Ridley's Cohort, I see your points, but so far you've taken two different classes and pointed out how the monk is inferior to each.
But the monk is better than either at other things. A first-level rogue, for example, has neither Evasion nor Stunning Blow, the latter of which is a great boon to any starting party, much as the buff spells that help a monk are.
A first-level fighter is begging for a sleep spell, unless he's an Elf (but that advantage works for any class). And unless he spends all his first-level feats, the fighter can't attack twice in one round, and he definitely moves much less.
I hope you're not serious about the standard ranger being comparable, despite the free feats, and the paladin's power tapers off after the early levels, while a monk has a steady growth throughout.
Yes, a rogue and a monk ought to have comparable ACs at first level, but your rogue does NOT, in fact, deal more damage once Flurry of Blows comes into effect. Also, a monk is more likely to survive that initial hit.
And most of the groups with whom I play MUCH prefer a druid over anyone but a cleric. So they're more of a staple than arcane spellcasters for us, and MF and GMF are not that rare.
Wolfen Priest,
The idea of an unarmed kung-fu master being able to best an armed and able combatant (all other things being equal) is, frankly, a little ridiculous. Even in a fantasy world.
I can't say I understand this. The Shaolin monks were vastly superior to any army of their time before guns came into play.
Thinking that monks have to be unarmed is the first problem, thinking they can't be deadly unarmed is the second. In D&D or the real world.
And as Carnifex keeps repeating, characters only have to compare in the broadest of terms. They don't have to be mathematically even. But if you cripple monks by only handing out equipment they can't use, then blame only yourself if they suck.
