Why does nobody complain about the monk?

[Pezmerga]

Too bad they couldn't just take the Swordmage, rename it monk, and use that for the core "monk" Problem solved.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

What book is APG? I'd like to take a look at it.

Because the Monk is weak

In 3.5, Monk was a joke class. His flurry attack bonus and damage couldn't at any rate get anywhere near an optimized Fighter, mostly due to inability to use any serious magic weapon (and in consequence, overcome any serious DR). His speed and uber jumping becomes irrelevent the moment fly/boots of flying enter the scene, and the only thing he was really good at was grappling casters before they get a chance.

Immortality, tiny self-healing, slow fall and speaking any language are very fun and flavorful, except they don't do you much good if a dragon is trying to eat your head.
Now, PF kinda fixed some problems. The weapon situation was finally fixed (brass knuckles from APG), the Monk archetypes are really nice, and there are several new monk-friendly feats. So you can say that in PF the Monk finally becomes game-worthy.

 

[Walking Dad]

What book is APG? I'd like to take a look at it.

http://paizo.com/store/downloads/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8fo1&source=top

 

[Aus_Snow]

Um, not quite. Short of static blocks, which are fencers euphemism for "I f up, damn, damn", when you parry - you divert opponents blade, and same goes for unarmed fighting. It's in the very nature of fencing, that 99% of the time you train against the very same or similar weapon that you use, as most of it that actually needs any skill is the work on the blade (when both weapons are touching eachother). The most sure way to harm unarmed opponent with a blade are x swings. And cutting people just lacks stopping and killing power of a stab (which is the main reason, why there was so many more deaths in XVII-XIX c. duels in west than in east Europe - one preferred stabbing and the other slashing weapons).

Um, sure. Fencing is not the same as full-on, anything goes, armoured combat. Let alone factors such as multiple opponents, a variety of weapons, or whatever else.

To be clear: I'm not advocating that it's preferable or even on par to fight unarmed against people using weapons, but that there's sure a lot of space for suspension of disbelief

No, there isn't. All else being equal... just no.

Weapons beat no weapons. Again, all else being equal. So yes, experience (e.g., as represented as levels, etc.) matters a great deal also. But there is no way in hell a sane person would choose to fight unarmed against armed - especially armoured (this is the killer of all killers) - foes.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Weapons beat no weapons. Again, all else being equal. So yes, experience (e.g., as represented as levels, etc.) matters a great deal also. But there is no way in hell a sane person would choose to fight unarmed against armed - especially armoured (this is the killer of all killers) - foes.

Except it's fantasy, so you CAN have it set up that some people would choose to do so -- and excel at it -- just as you can have fireballs and silly charging knight builds that think real medieval armies fought wars like they were jousts.

 

[Walking Dad]

The old problem:

Scholars flinging fireballs... sure. it is fantasy.

Someone unarmed taking out an armed knight... that is so unrealistic.