what is the balence point of summoners

[bobthe6th]

so what is the current balance point of summoners/necromancers/minionmancers?

I was planing on making a summoner base class at some point, and am curious for the opinion of the playground.

should summoned mooks be better than an equal level fgiter? worse? at what point do they become to strong? at what point are they to week?

[Flickerdart]

Summoners and necromancers have different benchmarks, because every zombie you lose costs you money, while every summon you lose just means that you didn't have to stand around after the encounter making awkward small talk until the duration expires.

[bobthe6th]

point, but they have a simmiler balence problem. you use your spell to make a mook, that may overshaddow another player in its own right. a necromancer can make a skeliton that would blow any melee build out of the water. near epic cleric dosn't need a fighter, it just gates in a Solar.

what is a good point at which summoning works, but doesn't over shaddow?

[Flickerdart]

You'll probably want to go with psionics on this one. The CPsi nerfs mean that a Shaper won't be running around with mighty Astral Construct hordes, plus you only need to learn one power (so you can fall back on other stuff if the construct doesn't work) and there's no need to trawl the books for monsters you can grab.

[ericgrau]

Well the basic summon monster spells grab monsters a little over half the party's level in CR, or in other words they're trivial by themself. But that's what you get from only one round. And then their versatility is another advantage, for example any SLAs they might have. And you can boost them a little bit with augment summoning. And you might have time to summon 2 or 3, but they'll arrive a bit late in the fight.

I'd do something similar if making a base class focusing on summons: good support in a party but not much in a fight on their own. An actual summoning class gives up little compared to a wizard who focuses on summon spells, so he shouldn't gain much either. Maybe a slightly improved augment summoning or at higher levels allow early access to summon monster, and "summon monster 10" instead gives 1d3 summon monster 9's.

[candycorn]

Also, summon monster 9's most versatile summon, IMO, is using a maximize rod to get 5 avorals. With Augment Summoning, you get decent sources of damage (5 CL 8 empowered magic missile spells per round for 3 rounds, average damage per round is a touch over 100.... 70 or so after empowers run out.) that also double as solid healers (via lay on hands for 80+ HP each), means of detecting hostiles (true seeing), and protection from outside control/enemy summons (magic circle).

All in all, very solid.

[Treblain]

Summons as straight combatants are balanced as much as anything that can give your party extra combatants and actions. They only really get too powerful when you summon creatures and abuse their special abilities.

[Psyren]

You'll probably want to go with psionics on this one. The CPsi nerfs mean that a Shaper won't be running around with mighty Astral Construct hordes, plus you only need to learn one power (so you can fall back on other stuff if the construct doesn't work) and there's no need to trawl the books for monsters you can grab.

Pity the nerf was "omitted" in Pathfinder. Whoops. :smallamused:

[Silva Stormrage]

Pity the nerf was "omitted" in Pathfinder. Whoops. :smallamused:

And no one really uses it in 3.5 because astral construct REALLY isn't an over powered power anyway...

[Endarire]

My balance point for a 3.5 summoner is tricked-out Malconvoker who's dedicated to summoning.

My balance point for a Necromancer is a Cleric with Corpsecrafter. No, Master of Shrouds isn't the base line of power.

And I ignore the Complete Psionic nerf to astral construct.

[Godskook]

And no one really uses it in 3.5 because astral construct REALLY isn't an over powered power anyway...

There's also the fact that it isn't RAW, no matter what Comp Psi tells you.

[Silva Stormrage]

There's also the fact that it isn't RAW, no matter what Comp Psi tells you.

Wait what? I haven't heard that before. Why isn't it?

[Godskook]

Wait what? I haven't heard that before. Why isn't it?

Primary source rules, and the primary source for a power is the book its originally printed in. The 'correct' way to errata something is with actual errata, not a stealth nerf in a splatbook.

Although I suppose you can technically argue that both versions exist, but since one is merely a nerfed version of the other, no PC will ever choose the Comp Psi option rather than the better XPH version. This argument is how you can get cheaper gear from MiC by RAW.

[candycorn]

Primary source rules, and the primary source for a power is the book its originally printed in. The 'correct' way to errata something is with actual errata, not a stealth nerf in a splatbook.

Although I suppose you can technically argue that both versions exist, but since one is merely a nerfed version of the other, no PC will ever choose the Comp Psi option rather than the better XPH version. This argument is how you can get cheaper gear from MiC by RAW.
Incorrect. First, the bolded text is not shown in primary source rules (listed in every errata).

Second, CompPsi explicitly references that the power reprints are Updates and Revisions of existing powers. When a rule explicitly calls out the other rule, and states that it supercedes it, then it supercedes that rule.

While I don't agree with how WotC updated that power, the fact of the matter is that they did, and they explicitly said they did. As a matter of fact, they explicitly list that power by name in the text stating it is an update. It is every bit as valid as the Rules Compendium.

In short, primary source is meant to determine precedence in situations such as: "ammunition is destroyed when it hits its target" and "this arrow is not destroyed when it hits its target".

However, situations where it is: "This monster is large" in source X and "this monster is medium. This is a revision to the entry in source X"?
Those explicitly state where precedence lies. They acknowledge both entries, and tell you which is valid. In these cases, primary source lies with the update or revision.

I understand that the Astral Construct power revision is massively unpopular. I also understand that it is widely houseruled because of that.

I also understand that it is still officially an update, because that's what the rules say.

[Alefiend]

My take: The ability to summon aid is included in the summoner's CR. It's why you're not supposed to get XP for defeating summons, and it shouldn't affect balance either.

Of course, this is highly subject to the skill (and potential rules abuse) with which summons are used. Part of being an effective wizard is knowing when to use what spell for maximum return.

[Urpriest]

The thing about Core summoning (and to some extent summoning from later splats) is that it's not so much balanced above or below the fighter as it is a toolbox. Your summons won't (or shouldn't) hold to the meat shield benchmarks of a decently optimized fighter, but you can pick the right one for the right occasion. For example, everyone always recommends that Malconvokers summon grapplers. This makes sense, because if you're summoning a grappler you're throwing it at something that isn't very good at grappling, and it can be disproportionately effective. Similarly, summons can spam specific spells or have unconventional types of mobility.

Basically, a summoned creature should be very good in its niche, but less useful than your standard character benchmarks outside of that niche.

[bobthe6th]

so, to make a balanced summoner, it should be effective at a specific situation but should not be as good as a normal PC?

so it should be able to do things, but not do things in such a way to overshadow a PC specialized in that direction?

[Godskook]

Incorrect. First, the bolded text is not shown in primary source rules (listed in every errata).

1.What was the primary source for Astral Construct before complete psionics was published? (Hint: It wasn't complete psionics, cause it didn't exist)

2.Was there ever an errata to the original primary source of Astral Construct in that primary source, changing its primary source to complete psionics? (Hint: No)

[Gavinfoxx]

so, to make a balanced summoner, it should be effective at a specific situation but should not be as good as a normal PC?

so it should be able to do things, but not do things in such a way to overshadow a PC specialized in that direction?

OHHH you are comparing summonimg classes to other classes?

Well, D&D is a very imbalanced game. The classes vary incredibly in power. If you want a balanced game, then as a DM you should probably do something like encourage everyone to stay within a tier of one another (so tier 3/4, maybe).

Someone here even made a homebrew Summoner class, which is around Tier 3, a little less powerful than the Pathfinder Summoner Class, which is listed in Tier 3 or Tier 2, depending on source.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5207270&postcount=3

Fyi, the pathfinder one:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner

So 'balance' is relative to the power level of the other classes, and the optimization level of the other classes in the group. The DM can decide to try and encourage folk to stick to a narrow range, and folk can try to stick to a narrow range of power level as well... but people generally have to actually TRY to do that...

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.0

[bobthe6th]

no the goal was to hombrew a summoner class. I was not totaly in love with the one you mentiond. I was asking about the balence point, to be able to make a fairly teir 3 balenced summoner class(on par with DR,WM, and Bg).

so it was more a question of how to balance summoning.

[Gavinfoxx]

I linked you to TWO roughly tier 3 summoner classes -- what did you not like about both?

And better than the Fighter is fine. Better than the Warblade or Psychic Warrior is not fine...

[bobthe6th]

eh, I am in a brewing mood. also one was pathfinder, which a lot of non PF DMs tend to ignore/not acept. the other was kinda odd, and more focused on summon monster then I would like. the plan was to be more astral construct like...

[Gavinfoxx]

Then I think you should look at what the Shaper -- and the various Shaper ACF's-- can do, and try for that power level, or slightly below that power level. And the pathfinder can pretty easily be backconverted to 3.5e... or you could use it for your ideas...

[Runestar]

IMO, the strength of summoning spells is that they can be whatever spell you want them to be. Need a tank? It's there. Want a wall of ice? Summon an ice devil, who can cast it at-will. Need a certain effect - there's probably a summonable monster out there who has it as a special ability.

I agree that astral constructs are probably more balanced, in that there is a limit to what they can be used for. I would use a shaper/constructor (the mind's eye prc) build as a parallel. :smallsmile:

[olentu]

1.What was the primary source for Astral Construct before complete psionics was published? (Hint: It wasn't complete psionics, cause it didn't exist)

2.Was there ever an errata to the original primary source of Astral Construct in that primary source, changing its primary source to complete psionics? (Hint: No)

Look if you want to argue anything about the primary source of something then well you first need to present some rules that actually say what it is.

[candycorn]

1.What was the primary source for Astral Construct before complete psionics was published? (Hint: It wasn't complete psionics, cause it didn't exist)

2.Was there ever an errata to the original primary source of Astral Construct in that primary source, changing its primary source to complete psionics? (Hint: No)
Your flaw in reasoning is that there is a difference between what primary source WAS and what primary source IS, and you assume that the only authorized method to alter the primary source is explicit errata text to the source document saying so.
Judging by the fact that every Primary source alteration has occurred in a book, and not an errata, your argument does not hold water.

Rules Compendium: Published book (not errata) stating that the rules within it hold precedence over other sources.

Comp Psionic: Published book (not errata) stating that specific entries are legal amendments of older entries in other books.

Entire Errata list: Errata list grants itself the ability of primary source (yes, primary source is a rule that exists only in errata documents. Primary Source is, itself, an errata.).

So, if the errata list can grant itself authority, then nothing prevents a book from doing the same.

As Rules Compendium does.
As Complete Psionic does.

[kulosle]

The balancing point is the DM. The majority of DMs I've had wont let you take full advantage of summoning. "i summon 5 avorals" "your fighting in to small of a room for more than one to fit." I made a homebrew PrC once that was inspired by the malconvoker. Basically you befriended a certain subtype and you were better at summoning that subtype. It never got play tested though and I can't seem to find it. Lame. And to be perfectly honest there really isn't a way to balance summoning as far as the spells themselves are concerned. Either my summon monster spell is the ultimate multi tool or it's not. And if it's not then well you are only summoning half your level meat shields.

[candycorn]

The balancing point is the DM. The majority of DMs I've had wont let you take full advantage of summoning. "i summon 5 avorals" "your fighting in to small of a room for more than one to fit."

Five avorals fit in the same space as 5 humans. If there's not enough space for them within 65 feet of the caster, then there is something seriously wrong... i.e. not enough space for the party, or the enemy.

Especially since most enemies increase size as you level. When the enemy is Gargantuan, and requires 15 foot wide corridors to go from its bedroom to the couch, that excuse is hard to give.

[paddyfool]

the plan was to be more astral construct like...

The simplest thing would be to bolt a little summoning onto a working Tier 3 chassis. For instance, some kind of ACF for the Psychic Warrior which grants it the Astral Construct power. I've never played in a game with Astral Constructs myself, however, so I'm really not sure what would be balanced. (Trading out the first level bonus feat in return for having Astral Construct as your first power known, perhaps?)

Also, you'll note that there already is a Tier 3 caster with limited summoning ability - the Bard. And it's nicely fluffable as "creating creatures out of story".

[kulosle]

Oh thank you for mentioning the bard. I can't believe I forgot him. A bard makes a great summoner. The bard is the one character that actually prefers quantity over quality when it comes to summoning. First round summon the most creatures you can and start singing, assuming you use one of the several tricks to lesson the action of bardic music. Inspire courage optimization means that they are all getting huge bonuses. With this kind of bard you actually don't take Dragon Fire Inspiration, got to make sure all of your buggers hit. That is unless you take alienist so that all of your critters have true strike. And if you take sublime chord it's simply amazing. Probably my favorite summoner.

[CTrees]

My take: The ability to summon aid is included in the summoner's CR. It's why you're not supposed to get XP for defeating summons, and it shouldn't affect balance either.

In theory, but as always, the CR system is horribly wonky. For instance, a gnome monk is supposedly the same CR as an equal level human druid with Augment and Greenbound Summoning feats.

[Godskook]

Your flaw in reasoning is that there is a difference between what primary source WAS and what primary source IS, and you assume that the only authorized method to alter the primary source is explicit errata text to the source document saying so.
Judging by the fact that every Primary source alteration has occurred in a book, and not an errata, your argument does not hold water.

Provide a ruling from to core rulebooks(the ones that hold primary source rules, and yes, errata is technically a part of the book) that say additional supplements can say they're changing the rules. Just cause additional supplements say they change the rules doesn't mean they actually are allowed to override primary source rules. Your 'precedence' so far is that you can find more than one 'rulebreaker' source book. Finding books that try to break a rule does not mean the rule doesn't exist, and is actually why someone would make a primary source rule preventing such things from happening.


Rules Compendium: Published book (not errata) stating that the rules within it hold precedence over other sources.

Comp Psionic: Published book (not errata) stating that specific entries are legal amendments of older entries in other books.

False equivalence, on multiple points:

1.Rules Compendium states in its Introduction, in explicit terms, that it is now the primary source. There is no such language in Comp Psi's introduction, nor within the nerf to Astral Construct.

2.The design of Rules Compendium is meant almost solely to clarify, revise, and update pre-existing rules. As such, it cannot operate without the authority to do just that. The design of Complete Psionics is as a supplement which primarily contains new, supplementary rules. It works just fine without getting the authority to modify past rulebooks.

Note: Both my above arguments work just fine regardless of if Rules Compendium is allowed to adjust primary source or not.


Entire Errata list: Errata list grants itself the ability of primary source (yes, primary source is a rule that exists only in errata documents. Primary Source is, itself, an errata.).

So, if the errata list can grant itself authority, then nothing prevents a book from doing the same.

The errata to the core rulebooks do just that.

[candycorn]

Provide a ruling from to core rulebooks(the ones that hold primary source rules, and yes, errata is technically a part of the book) that say additional supplements can say they're changing the rules.Errata are no more "part of the book" than water is part of the glass. They accompany the book. They are not part of the book, technically speaking.

An erratum is nothing more than a listed error and its correction. That can exist anywhere, not just on WotC's website. If an official WotC publication lists an update or a revision, that's meets the qualifications for the word "erratum". If there is more than one, they are "errata".

In other words, no matter where Wizards of the Coast releases an alteration to their rules, as long as they announce it as such, it's errata.

Just cause additional supplements say they change the rules doesn't mean they actually are allowed to override primary source rules.False conclusion based on incomplete understanding. If a sourcebook says it changes the rules, it qualifies as errata.

False equivalence, on multiple points:

1.Rules Compendium states in its Introduction, in explicit terms, that it is now the primary source. There is no such language in Comp Psi's introduction, nor within the nerf to Astral Construct.Per your original argument, "just because a sourcebook SAYS it takes precedence does not mean it does". By your original argument, unless errata is released on the WotC website for each Rules Compendium alteration, updating the original source to include "the Rules Compendium holds precedence for this rule", then it doesn't count. Your argument was that errata from the WotC website must amend the original source to cede authority.

As for explicit terms? It explicitly states that it amends the rules. That's explicitly an erratum, which qualifies it as de facto primary source, under the primary source rule.


2.The design of Rules Compendium is meant almost solely to clarify, revise, and update pre-existing rules. As such, it cannot operate without the authority to do just that. The design of Complete Psionics is as a supplement which primarily contains new, supplementary rules. It works just fine without getting the authority to modify past rulebooks.Listen, if we're arguing the "intent" of the rules, then let's argue the intent. The "intent" of an update to the Astral Construct power is to update the Astral Construct power. Using the style of logic you use here reinforces the argument that the revision is valid, because the design of the passage on page 65 of Complete Psionic is to announce that new powers are new, and reprints of existing powers are revisions to the original.


Note: Both my above arguments work just fine regardless of if Rules Compendium is allowed to adjust primary source or not.The first is flawed, and the second argues my point.


The errata to the core rulebooks do just that.
Just as the errata in Complete Psionic does to the power you like.

Listen, we're not going to agree on this. You think that even when Wizards of the Coast releases printed text, explicitly saying that it updates existing rules text, that it does not. I don't feel that is a sensible or rational position, and that when Wizards of the Coast updates something, even if it is something that I personally do not like, that it is a valid update.

In other words, when WotC says they change the rules, then they change the rules. That's what errata is. And no matter where it lies, whether it's online or in a book, it's valid. The only difference is that this errata isn't Open Material under the OGL.

For the record, I don't like the update. I think Astral Construct's restructuring was an absolutely retarded move by WotC. In just about any game I run, I use the version in XPH and in the SRD, as a houserule. But that is what it is. A houserule.

You believe it's not. You believe that my position isn't sound. I believe yours isn't. We both fully understand the view of the other. Nothing is further served by disagreeing on the matter. You believe it works your way, I'll believe it works mine, and at the end of the day, the DM at the table must make the decision of which version they prefer at the table, and each can make the decision as to whether their view is the official rules, or a sensible houserule.

[Godskook]

Errata are no more "part of the book" than water is part of the glass. They accompany the book. They are not part of the book, technically speaking.

1.You're using false equivalence, again. I'm not discussing glass+water, I'm discussing water+water.

2.While errata is not part of the 'original' book, it is part of the 'book', in the sense that should the book be reprinted, the understanding given is that the errata would be actually incorporated.


False conclusion based on incomplete understanding. If a sourcebook says it changes the rules, it qualifies as errata.

Prove that statement, cause there's no support for it within the rulebooks that I can find, nor is Complete Psionics ever claimed as an Errata.


Per your original argument, "just because a sourcebook SAYS it takes precedence does not mean it does". By your original argument, unless errata is released on the WotC website for each Rules Compendium alteration, updating the original source to include "the Rules Compendium holds precedence for this rule", then it doesn't count. Your argument was that errata from the WotC website must amend the original source to cede authority.

You're pretending part of my argument isn't there, in order to make your counterpoint actually work. Before the introduction of the primary source rules, you could actually do that.


As for explicit terms? It explicitly states that it amends the rules. That's explicitly an erratum, which qualifies it as de facto primary source, under the primary source rule.

Again, prove where you're getting this 'everything is errata' rule from, and then prove that it takes precedence over a rule contained within a core rulebook's officially named errata.


Listen, if we're arguing the "intent" of the rules, then let's argue the intent. The "intent" of an update to the Astral Construct power is to update the Astral Construct power. Using the style of logic you use here reinforces the argument that the revision is valid, because the design of the passage on page 65 of Complete Psionic is to announce that new powers are new, and reprints of existing powers are revisions to the original.

I'm not arguing intent of a rule, I'm arguing function of a book.


Just as the errata in Complete Psionic does to the power you like.

Calling it errata does not make it so. Prove your claim.


Listen, we're not going to agree on this. You think that even when Wizards of the Coast releases printed text, explicitly saying that it updates existing rules text, that it does not. I don't feel that is a sensible or rational position, and that when Wizards of the Coast updates something, even if it is something that I personally do not like, that it is a valid update.

There is no text, even in Complete Psionics, that states that the original power Astral Construct, from XPH, was ever modified. There is a power of the same name in Comp Psi, that is similar, but never is it called out as changing the original. Its also never called out as being allowed to change the original.

[candycorn]

1.You're using false equivalence, again. I'm not discussing glass+water, I'm discussing water+water.

2.While errata is not part of the 'original' book, it is part of the 'book', in the sense that should the book be reprinted, the understanding given is that the errata would be actually incorporated.No, you're not arguing water+water. You're arguing "but ifs" and "not gonna happens". You're speculating on what you feel would happen if something that never will happen happened.

You are arguing speculation and opinion as fact. It is not, I assure you.


Prove that statement, cause there's no support for it within the rulebooks that I can find, nor is Complete Psionics ever claimed as an Errata.The definition of erratum (singular of errata) is a correction. Correction is synonymous with revision and update, which are both used in complete psionic.

Your request for proof is about as reasonable as asking for proof that water is a wet substance that freezes into ice. It is because that is the meaning of the word. Same as errata.


You're pretending part of my argument isn't there, in order to make your counterpoint actually work. Before the introduction of the primary source rules, you could actually do that.Primary source rules are Errata. It is an outside source (errata) assuming precedence over the primary source, by stating that corrections supercede the original text. By accepting that primary source holds sway, you acknowledge that the original text can be superceded by outside sources.


Again, prove where you're getting this 'everything is errata' rule from, and then prove that it takes precedence over a rule contained within a core rulebook's officially named errata.Look up the definition of errata. It's not a reserved game term. There's no listing for it in the glossary. It is a correction. No more, no less. Things can be errata without saying "this is errata", just as things can be rules without text preceding them saying "these are rules". All it must do is meet the definition of errata.


I'm not arguing intent of a rule, I'm arguing function of a book.in your opinion.

The function of rules compendium is to expand and clarify rules.
The function of Complete Psionic is to expand upon the psionic system, by incorporating new psionic material and explicitly stated revisions to existing psionic material.

Those functions are just as valid. And don't suffer from oversimplification.


Calling it errata does not make it so. Prove your claim.
a statement of an error and its correction inserted in a book or other publication


alteration, amelioration, amending, amendment, changing, editing, emendation, improvement, indemnification, mending, modification, rectification, redress, reexamination, remodeling, repair, reparation, rereading, revisal, revising, righting

Complete Psionic's is a revisal of Astral construct, by the explicit text of the book. By the english language, it is updating and correcting. Since it is inserted in a book or other publication, that meets the requirements to be defined as an erratum. Since there is more than one such listing in this book, that meets the requirements to be defined as errata.

Calling it errata is not why it is errata. The fact that it is errata is why I call it errata. You are misplacing cause/effect.


There is no text, even in Complete Psionics, that states that the original power Astral Construct, from XPH, was ever modified. There is a power of the same name in Comp Psi, that is similar, but never is it called out as changing the original. Its also never called out as being allowed to change the original.It is explicitly called out as revising (which, as we can see above, is synonymous with modifying) the power.

The book explicitly announces that it does modify the power. Since that is only possible if the book can, and since you are fond of arguing designer's intended function, I would posit that the designers intended the function of the text to be, as it states, a revision of the power.

You can argue this until your fingers bleed from typing. I understand exactly what you're saying. I just think that your argument is inherently flawed. If you're going to post the same stuff that you've posted several times now, you certainly can... However, you can type it until your fingers bleed. It don't make it so, and it won't convince me.

If you would care to bring something new to the table, great....

...but don't you think this is kinda getting a bit pointless?

You think that the designers listed that the book revised (aka modified, altered, revised, corrected) the power, but because the book didn't first add in text saying it could, then it can't.

By that logic, we could say that errata can't change primary source, because listed errata never had the power to issue the Primary Source rule in the first place. We must, on some level, accept that the rulebooks can make, add, change, and modify existing rules when they explicitly state that they are doing that. If we fall back on "the rules didn't say they could first", then I can say that none of the rules have meaning, because the book didn't say that the rules are binding on players of the game. Then again, even if it did, it wouldn't be binding, because the rules didn't say they had the power to make rules binding on the players of the game. We can go down that rabbit hole, and say that the rules have no binding meaning at all, or we can accept that rules have the power to do exactly what they say they do, and no more.

Complete Psion says it modifies XPH's text. XPH doesn't state that future books cannot modify its text. Therefore, there is no contradiction here. The rules are allowed as modifications. Later, there is a contradiction (the listed text of each listed power), but at this point, what is entered qualifies as an erratum, on its own merits. This means that primary source places Comp Psionic above XPH for those explicit power revisions.

You can disagree with that. You can talk more on the subject if you like. But I've stated my case as much as is needed. If you disagree, then disagree. If you talk, then by all means, talk to the other people here, to convince them. The arguments you have brought thus far do not convince me. And rehashing them, or "nuh-uh"ing my arguments? Not gonna do it. If you're trying to convince me of something, and you're restating the same stuff? Well, go for it if you want, I suppose... But it's wasted time.

[Psyren]

I don't like the CPsi nerf either, but claiming that CPsi isn't RAW is pretty ridiculous. "Primary Source" always takes a backseat to "Specific Trumps General."

If it didn't, nothing outside of core is valid. The PHB states there are 11 base classes (pg. 21) - does that mean that none of the others count? Rules Compendium states that it is the ultimate rules authority, but neither the PHB nor the DMG reference it - is it just a book of houserules then? The game breaks down and no splat functions.

[bobthe6th]

and thus the train goes compleatly of the track, visiting rule vill and [/rant] land.

back to a slightly diferent question. as some spells try to be balanced(HA), how far out is summon monster/undead/natures ally N? is Astral C better balenced? should summoning bring in meat sheilds/offencive tanks?

well?

[Flickerdart]

Summon Undead sucks until you get Allips and win everything. Allips are ridiculous. Don't allow Allips.