Martial Arts: Points vs. Ranks
 

For purpose of this post, I'm assuming that putting one point each into each of a style's skills and techniques (not including optional or cinematic), and buying the Style Familiarity perk, is equivalent to first dan. So I'm thinking that, since these ranks are more than anything a measure of skill, each time the skills and techniques go up one level, that's another dan. When the techniques max out, then two levels in the skills equate to another dan. Does this sounds reasonable? In some fiction, boasting, including about one's ranking, is fairly common, and I want to connect it to the mechanics.

Re: Martial Arts: Points vs. Ranks
 

Ultimately this won't work well. It was attempted in the third edition martial arts book and didn't really work there either.

Belt ranks are only occasionally correlated with actual fighting ability or ability to win tournaments in sparring, forms, or whatever.

There are some BJJ schools where the requirement to advance a belt rank is to defeat all of those of lesser rank in class that day in a continuous grappling match.

Anyway, I'd not go here. If you MUST, look for a copy of the 3E version which did try and match skill with belt ranks.

Re: Martial Arts: Points vs. Ranks
 

All right. I won't worry about it then.

Re: Martial Arts: Points vs. Ranks
 

In many ways, you can just price it as a form of Courtesy Rank if it's important in the campaign. The best way here is probably to look at points in Savoir-Faire (Dojo/Dojang/Salle/School) as a required buy-in, and charge a 0-point perk for a color belt, a 1-point perk for 1st dan rank, and maybe another point for licensed/certified instructor, one more for some sort of "master" rank, and then if you really must, you'll probably tack on appropriate Reputation or Wealth-like advantages/disadvantages for owning or running a school or sect.

But since you can absolutely have "bullshido" multimillionaire school owners, or those who are brutally tough fighters but uncertified, I'd leave this unmoored from character fightin' skill unless the universe cosmology works otherwise.

Re: Martial Arts: Points vs. Ranks
 

Often belts correlate with "time in class" or "ability to pay for exams" and we all know someone who has ten years of experience, its just the same one year of experience ten times over. They were basically introduced in the 20th century as part of the massification and depersonalization of martial arts instruction. Before then, there were not many instructors who did not have a good idea of the capabilities of every student, and if a school had a system of ranks it tended to be simple like "newbie, allowed to do dangerous training or competition, assistant instructor, master."

I agree that Courtesy Rank would be a great mechanic.

Re: Martial Arts: Points vs. Ranks
 

Belt ranks come from judo, and were based on a formal graduation in certain techniques and activities. Other martial arts adopted the same concept, often superficially. Karate and TKD in particular have a lot of different organizations, schools, and such, and many forms are little more than fitness franchises.

In 6th grade, I got into a scuffle with a kid who had a black belt in Tae Kwon Do. He threw me. After that, I got up and put him down a couple of times through a combination of moves I had gleaned from "teach yourself karate" manuals and fighting dirty. I think you really have to wonder how a 13-year-old kid, not a prodigy with gifted teachers, gets a black belt in the first place.

To be really blunt, I think most intermediate ranks and leading up to the black belt, in most schools, are mostly about a moderate investment in whatever Art or Sport version of the skill the school teaches, a point or two in techniques, and Savoire-Faire (dojo). A black belt is nothing; I'd say it comes free with the Style Familiarity. Additional ranks, awarded by high-ranking people in your art, might count as a Courtesy Rank in a campaign where that's relevant.

I think in a good school, one point in each skill, one or two point in techniques (esp. Breakfall in a style that features that prominently) and SF, plus some good skill rolls over the course of a few years is probably a fair baseline. In a not so good school, I think all you can assume is a couple of points in something, and paying their fees regularly. In a traditional, rigorous school, a few points where and there might be enough for your black belt, but additional ranks will require increasingly serious demonstrations of ability. in some MMA schools, you may be required to show the ability to reliably take down junior students. In a kickboxing-oriented school, you might lag in traditional skills and may be only 1st or 2nd dan, but have many points invested in skills and techniques needed to compete and win.

Re: Martial Arts: Points vs. Ranks
 

A lot is going to depend on what sort of feel you're going for. As noted, realistically, the requirements for getting to certain ranks is less dependent on skill and more just on time (and money) invested - and also may involve non-combat skills like Savoir-Faire (Dojo) or even more traditional Influence skills. In something more like shounen anime where the episode's Battle Commentator watches someone fight and says something like "His skill is on a comparable level to a 7th dan blackbelt," you're probably looking more at something where the total points invested in a skill and its techniques are what matters (or, rather, the total points a character with DX 10 would have invested to get where you are) - offhand (using karate ranks and going at least a little cinematic), you might have something where those who haven't invested a full point (but may have it as part of Dabbler; this would be those with effective skill 7 or lower) are no-belts and white belts, those with a point or two (8-9) are yellow/gold belts, those at 10 are green belts, 11 are purple belts, 12 (professional level) are blue belts, 13 are red belts, 14 are brown belts, and 15 (expert level) are first-degree (sho-dan) black belts. Beyond this, every further +1 to skill is a further degree, to a maximum of skill 24 for a tenth-degree (ju-dan) black belt. Investing in Techniques can get you to a higher rank at lower base skill - basically figure out what your skill would be if you had just invested those points in raw skill instead (so someone with Karate 15, Kicking (Karate) at 15 [3], Targeted Attack (Karate Kick/Face) at 13 [4], and Counterattack (Karate) at 15 [6] has invested enough points in Techniques for a +3 to skill, so they are considered to be a fourth-degree blackbelt).

Re: Martial Arts: Points vs. Ranks
 

[QUOTE=DouglasCole;2524030f you MUST, look for a copy of the 3E version which did try and match skill with belt ranks.[/QUOTE]

Just for the record, 3e measured "Skill" by absolute levels and not "levels v Attribute". I think 1st Dan was skill-15 or 16. It was a talking point that this was about as low a Skll level as should try to use your skils for Real World self sefense.

After 1st dan at 15, 3e added another Dan every 2 levels with 10th dan at 35. 3e wasn't as shy about ultra-high levels. If you had to do this 1 Dan at every level after 15 with 10th Dan at 24 might be a slightly better fit for 4e. Skill-24 ought to be plenty legendary.

Re: Martial Arts: Points vs. Ranks
 

As that was also a time of 8/level costs for physical skills, that's quite the point investment.

Re: Martial Arts: Points vs. Ranks
 

Yes, but he got stuff like extra attacks for it. If I remember right Skill-35 might have been 8 per round. Damage bonus was also based on Skill level and 35 would have been +7