Touch AC versus flat-footed is definitely not a toss up. Don't hurt your argument with false claims.
Depends what you are more afraid of, I guess.
Flat-footed lasts a round or two at most in 99% of encounters. That only if you miss your Perception checks and monks usually have a good perception.
Depends on what you are fighting. Generally I will agree that touch is more common, but sometimes flat footed really counts. You only have to run into one imrpoved invisibility spell on a nasty rogue to appreciate it.
It's not really a contest. Touch AC is much more beneficial than flat-footed. A monk's flat-footed is still better than average because he gets his wisdom. A monk should have a flat-footed on par with a fighter with no...
Depends what you call "average" - average across the board or average for a combat class? The former, yes; the latter, no.
Weirdly in the monk vs fighter I made, the monk has been having HIGHER health than the fighter builds.
Weirdly, I have only ever found the opposite.
Monk's flat footed AC is actually very high "These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed" Both wis and monk bonus are not lost. Only dex would be lost (like a fighter).
Those AC bonuses are less than you get with armour and a shield, though. Your +4 wisdom at 3rd level isn't much compared to the +9 from plate armour, is it?
Touch AC versus flat-footed is definitely not a toss up. Don't hurt your argument with false claims.Depends what you are more afraid of, I guess.
Flat-footed lasts a round or two at most in 99% of encounters. That only if you miss your Perception checks and monks usually have a good perception.Depends on what you are fighting. Generally I will agree that touch is more common, but sometimes flat footed really counts. You only have to run into one imrpoved invisibility spell on a nasty rogue to appreciate it.
It's not really a contest. Touch AC is much more beneficial than flat-footed. A monk's flat-footed is still better than average because he gets his wisdom. A monk should have a flat-footed on par with a fighter with no...Depends what you call "average" - average across the board or average for a combat class? The former, yes; the latter, no.
Weirdly in the monk vs fighter I made, the monk has been having HIGHER health than the fighter builds.Weirdly, I have only ever found the opposite.
Monk's flat footed AC is actually very high "These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed" Both wis and monk bonus are not lost. Only dex would be lost (like a fighter).Those AC bonuses are less than you get with armour and a shield, though. Your +4 wisdom at 3rd level isn't much compared to the +9 from plate armour, is it?
The biggest danger I deal with is getting hit by energy drain attacks. There is only one defense: death ward. You often don't have that spell up.
As a monk I keep my Perception maxed out. It's pretty rare anything sneaks up on me. If we're caught flat-footed, the stealthy guy usually goes after the casters first if intelligent. If it's an animal or something that targets at random, then I can survive a round or two of attacks.
It's pretty rare that a monk is the main target of a surprise attack because they are not real dangerous as you know. Not enough offense to be number one on the kill-o-meter. Undead generally don't care. They will swarm kill someone very quickly. If a fighter with a low touch AC is swarmed by energy draining cretures, he's generally dead. Even a lvl 20 fighter with a poor touch AC can be destroyed by swarm of spectres whereas the monk survives due to a better touch AC. I hate getting hit by energy drain with a quickened enervate. That's 6 negative levels with no save and on the way to Deadville right quick.
The biggest danger I deal with is getting hit by energy drain attacks. There is only one defense: death ward. You often don't have that spell up.
I've faced that one, but oddly not that often. To my surprise the fighters fared better (except against hoards, against which nobody did well) because although they got hit more, they also dished out so much damage that they rarely got hit twice.
As a monk I keep my Perception maxed out. It's pretty rare anything sneaks up on me. If we're caught flat-footed, the stealthy guy usually goes after the casters first if intelligent. If it's an animal or something that targets at random, then I can survive a round or two of attacks.
Me too, but unfortunately when you are fighting an invisible assassin leader...you get the picture. My scouting monk bled a lot, perhaps because our arcane caster was a magus and not that obviously vulnerable, while my monk was out scouting ahead.
Rule #1: target who is most dangerous and most vulnerable, if you can.
Rule #2: target who will die fastest, get them out of the way.
It's pretty rare that a monk is the main target of a surprise attack because they are not real dangerous as you know. Not enough offense to be number one on the kill-o-meter. Undead generally don't care. They will swarm kill someone very quickly. If a fighter with a low touch AC is swarmed by energy draining cretures, he's generally dead. Even a lvl 20 fighter with a poor touch AC can be destroyed by swarm of spectres whereas the monk survives due to a better touch AC. I hate getting hit by energy drain with a quickened enervate. That's 6 negative levels with no save and on the way to Deadville right quick.
I do take your point, but neither monk nor fighter should be fighting the hoard of undead - they are just soaking the attacks while the cleric kills the undead, then restores the party.
That's what everyone keeps missing, the party context: The fighter is more vulnerable, yes - but his vulnerabilities are covered by the rest of the party, and he contributes a lot in return. The monk demands somewhat less from the party, but contributes considerably less.
After reading most of this thread, I have just one question.
I see several people arguing that classes are balanced (mostly the argument is about monks). I've seen the same argument in 3.5 and 3.0. I just wonder if it's the same people.
So my question, to those who are arguing that the classes are balanced now, is: Did you feel the classes were balanced back in 3.5 or 3.0?
As a personal bet, I'd say that when PF 2.0 or 1.5 comes, they'll change some things of the monk and/or other classes. And I bet some (same?) people will argue that the monk and/or other classes would be balanced then. Without acknowledging that if they are balanced with the upgrades in PF2.0, then they weren't balanced before those upgrades.
Just food for thought
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone actually argues that the classes are balanced per se, but argues that the DM can balance them out by tailoring adventures, magic items and powers.
I think it's b****ks, and they are horribly balanced, and should be better balanced in a game that relies so much on combat, but I don't like to participate in futile discussions. There seems to be little gained be repeating the same arguments over and over.
Edit: That word is censored? Okay, will not use it in the future.
I think the game is balanced. Every class has their strengths and weaknesses. In a complex game like PF calling something OP or UP is kind'of ridiculous.
marthkus.
How, for the life of me, do you explain a Monk having more hp than a fighter? In a point buy system, a monk NEEDS Str, Dex, Con, and Wis. Therefore, his con will most likely be lower than a fighter (Who only really needs str, con, and wis [to toughen up his poor will]). Additionally, the fighter has a larger hd than a monk. Either your math is horridly off, the fighter's math is horridly off, Or the fighter is was built with much less leancy than the monk (lower point buy/less gold for stuff). There is 0 reason why a monk has a higher HP than the fighter (short of real world application with a VERY lucky monk and a VERY unlucky fighter when it comes to rolling for hp).
marthkus.
How, for the life of me, do you explain a Monk having more hp than a fighter? In a point buy system, a monk NEEDS Str, Dex, Con, and Wis. Therefore, his con will most likely be lower than a fighter (Who only really needs str, con, and wis [to toughen up his poor will]). Additionally, the fighter has a larger hd than a monk. Either your math is horridly off, the fighter's math is horridly off, Or the fighter is was built with much less leancy than the monk (lower point buy/less gold for stuff). There is 0 reason why a monk has a higher HP than the fighter (short of real world application with a VERY lucky monk and a VERY unlucky fighter when it comes to rolling for hp).
I didn't do the math. This came from build comparisons, using the same conditions.
I didn't do the math. This came from build comparisons, using the same conditions.marthkus.
How, for the life of me, do you explain a Monk having more hp than a fighter? In a point buy system, a monk NEEDS Str, Dex, Con, and Wis. Therefore, his con will most likely be lower than a fighter (Who only really needs str, con, and wis [to toughen up his poor will]). Additionally, the fighter has a larger hd than a monk. Either your math is horridly off, the fighter's math is horridly off, Or the fighter is was built with much less leancy than the monk (lower point buy/less gold for stuff). There is 0 reason why a monk has a higher HP than the fighter (short of real world application with a VERY lucky monk and a VERY unlucky fighter when it comes to rolling for hp).
The monk in the comparison was Marthkus' own, it had a massive con, used favoured class bonus, etc. to bump up HP but had (for a monk) poor AC. Many of the fighter builds were sword & board which is a pretty MAD option, and he had a few more HP than them. When some other fighter builds were posted up, they had more HP than his monk. We didn't see any other monk builds posted, so Markthus is comparing the fighters to a sample group of one.
I see several people arguing that classes are balanced (mostly the argument is about monks). I've seen the same argument in 3.5 and 3.0. I just wonder if it's the same people.
Speaking for myself, I didn't used to think that the monk was too bad in 3.5, until I tried to use one just before Pathfinder came out, and found to my chagrin that people I had argued with were right: flurry of blows really was flurry of misses.
Did you feel the classes were balanced back in 3.5 or 3.0?
No, I didn't in the end.
the tricky part of the question is:
if the monk (and other classes) was balanced in 3.0, and buffed in PF... how is it still balanced in PF? If it was balanced in 3.0, then upgrading their stuff would made it over the top in PF. And if the upgrades in PF just made it on par with the others, then it WASN'T balanced in 3.0, as the (same?) people argued back then.
The monk wasn't good in 3.5, and while it got some improvements in Pathfinder, it also suffered some nerfs - I don't think the latter were deliberate, but with different people working on different things, it was bound to happen somewhere and the monk was where it did.
Benefits: the full-BAB flurry, the full-BAB maneuver, these were a bonus, although not a huge one. So was the ki-pool concept, although it falls short when you compare it to, say, arcane pool, and some abilities that were little use before are even worse as options for ki-pool.
Losses: Improved Natural Attack was a way of improving the monk that is now lost. Spell Resistance was changed so that Diamond Soul, which was pretty good, is now more trouble than it is worth. Abundent Step was nerfed by Dimension Door ending your turn (seriously, how many abilities take a feat-tax to work properly for other classes?).
Stayed the same: what the monk needed was self-buffs, and he didn't get any. The AoMF is still overpriced and capped too low - yet at the same time still too good for shape-changers, animal companions and monsters.
As a personal bet, I'd say that when PF 2.0 or 1.5 comes, they'll change some things of the monk and/or other classes. And I bet some (same?) people will argue that the monk and/or other classes would be balanced then. Without acknowledging that if they are balanced with the upgrades in PF2.0, then they weren't balanced before those upgrades.
Just food for thought
Depends on what you call "balance" really. I'd like to see the monk be able to pull his weight and contribute in a party on a regular basis, which is something most monks cannot achieve without a bachelors degree in system mastery. I have some ideas as to what the monk needs, all comments welcome here.
The biggest danger I deal with is getting hit by energy drain attacks. There is only one defense: death ward. You often don't have that spell up.I've faced that one, but oddly not that often. To my surprise the fighters fared better (except against hoards, against which nobody did well) because although they got hit more, they also dished out so much damage that they rarely got hit twice.
As a monk I keep my Perception maxed out. It's pretty rare anything sneaks up on me. If we're caught flat-footed, the stealthy guy usually goes after the casters first if intelligent. If it's an animal or something that targets at random, then I can survive a round or two of attacks.Me too, but unfortunately when you are fighting an invisible assassin leader...you get the picture. My scouting monk bled a lot, perhaps because our arcane caster was a magus and not that obviously vulnerable, while my monk was out scouting ahead.
Rule #1: target who is most dangerous and most vulnerable, if you can.
Rule #2: target who will die fastest, get them out of the way.It's pretty rare that a monk is the main target of a surprise attack because they are not real dangerous as you know. Not enough offense to be number one on the kill-o-meter. Undead generally don't care. They will swarm kill someone very quickly. If a fighter with a low touch AC is swarmed by energy draining cretures, he's generally dead. Even a lvl 20 fighter with a poor touch AC can be destroyed by swarm of spectres whereas the monk survives due to a better touch AC. I hate getting hit by energy drain with a quickened enervate. That's 6 negative levels with no save and on the way to Deadville right quick.I do take your point, but neither monk nor fighter should be fighting the hoard of undead - they are just soaking the attacks while the cleric kills the undead, then restores the party.
That's what everyone keeps missing, the party context: The fighter is...
It depends on your build as well. I'm playing a Hungry Ghost Monk right now. I've just hit level 10. It's pretty nice to be able to heal yourself every time you crit.
It really depends on the AC I'm going against. If I'm fighting mooks, and there's lots of mooks in every adventure, I kill a lot of stuff faster than the fighter due to the sheer number of attacks. If I'm fighting something with a real high AC, generally the fighter is far superior at hitting. That does hurt me.
I've found encounters where the monks shines bright. If we're fighting creature lobbing reflex save attacks at us, I'm definitely doing a lot of better than the fighter. The new Quingong archetype has helped some with ranged attacks.
The Zen Archer monk is pretty damn tough too.
A straight monk not so much.
It depends on your build as well. I'm playing a Hungry Ghost Monk right now. I've just hit level 10. It's pretty nice to be able to heal yourself every time you crit.
Indeed it is.
It really depends on the AC I'm going against. If I'm fighting mooks, and there's lots of mooks in every adventure, I kill a lot of stuff faster than the fighter due to the sheer number of attacks. If I'm fighting something with a real high AC, generally the fighter is far superior at hitting. That does hurt me.
Yep, and those are the fights that really matter, aren't they?
Some DM's skip on the mook-fights, or else your wizard just fireballs them to death. Tough fights are always there, though.
I've found encounters where the monks shines bright. If we're fighting creature lobbing reflex save attacks at us, I'm definitely doing a lot of better than the fighter. The new Quingong archetype has helped some with ranged attacks.
Qingong is a big improvement. I don't get why self-buffs that are martial art's tropes like boosting strength (bull's strength) or self enchanting (greater magic fang) weren't included, but it's still a big improvement if only because you can replace some abilities with others that are actually useful.
The Zen Archer monk is pretty damn tough too.
A straight monk not so much.
Just so. But the Zen Archer isn't really what people think of with a monk - and while he's good, it's because archery is good. If I was going for an archer, a ranger is still all-round a better choice.
|
I would say arcane casters and to a very lesser extent divine caster. At first when I heard all the complaints about the fighter class I thought that fellow gamers were exaggerating. Until I decided to make the most non optimized Wizard that I could. Beyond taking Combat Casting everything else was geared toward creating items. Of course I was not dumb. I did take some bread and butter defensive an offensive spells. Otherwise I was the ultimate builder of items of all kinds. When I was still doing more than the Fighter I knew that 3.5 and later PF had issue when it came to the at least the fighter. Before anyone accuses the DM or the person playing a fighter as being incompatant. The guy running the fighter had mastered the ins and outs of 3.5. He knew all the right feats and everything else to take. The DM was no newbie to the hooby but a veteran to the game. We had hoped that PF would at least address the issue of casters being too powerful in at least a minor way. Alas it was not to be becuase a bunch of very vocal playtesters hijacked the playesting process and made sure it never happened.
I'm hoping the upcoming Inner Sea Combat book has some good stuff for the Fighter. And no not more spells and feats for spellcasters. It's a book supposed to be devoted to combat classes. I don;t care how combat oriented the spells are I don't want to see a repeat of Ultimate combat a second time.
It depends on your build as well. I'm playing a Hungry Ghost Monk right now. I've just hit level 10. It's pretty nice to be able to heal yourself every time you crit.Indeed it is.
It really depends on the AC I'm going against. If I'm fighting mooks, and there's lots of mooks in every adventure, I kill a lot of stuff faster than the fighter due to the sheer number of attacks. If I'm fighting something with a real high AC, generally the fighter is far superior at hitting. That does hurt me.Yep, and those are the fights that really matter, aren't they?
Some DM's skip on the mook-fights, or else your wizard just fireballs them to death. Tough fights are always there, though.
I've found encounters where the monks shines bright. If we're fighting creature lobbing reflex save attacks at us, I'm definitely doing a lot of better than the fighter. The new Quingong archetype has helped some with ranged attacks.Qingong is a big improvement. I don't get why self-buffs that are martial art's tropes like boosting strength (bull's strength) or self enchanting (greater magic fang) weren't included, but it's still a big improvement if only because you can replace some abilities with others that are actually useful.
Just so. But the Zen Archer isn't really what people think of with a monk - and while he's good, it's because archery is good. If I was going for an archer, a ranger is still all-round a better choice.The Zen Archer monk is pretty damn tough too.
A straight monk not so much.
A friend of mine made a ranger/monk. 4 levels of ranger for gravity bow. Gravity bow with the ability to give arrows your unarmed damage was an extremely powerful combination. By level 16 he was firing arrows that did 3d8 base damage for 6 to 8 attacks per round.
Come back to me when your druid can drop summon monster IX 15 per day (+10 modifier at 20 isn't that hard) that all have +4 strength/con and can cast Summon Monster VIII 6 times. Oh and just abotu EVERY master summoner has the Superior Summoning feat. Oh and each of those creatures have pretty useful SLAs/spells avaliable. And each one you summon increases your action economy (you are "casting" mutiple spells a round now). Oh and Master summon can use his SLA as a standard action. So yeah... just saying, summoners are pretty disliked for a reason.
Lol. Alright I will Bite.
1. The druid can summon Monster IX 6 times a day and Summon Monster VIII 6 times a day. If he really wanted. And your Summoners VIII are full round actions by the way. So yeah he has more but at that number does it really matter?
2. All of those feats you just mentioned. The druid can take too. Along with Sunlight Summons, Starlight Summons, Nimble Natural Summons... which the Summoner cant.
3. Your Master Summoner can only use one summon monster spell while the eidolon is summoned. So No pet while your casting all those summons. The Druid on the other hand has a 16 HD beast Pet with Multiattack, Improved Evasion, and all his available feats. It can be almost as brutal as an Eidolon Pet... the one you cant use.
4. And if he gets bored of using Summons he can use spells like Tsunami, Summon Elder Worm, Summon Froghemoth, Finger of Death, Elemental Swarm, ect. Cause they are 9th level casters.
As far as the Dislike? I would say there are just as many who love the class. I'm one of them. Its a great utility hybrid support class. Its got a lot of power. It is an above average 6th level caster. And I like the Eidolon pet. But Druids, Clerics, Wizards, Witches, and Sorcs are just as powerful if not more so.
But that's the whole point isn't it. Who cares what is better... a Druid Summon Specialist or a Summoner. They both fill a role. They are both fun to play. Its like asking if you want to be shot in the head by a Pistol or a Machine Gun... either way you got a hole in your head. Every class has a role it can fill. Including Rogue and Fighter. Monk is the only class that is kinda weird when it comes to "What role does it fill". At least that's my opinion.
Come back to me when your druid can drop summon monster IX 15 per day (+10 modifier at 20 isn't that hard) that all have +4 strength/con and can cast Summon Monster VIII 6 times. Oh and just abotu EVERY master summoner has the Superior Summoning feat. Oh and each of those creatures have pretty useful SLAs/spells avaliable. And each one you summon increases your action economy (you are "casting" mutiple spells a round now). Oh and Master summon can use his SLA as a standard action. So yeah... just saying, summoners are pretty disliked for a reason.Lol. Alright I will Bite.
1. The druid can summon Monster IX 6 times a day and Summon Monster VIII 6 times a day. If he really wanted. And your Summoners VIII are full round actions by the way. So yeah he has more but at that number does it really matter?
2. All of those feats you just mentioned. The druid can take too. Along with Sunlight Summons, Starlight Summons, Nimble Natural Summons... which the Summoner cant.
3. Your Master Summoner can only use one summon monster spell while the eidolon is summoned. So No pet while your casting all those summons. The Druid on the other hand has a 16 HD beast Pet with Multiattack, Improved Evasion, and all his available feats. It can be almost as brutal as an Eidolon Pet... the one you cant use.
4. And if he gets bored of using Summons he can use spells like Tsunami, Summon Elder Worm, Summon Froghemoth, Finger of Death, Elemental Swarm, ect. Cause they are 9th level casters.
As far as the Dislike? I would say there are just as many who love the class. I'm one of them. Its a great utility hybrid support class. Its got a lot of power. It is an above average 6th level caster. And I like the Eidolon pet. But Druids, Clerics, Wizards, Witches, and Sorcs are just as powerful if not more so.
But that's the whole point isn't it. Who cares what is better... a Druid Summon Specialist or a Summoner. They both fill a role. They are both fun to play. Its like asking if you want to be...
Summon Nature's Ally is vastly inferior to Summon Monster.
|
Most spellcasters can not communicate with a great deal of the creatures on the SM list, meaning they can't control them beyond "hey, attack something". A lot of said creatures also have alignments that common spells protect against. Not true for SNA.
They both have us and downs that pretty well even out. The Druids ability to cast SNA spontaneously (at least vs other classes besides Summoner) is also a huge advantage.
Most spellcasters can not communicate with a great deal of the creatures on the SM list, meaning they can't control them beyond "hey, attack something". A lot of said creatures also have alignments that common spells protect against. Not true for SNA.
They both have us and downs that pretty well even out. The Druids ability to cast SNA spontaneously (at least vs other classes besides Summoner) is also a huge advantage.
...and with animal empathy you can tell them what to do. The baboons my druid went through opening doors...
@Raith - nice!
Most spellcasters can not communicate with a great deal of the creatures on the SM list, meaning they can't control them beyond "hey, attack something". A lot of said creatures also have alignments that common spells protect against. Not true for SNA.
They both have us and downs that pretty well even out. The Druids ability to cast SNA spontaneously (at least vs other classes besides Summoner) is also a huge advantage.
Tongues is a spell
It can be made permanent
Most of the decent options are intelligent outsiders which either speak common or are telepathic or bothThe only real issues are with fiendish/celestial animals and you just drop them next to whatever you want them to kill.
This and ten times this.
|
|
I Recently made a summoner that is a First Worlder. I guess I am a bit confused as to why the Summon Nature's Ally is so much worse than Summon Monster. I realize that I don't put templates on the monsters like those in the other spell.
One of the reasons I did this was to weaken the character from what the summoner is, and to make it easier to use the summons, as I can simply look up the animal instead of figuring out the template.
Toad also has an aquatic Eidilon, which he doesn't have around most of the time.
Yeah, he is a halfling named Toad with an Eidilon named Toad.
Most spellcasters can not communicate with a great deal of the creatures on the SM list, meaning they can't control them beyond "hey, attack something". A lot of said creatures also have alignments that common spells protect against. Not true for SNA.
They both have us and downs that pretty well even out. The Druids ability to cast SNA spontaneously (at least vs other classes besides Summoner) is also a huge advantage.
No. They don't even out. I don't know why you think this.
The Smite Evil once a day alone makes their damage output far superior to summon nature's ally. It only becomes a wider gap as you get higher level.
You don't need to tell animals what to do. A smart user of summon monster waits for his allies to position. Then casts his summons putting them in perfect position. They attack the nearest enemy regardless of whether or not you tell them what to do.
Once you start getting creatures with Spell-like abilities, you find creative ways to use those abilities like casting aid on allies every round to give them temporary hit points. Or firing little annoying touch attack rays. Or casting spells on you or your allies every round.
While the druid is bringing in animals that can't penetrate DR or can't reach flying creatures or get quickly dispatched due to weak will saves by an aura or something like it.
Summon monster is way, way better than summon nature's ally. I laugh at the pixie for the lvl 9 spell.
I Recently made a summoner that is a First Worlder. I guess I am a bit confused as to why the Summon Nature's Ally is so much worse than Summon Monster. I realize that I don't put templates on the monsters like those in the other spell.
One of the reasons I did this was to weaken the character from what the summoner is, and to make it easier to use the summons, as I can simply look up the animal instead of figuring out the template.
Toad also has an aquatic Eidilon, which he doesn't have around most of the time.
Yeah, he is a halfling named Toad with an Eidilon named Toad.
The main reason SM is better SNA is the templates. Being able to go through DR is a huge ability as you gain levels. At the highest levels summoning creatures with casting ability (a couple of the creatures are level 12 to 14 clerics) with innate casting Spell-like abilities that are very helpful makes SM much, much better.
Honestly I don't see why people are making a big deal about the Starlight/Moonlight/Daylight summoning feats. Ok, they allow your Dire crocodile to bypass DR Magic, Cold Iron, and Silver. Whoopie. So what you are saying is that you need to waste a feat that Summon Monster can do pretty easily at higher levels (Just about all the archons have magical attacks/Magic Weapons).
Oh and the comment about the ability to only summon 1 monster while having an Eidolon out, that only really matters to the Synthesist/Vanilla summoner. The master summoner (the main one here) wouldn't have his eidolon out. Why? Because I would rather spam out a Cure Critical Wounds, Mass spell that attacks every turn (for those of you who can't figure it out, you use your Summon Monster IX SLA to summon a Trumpet Archon as a standard Action and then have the newest Archon dropping MCCW while having all the prior ones attacking). At that level what is the best a druid can summon? A Storm Giant or a Pixie? That is rather sad. Heck, for most of the lists, the SM spell can summon most everything on SNA AND summon more and better things. The only things SNA has that SM doesn't are the fey and the giants, but those are outdone by things like demons, evils, archons, and creatures with rediculous spell like abilities. Honestly the druid cannot begin to compare with the Summoner when it comes to strength and power of summon spells.
The main reason SM is better SNA is the templates. Being able to go through DR is a huge ability as you gain levels. At the highest levels summoning creatures with casting ability (a couple of the creatures are level 12 to 14 clerics) with innate casting Spell-like abilities that are very helpful makes SM much, much better.
Not really imo. SNA is stronger at earlier levels (Where most adventures take place let me remind you). As you get higher SM becomes better and better. So mid levels they are pretty even and at high levels it is true that SM is far superior to SNA. But early game SNA is just better. Compare SM I, II, and III vs SNA I, II, and III.
Personally, I've always felt that any classes could be built to be extremely overpowered with a certain amount of skill(except perhaps monks and rogues).
If you're asking what's toptier, then in no particular order:
...
Barbarians
...
Please explain how a Barbarian can go up against things like Summon Monster X or an eidolon
Summon Monster: Spell Sunder. Or just kill it, most summons are well within the one round kill range for a good 2H Power Attacker.
Eidolon: Toe to toe battling, could go either way.
Barbarians are best martials. More martials should be like Barbarians.
|
The main reason SM is better SNA is the templates. Being able to go through DR is a huge ability as you gain levels. At the highest levels summoning creatures with casting ability (a couple of the creatures are level 12 to 14 clerics) with innate casting Spell-like abilities that are very helpful makes SM much, much better.Not really imo. SNA is stronger at earlier levels (Where most adventures take place let me remind you). As you get higher SM becomes better and better. So mid levels they are pretty even and at high levels it is true that SM is far superior to SNA. But early game SNA is just better. Compare SM I, II, and III vs SNA I, II, and III.
I don't quite understand. The SNA and SM's summons lists are pratically the same at lower levels right?
So what makes SNA stand out over SM at lower levels?
Or hell. Strength Surge.
"Excuse me while I give myself a +12 boost on this Sunder check kthx BYE BYE YA SUMMONED MOOK!"
Yeah, they are, but it's not like most of the other Rage Powers are terrible anyway.
Beast Totem is great because it provides something most martials DESPERATELY want (Pounce), but Dragon and Spirit Totems aren't too shabby either IMO.
It'd be a bit better if the Totems weren't mutually exclusive though, since most of the really cool powers are in the Totems, and Beass is the most optimal.
Really just removing the "One Totem per customer restriction" would be enough to do that. It's really damn hard to make something that competes with Pounce for a melee character in this game.
Honestly I would be glad if the barbarian is wasting his time attacking the summons. Summon monster's are expendible. Ever hit the barbarian wastes on the summon is a turn he didn't spend attacking the real threat (i.e. the caster)
Granted, I will give that the barbarian is easily the best martial and is a pure blast to play xD.
So what makes SNA stand out over SM at lower levels?
Druids can cast it spontaneously and use animal empathy to communicate with the creature. That gives you a lot more versatility.
Actually, I'd be perfectly happy to let the barbarian whomp on the "Evil Wizard". While he's congratulating himself for defeating my simulacrum, I would have gone ahead and accomplished my actual mission, whether it's stealing the Gem of Cytorrack, freeing the princess, or whatever. A good wizard should be able to avoid combat with a barbarian in the first place.