Chaosmancer
Legend
Part of the issue might be whether someone considers 6.5 points of average damage to actually be a "CRUSHING" difference, or just a standard difference of what a Fighter and a Monk could/should/would do.
I personally do not see a Fighter doing 6.5 more points of damage more than the Monk to be that big of a deal... especially considering if I chose to play a Monk it was probably because of all the story and fluff reasons and not because I just wanted to be concerned with combat damage. But that's just me.
Yes, I do think 6.5 damage is a crushing difference. It is the damage difference between a -1 strength score and a +5 strength score, on a single attack. Or any of a dozen other ways to split it. It would be the equivalent of getting +2d6 damage a turn.
And all the story and fluff are great reasons, but here is a secret for you. Closely guarded. You don't have to settle to be less effective, to have a good story and good fluff. I play paladins for the story and fluff, and it turns out, Paladins don't underperform in combat. They are actually pretty good in combat. So, just because I like the story and the fluff of the monk, doesn't mean I have to sacrifice.
Every combat class except maybe the barbarian outperforms monks once they pass level 11. Level 11 is a combat damage bump level for martials. Monks need an increase there. It isn't an increase that needs to make them the best class that ever existed, it is an increase to KEEP them in line with the other classes.