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

[Sereg]

Sorry, but...

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.

In a distorted, biased view of the game and the facts, perhaps. In FACT, the summary of the thread is:

1) Monks as written are the weakest of all melee combatants, and melee combatants are in fact the weakest of all class's in fights at high levels (and out of fights, incidentally).

2) High level spellcasters are far and away stronger in and out of combat than any melee, and the monk is the weakest melee, so it follows that monks are the weakest character in high level combat (and often mid and low level) combat.

If it is impossible in your game, that is a result of the way your game is run

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 you can't see what two statements add up to, I'll be happy to spell it out for you: Casters are inherently STRONG, and require DM's actively targeting their weakness's to be balanced. Monks are inherently WEAK, and require DM's actively catering to their strengths to be balanced.

SEE A PROBLEM HERE?


Sereg

ps. Just hit me, in 2nd ed, fighters also were the only one's who could have Exceptional Strength (18/xx and above). Druids innately have more str via wildshape than most fighters at almost any level but the highest. Good game.

 

[Scion]

In a distorted, biased view of the game and the facts, perhaps.

so the rest of your post are your distorted, biased views?

1) Monks as written are the weakest of all melee combatants, and melee combatants are in fact the weakest of all class's in fights at high levels (and out of fights, incidentally).

First part? maybe, depends on the build. Second part? not even close to being true. In a properly run game the monk, and melee fighter types, and the casters all come out even. Some are better at some levels than others, but it is difficult to be even at every level across the board. So the monk has a rough time for a few levels, big deal, so does everyone. Dont try to make the monk do what he isnt supposed to, just like you dont make a 3int wizard who power attacks with his greatsword.

If you can't see what two statements add up to, I'll be happy to spell it out for you: Casters are inherently STRONG, and require DM's actively targeting their weakness's to be balanced. Monks are inherently WEAK, and require DM's actively catering to their strengths to be balanced.

I see where they add up to, do you? Every class, if given a favoreable campaign style, will be able to be shown to be 'broken'. In some game types casters are horribly overpowered, in others no one plays them because they are so weak as to be laughable. Both of these extremes happen. Monks are great at what they do, if the player cant figure out what they do then that is the players problem, not specifically a design flaw. Sure not every class is perfect (just look at the poor, piddly fighter) but depending on the campaign style some classes will stand out.

Melee types? At standard wealth and appropriate encounters in a proper time frame and they will stand hands above those pesky casters. That is just how the game works. Dont like it? some dm's do, some dont, they will adjust things as they see fit. but they are human, and humans will make mistakes. These mistakes will make some classes better suited to the campaign than others.


If you give an unfair advantage to one type of class then the others will seem weaker in comparison. Every opponent is a high AC, high fort save(or immune), high hp, singular creature? Monks wont help much, sure, they arent designed for that guy. Every oppoenent has a high SR, high tough attack, evasion and mettle? Casters just turned into all buffers, they wont be doing anything else useful. Etc etc. Do things properly? np. Improperly? there will be an imbalance. This isnt necissarily a 'bad thing' really, it is a play style preference. But if the playstyle is the culprit dont complain too much about the base parts

 

[Saeviomagy]

So, you actually think a good idea for a monk is to . . . let them pelt him with huge ass stones? Hmm. Or smash the town? Hint: when you get into an duel of missile weaponry with a giant, *you loose*.

Bzzt. Not even half as bad as you lose in melee.
Hill giant in melee - 2 attacks at +16 and +11, doing 2d8+10 damage a hit, power attacking for even more if your ac sucks (which it does).

Versus
Hill giant at range - 1 attack, +8 to hit, 2d6+7 damage, chances are you've got cover and he has none (assuming you've got half a brain), bringing him down to a mere +4 to hit.

I think you need to return to tactics school. It is standard tactics that when an enemy threatens developed areas to fight them on as little of that developed area as possible -- in short, to hold them off from going around town setting things on fire, knocking down things, killing innocent people. Maybe in your world having a running fight through populated areas is a good idea. In mine, not so good.

Standard tactics says that the town can take a lot more punishment than you can, unless it's made of matchsticks or something. It also says that a giant who spends his time attacking harmless buildings and peasants when he has credible threats hurting him is not a real monster, just a DM grudge made manifest.

Not to mention that with a shuriken you can't add your strength bonus to damage. Rashad's sling does six and a half points of damage on an average successful hit. Not to mention that you can use anything as ammo (albeit with a small decrease in damage). Shuriken damage just doesn't stack up to that.

Shuriken do 1d3 plus strength damage, come in lots of 50, and are a weapon that a monk can flurry.

Slings do 1d4 plus strength damage when loaded with sling bullets, and take a move equivalent action to reload after every shot.

Or perhaps you've not read 3.5? I assume that's the game that's being played.

I mean, dood, our tactics were good. They *worked*. The group easily defeated the menace. It was just my character was hardly a part of that.

No, your tactics were that your druid threw some 80-90% of their resources into two equal-cr challenges. Presumably some of the party members got thumped as well - am I right? So chalk up a few more portions of resources.

At that rate, you won't survive 5 equal cr challenges in a day, which is assumed to be a normal level of threat for an adventure.

Oh, and your comparisons between a monk and a fighter immediately fall down when you say "oh, but a fighter will get to use a good weapon and armour!". He PAYS for those things, and the money the monk doesn't spend on them can contribute to his own abilities in a commesurate fashion.

 

[CPXB]

Bzzt. Not even half as bad as you lose in melee.
Hill giant in melee - 2 attacks at +16 and +11, doing 2d8+10 damage a hit, power attacking for even more if your ac sucks (which it does).

Versus
Hill giant at range - 1 attack, +8 to hit, 2d6+7 damage, chances are you've got cover and he has none (assuming you've got half a brain), bringing him down to a mere +4 to hit.

Standard tactics says that the town can take a lot more punishment than you can, unless it's made of matchsticks or something. It also says that a giant who spends his time attacking harmless buildings and peasants when he has credible threats hurting him is not a real monster, just a DM grudge made manifest.

Shuriken do 1d3 plus strength damage, come in lots of 50, and are a weapon that a monk can flurry.

Slings do 1d4 plus strength damage when loaded with sling bullets, and take a move equivalent action to reload after every shot.

Or perhaps you've not read 3.5? I assume that's the game that's being played.

No, your tactics were that your druid threw some 80-90% of their resources into two equal-cr challenges. Presumably some of the party members got thumped as well - am I right? So chalk up a few more portions of resources.

At that rate, you won't survive 5 equal cr challenges in a day, which is assumed to be a normal level of threat for an adventure.

Oh, and your comparisons between a monk and a fighter immediately fall down when you say "oh, but a fighter will get to use a good weapon and armour!". He PAYS for those things, and the money the monk doesn't spend on them can contribute to his own abilities in a commesurate fashion.

This post is intensely ignorant. I've really tried not to just flame, but this is really just the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

"Villages are durable." Fire, you huge, intense idiot -- FIRE. While you might not know what it is, giants do, and more to the point my GM does. My GM knows when you want to destroy a town, you burn it. Or maybe the hill giants would have just gone around eating towns people. Real heroic. Letting your friends and family be munched because you wanted to lure the monster next to a cliff or something. Ugh.

And if you'd read 3.5, you'd know that shuriken do 1d2 damage and have a range increment of 10 ft. TEN FEET. To hit the giant, I have to be close enough to be in melee combat with it, you dimwitted lardhead. I mean, if you're going to say to the other guy that he doesn't know the rules, at least be clear on them yourself.

Your knowledge of actual tactics is wholly nonexistent. The only way you can feel good about your tactics is likely because you're DM is either an idiot or softballs you all the time.

Furthermore, knowing the stats to every monster in the book is not tactics. It's just cheating. You see, I don't even know a hill giant's stats 'cause I didn't look it up because my character has no way of knowing what a hill giant's stats are. Maybe you cheat by using out of game knowledge IC, but I respect my GM and the game to an extent that I *don't* go and check up on every monster we've fought or might fight again.

EDIT: About the resource consumption thing, birdbrain, there were three character fighting two CR 7 creatures. The very game you purport to know everything about basically says that we should expect almost all our resources to fight them.

And we used no potions. One other character was lightly injured. We *destroyed* the opposition.

 

[Saeviomagy]

"Villages are durable." Fire, you huge, intense idiot -- FIRE. While you might not know what it is, giants do, and more to the point my GM does. My GM knows when you want to destroy a town, you burn it.

What, all of it? all at once?

While those heroes are shredding you?

Fire is neat and all, but it's not going to vapourise a town in 6 seconds.

Or maybe the hill giants would have just gone around eating towns people. Real heroic. Letting your friends and family be munched because you wanted to lure the monster next to a cliff or something. Ugh.

Yeah, because like I said before - the average monster has no purpose but to cause havoc, and will rather eat unarmed townspeople and crouch in a corner kindling a fire than respond to credible threats that are busy turning it into a pincushion. If that's the sort of level of game you're playing, no wonder tactics play no part.

And if you'd read 3.5, you'd know that shuriken do 1d2 damage and have a range increment of 10 ft. TEN FEET. To hit the giant, I have to be close enough to be in melee combat with it, you dimwitted lardhead. I mean, if you're going to say to the other guy that he doesn't know the rules, at least be clear on them yourself.

Once again, lack of rules knowledge comes into play.

10 feet is not the total distance that you can throw shuriken. It is the range increment. Beyond that you get a penalty, one which is relatively minor.

Your knowledge of actual tactics is wholly nonexistent. The only way you can feel good about your tactics is likely because you're DM is either an idiot or softballs you all the time.

Furthermore, knowing the stats to every monster in the book is not tactics. It's just cheating. You see, I don't even know a hill giant's stats 'cause I didn't look it up because my character has no way of knowing what a hill giant's stats are. Maybe you cheat by using out of game knowledge IC, but I respect my GM and the game to an extent that I *don't* go and check up on every monster we've fought or might fight again.

I run the game. I kinda need to know monster stats. Of course someone who doesn't even read the sections of rulebook which are pertinent to his own character couldn't be expected to know monster stats, and indeed you're right - knowing them off by heart and working from them could probably be called cheating.

In some circumstances, however, it's prety obviously not. In this instance ranged combat depends on dex. Giants are strong, but not dextrous - this much should be obvious to the average character looking at one lurching towards him. Cover doesn't often apply in melee versus a large creature (because usually he can choose a part of himself which ignores it), while a large creature will have problems obtaining cover in a ranged fight. This is simply a fact of the world. Finally, giant's don't haul boulders around with them in neat little ammo pouches. This one's fairly obvious to even the most spot-challenged character. Also - they're unlikely to have quickdraw. This one's tied with the "not so good dex" thing.

All of which combines to form "the giant will be worse off in ranged combat than melee combat" as a credible thought to the average character, one which is backed up by the mechanics of the game.

EDIT: About the resource consumption thing, birdbrain, there were three character fighting two CR 7 creatures. The very game you purport to know everything about basically says that we should expect almost all our resources to fight them.

From what I understood, you had a single CR 9 encounter (2 CR 7 creatures). Demoted slightly because of intense stupidity on the part of the creatures in question.
Spells memorised are a resource.
Your druid used up essentially their entire compliment of spells in a single encounter. They basically WERE the resource which was expended.

And we used no potions. One other character was lightly injured. We *destroyed* the opposition.

And one character used his entire complement of spells (or thereabouts).

 

[CPXB]

Ugh, I can only imagine the horror of running with someone as dumb and uncreative as you. I'll note some things.

Giants can have torches, too! And they can hide, too! Surprised? And, yeah, doofus, houses are big enough for giants to hide behind. I'm sure this shocks you.

And the maximum range increment of a shuriken is five increments -- fifty feet. They charge over and whack me. Shocker. I'm in melee combat, again. At the speed my character is, he can't get OUT of melee combat, either, if the GIANT chooses. For a DM, you just don't know the rules very well, do you? I mean, just like you didn't know that a shuriken did 1d2 points of damage.

And, yes, Virginia, they can charge you. To use a missile weapon requires an unobstructed line of sight. Or, alternately, while you're taking -4 to hit due to range them they could just choose to smash you into goop with rocks.

Not to mention those -2s add up might fast when you already have 45% chance of hitting within ten feet. Thirty feet away and the odds of hitting are 25% per shuriken. GOOD tactics. If you want to be killed by your opposition, that is.

Or, I suppose, I could have sat back while the druid's menagerie was savaging the giants -- usefully firing into melee. With my shurikens. So even if I'm 20 feet away, I'm not at -6 to hit. Yeah. The tactics of champions, there. Probably do more damage to the critters than the monster. *eyeroll*

Not to mention that if you go by what it says in the DMG, with a CR 9 encounter we had only a fifty-fifty chance of winning and the odds are one of us should have died. We won. Easily.

You're really just looking dumber as you keep talking, you know. It's become clear that you just don't know what you're talking about, either from the point of view of standard tactical knowledge *or* the rules. I pity your players.

EDIT: And as a DM, it is not cheating that you know the stats for a hill giant, but that doesn't change the fact that it would have been cheating for *me* to know the stats of hill giants. I'd bet money that your players are the sort of group that know all the numbers of all the monsters, too, and make tactical decisions based on that intimate knowledge -- which just makes them cheaters, and, from a role-play point of view (ugh, I can only imagine the horror of role-playing in your game) is not only cheating but also destroys any suspense you might have been trying to build.

 

[Epametheus]

Manners CPXB, manners. Calling Saev names when he's completely right doesn't help you at all.

Not rushing into melee with creatures 2 to 3 times bigger than you (if not more) is just common sense. Fighters, Barbarians, and Druids that have already wildshaped into something just as big can get away with charging into melee against such creatures.

Anyone else trying to do so is just asking to get smeared; if the druid hadn't buried the giants in dire animals, your monk would have certainly died.

Your best bet going head to head with a giant would've been leading on a merry chase through town while the other PCs pick it off, using tumble to get out of its threat range and find spots in town where it has trouble reaching. Picture your monk leaping from rooftop to rooftop, flinging shurikens all the while (yeah, a bow would beat the hell out of shurikens, but monks just have to make do).

Edit: And I find players knowing something of what to expect from monsters to be handy. It seriously reduces the odds of someone getting killed stupidly, and the PCs having some inkling that giants, dragons, freakish aberrations, undead, and monster dredged up from the depths of hell are really, really dangerous doesn't strike me as that much a stretch. I've never had metagaming actually interfere with roleplaying, anyways.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Ugh, I can only imagine the horror of running with someone as dumb and uncreative as you. I'll note some things.

Says the man who's amazing tactics are "umm, I hit it with my fist"

Giants can have torches, too! And they can hide, too! Surprised? And, yeah, doofus, houses are big enough for giants to hide behind. I'm sure this shocks you.

If a giant walks behind a house, and doesn't come into view again, it's a pretty good bet that he's still behind the house. And torches still don't mean the entire town is ablaze in six seconds, or that peasants lack the ability to put out fires, or that the giant is being utterly stupid ignoring credible threats in order to accomplish a difficult task with no backup.

And the maximum range increment of a shuriken is five increments -- fifty feet. They charge over and whack me. Shocker. I'm in melee combat, again. At the speed my character is, he can't get OUT of melee combat, either, if the GIANT chooses.

If you tumble out of the fight and run across broken ground, the giant will
a) have to move at half speed
b) can't charge or run
I told you this ages ago. Guess you just failed the written examination.

For a DM, you just don't know the rules very well, do you? I mean, just like you didn't know that a shuriken did 1d2 points of damage.

Plus strength bonus, something you're not lacking. And hands up if you were the one stuck in 3.0...

And, yes, Virginia, they can charge you. To use a missile weapon requires an unobstructed line of sight. Or, alternately, while you're taking -4 to hit due to range them they could just choose to smash you into goop with rocks.

You read the stuff about broken ground, right? You know, that stuff which blocks charges, but not missile weapons?
And the giants are already taking a -8 (effectively) to hit you with their rocks, along with a -5 to damage, and a -1 to the number of attacks they can make, not to mention whatever else you can get from cover.

Not to mention those -2s add up might fast when you already have 45% chance of hitting within ten feet. Thirty feet away and the odds of hitting are 25% per shuriken. GOOD tactics. If you want to be killed by your opposition, that is.

Meanwhile their chance has fallen from about 125% to 25%. Yeah, you lost out good.

Or, I suppose, I could have sat back while the druid's menagerie was savaging the giants -- usefully firing into melee. With my shurikens. So even if I'm 20 feet away, I'm not at -6 to hit. Yeah. The tactics of champions, there. Probably do more damage to the critters than the monster. *eyeroll*

Well, this is assuming that every fight you're in has morons in your party alongside you. Pick a combat style which is effective for the combat. If your opponent is weak at range, don't melee. I expect you think the CR for a colossal monstrous scorpion is horrendously low...

Oh, and I think I'd be safe to assume that you don't know the rules. Again. If part of a target creature is more than 10 feet away from an ally, you don't take the penalty for shooting into melee. Which means that large creatures in melee can usually be targeted scot-free, unless they're absolutely swarmed.

Not to mention that if you go by what it says in the DMG, with a CR 9 encounter we had only a fifty-fifty chance of winning and the odds are one of us should have died. We won. Easily.

Well, actually what you faced was closer to two CR 7 encounters. Only even lamer than that, because there was so little time between them. And then a bit lamer still, because they were played so badly.

You're really just looking dumber as you keep talking, you know. It's become clear that you just don't know what you're talking about, either from the point of view of standard tactical knowledge *or* the rules. I pity your players.

Hey - who's the guy who can't even keep straight rules that have been told to him in this thread?

EDIT: And as a DM, it is not cheating that you know the stats for a hill giant, but that doesn't change the fact that it would have been cheating for *me* to know the stats of hill giants. I'd bet money that your players are the sort of group that know all the numbers of all the monsters, too, and make tactical decisions based on that intimate knowledge -- which just makes them cheaters, and, from a role-play point of view (ugh, I can only imagine the horror of role-playing in your game) is not only cheating but also destroys any suspense you might have been trying to build.

If you think "slow ponderous hill giants are bad at ranged combat, but smash things good with their clubs" is suspense, then I really pity you.

I imagine your mystery plots are along the lines of "Who'd have guessed? The snide, hateful man with the pointy black goatee was evil after all!".

 

[CPXB]

I almost responded to Sae, again, before realizing that talking to him was like teaching a pig to sing. It wastes my time and annoys the pig.

 

[Diirk]

shurikens are an option, and fire won't torch the village immediately etc but this broken ground thing annoys me. You can't just mystically conjure some up on on a whim, "Hey DM, there's some broken ground here I'm going to hide behind ok?"

And a road with a few potholes doesn't qualify imo as "broken ground"

Broken ground might be something like... a quarry. Definately an exception rather than a rule.