| Erik Ledyard |
Why do developers hate monks so much? There is no good reason why every new source book/change/errata never has anything that helps buff the Monk class. I've seen the "That doesn't fit our vision of the Monk" excuse a few times. Well, now you have archetypes that deviate from that vision; it's perfectly feasible that a Ki-less chaotic-evil (or even a chaotic-neutral) Martial Artist would use brass knuckles, gauntlets, or cesti to give them and edge over their opponents. In what sense does magnifying the force of a punch lessen the damage it does?
A 12th level Monk is trying to keep up using it's FOB with 5 possible hits and 2d6 damage per hit. Meanwhile, the Two-Handed Fighter gets 3 possible hits and is hitting for 2d6 (greatsword) damage... plus double strength damage, plus weapons training damage, plus (greater)weapon specialization damage, plus double power attack damage (if they are using power attack). Also, the Fighter had a better chance to hit to begin with thanks to greater weapon focus and weapons training. So, the "fighters are the best with weapons, monks are the best unarmed" argument doesn't measure up since monks can never match the chance to hit or the damage output of fighters (while the Martial Artist archetype does have access to fighter feats, however they can not get weapons training or anything equivalent to it).
No matter how the developers try to justify it, (Pathfinder, D&D, and any other variants) monks are not, nor have they ever been comparably balanced with the other melee classes.