Is unarmed combat underpowered?

[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?