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

[CPXB]

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...

Its actually something me and my DM are working out, this precise subject; y'know, strip away the monk of some of its class abilities and replace them with something else (I'm trying to get more feats -- as many people have pointed out, there are a fairly large number of really good monkish feats out there in the various books).

 

[mikebr99]

Sorry... but this thread is more showing problems your DM then anything inherently wrong or weak with the Monk. And I see the relationship happening here...

Maybe point out 3.5 DMG P.49 - "What's Challenging?"

Seriously, why wouldn't the Druid blow the budget when he knows it's the only encounter he'll see that day.

Mike

 

[CPXB]

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

Which is precisely what happened. Not necessarily one a day but . . . for a while we were doing dungeon stomping sort of stuff and one of the players -- the bard -- is really timid about taking chances. We'd get into one fight, maybe two and he'd convince us all to retire for the night to regain resources. The DM acknowledges that they've been given an easy time with that.

However, now we're doing more urban -- I hesitate to call the village we're in urban, but there ya are -- stuff and it seems to lack verisimilitude in that situation to continually pelt us with fights. The DM -- mostly for time and dramatic tension reasons -- prefers one big fight over many smaller fighters. For time reasons the DM has not been doing a lot of fight tailoring, choosing "simple" powerful foes (such as high giants or packs of dire wolves) because of her hesitation when time pressured to try to figure out more complex monsters.

So, in retrospect, some of it certainly is the way things are going in the game that favor spellcasters who can dump a lot of spells in one mega-fight, knowing that there won't be a fight until they recover spells. I still think that some of it is the monk class, maybe in particular, but maybe also melee fighters in general. But I think me and the GM are going to work to make monks as generally useful as paladins.

 

[CPXB]

Sorry... but this thread is more showing problems your DM then anything inherently wrong or weak with the Monk. And I see the relationship happening here...

Maybe point out 3.5 DMG P.49 - "What's Challenging?"

Seriously, why wouldn't the Druid blow the budget when he knows it's the only encounter he'll see that day.

Mike

I think enough other players -- far more thoughtful than I, and more experienced -- have come forward to basically agree that the monks sucks that it would be meritorious for my game to at least look at the idea that the monk is underpowered vis-a-vis the other melee fighters.

 

[mikebr99]

Which is precisely what happened. Not necessarily one a day but . . . for a while we were doing dungeon stomping sort of stuff and one of the players -- the bard -- is really timid about taking chances. We'd get into one fight, maybe two and he'd convince us all to retire for the night to regain resources. The DM acknowledges that they've been given an easy time with that.

However, now we're doing more urban -- I hesitate to call the village we're in urban, but there ya are -- stuff and it seems to lack verisimilitude in that situation to continually pelt us with fights. The DM -- mostly for time and dramatic tension reasons -- prefers one big fight over many smaller fighters. For time reasons the DM has not been doing a lot of fight tailoring, choosing "simple" powerful foes (such as high giants or packs of dire wolves) because of her hesitation when time pressured to try to figure out more complex monsters.

So, in retrospect, some of it certainly is the way things are going in the game that favor spellcasters who can dump a lot of spells in one mega-fight, knowing that there won't be a fight until they recover spells. I still think that some of it is the monk class, maybe in particular, but maybe also melee fighters in general. But I think me and the GM are going to work to make monks as generally useful as paladins.

But if the Dm had simply had one of the giants come from the other side of town... Same encounter... way different outcome. Sure the Druid still blows the bank on the 1st Giant, but then the Monk is the hero because he can sprint across town to harry, and lead the other away from doing any collateral damage to the villagers.

YMMV


Mike

 

[mikebr99]

I think enough other players -- far more thoughtful than I, and more experienced -- have come forward to basically agree that the monks sucks that it would be meritorious for my game to at least look at the idea that the monk is underpowered vis-a-vis the other melee fighters.

But your particular frame of reference in this case isn't trying to compare with other melee fighters. You are trying to compare with spellcasters. And the spellcasters aren't being given ANY reason to save their power for later.

Mike

 

[Will]

Correction.

Monks are perfect for what they do, in a regular game.

You aren't in a regular game, and you don't want what a monk (in D&D) does, at least not completely.

That's fine, but recognize it isn't the class, it's your situation.

Though admittedly, I think monks are very misleading. Everyone, glancing at the class, would assume they are essentially unarmed melee masters. Which they aren't, really, unless you engage their full abilities.

For example, simply, if mobility isn't a big deal in your game, a monk isn't as useful.


For what it's worth, I sympathize with both you and the DM. Running complex monsters can make my head friggin' explode, particularly afterwards when I realized I hadn't used X power or hadn't considered the tactical applications of Y. Or even used a power that turned out to be stupid in the encounter.

I would suggest that a barrage of foes can be just as thrilling as one big monster (witness Moria). I'd also suggest not letting PCs sleep in a dungeon or similar. (Many interrupting encounters, etc)

 

[CPXB]

But if the Dm had simply had one of the giants come from the other side of town... Same encounter... way different outcome. Sure the Druid still blows the bank on the 1st Giant, but then the Monk is the hero because he can sprint across town to harry, and lead the other away from doing any collateral damage to the villagers.

YMMV


Mike

We actually *just* discussed that. Or something similiar. I said, "What if the second giant hadn't come in until after five rounds had passed?" When the dire wolf and lion had been gone -- she agreed the character of the fight would have been wholly different.

So, yeah, we're all about the agreement.

 

[CPXB]

Correction.

Monks are perfect for what they do, in a regular game.

You aren't in a regular game, and you don't want what a monk (in D&D) does, at least not completely.

That's fine, but recognize it isn't the class, it's your situation.

Though admittedly, I think monks are very misleading. Everyone, glancing at the class, would assume they are essentially unarmed melee masters. Which they aren't, really, unless you engage their full abilities.

For example, simply, if mobility isn't a big deal in your game, a monk isn't as useful.


For what it's worth, I sympathize with both you and the DM. Running complex monsters can make my head friggin' explode, particularly afterwards when I realized I hadn't used X power or hadn't considered the tactical applications of Y. Or even used a power that turned out to be stupid in the encounter.

I would suggest that a barrage of foes can be just as thrilling as one big monster (witness Moria). I'd also suggest not letting PCs sleep in a dungeon or similar. (Many interrupting encounters, etc)

One of the fellas a while ago posted a thread wherein people talked about the monk class . . . and I think that the monk class is more than just somewhat disingenuous. I think its broken. Many, clearly, disagree, but . . . .

Lots of people have said that monks aren't first rate melee fighters. I say, "But a huge portion of their class features at lower levels, not to mention the escalating damage of their unarmed attacks, does lead a person to think that monks should be heavy melee fighters." Furthermore, out of melee, they are almost entirely useless. Oh, they have Hide and Move Silently -- well, the rogue has that, does more damage in a fight, and is useful in other ways outside of a fight (what with the opening of locks and disarming of traps). Indeed, a monk is generally defeated by the first locked door they come across in terms of stealth. Also, compare to ranger -- best BAB, two good saves, spells, also sneaky as hell, favored enemies, animal companions, tracking, etc. Who would you want in a party? A ranger -- better melee figher (or much better ranged fighter) and excellent stealth and wilderness survival skills -- or a monk who isn't as good in melee and has no outdoors skills.

But I think the real kicker is when comparing the monk to the paladin. Paladins fight very well, have as good of saving throws with divine grace, they can cure damage and disease and they can cast some spells too boot. Oh, and they get the wonder horse. So, better in a fight and far more useful out of a fight.

I think it is reasonable to at the bare minimum suggest that the monk class has something wrong with it. Of course, YMMV. Indeed, you do seem to be getting different mileage.

What we are going to do is go slow. What we seem to be doing right now is going through the monk class to eliminate things that I either don't care about or seem to be non-abilities (such as the ability to be immune to normal diseases . . . how often does that come up, really?) and replace them with better stuff. I'm still lobbying for feats.

 

[mikebr99]

One of the fellas a while ago posted a thread wherein people talked about the monk class . . . and I think that the monk class is more than just somewhat disingenuous. I think its broken. Many, clearly, disagree, but . . . .

Lots of people have said that monks aren't first rate melee fighters. I say, "But a huge portion of their class features at lower levels, not to mention the escalating damage of their unarmed attacks, does lead a person to think that monks should be heavy melee fighters." Furthermore, out of melee, they are almost entirely useless. Oh, they have Hide and Move Silently -- well, the rogue has that, does more damage in a fight, and is useful in other ways outside of a fight (what with the opening of locks and disarming of traps). Indeed, a monk is generally defeated by the first locked door they come across in terms of stealth. Also, compare to ranger -- best BAB, two good saves, spells, also sneaky as hell, favored enemies, animal companions, tracking, etc. Who would you want in a party? A ranger -- better melee figher (or much better ranged fighter) and excellent stealth and wilderness survival skills -- or a monk who isn't as good in melee and has no outdoors skills.

But I think the real kicker is when comparing the monk to the paladin. Paladins fight very well, have as good of saving throws with divine grace, they can cure damage and disease and they can cast some spells too boot. Oh, and they get the wonder horse. So, better in a fight and far more useful out of a fight.

I think it is reasonable to at the bare minimum suggest that the monk class has something wrong with it. Of course, YMMV. Indeed, you do seem to be getting different mileage.

What we are going to do is go slow. What we seem to be doing right now is going through the monk class to eliminate things that I either don't care about or seem to be non-abilities (such as the ability to be immune to normal diseases . . . how often does that come up, really?) and replace them with better stuff. I'm still lobbying for feats.

Broken = overpowered
nerfed = underpowered

You shouldn't be looking at changing the Monk... you should be looking at changing classes. The Party needs you to be a Fighter or Paladin or Barbarian... or some combination thereof.

Mike