Thus, I like the idea of eliminating the monk class, and having "campaign styles" like "Historical", "Sword&Sorcery", and "Wuxia", where, in wuxia, everybody gets access to something like a ki pool that allows them to do wild things like fly and run up walls.
You seem to be violating the terms of your own threads idea but whatever. All I wanted to say is that I really really dislike the implication that monk is purely wuxia, or is just a fighter but with different skin, or so on.
I love the monk, it is my number 1 class. And while I like it partially for its fighting prowess and partially for its ability to fly and run up walls* I love it for another completely different X factor which you failed to articulate here. I can therefore understand your missing it.
It isnt just about being a fighter who can do extra stuff, it is about the entire essence of what the character is. I think that is probably the same of rangers or paladins when the player or writer of the character truly gets the class. At the heart a monk does these things not through willpower or determination, he does them through meditation and perfection. Put another way, fighters are guys who train every day by swinging their blade or by shooting targets down with their bows. Rogues on the other hand spend their time thinking of tricks they can do during combat (or out of it) to get a leg up, because they know they will never have the fighters knack at battle. A monk is some ways a mix of these two. A monk knows the best way to use his opponents body against them and how to strike with the deadliest accuracy, not because they train every day swinging their sword around but because they know the human body and its limitations. I know this is like splitting hairs for a lot of people but it really does matter to me.
I play the monk when Im looking for a non-armor clad alternative. If he is good enough to stand toe to toe with the knight in his shining armor then that is great, if not then I expect to use my monk talents to be just as effective (and hopefully more so) in other respects. A monk could possibly use shadows like a rogue to disguise himself before he strikes or he could be about disarming and quivering palming his enemies to have the greatest effect. Being able to fly and dodge 100 arrows has very little to do with the monk in the grand scheme of things in this respect. It does however show the dedication to the art of perfecting body and mind. He flies not because everyone in that medium flies but because he has learned how to violate the laws of physics, much how a caster would.
Surprisingly perhaps I have just given reasons why the monk isnt just a fighter, but he is a fighter mixed with rogue mixed with wizard. And now I throw in the one that you should see coming, he is the cleric. That is part of his identity as a monk, but it is quite possibly the most throwaway aspect of the character, as much as anything is. A paladin without other paladins and without a goodly-order is still what he is. So too is the monk what he is without other monks or a temple up in the high mountains.
If you are looking for non-religious bends for the monk, in order to stick him into a medeval setting then there you go. He is an expert who perfects himself and uses tricks, like the rogue, and hopefully becomes more effective in battle, like the fighter, and more effective out of battle, like the wizard. If you dont want that fluff of monk dont use it. If you dont like the monk at all dont use it. Im happy either way. I just dont understand this random compulsion people have to want to take my monk away from me.
Also for the record, I have tried making a suitable backup build with classic 4 classes and it just isnt the same. He comes off too magical or too martial when that really isnt what I see him as. He should be more blended which is difficult to achieve outside a direct class.
*Well actually
my monk can fly but the monk class (3.5 monk) cant.
