Cestus does (1d-1) as a melee strike

[hcobb]

If you strike with a Cestus against an adjacent hex it does 1d-1 damage, correct? ST and talents (other than Weapons Expertise/Mastery with the Cestus) have no impact on this?

[Skarg]

Incorrect.

[hcobb]

How much damage does it do when you punch to an adjacent hex with a Cestus and what is your reference?

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by hcobb

How much damage does it do when you punch to an adjacent hex with a Cestus and what is your reference?

Well, I think the real answer is the rules are unclear. My reference for saying otherwise would be:

* The weapon table on new ITL page 110, Cestus entry shows Damage: By ST, and Notes: Damage depends on ST.

I can see the argument for having it do 1d-1 since the Cestus rule says "exactly like a Main Gauche" and the Clubs, Cestus, etc damage section says Cestus in HTH does ST damage +3, which seems like maybe it does other damage out of HTH.

I think it depends on whether the GM wants the Cestus to be a potentially fairly powerful regular-combat weapon in the hands of a strong high-DX figure, or to limit it.

[warhorse11h]

The rules could support either of two conclusions. One, the damage done by a cestus in regular combat is 1-1, as a dagger, which is what a main gauche is ruled to be for damage in regular combat. It can also be taken as written and that the damage is precisely what it would be for a figure fighting barehanded.

The first seems to be a little too powerful for what the cestus is and the second seems to confer no advantage to the wearer, other than the ability to parry and doesn't reflect that being punched by a cestus is probably going to hurt more than a fist.

Perhaps this is all the result of a rules discrepancy that never was addressed or simply an oversight in the rules.

Absent a fix from the designer, the best fix might be a house rule that in normal combat, a cestus strike does damage as in the table on pg 122 with a +1 damage, keeping the HTH +3 intact.

[Skarg]

I think it's most likely this:

Originally Posted by warhorse11h

... Perhaps this is all the result of a rules discrepancy that never was addressed or simply an oversight in the rules. ...

IF (...) we accept that the new 1-point IQ 7 Brawling talent lets you "brawl dirty" to punch with bare hands for +2 damage, then I would think that the 1-point IQ 8 Cestus talent that involves strapping your hands into spiked metal gauntlets would very reasonably allow a punch doing more damage, i.e. +3.

[warhorse11h]

I can live with your approach.

My preference though would be a +2 damage for the cestus in regular combat.
An unarmed fighter gets a +1 to his damage in HTH. The cestus user gets a +3, so I think the difference would be a +2 damage in regular combat.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by warhorse11h

I can live with your approach.

My preference though would be a +2 damage for the cestus in regular combat.
An unarmed fighter gets a +1 to his damage in HTH. The cestus user gets a +3, so I think the difference would be a +2 damage in regular combat.

Ok, but what about the guy with Brawling, which has slightly less requirements than Cestus and does other things, getting the same damage with an unequipped punch?

The better solution might be to nerf Brawling.

Really I think the whole sweep of various ST-based damages probably wants a bit of a second look, but cestus seems pretty weak to me if it doesn't do any more damage than Brawling does. But there is a bit of a problem that there are not very many available values to assign to differentiate the various sorts of attacks/weapons.

[warhorse11h]

There is nothing in the rules that I have read that supports this, but, I read the brawling talent description prior to writing my last post. The +2 damage is for dirty fighting which changes the character of the fight from "friendly" to a real fight. It doesn't say it in the rules, but that +2 damage feels transitory to me, you only get it once, and after that your opponents are really trying to hurt you and are on their guard.
The feel of the brawling talent seems to be an attempt to incorporate the "John Wayne" bar fight into ITL. As such, as long as the fight stays, "friendly", I would be tempted, as the GM, to rule any damage done in it as fatigue damage, fighting to knock down or knock out an opponent, not to actually hurt him. Use of a cestus in such circumstances would be "dirty fighting" and would turn it into a real fight, with the intent to do grave bodily harm to each other.

[hcobb]

Why not treat a friendly brawl as per Practice Combat at Melee page 23?