Monks and Fists

[Onimaster]

Did we ever get a ruling on non-monk fists? I know someone had asked that characters should be able to punch when disarmed, but someone thought only monks could fight unarmed at all. The way I read it is that monks can dual wield fist phys-reps; where a normal person can only use one to defend themselves unarmed.

[GM_Chris]

Actually that is reading into something that doesnt exist. A non monk as of right now cannot use a fist and even if they could would still not be able to block.

Chris

[Ravinal]

I think he is asking if it would be okay for the standard to be anyone can use a onehanded fist physrep and not be able to block with it. This would allow for people who are disarmed to not be completely unable to defend themselves.

[Onimaster]

Correct Ravinal.

Because, I think monks should be much better at doing extraordinary things unarmed, but any fool can throw a punch at some slob in a bar.

I know Soco was also asking about this when he was completely disarmed and wanted to start beating on things with his bare fists as a last ditch.

Something like, unarmed characters may use a single fist phys-rep one handed to attack for 1, but any incoming swings cannot be blocked by a fist without levels of monk.

[dier_cire]

Should a fist really do as much damage as a knife or sword or club? Ultimately, you're bringing a knife to a gun fight. If you want to have a weapon while disarmed, take a level of monk. This debate was solved when rocks weren't allowed to be used without grenadier. Same logic follows here.

On a side note, the second part of 2nd level monk still reads funny. you gain the ability to use a short sized weapon (aka dagger) and a fist... so basically, you get +6" to hit/block with on one hand but can be disarmed... neat, sure. Awkward reading, yup.

[Onimaster]

Yes, a fist should do as much damage as a knife or a club because 1 is the minimum damage for the larp mechanic, unless you count zero. There are other factors that would represent the disadvantage of brawling against someone with a sword such as reach, parrying, enhancing disciplines, and so on.

The way the first level of monk is written it is more like Florentine. It states it allows for using two fists, but no blocking.

I can understand the theory that to do any kind or ranged attack you need a discipline, but no other weapons need training to do minimum damage. I dislike the idea that someone without weapons and armor can't do anything but stand there and bleed if cornered.

If I were to offer a suggestion I'd say let everyone punch one handed for one (With no machine gunning allowed, or maybe require a rear attack to get the needed force to do 1 point allowing monks to be cool because they have speed and power twice 'normal' people). Then combine level 1 and 2 monk into a new lvl 1, and write in a new lvl 2 for monks. (Allowing to block with weapons that small seems pretty tame for a lvl 1)

[dier_cire]

I can understand the theory that to do any kind or ranged attack you need a discipline, but no other weapons need training to do minimum damage. I dislike the idea that someone without weapons and armor can't do anything but stand there and bleed if cornered.

technically, they can die too. Uber fantasy aside, punching (trained or otherwise) at someone with a sword on you gets you dead in a hurry, barring the person with the sword is an idiot.

currently, fists are very similar to bows and rocks. They require a skill to use have a particular bonus (range and undisarmable respectively), but neither is very useful in a melee fight against a guy with a sword. Mechanically, the two work. The only gripe I see is people don't like being disarmed. Well, take parry, or find a spell, etc. Use the rules as they are. There's still plenty of opportunity to not stand and bleed.

[Peace420]

I agree with Ried, If you look at the mechanics with fists doing 1 the only reason to have a weapon is reach. I can understand the want to have a way to do damage when you're unarmed, but it's only 20 points to get the skill to do so if you are common. My advice, carry multiple weapons, I usually have 3-5 if I go anywhere.

[dier_cire]

I agree with Ried.

(as he snorts sprite out his nose)

[Dallid]

A non-monk can’t do damage with fists. If a person without hand-to-hand training attempts to punch a trained swordsman, he’s dead before his fist can land – before he can cause any harm.

The only exception to this I can think of is if two unarmed non-monk opponents want to fight. Unlikely to happen, I'd think.

[Onimaster]

The only exception to this I can think of is if two unarmed non-monk opponents want to fight. Unlikely to happen, I'd think.

Why? How often in a medival setting (or any game) like this have two characters gotten pissed at eachother started an argument and just took a swing that dissolved into a bare knuckle brawl? How many times has Taki had to pull people apart in the bar...

Not to mention that when I was on the floor of the Inn being kicked and punched by cavaleers as an npc I was taking real damage, and I doubt they were monks. It's not just the being disarmed instance I think people should be able to punch, but as it is if two characters have a temper tantrum the only way to RP it out is to draw blades and hack at eachother. Basically this would be saying that if you have someone tied up you need a monk to beat the crap out of him.

[Dallid]

Because anytime someone seeking to kill another person (do damage) has a weapon available, they'll use it.

I'm sure something can be worked out with the GMs in the odd situation where no weapon is available and people are trying to kill each other. Again, this is very unlikely to happen.

If you want to engage in a non-lethal bar room brawl (ie, no damage called), there's no mechanics currently available for that. It'd have to be RPed. But, again, I've never seen this happen. Normally it's either <Nervepinch> or 'Let's step outside and draw swords'

[Ian_McAllister]

All realism aside about bringing a Fist to a Sword fight. I really don't understand the problem with a completely unarmed person being able to use a single fist phys-rep to swing 1. I mean really.. if you are disarmed, or your weapon is shattered, you can should be able to swing with your fist... you will most certainly die.. but at least you went out fighting.

It does say in the rules any character can pick up any melee weapon and swing for 1.. I don't see why a single fist would not count as well.

[Ravinal]

So apparently there can never be any drunken bar fights around the fishing village, because everyone would either hit for zero or wouldn't be able to swing their fists because they 'aren't trained'. Im sorry but I do not agree with Reid.

I feel that a person should be able to swing one fist for one damage without training. Of course they would die against a trained person with a sword. And the inherant advantage of having a weapon against having just one fist would be reach. Also the ablity to parry weapons in general. As of the first level of monk, with no monk training you wouldn't be able to machine gun your attack. So why not make it legal to have a fist physrep? What is the harm in allowing it? It wouldn't step on the toes of any fist level monk. A first level monk would still school anyone disarmed and using just one fist. I can see fist fights making a interesting addition to Final haven.

There isn't a disipline that allows you to use a melee weapon. Anyone can just pick up a melee weapon and swing it for one. Disiplines just augment the use of melee weapons. Monk should just augment the use of a fist to using two at a time. *Hense being able to machine gun fist physreps.*

Reid, I understand your angst at not being able to throw magic rocks with the current rules in place. Though I feel this is different then grenaider. It allows the fantasy ablity to just swing a punch at someone and not have to be a martial arts master. There are so many swashbuckling movies out there where I know none of the characters are fisticuff trained. Just to be able to through a sluggish punch for story purposes would be great. It's not ment to be a killing blow with fists. Once again to state this in summary, I would say, if a person is using one fist and their opponent is using a sword. The person with the fist fighting left is going to die in this game. Most likely even with training. So once again. Why not allow it? What problem does everyone have with it? Is it because you all think it's ignorant to want to do? Or is it because their isn't a current ruling on it, yet? I honestly do not see the harm or unfairness in allow this as a ablity. Most disiplines state a specific weapon that is needed in order to use their ablities if it is ment to augment combat in any way. So if that is an arguement in order to not allow this function, it's not much of one.

I just ask for this to be allowed so we can skip from this arguement and go onto the next one.

edit: And to say this in advance for any defenesive feelings about my post. This form of my debate is not aimed at anyone specifically. Not even Reid.

[dier_cire]

Possible general addndum: "Spend 1 life to swing a punch (with a fist phys-rep) for 1 damage." (life point expenditure is the fact you are getting hit too)

Then everyone can have a brawl.

Another point is that without some form of deteriment, a unarmed warrior could kill an armed assialant with an all out attack.

Point is without some added rule (which won't happen till downtime IIRC) fists just aren't balanced. If you want a bar room brawl, roleplay it. (yes, I just condoned roleplaying ) Basically, have no damage called but pretend. Hell, we already are taking damage from foam weapons.