the December King said:
ZorroFonzarelli said:
Monks, for the same reason you highlighted.
I run D&D games far more than I play them, and Monks thematically don't belong in a standard fantasy campaign setting. They just don't. They fit an Asian-style campaign, but that's it.
Throw in the fact that they are vastly overpowered, needing no gear, armor or weapons to be one-man wrecking crews, and they are horribly overbalanced.
If I had to pay for all the gear a normal fighter has to and some player writes up a Monk that can do everything with zero cost, you've got a broken game.
Amen.
I think that a monk can have a place in a certain campaign, but I have no interest in having monk PCs in my Pathfinder games, at least from the standard races. The notion that a human, or elven, or even a halfling monk can beat up a hill giant or a hydra with his bare hands is just... it has no place in a balanced campaign.
Having said that, as a DM, I love using monk class levels for alot of my bad guys and monsters! That kind of an unfair edge makes for great opponents, challenges that allow you to control treasure distribution after the fact- no need to equip all the monsters with ever greater magical weapons and armors. It will make the aquisition of cool treasure mean all the more in the end.
I'll preface by saying that I have a long-standing house rule that no PC is capable of dealing lethal unarmed damage to an opponent that has DR unless their unarmed attacks have at least a +1 magic imbuement (magic fang/permanence or amulet of 1000 fists). The pursuit of realism is usually a crooked road in these games, but there has to be a line -somewhere-.
That aside, you guys are overlooking the Monk's serious disadvantages over say, a Fighter.
-No armor means no magic armor, and magic armor is grrrreat!
-Someone, long ago, sold the idea that Monks have Wisdom as a primary stat, but in addition to that, they need Dex and Con, and that damage would be the result of a growing unarmed combat base damage and large number of attacks through flurry of blows.? This is stoopid, and pursuit of this idea will make your Monk be fail.
-Sure, they can do approximately the same damage as a Fighter 'for free', but Monks get crappy starting gold, plus materialism in general is anathema to your archetypical Monk (and if I have a Monk PC who frequently loots bodies, carries a sack of treasure, or whose sole motivation in life is to -find- a sack of treasure, I usually call shenanigans and hit his player with a broom).
-In order to maximize damage output, Monks have to be largely stationary and Flurry, 5' step, Flurry, 5' step, Flurry, etc. My point is that it takes a lot more thought, strategy and experience to play a Monk correctly. I don't know where you guys are getting this 'Monks are OP' business. They were super weak in 3e, and were usually only fodder for cherry-picking min/maxer assholes. In Pathfinder they're much better, thanks largely to the archetypes in Ultimate Combat, but they certainly aren't as OP as say, a Wizard?.
Referenced:
?Treantmonk's Guide to Pathfinder Monks: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/treatmonks-lab/treantmonk-s-guide-to-monks
?Treantmonk's Guide to Pathfinder Wizards: Being a God: https://docs.google.com/document/preview?id=1xjPIOH8F8a0l74BdDF7Q23nCfZ-YX68Xr6JmmtznMw4
These are both worth a read.
Edit: As for Monks not having a place in a fantasy-based campaign, the whole point of residing in a Monastery is to remove oneself from the outside world and live a simple life, devoid of material possessions. It's verging on narrow-mindedness to say it's impossible to insert such an insular community into ANY environment, fantasy or otherwise. Remember your Kung Fu: If Kwai Chang Caine could exist in the American Old West, then your PC's Monk can exist in your campaign, whatever it is.