Monk implementation

[nikolokolus]

Personally I dig Tim's and Josh's take on the monk class.  It's different, it has a lore context, and it seems like you can build a character concept around the class ... no matter how much it diverges from the original D&D conception of a monk (and the 1st ed. AD&D class had a lot of mechanical differences from the 3 - 3.5 incarnation).

 

It all remains to be seen how everything fits together, but frankly the more original and less dependent on D&D the more excited I get.  Not that I hate D&D and its core concepts, it's just nice to see Obsidian is putting their own creative stamp on the classes that we all take for granted instead of taking the easy way out and just rehashing the same old tropes.

[JFSOCC]

shaolin warrior monks are buddhist paladins, dnd made them into something different because paladins are for 'good' which is based based on a christian societies view of good, and thus they don't fit perfectly.

 

with mechanics of dnd monks they tend to be built selfishly, they can't take on powerful creatures, they don't heal others or shield them from harm in some way, even though shaolin warrior monks have a strict code for doing what is best for the people as a whole.

 

a monk can't compete 1 on 1 against any of the fighter classes, has less utility than the utility classes, and don't cast spells.  having one in the party isn't as good as pretty much any other class, yet a party of just monks can easily be a terror to a whole country.  their attacks are built for fighting many weak enemies (like peasants), able to stun clerics and other spellcasters until they can kill them, able to outrun mounted knights and such.  so basically they can show up to a village and kill everyone including the local cleric/adept, then when the local lord shows up to protect his lands they can take off and avoid a fight they can't win.  if they catch him unaware they can try for a quivering palm strike and kill him in one strike.  on the flip side if a local lord starts terrorizing the countryside they can't stand up to him, the best they can hope for is to catch him unaware (harder to do if he is paranoid due to making enemies right and left) and take him out with quivering palm, and hope that none of his lackey's don't decide to take his place.

 

monks aren't a worthless class, they make great spellcaster assassins, but they do have variant classes that are built for that, so ultimately i think a monk should have been a variant paladin, only tied to true neutral alignment instead of lawful good, unable to associate with lawful good, or chaotic evil people.  so you can't have a normal paladin in the same party as a monk, and the class has half the wealth per level as normal.  swap out a few paladin powers for monk powers and you end up with a monk class that can go toe to toe with other paladins, complete with the paladin's lay on hands like what has been a monk power in pretty much all literature that have had a monk type person.

 

but enough about why dnd monks are not a good class.

I would be OK with having them be "lockdown" characters which disable magical abilities for a while on their targets. (bit like chi-blocking in Avatar)

So your powerful warrior is going to do the ultimate sudoken move, finds it can't cast it. That way the monk would be a terrific force multiplier, and great help fighting boss monsters.

[Jerky33]

 

 

Honestly, I don't really have a particular core conception of any class. To me they don't exist outside of the mechanics.

 

 

So you wouldn't mind a "mage" class that can't cast spells or anything, wears plate only and uses a two-handed sword exclusively?

That's okay.

I will say:"Why the **** do you call this class 'mage'?"

 

 

I think we're both coming from a D&D perspective here, so I'll stick to that. 

 

Answer: typically I don't. I have played, and have had players, play a class called "Barbarian" that is actually just a 3.5 Wizard with some heavy re-fluffing. I don't feel as though classes is something that exists in the world, merely names for a collection of mechanics. Call that name whatever you want. 

 

I do, however, see why classes exist and why people like them. I understand that class names have certain things associated with them. A mage is someone who uses magic. A warrior is someone who fights in armour and weapons. I don't, however, agree with that the core of a monk is someone who dodges attacks. To me, the core of a monk is someone with great discipline who uses his/her body to accomplish superhuman feats. If you've read Saladin Ahmed's Throne of the Crescent Moon (if not, strongly recommend that you do) then Raseed is a great monk in my mind. 

 

Almost everything in the fantasy genre comes from something in reality.  The class names are just a way to group types of people to easily play a game.  I'd argue that a warrior is TOO general a term, because it doesn't only describe someone who fights in armor and with weapons.  A monk in this case (and most cases in RPGs) would also be classified as a warrior. 

 

I think the reason most people are hesitant about this character being a monk is because this character seems like a very blunt, straightforward fighter who jumps into the middle of a melee taking hits, whereas real world monks from which most RPG monks were modeled after were not only strong, but agile and quick and able to evade attacks.

[Aldereth]

Obsidian 's take is fine. The channeling pain thing actually have some connection with certain medieval European monk orders who flogged themselves.

 

Most RPGs, media and heck even som wuxia novel got the monk wrong due to certain assumptions about Buddhist teaching. The wuxia buddhist monks objective is not to do good or even worship a deity in the traditional sense. They seek to see through the illusion of what we perceive as the material world and achieve a higher consciousness. The spell like super human feat is a consequence of this higher understanding of the universe. The closest popular media archetype is actually Neo, Morpheus, Trinity and the rest of the gang from The Matrix.

[jamoecw]

 

 

 

Honestly, I don't really have a particular core conception of any class. To me they don't exist outside of the mechanics.

 

 

So you wouldn't mind a "mage" class that can't cast spells or anything, wears plate only and uses a two-handed sword exclusively?

That's okay.

I will say:"Why the **** do you call this class 'mage'?"

 

 

I think we're both coming from a D&D perspective here, so I'll stick to that. 

 

Answer: typically I don't. I have played, and have had players, play a class called "Barbarian" that is actually just a 3.5 Wizard with some heavy re-fluffing. I don't feel as though classes is something that exists in the world, merely names for a collection of mechanics. Call that name whatever you want. 

 

I do, however, see why classes exist and why people like them. I understand that class names have certain things associated with them. A mage is someone who uses magic. A warrior is someone who fights in armour and weapons. I don't, however, agree with that the core of a monk is someone who dodges attacks. To me, the core of a monk is someone with great discipline who uses his/her body to accomplish superhuman feats. If you've read Saladin Ahmed's Throne of the Crescent Moon (if not, strongly recommend that you do) then Raseed is a great monk in my mind. 

 

Almost everything in the fantasy genre comes from something in reality.  The class names are just a way to group types of people to easily play a game.  I'd argue that a warrior is TOO general a term, because it doesn't only describe someone who fights in armor and with weapons.  A monk in this case (and most cases in RPGs) would also be classified as a warrior. 

 

I think the reason most people are hesitant about this character being a monk is because this character seems like a very blunt, straightforward fighter who jumps into the middle of a melee taking hits, whereas real world monks from which most RPG monks were modeled after were not only strong, but agile and quick and able to evade attacks.

 

hollywood monks are about evasion and avoiding damage, and fighting without armour and such.  real world monks used armour, weapons and all the stuff the military orders of their region used.  in fact medieval 'monks' are the inspiration for clerics, specifically bishop odo and the perception that he used a mace at the battle of hastings.  the armourless asian warrior thing came about due to hollywood's fascination with asian martial arts, it was then rolled into dnd, real monks were not considered for the actual monk class.

[Jerky33]

I guess it's difficult to say, because different styles of kung fu center around different things.  There are forms of kung fu that are based on evading and deflecting attacks.  There is also the "iron shirt" which trains the body to withstand damage.  I don't know if shaolin monks used armor or not.  Hollywood just exaggerates what is taught in these disciplines.  It's not like there is absolutely no quickness and dexterity possessed by monks.

[Nonek]

I'm thinking the monks of Eternity sound like Flagellants, using martial arts like Pankration, the brutal wrestling/boxing of the ancient greek warriors. I prefer this as it would seem to fit more with the cultures of Eternity, rather than the Bruce Lee monks we see presented in AD&D.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Nonek

[Lephys]

Well, still don't fell like a monk to me. I would expect a monk to focus his discipline and his soul on avoiding hit and doing amazing , I don't know, counter-stuff, and be able to find and explore others weaknesses. I don't know what would be a cool and different monk class, I just don't think this one suggested is that.

To each his own. You're not wrong to have a preference about this.

 

But, for what it's worth, it seems like it's less "I'll just run into swords head-on and beat my head against rocks to build up soul power!" and more embracing the simple fact that, in conflict, you are not going to avoid all pain. Instead of avoiding pain, they embrace and channel the unavoidable physical trauma that comes from their foe, straight back at him. Part of it, at least. As much as they can.

 

I don't think of it so much as "Monks don't try to dodge," as I do as "Monks welcome their failures to dodge." It's a very focused, disciplined fighting principle, if you ask me. Even self-flagellation and such wouldn't so much be a quick-use thing in-battle, as much as it would be a sort of meditation a la mortification of the flesh. You know, kinda like how Daniel-san waxed all those cars, painted that whole fence, and sanded that whole pier/deck to condition his muscles into making karate-form motions in the Karate Kid. Monks might "practice" taking physical trauma, by causing it to themselves, and practice embracing and harnessing that, to build up their tolerance and hone their skill. But when they get into battle, they don't just go planting daggers in the ground and leaping upon them, just to charge their batteries.

 

Well... some crazy sect might. But, that seems a little on the extreme side of things. After all, if you can get 3 hits in on your foe BEFORE he strikes you and charges you up a bit, why not do that? Why hurt yourself from the get-go? (Because, again, ALL the physical trauma isn't absorbed. Only a portion). Only crazies would intentionally allow themselves to fall into horrible physical fighting condition, just to build up some soul energy, unless it was an extreme circumstance.

 

So, yeah... embracing the unavoidable is what it seems like to me.

[Aldereth]

I'm thinking the monks of Eternity sound like Flagellants, using martial arts like Pankration, the brutal wrestling/boxing of the ancient greek warriors. I prefer this as it would seem to fit more with the cultures of Eternity, rather than the Bruce Lee monks we see presented in AD&D.

 

Similar sentiment here.   I would rather have something that work with the setting, story and all than having something shoehorn in.   I mean if P:E want martial arts, they can give it to the dex. base fighter who specialize in either unarmed or specialize weapon.    Just have a bunch of warrior skill that require high dex. that can deflect, critical strike, stun....etc.  One can still work the storyof discipline and what not in there that is used to channel soul energy (kind of a P:E chi) and what not.  Afterall, this is no an AD&D game.   (BTW, the above set up is more akin to Wuxia novel than AD&D.  Martial arts are not unique to monk class)

[Vitor Medina Cruz]

I am not tied to the D&D definition of Monk, but to the real concept. I am not aware of any martial art that welcome damage of any kind, can someone give an example? I can see a monk flogging themselves, but NOT for a fight. For what I know, this Monk has little to do for what I know for a real (not D&D, D&D only tried to make an association with reality) Monk that fights. Again, it is our fantasy world and we can do whatever we want, but I find this confusing and unnecessary, I think obsidian could innovate in a Monk class for what it is most recognized for and use this mechanics in some other class that makes more sense. Not that it would ruin the game though, and not that I care much actually, since I prefer mages , but sure it sound strange to me.

[Ffordesoon]

It's worth noting that an unarmored monk is still presumably taking the damage any character with no armor would take. It's just that a monk who uses his or her Wound slots efficiently will always take (let's say) half of the damage. Once the Wound slots fill up, they're like any other unarmored chump. And half the damage to an unarmored character is probably like three quarters of the damage a lightly armored character would take, so while it's a noticeable damage reduction, it isn't an insane damage reduction. A monk who wears armor will get less of a damage reduction because they'll have less Wounds to spend, but armor that's good enough will still ultimately provide more of a damage reduction than not wearing any armor. So it's really a tradeoff; it's just not a tradeoff that could murder a Level 1 player in one hit for no reason.

 

Also, we might not be able to "store" Wounds from fight to fight, thus creating an incentive to, you know, "smoke 'em if you got 'em."

[DCParry]

 

 

 

Look at Japanese fiction. Manga in particular. There are plenty there. But then again, manga tends not to be the primary source of inspiration for archetypes in cRPGs. 

 

 

Most of those are not classic fantasy setting (unless we count those manga that are derived from cRPG) with dwarves, elves or even medieval European settings.

 

 

Again, you said it, but it needs to be repeated. In a classic WESTERN fantasy setting. PE has some inspiration, but is not wholly defined by WESTERN fantasy stereotypes.

 

Chinese Epic, Hong Kong action, and, yes, even Japanese Manga (often inspired by earlier literature and art, but hey, when you can cast a disparagement on a non-Western art form by emphasizing its popularity, why not, right?) are all suitable sources of inspiration for a fantasy setting. 

 

So, are we going to have a permutation of the monk hate now? 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

The class does feel reminiscent of the D&D Barbarian, no doubt. However, what immediately came to mind when reading the class description was a thread many moons ago suggesting that Monks take a European theme loosely based on "Flaggelants"; martyr-like monks with a masochistic bent to their rituals. I believe the class as described has great potential, though I will be very curious to see how they will flavor the class. I can see the wounds mechanic being a limitation on the types of philosophies monks would likely engage in. As is with everything, the devil will be in the details, and the execution of this concept will be delicate. I look forward to witnessing the outcome.

[Aldereth]

I am not tied to the D&D definition of Monk, but to the real concept. I am not aware of any martial art that welcome damage of any kind, can someone give an example?

From wuxia fantasy novel "heaven sword and dragon saber". One of the character practice an internal art where the act of learning/aquiring each level of power will harm the practioner's internal system. The harm he suffer is but a fraction of what he can dish out. The arts moto go something like "hurt yourself first, then (really) hurt your foe".

 

Link here (in Chinese though): http://www.360doc.com/content/10/0114/16/736764_13540122.shtml

 

As for real life, practitioner of "iron sand palm" as we'll as"iron shirt". Basically would do repeated palm strike on rough sand and rocks to condition their hand or have someone flog their body to condition themselves.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Aldereth

[Haerski]

 

Well, still don't fell like a monk to me. I would expect a monk to focus his discipline and his soul on avoiding hit and doing amazing , I don't know, counter-stuff, and be able to find and explore others weaknesses. I don't know what would be a cool and different monk class, I just don't think this one suggested is that.

 

 

Well, I would expect monk to be bald man sitting in dusty chamber in his brown robes studying books and whipping himself from time to time, but I'm not getting all hurr durr because Obsidians interpretation doesn't match that image. I think only attribute that should always be associated with monk-class is disciplined spirituality and ability to draw power from that and Obsidians vision fulfills this requirement. You have of course right to object, but in my opinion you are objecting for wrong reasons as it's only about pictures in your head and not about mechanical or balancing issues. After all it's brave new world and D&D and other old fart fantasy settings don't have power here.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Haerski

[Vitor Medina Cruz]

 

I am not tied to the D&D definition of Monk, but to the real concept. I am not aware of any martial art that welcome damage of any kind, can someone give an example?

From wuxia fantasy novel "heaven sword and dragon saber". One of the character practice an internal art where the act of learning/aquiring each level of power will harm the practioner's internal system. The harm he suffer is but a fraction of what he can dish out. The arts moto go something like "hurt yourself first, then (really) hurt your foe".

 

Link here (in Chinese though): http://www.360doc.com/content/10/0114/16/736764_13540122.shtml

 

As for real life, practitioner of "iron sand palm" as we'll as"iron shirt". Basically would do repeated palm strike on rough sand and rocks to condition their hand or have someone flog their body to condition themselves.

 

Well, yes, but those are means for training, not for the real fight, isn't?

[Vitor Medina Cruz]

 

 

Well, still don't fell like a monk to me. I would expect a monk to focus his discipline and his soul on avoiding hit and doing amazing , I don't know, counter-stuff, and be able to find and explore others weaknesses. I don't know what would be a cool and different monk class, I just don't think this one suggested is that.

 

 

Well, I would expect monk to be bald man sitting in dusty chamber in his brown robes studying books and whipping himself from time to time, but I'm not getting all hurr durr because Obsidians interpretation doesn't match that image. I think only attribute that should always be associated with monk-class is disciplined spirituality and ability to draw power from that and Obsidians vision fulfills this requirement. You have of course right to object, but in my opinion you are objecting for wrong reasons as it's only about pictures in your head and not about mechanical or balancing issues. After all it's brave new world and D&D and other old fart fantasy settings don't have power here.

 

 

This is the general attribute of a monk. Not every monk fights, or train some kind of martial art for what I know. Those who do, however, still comply to your monk definition, but they also practice some martial art, and it for this aspect, not for some association with D&D, that I feel Eternity definition of monk so strange. But perhaps, as Mr. Magniloquent said, Obsidian can come up with a good background for this class that explains things better.

[Greensleeve]

I'm not sure why the PE Monk seems strange. Drawing power from rigorous discipline is what the Monk is about. The PE Monk absolutely does so. 

 

Also, for those of you who want to know more of Monk lore, Josh posted a brief history of the Monk class on page 8 or something of the Update thread itself. Pretty good stuff. 

[Aldereth]

 

 

I am not tied to the D&D definition of Monk, but to the real concept. I am not aware of any martial art that welcome damage of any kind, can someone give an example?

From wuxia fantasy novel "heaven sword and dragon saber". One of the character practice an internal art where the act of learning/aquiring each level of power will harm the practioner's internal system. The harm he suffer is but a fraction of what he can dish out. The arts moto go something like "hurt yourself first, then (really) hurt your foe".

 

Link here (in Chinese though): http://www.360doc.com/content/10/0114/16/736764_13540122.shtml

 

As for real life, practitioner of "iron sand palm" as we'll as"iron shirt". Basically would do repeated palm strike on rough sand and rocks to condition their hand or have someone flog their body to condition themselves.

 

Well, yes, but those are means for training, not for the real fight, isn't?

 

"Seven Wound Fist", the Wuxia arts I mentioned in last post would hurt the guy each time he use it.   Basically, every time the guy use it, just like during practice, the way his chi flow will harm his internals, it just that the art allow him to hurt his enemy much worse.   It is just the way that art is.  Through training and the nurturing of his internal chi he is condition better to take those damage.    This is different from those arts that require one to hurt himself during training.   The most notorious fictional example is probably the "forbidden art" recorded in the Lotus Tome featured in the novel/movie/tv Swordsman.   That one, where the practitioner has to castrate himself as a requirement to learn the art.   Well... yeah.. the hurting himself part is done as a mean for training only.   It wouldn't make any sense or physically doable to castrate himself every time he fight. 

 

In a way the real life Iron Sand Palm would hurt  the practitioner in a real fight.   Newton third law, as hard as a practitioner of the Iron Sand palm can hit a guy, he get the same magnitude of reactionary  force from the hit.   it just that he condition his hands to take the damage better or just doesn't feel it.   So basically, they are striking much harder than they should.   Kind of like Football players, it's just that we don't usually get to study the long term damage suffered by long time practitioner of these "hard" Kung fu.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Aldereth

[Haerski]

 

 

 

Well, still don't fell like a monk to me. I would expect a monk to focus his discipline and his soul on avoiding hit and doing amazing , I don't know, counter-stuff, and be able to find and explore others weaknesses. I don't know what would be a cool and different monk class, I just don't think this one suggested is that.

 

 

Well, I would expect monk to be bald man sitting in dusty chamber in his brown robes studying books and whipping himself from time to time, but I'm not getting all hurr durr because Obsidians interpretation doesn't match that image. I think only attribute that should always be associated with monk-class is disciplined spirituality and ability to draw power from that and Obsidians vision fulfills this requirement. You have of course right to object, but in my opinion you are objecting for wrong reasons as it's only about pictures in your head and not about mechanical or balancing issues. After all it's brave new world and D&D and other old fart fantasy settings don't have power here.

 

 

This is the general attribute of a monk. Not every monk fights, or train some kind of martial art for what I know. Those who do, however, still comply to your monk definition, but they also practice some martial art, and it for this aspect, not for some association with D&D, that I feel Eternity definition of monk so strange. But perhaps, as Mr. Magniloquent said, Obsidian can come up with a good background for this class that explains things better.

 

 

 

I'm not sure why the PE Monk seems strange. Drawing power from rigorous discipline is what the Monk is about. The PE Monk absolutely does so. 

 

Also, for those of you who want to know more of Monk lore, Josh posted a brief history of the Monk class on page 8 or something of the Update thread itself. Pretty good stuff. 

 

Yes, here is link to the post. Lore behind PE monk:

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63765-update-52-monk/?p=1329978

[Pipyui]

I admit, I was a little baffled when reading the monk description.  I read about the Wounds resource and went: I see where this is going.  Neat!  But then I read further and got to being: this is a little different than I had expected.  Huh.

 

I had thought that Wounds would be a temporary resource that hold hitpoints, to be affected onto the player when they use special abilities.  Thisto me felt the natural way to take it.  In martial arts movies, monks always seem to be able to suppress pain with disipline.  When the time comes to use super special awesome moves, it often takes a toll on their own bodies, especially if they had already been injured prior.  This is cool, because the monk can turn his own pain into power.  In game, this would mean that monks would suppress an amount of damage taken into Wounds, then receive this damage upon use of those Wounds to power abilities.  You could only carry so many Wounds at once, and must be careful that you don't kill yourself with your own last desperate feats of power.

 

So I'm a bit baffled that Wounds serve a different roll.  Instead, special abilities mitigate damage from Wounds.  Instead of the monk gaining power from his own injuries, it feels more like he heals himself with offense.  I guess this represents that the monk is like a mirror that absorbs damage and reflects it back, which is kinda neat, but I can't help but imagine a dude like: "Ouch!  That thrust got me pretty bad.  I better quadrupple roundhouse kick somebody to stop the bleeding!"

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I imagine that the flavor of monks and this wound-centric technique could develop along these lines:

 

Monks, no matter the denomination or path, seek to be master of self. They also tend to be cloistered and minimalistic. Should this type of person engage in combat, they are very likely to recieve wounds. Being masters of self, they attempt to regulate and control their wounds through their disciplines like any other function of their being. Over time, this would have developed into a more sophisticated method of not merely resisting injury, but returning the harm from whence it came. So, it's not that injury is necessarily sought, but rather that wounds are just another part of the self to gain mastery over, and utilize.

 

Granted, I realize the explaination about Monks and armor in the update actually indicating that injury is desirable. I'm just attempting to reconcile how such a thing might come about; an origin if you will.

[jamoecw]

I guess it's difficult to say, because different styles of kung fu center around different things.  There are forms of kung fu that are based on evading and deflecting attacks.  There is also the "iron shirt" which trains the body to withstand damage.  I don't know if shaolin monks used armor or not.  Hollywood just exaggerates what is taught in these disciplines.  It's not like there is absolutely no quickness and dexterity possessed by monks.

almost all martial disciplines emphasize some sort of evasion for defense, either a parry or a dodge.  this is pretty much like dodging and blocking in martial arts.  in fact the proper use of a shield is to parry with it, and not have it absorb blows.

 

any time that shaolin went to war they used what armour they could, but being a monastic order, they didn't have a lot of money for armour, so they typically weren't well armoured compared to their non monk counterparts, though it is of note that their forces tried to armour even the peasants that most armies of the time didn't care about armouring.  they even gave more training to the peasants than most armies bothered to do, though their forces almost always were smaller than the opposition (fighting against your lord for no pay isn't too popular).

 

the more i think about monks as a class name, the more i dislike it.  there are better names for what is trying to be achieved, both in DnD and in P:E.  ultimately i'd have to say that is the only thing i have an issue with, and frankly it is a pretty minor qualm.

[DCParry]

 

I guess it's difficult to say, because different styles of kung fu center around different things.  There are forms of kung fu that are based on evading and deflecting attacks.  There is also the "iron shirt" which trains the body to withstand damage.  I don't know if shaolin monks used armor or not.  Hollywood just exaggerates what is taught in these disciplines.  It's not like there is absolutely no quickness and dexterity possessed by monks.

almost all martial disciplines emphasize some sort of evasion for defense, either a parry or a dodge.  this is pretty much like dodging and blocking in martial arts.  in fact the proper use of a shield is to parry with it, and not have it absorb blows.

 

any time that shaolin went to war they used what armour they could, but being a monastic order, they didn't have a lot of money for armour, so they typically weren't well armoured compared to their non monk counterparts, though it is of note that their forces tried to armour even the peasants that most armies of the time didn't care about armouring.  they even gave more training to the peasants than most armies bothered to do, though their forces almost always were smaller than the opposition (fighting against your lord for no pay isn't too popular).

 

the more i think about monks as a class name, the more i dislike it.  there are better names for what is trying to be achieved, both in DnD and in P:E.  ultimately i'd have to say that is the only thing i have an issue with, and frankly it is a pretty minor qualm.

 

 

 

Unless you have a Ph.D. in Chinese History, phrases like "almost all martial arts" are completely meaningless, and of course, anyone with a critical mind would never use such a generic sweeping phrase in the first place. 

 

Monastic martial art practices are extremely varied. A number of posters have given specific examples of historical precedence for this vision of the monk. In fact, living in Singapore, I can go down the street to the Chinese community centre and sign up for Southern Shaolin style classes which emphasis (perhaps not to the extent of the PE monk) these qualities (firmness, rootedness, stand your ground are just some of the catch phrases they use to describe the styles). In fact, a number of martial arts styles that concentrate on defense center on blocking moves as opposed to dodging, something that, in my mind at least, would lend itself towards the wound system.

 

Also. Enter the Dragon. Bruce Lee. Licking his own blood. Becomes more a killing machine. 

[Iyanga]

 

Also. Enter the Dragon. Bruce Lee. Licking his own blood. Becomes more a killing machine. 

 

 

 

As I said....rage counter.