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

[two]

So thats it? you are a barbarian and all you do is rage and swing your sword?

It all depends on how you look at it, most classes have a lot of options and choices, the monk is one of these.

The barbarian (if he can get to a enemy spellcaster) can hack it very nicely, also can hack dragons, undead, humans, rogues, anti-paladins, paladins, ghosts, goblins, orks, giants, rocs, crocodiles, Titans, whales, etc.

See the different between a barbarian and a monk? Barb = effective when hacking a very wide range of things. Monk= effective when hacking a super-specialized range of things. You can also make a muonted barbarian; a barbarian tripper/grappler; a sword-n-shield barbarian; etc. All can be effective and fun. Ever see a mounted monk? Oh sorry, outside the box. Back in, punch-n-judy, see enemy spellcaster, kill enemy spellcaster. Go.

 

[ForceUser]

The barbarian (if he can get to a enemy spellcaster) can hack it very nicely, also can hack dragons, undead, humans, rogues, anti-paladins, paladins, ghosts, goblins, orks, giants, rocs, crocodiles, Titans, whales, etc.

See the different between a barbarian and a monk? Barb = effective when hacking a very wide range of things. Monk= effective when hacking a super-specialized range of things. You can also make a muonted barbarian; a barbarian tripper/grappler; a sword-n-shield barbarian; etc. All can be effective and fun. Ever see a mounted monk? Oh sorry, outside the box. Back in, punch-n-judy, see enemy spellcaster, kill enemy spellcaster. Go.

The monk is also faster, able to heal himself, and more adept at retreating from sticky situations. I see barbarians, fighter and paladins as blunt instruments, but monks as surgical tools. As with rogues, they are skillsy characters who are situationally very cool. I don't see the issue.

 

[CPXB]

I think that it is mostly true that fighter-types, including monks, do get the shaft in D&D 3.x. I've been reading what people say and its just true that fighter-types need spellcaster support way more than a spellcaster needs fighter support (after all, a spellcaster can just make fighter-type support -- simulacrum or golem or whatever -- or summon up such support).

I mean, I think about it this way. Consider a naked fighter at 20th level vs. a naked sorcerer. Start 'em 100 feet away and give the fighter init. Round one -- fighter closes some of the distance. Maybe he shoots some arrows, inflicts some damage. Sorcerer's init -- Imprisonment. The minimum save DC of the spell is 23. The naked fighter likely has a Will save of, say, +7. The odds are the fight is over.

Placing them right next to each other doesn't really change this much. Sure, the fighter might hurt the wizard some before being imprisoned or mind controlled or whatever, but the sorcerer is just going to dominate this fight.

Wizards are worse. At least as sorcerer doesn't have the flexiblity of a wizard -- with preparation there is just nothing a high level wizard can't do better than any other character class (except heal -- which is handled by a cleric, obviously . . . another spellcasting class). Heck, the wizard would have cast a quickened dominate person spell before the imprisonment, reducing the successes of the fighter winning by a great deal.

It is not really different with clerics or druids, either.

Furthermore, in terms of adventuring, a 20th level fighter without serious support from magical community -- not just in terms of healing, but has been noted in terms of providing magical equipment -- is just useless around CR 20 creatures. A non-equipped sorcerer or wizard still has, at least, a chance to do something to a CR 20 critter . . . or can at least escape with various teleportation spells (or similiar ilk). The fighter against that pit fiend? Wasted.

And, thinking, I think it is a huge flaw that the spellcasters can dominate the fight if there is only one fight a day (or, rather, more dominate). Games that are reasonably low on combat -- or at least the sort of intense combat that three or four fights a day involves -- aren't precisely rare. I'm having trouble thinking of a D&D game I've been in that had so little role-play or investigation that fighting was, basically, the only thing the party did. I know such games exist -- someone mentioned rolling for wandering monsters for every hour or travel time! -- but *lots* of people don't play D&D that way. Like I said, I don't know anyone who does and I know lots of gamers. I think that if D&D was serious about "game balance" then there would be alternate rules or whatever so take into account games that don't have four-fights-before-resting mindsets where the players and DM would rather have one big, important fight than a bunch of fights.

I'm not dissin' on that style of play, BTW, I'm just saying that D&D doesn't provide for alternate styles of play -- which I find sort of sad because otherwise it is a very well constructed game.

But, as designed, I think that it is very, very reasonable to say that the fighter-types get the shaft.

 

[hong]

I'm not saying fighting casters is their only gig. Just their best gig, and the gig for which they were obviously intended.

Nonsense. The wizard-negation schtick is a role that's been _found_ for the monk (more out of a lack of any better alternative than anything else), but that's a far cry from saying it's the intention behind the class.

If anything is obvious, it's that the monk is based on the chop-socky kung fu movies from the 70s, featuring people like Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee. Now if there's one common thread in these tales, it's that the main characters kick butt. Thus it's only reasonable that a player, without advance knowledge of the rules, might want his monk PC to do the same. Unfortunately, whatever a D&D monk does, it manifestly does not kick butt.

As levels progress and you face more and more spellcasting foes (wizards are far more terrifying at high levels than low), your role as a mage-killer will shine that much brighter. Also, monks are great for whupping mooks - a mook defined as a henchman, a thug, a foe meant to suck up time while the BBEG does his thing. Yes, any meleer can soak mooks, but in a fight with devils, who would you rather have fighting the lemures, and who the horned devil, the monk or the fighter?

Neither. When you have a whole bunch of mooks, you drop a fireball, fire storm, or horrid wilting on them. Besides which, in terms of spotlight time, killing mooks is rarely adequate compensation for not being able to face up to the big guy IME.

So a monk handling the lemures so the fighter can face the horned devil is fulfilling his purpose as a 2nd-rank combatant in that encounter.

Consider the possibility that a monk should not _be_ a 2nd-rank combatant in the first place.

 

[Will]

Like I said, the spellcaster behind a wall of meatshields is the exception, not the rule at high levels.

Um, in your experience, maybe. I'm finding the opposite. As levels increase, there are more 'mixed group' opponents, not less.

So, again, it depends on how you run the game.

As for the 'naked' argument, again, it's a matter of what you are prepared for and the situation.

I'd hate to be a naked spellcaster against a naked monk, for instance. Or a rogue.

 

[CPXB]

I'm fully with Hong about the "specialized mage-killer" thing. What's to stop a barbarian from running up and grappling with a wizard? They're quick, have a good BAB, generally have huge strengths that get huger when they want, have Power Attack to do a ton of damage and are better able to use it on account of their higher BAB and Str . . . so what if they get an AOO or two on their butts? They have enormously huge numbers of hit points and damage reduction! They can take it.

I'm, again, with Hong. I reject the *idea* that a monk should be a second string fighter. I think a monk should be as good as combat as a paladin, ranger or barbarian. I think if D&D was serious about game balance with the monk, they'd've come to this decision a long time ago, themselves.

 

[ForceUser]

Nonsense. The wizard-negation schtick is a role that's been _found_ for the monk (more out of a lack of any better alternative than anything else), but that's a far cry from saying it's the intention behind the class.

Semantics. Whatever the origination, it is what it is.

If anything is obvious, it's that the monk is based on the chop-socky kung fu movies from the 70s, featuring people like Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee. Now if there's one common thread in these tales, it's that the main characters kick butt. Thus it's only reasonable that a player, without advance knowledge of the rules, might want his monk PC to do the same. Unfortunately, whatever a D&D monk does, it manifestly does not kick butt.

I agree, it's definitely not the chop-suey monk from movies. But I think that's a reflection of how 3.x works in general - the light fighter gig is often a harder road to travel because of simple game mechanics.

Neither. When you have a whole bunch of mooks, you drop a fireball, fire storm, or horrid wilting on them. Besides which, in terms of spotlight time, killing mooks is rarely adequate compensation for not being able to face up to the big guy IME.

AE spells is certainly one way to deal with that. In such a case, the monk is then free to flank off the fighter and help whup the horned devil. He shouldn't try to tank him, though. I will agree, however, that for many people, being part of the team is less important than having your moment in the sun. I think that's a style play thing more than anything, though. IME, the guy who enjoys playing clerics will enjoy playing monks moreso than the guy who enjoys playing fighters.

Consider the possibility that a monk should not _be_ a 2nd-rank combatant in the first place.

I have no problem with the monk being a 2nd-ranker in the 3.x experience. It makes sense, given the AC + hp paradigm in the game. The monk trades AC & hp for mobility and neat magical powers and a few cool combat moves (stunning fist, quivering palm, etc.). The monk is certainly not a class for everyone, and it's true that perhaps calling the class "monk" gives players the wrong impression. It's a good class for what it is, though. I think there are other game systems in which one can find greater enjoyment from the "chop-suey" monk experience, such as Feng Shui (sp?).

 

[jgsugden]

Two: Once again, those were suggestions for adventures if you're finding that spellcasters are *always* sitting around with extra time to rest, and thus always enter combat at full strength. THey are some suggestions on how to approach things from another angle.

If you run things as per the DMG (including the provisions for wandering encounters), this should not be a problem. Spellcasters that 'blow everything' quickly when wandering encounters are so frequent will soon regret their decisions to do so ...

As I said, in the dozen (or so) different style game sI've played in under 3.0 and 3.5 (not to mention all the ones dating back through 2E, 1E, Basic/Expert D&D, etc ...), this is rarely a problem I've seen. Spellcasters rarely use more than a few spells in a combat unless it is a BBEG.

Back to the original issue:

Let's just look at a monk as a melee fighter.

In a sense, they serve the same roll as a two weapon fighter - less damage, but more targets (so less manly 'overkill'). Although they deal less total damage than a two handed fighter, they have similar 'effective' damage (ie; damage that makes a difference in combat, not damage wasted on overkill).

Unlike a standard two weapon fighter, though, they trade accuracy (BAB) for special attack capabilities like stunning fist or super grappling. This makes them less likely to hit, but more effective (in some situations) when they do hit. Although a monk may have trouble hitting a BBEG in a certain battle, he brings to the table the possibility of effectively ending the battle (via a stun) with every attack he brings, at least versus certain foes.

To add to their combat abilities, the monk gains bonus feats, great defensive abilities (AC, evasion, immunities, etc ...), self healing, spell resistance, movement (including D-door as a supernatural ability), and a variety of other abilities that add to their effectiveness.

In the end, you may decide that the monk is weaker in combat than other classes. Fine. I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion. The monk can serve as a masterful scout and quality diplomat, two important noncombat activities. The greater the level of noncombat abilities possessed by the PC, the more you must diminish their combat abilities to keep them in balance.

As a final note: I've played a lot of D&D since 3.0 came out. I've seen more than my share of monks. It isn't always obvious that they are an effective class, but I promise you that they are in most games I've seen. As for the druid ... in favorable circumstances, they are a *very* strong class, but when their Acheillies heel begins to show, they can be awfully vulnerable.

 

[ForceUser]

In the end, you may decide that the monk is weaker in combat than other classes. Fine. I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion. The monk can serve as a masterful scout and quality diplomat, two important noncombat activities. The greater the level of noncombat abilities possessed by the PC, the more you must diminish their combat abilities to keep them in balance.

As a final note: I've played a lot of D&D since 3.0 came out. I've seen more than my share of monks. It isn't always obvious that they are an effective class, but I promise you that they are in most games I've seen. As for the druid ... in favorable circumstances, they are a *very* strong class, but when their Acheillies heel begins to show, they can be awfully vulnerable.

Right. Most fighters are tools when attack dice aren't rolling. Monks are more social characters: tongue of the sun and moon.

The druid's problem, of course, is low AC.

 

[hong]

I'd hate to be a naked spellcaster against a naked monk, for instance. Or a rogue.

At high levels, I'd hate to be a naked _anything_. The two times I died in the RttToH, it was after I got stripped of all my magic items by a blasted teleport trap....

This applies even to a monk. Without stat boosters (one of the weaknesses of the class is the dependence on multiple abilities), they will get hit, and without save boosters, they will fail their saves. They might be able to RUN AWAY, but that's hardly going to accomplish a lot, now, is it? And besides, nobody has disputed a monk's survivability. What's in dispute is their ability to compete for the spotlight.