[Dungeon Fantasy] Non-East Asian inspirations for Martial Artists (and Ninja)

[jason taylor]

European martial arts might include quarterstaff. Also that Irish walking stick with the cute name.

[jason taylor]

Stilletto: Aside from being a traditional feature of mafia feuds it was used presumably by the jealous husband that according to legend instigated the Sicilian Vespers by stabbing a Frenchman indulging in harassment. It is descended from the knightly mercy dagger and is an optimized stabbing knife with no other practical use. But when it does stab it stabs well due to the needle like blade. Good for an assassin, reasonable as a sidearm, or a main-gauche.

Navaja/Salvavirgo: Mostly a peasant's weapon in Spain but the existence of custom designs prove some high status folk liked it. Salvavirgo is a Navaja in a woman's possession. It's nickname (virginity saviour) indicates it's purpose, which was useful in Spain which had periods of incompetent law enforcement. In game terms it would be something to give a female PC much like a Naginata. But either a male or female can handle it.

Broadsword. A classic for Medieval's of high enough status to afford the ironmongery of a real sword.

Side Sword. A town sword rather than a miltary one, though presumably officers would carry it if it was to their taste, at least infantry ones who need only a side arm for direct self-defense and administering discipline (cavalry officers get into the thick of it and need something heavy). A side sword is less heavy than a proper broadsword but has enough mass to cut as well as thrust.

Rapier: ancestor of the modern epee. A nearly pure thrusting sword: often edged to prevent grasping and allow non-lethal cuts as a secondary attack (in the movie Rob Roy, the villain used this to bleed out the hero partly because it was a legitimate tactic but partly to toy with his opponent). Often paired with a left hand device such as a buckler, cloak, or main-gauche dagger.

Small Sword: The final evolution of the Rapier. By this time it was mainly a dueling piece, though it might be useful to have around if going into a bad part of town.

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Originally Posted by tbone

I think I've related this before, but: When I started gaming with D&D, my local gaming group simply wasn't familiar with "monk" in the sense of Shaolin Temple monk. We pictured the monk class as tonsured, monastic, European monks. Who, for some reason, had weird powers and weapons. We really didn't ask why; it was D&D.

You could always combine them, like in "Kung Fu Antipopes"...

[tbone]

For the fun of it, here are names suggested above for chi-like "inner" sources of power, from a non=East=Asian perspective:

Pneuma (Classical Greece)
Baraka (Arabic)
Ruach (Hebrew)
Arete
Numen (early 20th century)
Inner Light (Quakers)
Aether
Odic force
Elan vital
Vril
Prana

Going back to the OP, a GM could take one of these, define it as chi under a different name, and create cool powers based it, for Euro monks or dervishes or what have you.

(Or create a new power source that isn't chi. I think I'd pass on that myself, though, simply to avoid power source overload: chi, psi, Power Investiture, magery/mana, all the weird variants in Summoners...)

A couple of thoughts:

1) Here's an interesting (?) setup: A Christian monastic order with the heretical belief that the super-feats of Moses, Samson, Jesus, etc. came from this inner ruach. They may hold that the Divine inspired these heroes, guided them, maybe even granted them Ruach Talent and its associated skills and powers... but the "miracles" themselves were enacted by the practitioners, from that inner strength, not by calling on Divine power.

From there, the GM can create Ruach Abilities like Walk on Water, Strength of Samson, and Heal Disease. (Of course, some reported miracles fit the idea more easily than others. Unleash Plagues is a little hard to envision as a chi-like power.)

2) The (great) book Slayers grants demon/undead/mage slayers powers similar to those of holy warriors and clerics, but without a divine power source, or any external power source. The abilities stem from internal "force of will" – but it's not chi or psi, and doesn't carry the limitations of those.

But maybe the gameworld philosophers disagree, and posit that the source is chi/ruach/pneuma/etc. The difference with slayers is that this source appears for reasons of its own (as briefly described in the book), rather than being granted like Power Investiture or developed like chi; thus, no limitations involving vows or special exercises, and no need for a trait like Ruach Talent.

In other words, slayers' powers work just as described in the book, and any connection to a chi-like power source is purely a matter of background color, not mechanics. But it's interesting IMO to imagine that slayers might share this source with martial artists, even if it manifests quite differently.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Michael Thayne

Dungeon Fantasy Martial Artists are a bit of an odd man out. The other "core" professions all have roots in fantasy fiction and RPGs primarily (if loosely) based off Medieval Europe.

The clerics come from more than 1400 years earlier. I actually introduced (martial arts) monks into the Dragonlance setting reasoning that they had appeared while the gods were on vacation, the monks teaching meditation and philosophy to fill the void, a religion that considered gods to be possibly existent, but irrelevant to the things that really mattered. I remember a fantasy novel where ninja-like martial artists created their skills as part of a revolutionary movement against a ruling class of "witches", using stealth to catch them off guard.

[jacobmuller]

And don't forget the Irish Monks - after all those viking raids they added Anàil Beatha to their resumé. We all know how powerful Uisce Beatha is - just imagine Anàil...
Chi is cheesy, give me Anàil of Eireann!
Of course, a lot depends on how you pronounce it - might get a bit NSFW if your garlic is as bad as mine.
PS given that Uisce Beatha is pronounced whiskey baha; Samhain is sowain; ¿Anàil ≈ Ownail? (of iren). Maybe too drole...

[Varyon]

From what I can tell, the way Martial Artists in DF function is that they maintain a special diet and do special daily exercises, and as a result have access to a variety of superhuman abilities. They also have access to the more advanced unarmed combat skills (Karate and Judo).

It occurs to me that an in-genre approach may be to have Chi be "scientific" in nature - after all, Karate (and Boxing) and Judo are often considered more scientific approaches to combat (as opposed to the more instinctive Brawling and Wrestling). In this case, careful regulation of diet and exercise grants one a state of more balanced humors than a normal person can achieve, unlocking true human potential, and allowing them - with appropriate practice - to do the sorts of things legendary heroes could achieve, like quelling a large number of foes with a single shout (Kiai), breaking a massive stone with a single strike (Shattering Blow), leaping over canyons (Flying Leap), running over thin ice or leaving no trail over soft mud (Light Walk), etc. Just give Chi a different name and fluff it up as being a consequence of supremely balanced humors, and there you go. As for the name, apparently "humor" is a translation of the Greek word χυμός, which is pronounced something like chi-mos... so in theory, you could actually still call it Chi, with the understanding this is short for χυμός (which, according to Wikipedia, literally means juice or sap, and is metaphorically used to mean flavor).

EDIT: I'm not sure what you'd actually call the class, however. Also, some of the more anime-inspired options that show up in later books/articles - like being able to throw chi blasts - may not be appropriate, but I think the mechanical core of the class as it was presented in DF1 would be maintained.

[thrash]

Originally Posted by martinl

The modern "unarmored, often unarmed badass" martial artist is at least in part due to folks who had to fight when fighting equipment was restricted. So they don't use armor and specialize in weapons that are also tools and outright unarmed combat. A reputation for being outright supernatural doesn't hurt either.

This would typically imply a marginalized, conquered, or oppressed subculture, or a society with politically imposed restrictions on weapons use. For medieval Europe, that immediately calls to mind the Jews. A qabalah-based secret art (perhaps anachronistically modeled after Krav Maga) that was developed to protect Jewish communities from their persecutors would work. Plenty of room here for the "don't mess with the old man in rags" trope.

Something like a berserker, either Scandinavian or Celtic (e.g. Cu Chulain's riastrad), would also fit the bill. In this case, there would be a society of practitioners that survived into the medieval period, refining their "divine rage" into a powerful unarmed and -armored martial art with supernatural overtones.

[RyanW]

There is one YouTuber who took a close look at the monk class in D&D 5e and realized that almost none of their abilities actually require them to act like Shaolin monks (look up full plate monk). The few "while wearing no armor and fighting unarmed or using a monk weapon" abilities are mostly focused on making monk weapons more useful, which he got around by just using an effective weapon that didn't need the mystic power up.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by RyanW

There is one YouTuber who took a close look at the monk class in D&D 5e and realized that almost none of their abilities actually require them to act like Shaolin monks (look up full plate monk). The few "while wearing no armor and fighting unarmed or using a monk weapon" abilities are mostly focused on making monk weapons more useful, which he got around by just using an effective weapon that didn't need the mystic power up.

That sounds like an error on the part of the designers, unless they specifically wanted to make "armored monk with a sword" a viable character option. While I never played as a Monk in 3.x, from looking at the class in the SRD, avoiding armor pays itself off rather effectively, at least if you opt for a high Wisdom (the monk bonus approximates wearing light armor, but lacks downsides such as armor check penalties or limiting the bonus you can get from Dexterity while also working even against touch attacks, can stack with Bracers of Armor unlike normal armor, and eventually results in an increased movement rate), and while monk weapons aren't great (1d6 and x2 crit), getting an additional attack (or 2 at higher levels) at only -2 to hit (relative to your maximum BAB, and this drops at higher levels, vanishing by level 9) is arguably worth it - particularly if you opt for dual-wielding, as this boosts the offhand weapon's damage to use your full Str bonus instead of half of it. Considering you'd likely have to give up 4 Feats to be able to wield a decent weapon and wear plate armor (grabbing either Martial or Exotic Weapon Proficiency, as well as Light, Medium, and Heavy Armor Proficiency; the first feat could be avoided if you're of a race that gets free proficiency in some weapon - like elves with Longswords - and opted to use said weapon), I'd say in 3.5 a Monk is best off staying unarmored and using Monk weapons.

Overanalysis ahead:

Spoiler:  

There's also the consideration that, at higher levels, the base dice of damage for a weapon isn't as big of a contributor. Consider a Monk with Str 14 (for a +2 bonus). If he/she opts to use monk weapons and dual wield, at sixth level (the lowest level where the armored monk can have all the relevant proficiencies), the character is at +3/+3/+3 (+4 BAB, +2 for Str, -1 for Flurry of Blows, -2 for dual-wielding with a light weapon in the offhand) to hit, and each hit with a mundane weapon will deal 1d6+2 damage, or an average of 5.5 damage. Our armored monk's best option for a weapon is arguably a greatsword, with which the character would be at +6 (+4 BAB, +2 for Str) to hit and deal 2d6+3 damage, or an average of 10 damage; this is 1/3rd the number of attacks, +5% to the chance to hit, and a bit under x2 to damage... which is unlikely to be worth it. The break-even point is a foe who needs a natural roll (for the first monk) of between 16 (where the first monk deals 82.5 over 20 rounds while the armored monk deals 80) and 17 (66 vs 70). That analysis does ignore the increased chance of a critical hit for the armored monk; with that in play (basically just multiplying average damage by 1.05 for the normal monk - representing a 5% chance of x2 damage - and by 1.1 for the armored monk - representing a 10% chance of x2 damage), in which case a foe who calls for a natural roll of 16 takes an average of 86.625 from the first monk and 88 from the second. But, by 6th level, the characters should probably be using +1 if not +2 weapons - for +1 weapons, the first monk is better off so long as the foe calls for a natural roll of 17 or lower if not factoring in crits (16 or lower if you are); for +2, 17 or lower either way. At 20th level, the first monk (assuming he/she has kept up on the relevant Two-Weapon Fighting Feats) is at +15/+15/+15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5, while the second one is at only +15/+10/+5, and with the two likely using +5 weapons (possibly +5 weapons with an additional +1d6 elemental), the average damages are 10.5 and 15, respectively (or 14 and 18.3, respectively), meaning the first monk is going to markedly outperform the second (the second can regain a bit if using a Keen weapon, for a 20% chance to crit, but that doesn't really help much).

For armor, at 6th level, the first monk probably has Bracers of Armor +1 while the armoured monk probably has Full Plate +1 (they may each have +2 instead, that doesn't change things, really). Assuming Dex 12 (note the first monk would actually need a minimum of DX 15 to be dual-wielding, but we'll ignore that to make things as helpful to the armored monk as possible, seeing as his armor only allows for a +1 from Dex) and Wis 16, this means the first monk has AC 16 (Touch AC 16, Flat-Footed AC 15, Touch+FF AC 15), while the armored monk has AC 20 (Touch AC 11, Flat-Footed AC 19, Touch+FF AC 10). The first monk can move 30 yards per Move Action and runs at x4; the second is at 20/x3. The first monk also has no armor check penalty on skills, while the second suffers a -5 to such while also having to deal with an extra 50 lb of encumbrance. Probably overall an advantage for the armored monk, but not extremely so (he/she can't really sneak around and the like, and is pretty hosed against Touch attacks). But then at 20th level, when the first probably has Bracers of Armor +5 (possibly more, as those can go up to +8, but we'll ignore that so we don't need to worry about the armored monk running around in adamantine plate +5) and the second probably has Full Plate +5, the first monk now has AC 23 (Touch AC 23, FF AC 22, Touch+FF AC 22) while the second now has AC 24 (Touch AC 11, FF AC 23, Touch+FF AC 10). The first monk has move 40/x4, while the second still has 20/x3. I'd say that's an overall advantage for the first monk, particularly considering we aren't accounting for magic items that boost Wis and/or Dex (which the armored monk doesn't get an AC boost from, but the first monk does), or the +1 to 1 stat every character gets every 4 levels.

EDIT: A deeper dive into the SRD reveals that, first off, Wisdom isn't that big of a deal for a monk - it adds only to AC and to the DC of Quivering Palm. Secondly, dual-wielding requires you to start with high Dex and continue to build it up - the three levels call for DX 15, 17, and 19, respectively. So, an armored monk probably wouldn't bother with Wis and would favor Str. A dual-wielding, unarmored monk would probably want decent Wis at least to start out, but would focus on Dex and grab Finesse (considering most Monk weapons are light anyway; personally, as DM I'd allow Finesse to work with the quarterstaff for a Monk - think of it as the quarterstaff normally being simple, but an exotic proficiency lets you use it with Finesse and that's the version of proficiency Monks have). Say, our armored monk has Str 16, Con 14, other stats at 12 or lower (Dex 12, at least), and adds +1 to Str every 4 levels, while our dual-wielder has Dex 16, Wis 14, other stats at 12 or lower (Str 12 at least), and adds +1 to Dex every 4 levels. The armored monk would have a bit of an advantage at lower levels - at level 6, the character would attack at +8 (assuming a +1 weapon) and deal an average of 11 damage while having AC 20 (Full Plate +1), ACP -5, and move 20/x3; while the dual-wielding monk would attack at +5/+5/+5 (still assuming +1 weapons) and deal an average of 5.5 while having AC 17 (Bracers +1) and move 50/x4 (I messed up when the Monk gets improved movement, previously, as well as how much) Of course, looking still further, it looks like monks generally shouldn't even bother with any weapons - at level 6 an unarmed monk (who can still benefit from Finesse and Two-Weapon Fighting) deals 1d8 when striking unarmed, and in fact at level 20 this jumps up to 2d10 (it gradually increases as level goes up; at levels 12-15, it matches the greatsword's 2d6). Grab an Amulet of Mighty Fists of an appropriate level (giving between +1 and +5 to attack and damage rolls to unarmed strikes), and at high levels the unarmed monk will readily outperform the damage of one wearing armor and using a decent weapon. I'm honestly not entirely certain why a Monk would bother using Monk weapons...

Of course, for DF, our Martial Artist (or whatever name is appropriate for a more-European-themed option) doesn't need to perfectly emulate the Monk of ToG, of any edition.