The problem is that all those implementations have been failures, IMO. Their contributions in combat have been either bad versions of what a Fighter can do or a way to monopolize unarmed Martial Arts so the Fighter is bad at it. Their other unique features were generally completely self-centered piles of immunity balanced only by the fact that they were down-right terrible at taking any proactive stance against enemies. Their social interactions were limited to being lie-detectors and their exploration options were basically being a really awful rogue who was exceptional at jumping and falling.
Failures might be a strong term. I think generally monks have not been well-made in the history of DnD but I don't see what that has to do as far as the viability or uniqueness of a class. A monk is a terrible fighter and it isn't exactly a rogue either (no sneak attack or trap finding) but it is certainly as much rogue as it is fighter. It is a 'martial' class that uses skills (or tricks or w/e) to provide extra ability beyond simply standing there and fighting.
Has it been designed poorly in the past? Possibly but that doesn't invalidate the attempts.
That's not a class. That's a horribly designed Martial Artist being saddled with (and monopolizing) the Aesthetic Contemplative moniker. There's no reason a Martial Artist needs to be a contemplative other than to artificially prop up a bad Monk class. There's no reason for a Contemplative character to be a Martial Artist other than to artificially prop up a bad Monk class.
No one but you seems to saying that monks are martial artists. Or rather that no one is saying all martial artists should be monks. A few of us have been saying that monks use martial arts. And for that you take objection (I'll go over that below).
As far as the 'contemplative' class. I think that is much more spot on. What other classes are even trying for that role?
By no means should the traditional Monk be a class if this requires monopolizing Martial Arts and Contemplative Aestheticism away from everyone else - destroying the idea of the brawler, street-fighter, wrestler, unarmed gladiator, etc. on the one hand and the contemplative priest, artisan, archer, naturalist hermit, etc. on the other.
Who says that monks can't have martial arts while letting every other (or any other) class have unarmed abilities too? Like I said earlier, unarmed monks and flurry have been things adopted onto the frame of monks so I think they NOW belong but I have never said that they are the only ones who deserve to have unarmed. The flurry I see as unique but I don't have problems with other classes getting TWF for example.
But as far as this whole monk = martial artist and martial artists = brawler, street-fighter, wrestler, etc. Then I can completely see what you are talking about.
It is like my looking at paladins and saying that they don't deserve to be a class because they are the only ones with that whole 'smite' thing. And that any number of backgrounds deserve to have smite. All that is true. But smite isn't all that is about paladins. There is so much more and you are getting fixated on the unarmed part of the monk which is so very minor.
That's the kind of niche-carving mistake that's marred class design in the past editions. It shouldn't be carried forward into DNDNext. The Shaolin Warrior-Monk should be something you can easily build, but it doesn't need to be its own class if it means that kind of bad niche-carving.
Outside of the overly large fighter, wizard and cleric (the rogue is debatable as to how stretched it is) ALL classes have niche protection. I'm not seeing a lot of fighters who worry about wildshaping. I don't see many rogues who want to be able to smite like a paladin. Or many wizards who want to track like a ranger. Even with the core four you have niche protection. The wizard isn't going to have the armor or weapons of a fighter and a fighter isn't going to have the spells of a wizard.
Outside of niche protection though I think that most concepts should be as universal as possible. That is my main objection to CS dice. But so far WotC doesn't seem to worry about giving everyone CS dice and yet you aren't raising any hell about that.
If it's 80% swapping "sword" with "fists" and 20% bag-o-tricks then it's either a customization of the fighter (Shaolin Style) or the Gish (Anime Style).
- Marty Lund
Okay, but monks, real monks not just unarmed combatants, are more like 25% fighter, 25% rogue, 15% wizard, 10% cleric, and 25% something none of them has, a sort of X-factor.
That's why I say monk is a good 5th class. Because invariably other classes (paladin, druid, ranger, bard) have some variation on this but not usually all four classes.
Also, if anything monk is that one class that belongs as a hybrid of fighter and rogue unlike any other class. Rangers in a sense are (at least in later editions) but in the grand history of DnD rangers have been more nature-y or divine related than pure fighter-rogue related, but I digress.