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

[Coredump]

From SRD under Lion.

Yes, I have read that about 20 times tonight already...

First: That is simply to clarify that you are not limited to just one attack, not even just the basic 3 attacks, but can full attack on a charge without let or hinderance. It is making it abundantly clear that a lion is just as good attacking on a charge as normal. Now, if you want to make the assumption that on a charge, when you usually get fewer hits than normal, a lion not only gets its normal amount of attacks, but actually gets *more* than normal. If you want to assume that it means a lion normally needs to be holding a target to perform a rake, but not if running real fast.... I suppose you can. It doesn't match any other rules, nor any semblence of reality. But whatever.

Second: It does not change anything I did, since I didn't include it anyway.

.

 

[Olive]

The DM is my fiancee and we live together. She came home about forty minutes ago and we've been chatting about this stuff and we are coming to the conclusion that all the melee fighters are sorta underpowered compared to mid to high level magic using characters.

This is simply not true. One of the great advances of 3e in general is to make fighters etc stand up at higher levels. In my game the paladin regualrly trounces the wizard in damage and hits AND the wizard is a regular summon monster user. The spell casters can do some great stuff, and people often underestimate the potential damage that a druid can do but melee characters are awesome in 3/3.5. As lots of others have pointed out, summon monster (and similar spells) are fun but can be shut down real quick...

But there are obviously some issues. Part of the problem is that the monk works well in conjunction with other melee characters, which is different from hong's 'reglating to a support role' IMHO. Monks are pretty flexible, and can do great things. When people describe the monk as a support character they don't mean second rate... they mean support like artilery, as in crucial and fight altering. Regardless, check out flying leap as a feat. I remember the monk PC in my campaign using that to devestating effect.

The other problem could be that the DM isn't tailoring encounters to the party. As was said above, monks are better at somethings than others, and if your DM is throwing you up against lots of single big creatures not lots of little ones, then the DM might need to consider making sure she is creating encounters that allow every character to shine. It's a game after all, and everyone should be having fun.

Hope that helps.

 

[Camarath]

First: That is simply to clarify that you are not limited to just one attack, not even just the basic 3 attacks, but can full attack on a charge without let or hinderance. It is making it abundantly clear that a lion is just as good attacking on a charge as normal. Now, if you want to make the assumption that on a charge, when you usually get fewer hits than normal, a lion not only gets its normal amount of attacks, but actually gets *more* than normal. If you want to assume that it means a lion normally needs to be holding a target to perform a rake, but not if running real fast.... I suppose you can. It doesn't match any other rules, nor any semblence of reality. But whatever.

From FAQ

How often can a tiger use its rake attack? Suppose it
hits with its first claw attack. It can then make two rake
attacks, right? Can it make two more rake attacks if it
gets a hold with its other claw? And can it then make two
more rake attacks if it gets a hold with its bite? Or can
rake attacks be used only in the first round?
A tiger, leopard, or lion must either pounce on or grapple a
foe (usually through its improved grab ability) before it can
rake.
If the animal pounces, it makes five melee attacks the same
round: claw/claw/bite/rake/rake. If it grabs, it must establish a
hold before it can rake. (Most big cats can use the improved
grab ability only with their bite attacks, not with their claws.
The tiger, which is bigger and nastier than most big cats, can
use either its bite or its claws. It is possible for a lion or
leopard to grab and hold prey with its claws as well, but it
must use the regular grappling rules to do so.) The animal can
rake twice if it establishes a hold, regardless of whether or
not it used improved grab to do so. If it begins its turn with
an opponent in its grasp, it can also rake twice. In any case,
the animal gets only two rake attacks per round, no matter
how many times it maintains or establishes a hold during that
round.

 

[Thanee]

The DM is my fiancee and we live together. She came home about forty minutes ago and we've been chatting about this stuff and we are coming to the conclusion that all the melee fighters are sorta underpowered compared to mid to high level magic using characters.

This is simply not true. ...

It was true in 3.0, most definitely, but in 3.5 - where spellcasters have been considerably weakened and warriors beefed up a little - this doesn't hold true anymore.

Especially in the earlier levels, warriors outshine casters by far. In the higher levels, I'm pretty sure, that they will have their place still.

The monk however, I've always seen as the weakest and least "useful" class. Sure everyone can add something, but the monk just doesn't add that much.

Anyways, as others have said, if the druid expends like half her daily spells in a combat, she ought to outshine everyone else. That's completely ok. Now if you only have 1-2 encounters a day, she'll obviously do so pretty often. If you, however, have 5+ you'll see the balance setting in soon.

And summoned critters might be nice now, but at higher levels their combat usefulness is hardly compareable to that of a warrior PC. Also there are easy (1st level spell!) ways to completely stop the summoned critters from doing anything at all.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Will]

I think the problem with monks are that people often take the class with expectations or desires that don't mesh with the class as it functions (thus my comments previously). This occurs with several classes... the simple fact is, if you want only a portion of what a class offers, your move in that direction is going to short-change the character's capabilities.

That's one huge reason I like UA's establishment of general guidelines/suggestions on modifying classes.

For example, maybe you want to be a fighter with sneak attack damage, but really don't want any other rogue attributes. Hey, swap bonus feats for sneak attack...

 

[Coredump]

From FAQ

I stand corrected. Thanks for looking that up. I guess it even makes sense in a certain light.

It doesn't change any results of what I wrote; but it is good to get the info straight.

.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm glad the FAQ cleared up that lion pounce and rake confusion, I was curious about it myself.

But that being said I think most people are right in that this encounter was pretty lucky for those summons. But hey it happens. Now if this continues to happen it might be a problem, but hey just became my party's wizard takes out a BBEG with a death spell on a lucky roll doesn't mean he's necessarily the upper Badass

 

[Scion]

It doesn't change any results of what I wrote; but it is good to get the info straight.

How much would it change your numbers with all of those buffs and the new augmented summoning? +4str/+4con help out quite a bit, especially with 5 attacks!

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Augmented Summing definitely helps to explain how well the animals did...but, something is still bugging me.

a) Each of those creatures takes a full round to summon

b) They only last 5 rounds each.

Well, I guess if ALL the Druid was doing was summoning, then it would work, but that just sounds like a bad tactic. If a PC in my game wastes all their spells(or most) that quickly, I'd gladly show them why NOT to.

 

[Scion]

But if there is only one battle in a day then they have been trained to do so