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

[Majere]

Erm hong.. have you been at the mushrooms again.
First you say that noone can solo a dungeon because that is how the game is built.
THEN you complain that the monk never gets to get his moment of totally and dominating glory.

D&D isnt about glory, its about team play. Everytime I read a thread where someone whines that their PC isnt good enough I just feel like telling them to stop being so selfish.

Anyone who has played a high level cleric knows that 90% of the time you are just healing your ass off to keep the tank alive through the horrific damage output of the BBEG once the combat stats in earnist.
Where is the glory in healing the fighter, but it has to be done and the party dies veryveryVERY quickly if it isnt.

Pepople complain about the "power" of high level mages, but have you SEEN the SR of highlevel mobs, or their saves ?
The last highlevel game I played in all our mages needed to roll 12+ to defeat teh LOWEST enemy SR and most of the enemy were then saving on 1s ?
What use are you spells when they mobs are basically spell immune ?
Thats when melee people step up. No this doesnt happen every fight, it would be BAD if it did, but it happens in plenty of fights.

Stunning first is awesome, far better than sneak attack, and noone bitches about sneak attack. One game I was stuck in a corridor with a drow rogue either side of me, with single figure hp. My mage was reduced to fighting defensively as he was almost out of spells. The monks stunning fist kept one of the rogues permanently stunned, and that saved my characters life.

Monks get lots of neat tricks and in return they give up some BAB progression. That really is all they give up, the monk attack pregression means they dont even lose iterative attacks.

So stop bitching about the monk already.

Majere

 

[evilbob]

The point is: _whatever a monk can do, someone else can do better_. That is almost the definition of a second-stringer. Yes, in any _particular_ party, the monk may be the best there is at one _particular_ schtick. That doesn't change the fact that the monk is still the second-best choice. If someone else were to join the party that took over that schtick, the monk would become irrelevant.

...You must really hate bards, too. They can do a jillion things, but everyone else can do one of those things much better.

And rangers. I mean, they aren't as good at fighting as a fighter, don't have as good of a nature schtick as druids... They must suck, too. And I'm thinking you must hate sorcs cause wizards are better, and I'm surprised you even mentioned barbarians because even the DMG has a line about fighters doing more over the long haul. And paladins, too - fighters fight better and clerics cast better. So I guess my main question is, which of the 5 iconic character classes do you always play?

I agree with the others who have said that "getting your moment to shine" is not about the class itself, but about the campaign you are a part of and playing intelligently.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

D&D isnt about glory, its about team play. Everytime I read a thread where someone whines that their PC isnt good enough I just feel like telling them to stop being so selfish.

Ah, yes, because everyone loves playing the character who never stands out, never impresses anyone else, or never manages to even be the equal of any other party member. Why, in most games, players are lined up around the block for a chance at running a second-banana character who only supports the starring cast. Really, it's just an honor to be on the team!

Seriously, though, most players enjoy getting a little spotlight time in. It feels good to be the superstar once in a while, to be the guy who everyone remembers after the job is done. It's good to feel not just useful, but actually essential. And for a lot of players, it sucks if they never get to feel that. It can ruin a game completely.

Basically, it's not selfish to want to enjoy the game you're playing. It might be considered a little selfish to tell the person who's not having fun to shut up and pretend he's having fun when he really isn't, though.

So lay off players who are whining about their PC not being good enough to fit in the campaign they're playing. It's a valid complaint, it's frustrating as hell, and above all else, it really does happen. Bitch at them if they're just whining about it without actually trying to do something to improve the situation, sure, but that hardly applies to this thread, where suggestions and potential solutions have appeared on every single page.


Me, I like monks. But I know for a fact that there are games being run out there where monks really are that much weaker than the other character classes and consequently that much less fun to play, and I'm not going to pretend that it's wrong for people who are faced with that problem to try and fix it.

--
and honestly, practically nothing is ever fixed without someone bitching about it first

 

[Scion]

Ah, yes, because everyone loves playing the character who never stands out, never impresses anyone else, or never manages to even be the equal of any other party member.

Of course the monk is always there to lend a hand, pretty much anything you want to do he will help you with. Someone is scouting? he is there. Someone needs help flanking? there he is. Someone is far away and needs some random item fast? there you go. And tons of others. Not only that, but he is pretty good at them all, maybe not the best all of the time, but a solid, well rounded, character.

The monk can and does stand out, but as a class he is designed in a different way that most people like to play. Nothing wrong with that either you know

There is a guy in my current campaign who is playing a marshal. Basically he gets to do a few things here and there, but the majority of what he does is makes other people better. Everyone in the party loves him for it, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Majere]

Ah, yes, because everyone loves playing the character who never stands out, never impresses anyone else, or never manages to even be the equal of any other party member. Why, in most games, players are lined up around the block for a chance at running a second-banana character who only supports the starring cast. Really, it's just an honor to be on the team!

Seriously, though, most players enjoy getting a little spotlight time in. It feels good to be the superstar once in a while, to be the guy who everyone remembers after the job is done. It's good to feel not just useful, but actually essential. And for a lot of players, it sucks if they never get to feel that. It can ruin a game completely.

Basically, it's not selfish to want to enjoy the game you're playing. It might be considered a little selfish to tell the person who's not having fun to shut up and pretend he's having fun when he really isn't, though.

So lay off players who are whining about their PC not being good enough to fit in the campaign they're playing. It's a valid complaint, it's frustrating as hell, and above all else, it really does happen. Bitch at them if they're just whining about it without actually trying to do something to improve the situation, sure, but that hardly applies to this thread, where suggestions and potential solutions have appeared on every single page.


Me, I like monks. But I know for a fact that there are games being run out there where monks really are that much weaker than the other character classes and consequently that much less fun to play, and I'm not going to pretend that it's wrong for people who are faced with that problem to try and fix it.

--
and honestly, practically nothing is ever fixed without someone bitching about it first

Learn to contribute outside of combat.
Learn to be smart
Learn that spotlight != doing lots of damage
One combat our 6th level party unknowingly fought a rakshasha.
Unable to hurt it in anyway at all I shouted at the fighter to grapple the beast
With two fighters and the celric all grappling the thing we managed to keep in pinne and then my rogue dived for his disguiskit and pulled out a large lump of modeling clay and with a roll of a natuaral 20 shove it down the throat.
The rakshasha never managed to unpin itself and choked to death after a few rounds.

Any class could have done that
Any class can come up with the plan or move that saves the day
Class IS irreleevant

MAjere

 

[evilbob]

One combat our 6th level party unknowingly fought a rakshasha.
Unable to hurt it in anyway at all I shouted at the fighter to grapple the beast
With two fighters and the celric all grappling the thing we managed to keep in pinne and then my rogue dived for his disguiskit and pulled out a large lump of modeling clay and with a roll of a natuaral 20 shove it down the throat.
The rakshasha never managed to unpin itself and choked to death after a few rounds.

...That ...is ...awesome!

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

Any class could have done that
Any class can come up with the plan or move that saves the day
Class IS irreleevant

This thread started with a player who had a genuine problem with his character in the campaign that he was playing in. The vast majority of the discussion has been focused on that problem and problems similar to it.

Yeah, sure, everybody is special in their very own special way. But campaigns and gaming groups work differently for different people, and brushing off a guy's valid complaint with a thinly-veiled "I guess you're just not clever enough to find a way to be useful, you hack-and-slash loser, you" isn't cool.

As much as you may like to think otherwise, sometimes it really is a problem with the character and not with the player. When the player knows what he wants out of the game and it has been proven beyond doubt that the character he's got isn't able to provide it for him in this particular campaign, you have to admit that it makes sense to change the goddamn character, don't you?

--
well, i suppose you don't have to admit it...if you don't mind being wrong


\/\/\/\/\/ Uh...yeah, relevant like a fox.

 

[Majere]

Actually the thread started with someone asking why his monk was much less powerful than the druid.
And it was explained very well by many people that the combat and style of campeign was such that it favoured caster.
The person talked with his DM and all was resolved.

Thr thread then turned into a general whinged that monks were underpowered. To which I posted a first reply pointing out that monks really dont give up much except and perfect BABA progression.

Then hong posted that monks suck because they are only secondrate and never get the spot light. To which I replied D&D isnt about the spotlight.
I was not trying to say anyone was stupid, I was pointing out that you do not need to be a specific class to have a good ide aand be vital to a combat.
Infact its is because I believe that people on here are good enough players to think of plans like these that I didnt just say "monks are too hard for you to play, be a fighter"

My posts were fully relevent if you read the whole thread.

Majere

 

[youspoonybard]

You can only attempt a stunning fist 1/round, I believe...

Hmmm. You can now multiple times a round.

Was this the case in 3.0, or am I just making up rules?

 

[CPXB]

You can only attempt a stunning fist 1/round, I believe...

Hmmm. You can now multiple times a round.

Was this the case in 3.0, or am I just making up rules?

You can only stun once a round in both 3.0 and 3.5. You can get a feat that allows you to do two stunning fists a round, but my monk doesn't have it.