 36. So he hits on a 20.The cleric with divine power has a fighters BAB,+6 for the favour. or +26. Even with an outragoues Str of 30 (For a cleric), the cleric is again hitting on a 20.
I would not call hitting on a 20, more than able to hit.

Meteor Swarm:
"If you aim a sphere at a specific creature, you may make a ranged touch attack to strike the target with the meteor. Any creature struck by one of these spheres takes 2d6 points of bludgeoning damage (no save) and receives no saving throw against the sphere’s fire damage (see below)"

We have been here, no chance you will hit the monk but on a natural 20
And it is 8d6 not 24d6 even if you use all 4. When you miss you will have a 55% chance to break spell resistance and given a starting Int of 18 maxed out to 33 with school focus the save will be Reflex 32.
Ie the monk only fails on a 1
The monk is by far the best able to deal with meteor swarm, Id be dumping those meteors on the fihters who have crappy touch acs, and who you can reasonably expect to hit 4 times for 32d6 nosave.

Majere
(From SRD)