Unarmed Combat Again

Nils_Lindeberg · 03-08-2024, 07:02 PM

Unarmed Combat talents are a bit illogical.

You pay 4DX for 1 more damage at UC 1, completely worthless.
Then at UC2, you pay 2DX for doing 1 more damage which is expensive but kind of an ok option.
And then at UC3, You pay 1DX for 0.5 more damage. This is not an improvement over UC2, it is slightly worse.
And at UC4 you pay 0DX for 1 more damage. Uhh, why even discussing Fist if Kick is always better?
And at UC5 you either do 2 fist attacks at no penalty for -1dmg
Or one fist attack for normal damage. Again, this option will never be used.
Or kick for +1 damage at no DX penalty.

At UC 1, 2 and 3 kick is not an option it is too expensive. At UC 4 it is a free +1 damage and will always be used. And at UC5 double punch will always be better except against very armored opponents.

It would be better if the progression looked like this:
UC1 Fist +1dmg, HtH+2dmg, Kick +3dmg at -4DX.
UC2 Fist +2dmg, HtH+3dmg, Kick (+5 OR +1d6+1) dmg at -4DX.
UC3 Fist +3dmg, HtH+4dmg, Kick (+7 OR +2d6) dmg at -4DX.
UC4 Fist +1d6 dmg, HtH +1d6+1 dmg, Kick (+9 OR +2d6+2) dmg at -4DX.
UC5 Fist +1d6+1, Double Fist +1d6, HtH+1d6+2dmg, Kick (+11 OR +3d6) dmg at -4DX.

The base would be the ST table straight up. The bonus (+1) for HTH fighting is included above.
Brawling would add +1dmg across the board when fighting dirty - but people will notice the groin kicks and eye gouging.

Kick would be the shrewd version of UC. And you add the kick damage on top, instead of replacing fist damage.

It is a question of a rule interpretation. Wording between UC I and UC II, differs. One says "...compared to a bare hand attack", and the other says "...compared to your bare hand attack." One refers to a basic non-UC bare-handed attack, the other to your fist-boosted barehand attack. If we go with "your", then the DX penalty for "shrewd" kicking must remain at 4, it can not become free or no one would ever punch. So there is a small glitch in editing here, and this has been discussed before on forums. This is not RAW, and most likely not RAI. But it is the smallest adjustment I can think of that makes UC talents logical, competitive, and balanced.

This would put martial artists closer to weapon expertise and mastery.

A mastery shrewd attack by an ST 9 Fencer would do 2d6+4 at DX-3
A UC 5, ST 9 fighter would do 4d6-3 at DX-4, or two attacks at 2d6-3 each, or 2d6-1 in HtH.
(The fencer would still have an advantage with fine and magic weapons, and only -3 for Shrewd.) A swords master would have a heavier sword due to ST prerequisites for high UC talents, one can not compare damage with a rapier only. But the DX penalty for a shrewd Shortsword attack would be -4.

A mastery shrewd attack by an ST 15 fighter swinging a battle axe would be: 4d6+4 at DX-4
A UC 5, ST 15 fighter would do 4d6 at DX-4 (or two attacks at 2d6 each, or 2d6+2 in HtH).
(The master would still have an advantage with fine and magic weapons, and raw damage since ST for weapons scales better than the ST table. But UC specialists get a couple of other advantages and the HtH and double attack option.)

Non-shrewd damage would also be comparable:
ST 9, Master 1d6+2 vs. 2d6-2 (1 extra with brawling)

ST 11 is a better comparison due to prereqs. Then it would be 2d6+1 vs 2d6-1 or 2d6 with Brawling.

ST 15, Master 3d6+2 vs. 2 attacks for 2d6 (1 extra with brawling) against 2.5 average armor has the same base dmg, so very comparable

Across the board it would be balanced, but weapons would still be strictly better for damage, and UC has other advantages. UC would, at least, be competitive as a normal way of fighting, and they would have the HtH option as a valid option.

I have no problem with monks being almost as good as weapon wielders in melee, and way better in HtH. Realistic, probably not, but this is fantasy and now they are not a laughing stock on the battlefield.

03-08-2024, 07:02 PM	#1
Nils_Lindeberg Join Date: Jul 2018	Unarmed Combat Again Unarmed Combat talents are a bit illogical. You pay 4DX for 1 more damage at UC 1, completely worthless. Then at UC2, you pay 2DX for doing 1 more damage which is expensive but kind of an ok option. And then at UC3, You pay 1DX for 0.5 more damage. This is not an improvement over UC2, it is slightly worse. And at UC4 you pay 0DX for 1 more damage. Uhh, why even discussing Fist if Kick is always better? And at UC5 you either do 2 fist attacks at no penalty for -1dmg Or one fist attack for normal damage. Again, this option will never be used. Or kick for +1 damage at no DX penalty. At UC 1, 2 and 3 kick is not an option it is too expensive. At UC 4 it is a free +1 damage and will always be used. And at UC5 double punch will always be better except against very armored opponents. It would be better if the progression looked like this: UC1 Fist +1dmg, HtH+2dmg, Kick +3dmg at -4DX. UC2 Fist +2dmg, HtH+3dmg, Kick (+5 OR +1d6+1) dmg at -4DX. UC3 Fist +3dmg, HtH+4dmg, Kick (+7 OR +2d6) dmg at -4DX. UC4 Fist +1d6 dmg, HtH +1d6+1 dmg, Kick (+9 OR +2d6+2) dmg at -4DX. UC5 Fist +1d6+1, Double Fist +1d6, HtH+1d6+2dmg, Kick (+11 OR +3d6) dmg at -4DX. The base would be the ST table straight up. The bonus (+1) for HTH fighting is included above. Brawling would add +1dmg across the board when fighting dirty - but people will notice the groin kicks and eye gouging. Kick would be the shrewd version of UC. And you add the kick damage on top, instead of replacing fist damage. It is a question of a rule interpretation. Wording between UC I and UC II, differs. One says "...compared to a bare hand attack", and the other says "...compared to your bare hand attack." One refers to a basic non-UC bare-handed attack, the other to your fist-boosted barehand attack. If we go with "your", then the DX penalty for "shrewd" kicking must remain at 4, it can not become free or no one would ever punch. So there is a small glitch in editing here, and this has been discussed before on forums. This is not RAW, and most likely not RAI. But it is the smallest adjustment I can think of that makes UC talents logical, competitive, and balanced. This would put martial artists closer to weapon expertise and mastery. A mastery shrewd attack by an ST 9 Fencer would do 2d6+4 at DX-3 A UC 5, ST 9 fighter would do 4d6-3 at DX-4, or two attacks at 2d6-3 each, or 2d6-1 in HtH. (The fencer would still have an advantage with fine and magic weapons, and only -3 for Shrewd.) A swords master would have a heavier sword due to ST prerequisites for high UC talents, one can not compare damage with a rapier only. But the DX penalty for a shrewd Shortsword attack would be -4. A mastery shrewd attack by an ST 15 fighter swinging a battle axe would be: 4d6+4 at DX-4 A UC 5, ST 15 fighter would do 4d6 at DX-4 (or two attacks at 2d6 each, or 2d6+2 in HtH). (The master would still have an advantage with fine and magic weapons, and raw damage since ST for weapons scales better than the ST table. But UC specialists get a couple of other advantages and the HtH and double attack option.) Non-shrewd damage would also be comparable: ST 9, Master 1d6+2 vs. 2d6-2 (1 extra with brawling) ST 11 is a better comparison due to prereqs. Then it would be 2d6+1 vs 2d6-1 or 2d6 with Brawling. ST 15, Master 3d6+2 vs. 2 attacks for 2d6 (1 extra with brawling) against 2.5 average armor has the same base dmg, so very comparable Across the board it would be balanced, but weapons would still be strictly better for damage, and UC has other advantages. UC would, at least, be competitive as a normal way of fighting, and they would have the HtH option as a valid option. I have no problem with monks being almost as good as weapon wielders in melee, and way better in HtH. Realistic, probably not, but this is fantasy and now they are not a laughing stock on the battlefield.