Unarmed Combat Again

[Bill_in_IN]

I do apologize for my earlier gruffness as describing a certain phrase as perhaps, the most ridiculous in ITL. I'm sure we all have our opinions on that. Lately, I have been much more grumpy than normal.

I have been working on a write up on how UC talents can be implemented if you omit the phrase, "and has both hands free." I have what I believe to be a descriptive paragraph of how it's applied but, I'm certain that this tough crowd will want to see written examples and pick them apart. So, I'm also working on a chart to map it all out.

I assure you folks. It really does work without destroying the balance of the TFT universe. It worked in our Classic TFT days as well.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

I assure you folks. It really does work without destroying the balance of the TFT universe. It worked in our Classic TFT days as well.

I'm sure it does. UC talents are a significant investment for not a lot of value IMO.

I just prefer an option that doesn't require a unique skill-tree for unarmed fighting (as well as less bundling so that players have more freedom to mix-and-match combat abilities).

[Shostak]

I'd argue for revising HTH rules as well as the UC talents.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Shostak

I'd argue for revising HTH rules as well as the UC talents.

That's worthy of its own thread (I actually think there are several already).

Maybe you should write something up? Oh wait...
;)

[Nils_Lindeberg]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

You lost me here. That's a ladder, like D&D, with one way up. To maximise character variety we want there to be lots of paths up the cliff face, and no talent which all characters, or even all fighters, choose. Let every fighter differ, because they have their own distinctive special abilities. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser are equal but different, don't make them converge.

No, it is not a ladder. It would be an alternative to talent, expertise, and mastery.

You could throw in unarmed and talents based on Unarmed and take those instead of Expertise or in addition to Expertise. So it would be more options or the possibility of combining the two very strict ladders that we have today. You could use weapons and UC talents at the same time, and/or Brawling on top, or either one. Mix and match.

So there would be more available options, without changing weapon ACT or other weapons talents.

If we are to change advanced combat talents for weapons as well we increase the scope and and the size of the changes.

And if we start adding supernatural feats on top of that, the scope increases yet again since you should include those for all martial talents.

The bigger the change, the more other things will have to be changed too, and those changes will ripple into even more changes.

That is why I tried to keep the scope as narrow as possible. Sure, not all suggestions are optimal, but they might be better than RAW without getting the domino effect of one change demanding another that in turn demands a rebalancing that demands yet another change, etc.

I agree that the above suggestions that aren't mine, probably are better, but they also increase the scope by quite a bit, and they are therefore not comparable. I tried to only change UC, and by as little as possible for the biggest effect. The first idea was just a somewhat creative reinterpretation, the second somewhat bigger, but still confined only to UC. Rewriting all combat talents and ACT, is a bigger task and it might need its own thread or three. :-)

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by timm meyers

1. titled/declared discipline w. specific rules associated.
2. advantages/skill trees of talents w. specific rules associated.
Ease and balance vs. more rules and more choice.

If I understand what you're saying: In order for kung fu masters to have access to some bunch of talents we can either have one big talent called Kung Fu Master and put all the abilities in that, or we can split the abilities up between six different talents.

It seems to me the rules I have to write will be mostly determined by how many abilities I define, not how many talents I divide them up between. Try combining the Boating, Swimming and Seamanship talents and see how much you save, I think you'll find not a lot. So the rules for Option 1 will be a little shorter and simpler than those for Option 2, but not much.

The only way it's significantly easier to have one talent is that the game designer doesn't have to consider as many "what if they have this but not that" cases. And game designers should be forced to think. Lazy bastards.

So I don't see much advantage in Option 1. Whereas the advantages of Option 2 are very much clear to me. So I would strongly favour Option 2.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

I'm sure it does. UC talents are a significant investment for not a lot of value IMO.

I just prefer an option that doesn't require a unique skill-tree for unarmed fighting (as well as less bundling so that players have more freedom to mix-and-match combat abilities).

As written in ITL, due to that one ridiculous phrase, I agree that UC's value is diminished. Without that phrase, it adds significantly. Being able to use the defensive/evasive aspects of the talent with a sword in hand is a good and more realistic use of such a talent.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

As written in ITL, due to that one ridiculous phrase, I agree that UC's value is diminished. Without that phrase, it adds significantly. Being able to use the defensive/evasive aspects of the talent with a sword in hand is a good and more realistic use of such a talent.

I couldn't agree more. I think the armor prohibition is silly, too, considering that samurai would have been trained in UC and used punches and throws if necessary, despite wearing significant armor.

[DeadParrot]

Originally Posted by Shostak

I couldn't agree more. I think the armor prohibition is silly, too, considering that samurai would have been trained in UC and used punches and throws if necessary, despite wearing significant armor.

IMO - the adj-DX penalty and MA penalty of most armors are adjustment enough. If someone wants to do UC in plate armor, they are at a -5 adj-DX penalty plus a -4 MA penalty as well. This likely takes the chance of success from well over 50% to well under 50%.

Not all combats are 'in the field'. UC would be of great use to a diplomat or other profession where showing up in armor and carrying lots of weapons is in poor form. Not to mention that scantly clad barmaid can go from friendly to kicking your butt with no prep time.

[hcobb]

Keeping the old UC (mostly) left them out of balance WRT Dagger Mastery.