[Joseph R]

Originally Posted by Caomhin the Celt

The title says it all. Well, almost.

I GM a campaign where one of the players created a professional boxer. He swears up and down that since brass knuckles are listed under melee weapons, that he can use them to parry edged weapons and does not suffer the failed unarmed parry penalties. [B376] In addition, he also believes that if someone wielding a weapon parries his punches, he isn't susceptible to the attack against the limb of the unarmed attacker. (again, [B376])

This sounds like your player is trying to use wilful misinterpretation rather than common sense. Where does he claim that Brass Knuckles are listed as a melee weapon? I'm guessing he means the table on p.B271, right underneath the Punch entry? If that were the only qualifier, then would that not mean that punches themselves counted as "armed parries" as well?

I believe that brass knuckles only allow boxing to do more damage. They are not a weapon unto themselves, and thus do not negate the penalties for an unarmed parry against a weapon and vice versa. Part of my argument is that in both cases, (unarmed parries and parries against unarmed) the weapon attack is resolved against the limb of the unarmed, rather than the hand.

Basically, yes. I think there was a mention somewhere (can't remember if Basic Set or MA) that the armed opponent could choose to hit the hand/foot rather than the limb, but I'm not sure if this was in situation of unarmed attack, parry or both. In any case, I can't seem to find it now. It does seem that the limb is the default assumption of the rules.

Another part is that brass knuckles are not physically large enough to successfully parry (or block a parry) of an edged weapon like a sword or rapier or such. If they were gauntlet sized, yes.

Well, in the case of gauntlet or cestus, I would still not treat them as "armed" in this context. I think part of the intention of the RAW is that most weapons are an extension of the body and allow the wielder to attack/defend without putting as much of their limbs at risk. Someone fighting with brass knuckles/gauntlets/cestus/etc is still using that limb directly and I believe that same rules should apply. The benefit of gauntlet-type coverings is that they count as partial (or even total) armour, granting their DR when the location is hit. I would give an X in 6 chance that the DR of the covering counts, depending on the description of the item.

The RAW benefit (beyond damage bonus) which applies to punching with anything other than a bare hand, is the reduction of injury risk when punching someone in hard armour.

In connection with this topic, there was also an optional rule which TKD called "Harsh Realism for Armed Fighters". It was in a 2008 article of the old Pyramid, so you may not have access to that. Basically, one of the suggestions was that when an armed parry hits an unarmed attack, that the weapon do only half, rather than full damage. The logic behind this was that the weapon-wielder is only reacting in defence and doesn't get a full-power swing, I think. Personally I like the logic of that optional rule. It may also help to mollify your player a little, provided that the rule make sense to you as well, of course ;)