Neonchameleon
Legend
Because "cleaned up version of the 1e monk" is exactly what the 3e monk was.
According to the numbers and the abilities.
Your personal take on the monk is just an anecdote. Nothing more.
The rules on the other hand are the rules. And those are absolutely empirical evidence. If you have house rules please don't confuse them with the official rules.
Just to give everyone reading a run down of how crap the 1e monk was:
The requirements were horrible. Three 15s (strength, wisdom, dexterity) and an 11 in constitution.
Their XP chart was abysmal. It started off at 2250 for second level and worse than doubled at each level, falling behind even the magic user by sixth. In practice this worked out as worse even than the magic user at all levels because they didn't gain bonus XP for high level.
Their hit dice was a d4. To make up for this they got an extra d4 at first level. They hit second level at about the time the thief would hit third (remember that XP bonus?. Their hit points were therefore significantly behind the thief after first level - and as at first level their AC was at best equal to the wizard's this is broadly an irrelevance.
Their AC and saves? Utterly and completely terrible. Monks didn't gain an AC bonus from Dex - which automatically shafted them with at least a 1 point penalty as their minimum Dex was 15. (Remember they had three stats all requiring a 15). Sure they got a bonus to AC. A small one at low levels; the fifth level monk had an AC of 7 - or the equivalent of a Dex 15 thief wearing non-magical leather armour. (You needed to hit second level before you even had the AC of a naked thief). That said, they gained a saving throw against non-magical missile attacks. Their saves were on the rogue chart.
In short, they couldn't take a hit even as well as a rogue unless it was a case of "last man standing at the bottom end of the archery range". And remember that they don't get magic armour easily.
Their attacks? Better than presented in the PHB - they used the cleric table not the thief one (which to be fair I'd forgotten). Still, crap.
Armed? They use the cleric table and start off proficient in 1 weapon, gaining their second very shortly afterwards. They actually are very slightly better than thieves here - they gain a +1 to hit at low level, more at higher because they use the cleric table and + 1/2 level in damage - but don't get backstab. Like a thief, the best option for a monk is to carry a two handed sword and throwing darts (stupid things). That said, the monk is serioulsy nasty with throwing darts.
Unarmed? It's A Trap! (Possibly not after level 9). Monk unarmed damage is horrible until everyone else is into name territory. Level 8 monks do 2d6 damage with their open handed attack (at 3/2 attacks per round) - and don't get their strength bonus to the to hit roll. So that's a bit better than a non-magical two handed sword equivalent - or would be if you weren't likely to be fighting against large monsters (meaning that the two handed sword would be doing 3d6 damage - or in the monk's case 3d6+4 at level 8). And the stunning fist? You need to hit by 5 or more and don't gain your strength bonus. That means AC 5 at best at level 1-4, AC 3 at levels 5-6, and AC 1 at levels 7-9. These require natural 20s to trigger. Not gonna happen against anything you really want to stun.
So. The offensive combat ability of monks is actually slightly better than the thief (unless the thief backstabs) - but their ability to fight head to head is made risible by their AC and lack of hit points.
Let's look at the special abilities.
They are almost as good as a thief at most thief skills (although the armour penalty I think was a 2e thing so no bonus there). They genuinely are better at running away (fast movement) and falling off walls (slow fall) although aren't as good at climbing them. Less likely to be surprised is nice. At level 3 they can talk to the animals. Level 4 and 5 are a couple of resistances - mind reading and slow. Level 6 they can play dead. Level 7 they gain a truly weedy self heal 1/day that doesn't make up for their hit points.
We have this pile of non-synergising abilities (the best synergy would appear to be the fall off walls/play dead/run away combination) - they are a second rate rogue at rogue stuff (and rogues were known to be the weakest class - although fighters got a huge and needed boost with Unearthed Arcana). That said, the surprise bonus is nice.
They can't mix it up in combat until high level because they fall over only slightly less easily than a wizard (awful AC, d4 hit dice although they do get a bonus one).
But I suppose they are better at throwing darts than the rogue or wizard, gaining 1/2 level to damage. And they have ... impressive entry requirements. Three 15s and an 11 - and the bonus from most of those gets nerfed.
Yes, I'm calling the rules of the game data. And the monk is a slightly tweaked rogue and worse than the rogue at most rogue stuff while not really having anything they are better than the rogue at until very high level except running away, playing dead, and falling off walls. This is seriously what you want in a class?
