Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg
Um, so IF you are trying to create a game where it is a (nearly?) equally effective choice to fight with no equipment and use martial arts instead, then you might want to balance those sorts of numbers.
|
No, that's not my goal. I think martial artists should be viable, but not as good as normal sword wielding fighters. I'd just like them to be more competitive, though inferior.
My analysis is simply that even with Steve's lowered costs, beginning martial artists with UC I-III are utterly outclassed by beginning armed fighters.
Primarily this is because their damage causing ability is no better than someone armed with a 2h club or dagger AND they have to expend 3 attribute points on IQ that the fighter doesn't have to. The requirement for very high DX also forces the player to push DX to a level that is arguably sub-optimal.
UC IV doesn't change this fact; you need to compare a 34+ point martial artist with a 34+ point fighter and the fighter is every bit as dominant if not moreso (better DX allowing more armor). Armored enemies are tough on martial artists because their bare handed damage tops out at 1-1, or if they're lucky maybe 1d6.
At UC V, the balance may shift some, but you'd need to compare a 35+ point martial artist with a 35+ point fighter. The nerve strike seriously overpowers the martial artist (unless the required 3 points of damage has to happen after armor protection is subtracted AND the opponent is heavily armored).