So do I have a moral obligation to correct these people . .

[Tae_Kwon_Dan]

So I'm over on the HERO Games boards and D&D came up in a thread about advantages of HERO over other systems. No problem I can name several especially with regards to D&D that go beyond subjective preferences. However while I can't stand 3.5 anymore there were folks running it down by just being quite ignorant about the system which is something that always gets my goat. It's sort of like making stuff up about a dirty politician. Can't we just hate him for the scoundrel he is?

So that little side chat finally dies down and then something even more egregious shows up with regards to D&D.

Awful thing actually said #1: I have always found the Sorceror to be better than the Wizard due to its flexibility and the fact that you have more spells per day while knowing fewer.

And the ultra super duper kicker:

Awful thing actually said #2: The best melee skirmishing class is the Monk by far. That killing people ability at 15th level is just the bee's knees.

So I put it to the board, am I actually morally obligated to correct these people? Remember this is a board dedicated to an entirely different game system. Or should I just walk away for fear of stupidity by osmosis?

[Neeek]

Well...I think that "Awful thing actually said #1" would be pretty easy to refute just by having them read the line.

Anywho, no you don't have a moral obligation to correct them, but you obviously can. It depends on how much ou dislike being flamed.

I'd probably say something along the lines of "You know, there are plenty of reasons not to like DnD 3.5, such as the money=power problem, the uselessness of non-casting classes after level 4, and the numerous infinite loops, but "quote" "quote" and "quote" are incorrect. Seriously, if you are going to badmouth something, at least know enough about it to not have blatent errors in your arguments."

Then I'd get flamed for a week.

[Tae_Kwon_Dan]

well I couldn't let it pass

Tumbling, spring attack and huge movement - never take an attack of oppportunity, and they can't get close enough to retaliate.

And you'll never hit anything, because your BAB is mediocre and you had to ditch your best stat into WIS and then maybe DEX or CON, because you're a close combat fighter made of paper mache' who can't wear armor. But hey can use flurry of blows to miss more times as a full attack action if that's what melts your butter. Not to mention all of that is negated by a spellcaster with Fly going. I hope you have some magical sling stones handy.

Folks the Monk is straight up ass. Seriously he spends his day thanking the design gods that somebody wrote the Bard so that he's not the absolute biggest bag of suck in the game.

[Lago_AM3P]

MONK BASHING

It's what I live for.

Actually, the bard being better than the monk is actually very unfair. If you pimp a bard out to the maximum amount of efficiency with various stupid feats (arcane disciple, soforth) and whatever, they fight only slightly worse than a bard and better than any other sword-based class.

The monk is completely horrible from the get-go. Any add-ons you can do to your character shorter of PrCs a druid can do, but with less effort and more effect. The only thing a monk will ever have over a druid in 3.5E is hypothetically the PrCs--but the game has done a good job nerfing the absolute fuck out of them.

[dbb]

The good thing about Hero players is that the fact that they are Hero players is a strong indicator that they are at least capable of doing basic algebra. So if you can show them some numbers, and you can, they may even listen to you.

Aside: Welcome back, Lago!

--d.

[User3]

I don't disagree with your basic point, but I must interject to ask:

Not to mention all of that is negated by a spellcaster with Fly going.

Why the heck do I see this argument used against the Monk and only the Monk so frequently? The Monk is put at no more of a disadvantage by a flying opponent than any other meleer; like the others, his only options when presented with a flying encounter are a) to use a relatively ineffective ranged attack or b) to utilize a magic item that allows him to fly–so why does he seem to bear the brunt of the blow?

[Josh_Kablack]

I'm wondering at just what level the monk gets "huge movement".

At level 1, the Druid actually has the highest potential speed in the game, since she gets Longstrider, and can share it with her light horse animal companion, giving her a ground speed of 70'

A wizard or sorcerer has Expeditious Retreat in the short run and Mount for overland movement.

And the BBN, has 10 feet more movement than the monk will get until level 3rd level.

At 3rd level, the monk catches up to the BBN, with 40' base movement but character wealth has hit the point that any BBN, Druid, Ftr, Pal or Rgr who wants to is now riding a light warhorse at 60' in combat.

If you want to specify tight dungeon corridors, then the monk does slightly better at 3rd, since she ties against a pony or riding dog.

At 6th level, the monk can now run at 50', which is faster than the BBN, but still slower than Expeditious Retreat or a Light Warhorse, and now the Wizard can Fly at 60' , or Hasted Fly at 90' or Phantom Steed at 120' and the Druid can now Wildshape into an eagle and fly at 80'.

At 9th level, the monk gets up to a speed of 60'. This would catch up to those riding a Light Warhorse, except that they have the option of using Ride to Spur Mount up to a speed of 70 when they need to. And by 9th level, any mounted combat character can easily spare the 4000 GP to fly at 120' on a pegasus. To keep this in perspective, the wizard just got the ability to move 950400' in one round, and then 820' for each of the next 2 rounds, and still has a Phantom Steed with a speed of 180' available for the next 9 hours.

At 12th level, the monk gets up to a speed of 70', which means that she's now as good as the Druid was at 1st level. However, she also gets to Abundant Step 1/day, which makes her almost as fast as the wizard was 5 levels ago and roughly 1/3000th the speed of a Ranger 5/Horizon Walker 6. Meanwhile, the Wizard and all her party now get to Shadow Walk at a speed of 250'/round for 12 hours per day.

At 15th level, the monk gets up to 80', which makes her as fast as the eagle-shaped Druid was 10 levels ago. Shame that in one more level the Druid gets a 100' (perfect) fly speed.

At 18th level, the monk gets up to a rockin' 90 ft. The Druid has Shapechange + Elemental Wildshape and can move at speeds I honestly cannot calculate due to the vagueries of their interaction. I beleive that the number is in excess of moving at 760'/round. The Wizard now has Gate - which allows her to be anywhere in a standard action, effectively making speed infinite.

In conclusion, the Monk is not faster than the BBN at levels 1-6th, is never faster than a mounted character, and is never faster than a wizard, sorcerer, or druid can be. That puts the monk about in the middle of the pack for speed.

[Neeek]

Probably because, as much as Monks suck at melee, they suck even harder at ranged combat. A fighter/barb/ranger/etc might actually be able to pick up a bow and deal a reasonable amount of damage to the flier, while the Monk is stuck with a sling that does half the damage and has half the range increment of a longbow. On top of all that, they are also much less likely to hit or have multiple attacks.

[Josh_Kablack]

1121318577[/unixtime]]I don't disagree with your basic point, but I must interject to ask:

Not to mention all of that is negated by a spellcaster with Fly going.

Why the heck do I see this argument used against the Monk and only the Monk so frequently?

Because the Monk has the second worst ranged weapon proficiencies of any PHB class, and the class with worse ranged weapons gets ranged attack spells.

A heavy crossbow or composite longbow has a potential maximum range greater than a flying wizard's Long range spells. A sling doesn't, and even Distance shuriken don't even range to Medium.