Unarmed Combat
USCM_Sulaco
with all the "different" attacks and knockout %?
Anyone have a better non-PO system with KO%?
--
"Superstition is the religion of fools."
Dave's Wyrld http://www.homestead.com/daves_wyrld
My D&D Page http://www.homestead.com/daves_wyrld/adnd.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dean Dryer
> Does anyone actually use the dreadful AD&D unarmed combat. The one
> with all the "different" attacks and knockout %?
>
> Anyone have a better non-PO system with KO%?
Here is what I use. It may be just a teensy bit math intesive, but I
think it simplifies things considerably and gives PC's a little more
incentive to use non-lethal attacks.
Unarmed Combat- A PC may gain proficiency, specialty, mastery or even
grand mastery with unarmed combat. The PC gains all the standard
benefits of specialty and mastery. They also gain the ability to fight
two-handed at no penalty as long as they are not holding a weapon. They
may also elect to knock down their opponent causing them to lose their
DEX bonus and –4 init. for the next round. Bare hand damage is 1-2 plus
STR bonus.
Stuns and knockouts- A PC may declare that he is attacking to stun or
knock out an opponent. A stun occurs on a successful attack (with called
shot penalties) to some painful area (bread-basket, genitals, shins,
etc.). The target is stunned unless he makes a save vs. paralysis at –1
for every 2 pts. of damage the attack does and +1 for every pt. of CON
bonus. When stunned the victim is at –4 to hit and loses his DEX bonus
for 1d6 rnds. Knockout occurs on a successful attack to the head (with
called shot penalties). The target is knocked out for 1d4 turns unless
he makes a save vs. paralysis at –1 for every 2 pts. of damage and a +1
for every pt. of CON bonus. Wearing metal armor over the area provides a
+2 bonus to the save against being stunned or knocked out. Magical
bonuses may also apply.
Dean Dryer
ConGames 2000 July 22-23 Radisson Inn Sabal Park
Tampa, Fl
40+ gaming events Auctions Raffles Contests Prizes
galore
Return this email for more info
Paladin
finish fights faster." If you don't have the archive, let me know and I'll
send you the article. It's the best and most playable unarmed combat system
I've seen. It does not have a knockout percentage though, only a stun
percentage.
Paladin
USCM_Sulaco <uscm_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8kfk52$ro1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Does anyone actually use the dreadful AD&D unarmed combat. The one
> with all the "different" attacks and knockout %?
>
> Anyone have a better non-PO system with KO%?
>
Michael Scott Brown
news:8kfk52$ro1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Does anyone actually use the dreadful AD&D unarmed combat. The one
> with all the "different" attacks and knockout %?
> Anyone have a better non-PO system with KO%?
Knockout percentages for unarmed combat are against the spirit of the
game - knocking someone out in D&D should require the attacker to *defeat*
him. This is easily modeled by the existing combat rules - do enough hp
damage by whatever means, down goes your foe. Our appetite for the
ability to knock someone out "in one blow" is the result of a convenient
oversight; namely, that the knockout blow is the *last* strike of the fight
(and the opponent is hardly at full hit points in D&D terms); or, when it is
a Tyson esque single smack, the role of the critical hit and multiple
attacks needs be considered.
A *good* unarmed combat system for D&D would generally treat such
attacks just like it does other weapons - leaving the fancy details to the
player or GM as to whether they make their attack roll a zobbie-whompa mega
strike or a careful series of jabs, plus, doubling up your strike rate could
be accomplished using two-weapons penalties.
The only real tweak needed is a mechanic to allow a martial-arts type
person to increase his base damage through study (3E: feat, 2E:
proficiency), from 1 or d2 or whatever it is to perhaps d4.
If that were handled, then a professional pugilist or martial artist
would fit seamlessly into the existing structure.
-Michael
Allister Huggins
>
> "USCM_Sulaco" <uscm_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8kfk52$ro1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Does anyone actually use the dreadful AD&D unarmed combat. The one
> > with all the "different" attacks and knockout %?
> > Anyone have a better non-PO system with KO%?
>
> Knockout percentages for unarmed combat are against the spirit of the
> game - knocking someone out in D&D should require the attacker to *defeat*
> him. This is easily modeled by the existing combat rules - do enough hp
> damage by whatever means, down goes your foe. Our appetite for the
> ability to knock someone out "in one blow" is the result of a convenient
> oversight; namely, that the knockout blow is the *last* strike of the fight
> (and the opponent is hardly at full hit points in D&D terms); or, when it is
> a Tyson esque single smack, the role of the critical hit and multiple
> attacks needs be considered.
> A *good* unarmed combat system for D&D would generally treat such
> attacks just like it does other weapons - leaving the fancy details to the
The 3E system is pretty straightforward. One counts up from 0 and when
you have taken as much subdual damage as your current hit points, you
fall unconscious.
> player or GM as to whether they make their attack roll a zobbie-whompa mega
> strike or a careful series of jabs, plus, doubling up your strike rate could
> be accomplished using two-weapons penalties.
> The only real tweak needed is a mechanic to allow a martial-arts type
> person to increase his base damage through study (3E: feat, 2E:
> proficiency), from 1 or d2 or whatever it is to perhaps d4.
Unarmed damage for non monks is 1d3 in 3E.
Monks start at 1d6 and increase their base damage every 4 levels until
level 16 where they have 1d20 as their base damage.
I'm pretty sure 3E has rules on doing subdual damage with weapons. Both
those weapons that are primarily used in subdual attempts (saps) and
those that aren't (everything else).
Allister H.
DrKan41267
It seems crazy that you can have a "knockout percentage" for a fist and yet no
such "knockout percentage" for a war-hammer or maul. Or even a staff.
If you go down the road of "knockout percentages" and stun percentages for
unarmed combat, it seems logically required that swords, hammers, etc. also be
capable of stunning, knocking out, mortally wounding or killing in a single
blow.
Which is fine be me. But you can't have such fearsome capablities for the
naked fist while denying them to the two-handed sword.
Two-handed swords can stun a lot better than a fist. Get four inches of steel
cutting through your hip and I'm guessing you're gonna be a little distracted.
And even sharp weapons can knock out-- either by glancing off the helmet (or
skull) or by fracturing the skull. (Though that latter, it seems, would be a
mortal, or at least incapacitating, wound as well.)
Chuck Chopp
> "USCM_Sulaco" <uscm_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8kfk52$ro1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Does anyone actually use the dreadful AD&D unarmed combat. The one
> > with all the "different" attacks and knockout %?
> > Anyone have a better non-PO system with KO%?
>
> Knockout percentages for unarmed combat are against the spirit of the
> game - knocking someone out in D&D should require the attacker to *defeat*
> him. This is easily modeled by the existing combat rules - do enough hp
> damage by whatever means, down goes your foe. Our appetite for the
> ability to knock someone out "in one blow" is the result of a convenient
> oversight; namely, that the knockout blow is the *last* strike of the fight
> (and the opponent is hardly at full hit points in D&D terms); or, when it is
> a Tyson esque single smack, the role of the critical hit and multiple
> attacks needs be considered.
> A *good* unarmed combat system for D&D would generally treat such
> attacks just like it does other weapons - leaving the fancy details to the
> player or GM as to whether they make their attack roll a zobbie-whompa mega
> strike or a careful series of jabs, plus, doubling up your strike rate could
> be accomplished using two-weapons penalties.
> The only real tweak needed is a mechanic to allow a martial-arts type
> person to increase his base damage through study (3E: feat, 2E:
> proficiency), from 1 or d2 or whatever it is to perhaps d4.
> If that were handled, then a professional pugilist or martial artist
> would fit seamlessly into the existing structure.
>
> -Michael
Under the various proposed methods of unarmed combat discussed in this thread I
have not seen any details pertaining to whether or not the damage is permanent
or if some fraction of it is temporary.
Under the 2e punching/wrestling rules the damage is 25% real and 75% temporary.
Following up with the 2e unarmed combat rules for punching, wrestling and
martial arts there are further mechanics discussed for recovering from the
temporary portion of the damage.
My own $.02 worth regarding the topic and my own house rules:
1) No % knockout - reduce opponent to zero HP for a knockout/kill
2) Barehanded strikes can be "pulled" so that only a fraction of the damage is
real. This allows for non-lethal unarmed combat similar to existing rules (25%
real, 75% temporary) and uses a similar recovery time when dealing with zero HP
and temporary damage. Lethal unarmed combat is simply not pulling your
punches/kicks and thus attempting to cause full life threatening damage.
I think that allowing the damage to be permanent unless the punch/kick is pulled
is fair. In modern boxing matches the fighters have their hands padded and thus
they typically do temporary damage. However, if a professional boxer gets into
a street or bar room right and starts throwing bare fisted punches he can be
arrested for assault with a deadly weapon in most states. This implies that if
his fists are not covered in the protective padding of a boxing glove then he
can inflict lethal damage with his fists. This all seems to be fairly
consistent with the traditional sword-play tournaments where the weapons are
blunted/padded so that they do not generally inflict lethal damage.
3) Wearing metal gauntlets or some other type of metal glove/boot imposes a
THAC0 penalty unless the attacker has also spent a proficiency slot on the use
of weapon-like gauntlets/boots in "unarmed" combat, but does extra damage, all
of which is real. Normal damage is 1-2 HP per punch/kick that a S/M creature
makes, 1-3 HP per punch/kick that a L creature makes. Gauntlets add +2 to the
damage die roll and make the damage all permanent; punches/kicks cannot be
pulled to cause temporary went metal gauntlets are worn. This assumes that the
attacker is a humanoid creature that can fight in this style with
punching/kicking. Don't expect a Xorn or other non-humanoid/non-bipedal
creature to fight in this style. The justification is that if you take your
average humanoid and bash him/her/it in the head with your fist while wearing a
heavy metal glove then you are probably going to seriously hurt him/her/it.
Fighting in this style versus an opponent that is in a different size category
imposes a plus/minus of one on the damage inflicted for each category difference
that the attacker is larger/smaller than its opponent. Thus, an unarmed human
fighting a Bugbear gets 1d2 - 1 (not counting strength bonuses); if wearing
metal gauntlets and proficient with them then the human does 1d3 - 1 vs. the
Bugbear. Likewise, a M size unarmed attacker punching a T sized opponent does
1d2 + 2 since the opponent is 2 size categories smaller than the attacker. All
strength bonuses apply for damage adjustment. If an adjusted damage roll does
zero points or less then there is no damage done and the punch/kick is simply
ineffective.
I have not worked out whether or not strength and/or dexterity bonuses and
penalties should apply for THAC0 adjustments. I think that there are different
situations in which both types of adjustments to THAC0 for unarmed combat would
be applicable. I suppose that great strength implies the ability to throw a
punch quickly and thus literaly "beat your opponent to the punch". Likewise,
great dexterity could allow you to throw your punches more accurately regardless
of your strength. Currently, I'm allowing the strength attack roll adjustment
until I make a final decision on this issue.
Critical hits can be handled in a couple of ways. My current favorite is to use
the method where an adjusted attack roll of 18 or greater that exceeds the
needed to-hit value by 5 points or more is a critical hit. The result of a
critical hit is to either to double the damage die roll or to allow another
attack roll (DM's choice). I just go for the doubled damage dice at this time.
4) Similar to the Complete Fighter's Handbook, I allow specialization in
punching and martial arts as weapon types. Each degree of specialization grants
+1 to-hit and +1 damage and is cumulative with each level of specialization.
Increased attacks per round are the same as weapon specialization. It is
assumed that when engaged in unarmed combat there is always a series of feints,
blocks, etc... being performed on the part of the attacker such that there may
be several punches/kicks involved in setting up a series of moves that fills
most of the time in the combat round. It is the culmination and final result of
these series of moves that is determined with the attack role to indicate if the
attacker's opponent was successfully hit and damaged by the maneuver that was
used.
5) Defender's armor vs. attacker's bare/gauntleted fists. Certain opponents
will have a low AC because of a thick hide or some other feature in how they are
shaped/built that unarmed attacks are not very effective. Other opponents will
have a low AC purely due to magic or dexterity and can suffer normal damage.
Right now, I don't have any hard & fast rule for reducing damage when attacking
an opponent who is heavily armored. I've been toying with the idea of imposing
a -1 damage adjustment for each natural AC point under 6 that is due to the
physical nature of the defender's armor. Thus, an unarmored martial artist
attacking a size M opponent in chain mail (base AC 5) gets a -1 on his damage
rolls. Likewise, if the opponent was in plate mail (base AC 3) a damage
modifier of -3 gets applied to the damage rolls. If the opponent was in plate
mail +3 and has no dexterity adjustments, the attack roll is made against AC 0,
but the damage penalty is still only -3. Non-humanoid creatures with tough
hides (leathery, bark-like, horn/stone encrusted, etc...) would impose a similar
negative damage adjustment based on their natural AC for each point that their
AC is below 6. Attacking opponents with an AC of 6 or greater does not result
in any damage bonuses but imposes no penalties.
6) The unarmed combatant can still punch, wrestle or use martial arts while
wearing armor, but I am roughly following the existing 2e armor modifiers for
wrestling and applying the to-hit penalties equally for all 3 forms of unarmed
combat. The penalties are -1 on to-hit rolls for each 10 pounds of weight of
the armor starting at 20 pounds and above. If the attacker is wearing studded
leather then their armor weight is 25# (20-29 range) and the penalty is -1 to
hit. Working up to chain mail the weight is 40# (40-49 range) and the penalty
is -3 to hit. Moving on to plate mail the weight is 50# (50-59 range) and the
penalty is -4 to hit. This is a little more forgiving than the 2e table
adjustments are, but it makes calculation of the penalty easier by simply basing
it on the weight of the armor. The scale of the table could be adjusted to have
smaller ranges for each penalty point or could be made non-linear to further
fine tune it.
7) Using a shield and parrying. If the attacker has used at least one
proficiency slot in punching or martial arts then they can use a buckler. The
unarmed combatant can give up attacking in favor of explicitly using their
buckler to parry a single attack from their opponent. If the unarmed combatant
has specialized and gets multiple strikes in a round then they may still make a
single attack in the round and still parry against a single attack from their
opponent. This is treated somewhat like a two handed fighting style but suffers
no penalties w/respect to the attempt at parrying.
So far this is what we are playing by and it seems to allow brawls in taverns to
go by pretty quickly with a minimum of fuss.
Any feedback would be appreciated.
--
Chuck Chopp
Michael Scott Brown
news:396B96CE...@home.com...
> > A *good* unarmed combat system for D&D would generally treat such
> > attacks just like it does other weapons - leaving the fancy details to
the
>
> you have taken as much subdual damage as your current hit points, you
> fall unconscious.
Clever, simple. Good!
> > The only real tweak needed is a mechanic to allow a martial-arts
type
> > person to increase his base damage through study (3E: feat, 2E:
> > proficiency), from 1 or d2 or whatever it is to perhaps d4.
>
> Unarmed damage for non monks is 1d3 in 3E.
Ahh; no wonder the monks are so bongo with their d6's, it's not that
much of a leap from the usual situation.
I'm a little iffy on making them initially short-sword equivalent; it
just feels wrong- and I especially don't like how much their damage
upgrades. I thought the idea of fighting unarmed for the monk was supposed
to be a *tradeoff*! Ie; do less damage per blow but get more of them . .
instead, they're checking in with a blizard of attacks that in the end are
hitting much, much harder than even enchanted swords.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > It seems crazy that you can have a "knockout percentage" for a fist and
yet no
> such "knockout percentage" for a war-hammer or maul. Or even a staff.
Another cogent point on the issue!
> Two-handed swords can stun a lot better than a fist. Get four inches of
steel
> cutting through your hip and I'm guessing you're gonna be a little
distracted.
> And even sharp weapons can knock out-- either by glancing off the helmet
(or
> skull) or by fracturing the skull. (Though that latter, it seems, would
be a
> mortal, or at least incapacitating, wound as well.)
This kind of thinking is why using straight damage (possibly in a
special category) seems the most logical way to go; what the fist might do,
a sword will do better, and that's already handled by their different damage
dice . . .
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > I'm a little iffy on making them initially short-sword equivalent;
it
> > just feels wrong- and I especially don't like how much their damage
> > upgrades. I thought the idea of fighting unarmed for the monk was
supposed
> > to be a *tradeoff*! Ie; do less damage per blow but get more of them .
.
> > instead, they're checking in with a blizard of attacks that in the end
are
> > hitting much, much harder than even enchanted swords.
>
> level", my eyes bugged out. Then I realized, this isn't a big deal. . . .
[snip critter examples]
> By the time the monk hits 12th level, most creatures that the
> party will face will have DR.
I'd have to see the new critter rules a bit more completely before
putting a lot of stock in this assumption (ie; that high CR correlates with
DR), as this is a definite change from the existing trends (even dragons
don't have immune-to-normal-weapon-ism in 2E; just insane ACs) - but if
that's the case then . . . maybe. But I'd rather their damage were less and
their Ki came sooner if that's the basis for this balance. I have a
*really* hard time with "expert swordsman: 4 attacks at 1d8+2 each" (~d12
equivalent) vrs. "expert Monk: 4-5 attacks at 1d20 each, equivalent to a +3
weapon.
If the monk with his bare hands totally outclasses outshines the
Fighter, then it seems like a goober.
But, my reservations are based on half the show; a few weeks will reveal
all, and it could be that the armor-less restrictions on the Monk might
balance his offense out (ie; he beats the snot out of things but is likewise
vulnerable).
But I'm very suspicious about this. In fact, the whole theme of the Monk
seems like a gimmee-fest. Even the way they pitched it in Dragon ("lots of
Kewl Powers"); it really irked me. <shrug> I never used the Monk in 1st
Edition either, come to think.
-Michael
Allister Huggins
<snip>
> > Unarmed damage for non monks is 1d3 in 3E.
>
> Ahh; no wonder the monks are so bongo with their d6's, it's not that
> much of a leap from the usual situation.
> I'm a little iffy on making them initially short-sword equivalent; it
> just feels wrong- and I especially don't like how much their damage
> upgrades. I thought the idea of fighting unarmed for the monk was supposed
> to be a *tradeoff*! Ie; do less damage per blow but get more of them . .
> instead, they're checking in with a blizard of attacks that in the end are
> hitting much, much harder than even enchanted swords.
I initially would have had to agree. When I first saw "1d20 at 16th
level", my eyes bugged out. Then I realized, this isn't a big deal. Take
a look at the delver here,
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/3E_Monster_0700.asp and notice the effect of
facing this creature with just your fists. Or take a look at the
vampire, http://www.wizards.com/dnd/3E_Monster_0400.asp which has a DR
of 15+/1. By the time the monk hits 12th level, most creatures that the
party will face will have DR. Throw in the fact that monks are most
likely to try and maximize their WIS and DEX, their STR isn't going to
be that great yet monks don't get the "Ki strike" ability (unarmed
attack counts as a weapon of +1 enchantment) until 10th level. Ki strike
+2 doesn't kick in until 13th while ki strike +3 is at level 16 yet at
these levels, most of the main bad guys are going to require a weapon
usually +1 greater than what a monk gets unarmed. Throw in the fact
that monks only get their "flurry of blows" with unarmed or monkish
weapons (not likely to show up in treasure hoards as possible monkish
magic weapons) and that increased damage isn't that big a deal. It
actually is a balancing feature otherwise the tyrantfog zombie
(something which should be easily taken out by a single 9th level monk)
is potentially going to be totally unbalancing.
Allister H.
USCM_Sulaco
"Paladin" <darkpal...@home.com> wrote:
> If you've got the Dragon Mag. archive, find an article entitled, "How
to
> finish fights faster." If you don't have the archive, let me know and
I'll
> send you the article. It's the best and most playable unarmed combat
system
> I've seen. It does not have a knockout percentage though, only a stun
> percentage.
Thanks. I do have it and I will look it up. I think the KO% will be
easy enough to work out.
I think that if the Dragon Mag archive has any problems (apart from the
missing inserts) it is that there is just TOO much bloody information.
However, If that is the worst thing we can complain about with thenew
era of D&D products I think we are all in good shape.
Michael Chan
<uscm_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Does anyone actually use the dreadful AD&D unarmed combat. The one
>with all the "different" attacks and knockout %?
>
>Anyone have a better non-PO system with KO%?
You can look at my house rule, under the World of Theophilia section,
in my web-site.
Michael Chan
Home Page at www.geocities.com/mcschan/Index.htm