Unarmed skill

[canology]

It seems to me that it is easier to hit someone with a fist or kick than to use a sword, so in my two campaigns I am running I have made the base skill for Unarmed equal to (Str+Dex+10).

That just feels better to me.

Any comments, suggestions, etc?

Anybody else doing this or something like it?

 

[weasel_fierce]

I use it as written, assuming that a weapon gives a big psychological boost, as well as aid in keeping the enemy at bay, but yeah, having unarmed at just STR is a bit weak.

 

[simonh]

It seems to me that it is easier to hit someone with a fist or kick than to use a sword...

You have to get a lot closer to the target, and have no leverage or extra weight behind the blow so I'd say it's a lot harder.

Swipe your fist across in front of you as fast as you can. Now hold a 3ft stick and swish the end of it past you as fast as you can. It will describe a much bigger arc in the same time due to the extra leverage you get and the increased length of the arc, so a blow with a weapon will land a lot faster too and thus be harder for an opponent to avoid.

 

[canology]

It seems to me that it is easier to hit someone with a fist or kick than to use a sword...

You have to get a lot closer to the target, and have no leverage or extra weight behind the blow so I'd say it's a lot harder.

Swipe your fist across in front of you as fast as you can. Now hold a 3ft stick and swish the end of it past you as fast as you can. It will describe a much bigger arc in the same time due to the extra leverage you get and the increased length of the arc, so a blow with a weapon will land a lot faster too and thus be harder for an opponent to avoid.

But wouldn't that be a function of damage? I understand that the extra leverage imparted by a weapon increases the velocity, but surely that is handled by the fact that weapons do quite a bit more damage than a fist.

As for being harder to avoid, is that what a higher skill represents? I see the logic you are using, that faster strike is harder to avoid, but is that what the numbers in MRQ are portraying?

 

[simonh]

I suppose the speed argument is debatable - I'd say that in normal combat you're fighting an alert, moving target and so it's a factor. I'd expect to give, or get bonuses to hit unmoving targets, for example.

However the additional reach a weapon gives is also a major factor.

Take rubber weapons (please, take them and never bring them back...) at least they demonstrate that even though they do no damage whatsoever, it's much easier to hit a target with a rubber sword than with a fist.

 

[Adept]

I suppose the speed argument is debatable - I'd say that in normal combat you're fighting an alert, moving target and so it's a factor. I'd expect to give, or get bonuses to hit unmoving targets, for example.

However the additional reach a weapon gives is also a major factor.

Take rubber weapons (please, take them and never bring them back...) at least they demonstrate that even though they do no damage whatsoever, it's much easier to hit a target with a rubber sword than with a fist.

I disagree with the logic here. Humans (like other mammals) have some inborn ability to fight unarmed. We don't have an inborn skill for swordplay.

The sword skill reflects the characters training and understanding of the tempo and reach of his weapon, and also his skill at defending against enemy attacks with it. I like to see decent defaults for brawling and wrestling. Any human has some skill in both, where as swordplay really does start pretty low.

 

[frogspawner]

It's not inborn (babies can't punch) but, by maturity, people have had about twenty years worth of practice, by scrapping with siblings or whoever.
So keep the base skill rule the same but, if you think it necessary in your campaign, allow characters a bonus due to their tough upbringing (say +Dex%, if you like...)

 

[Adept]

But the rules still say that an adult character starts with str percentiles in unarmed attack, don't they? That seems pretty silly.

 

[weasel_fierce]

I've rnu it as written because I try to run a game for 4 sessions or so, before changing anything, but yeah, its an easy change to just have it equal to your weapon skill (STR+DEX).

 

[simonh]

Fighting unarmed is learned like any other skill. Some cultures have raised their kids to use various weapons as soon as they're able to hold them. Like I said, give one kid in a playground a 'safe' weapon (so damage isn't an issue) approximating a sword in weight and size and match him against another unarmed kid and see who lands the most effective blows in a minute. I'm betting heavily on the armed one.

Human beings are born tool users, to enhance our effectiveness, and a weapon is just a kind of tool used in fighting. It's what we as a species do best.

 

[Adept]

Fighting unarmed is learned like any other skill. Some cultures have raised their kids to use various weapons as soon as they're able to hold them. Like I said, give one kid in a playground a 'safe' weapon (so damage isn't an issue) approximating a sword in weight and size and match him against another unarmed kid and see who lands the most effective blows in a minute. I'm betting heavily on the armed one.

But what has that got to do with anything? Take a person who is really, really good at fighting unarmed (freeform fisticuffs, rather than martial arts*), and then match him with a regula guy with a baseball bat. The guy with the bat is very likely to beat him up easily. That is not because the batguy has a higher skill, it's because he has a weapon with reach.

Parhaps you think the weapon skill means something quite different than what I think it means.

A contest between a guy with sword 60% and a guy with unarmed 60% is not equal, and I'm not talking about damage. It's incredibly difficult going against somebody with even a modest advantage in reach (like a sword that is 5 - 10 cm longer than yours... uh, 2 - 4 inches, that is). Unarmed vs. a big stick (sword, bat...) means you have to be really artful.

*because when one brings up MA, five different people will tell you at least six versions of what they really can do.

-Adept

 

[canology]

Well, after reading through these replies and doing some thinking, I've decided to just make Unarmed Str+Dex (rather than adding the extra +10 to that).

While, I understand that an unarmed person is at a disadvantage against an armed person, two unarmed characters should have a fairly good chance to land a blow on each other.

What I *did* decide to do is add a Reach attribute to weapons and make attacks against opponents with longer weapons suffer a -10% penalty and give the character with the longer weapon a +10% to parry the shorter weapon. This is assuming that the fight is occuring at the optimal reach for the longer weapon, if not, the penalties could be reversed.

I'm just not sure of the exact way I'll implement this.

As a related aside, I don't have any real issues with the MRQ system I just tend to like my combat system to be grittier and have more detail. I think that the system itself is robust enough to take these "add-ons" without distorting what is arguably, a rather simple system.
(I'm adding this to explain my reasoning to the players who feel no need at all for extra rules and more detail, it's just a preference thing).

 

[Magistus]

But what has that got to do with anything? Take a person who is really, really good at fighting unarmed (freeform fisticuffs, rather than martial arts*), and then match him with a regula guy with a baseball bat. The guy with the bat is very likely to beat him up easily. That is not because the batguy has a higher skill, it's because he has a weapon with reach.

Parhaps you think the weapon skill means something quite different than what I think it means.

A contest between a guy with sword 60% and a guy with unarmed 60% is not equal, and I'm not talking about damage. It's incredibly difficult going against somebody with even a modest advantage in reach (like a sword that is 5 - 10 cm longer than yours... uh, 2 - 4 inches, that is). Unarmed vs. a big stick (sword, bat...) means you have to be really artful.

*because when one brings up MA, five different people will tell you at least six versions of what they really can do.

-Adept

And it's not just because of reach, the guy with the bat also now has leverage, and something solid that will cause more damage in a single blow than a fist can cause. So while the guy with the bat may not be as good as a fighter as the guy with no weapons he can generally keep the fist fighter back and if he should connect with the bat, generally it is then all over for the fist fighter and adept is pointing out.

 

[Quire]

But what has that got to do with anything?

You appear to be arguing the exact same point Simon H was making, Adept.

- Q

 

[Adept]

But what has that got to do with anything?

You appear to be arguing the exact same point Simon H was making, Adept.

- Q

I don't think so. Simon seems to be saying that because a person with a sword has an advantage over a person with no weapon, the default skill with a sword has to be higher than the default skill of unarmed. This is flawed logic.

The comparison should be: Put two novices fighting with bare fists, and other two novices fighting with swords. Which pair seems to know what they are doing (and I can assure you, it won't be the pair with swords).

 

[simonh]

I don't think so. Simon seems to be saying that because a person with a sword has an advantage over a person with no weapon, the default skill with a sword has to be higher than the default skill of unarmed. This is flawed logic.

The comparison should be: Put two novices fighting with bare fists, and other two novices fighting with swords. Which pair seems to know what they are doing (and I can assure you, it won't be the pair with swords).

I don't think that realy matters. Whether people with a startign skill in sword, or fist, or anythign start at 20%, or 30% or 50% doesn't matter if they're up against anoher character with the same weapon at the same skill level. A level playing field is all that's realy important.

What is important is how you compare fighters with different weapons. If a sword is easier to wield than an axe, and a sword fighter is up against an equaly (in)competent axe fighter then swords should have a higher base chance to hit than axes. That way the game system will reasonably accurately simulate reality.

In RuneQuest, if you gave Fist Attack a +10% base, then in an RQ combat between two so armed characters, the fist figher will on average land more blows on the sword figher than the sword fighter lands on him - which is ludicrous.

Now yes you could mod the rules as well to give an advantage for reach which might alleviate this grossly unrealistic outcome, but that's a seperate issue and isn't the suggestion that was made (see orriginal post in this thread).

 

[Exubae]

In RuneQuest, if you gave Fist Attack a +10% base, then in an RQ combat between two so armed characters, the fist figher will on average land more blows on the sword figher than the sword fighter lands on him - which is ludicrous.

I agree with what your saying, reach should be be taken into account...

But not too sure about you logic about landing more blows.
As it stands a dagger hasn't got more reach than a fist yet it isn't penalised against a sword/longer weapons.
Using this point there is no reason not have a starting skill in unarmed the same as armed.

If we take maneuvering into account, weapons would need an optimum range for their use, that when you get up close their use is restricted, and when exceeded they become useless.
But it adds one heck of a level of complication to combat, not only will you be trying to hit your opponent, you'll also be trying to maintain an optimum distance.

Get up close to a swords man, all you he can use unarmed or at best the butt of sword.
Same goes with a pike, if he can engage his enemy swordsman, the swords man isn't going to get a hit in.

 

[simonh]

But not too sure about you logic about landing more blows.

I'd argue that any sharp weapon is easier to land a blow with, because pretty much any blow is likely to cause significant damage. Landing a damaging blow with a fist or kick is harder than landing a damaging blow with a knife, and that's what the game system cares about. You're probably right though that the ballance in starting skill between knives and swords could be adjusted.

If we take maneuvering into account, weapons would need an optimum range for their use, that when you get up close their use is restricted, and when exceeded they become useless.

That's true of any weapon, and of unarmed combat too. Look at the way boxers or martial artists dance around each other and move in and out of range for feints and strikes.

Get up close to a swords man, all you he can use unarmed or at best the butt of sword.
Same goes with a pike, if he can engage his enemy swordsman, the swords man isn't going to get a hit in.

This is all true, though with most swords you can pull back your arm to bring the point level with your own body, to thrust at a close-in enemy, or cut at them with the edge. It's far more of a problem with axes, and pole weapons as you say.

I'm all for simple rules, and dislike reach rules mainly becasue that can usualy be handled just by an apropriate balance bewteen the base attack chances as I have pointed out. However very long weapopns such as spears are difficult to handle well using the basic rules and some kind of closing rule might be needed. However I'd prefer to handle that as a special rule, rather than complicate all combat with a reach rule that applies to everything.

 

[Exubae]

This is all true, though with most swords you can pull back your arm to bring the point level with your own body, to thrust at a close-in enemy, or cut at them with the edge. It's far more of a problem with axes, and pole weapons as you say.

Pulling back a sword when your being hugged isn't an easy task, hence most swords (Sword over 3' at least) pommels ended up being more pronounced (not just for balance) to strike with.

The problem what your describing Simon is actual injury from a blow rather than connecting with a target, perhaps unarmed damage should be changed rather than crippling the base skill level.

I don't like the idea of expanding combat to include maneuvering as combat doesn't need slowing down any further, perhaps tweaking fist/foot damage is a better option.

 

[simonh]

The problem what your describing Simon is actual injury from a blow rather than connecting with a target, perhaps unarmed damage should be changed rather than crippling the base skill level.

I'm not advocating crippling anything, just the logic behind an 'ideal' RQ basce skill level system, in my opinion.

I don't like the idea of expanding combat to include maneuvering as combat doesn't need slowing down any further, perhaps tweaking fist/foot damage is a better option.

IMHO combat skills include manouevering for possition.