How many martial arts does a monk know?

[Barebarian]

https://assets.saatchiart.com/saatchi/960434/art/3617118/2687003-ANJWRDJI-7.jpg
We know they get their powers from self-discipline, meditation and of course practicing martial arts, but how many styles do they know? Does each archetype represent a different tradition [kung fu, karate etc.] or a different style within the same monastic tradition [praying mantis, tiger etc.] and [I'm really curious about this] how would you implement the idea of separate martial arts into 5E?

[Rynjin]

They know as many as their player wants to describe.

[zinycor]

Well, most modern martial artists know quite a bit of martial arts, from those they come up with a style, which could be understood as its own martial art (specially if it proves popular and/or effective).

I would think that every time the monk gains a level he has learned something new from a martial art, be it a new one or a deeper aspect of one he already knows.

Personally, I wouldn't deal with any new mechanics in regards to this, just fluff.

[comk59]

I'm actually playing a Kensei Monk right now who specializes in the Liechtenauer tradition of unarmoured German longsword fencing. Although that was partially to prove to another player that you could make monks that aren't in any way {Scrubbed}.

My point being, literally anything works when it comes to Monks and their respective martial arts. You can draw from history, other works of fiction, or just make something up out of whole cloth.

[Spore]

Remember that categorizing stuff like that is entirely human but the combat motions are not categorized. No one asks if the rogue used the "Navy Seal stab" or the "Cutpurse neck stab", they just stab stuff. I think you need the same distance of descriptiveness with a monk, else you get a mishmash of weird changes in detail.

This often is done with magic users vs. martials in my experience.

Cleric: "I cast hold person."
Fighter: "As i flourish back around I dance around my target taking another glancing attack."

and the other way 'round.

Sorcerer: "I invoke the powers from within to unleash a terrible hellflame upon my enemies."
Ranger: "I shoot the orc over there."

[Wraith]

There's a semi-famous /tg/ post going around about a Monk who knew NO martial arts at all. Instead, he was Los Tiburon, the Shark of the Land - a guy who paid all his starting gold for an elaborately decorated mask and RP'd as though he were a luchador, including over-the-top attacks and shouting catchphrases.

By RAW he was a monk, but it was just played out as something completely different. I think that's a pretty great way to play, as it means that to answer OP's question, then it's "between none or all of them". :smalltongue:

[Frozen_Feet]

Short answer: however many the monk has time and opportunity to practice, from one to one hundred.

Long answer:

1) most of the differences between real martial arts are too small for D&D's abtracted combat system to do them justice. Whether your Monk is doing muay thai or savate, boxing or karate, jujutsu or wrestling remains in the realm of description and does not show through the mechanics.

2) on the level D&D models it, we can divide unarmed combat into two categories: grappling and striking. Monks in every edition have been decently good at both, though often leaning towards striking by default. Specialization notwithstanding, this implies a mixed martial art, but could easily exist within a single tradition or order.

3) further martial arts modeled by D&D include close combat with weapons, thrown weapons, archery, cavalry combat, and various supernatural and fantastic forms. Monks tend to lean towards unarmed, lightly armored styles, but have options supporting weapons, archery and supernatural styles.

4) the popular image of monks is rooted in orientalism, specifically Shaolin monks, mixed with bits and pieces of Chinese Wuxia and pop culture image of old Japanese and Okinawan karate masters. So they're already a pop culture mish-mash of various arts.

5) in pop culture, there's this idea that mastering a huge number of martial arts is supreme sign of badassitude. This mostly bull crap, rooted in the mistaken idea that individual martial arts are very narrow and specific. They can be, and every art is a product of its time, place and context, but this is mostly a modern conceit. Many martial arts, especially old ones, are so broad and demanding that mastering them is a lifetime pursuit. For example, karate? You might think it's just punching, kicking and breaking bricks, but the traditional Okinawan styles also included grappling, a general fitness and body conditioning regime, several different weapons, folk medicine and dance. Only very few people ever had the time to be good in all of those. The individual karate styles and schools came to being largely as a result of specific teachers focusing on their own favorite aspects. Also, getting in fights with their own teachers over minor differences. Similarly, Western fencing systems? They didn't include just using a sword, they included footwork, philosophy, body conditioning, wrestling and several weapons other than swords, such as knives and daggers. The point of all this is that the value of "knowing an art" varies immensely. A single system can include everything from grappling and striking to trench-digging and firearms. Hence, how many arts a person knows is not a reliable measure of anything.

6) this said, martial arts have a fair bit of overlap. If you've mastered one art, it will generally be easier to master your second one. However, this has rapidly diminishing returns. A human really only needs to learn one way to strike, one way to grapple, one close combat weapon and one projectile weapon to be a well-rounded combatant. Learning multiple ways for striking (etc.) becomes redundant quickly.

[paddyfool]

All of the above. If want to model your monk's style after shaolin kung fu, muai thai, jeet kun do, tai kwon do, systema, capoeira, kyokushin karate, mma, bartitsu, matrix-style wire fu or any other specific martial art that you're fond of, knock yourself out. If you want him to master a variety of your favourite moves from a spectrum of arts, that's fine as well. In game terms it's pretty much all fluff around "I hit / grapple that dude", anyway.

[Spore]

A human really only needs to learn one way to strike, one way to grapple, one close combat weapon and one projectile weapon to be a well-rounded combatant. Learning multiple ways for striking (etc.) becomes redundant quickly.

I am no martial artist by any way but this is wrong, just so very wrong. Same as swordfighting or even gun fights, 85% of the combat is about getting into the right position to strike and not run into a "counter". Plus timing, timing is everything too.

Kicking has superior reach but you sacrifice balance for it. Punches are fast but the reach is not great plus because they are so good, there are a multitude of blocks to counter them. A grapple can end a combat but they are much shorter ranged still. You need several blocking techniques or you are knocked out cold in a matter of seconds. Not everyone is a boxing pro and can take several rounds of beatings.

Real life is not "punch them until they fall over" because it doesn't work that way, and people don't have health bars.

[Max_Killjoy]

We know they get their powers from self-discipline, meditation and of course practicing martial arts, but how many styles do they know? Does each archetype represent a different tradition [kung fu, karate etc.] or a different style within the same monastic tradition [praying mantis, tiger etc.] and [I'm really curious about this] how would you implement the idea of separate martial arts into 5E?


Depends quite a bit on the details of the setting for the campaign.

[LibraryOgre]

So, 1e and 2e had a martial arts system in Oriental Adventures (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17334/Oriental-Adventures-1e?affiliate_id=315505) and the Complete Ninja's Handbook (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/16904/PHBR15-Complete-Ninjas-Handbook-2e?affiliate_id=315505) that emulated gaining skill in one or more forms. OA actually had rules for combining forms, if you learned several. I reworked them slightly to make them more widely useful (http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/2018/06/oriental-adventures-styles-in-your-ad.html), as I think they were criminally underused outside of Asian-themed campaigns. If you want to play comk59's long-sword style monk, those are a good place to start.

As others have said, though, it really depends on how you want to describe it... is Master Kwan the master of 32 different martial arts? Is Li Po the focused master of a single style? Or are they both 6th level monks?

If I were to represent different styles in 5e, I would probably develop Feats for each unique style, and might refluff some feats as being a specific style. Grappler is probably an entire martial art. Mage Slayer might well be a martial art. If you're delving into Martial Adept, that's definitely learning martial arts, and may well represent you learning a new "style".

The only other real option, IMO, is to more narrowly define styles, and class them as skills with which you can gain proficiency... but comparing them to current feats, I'm not sure what a style-as-skill would look like.

[Willie the Duck]

There's a semi-famous /tg/ post going around about a Monk who knew NO martial arts at all. Instead, he was Los Tiburon, the Shark of the Land - a guy who paid all his starting gold for an elaborately decorated mask and RP'd as though he were a luchador, including over-the-top attacks and shouting catchphrases.

By RAW he was a monk, but it was just played out as something completely different. I think that's a pretty great way to play, as it means that to answer OP's question, then it's "between none or all of them". :smalltongue:

A great story, but I am disappointed that he is not a valor bard. A luchador is a perfect role for a valor bard!

[Unoriginal]

Like others have said, how many martial arts a monk know is basically fluff and flavoring. They know how to hit well with unarmed strikes, but *how* they know it is left to the player's choice (or the DM, in case of NPCs).

You could have your Monk use only a martial art that revolve around biting people, and it'd work just as well than the Monk who mastered the 36th Steps of the Kyton. You could have someone who learned how to Monk by fighting in the streets a lot, or someone who never got in a serious combat before their first day of adventuring.

Funnily enough, in my campaign, when the PCs encountered two arrogant monks who decided to fight them, none of the PCs batted an eyelash at the fact one of them could project energy blasts from his hands. But that particular fighting style will show up later in the campaign, and hopefully they'll make the connection.


There's a semi-famous /tg/ post going around about a Monk who knew NO martial arts at all. Instead, he was Los Tiburon, the Shark of the Land - a guy who paid all his starting gold for an elaborately decorated mask and RP'd as though he were a luchador, including over-the-top attacks and shouting catchphrases.

By RAW he was a monk, but it was just played out as something completely different. I think that's a pretty great way to play, as it means that to answer OP's question, then it's "between none or all of them". :smalltongue:

Wrestling is a type of martial art, though. Well, it can be. It is when you pummel dragons with it.


A great story, but I am disappointed that he is not a valor bard. A luchador is a perfect role for a valor bard!

It was a 3.X character.

[Constructman]

In my imagination, I tend to associate each subclass with a different martial art. You're free to imagine what you want; this is just what I associate with the flavour of each class.

Open Hand: Wing Chun (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQEiwQG7Wfc). It's just too cool! And then the wrestler absolutely bodies you by tackling you to the floor...
Shadow: Kickboxing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou-EKgRrRvs) or MMA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stc_Ax-exPw). Sure, the Ninja bull**** is your schtick when nobody's seen you, but if your cover gets blown, you really just wanna drop a mother****er and skedaddle.
Four Elements: Tai Chi (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAmvStH5k4g). Don't have a specific explanation for it, just feels right.
Long Death: Baji (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA9a977HzFg) Quan (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSSdtM9tKAM). Probably not how the canon Order of the Long Death in Faerun fights, but the movements seem right.
Sun Soul: Boxing (https://youtu.be/qQ6yNXQXYrg?t=494). Given the subclasses' focus on ranged attacks, and the Order of the Sun Soul's status as a cult of Lathander, I imagine their fighting style to be more simple and direct.
Drunken Master: I mean, it's in the name... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4Y62DGkyXw)
Kensei: Performance Wushu (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYhx0DjCjxY). Absolutely impractical in every sense but flashy as hell, and if you aren't being flashy, then you're just a fighter, aren't you?

[Frozen_Feet]

I am no martial artist by any way but this is wrong, just so very wrong. Same as swordfighting or even gun fights, 85% of the combat is about getting into the right position to strike and not run into a "counter". Plus timing, timing is everything too.

And? "One way" in my post does not mean "one technique", just like learning one weapon doesn't mean learning just a single slash. Emphasizing positioning or counters separately is redundant, because they come up in every form of close combat.

What's actually meant, is this: Okinawan karate teaches you one way to kick and punch. Savate teaches you another way to kick and punch. Muay Thai teaches you a third way to kick and punch. These are all subtly different on a basic level, but they serve the same purposes. Learning them all is a neat trick, but in a fight, you don't get to pick and choose - you do what you have trained the most.

Similarly, learning to use a hundred different kinds of swords is redundant, because you only have two hands. If what you have at hand is a rapier, two hundred hours spent practicing how to get into the right position with a rapier is better than hundred hours of rapier and hundred hours of hooksword.


Kicking has superior reach but you sacrifice balance for it. Punches are fast but the reach is not great plus because they are so good, there are a multitude of blocks to counter them. A grapple can end a combat but they are much shorter ranged still. You need several blocking techniques or you are knocked out cold in a matter of seconds. Not everyone is a boxing pro and can take several rounds of beatings.

Real life is not "punch them until they fall over" because it doesn't work that way, and people don't have health bars.

"Punch them untill they fall over" is pretty descriptive of how many real unarmed fights go. Then you continue to punch them in the ground.

Fights with weapons can be decided by single strikes, but in unarmed fighting, that's exception rather than the rule. Some arts, like BJJ, rely heavily on the idea that most fights end up in a grapple and on the ground, and hence focus on that the most.

But you're right, real battle is not a videogame - specifically, it's not a turn based game that runs on simple rock-paper-scissors logic. Again: in a real battle, you don't have time to pick and choose, you do what you have trained the most. Or if you do have time to pick and choose, your opponent is probably so much slower that you should be able to punch them untill they fall over.

Physical fitness, quantity of practice and quality of practice matters more than breadth of technique. If your opponent is significantly more fit, it doesn't matter how many blocks you know, they will power through every one. If you are significantly more fit, you don't even need to block, your opponent will hurt themselves more than they will you.

Those boxers can take a beating because they are fit, and they are fit because getting fit is part of the art.

[JoeJ]

In my world, monks typically develop their own style as they train. And most of the really good ones have a very flashy, cinematic style that's entertaining to watch, because the class mainly consists of arena fighters, not religious contemplatives.

[blackjack50]

https://assets.saatchiart.com/saatchi/960434/art/3617118/2687003-ANJWRDJI-7.jpg
We know they get their powers from self-discipline, meditation and of course practicing martial arts, but how many styles do they know? Does each archetype represent a different tradition [kung fu, karate etc.] or a different style within the same monastic tradition [praying mantis, tiger etc.] and [I'm really curious about this] how would you implement the idea of separate martial arts into 5E?

So I’ve spent a lot of time in a martial arts gym (BJJ/Kodokan Judo was my primary) and we had like 8-9 arts in there. We had an expression that we loved to say. “Biomechanics is biomechanics.” There are only so many different ways to throw a jab or a roundhouse or a hiptoss.

So I would say that perhaps the monk knows their “art” but it encompasses techniques that you would see in other forms. My monk likes to head butt, elbow, and use a short sword. He is somewhat of a dirty fighting ninja.

[blackjack50]

And? "One way" in my post does not mean "one technique", just like learning one weapon doesn't mean learning just a single slash. Emphasizing positioning or counters separately is redundant, because they come up in every form of close combat.

What's actually meant, is this: Okinawan karate teaches you one way to kick and punch. Savate teaches you another way to kick and punch. Muay Thai teaches you a third way to kick and punch. These are all subtly different on a basic level, but they serve the same purposes. Learning them all is a neat trick, but in a fight, you don't get to pick and choose - you do what you have trained the most.

Similarly, learning to use a hundred different kinds of swords is redundant, because you only have two hands. If what you have at hand is a rapier, two hundred hours spent practicing how to get into the right position with a rapier is better than hundred hours of rapier and hundred hours of hooksword.



"Punch them untill they fall over" is pretty descriptive of how many real unarmed fights go. Then you continue to punch them in the ground.

Fights with weapons can be decided by single strikes, but in unarmed fighting, that's exception rather than the rule. Some arts, like BJJ, rely heavily on the idea that most fights end up in a grapple and on the ground, and hence focus on that the most.

But you're right, real battle is not a videogame - specifically, it's not a turn based game that runs on simple rock-paper-scissors logic. Again: in a real battle, you don't have time to pick and choose, you do what you have trained the most. Or if you do have time to pick and choose, your opponent is probably so much slower that you should be able to punch them untill they fall over.

Physical fitness, quantity of practice and quality of practice matters more than breadth of technique. If your opponent is significantly more fit, it doesn't matter how many blocks you know, they will power through every one. If you are significantly more fit, you don't even need to block, your opponent will hurt themselves more than they will you.

Those boxers can take a beating because they are fit, and they are fit because getting fit is part of the art.

“I don’t fear the man who has done 10,000 punches, but the man who has done 1 punch 10,000 times.”

[Contrast]

I played a kensai monk who was an ex-gladiator. His 'martial arts' were a willingness to punch, kick and bite his way through problems when weapons couldn't do the job. There was no formal teaching or system that he used fluff wise - he was just really good at improvising when push came to shove.

So depending on how you define something as being a 'martial art', the answer to your question is 'anywhere between 0 and infinite' depending on the player, DM and setting.

[gkathellar]

Learning them all is a neat trick, but in a fight, you don't get to pick and choose - you do what you have trained the most.

There are two problems with this. First, you'll do what you can do comfortably and without thought, and if you can perform a variety of techniques interchangeably and without pause comfortably and without thought, you'll do that. Second, fights usually have build-up periods, before the action and sometimes interspersed with it, and most of the martial artists I've heard talk strategy will say that those lulls are when you do the mental work, probing, observing, and priming yourself psychologically to take certain actions.


Similarly, learning to use a hundred different kinds of swords is redundant, because you only have two hands. If what you have at hand is a rapier, two hundred hours spent practicing how to get into the right position with a rapier is better than hundred hours of rapier and hundred hours of hooksword.

Eh, weapons bleed into each other, and into unarmed fighting. Familiarity with mixed arms teaches principles and habits of mind that you probably wouldn't learn otherwise. That's especially important in a mixed fight where you may be faced with weapons you're not familiar with. And in many cases, one weapon can form the foundation for others - I know an old-school fencing maestro who swears up and down that if he can teach you foil (which isn't even a weapon in the proper sense), he can use that as the basis to teach you anything else. Similarly, there are things about the synchronization of the empty hands that are best learned from doing staff, sais will teach you to chamber punches properly, etc. A good system of combat training may include varied elements, so long as those elements form a cohesive whole, with techniques reoccurring in different contexts and variations to build on what is already known while diversifying the student's reflexes and abilities.


“I don’t fear the man who has done 10,000 punches, but the man who has done 1 punch 10,000 times.”

The actual quote involves kicks. Incidentally, in his writings Bruce Lee suggests that while the Wing Chun straight punch is the most important thing and the thing you should train most with, you should still become proficient in knife hands, ridge hands, pea-knuckle strikes, four-knuckle strikes, palm heels, elbow strikes, spear hands, the basic low front-kick, the basic middle-target side-kick, knees, the seventy-two joint locks, the thirty-six throws, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some things. (Source: The Tao of Gung Fu)

[Kane0]

I dunno, treat them like tool proficiencies?

All my monk ever trained in was badassitude and jarate.


My monk likes to head butt, elbow, and use a short sword. He is somewhat of a dirty fighting ninja.
Wait, don't all ninjas fight dirty?

[zinycor]

I dunno, treat them like tool proficiencies?

All my monk ever trained in was badassitude and jarate.


Wait, don't all ninjas fight dirty?

There is no such thing as a dirty fight when you are fighting. Is all about survival.

[blackjack50]

There are two problems with this. First, you'll do what you can do comfortably and without thought, and if you can perform a variety of techniques interchangeably and without pause comfortably and without thought, you'll do that. Second, fights usually have build-up periods, before the action and sometimes interspersed with it, and most of the martial artists I've heard talk strategy will say that those lulls are when you do the mental work, probing, observing, and priming yourself psychologically to take certain actions.



Eh, weapons bleed into each other, and into unarmed fighting. Familiarity with mixed arms teaches principles and habits of mind that you probably wouldn't learn otherwise. That's especially important in a mixed fight where you may be faced with weapons you're not familiar with. And in many cases, one weapon can form the foundation for others - I know an old-school fencing maestro who swears up and down that if he can teach you foil (which isn't even a weapon in the proper sense), he can use that as the basis to teach you anything else. Similarly, there are things about the synchronization of the empty hands that are best learned from doing staff, sais will teach you to chamber punches properly, etc. A good system of combat training may include varied elements, so long as those elements form a cohesive whole, with techniques reoccurring in different contexts and variations to build on what is already known while diversifying the student's reflexes and abilities.



The actual quote involves kicks. Incidentally, in his writings Bruce Lee suggests that while the Wing Chun straight punch is the most important thing and the thing you should train most with, you should still become proficient in knife hands, ridge hands, pea-knuckle strikes, four-knuckle strikes, palm heels, elbow strikes, spear hands, the basic low front-kick, the basic middle-target side-kick, knees, the seventy-two joint locks, the thirty-six throws, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some things. (Source: The Tao of Gung Fu)

I was quoting more for the point he was making. Knowing a lot of techniques is not as good as knowing a few techniques perfectly.

[Aquillion]

I feel like one of the reasons D&D's monk class has had recurring problems is that the writers and designers didn't really know enough about the genre that they're drawing on to actually consider these questions in-depth. Compare to eg. Exalted's in-depth focus on the physical, spiritual, and social facets of martial arts in a martial arts fantasy game, and it's obvious how limited the D&D monk is.

It's as if wizards had been designed by someone who had seen a few big-budget Hollywood movies that happened to have wizards in them, but who never heard of Merlin or Gandalf and who hasn't really read enough fantasy to really get what makes wizards cool. Imagine a wizard concept with, like, five or six fixed spells, total (the ones they happened to see a wizard do in the few movies they watched when doing research), and you have the 3.5e monk.

It has a tiny handful of fixed martial-arts-ish abilities tossed together in a way that completely strips them of the context and structure that the class ought to offer.

Also, the Way of Four Elements should be the Way of Five Elements, I'm just saying. Earth, metal, water, fire, wood, it's not hard, people! And it would help distinguish them from other classes a bit more, anyway.

(Despite its issues, I feel that the structure of the Mystic would be a better fit for monks - with disciplines being martial art styles or paths to enlightenment, of course. Amusing because Psychic Warrior was also a better monk back in 3.5e... perhaps because the focus on structured internal enlightenment leading to powerful fighting skill is what the monk ought to be.)

[ImproperJustice]

As some have said, a monk could just be a student of martial combat in a fantasy setting.
Their focus and ability with weapons and tgeir bodies reflects a deeper understanding and study of martial techniques used by all manner of combatants.

Maybe a self taught style of their own.

Maybe the crazy movement and mental defenses are small simple warding spells they picked up from studying mages and clerics.

I think with a little imagination it’s prettt easy to seperate a Monk from its Eastern Origins.

[qube]

How many martial arts does a monk know?

One knows not a style truely, until one masters it.
Yet one can only master one style - his own.


I am no martial artist by any way but this is wrong, just so very wrong. Same as swordfighting or even gun fights, 85% of the combat is about getting into the right position to strike and not run into a "counter". Plus timing, timing is everything too.As someone who considers himself somewhat of a martial artist, I would like to note, that whie there's truth to that idea, there's also truth in what Bruce Lee said (who aside from being an actor, created Jeet Kung Do):


I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.

Likewise, IIRC, there's a rapier fighting style that basically has one stance and one attack. It's based on what you said "timing is everything" - as it fully focus on striking the other guy when he comes into range, just before he strikes.

That being said, Ironically, bruce Lee also said


Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot.

Advocating that fighting styles themselves are a weakness - Especially if you learn a style that only has one kick ... an enemy can slimply analyse your kick aforehand, and device a counter. If you are flued, and can kick various ways, your enemy has lessa advantage.


That all being said - I would say, it's about balance
it is better to know 2 techniques then to know 1
it is better to master 1 technique instead of knowing 2
it is better to master 2 techniques over mastering 1
you're better of mastering a 2nd technique for a different situation then mastering a 5rd technique the same situation




Four Elements: Tai Chi (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAmvStH5k4g). Don't have a specific explanation for it, just feels right. the fighting styles in Avatar has have heavy Tai Chi infuence, so it adds up ;)

[Unoriginal]

Waterbending was based on Tai Chi. The other styles not really.

[qube]

Waterbending was based on Tai Chi. The other styles not really.my mistake - that's indeed what I meant.

( https://imgur.com/gallery/OdrMc )

[Wraith]

Wrestling is a type of martial art, though. Well, it can be. It is when you pummel dragons with it.

Pankratian, Sumo and Kabadi are martial arts; Professional wrestling is choreographed acrobatics. Luchadors, while very serious about their craft, more often fall in with the latter :smalltongue:

[Max_Killjoy]

my mistake - that's indeed what I meant.

( https://imgur.com/gallery/OdrMc )

That reminds me that I keep wishing there were a system that did direct fights between casters a bit more like benders dueling, and a bit less like blind rocket tag.

[Barebarian]

Pankratian, Sumo and Kabadi are martial arts; Professional wrestling is choreographed acrobatics. Luchadors, while very serious about their craft, more often fall in with the latter :smalltongue:

And Acrobatics is a monk skill! :smalltongue: How would you guys implement Acrobatics proficiency into monk combat? I've yet to see it done.

[Unoriginal]

And Acrobatics is a monk skill! :smalltongue: How would you guys implement Acrobatics proficiency into monk combat? I've yet to see it done.

That's how they navigate the environment in perilous ways that doesn't require a STR (Athletics) check. Jumping is STR (Athletics) for example, while running on an open windowpane is DEX (Acrobatics).

[Mordaedil]

The real question is, can anyone achieve to play a monk as powerful as Wimp Lo?

[blackjack50]

I dunno, treat them like tool proficiencies?

All my monk ever trained in was badassitude and jarate.


Wait, don't all ninjas fight dirty?

I suppose I meant specifically like the “dirty boxing” techniques.:)

[blackjack50]

And Acrobatics is a monk skill! :smalltongue: How would you guys implement Acrobatics proficiency into monk combat? I've yet to see it done.


https://youtu.be/X9djXFdfyiY

[DMThac0]

I translate my martial arts experience into the Monk(s) that I play, it really makes my DM's frustrated if they're not familiar with martial arts and the different types.

I have 20 years of martial arts training under my belt at this point; 2 yr ninpo, 2 yr Mantis style Kung-fu, 4 yrs Kempo, 4 yrs Jiu-Jitsu, 5 yrs Tae Kwon Do, 2 yrs Hapkido, and 1 yr Baguazhang. I moved around a lot over the years and it took me a while to find the right Dojang, I'm now only a year away from my 1st Dan in both Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do. I have been to many tournaments, expos, and seminars about martial arts learning the philosophies and martial applications.

With this experience I view the D&D Monk as poorly put together, I've even written TSR/WotC about it, to no avail. A monk in D&D should take one of two paths in my mind: A master of a single dao, think Shaolin Monks, or a student of martial arts who mixes everything they learn into their own tao such as Miyamoto Musashi. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, both approaches are an individual desire of the practitioner. It's entirely up to the person playing the monk to figure out which approach they want, and neither is wrong.