Monks and Fists

[dier_cire]

And if we do have the ability?

Also is the fact that you can't going to be added to the rules? What about those with knockout, since technically, they are allowed to use fists, just for non lethal damage?

Course by adding one word to both skills, the problem is solved... but it also renews the original debate.

Also, thrown rocks and bows aren't listed in the available weapon types.

[Sethreal]

A witch hunter can enchant a weapon. So what if they could enchant themselves to swing one magic with there fist?

[GM_Chris]

I would think a monk/witch hunter or undead slayer could enchant their fists for magic damage

[Varys Snow]

Even though there are few of us monks in the game, I am concerned that if everyone can swing a fist for 1 damage, then you will seriously degrade the utility of the monk discipline.

That said, I also believe that everyone should be able to swing a fist for 1 damage.

To balance it, how about the idea that any damage that a non-monk receives when they are swinging their fist is automatically vorpal damage? This has balance in that people can still swing with their fist, but also shows how quickly they would be beat down in a confrontation (not able to parry, no real defense ability, etc.). The training a monk has would allow them to take normal damage when swinging their fists (as per the current rules).

Of course, for the fist fight scenario, you could drop the vorpal damage and just duke it out. So, rules-wise, maybe even if you are swinging a fist, you would take normal damage if you were attacked by someone else who was unarmed.

[Nelkie]

I guess my main question about this thread is, Why does this new rule need to be added, besides it would be nice to have??

[cole45]

I think the general idea on why the rule is desired is that there is a level of difficulty in the suspension of disbelief when two people become completely unable to defend themselves even when they are trained soldiers. We all know it is possible for a normal human being to beat another human being to death. We've all watched the news and can make a leap of logic. To say that a person can not hit another person until they die feels wrong. It burns the back of the brain and adds yet another step you have to over come.

I can understand the trade off between simplicity and realism. Final haven rules are the line between them. But, This one issue could be easily resolved. The 5 count rule seems pretty good, even better if you make the damage vorpal. That way a monk, fighting a non-monk in hand to hand would still rip them apart. But that way people could at least be left with the ability to fight with out a weapon.

will the game collapse with out the rule? No. Does the rule create distress and decrease the ability to effectively role play? yes.

[Peace420]

Does the rule create distress and decrease the ability to effectively role play? yes.


See I completely disagree with this, you don't need mechanics to roleplay. If you find yourself unarmed, with no more weapons and you happen to have a fist phys rep nothing is stopping you from going at someone with your fist, you just won't be doing any damage.

And yes it's true that a person can beat another person to death, but without a well placed shot to the temple or pushing their nasal bone up into their brain (note, both take alot of skill and training or alot of luck), it's very unlikely that you will beat someone to death with your fists. Believe me, I've seen some BEATDOWNS in my life and ALL of those people lived. Remember the Mailce Green and Rodney King tapes? Those cops had blunt weapons and were going to town and both of those guys lived.

Another point, sometimes realism has to take a backseat to playability and fit into the system in a LARP. In this LARP all weapons do 1 damage. Now would a staff, a dagger and a claymore do the same amount of damage to a persons body? Obviously no, but thats the way the mechanics of the game work.

[cole45]

I absolutely agree that Realism must often take a backseat in a game. ANY game to facilitate game play. However, Mechanics of any game system must assist, not hinder it's roleplaying. The best games are one where the mechanics help fit the mold of the world. Final Haven rules are designed for the maximum amount of realism, balanced with simplicity.

Yes it is possible to RP with out a mechanic. Do mechanics aid roleplaying? Absolutely. Look at some games, (L5R, Seventh Sea, WoD.) Those systems allow, and flavor the game. A person's reasonable fear of death is going to be flavored by how easily MECHANICALLY it is to kill him. It would not be logical to fear death from something that could not kill you.(IE say earth worms.And this is barring irrational fears and the like.) And what determines what can kill you?Mechanics do. Now just an evaluation of fear of death.

As far as beating someone to death, it is far easier to kills some one than you make it out to be. Hundreds of accidental and purposeful killings occur each year. It is totally ridiculous to claim that you have to do a head shot, or be trained to do it. Broken ribs, burst organs, bleeding to death, and many other injuries can and do occur.

But this is all moot anyway. Obviously several people also believe that this is an issue in the mechanics of the game.

[Onimaster]

See I completely disagree with this, you don't need mechanics to roleplay. If you find yourself unarmed, with no more weapons and you happen to have a fist phys rep nothing is stopping you from going at someone with your fist, you just won't be doing any damage.

And I disagree with this. You do need mechanics to roleplay properly. Mechanics and rules are what govern the laws of our universe in the game. Without rules and mechanics we would just be a bunch of guys in the field hitting eachother yelling "Yur dead, yur dead! Nuh Uhh! I use my laser eyes on you! You don't have dose! Do too!" In the same vein rules should be written so that they encapsulate reality and expand on it (Which the guys do a bang up job doing) so that things any person can do should still be there, but when our characters, who are better than average people, show up we can do extraordinary things on top of those basic principals.

The basic debate here is weather someone untraind can hit someone with a limb and hurt them (do damage)... yes. But, is it significant to have it be a number other than 0 in the scope of the rules? That's where it gets fuzzy.

A lot of people think that it should be 1 with lynch pins to make it less useful than a weapon or training, but still there because they (we) think it should be. The other side is that it should be 0 because that's the way the rules work, and that any fights or attacks unarmed should be left into the realm of improvisational roleplay. Which I can also understand.

I rest in favor of the 5 count for 1 damage option. It leaves a mechanic for a basic principal of battle so we don't ask people to brawl with eachother swinging for 0 if they really want to hurt thieir opponent, makes untrained brawl mostly useless in melee as Chris pointed out that charging between hits would be near impossible in close combat, and not walk all over monks abilities.

Also, What would people think about monks abilities being changed like this?:

Monk . common
The Monk.s Discipline is that of contemplation, meditation, and study, but the world is a dangerous place, and the Monk can preserve his place in it. Monks are skilled in hand-to-hand combat but rarely become gripped by the battle fury that marks so many Warriors in this day and age.
All abilities are restricted to medium armor.
Level 1: Ambidexterity
A Monk can fight with two fists for 1 damage, or use a short weapon and fight with their off hand as a fist for 1 damage. First level monks are unable to block with their fists. See page 111 for information on how to make a Final Haven Safe Fist Phys-rep.
Level 2: Iron Fists
The Monk can now block melee weapons with his fists (as a weapon), and the hand ‘safe area’ is increased to include the forearm down to the elbow joint (Monks should not use this boon in an unsafe manner. IE: Purposfully blocking weapons with safe areas in such a way it puts them or others at risk).
Level 3: Ranged Block
Monks are immune to damage from ranged non-magical attacks delivered to the front of their body.
Level 4: Meditate
This ability allows the Monk to go into suspended animation. While in suspended
animation the Monk cannot bleed to death. The Monk can heal a life point every 15 minutes as long as they stay still and meditate but may not heal Poison or Disease. Monks in meditation are aware of their surroundings, will be detected as dead by all means of The Empath Man-at-Arms is like the mystical Warrior, the Sage like a Samurai (the thinking man’s warrior), and the Healer like the Paladin detection, and can choose to speak, but cannot move.

[dier_cire]

I have an issue with the level 2 change, since I'd take it just for the increase in safe area. Between a shield, the sword and that, man, that'd be tough to get through. Ask Aaron how many times I've tagged him on the elbow.

Ultimately, I'd go against the elbow safe area anyway, due to inherit saftey risk. If I'm actively blocking with my arms and weapon, there's too much risk for an elbow or fist to a body part.

I still like the rage and/or hero point allowance, since it's simple and says that a warrior is able to brawl at a level the bookwormy types can't. Plus, monks still have the advantage of two fists and the ability to block over the warrior, but the warrior could win. In real life, a good brawler vs. a good martial artist isn't a clear cut fight.

[WayneO42]

Level 2: Iron Fists
The Monk can now block melee weapons with his fists (as a weapon), and the hand ‘safe area’ is increased to include the forearm down to the elbow joint (Monks should not use this boon in an unsafe manner. IE: Purposfully blocking weapons with safe areas in such a way it puts them or others at risk).

This is not doable simply because of the way we do damage in our system. Our system is designed around global damage rather than hit location specific. To simulate the same effect and be more fitting with the damage concept, you could give them combat reflexes in the form of armour (Like the warrior). I think that gives the monk too much though.

[Onimaster]

I have an issue with the level 2 change, since I'd take it just for the increase in safe area. Between a shield, the sword and that, man, that'd be tough to get through. Ask Aaron how many times I've tagged him on the elbow.

Ultimately, I'd go against the elbow safe area anyway, due to inherit saftey risk. If I'm actively blocking with my arms and weapon, there's too much risk for an elbow or fist to a body part.

I agree on the top issue... Shouldn't be available if someone's using a shield, and a sword is iffy, but I think that it would make monks combat feel more like a martial artist. Maybe make it any hand they have a fist phys-rep in/wielding, and maybe stipulate the change is versus melee attacks only.

I don't see it as a safety issue. People already hit eachother in the arms and as it is. I think if anything it would be safer because monks need to get in closer than most players with people swinging swords near their faces. This would limmit their reach, but enhance what they can protect themselves with.

This is not doable simply because of the way we do damage in our system. Our system is designed around global damage rather than hit location specific. To simulate the same effect and be more fitting with the damage concept, you could give them combat reflexes in the form of armour (Like the warrior). I think that gives the monk too much though.

Yes, but in your non-location specific system there are already safe areas of the body. I'm not suggesting making seperate hit locations that do less damage but altering what constitutes a global location hit.

[WayneO42]

Yes, but in your non-location specific system there are already safe areas of the body. I'm not suggesting making seperate hit locations that do less damage but altering what constitutes a global location hit.

The operative phrase is safe body area. There are legal and illegal target areas on the body for out of game safety reason. I dont want to muddy the waters by then adding mechanical ways to make certain area's "Illegal" targets. This detracts from the game and adds confusion.

Global damage systems are in place to simulate that not every blow struck on an opponent lands the same place in-game as out of game.

Example: You are hiding perfectly still in the darkness for an hour. Finally a lone elf walks close enough without noticing you. You quickly strike out at the elf with your magic Twinky stick of doom calling "30 Crush". Out-of-game You aim for the forearm of the elf with your swing because it is the legal target area you can see the clearest (even thought the elfs head is well within reach and view). The elf happens to be a monk so he ignores your damage and begins the beat down. In Character the blow would have been to the head but as a responsible player you chose a legal target area that you deemed the safest to strike. As you lay on the ground counting out your minute before you bleed to death you have time to contimplate unlearning some skills and picking up second level monk.

[dier_cire]

Wayne has a very good point. Basically, you'll end up with this arguement (vs, an assasin with lvl2 monk):

(rash example)
"2"
"sleep"
"what the hell, you can't do that"
"you hit me in the forearm, and that's an illegal area seeing as I'm a monk."

(less rash)
person cowers in corner
"2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2...."
"fear"
"how are you still alive?"
"I 'm a monk and you hit my forearms"

As for saftey, if I can use my arms to block, they are going to be swinging around at close proximity to someone else's head, which to me is risky. I'm not thinking arm to arm contact, I'm thinking elbow to head. People already hate bashing their knuckles on my shield as if you "batter up" style swing you will hit my shield with em. This could only be worse.

[Ian_McAllister]

To add my two cents again, my main reason for arguing 1 damage for a single fist is merely to see that all characters in the game will always have at least one weapon at their disposal no matter what. From the debates I can see the inherent flaws to this.. for instance a sage catching a fully armored warrior off guard and beating him down... I have been trying to come up with some way, within the rules, to make that less a possibility, but I have seen nothing that really helps yet.

The closest I have seen is Taki's idea of saying a fist swings 0 for non-monks and can be upped by either Raging or a Hero point. This seems fair and would allow anyone (barring the lack of a hero point) to possibly defend themselves in some hopeless situation where you are defensless save for your own hands.

Mind you, you will still most likely die in those situations, but at least you won't feel like you died because of lack of choices.. cause in some instances running away is not an option.. I believe this would give characters just one more option and keep balance in the rules..

So in the rules it would state - "A non-monk can swing 1 fist for 0(zero) damage, you are allowed to Rage to increase this damage or you may spend a hero point to increase this damage. (I would say you cannot combine these, but that could also be left up to debate).