Is unarmed combat underpowered?

[Sephiroto]

I'd like to see unarmed combat beefed up for fighting classes.

Discuss.

[touringCompl3t3]

It is kind of underpowered when you compare unarmed dude trying to fight unarmed dude.

But it's pretty well-balanced for unarmed dude against armed dude.

If you beefed up unarmed combat, the most immediate effect that I can predict (besides a tiny improvement in realism) is a decrease in the importance of weapons in the game, coupled with a slight decrease in the level of strategy associated with combat.*

So your idea is not really bad, I just think it will bring us a questionable gain.




*for the reason that weapons will no longer be such a large consideration.

[FuSoYa]

I would love to have unarmed combat expanded somewhat but not ever have a dude who can fight with no weapons take on a dude with some super sharp 'sid swords.

Brandon

[fourTwenty]

As a side note, I think a subguild that allowed you to become uber-badass unarmed would be pretty cool.

I think that if your Merchant attacks my Warrior I should be able to easily whip your ass without weapons. In fact, I should be able to take your weapon from you and beat your ass with it. I think if two warriors go at it and one is super badass unarmed he should hold his own, but not for long. I think Assassins should get a small boost to unarmed combat as well.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

It is kind of underpowered when you compare unarmed dude trying to fight unarmed dude.

But it's pretty well-balanced for unarmed dude against armed dude.

QFT.

[Clearsighted]

I'd like to see more options with unarmed, for the 'fighting' classes (warrior, ranger, assassin).

[Is Friday]

It strikes me as odd that disarm has such a large penalty when unarmed. Perhaps there should be two different skills regarding this? It's obviously very different trying to disarm someone with a weapon of your own and not having one. Why not have skills reflect this?

Disarming someone without having a weapon of your own isn't as absolutely stunningly difficult if you take into account how the body works, grappling, and humanoid pressure points. It just works differently, and I think a second skill could easily reflect this.

At least I think so.

edit: It would be cool if it were easier to disarm someone, or bash them, or kick them, if they were "reeling".

[fourTwenty]

It strikes me as odd that disarm has such a large penalty when unarmed. Perhaps there should be two different skills regarding this? It's obviously very different trying to disarm someone with a weapon of your own and not having one. Why not have skills reflect this?

Disarming someone without having a weapon of your own isn't as absolutely stunningly difficult if you take into account how the body works, grappling, and humanoid pressure points. It just works differently, and I think a second skill could easily reflect this.

At least I think so.

edit: It would be cool if it were easier to disarm someone, or bash them, or kick them, if they were "reeling".

ALLLLLLL O' Dis

[Qzzrbl]

It strikes me as odd that disarm has such a large penalty when unarmed. Perhaps there should be two different skills regarding this? It's obviously very different trying to disarm someone with a weapon of your own and not having one. Why not have skills reflect this?

Disarming someone without having a weapon of your own isn't as absolutely stunningly difficult if you take into account how the body works, grappling, and humanoid pressure points. It just works differently, and I think a second skill could easily reflect this.

At least I think so.

edit: It would be cool if it were easier to disarm someone, or bash them, or kick them, if they were "reeling".

Since 2.Arm will have an "unarmed combat" skill, I think should cover disarm in accordance to your unarmed combat skill.

And yes, it would be awesome if it were easier to use combat skills on a reeled opponent.

[Fathi]

If anything, unarmed combat is overpowered.

That said, if people want to introduce martial arts styles of unarmed combat into Arm 2 or have it be something you can actually train and skill up, go for it. I wouldn't use it because it's not really my bag, but I see how it could add flavour to the game.

[Yam]

Keep an eye on your stun the next time someone punches your character in the head.

[Clearsighted]

It is true that once you get your off/def to ridiculous levels, then unarmed combat becomes very ninja. Especially if you're a warrior and can disarm, bash and kick. But seeing it get a bit more versatility would still be nice.

[Sephiroto]

How is unarmed combat overpowered?  Well, I'll concede that an unarmed blow can easily knock someone out, but the chances of punching someone who is armed and a decent fighter is almost impossible unless you are an amazing fighter yourself.  Even then it is almost worthless.

A badass fighter will likely get pwned by an average fighter with the rinky-dinkiest of clubs.  I disagree with this balance.

[Fathi]

the chances of punching someone who is armed and a decent fighter is almost impossible unless you are an amazing fighter yourself.

The problem isn't hitting them, from my experience. It does not seem all that difficult to land punches to an armed party in an attack, in my anecdotal experience, at least. The problem is that you get cut the hell up when you try to do it.

But I think that's how it should be, so we'll just have to agree to disagree, there.

I don't think that unarmed combat should ever be on par with armed combat. In all but the most extreme of cases--such as a massive gap in skill or physical prowess between the two individuals--I think that armed combat should trump unarmed combat, and by a considerable margin at that.

[Tisiphone]

I don't think that unarmed combat should ever be on par with armed combat. In all but the most extreme of cases--such as a massive gap in skill or physical prowess between the two individuals--I think that armed combat should trump unarmed combat, and by a considerable margin at that.

Aye. We use tools for a reason.

[The Spoony Bard]

Haven't you guys watched a martial arts movie before? A unarmed monk always beats some sissy with a sword or a gun. Always.

[musashi]

You guys should go watch aikido demonstrations.

It's very possible to pwn someone who has a weapon when you don't, if you put the hours into learning how.

The thing is ... it's just a lot easier and quicker to learn how to use a tool (ie a weapon) instead, so the path of least resistance won out through the course of history. And ... well there isn't anything wrong with that.

So I'm all for having martial arts or unarmed combat in the game, and having it be trainable to such a level that it can be on par with armed combat. I just think it should take at least double the amount of time to get it there because it is the more difficult, time consuming path to follow.

[Nusku]

Unarmed combat is functioning at exactly the level we want it to. There is no Bruce Lee, Royce Gracie, or Chuck Norris in Armageddon, and we like it fine that way.

[brytta.leofa]

I would far rather see us err on the side of underpowering unarmed combat than otherwise.

[musashi]

Unarmed combat is functioning at exactly the level we want it to. There is no Bruce Lee, Royce Gracie, or Chuck Norris in Armageddon, and we like it fine that way.

Damn. 

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

So I'm all for having martial arts or unarmed combat in the game, and having it be trainable to such a level that it can be on par with armed combat. I just think it should take at least double the amount of time to get it there because it is the more difficult, time consuming path to follow.

This is already possible, in certain aspects. There are characters who can, unarmed, beat down armed characters. This is because it took 5-10 times longer to get to this point than it took the armed fighter to get to their point.

[Lakota]

It's only underpowered if you're fighting someone with a huge battleaxe. If you're brawling other unarmed people, it works just fine.

I have seen badass warriors beat armed opponents bare-handed. It's fine to me.

[fourTwenty]

There is no Royce Gracie in Armageddon, and we like it fine that way.

Thank god, I am begging you to never change this.
I spend to much time on this game as it is and if grappling was ever introduce to this degree I'd fucking waste away and die. Thank you.

Unarmed combat is fine! Shut up and sit down! I need a social life.

[Nyr]

One-armed combat is also working as intended.

[Dalmeth]

One-armed combat is also working as intended.

Yeah, it's totally awesome!  Good job up there in staff land!

[brytta.leofa]

> shout (snarling) C'mon, yeh 'toks!  It's jus' a flesh wound!

[Bilanthri]

You guys should go watch aikido demonstrations.

It's very possible to pwn someone who has a weapon when you don't, if you put the hours into learning how.

The thing is ... it's just a lot easier and quicker to learn how to use a tool (ie a weapon) instead, so the path of least resistance won out through the course of history. And ... well there isn't anything wrong with that.

This is right on the money about unarmed martial arts. I've been a practitioner of Aikido, among other forms, and I have personally seen a 100lb woman take a bokken away from a 250lb man, and then fling him a good 6-7ft. But, as is to be expected, the woman was in her 70's while the man was in his 30's. Experience is the telling factor in unarmed combat...enough knowledge can take away most of the advantage size and strength offer a combatant.

[Tisiphone]

Stuff about martial arts

Sure, sure, but you're not giving the armed side its due. Even if you're an aikido master, if the person coming at you with a sword has even comparable skill, and is intent on killing you, you're going to take a beating.

[RogueGunslinger]

Weapon in one hand? Or one armed man fighting?

[fourTwenty]

Unarmed combat is functioning at exactly the level we want it to. There is no Bruce Lee, Royce Gracie, or Chuck Norris in Armageddon, and we like it fine that way.

Along these lines. As long as martial arts have been around it's just now, I'm talking last 40 years that they actually became as functional as everyone would like to believe. It began with Bruce Lee's school of thought about having no 1 style and adapting to the fight and it exploded with BJJ and MMA. Even though Martial Arts have been studied since pretty much the dawn of time they only now are reaching the levels people long thought existed. I don't see Zalnathians as having put that much time into unarmed combat.

As for akidio demonstrations and such this shit is great to watch and teaches fitness as well as self discipline. And once you have studied it long enough (10+ years) you will probably fuck most average schmos up. Unfortunately this crap doesn't really work against people with fight experience. I'm talking brawlers and boxers and MMA practitioners.

If an average person comes at you with a pool stick you stand a pretty good chance of at least not getting KTFO. But if an Eskrima practitioner(as little as 3 years) comes at you with a club and your unarmed your gonna get KTFOWYWB,S. I don't give a damn how long you been practicing don't-get-hit-with-the-stick fu.

[musashi]

Unarmed combat is functioning at exactly the level we want it to. There is no Bruce Lee, Royce Gracie, or Chuck Norris in Armageddon, and we like it fine that way.

Along these lines. As long as martial arts have been around it's just now, I'm talking last 40 years that they actually became as functional as everyone would like to believe. It began with Bruce Lee's school of thought about having no 1 style and adapting to the fight and it exploded with BJJ and MMA. Even though Martial Arts have been studied since pretty much the dawn of time they only now are reaching the levels people long thought existed. I don't see Zalnathians as having put that much time into unarmed combat.

As for akidio demonstrations and such this shit is great to watch and teaches fitness as well as self discipline. And once you have studied it long enough (10+ years) you will probably fuck most average schmos up. Unfortunately this crap doesn't really work against people with fight experience. I'm talking brawlers and boxers and MMA practitioners.

If an average person comes at you with a pool stick you stand a pretty good chance of at least not getting KTFO. But if an Eskrima practitioner(as little as 3 years) comes at you with a club and your unarmed your gonna get KTFOWYWB,S. I don't give a damn how long you been practicing don't-get-hit-with-the-stick fu.

As someone currently studying Chinese language, culture, and history ... I feel confident in assuring you that you're entirely wrong in almost 100 percent of what you just posted. Sorry.

Stuff about martial arts

Sure, sure, but you're not giving the armed side its due. Even if you're an aikido master, if the person coming at you with a sword has even comparable skill, and is intent on killing you, you're going to take a beating.

I believe I did give the armed side its due when I said it was easier to get to that competent level faster because you're utilizing a tool to aid you in your task, and that there isn't anything wrong with that.

[Clearsighted]

You guys should go watch aikido demonstrations.

It's very possible to pwn someone who has a weapon when you don't, if you put the hours into learning how.

The thing is ... it's just a lot easier and quicker to learn how to use a tool (ie a weapon) instead, so the path of least resistance won out through the course of history. And ... well there isn't anything wrong with that.

This is right on the money about unarmed martial arts. I've been a practitioner of Aikido, among other forms, and I have personally seen a 100lb woman take a bokken away from a 250lb man, and then fling him a good 6-7ft. But, as is to be expected, the woman was in her 70's while the man was in his 30's. Experience is the telling factor in unarmed combat...enough knowledge can take away most of the advantage size and strength offer a combatant.

I've personally always thought those martial arts demonstrations were...how to put it...'half' a matter of skill, and half a matter of putting on a show. Especially since in Aikido, half the training seems to be about being thrown as opposed to doing the throwing.

While knowledge can even the playing field against size and strength, it is just one part of the whole. I do not think that any seventy year old woman can legitimately disarm a man in his 30s against his will. In fact, I would suggest that most 30 year old men could not disarm their opponent in an legitimate lethal fight without sustaining injury.

Unarmed combat is functioning at exactly the level we want it to. There is no Bruce Lee, Royce Gracie, or Chuck Norris in Armageddon, and we like it fine that way.

Along these lines. As long as martial arts have been around it's just now, I'm talking last 40 years that they actually became as functional as everyone would like to believe. It began with Bruce Lee's school of thought about having no 1 style and adapting to the fight and it exploded with BJJ and MMA. Even though Martial Arts have been studied since pretty much the dawn of time they only now are reaching the levels people long thought existed. I don't see Zalnathians as having put that much time into unarmed combat.

As for akidio demonstrations and such this shit is great to watch and teaches fitness as well as self discipline. And once you have studied it long enough (10+ years) you will probably fuck most average schmos up. Unfortunately this crap doesn't really work against people with fight experience. I'm talking brawlers and boxers and MMA practitioners.

If an average person comes at you with a pool stick you stand a pretty good chance of at least not getting KTFO. But if an Eskrima practitioner(as little as 3 years) comes at you with a club and your unarmed your gonna get KTFOWYWB,S. I don't give a damn how long you been practicing don't-get-hit-with-the-stick fu.

As someone currently studying Chinese language, culture, and history ... I feel confident in assuring you that you're entirely wrong in almost 100 percent of what you just posted. Sorry.

Just out of idle curiosity, how does studying Chinese culture, history, etc, reflect on fourtwenty's post's validity?

On a somewhat related note, people seem to forget that the Orient does not have a monopoly on the history of martial arts. There were a great many elaborate martial arts systems in Ireland, Spain, France, Greece, etc. It's just that they faded and became obsolete when the use of swords and then pistols became dominant. The only thing unique about the Oriental martial arts is that they retained them longer, for reasons as much as societal (such as actively regulating the ownership of swords) as being a couple centuries behind the gunpowder curve. It's true though that only recently has martial interest been 'rediscovered' in the West and that phenomena is in large part due to Bruce Lee's influence.

[staggerlee]

You guys should go watch aikido demonstrations.

It's very possible to pwn someone who has a weapon when you don't, if you put the hours into learning how.

The thing is ... it's just a lot easier and quicker to learn how to use a tool (ie a weapon) instead, so the path of least resistance won out through the course of history. And ... well there isn't anything wrong with that.

This is right on the money about unarmed martial arts. I've been a practitioner of Aikido, among other forms, and I have personally seen a 100lb woman take a bokken away from a 250lb man, and then fling him a good 6-7ft. But, as is to be expected, the woman was in her 70's while the man was in his 30's. Experience is the telling factor in unarmed combat...enough knowledge can take away most of the advantage size and strength offer a combatant.

I've personally always thought those martial arts demonstrations were...how to put it...'half' a matter of skill, and half a matter of putting on a show. Especially since in Aikido, half the training seems to be about being thrown as opposed to doing the throwing.

While knowledge can even the playing field against size and strength, it is just one part of the whole. I do not think that any seventy year old woman can legitimately disarm a man in his 30s against his will. In fact, I would suggest that most 30 year old men could not disarm their opponent in an legitimate lethal fight without sustaining injury.

Unarmed combat is functioning at exactly the level we want it to. There is no Bruce Lee, Royce Gracie, or Chuck Norris in Armageddon, and we like it fine that way.

Along these lines. As long as martial arts have been around it's just now, I'm talking last 40 years that they actually became as functional as everyone would like to believe. It began with Bruce Lee's school of thought about having no 1 style and adapting to the fight and it exploded with BJJ and MMA. Even though Martial Arts have been studied since pretty much the dawn of time they only now are reaching the levels people long thought existed. I don't see Zalnathians as having put that much time into unarmed combat.

As for akidio demonstrations and such this shit is great to watch and teaches fitness as well as self discipline. And once you have studied it long enough (10+ years) you will probably fuck most average schmos up. Unfortunately this crap doesn't really work against people with fight experience. I'm talking brawlers and boxers and MMA practitioners.

If an average person comes at you with a pool stick you stand a pretty good chance of at least not getting KTFO. But if an Eskrima practitioner(as little as 3 years) comes at you with a club and your unarmed your gonna get KTFOWYWB,S. I don't give a damn how long you been practicing don't-get-hit-with-the-stick fu.

As someone currently studying Chinese language, culture, and history ... I feel confident in assuring you that you're entirely wrong in almost 100 percent of what you just posted. Sorry.

Just out of idle curiosity, how does studying Chinese culture, history, etc, reflect on fourtwenty's post's validity?

On a somewhat related note, people seem to forget that the Orient does not have a monopoly on the history of martial arts. There were a great many elaborate martial arts systems in Ireland, Spain, France, Greece, etc. It's just that they faded and became obsolete when the use of swords and then pistols became dominant. The only thing unique about the Oriental martial arts is that they retained them longer, for reasons as much as societal (such as actively regulating the ownership of swords) as being a couple centuries behind the gunpowder curve. It's true though that only recently has martial interest been 'rediscovered' in the West and that phenomena is in large part due to Bruce Lee's influence.

Er what... the orient was a couple centuries behind the gunpowder curve?  You might want to check your facts on that.

We can always talk extremes.  But for the most part, someone with a weapon will beat someone without one. It's easier, that's the point.

[FantasyWriter]

I think you should be able to sap unarmed, in addition to it being done with only bludgeoning weapons.
Less effectively, of course.

A thick, dense dwarf should be able to KO an unobservant elven guard fairly easily with his fist.
(Yes, i realize that a dwarf could not reach the back of a standing elf's head or neck. )

[Clearsighted]

You guys should go watch aikido demonstrations.

It's very possible to pwn someone who has a weapon when you don't, if you put the hours into learning how.

The thing is ... it's just a lot easier and quicker to learn how to use a tool (ie a weapon) instead, so the path of least resistance won out through the course of history. And ... well there isn't anything wrong with that.

This is right on the money about unarmed martial arts. I've been a practitioner of Aikido, among other forms, and I have personally seen a 100lb woman take a bokken away from a 250lb man, and then fling him a good 6-7ft. But, as is to be expected, the woman was in her 70's while the man was in his 30's. Experience is the telling factor in unarmed combat...enough knowledge can take away most of the advantage size and strength offer a combatant.

I've personally always thought those martial arts demonstrations were...how to put it...'half' a matter of skill, and half a matter of putting on a show. Especially since in Aikido, half the training seems to be about being thrown as opposed to doing the throwing.

While knowledge can even the playing field against size and strength, it is just one part of the whole. I do not think that any seventy year old woman can legitimately disarm a man in his 30s against his will. In fact, I would suggest that most 30 year old men could not disarm their opponent in an legitimate lethal fight without sustaining injury.

Unarmed combat is functioning at exactly the level we want it to. There is no Bruce Lee, Royce Gracie, or Chuck Norris in Armageddon, and we like it fine that way.

Along these lines. As long as martial arts have been around it's just now, I'm talking last 40 years that they actually became as functional as everyone would like to believe. It began with Bruce Lee's school of thought about having no 1 style and adapting to the fight and it exploded with BJJ and MMA. Even though Martial Arts have been studied since pretty much the dawn of time they only now are reaching the levels people long thought existed. I don't see Zalnathians as having put that much time into unarmed combat.

As for akidio demonstrations and such this shit is great to watch and teaches fitness as well as self discipline. And once you have studied it long enough (10+ years) you will probably fuck most average schmos up. Unfortunately this crap doesn't really work against people with fight experience. I'm talking brawlers and boxers and MMA practitioners.

If an average person comes at you with a pool stick you stand a pretty good chance of at least not getting KTFO. But if an Eskrima practitioner(as little as 3 years) comes at you with a club and your unarmed your gonna get KTFOWYWB,S. I don't give a damn how long you been practicing don't-get-hit-with-the-stick fu.

As someone currently studying Chinese language, culture, and history ... I feel confident in assuring you that you're entirely wrong in almost 100 percent of what you just posted. Sorry.

Just out of idle curiosity, how does studying Chinese culture, history, etc, reflect on fourtwenty's post's validity?

On a somewhat related note, people seem to forget that the Orient does not have a monopoly on the history of martial arts. There were a great many elaborate martial arts systems in Ireland, Spain, France, Greece, etc. It's just that they faded and became obsolete when the use of swords and then pistols became dominant. The only thing unique about the Oriental martial arts is that they retained them longer, for reasons as much as societal (such as actively regulating the ownership of swords) as being a couple centuries behind the gunpowder curve. It's true though that only recently has martial interest been 'rediscovered' in the West and that phenomena is in large part due to Bruce Lee's influence.

Er what... the orient was a couple centuries behind the gunpowder curve?  You might want to check your facts on that.

We can always talk extremes.  But for the most part, someone with a weapon will beat someone without one. It's easier, that's the point.

Obviously, by gunpowder curve, I meant the widespread adoption and production of firearms. See the Opium War and Commodore Perry.

[jhunter]

I'd rather see it possible for a very skilled unarmed combatant to defend themselves effectively against an armed opponent. It's possible in RL and I think it should be possible in game. It would be a step to flushing out combat farther and creating more variety to it.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'd rather see it possible for a very skilled unarmed combatant to defend themselves effectively against an armed opponent. It's possible in RL and I think it should be possible in game. It would be a step to flushing out combat farther and creating more variety to it.

It is possible now. I have personally played a character that could disarm a young PC and beat them without using a weapon myself.

Desertman, by the way, can confirm this.

[jhunter]

I suppose I mean more that there are different unarmed abilities that you can use to further turn the tide in your favor. I'd still like to see someone who is skilled in unarmed combat and skilled with disarming opponents be able to do it against others without having to have a weapon themselves.
I'd like to see a skilled unarmed combatant be able to restrain an attacker as well.

Example:

Guy with sword attacks guy without weapon. Guy without weapon deflects armed guy's weapon arm outside and steps in to pull him into a subdue-like grasp, keeping control over his weapon arm.

More possibility of things like that.

[Bilanthri]

As for akidio demonstrations and such this shit is great to watch and teaches fitness as well as self discipline. And once you have studied it long enough (10+ years) you will probably fuck most average schmos up. Unfortunately this crap doesn't really work against people with fight experience. I'm talking brawlers and boxers and MMA practitioners.

If an average person comes at you with a pool stick you stand a pretty good chance of at least not getting KTFO. But if an Eskrima practitioner(as little as 3 years) comes at you with a club and your unarmed your gonna get KTFOWYWB,S. I don't give a damn how long you been practicing don't-get-hit-with-the-stick fu.

For as long as they have been around, unarmed combat techniques have been designed around an unarmed combatant dealing with possibly(or likely) armed opponents. The various forms stemming from places like Okinawa, Korea, and the Philippines (where Escrima evolved) were based around lower caste or subjugated people teaching ways to deal with said subjugation w/o being arrested/executed for owning and training in weapons.

I make a distinction here between armed and unarmed martial forms, since things like Kenjustu (japanese sword style) are very much martial arts, but far from unarmed styles.

As for Aikido, I think the confusion is that this form is now a "do" or "way" rather than a "jutsu" or "skill". Aikijutsu is not taught at traditional schools anymore...its focus on takedowns, disarms, damaging joint locks, and other offensive maneuvers has been shifted to the study of rolls and falls, redirection of energy, and incapacitation of your foe. That is what happens when an martial form becomes obsolete. Practitioners continue to study, but their focus shifts to the art form rather than the utilitarian needs.
Take Kendo as another example. A kendo practitioner would get their asses handed to them by a kenjutsu practitioner with the same weapon...the kenjutsu artist is more focused on the pragmatic need to kill an opponent, thus has more training in actual combat instances.

Now you wanna talk about an unarmed style that works wonders for whooping an armed opponents ass, check out Sambo.

[Desertman]

I dont see much of a problem myself.

If you are REALLY badass, and unarmed, and you are fighting someone who is relatively new, but armed, you can still beat them.

I have personally done this.

I didnt exactly beat their ass, but in the end, I won. *shrugs*

So its possible with the current code.

[Lakota]

I think you should be able to sap unarmed, in addition to it being done with only bludgeoning weapons.
Less effectively, of course.

A thick, dense dwarf should be able to KO an unobservant elven guard fairly easily with his fist.
(Yes, i realize that a dwarf could not reach the back of a standing elf's head or neck. )

Someone's watched the Princess Bride way too much. 

[Sephiroto]

I believe a skilled fighter should still have a good chance at defending himself against an armed combattant even if he has no weapons, just just punny merchants and 0 day warriors.

[fourTwenty]

Unarmed combat is functioning at exactly the level we want it to. There is no Bruce Lee, Royce Gracie, or Chuck Norris in Armageddon, and we like it fine that way.

Along these lines. As long as martial arts have been around it's just now, I'm talking last 40 years that they actually became as functional as everyone would like to believe. It began with Bruce Lee's school of thought about having no 1 style and adapting to the fight and it exploded with BJJ and MMA. Even though Martial Arts have been studied since pretty much the dawn of time they only now are reaching the levels people long thought existed. I don't see Zalnathians as having put that much time into unarmed combat.

As for akidio demonstrations and such this shit is great to watch and teaches fitness as well as self discipline. And once you have studied it long enough (10+ years) you will probably fuck most average schmos up. Unfortunately this crap doesn't really work against people with fight experience. I'm talking brawlers and boxers and MMA practitioners.

If an average person comes at you with a pool stick you stand a pretty good chance of at least not getting KTFO. But if an Eskrima practitioner(as little as 3 years) comes at you with a club and your unarmed your gonna get KTFOWYWB,S. I don't give a damn how long you been practicing don't-get-hit-with-the-stick fu.

As someone currently studying Chinese language, culture, and history ... I feel confident in assuring you that you're entirely wrong in almost 100 percent of what you just posted. Sorry.

And as someone currently studying Martial Arts I feel confident in assuring you you are a jackass and 100% of what I posted is correct. Chinese language, culture, and history has very little to do with Martial Arts as a whole, seeing as how Martial Arts had been around for centuries before there even was a China.

And I agree with quite a bit if what Bilanthri said but not all of it. Demonstrations are just that "Demonstrations" they absolutly do not reflect a real life occurrence. If you reread my post you will find that my thoughts are thus. Unarmed and experienced vs Armed with not much experience unarmed should (And currently will IG) win that fight. However, I don't care how badass you are unarmed someone with a moderate skill in swordplay will cut you to ribbons. Also Sambo kicks lots of ass.

Also, sapping unarmed would be pretty cool.

[fourTwenty]

As for akidio demonstrations and such this shit is great to watch and teaches fitness as well as self discipline. And once you have studied it long enough (10+ years) you will probably fuck most average schmos up. Unfortunately this crap doesn't really work against people with fight experience. I'm talking brawlers and boxers and MMA practitioners.

If an average person comes at you with a pool stick you stand a pretty good chance of at least not getting KTFO. But if an Eskrima practitioner(as little as 3 years) comes at you with a club and your unarmed your gonna get KTFOWYWB,S. I don't give a damn how long you been practicing don't-get-hit-with-the-stick fu.

For as long as they have been around, unarmed combat techniques have been designed around an unarmed combatant dealing with possibly(or likely) armed opponents. The various forms stemming from places like Okinawa, Korea, and the Philippines (where Escrima evolved) were based around lower caste or subjugated people teaching ways to deal with said subjugation w/o being arrested/executed for owning and training in weapons.

You are skipping centuries of study in the Martial Arts. True martial arts stems all the way back to the Greeks, Romans, and various native peoples. There are techniques for disarming and killing an opponent proven to have been used by Greek and Roman Soldiers still used today. And most martial arts incorporate weapons anyway. Though most weapons styles used like bakkons, si's, and even a simple length of rope where perfected because these where common tools used by farmers that would be readily in hand at anytime. In fact, I know someone originally from a small province in China who has trained his entire life in multiple forms of Gung-Fu who will tell you that a western boxer is the most dangerous martial artist there is. Though he himself is coming to agree with me that MMA is the true path Martial Arts must take.

Edit to add: Ahh, this is very nice. A friend of mine who is also a martial artist but is not a gamer just posed an interesting statement to me after I made him read this thread. It went a little something like this  "Dude, I've been studying Akidio since I was 7 and saw a Steven Segal Movie. (he is now 23) Remember that hot fencer chick we talked about during the Olympics? Yeah, I wouldn't fuck with her.

[Bilanthri]

You are skipping centuries of study in the Martial Arts. True martial arts stems all the way back to the Greeks, Romans, and various native peoples.

Nah...I was just discussing the fact that many eastern styles were devised by poorly equipped peasants, who had only...say....farm implements to defend themselves.

Thanks for reminding us that people like to fight no matter where they grow up 

[fourTwenty]

Thanks for reminding us that people like to fight no matter where they grow up 

Unfortunately, one of the few things that remain constant no matter where in the world you go. Humans are inherently violent.

[FantasyWriter]

I think you should be able to sap unarmed, in addition to it being done with only bludgeoning weapons.
Less effectively, of course.

A thick, dense dwarf should be able to KO an unobservant elven guard fairly easily with his fist.
(Yes, i realize that a dwarf could not reach the back of a standing elf's head or neck. )

Someone's watched the Princess Bride way too much. 

I just watched it over again, and I don't see what you are talking about.

[Bilanthri]

I think you should be able to sap unarmed, in addition to it being done with only bludgeoning weapons.
Less effectively, of course.

A thick, dense dwarf should be able to KO an unobservant elven guard fairly easily with his fist.
(Yes, i realize that a dwarf could not reach the back of a standing elf's head or neck. )

Someone's watched the Princess Bride way too much. 

I just watched it over again, and I don't see what you are talking about.

"Sorry, Indigo...I didn't mean to jog him so hard."
                                               -Fezzik

[FantasyWriter]

"Sorry, Indigo...I didn't mean to jog him so hard."
                                               -Fezik

Ah thanks... I had never watched it until recently bacause so many people on here talked about it... it is a pretty cool movie.

[/derail]

[a strange shadow]

re: the title of this thread:

No.

[Lakota]

Nah...I was just discussing the fact that many eastern styles were devised by poorly equipped peasants, who had only...say....farm implements to defend themselves.

...and they turned said farming tools into dangerous weapons which came to be feared in the hands of trained fighters.

The sai?

The bo-staff?

I have trained extensively in both, and I can guarantee you, both can kill efficiently.

Korea did amazing things for martial arts.

[fourTwenty]

Nah...I was just discussing the fact that many eastern styles were devised by poorly equipped peasants, who had only...say....farm implements to defend themselves.

...and they turned said farming tools into dangerous weapons which came to be feared in the hands of trained fighters.

We kinda already covered that.

The sai?

The bo-staff?

I have trained extensively in both, and I can guarantee you, both can kill efficiently.

Then you should be pretty confident that you would fuck an unarmed opponent up. Also, who the hell still trains with a sai?

Korea did amazing things for martial arts.

But not nearly as much as Russia and Brazil.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Also, who the hell still trains with a sai?

That's a good question. Isn't a sai a sword-breaker or disarming weapon or something? It doesn't have any practicality in the modern world.

[Bilanthri]

Also, who the hell still trains with a sai?

That's a good question. Isn't a sai a sword-breaker or disarming weapon or something? It doesn't have any practicality in the modern world.

The sai originated from a hand held pitchfork like implement used for lifting grain stalks. It was most effective as a concealable stabbing/disarming weapon. Kinda bulky by todays standards though.

[Lakota]

Then you should be pretty confident that you would fuck an unarmed opponent up. Also, who the hell still trains with a sai?

I know several individuals who do. They are quite practical in terms of fending off weapons ranging in all sizes, from small knives to staves to other ranged weapons. It's a discipline I enjoy practicing - not necessarily practical in terms of carrying them around in your pocket, but an amazing, simple, elegant weapon.

But not nearly as much as Russia and Brazil.

I'd disagree with that.

That's a good question. Isn't a sai a sword-breaker or disarming weapon or something? It doesn't have any practicality in the modern world.

See above. Yes, they can be used to disarm weapons, though you'd better be -very- skilled in your attempt. You have to have impeccable timing/reflexes to pull off one.

Use one in a reverse-grip for defense and you've got a game-changer.

[fourTwenty]

Also, who the hell still trains with a sai?

That's a good question. Isn't a sai a sword-breaker or disarming weapon or something? It doesn't have any practicality in the modern world.

<definition of sai was previously here, Bilanthri beat me to it>. It eventually became used as a weapon and in skilled hands could easily disarm a katana or sword. It was never a popular or widely used weapon so much that it eventually became tradition to know how to use one. Unfortunately, lots of Martial Arts suffer the same fate, they begin studying things more for tradition than practicality.

[fourTwenty]

But not nearly as much as Russia and Brazil.

I'd disagree with that.

Sambo and BJJ.

[Lakota]

I'm well aware of Fedor, Antonio, the Gracies, etc.

I respectfully disagree.

[musashi]

fourTwenty ... please refrain from name calling ... ... dickhead.

Anyway, let me show you where you're contradicting yourself first, then give you a follow-up example of how unarmed martial arts have been used in a highly functional manner in history.

As someone studying Chinese culture, language, and history ... I feel comfortable telling you that this piece of garbage you typed up right here:

As long as martial arts have been around it's just now, I'm talking last 40 years that they actually became as functional as everyone would like to believe. It began with Bruce Lee's school of thought about having no 1 style and adapting to the fight and it exploded with BJJ and MMA.

Is wholly inaccurate and screams "hey I'm an ignorant american and don't know fuck all about the history of Chinese martial arts I just got into it after watching some old choppy-stock flicks" ... ... but you don't even have to study anything about China to know that, Wikipedia can bring you up to speed on how martial arts were highly developed prior to Bruce Lee (in China and other places), and the idea of not limiting yourself to any 1 style and adapting to the fight was a retardedly common mindset for anyone in the business of fighting (again, be it in China and other places).

What Bruce Lee did was take an idea that already existed in several cultures within Asia (give the Book of Five Rings a read sometime) about fighting, moderize it, and make it popular in America through movies. That's quite an acomplish in its own right but hardly where the concept of martial arts being functional "began".

As an example ... the Okinawa people were oppressed by the Japanese (the Satsuma Clan to be precise) back in the 15th and 16th century, and one of these marks of oppression was the banning of weapons for Okinawa people. The Japanese thought, if we have the swords, we have the power. Good idea ... sadly the Okinawans blended two martial arts (see how they didn't limit themselves to 1 style, but rather combined what they liked from multiple ones?) called "Te" and "Kenpo" into what we now refer to as "Karate", and proceeded to use it to kick the everliving shit out of the Japanese and oust them from the island. The Japanese did later come back with even bigger numbers and basically say: Good effort ... now give up or we'll kill you all ... ... also some of you come to mainland and teach us how you did that. But the point I'm offering up is that unarmed combat was used to defeat armed opponents on a massive scale, and that would suggest that it was both quite functional as well as developed before you saw Bruce Lee on television.

Mind ... the point of the thread was not to talk about martial arts in general, but to talk about martial arts in Zalanthas. To which you said:

I don't see Zalnathians as having put that much time into unarmed combat.

But you also said

Even though Martial Arts have been studied since pretty much the dawn of time ...

right before it so ... lemme see if I understand you right ... humans have studied martial arts (ie unarmed combat) pretty much since the dawn of time, thus ... Zalanthas humans haven't put much time into studying unarmed combat? 

And having said ALL of that ... since staff feel unarmed combat is functioning the way they want it to function in the game, and other players have said that their uber fighters are quite capable fighters unarmed codewise ... I believe that the thread's origional topic is more or less settled and I'm satisfied with it, though in 2.arm I do hope that perhaps a richer unarmed combat style/documention/culture/history could be developed for the game ... if only because it would be really cool.

[fourTwenty]

fourTwenty ... please refrain from name calling ... ... dickhead.

Refrain from posting that I am 100% wrong without backing it up. I just call'em like I see'em

Anyway, let me show you where you're contradicting yourself first, then give you a follow-up example of how unarmed martial arts have been used in a highly functional manner in history.

Still not sure where I contradicted myself. I never said unarmed combat was not functional. I said unarmed combat was not functional against an armed opponent, where unless there's a serious skill gap, it's not.

As someone studying Chinese culture, language, and history ... I feel comfortable telling you that this piece of garbage you typed up right here:

As long as martial arts have been around it's just now, I'm talking last 40 years that they actually became as functional as everyone would like to believe. It began with Bruce Lee's school of thought about having no 1 style and adapting to the fight and it exploded with BJJ and MMA.

Is wholly inaccurate and screams "hey I'm an ignorant american and don't know fuck all about the history of Chinese martial arts I just got into it after watching some old choppy-stock flicks" ... ... but you don't even have to study anything about China to know that, Wikipedia can bring you up to speed on how martial arts were highly developed prior to Bruce Lee (in China and other places), and the idea of not limiting yourself to any 1 style and adapting to the fight was a retardedly common mindset for anyone in the business of fighting (again, be it in China and other places).

What Bruce Lee did was take an idea that already existed in several cultures within Asia (give the Book of Five Rings a read sometime) about fighting, moderize it, and make it popular in America through movies. That's quite an acomplish in its own right but hardly where the concept of martial arts being functional "began".

As an example ... the Okinawa people were oppressed by the Japanese (the Satsuma Clan to be precise) back in the 15th and 16th century, and one of these marks of oppression was the banning of weapons for Okinawa people. The Japanese thought, if we have the swords, we have the power. Good idea ... sadly the Okinawans blended two martial arts (see how they didn't limit themselves to 1 style, but rather combined what they liked from multiple ones?) called "Te" and "Kenpo" into what we now refer to as "Karate", and proceeded to use it to kick the everliving shit out of the Japanese and oust them from the island. The Japanese did later come back with even bigger numbers and basically say: Good effort ... now give up or we'll kill you all ... ... also some of you come to mainland and teach us how you did that. But the point I'm offering up is that unarmed combat was used to defeat armed opponents on a massive scale, and that would suggest that it was both quite functional as well as developed before you saw Bruce Lee on television.

See, this is the jackass part. China and Bruce Lee have little to do with Martial Arts as a whole. The progress of MMA is what made Martial Arts progress so much lately. Though, Bruce Lee -was- an innovator (in fact, he was persecuted for believing that he needed to know more than 1 style which to traditional practitioners was taboo(Go read the Tao of Jeet Kune Do)) I don't attribute nearly as much of the advancement of Martial Arts to him as I do Helio\Carlos Gracie and the Russian Spetsnaz(sp?). Your studying Chinese culture, language, and history only includes a small fraction of Martial Arts. I will repeat. Martial Arts had been around long before there even was a fucking China. And your post seems to be screaming "Hey I am a jackass that thinks I know what I'm talking about" because while you are studying a people and a culture I have been studying the fucking subject we're talking about.

Mind ... the point of the thread was not to talk about martial arts in general, but to talk about martial arts in Zalanthas. To which you said:

I don't see Zalnathians as having put that much time into unarmed combat.

But you also said

Even though Martial Arts have been studied since pretty much the dawn of time ...

right before it so ... lemme see if I understand you right ... humans have studied martial arts (ie unarmed combat) pretty much since the dawn of time, thus ... Zalanthas humans haven't put much time into studying unarmed combat? 

Actually, the point of this thread was to discuss whether or not unarmed combat was underpowered. (Okay, I see how you pay attention and that explains a lot). Since Earth has been around for a really, -really- long time (without the magick dragon destroying everything and making us start over to boot) and people can, you know, read and write and stuff and we're -just now- coming to the level of Martial Arts that most people want to see achieved I don't see Zalanthians as having spent that much time studying unarmed combat or unarmed combat as having progressed quite as far as it has in our Earthen culture. Also, another mistake you are making is assuming that unarmed combat=Martial Arts and there is a HUGE, distinct difference.


I do have one question I want you to answer. How the hell does studying Chinese culture, language, and history qualify you to speak on Martial Arts as a whole?

[fourTwenty]

Wikipedia can bring you up to speed on how martial arts were highly developed prior to Bruce Lee (in China and other places), and the idea of not limiting yourself to any 1 style and adapting to the fight was a retardedly common mindset for anyone in the business of fighting (again, be it in China and other places).

This was certainly NOT a common mindset, It was, in fact, taboo in the China you claim to be studying. BTW you wanna not look like a jackass, don't get your facts from Wikipedia.

[Bilanthri]

True martial arts stems all the way back to the Greeks, Romans, and various native peoples. There are techniques for disarming and killing an opponent proven to have been used by Greek and Roman Soldiers still used today.

I had to do some research on this. From what I've found, Pankration was the first true Greek unarmed combat form and was introduced as such in the Olympic Games of 648 BCE. Certainly a long time ago. However, I find references to open hand styles being practiced in China at the beginning of the Zhou Dynasty (c. 1030 BCE). So how is it that the first true forms came from the mediterranean?

Am I missing an earlier Greek form?

[fourTwenty]

True martial arts stems all the way back to the Greeks, Romans, and various native peoples. There are techniques for disarming and killing an opponent proven to have been used by Greek and Roman Soldiers still used today.

I had to do some research on this. From what I've found, Pankration was the first true Greek unarmed combat form and was introduced as such in the Olympic Games of 648 BCE. Certainly a long time ago. However, I find references to open hand styles being practiced in China at the beginning of the Zhou Dynasty (c. 1030 BCE). So how is it that the first true forms came from the mediterranean all over the world?

Am I missing an earlier Greek form?

Yes and No. Martial Arts have been practiced since one little African cave man decided he needed a better way of shoving this stick up that other little African cave mans ass. However, wrestling and pugilistic competitions predate even the Olympics. There's a reason it is still today referred to as Greco Roman wrestling. Unfortunately, many people ignore boxing and wrestling as forms of martial arts even though most martial artists will tell you that wrestlers and boxers will fuck you up. Also, native peoples have had their own forms of martial arts an even battle tactics. I once read an interesting little piece on what exactly a Cherokee warrior could do with that tomahawk(knife).



Edited to add: Damn, My friend beside me is actually pointing out a few things I have missed in previous posts. Vale Tudo, Krav Maga and Muay Thai have been extremely beneficial (for a long time) to the advancement of martial arts as well.

[Bilanthri]

True martial arts stems all the way back to the Greeks, Romans, and various native peoples. There are techniques for disarming and killing an opponent proven to have been used by Greek and Roman Soldiers still used today.

I had to do some research on this. From what I've found, Pankration was the first true Greek unarmed combat form and was introduced as such in the Olympic Games of 648 BCE. Certainly a long time ago. However, I find references to open hand styles being practiced in China at the beginning of the Zhou Dynasty (c. 1030 BCE). So how is it that the first true forms came from the mediterranean all over the world?

Am I missing an earlier Greek form?

Yes and No. Martial Arts have been practiced since one little African cave man decided he needed a better way of shoving this stick up that other little African cave mans ass. However, wrestling and pugilistic competitions predate even the Olympics. There's a reason it is still today referred to as Greco Roman wrestling. Unfortunately, many people ignore boxing and wrestling as forms of martial arts even though most martial artists will tell you that wrestlers and boxers will fuck you up. Also, native peoples have had their own forms of martial arts an even battle tactics. I once read an interesting little piece on what exactly a Cherokee warrior could do with that tomahawk(knife).

So you're saying that Pugilism, defined as "the art or practice of fighting with the fists" was first refined into a structured form by the Greeks. But I just don't see any documentation to support it. However, I have found a few bits of information pertaining to the Chinese doing just such a thing centuries before.

Really the argument is flawed in general...or at least it overlooks the most obvious point. Low tech people fought with their hands. Asking who did it first is really just asking who was a grunting savage first. Whether you talk of the Greeks, the early bronze-age Chinese, neolithic Japan(c. 600CE), NorthAm Natives, or the ancient Irish art of Fuk-yu (couldn't resist) the fact remains...the weapons sucked, so a warrior had to be able to fight with their hands.

[fourTwenty]

True martial arts stems all the way back to the Greeks, Romans, and various native peoples. There are techniques for disarming and killing an opponent proven to have been used by Greek and Roman Soldiers still used today.

I had to do some research on this. From what I've found, Pankration was the first true Greek unarmed combat form and was introduced as such in the Olympic Games of 648 BCE. Certainly a long time ago. However, I find references to open hand styles being practiced in China at the beginning of the Zhou Dynasty (c. 1030 BCE). So how is it that the first true forms came from the mediterranean all over the world?

Am I missing an earlier Greek form?

Yes and No. Martial Arts have been practiced since one little African cave man decided he needed a better way of shoving this stick up that other little African cave mans ass. However, wrestling and pugilistic competitions predate even the Olympics. There's a reason it is still today referred to as Greco Roman wrestling. Unfortunately, many people ignore boxing and wrestling as forms of martial arts even though most martial artists will tell you that wrestlers and boxers will fuck you up. Also, native peoples have had their own forms of martial arts an even battle tactics. I once read an interesting little piece on what exactly a Cherokee warrior could do with that tomahawk(knife).

So you're saying that Pugilism, defined as "the art or practice of fighting with the fists" was first refined into a structured form by the Greeks. But I just don't see any documentation to support it. However, I have found a few bits of information pertaining to the Chinese doing just such a thing centuries before.

No, that is not what I said.

"However, wrestling and pugilistic competitions predate even the Olympics. There's a reason it is still today referred to as Greco Roman wrestling."
That is what I said. And there is plenty of documentation on how far back the form of "wrestling" actually goes.

Low tech people fought with their hands. Asking who did it first is really just asking who was a grunting savage first.

That's kinda what I was saying. "True martial arts stems all the way back to the Greeks, Romans, and various native peoples."

Whether you talk of the Greeks, the early bronze-age Chinese, neolithic Japan(c. 600CE), NorthAm Natives, or the ancient Irish art of Fuk-yu (couldn't resist) the fact remains...the weapons sucked, so a warrior had to be able to fight with their hands.

This bit is flawed though as some these cultures (especially Native people) had relatively elegant weapons and Martial Arts does NOT exclude training with a weapon.

[Bilanthri]

That's kinda what I was saying. "True martial arts stems all the way back to the Greeks, Romans, and various native peoples."

The problem I've been having throughout this thread has been the implication that the Greek and Roman cultures predated those of eastern people. I have to say I'm pleased to have been rankled so, since it forced me to do further research. What I'm finding to be more and more true as I delve into the topic is that, around 1000BCE, those people that we generally consider to be the ancient empires, were all in pretty much the same boat.
I've found references to bronze weaponry from that era stemming from all over Europe, East Asia, and Northern Africa. As well as numerous descriptions of unarmed combat styles from those same areas.
It makes me wonder if this disagreement isn't entirely due to a difference in the  geographical focus of our studies.

[fourTwenty]

It makes me wonder if this disagreement isn't entirely due to a difference in the  geographical focus of our studies.

You are most probably correct. The only reason I went off into that tangent was because musashi's assumption that studying Chinese history, language and culture was the be-all-end-all to knowing about martial arts. Seeing as how my entire post on unarmed vs. armed combat and how history reflected on martial arts practicality was refuted with

As someone currently studying Chinese language, culture, and history ... I feel confident in assuring you that you're entirely wrong in almost 100 percent of what you just posted. Sorry.

And nothing else.


On the whole Bilanthri I have agreed with much of what you've stated. (As well as I am now reading some intresting new things on Pankration I was not aware of.)

[Bilanthri]

It makes me wonder if this disagreement isn't entirely due to a difference in the  geographical focus of our studies.

You are most probably correct. The only reason I went off into that tangent was because musashi's assumption that studying Chinese history, language and culture was the be-all-end-all to knowing about martial arts. Seeing as how my entire post on unarmed vs. armed combat and how history reflected on martial arts practicality was refuted with

As someone currently studying Chinese language, culture, and history ... I feel confident in assuring you that you're entirely wrong in almost 100 percent of what you just posted. Sorry.

And nothing else.


On the whole Bilanthri I have agreed with much of what you've stated. (As well as I am now reading some intresting new things on Pankration I was not aware of.)

Kudos to both of us gettin' our learn on!

[musashi]

I do have one question I want you to answer. How the hell does studying Chinese culture, language, and history qualify you to speak on Martial Arts as a whole?

It doesn't, and I never said it did.

The reference to China was just because you brought up Bruce Lee as the "beginning" of martial arts as a functional way to fight against someone who was armed, and he was Chinese American, and learned what he knew about martial arts from Chinese influence.

That asumption is incorrect. Also, Bruce Lee faces crticitism from a lot of Chinese folks mainly for being born in America, not because he wanted to learn more than 1 style of martial arts.

You then kindly ignored all the other examples I brought to your attention, unless you meant to say that every Okinawa was a master martial artist and every single Japanese that they ousted was a complete newbie with a sword.

As for the rest of all that, dude just do a bit of reading. Chinese, Japanese, and Korean history are all ripe with examples of people who espoused the "don't limit yourself to a single way of thinking or doing if you want to win" philosophy. The idea was widespread. I agree with you that Bruce Lee innovated the idea and marketed it to western people, he just was absolutely not the inventor of it of it, or it's "beginning", as you said.

I'm in no way saying that knowing anything about Asia is the be-all-end-all of martial arts, I'm saying that Bruce Lee did not start that movement (he just made it popular in the states), and martial arts (read: unarmed combat) had already been used to overcome armed opponents without an enourmous skill gap as you claim, several times throughout just Asian history, not counting other examples I'm sure you could pull from other cultures.

[fourTwenty]

The reference to China was just because you brought up Bruce Lee as the "beginning" of martial arts as a functional way to fight against someone who was armed

Actually, you should pay more attention. I brought up Bruce Lee as the main driving force behind the "way of no way" philosophy.

As for the rest of all that, dude just do a bit of reading. Chinese, Japanese, and Korean history are all ripe with examples of people who espoused the "don't limit yourself to a single way of thinking or doing if you want to win" philosophy. The idea was widespread.

No, it wasn't. And I've done the reading. More than you apparently. In fact, in Chinese culture (this is what your supposedly studying, remember) it was -literally- sacrilege to question certain forms of a martial art.

I'm in no way saying that knowing anything about Asia is the be-all-end-all of martial arts,

This being your entire rebuttal

As someone currently studying Chinese language, culture, and history ... I feel confident in assuring you that you're entirely wrong in almost 100 percent of what you just posted. Sorry.

certainly implied otherwise.

[Qzzrbl]

How the hell did this turn into an all-out discussion of the origins of unarmed combat?

Damn.

People have been kicking other people's asses without weapons since the dawn of time, no matter what the particular method or style was called.

/thread

[musashi]

Yeeeah, I'm good with ending it too.

EDIT: Or go to PM's, anyway.

[Qzzrbl]

And this here should sum up the main question of the thread.

Unarmed combat is functioning at exactly the level we want it to. There is no Bruce Lee, Royce Gracie, or Chuck Norris in Armageddon, and we like it fine that way.

Is unarmed combat underpowered? Against razor-sharp obsidian blades, yes. That staff want it that way, and that's how it is.

If you really just can't go on without a character who can't disarm people with his dick and kill with his pinky, try writing up a special application.

[FantasyWriter]

Carlos
The mulleted, thick-bearded man

Special skills requested:
Any blows to the head of face will be absorbed by his mullet and beard of awesomeness.
Hidden offense skill boosted to 300% of normal human max. (I promise I will never use weapons)
All kicks will result in a round house kick echo.
All round house kicks will succeed 100% if the time and will have a 25% chance of striking critically.

Special items requested:
A blue denim shirt with cut-off sleeves
A pair of "Wranglers"
A Shiny belt buckle
Cowboy boots

[brytta.leofa]

A pair of "Wranglers"

With hidden gusset.

[Sephiroto]

So I got to thinking, Morgenes.  Why can I dodge almost every blow from creature x with a tiny dagger but when I drop the dagger I am suddenly bitten/clawed/gored/pinched like a madman?

I think I do more stun damage unarmed than I do with a club.  Why is that?  I want to dodge more and do less stun damage.  If the nearly 0 defense garnered by the ridiculous power of landed punches is how the staff agrees that unarmed skill is "balanced" I'll just have to disagree.

[Reiloth]

So I got to thinking, Morgenes.  Why can I dodge almost every blow from creature x with a tiny dagger but when I drop the dagger I am suddenly bitten/clawed/gored/pinched like a madman?

I think I do more stun damage unarmed than I do with a club.  Why is that?  I want to dodge more and do less stun damage.  If the nearly 0 defense garnered by the ridiculous power of landed punches is how the staff agrees that unarmed skill is "balanced" I'll just have to disagree.

Base offense and defense is supposed to cover this. Technically, a badass 100 day old warrior should be able to kick even a 30 day old warrior's ass with just his face. However, this isn't quite true. I think it could use some tweaking.

If you are a badass with a club, for instance, and your club gets disarmed, you should not be able to -land- attacks as frequently, or nearly as debilitatingly awesome. However, your defense should not get diminished as much as it is now. You should be at a disadvantage, yes, but you should not be defenseless.

[FantasyWriter]

I think an "unarmed" combat skill would be more realistic... this is why....

It would solve Seph's afore mentioned issue.

An 80 day warrior who had NEVER trained in unarmed combat should not be able to beat a 10-20 day warrior who specializes in it.foil

Justification:
I am/was a fencer.  I have never had any unarmed martial arts training.
If I was in a real fight with a foil/sword  and was disarmed, unless my foil/sword was within reach, a am either going to run or die.

[Morgenes]

I think an "unarmed" combat skill would be more realistic... this is why....

It would solve Seph's afore mentioned issue.

An 80 day warrior who had NEVER trained in unarmed combat should not be able to beat a 10-20 day warrior who specializes in it.foil

Justification:
I am/was a fencer.  I have never had any unarmed martial arts training.
If I was in a real fight with a foil/sword  and was disarmed, unless my foil/sword was within reach, a am either going to run or die.

I'll argue what many others have argued, this is already represented in the game, we feel that this is a balanced portion of the game.  It may not say 'unarmed combat' as a skill, but it is handled.

[brytta.leofa]

Why can I dodge almost every blow from creature x with a tiny dagger but when I drop the dagger I am suddenly bitten/clawed/gored/pinched like a madman?

Said critter is "allowing" you dodge opportunities because it doesn't want to get gored by your nasty claw.  When you drop it, beastie has nothing to fear and just tackles you.

[FantasyWriter]

I think an "unarmed" combat skill would be more realistic... this is why....

It would solve Seph's afore mentioned issue.

An 80 day warrior who had NEVER trained in unarmed combat should not be able to beat a 10-20 day warrior who specializes in it.foil

Justification:
I am/was a fencer.  I have never had any unarmed martial arts training.
If I was in a real fight with a foil/sword  and was disarmed, unless my foil/sword was within reach, a am either going to run or die.

I'll argue what many others have argued, this is already represented in the game, we feel that this is a balanced portion of the game.  It may not say 'unarmed combat' as a skill, but it is handled.

Sorry, I was under the impression that base defense/offense were all that an unarmed combatant had, and didn't have any advantage over people who did not practice unarmed combat.

[FantasyWriter]

I think an "unarmed" combat skill would be more realistic... this is why....

It would solve Seph's afore mentioned issue.

An 80 day warrior who had NEVER trained in unarmed combat should not be able to beat a 10-20 day warrior who specializes in it.foil

Justification:
I am/was a fencer.  I have never had any unarmed martial arts training.
If I was in a real fight with a foil/sword  and was disarmed, unless my foil/sword was within reach, a am either going to run or die.

Oh yeah... i meant to add.

However If I had a sword, and Mr Miagi did not, he could still kick my ass.

[Sephiroto]

What's the difference between dodging a slash unarmed and with a tiny dagger in your off hand?  Not much?  If I do this in game I'm going to get slashed almost every time while I'm unarmed but I can still dodge like a madman with any weapon in the off hand...even a pebble or a rock (probably).

[Morgenes]

What's the difference between dodging a slash unarmed and with a tiny dagger in your off hand?  Not much?  If I do this in game I'm going to get slashed almost every time while I'm unarmed but I can still dodge like a madman with any weapon in the off hand...even a pebble or a rock (probably).

It is still a weapon, and something to be wary of.  Your fist is not the same thing.

[Clearsighted]

After a bit of evaluation, I think that unarmed combat should be left the way it is. It is possible to get scarily good at beating people up with your fists, even if they are fairly advanced fighters. And I do think the increased stun damage makes up for it being easier to be hit. (Otherwise very strong characters would only ever use their fists, as it stands, in certain scenarios, against certain individuals it is very valuable).

If you are a warrior, you can do any kung fu thing you want through a combination of bashing, disarm and kicking. Especially when you're adept enough where they become very reliable. Bash and disarm are probably among the most powerful skills in the game and neither rely on having a weapon out. Kick is just for flavor. And again...If you are certain you can knock someone down and/or disarm them, it can be very attractive to use fists over another weapon, if outright killing them isn't your intent.

[Riev]

My two 'sids here, are that a 100-day warrior should be able to outbox pretty much anyone that isn't at least a 30-day warrior with weapon skills. The only reason I see a long-lived warrior using fists and getting his ass kicked, is because his opponent would have some semi-sick weapon skills. Personally, I WOULD like to see unarmed dodging a bit more, but I don't know how the code could determine at what point you have enough skill to dodge easily without a weapon.

Though, punching someone in the face, and hitting them with the trunk of a tree.... I'd think the tree would do more stun damage. So it isn't exactly realistic. Disarm them, bash them, and punch them so hard in the balls that they never tell your Bynner that their mother is a Kuraci again.

[Sephiroto]

People keep going on and on about how unarmed offense is just fine.  I totally agree.  I want to see the defensive capabilities of unarmed fighting increased versus armed combattants (at least for warrior classes), not the offensive capability.  The offensive damage of an unarmed combattant is already more than powerful enough.  I know I've done upwards of 8hp damage and 80+ stun damage to someone with a punch to the head and my character is human.  That's ridiculous, right?  I might expect that out of a half giant.  When fighting that same person, my character gets hammered by little nick and graze blows by the opponent's sparring weapon even though he is obviously more than skilled enough to dodge such sloppy attacks.  He dodged every one of them when holding a dagger in the off hand.  His ability to dodge didn't change just because he has six inches of dull wood in his weak hand.  Even when disengaging (no offensive intent) he still managed to dodge.

As the OP, what I intend to address with this post is unarmed versus unarmed combat.  Like the most of you, I think that unarmed v. unarmed works -great-.   What I don't like us unarmed versus armed combat.  Under no circumstance should a man without a weapon be penalized when he dodges an armed blow versus in comparison with the way he dodges an unarmed blow.  In fact, a man without a weapon would probably be trying -harder- to dodge than if he had a weapon anyway because the circumstances would be more severe.

Weapons should augment the parry skill, not defense.  Even though I have never seen a lick of code I am absolutely certain that defense is greatly augmented by not only the utilization of any weapon, but the size of that weapon.

Now, I understand that rewriting how the defense skill works is probably out of the question for 1.Arm, but I'd totally like to see it work better in 2.Arm.  I feel that I've inadequately explained my position in my previous posts until now.  This post should leave little in question.

In a nutshell:  Warrior-classes should be able to dodge armed attacks and unarmed attacks just as well without a weapon as they are able to do when they have a weapon.  The only difference should be that one can not parry when unarmed.  If I am confused in my reasoning in the above I'd like to know why I'm wrong.  Also, understand that this may be impossible to code in the current game.  The imms aren't conceding that it is impossible to code, but that the code is fine how it is.  And I disagree.

[Qzzrbl]

Me as an attacker with a weapon, against an opponent with a weapon.

I have to be careful where I swing, because he could easily parry and swing back at me. I'm being veeery careful because I don't want to get hit, or worse, disarmed.

Now let's say I disarm my opponent. He now has no weapon. What's he gonna do, parry with his fist? I no longer worry about him deflecting my razor-sharp blade of obsidian and happily swing harder and more direct to vital areas.

It's not that my opponent is getting penalized, it's that I'm getting a bonus.

Why?

For not having to worry as much about dodging/parrying/blocking a lethal blade myself, and not having to worry about my own attacks getting parried.

Unless he has a shield, I can pretty much swing at him at any direction or angle and still do some damage.

::EDIT:: Plus, my newly unarmed combatant has to worry about me slicing his hand open if he takes a swing at me.

[Sephiroto]

Your example makes sense of some of my misunderstanding, Qzzrbl.  Thanks.

[Qzzrbl]

No problem. ^^

[Clearsighted]

My two 'sids here, are that a 100-day warrior should be able to outbox pretty much anyone that isn't at least a 30-day warrior with weapon skills. The only reason I see a long-lived warrior using fists and getting his ass kicked, is because his opponent would have some semi-sick weapon skills. Personally, I WOULD like to see unarmed dodging a bit more, but I don't know how the code could determine at what point you have enough skill to dodge easily without a weapon.

Though, punching someone in the face, and hitting them with the trunk of a tree.... I'd think the tree would do more stun damage. So it isn't exactly realistic. Disarm them, bash them, and punch them so hard in the balls that they never tell your Bynner that their mother is a Kuraci again.

A 100-day warrior can potentially outbox alot more than that, depending on various factors I probably shouldn't get into too specifically. But yes an unarmed 100-day warrior would wreck havoc on even a 30-day warrior quite easily. (Assuming the relatively same rate of 'learning').

[musashi]

What's the difference between dodging a slash unarmed and with a tiny dagger in your off hand?  Not much?  If I do this in game I'm going to get slashed almost every time while I'm unarmed but I can still dodge like a madman with any weapon in the off hand...even a pebble or a rock (probably).

It is still a weapon, and something to be wary of.  Your fist is not the same thing.

Clearly ... you have not experienced the fists of Chuck Norris.

[Riev]

Can't this topic just DIE already?