Unarmed with two weapons

[Greg Smith]

If a character is fighting unarmed, does he count as having two weapons? He has two fists, plus feet and a head. So does he gain an extra CA?

As a corollary, does a character armed with a 1-H weapon count as having a second weapon for an additional CA?

 

[Loz]

If a character is fighting unarmed, does he count as having two weapons? He has two fists, plus feet and a head. So does he gain an extra CA?

No, and...

As a corollary, does a character armed with a 1-H weapon count as having a second weapon for an additional CA?

...No.

I can see where you're going, but no in both cases.

 

[Dan True]

You could rule that people who have learned proper martial arts would get +1 CA for dual wielding, as they have solved the balance and momentum issue with striking with both hands. But for ordinary pub fist-fighting it should not be kept vanilla.

- Dan

 

[Jujitsudave]

I would rule that if you really wanted to push the issue, you could have a 1 handed weapon and COULD gain an extra CA if you want to use an unarmed attack, provided that you are already in short range.

.....so could NPCs.....

For example PC has a spear, enemy has a dagger and both normally have 2 CAs.

PC hits (1 CA) NPC defends (1 CA)
NPC goes to short range (2 CAs) PC allows him but attacks on opponent's way in (2 CA's)
PC attacks unarmed (extra CA) NPC gets hit (no more CAs)

 

[Clanger]

Loz instead of just saying "No" explain why not.

Personally I do not see why not. Some era of Combat Styles do infact use body limbs in attacks with weapons.

I can see settings like Clockwork and Chivalry hitting with a sword then kicking or elbowing or punching or head butting the opponent is a matter of course (look at films and shows from that era they some times do this stuff). You could get anal and have a combat style for every conceivable combinations. But this gets too number crunchie.

Personally if you have a Combat Style of Unarmed I would count that as a trained use.

Also PC's I always thought are meant to be Heroic and a little above the common minion. I would say give the PC's an extra attack as unarmed if they have the skill as and limb can be use. Thrust with a sword then kick the opponent off your sword and down (see this happen in films).

 

[Simulacrum]

I don't know if it is "official" usage or not - but in my rulings the bonus CA is only available if you are using a combat style that specifically incorporates 2 weapon use (e.g. Rapier and Main Gauche) - and that includes noting whether a style is "and shield" or just for the weapon (so I don't award the extra CA just because you are carrying a weapon or shield or any other object in your left hand). I'd only allow the spare fist or foot to provide an extra CA if a specific martial arts style were in play (and that could be a one good way to distinguish a martial art from simple "unarmed"). Otherwise it seems to me the off-hand opportunities are all wrapped up in manoeuvres. Or I'm just very stingy.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I suspect you are thinking too narrowly. I don't think you get an extra CA if you are armed with two weapons/Weapon & Shield because you can (theoretically) attack with both, but because you have more tactical options than an opponent who is only armed with a single weapon.

If you allow an unarmed man to count as "armed with two weapons" then yes, it would seem to follow that someone armed with a 1h weapon and a bare hand should also count as "armed with two weapons", but then you are giving an extra CA to anyone not armed with a 2H weapon, and disarming your opponent is less of an advantage.

Annecdotally, way back in the mists of time, when "Rubber sword" type Live action was just taking off, I recall reading an article by someone who had been sparring with a friend who had got quite involved with a group. The author was a novice, and noted that even without any special training, having a weapon in the "off hand" made a significant difference. (And this makes sense - you generally aren't going to want to parry a sword with your bare hand...)

 

[Deleriad]

I tend to agree. If sword & unarmed counts as a dual wield style then so presumably would sword and head butt meaning that everyone ends up with an extra CA.

As I've said before, I tend to think that the bonus CA for a dual wield style possibly causes more problems than it solves. I do basically play the game RAW but if I didn't, I would remove the dual wield bonus. That said, it's not exactly a major issue and when used for its central purpose (giving sword and shield a significant bonus) it works well.

 

[SnowDog]

Isn't there a combat action that uses unarmed attacks (like kicks or punches)? I would say that it covers that.

 

[Da Boss]

Which one do you mean?

Still unsure why unarmed combat is penalised - its already controlled by the damage output for natural weapons and size of weapons in battelfield situations?

What may work is to say that Unarmed Combat is no longer a generic skill but a proper Combat Style and you only gain an extra CA if you are skilled in this CS? However this may just mean everyone buys it.............

RQ/D100 has never been great at handling unarmed (speaking as someone who loves D100 system) - its normally glossed over and only really explored in settings with martial arts.............not sure why given the importance of bare knuckled fighting and wrestling in so many cultures.

 

[gran_orco]

Loz instead of just saying "No" explain why not.

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
He says "no" because he has done RuneQuest. He does not need more explanations. He should know the rules better than nobody. Do not you think? :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

[Loz]

Okay, let’s take a look at some basic concepts for combat.

All characters and creatures have a base number of CAs based on INT & DEX.

1 Additional CA is granted for dual weapon use – whether two offensive weapons, or one offensive and one defensive.

Applying this logic to Unarmed (disregard martial arts for now) could give you…

+1 CA for an additional fist attack
+1 CA for each potential kick
+1 CA for a head-butt

If you want to take the use of attacks to its logical extreme. You could argue, then, that an unarmed human with base 3 CA could gain +4 CA for his unarmed options, or 7 CA in a combat round. Of course, you can also argue that all the unarmed options can be applied to armed combatants too, to ensure parity. The fact is that large numbers of CAs become impractical – especially in combats with lots of participants.

If you restrict this just to unarmed, then this would give unarmed opponents a seriously large advantage over armed opponents: availability of CAs in combat being the key resource.
Now let’s apply the logic to mammals… say a tiger (because the rules apply equally to creatures and humans).

Base CA of 3
+1 for each fore claw
+1 for each hind claw
+1 for its large jaws

You now have a tiger with 8 CAs – and bear in mind the larger damage bonus for its STR and SIZ. Imagine a dragon…

The CA limitations are there, really, to prevent this level of CA inflation from reaching unmanageable levels and to ensure a certain level of parity across different species of opponents in a combat. The additional CA for dual weapons/weapon & shield is there to represent and reward the specifics of that style: the training and finesse of the combat method.

I do agree that martial arts styles could benefit from additional CAs and I wouldn’t have any objection in a particular martial arts combat style being represented in this way. But general brawling is probably more a matter of brute force and adrenalin rather than a disciplined application of technique.

 

[Clanger]

In your description Loz I think the you have taken it to an extreme. The idea is that unarmed is treated as an body attack and not broken down into fist, kick, head butt etc.

Also Gran Orco I have no idea who Loz is as I am new to the RQ2 area of the forums. By our statement I should automatically know who he is.

 

[ThatGuy]

In your description Loz I think the you have taken it to an extreme. The idea is that unarmed is treated as an body attack and not broken down into fist, kick, head butt etc.

Also Gran Orco I have no idea who Loz is as I am new to the RQ2 area of the forums. By our statement I should automatically know who he is.

For clarity's sake, Loz and Mongoose Pete are the authors of the MRQ2 Core rulebook. Their continued presence, accessibility and patience is greatly appreciated by most of us here, and while they are supremly tolerant of house rules (and, I say with my absolute highest compliments, appreciation respect and maybe a little awe- criticisms!) they generally are the accepted authorities on, at least, the intent of the rules.

At least by me. :lol:

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Loz has very nicely summed up the dangers of taking the principle of extra CAs too far. What we wanted was to preserve the edge that a shield or off-hand weapon gives a fighter in comparison to a 2-h-weapon user. +1 CA was a simple elegant way of doing this.

In principle Unarmed could receive +1 CA too if you really wanted to houserule it, but the way I personally view the skill is that its already a whole-body combat style and has no need of other advantages to give it parity with armed combat styles.

On the other hand I have no problem with players wishing to substitute one of their armed CA's to make an Unarmed attack - assuming they are within range. Punching or grappling is a standard part of a 2-h-weapon user's repertoire if someone closes on them. Likewise nothing stops a sword & dagger fighter from kicking or headbutting an opponent, whether being closed upon or simply not wishing to kill his foe.

As always YRQMV, do what feels right for the style of game you are running.

 

[Dan True]

But remember: your RuneQuest will vary.

To me, it makes perfect sense that two fists does not grant an additional CA. The reason is that unless you're trained in some martial arts, there are several issues to striking with both fists.

If I hit a person with my right fist, I will have to move myself close to him in order to strike properly and I will have to put a lot of weight on my right side (which potentially can throw me off balance if I am not careful). Now, if I would want to strike him with my left fist shortly after I hit him with my right (in rule terms, expend my +1 CA for dual wielding hands) my hand will be too close to him to gain proper momentum, my balance will be off to the right and therefore hinder my ability to strike with the left hand.
Before I can strike him with my left hand, I must regain balance and move away a bit to gain proper momentum (striking from 20 cm away doesn't hurt enough to validate 1D3 damage). In rule terms the potential I had for a +1 CA will be spent on going back half a metre and regaining my posture.

These problems are different in armed combat (they are there! But in my experience one needs to be a pretty good swordsman to take advantage of things like this - something that is already reflected in the combat rules via extra CAs and higher skill level). In armed combat the dagger still hurts even if it only had 10 cm to gain momentum.

If one wants to take things into extreme realism, one could rule that a person can dual wield a free hand and a dagger, as long as the dagger is used by the off hand (else the hand would still not gain enough momentum to strike properly). This could allow for situation where one stealthily draws a dagger in a fist fight, then jams it up the opponents abdomen when locked tight... Cool rule, but something the game designers properly avoided because too many special rules tend to slow down gameplay... But albeit it a possibility.

- Dan

 

[Redcrow]

I don't really see any problem with allowing an additional CA for an unarmed strike. I probably couldn't count the number of movies I've seen in which someone wielding a sword delivers a punch to the face with their off-hand or even a knee-strike to the groin. Though admittedly it usually only happens once during the combat rather than during each exchange. Some may consider that overly cinematic, but I personally don't feel it breaks the realm of believability. Once you take weapon range into consideration it only becomes a viable option at close range and in certain circumstances.

 

[Faelan Niall]

To me, it makes perfect sense that two fists does not grant an additional CA. The reason is that unless you're trained in some martial art, especially in an asian one as they embody speed and precision, there are several issues to striking with both fists.

I intend to offer no offense in this, however you struck a pet peeve of mine. Martial Arts or rather Unarmed Combat Fighting systems are in no way, shape or form, of any greater or lesser value based on whether they are Asian or not. Neither do they have any greater precision or speed by virtue of being an "Asian Martial Art".

 

[Dan True]

To me, it makes perfect sense that two fists does not grant an additional CA. The reason is that unless you're trained in some martial art, especially in an asian one as they embody speed and precision, there are several issues to striking with both fists.

I intend to offer no offense in this, however you struck a pet peeve of mine. Martial Arts or rather Unarmed Combat Fighting systems are in no way, shape or form, of any greater or lesser value based on whether they are Asian or not. Neither do they have any greater precision or speed by virtue of being an "Asian Martial Art".

Okay, if you say so. In my head I was comparing Karate and pub-fighting... I don't really know enough about true western martial arts - so if you say so I'll retract that.

 

[Loz]

In your description Loz I think the you have taken it to an extreme. The idea is that unarmed is treated as an body attack and not broken down into fist, kick, head butt etc.

Also Gran Orco I have no idea who Loz is as I am new to the RQ2 area of the forums. By our statement I should automatically know who he is.

Yes, its an extreme, but not a far-fetched one. I can think of several players I know personally who'd argue, until blue in the face, for just the sort of lee-way I've illustrated.

All that said, if you do feel that unarmed is deserving of an additional CA and you can either a) convince your GM to allow it or b) you are the GM and decide to allow it, then by all means go ahead. When I said 'No' it really was to reflect the intention of the rules and wasn't meant to limit how you feel the game should be run and flow.

It really is your RQ. Experiment, find a good mix, and have fun!

BTW, this is an interesting debate. I like interesting debates.