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

[Bauglir]

It really sounds like the thing that would fix the monk, in a lot of peoples opinion here, would be to simply change the monks BAB from medium to good.

This would allow him an attack routine of something like +20/+20/+20/+15/+10 (possibly an extra +5 at the end as well).

At this point the monk has a much better attack routine than the other fighter types, does equivalent damage, has a better ac, better saves, better speed, better defensive capabilities, and a cooler haircut.

but if that is what you all want then go for it, it definately seems like that will push the monk way over the top to me. Whatever floats your boat though I suppose.

I agree that probably would make monks too good. It might be doable however if you strip out several of their special abilities to balance it out? The spell resistance is very powerful, losing that would go a long way toward balancing it back up I think.

 

[hong]

"What "immunity to spells below 8th level"? And why should I care how unhittable this guy is, if he also can't hit anything worth a damn?"

Glad you actually read my post hong.

I am always willing to give little children the benefit of my penetrating wisdom, as unto a shaft of gold in the dark night.

The monk has a green and lavender Iuan Stone, which absorbes all spells of 8th or lower level.

And I shall start now.

1. The ioun [sic] stone only absorbs 50 spell levels, after which it's useless. Unless you are talking about a one-shot, these things run out.

2. It costs 40,000 gp a pop. Even 20th level characters will blink at splurging that sort of money on a regular basis.

3. There's nothing to stop the barb, or any other character, getting one of these ioun stones either. It is entirely irrelevant for the purpose of comparing character classes.

You DO understand what we're trying to do here, don't you?

No I dont care if "I" kill crap, as long as the party kills crap Im happy. I help that along in the way best suited to whatever Im playing, be that by healing people or (In the case of my rogue) just by detecting and disarming traps.

How very nice of you. I'll bet you even know all the words to "Kumbaya".

My rogue is beyond useless in combat, but has a nifty +68 on hiding and +32 on search so he makes a decent scout.

What your rogue does is a matter of profound indifference to me, and the other six billion people on the planet.

I cant remeber any game where "disabling the trap" was as cool as doing 150 damage on a crit, but it still needs doing.

Yes, yes, your ONE-INCH TITANIUM PENIS is smaller than mine. Okay, I believe you.

"Because you are defining a monk's niche solely in terms of survivability"
That is the monks niche, first man in last man out.

For people who play RIFTS, certainly.

LOOK AT THE CLASS.

YOU CAN TELL THAT'S IMPORTANT, BECAUSE MAJERE POSTED IN ALL CAPS. FEAR HIM! FEEEEAAARRR HIMMM!!!!

This kinda schtick would work better if you actually showed any sign of cognitive ability past 7th grade, you know.

It is clearly far more defensive than any other melee class so how can you possibly argue it should be as offensive as well. That is clearly unbalanced, you appear to define the "balance" of a class purely by the damage is can deal, if something deals less damage then something else.. must be unbalanced !?

No. This one particular class is based on precedents that strongly suggest it should be able to hold its own in combat. The class fails to do this, therefore it's a badly designed class. This argument does not apply to any arbitrary class, but only this one.

Perhaps if I post in small words, it will be easier to understand.

Monk in chop-socky movies kick butt.
Monk in D&D no kick butt.
Monk do right stuff bad.
Monk do wrong stuff good.

Unfortunately there's two words with more than one syllable in there, but hopefully you should still be able get the gist of it.

As as I demonstrated the monk can have an almost identical attack routine to the fighter, so he is just as likely to hit as the fighter.

You have demonstrated no such thing, kid. Try again.

There are also feats for such fun shindigs as vorpal fists. Just because the monk I put down didnt bother upping his str doesnt mean I couldnt have increased his damage.

IOW: you demonstrated no such thing, as I said.

However lowering the Ac of the monk is a poor option due to low HP.

IOW: monks are problematic in combat, as I said.

although, again. There are ways to take from ac and give to hp and I put in the post.

IOW: your build as posted was pointless, as I said.

If you read my post I suggested ideas that would drop the monks ac to the mid 50's (still 10 points more than the fighter and the fighter can only hit on a 20), while raising the hp to over 200.

Is this more of that funky new math I've heard about?

Maybe you didnt bother to read that ?

"What "immunity to spells below 8th level"? And why should I care how unhittable this guy is, if he also can't hit anything worth a damn?"
Actually he has the same to hit bonuses and DRbypass as any fighter.

Ah. This must be some new meaning of the word "same" I wasn't previously aware of.

He does less damage yes, but he still does a respectable amount.

Well, respectable to someone who plays a rogue who's useless in combat, anyway. Meanwhile in the real world, it's 12 midnight. DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR CHILDREN ARE?

Infact if the creature has a few energy resistances then the monk does about 2/3 to 3/4 of the fighters damage on each hit. And that is a monk who is deliberately with a very low Str.

That is 1) a fraction of the damage 2) of a fighter who isn't optimised for damage output 3) in a subset of all combat situations.

You're doing well so far.

An enlarged half-orc monk with a higher starting Str stat could well be doing damage almost as good as a fighters while enjoying far better speed and defences.

And the fighter could just as easily be enlarged as well. This is the third time you have failed to comprehend this, O dimmest of wits. But never mind, the cluebat builds character.

"Did I mention any spells that involve touch AC? Try again, RIFTS boy."
One word
Harm
Your fighter just lost 75hp
The clerice cant touch the monk except on a natural 20.
Not to mention the monk is a far superior fighter against undead or anything with touch attacks. Ray of enfeeblement will make a mess of your fighter, but will only hit me on a natural 20. The list does go on

I will say, for the third time, in hopes of getting through to your tiny brain: nobody cares. The monk will live through crap that can kill lots of other people. Nobody cares. The character is not a major threat, relatively speaking, and since that is the prime driver of satisfaction for most people, the class has problems.

YOU may care that your monk has stratospheric AC and saves, but your preferences are completely irrelevant to anyone except yourself. Except maybe to demonstrate to all and sundry your inability to follow the argument presented, but that's no bad thing.

"Why do you persist in using a metric that has no relevance to the issue except for yourself?"
Its entirely relevent if you are going to compare classess that I compare classes.

You know, there's no shame in just admitting you don't have a clue what's going on. Really.

Just because you dont have a good counter to my example doesnt make it irrelevent.

Clearly I will have to post in small words again.

Monk live through crap.
Only so much crap in the world.
Monk no dish out crap.
Dish out crap good.
Monk no dish out crap, so monk no good.

Comprende, RIFTS boy?

" However, if D&D is going to do this, then the right thing to do, assuming one wants a martial artist-type in the game, is to design the class so that it retains that core theme to it, of being able to hold its own in combat. If this cannot be done, then the class should be dropped, because doing otherwise simply means people are misled as to their intended role in the party."
Here you probably have a point.

Ah, another glimmer of understanding! It makes it all worthwhile. No, really.

But in fantasy books mages are all powerful, wishes can do anything and so on.

Nonsense.

You never see a character shout "I wish my friends were alive again.. oh wait thats in a prohibited class for me so I can only replicate 5th level spells not 7th, erm wait a second.. I erm wish they had made their saves.. oh no I cant do that either".

Oh dear, RIFTS boy is babbling again.

D&D moved away from steriotypes quite a while ago. So Im not sure how tightly you can use them to back up any argument.

Please, not the "it's all chess to me" argument. Do not make me drag out the dinosaurs.

 

[hong]

Actual 20th level monk (hasted):

Natural attacks: +30/+30/+30/+30/+25/+20 (2d10+10 - average 21) plus 1 stun attempt per round.
AC: 39

Actual 20th level sword and shield fighter (hasted) with full specilization and flaming +5 longsword:

Longsword attack: +37/+37/+32/+27/+22 (d8+d6fire+18 - average 26).
AC: 36

Using optimal power attack versus an AC of 25 (ignoring critcals for the moment to keep things simple):
Monk PAs for 6 - 133.65 damage (plus stun & quivering)
Fighter PAs for 8 - 136 damage.

When you factor in critical hits, the edge for the fighter increases (assuming a 17-20 crit range for fighter and 19-20 crit range for the monk), but the monk is only slightly behind the highly specialized fighter. If the AC of the enemy increases dramatically, the monk falls farther behind. OTOH, if the AC drops, the monk gets farther ahead.

1. Why only +5 flaming? If there is one no-brainer enchantment you want on a weapon, it's holy. It seems to be a requirement in a stereotypical D&D adventure that the bad guys must be Evil, and this holds more and more true the higher level you go. All the bad guys in the adventure path modules and the TSR classics are evil, and the same holds true for probably 90% of other modules out there. Even for DMs who don't use modules, I'd put money on the great majority of custom BBEGs being evil. Holy basically gives you an extra 2d6 points in those situations where you're most likely to want it.

2. Looking over the CR 20 threats in the MM, I find: balor -- AC 35. Pit fiend -- AC 40. Old red dragon -- AC 33. Black dragon wyrm -- AC 39. Or you could use a 20th level monk (AC 39), or a 20th level fighter (AC 36). It may be the case that you'll still hit these enemies with at least your first attack, but they're still a long, long way from AC 25.

3. Assuming the monk even has Power Attack is a stretch, IME, as is being able to optimise it all the time.

4. A sword-and-shield fighter is itself a build optimised for defence, so naturally the monk isn't going to look so bad compared to it. You would hope that someone building a fighter like this is intending not to get hit.

The monk can be plenty effective. I've seen it many times. Beyond the numbers above, you have to figure in that the damage from the monk comes in smaller baskets in more attacks, so that when he drops a foe, he has less overblow (lost damage) and can make greater use out of a feat like great cleave in games with medium hit die foes in high level games.

And if it's a stretch to assume a monk has PA, it's an even greater stretch to assume they have Great Cleave.

I have REPEATEDLY seen monks shine in combat.

Define "shine". Do you mean contributing in ways that help other people kick butt, as seems to be the case for the majority of examples posted thus far? Because I have great difficulty believing that there really are that many combat-monster monks out there.

Having seen it, I can (with 100% accuracy) say that it can be done under the core rules. Anyone that says that it can not happen can not speak with such authority - failing to see something does not prove that it does not exist. It just says that you have not seen it.

Nobody said you couldn't do it. You just have to work pretty hard at it, and know a lot about the tricks of the ruleset and how best to use them to your advantage. It's entirely possible to become president of the US if you work hard enough. You would also be pretty silly to assume everyone can do it.

3.) People hate Hong and Hong hates people.

It's character building.

 

[Geoff Watson]

The problem with giving the Monk all the fighter bennies (high BAB, extra martial arts feats), is that she will then totally overshadow the other warrior-classes.
The skills, saves, and special abilities are not worthless, even if they don't directly add to offence.

Geoff.

 

[Will]

Ok. Now, why, again, does rpg.net have the bad reputation?

Yeesh.

 

[CPXB]

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.

It was one of those things I was gonna mention, that we were fighting on a road between two fields with a few buildings nearby -- not precisely a stagaltite filled cavern. I was also going to mention that the giants had enough cover (nearby buildings) as we did. I particularly like the part where he said I should be able to get a clear shot at the giant unless the giant was swarmed -- which, as I pointed out originally, the giant *was*. He had already made his decision, based on predicates from his own experiences, so continuing on about it would have been foolish.

 

[Gort]

Hong has made one good point. (ain't I generous?) A two-handed swordsman will outshine any melee character for damage. This is clear. Even before power attack, the 1.5xstr and 2d6 damage will make pretty much anything hurt bad, and bonuses like holy are no-brainers. (I play a fighter in a campaign where every character is evil, and I'd put holy on my sword if I could find a way around the level loss!)

So, the monk isn't going to outshine anyone except the bard and rogue for damage. (sneak attack is just too damn unreliable - one minute it's awesome, the next it's worthless) However, I think his defensive powers and his lack of armour go a long way to balancing that out. Of course, I usually play sword and board fighters (currently a tower shielded full plater) so I place a lot of emphasis on who's still standing at the end of a combat. (Leading a party of evil characters kinda means you don't want to go down in combat, let alone be killed - you don't know whether they'll heal, resurrect, or coup-de-grace and loot you!)

Things like ray spells spoil everyone's day, unless you're a monk. Ditto grappling. Ditto tripping.

But, if you're like Hong, who loves his martial artist and kicking ass naked better than full plated and armed, here's a suggested monk class:

Same as the fighter in every way, bar: Drop all armour proficiency. Drop weapon proficiency down to monk list. Give wis bonus to AC and flurry. Sorted.

However, for all his defensive powers, I don't think the monk does too little damage. If you want more attack, you'll have to sacrifice something.

 

[jgsugden]

1. Why only +5 flaming? If there is one no-brainer enchantment you want on a weapon, it's holy. It seems to be a requirement in a stereotypical D&D adventure that the bad guys must be Evil, and this holds more and more true the higher level you go. All the bad guys in the adventure path modules and the TSR classics are evil, and the same holds true for probably 90% of other modules out there. Even for DMs who don't use modules, I'd put money on the great majority of custom BBEGs being evil. Holy basically gives you an extra 2d6 points in those situations where you're most likely to want it.

I used the word actual for a reason. Those were real characters. In this instance, the longsword had a number of other abilities. Of course, the monk didn't even have fire going for it, though it is easy for a monk to get flame damage for his attacks via a ring of spell storing and (heightened) produce flame spells from the druid (or other tactics). And let's not forget the exhalted monk feats ...

2. Looking over the CR 20 threats in the MM, I find: balor -- AC 35. Pit fiend -- AC 40. Old red dragon -- AC 33. Black dragon wyrm -- AC 39. Or you could use a 20th level monk (AC 39), or a 20th level fighter (AC 36). It may be the case that you'll still hit these enemies with at least your first attack, but they're still a long, long way from AC 25.

You get 3 attacks at your best AB. Against these foes, additional spells (prayer, etc ..) would be advised. But, as I mentioned, going after high AC foes is not a strength of the monk. You're entirely correct that it lacks in that department. It makes up for it in its effectiveness against lower AC monsters. I've played in a dozen or so high level campaigns in the past two years. In each of them, ACs above 25 were reserved for powerful BBEGs. Most enemies had a lower AC. Even though the monk was not playing to his strength against those BBEGs, he was still effective.

3. Assuming the monk even has Power Attack is a stretch, IME, as is being able to optimise it all the time.

PA is one of the most effective feats for any melee character that can benefit from it (not light weapon folks, but everyone else). Perhaps poor feat choices play a part in your poor perception of monks?

4. A sword-and-shield fighter is itself a build optimised for defence, so naturally the monk isn't going to look so bad compared to it. You would hope that someone building a fighter like this is intending not to get hit.

Monk is also optimized for defense. This monk did nothing special to improve his defense. I constantly question why he hasn't done the basics to get his AC up into the 40s and play off of the strengths of the monk ...

And if it's a stretch to assume a monk has PA, it's an even greater stretch to assume they have Great Cleave.

I've never seen a high level monk without PA and cleave. They are very high efficiency feats for any melee character.

Define "shine". Do you mean contributing in ways that help other people kick butt, as seems to be the case for the majority of examples posted thus far? Because I have great difficulty believing that there really are that many combat-monster monks out there.

Here is an example of shine: Our group came into the lair of a BBEG epic priest and his army of minions. The priest dropped a modified mass hold monster spell on the party. The monk and the cleric saved, the rest of the party was held. The monk proceeded to d-door close to the BBEG while the rest of the party was being tended to by the party cleric. The next round, the BBEG turned on the monk, but his spell failed to get through the monk's SR. The monk then proceeded to beat the crap out of the enemy priest for his first 3 attacks and then used his fourth attack at top BAB (he was hasted due to his boots) to quivering palm the enemy priest. The rest of the party had to resort to clean up duty.

Nobody said you couldn't do it. You just have to work pretty hard at it, and know a lot about the tricks of the ruleset and how best to use them to your advantage. It's entirely possible to become president of the US if you work hard enough. You would also be pretty silly to assume everyone can do it.

So don't assume that fact. And at the same time, don't assume a fighter has any weapon he wants at his disposal, don't assume every cleric knows the optimum spells to use and don't assume every druid knows how to get the most bang out of his summoning and animal companion.

You've repeatedly said monk's can't compete. I'm telling you I've seen it. If I've seen it, it can be done.

It takes *some* effort. It takes *some effort* to be effective in almost any class. You can't put your highest ability scores in charisma, constitution and intelligence and expect to be an effective monk. But, usuing just the basics of strategy and selecting the feats known to be best for melee combat, a monk is a very effective PC.

And once again, just to stress the point, in certain styles of games, a monk can not compete. If the DM uses exclusively high AC foes, the monk will be at a disadvantage. If the DM uses exclusviely foes immune to stunning, the monk will be at a disadvantage. If the DM uses monsters that inflict damage if hit with a natural weapon, the monk is at a disadvantage. There are many ways to put monks at a disadvantage. If you happen to play in those games, it isn't a fault of the monk class that makes it weak.

 

[jgsugden]

Hong has made one good point. (ain't I generous?) A two-handed swordsman will outshine any melee character for damage. This is clear. Even before power attack, the 1.5xstr and 2d6 damage will make pretty much anything hurt bad, and bonuses like holy are no-brainers. (I play a fighter in a campaign where every character is evil, and I'd put holy on my sword if I could find a way around the level loss!)

I encourage people to do a few studies. It helps to open eyes a bit to the numbers behind D&D that influenced the balance decisions.

Keep a record of effective damage per attack. Effective damage is all damage that does not result in negative hit points for your foe. For instance, if your foe has 40 hit points and you hit him twice for 30 hit points each, the first strike does 30 effective hit points of damage and the second strike does 11 effective hit points of damage (the rest putting him down to negative hit points which have virtually no effect on the game). Also keep tabs on when the damage was dealt - in full round attacks, via cleaves, etc ...

If you compare that two handed barbarian to the two weapon ranger, you might be surprised by the results.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It was one of those things I was gonna mention, that we were fighting on a road between two fields with a few buildings nearby -- not precisely a stagaltite filled cavern.

A field tends to qualify as broken ground, especially a tilled one. Or one filled with head-high crops. Or one filled with mud. Or...

The numbers under balance checks are for things like "uneven flagstone", "hewn stone floor" and "sloped or angled floor". If a field can't count as at least equal to those, then your balance ranks are basically a total waste of time. Swap them out for a skill that will see some use.

I was also going to mention that the giants had enough cover (nearby buildings) as we did. I particularly like the part where he said I should be able to get a clear shot at the giant unless the giant was swarmed -- which, as I pointed out originally, the giant *was*.

What, swarmed by two creatures? And a giant's cover tends to be something that requires he take a move action to get behind, whereas your cover is the ditch in the side of the road.

He had already made his decision, based on predicates from his own experiences, so continuing on about it would have been foolish.

Sounds like you came up against a solid argument that you don't agree with, and are bailing because you know you've been outclassed.

Perhaps if I'd actually failed to provide counter-arguments to what you've brought up, or if you'd had a clue about half the rules you were supposed to be useing, or...

But no. Claiming I'd already made my mind up before the argument is far, far easier than either knowing what you're on about, or knowing that you're beat.