Monks and Fists

[Onimaster]

I can't endorse the life point expendature idea...

I might be talked into a 5 count per swing of 1 just to slow down the fight and make being unarmed really suck, but a rule like that doesn't make sense if your fighting someone who isn't armored.

I agree the fights like this should be roleplayed out, but the rules mechanic should support and facilitate the ability to have tangable conflict with lasting conciquences. I think that a warrior who gets jumped unarmed would still be a strong human trained for battle; who if he/she manages to luckily get the better of say a rogue-assassin trying to backstab them could knock the waiflike stalker out and then curbstomp them to death. It's feesable, and they shouldn't need special training.

Take note that what we are purposing doesn't make this at all likely... Swinging for one (Maximum) with a 6-8 inch weapon without the ability to block anything or parry any uncoming blow, and possibly with a 5 count between attacks. Even if it was a master warrior there is little chance of survival if you try and go into battle with an armed and prepared foe, but there is a chance and even if they somehow win they will be severly injured.

Ried, quit trying to speak for the GMs. You naughty cow-man you... They can change things whenever they like, and we can make suggestions whenever... especially when the question is over a gray area in the rules that effects gameplay for the current events. It's the same situation as trying to do something in the field and asking for a ruling, but now we have the luxury of not being in the field and having them to make a call without consideration or discussion.

[Peace420]

Yeah, In all those movies have you ever seen anyone beaten to death, no, just bumped and bruised. In those same movies there's usually a woman that gets dragged away punching kicking and screaming and nit affecting her abductors at all. If you want to brawl with someone, just roleplay it, take out a fist and punch them calling 0 or not calling anything at all. Why the need to do damage with a fist? JJ roleplayed punching the shit out of younger Quetzel and Matt rolled with it. Matt, if you were taking damage from being kicked by NPC's that's off and probably shouldn't happen but then again the plot staff doesn't have to follow the same rules we do, I've been hit with a 10 by a staff and nearly had my arm cut off by the same NPC. We aren't going to be able to do everything that NPC's ever do.

The weapon disarmed or shattered thing is weak really, carry multiple weapons it's not all that hard really. I'm a lazy ass son of a bitch but even I find a few hours between bong tokes to make a few weapons.

The questions that should be asked about new rules are:
1. Is there a defiency in the rules that needs to be fixed?
2. Will the new rule add unneeded complexity?
3. Is there an obvious need for the new rule?
4. Will it enhance the game without opening up a new can of worms?
5. Is it balanced with the rest of the rules?

Swinging 1 with a fist
1. In this case it's being debated but I still haven't heard a reason other than want. Not a need.
2. No, I don't think it would add unneeded complexity
3. No, you can carry multiple weapons, in fact as many as you can possibly keep on you, make a dagger and pull it out if you find the weapon in your hand gone, takes the same amount of time as getting out a fist phys rep and takes up about the same amount of space on the person.
4. No, it only opens up a new can of worms. (Unarmed warrior vs. anyone else)
5. Hard to tell but I'd say no

Even if you count 5 as a yes that's still only 2 out of 5.

[dier_cire]

Looked over the rules and I have yet to see any gray area. It specifically states in the rules that only the monk may use fists and call damage (pg 112 or 113). And I don't speak for the gms, I speak for what I've read in the rules and past decisions.

I agree with Erik that it is more or less unnecessary and any conflicts can be resolved simply through roleplaying. Fact is, with a shield and a fist, a warrior could still kill pretty much any non warrior, weapon or otherwise.

[Onimaster]

Looked over the rules and I have yet to see any gray area. It specifically states in the rules that only the monk may use fists and call damage (pg 112 or 113). And I don't speak for the gms, I speak for what I've read in the rules and past decisions.

I agree with Erik that it is more or less unnecessary and any conflicts can be resolved simply through roleplaying. Fact is, with a shield and a fist, a warrior could still kill pretty much any non warrior, weapon or otherwise.

No, it says that Monks get to swing two fists for one. There is no mention of non-monk unarmed combat; for or against. So, the question sits in a realm of limbo as a fist is not a weapon and the only discipline that says anything about it starts with being able to swing two fists at once which doesn't eliminate the possibility of an untrained person swinging one fist either; as the only other ability to dual wield anything is a lvl 2 discipline.

The questions that should be asked about new rules are:
1. Is there a defiency in the rules that needs to be fixed?: It seems to me that it is not especially a deficiency as an omission. But, I do think that it makes as much sense for a person to swing a fist for 1 without monk as it does for them to swing any other melee weapon for 1. The standard for melee is that anything that is close quarters does not need a skill to be wielded. I also think that giving everyone some kind of brawling would help balance out swashbuckler, and be more in keeping with how people have been playing in the past.

2. Will the new rule add unneeded complexity?: No, the only complexity has been added for the benefit of people who think that punches should be weakened or restricted in an attempt to meet them half way.

3. Is there an obvious need for the new rule?: Yes, several times in combat someone has been disarmed and wanted to do the adventurous dramatic, and probably suicidal, thing and have at with fists alone. Plus it's a rule I have heard several people ask about at separate times both out of game and in.

4. Will it enhance the game without opening up a new can of worms?: Yes, as it is we are not opening a new can of worms so much as making use of what people have been actively doing already, and it actually would close a can of worms that has been puzzling some players. It would enhance the already existing standard for how fighting works and give something that players could fall back on as the bottom rung on the combat ladder, and offer a fallback other than carrying so many swords at once they look like a heard of porcupines (Which with upkeep is now almost an impossability).

5. Is it balanced with the rest of the rules?: Yes, To my thinking it follows the other standards and actually helps balance things.

[Peace420]

3. Is there an obvious need for the new rule?: <i>Yes, several times in combat someone has been disarmed and wanted to do the adventurous dramatic, and probably suicidal, thing and have at with fists alone. Plus it's a rule I have heard several people ask about at separate times both out of game and in</i>

<b>Wanted to do..</b> not needed to, if that person had a dagger then they would have had another weapon about the same size as a fist phys rep.

4. Will it enhance the game without opening up a new can of worms?:<i> Yes, as it is we are not opening a new can of worms so much as making use of what people have been actively doing already, and it actually would close a can of worms that has been puzzling some players. It would enhance the already existing standard for how fighting works and give something that players could fall back on as the bottom rung on the combat ladder, and offer a fallback other than carrying so many swords at once they look like a heard of porcupines (Which with upkeep is now almost an impossability). </i>

Running away is the bottom rung of combat, sometimes it's the prudent thing to do. What have people been actively doing, using fists as weapons? The only can of worms it closes is can you use a fist phys rep to do one and that answer is no, there will always be questions about the rules, I don't call those cans of worms just clarifications. And it certainly opens up a can of worms, can an assasin deliver poison with a fist, after all it is a weapon, why have daggers at all if you can do 1 with no upkeep? Upkeep is relatively cheap, 1 resource can upkeep 4 weapons for a session. 4 steel could upkeep 4 weapons for the entire year.

5. Is it balanced with the rest of the rules?: <i>Yes, To my thinking it follows the other standards and actually helps balance things.</i>

Please explain how it balances anything? It gives everyone the ability to do damage without a weapon or upkeep at all.

[Onimaster]

3. Wanted to do.. not needed to, if that person had a dagger then they would have had another weapon about the same size as a fist phys rep.

4. Running away is the bottom rung of combat, sometimes it's the prudent thing to do. What have people been actively doing, using fists as weapons? The only can of worms it closes is can you use a fist phys rep to do one and that answer is no, there will always be questions about the rules, I don't call those cans of worms just clarifications. And it certainly opens up a can of worms, can an assasin deliver poison with a fist, after all it is a weapon, why have daggers at all if you can do 1 with no upkeep? Upkeep is relatively cheap, 1 resource can upkeep 4 weapons for a session. 4 steel could upkeep 4 weapons for the entire year.

5. Please explain how it balances anything? It gives everyone the ability to do damage without a weapon or upkeep at all.

3. Well, daggers should be and are a bit longer. I actually think that the 12 inch fist phys-reps are too long and should be limited to 6-8 inches including grip for a fist.

4. Yes, there is always running away... yes, using fists and kicks as weapons, but not in combat and not with phys-reps. Like when JJ was smacking me and when the Cavalers were smacking me... (Man, a lot of people whoop me on a regular basis... lol.) By stating that as example I mean that that is the accepted norm. You hit people... they get hurt.

Can an assassin use a fist to deliver poison... no, a fist is not a weapon and I never claimed it was (Though, I did draw a parallel that it functions like melee as it is a form of close quarters battle). He/she'd have to rub it into open woulds and would be poisoning himself/herself first lol. On the otherhand knockout can be done with a hand as well as a weapon and rogues don't need monk to do it...

You do have me on the upkeep thing. I thought weapons were more expensive to upkeep (once an event rather than once a year). But still, you wanna carry 12 weapons to defend yourself?

5. Your fists do require upkeep... They are a part of your person and you need to pay resources for that every event or be starving. I think it balances things because in real life people can punch and kick and bite. We may not be the experts martial artists are, but a normal person could beat another to death without formal training. I guess when it comes down to it I feel that when stripped of everything every character should have one something to clutch to rather than nothing. I could be wrong, but as an experianced player and gm this is what feels correct when I imagine the variations of sinarios in my head.

Anyway, I have said my piece, and rather than beating a dead horse I'm just gonna wait to hear from the GMs (Unless something new gets brought up).

[dier_cire]

Sorry, it was page 116:

Fist - 1 damage (skill based only)

There is no gray area. That to me is quite clear. Monks are the only ones who can deal fist damage. So, until the Gms decide otherwise, the answer quite difinitively is "no, you cannot use a fist to call 1, if you are disarmed"

[Dallid]

I’d be happy with a 5-count punch. Alternatively I’d suggest the two combatants agree on the fisticuffs rule set before hand. Maybe even call for a GM present. For instance, should Dallid and Ka somehow end up dukeing it out, I’d say that Ka gets two fist phys reps and can block, while Dallid gets one phys rep and considers all damage as vorpal crush. This is to represent the baddest warrior in the land taking on the pacifist healer. Also, I’d say damage never takes a person below zero life. Should Ka wish to kill Dallid, he could just perform an 'I-slit-your-throat-you're-dead' move after Dallid's unconcious.

[Onimaster]

Sorry, it was page 116:

Fist - 1 damage (skill based only)

There is no gray area. That to me is quite clear. Monks are the only ones who can deal fist damage. So, until the Gms decide otherwise, the answer quite difinitively is "no, you cannot use a fist to call 1, if you are disarmed"

Yep, he's right. There it is, I stand corrected; it is in the rules. Thanks Eric.

::Nods with Dallid:: Not a bad idea... Could lump a targeted 5 or 10 count fist for one with the rule about spending a life point to break a weapon to do vorpal. Make it a non-point everyperson skill use. The only thing I don't like about the aside fisticufs thing is that you have to break character to request it... otherwise I would love the idea of brawling being like a mini combat that only leaves a person knocked out.

[GM_Chris]

What about the starving dude austersized by the community sneaks up behind a fully armored warrior whoes weapon is not drawn and in 10 seconds hits him 20 times before the sorry fool can even draw his weapon.

Is it possible for an untrained, and I mean completely untrained person to wrestle, box, and kick a well armoured person weilding a sword and win before dieing?

Chris

[Onimaster]

What about the starving dude ostracized by the community sneaks up behind a fully armored warrior whose weapon is not drawn and in 10 seconds hits him 20 times before the sorry fool can even draw his weapon.

Is it possible for an untrained, and I mean completely untrained person to wrestle, box, and kick a well armored person wielding a sword and win before dieing?

Chris

Well, then the fully armored warrior would still have a bit of soak left and a real weapon to do the 1-5 points to kill starving pissant... And will have to get his armor repaired by a mocking armorer for having been foolish and let someone get the drop on him.

But to answer your question... No, probably not before dieing. But, he might get in a few good hits before he fell. Or, maybe in the last moments of a fight, a warrior's last weapon gets shattered and both combatants are inches from death with a bus load of orphans just over the hero's shoulder begging for them to protect them at any cost... So, the hero sighs and either stands there, runs away, or lets himself get eaten because he's helpless.

I've never stated that the battle between someone unarmed against someone in armor and with a sword would be a fair fight... just that I think it would be better not to shut out something an average person might do faced with a situation like that, or if there are two people who want to face off weaponless in a fit of anger the rules allow it.

The more I think about it, the more I am in support of the 5 count for one skill as the easy balanced sensible solution. Then you can't machine gun, your still minimally effective, a starving or poison-weakened character can't do it, it reflects the increased difficulty of untrained brawling, and adds to the game.

[GM_Chris]

A 5 count would be interrupted it would be like not having a weapon.

How in the world would you deliver 1 point of damage via a fist without being hit. Even if you managed it how would you do it again, and if you could do it again..why are you not caring a second weapon?

That is also against the rest of the base skill abilities.

[dier_cire]

What about the warrior who sneaks up behind that same guard? In real life, he'd just swing at his head and probably kill him. However, we'd do 2 or 3. I'd chalk that up to in the game world the guy getting hit isn't completely oblivious (though the player may be) and he saw the hit coming enough to only take some damage.

So for the starving dude, well, he's just sol as trained people in game don't get completely off guard, mechanically. Now if the starving dude had a level of monk (which could just signify he got beat up a lot) then he can go to town on em.

[Donovan Thynedar]

Well, the short answer is yes. It is possible for a naked paraplegic to fight down a veteran soldier in full armor. It's bloody unlikely, but it's possible.

Now, from a quick skim of the posts in this thread, it seems the issue is whether or not there is the need for an untrained, unarmed mechanic in the rules of the game. The rules of themselves cannot be stretched to cover every situation (we certainly don't need a mechanic to cover someone using their head as a weapon - though the forehead phys rep would be interesting...), but is this a situation that warrants a mechanic?

Looking at it, I can see precident on both sides. Arguing for a mechanic, one could say that since anyone can swing any weapon for 1, being untrained does not prohibit a person from doing damage. It would also allow for the aspects of brawling combat that some people are trying to incorporate. Arguing against, one can point to disciplines such as Archer and Grenedier that are necessary to do damage in a certain context. The roleplaying argument works for both sides, since the combat can inhance the RP environment for some people or detract from it for others. The only flaw with Dallid's suggestion is the difficulty of mutual agreement. In a perfect world, everyone would be able to agree on such impromptu rules without any enforcement - but in that world we could just RP everything and wouldn't need a system at all. If there is a disagreement, we'd need some way of resolving it, and that puts us back at square one again.

So, let's make some comparisons.

Sure, anyone can punch someone, just as anyone can throw a rock or shoot a bow. I believe the idea behind Archer and Grenedier (in addition to preventing everyone and their mother from using missile attacks) is that their skill (shot placement, force, etc.) is what allows them to do damage. Monk, under the current rules, is the discipline that covers the same principle for unarmed combat. The rules state explicitly that unarmed damage can only be done by skilled individuals, so there's no "gray area" as Reid said. I see the melee rules as being representitive of the weapon's dangerous nature, and not as a universal statement of personal damage potential.

Now, as to the "wanted to do"/"needed to do" argument, I see a different issue. No one needs to do anything. We don't need seperate mechanics for crush, vorpal, different weapons, or anything of the sort. They have been incorporated because people wanted the elements that they added to the game. Could fisticuffs add an element to the game? Sure it could. Is there anyone who wants to see that element added? I can count at least one, and that makes it discussion worthy at the least.

So I'd propose we re-focus our debate as to how we could make such an implementation instead of whether or not we should. We're certainly not going to adopt a crappy mechanic (even for something that desperately needs a mechanic), so let's see if we can come up with something workable first. We can argue about actually using it later.

The first thing that pops into my head is to say that anyone can swing for 0 (that's right, zero) with a fist phys rep. Normal folks can pummel themselves stupid and RP the results as Dallid suggested, and it leaves two ways for real damage to be dealt. I would allow warriors to rage and swing for 1 with a single fist, and I would allow anyone to spend a hero point and swing a single fist for 1. It uses current mechanics, highlights the skill of the warrior, and gives that last ditch "heroic" option for everyone else.

Thoughts?

[GM_Chris]

Please can you adress why you want a fist over multiple weapons.