While I like the Monk to actually have abilities to punch with Lightning damage on their fists, to do short range teleports, heal themselves, float through the air and do fire damage over a small area close to them. Such that they could conceivably replace the Swordmage class. I feel that others probably won't like a really magical Monk. But the problem with a Monk whose abilities are more grounded and less magical, is that they start to get too close to the Fighter, such that one could effectively play a Monk by just using a Fighter.

So where should the limits on the dials between non-magical and magical for a Monk be? Thinking back to the traditional 1e Monk, most of their really magical abilities were more "utility" abilities, except for perhaps Quivering Palm. But the Monk from 1e to 3e, is what I always felt was too rigid even if they were influenced by Wu Xia from the late 70's and early 80's. 4e Monk was in many ways very inspired by videogames (there literally was a power like Ryu/Ken's spinning kick from Street Fighter 2) and other outside sources, which some may feel is great and others not. I personally liked how 4e just said the Monk was psionic, since in 3e I felt the Psychic Warrior was often a better Monk than the Monk.

But ideally what's the optimum balance between the 2 extremes of mystical and more low-key?