Unarmed Combat question

[Scottomir]

I'm curious how others out there are handling this skill group. Is anybody else having issues with it being two separate skills of unclear distinctiveness, without specialties? How are others handling this for their players?

I am giving serious thought in my chronicle to making "Unarmed Combat" a single skill, not a skill group; specialties would be maneuvers like "punch/kick", "grab", "trip", "shield bash", etc. Can anybody think of any reasons why this might be a problem?

[Ineti]

This came up not too long ago on the Decipher boards. For this particular setting, I'd rule that Unarmed Combat is not a skill group, and Brawling, Wrestling, Punch, Kick, etc. are just skill specialties.

For Star Trek and other settings, though, esp. ones that would have specific forms of martial arts, I'd keep Unarmed Combat a skill group, and require different skills for stuff like Unarmed Combat: Karate (specialty), Unarmed Combat: Tai Chi (specialty), etc. and the maneuvers.

[Turloigh]

Maybe it's just me, but I think roleplaying games should be SIMPLE. While it's probably more realistic to have, for example, different brawling and wrestling skills, as a Narrator I don't think it's worth the trouble.
In fact, last session our group decided to do away with combat skill groups altogether. We now only use one Armed Combat skill, one Ranged Combat skill, and one Unarmed Combat skill. (We probably do the same for Perform.) For us, that's all the realism we need.
It also helps to show that a great fighter is a great fighter no matter what weapon he has at hand. Aragorn is a great swordsman, but when he needs to, he'll pick up a spear and still be dangerous. This rule saves him the trouble to learn many different skills.
And who knows, maybe it IS more realistic. I like to think that fighting skill involves things that are not tied to one weapon. Knowing where to move, anticipating what the opponent will do, and generally keeping cool in a fight are just as important.
I wouldn't know, however, as I have no combat training whatsoever. Any more opinions?

[Sarge]

Turloigh, you make some good points, but something else to consider is that different weapons are used in very different styles. For instance, a spear is only good for thrusting and an axe is only good for swinging. (I've used both in SCA combat.) Therefore, it's realistic to have different skills for different weapons, or to penalize a character using an unfamiliar weapon. In my games, I'm going to keep separate skills for different weapons because my players and I know how different they are.

But that's just me. If you and your players like a simpler system, go with it.

[Scottomir]

I appreciate the feedback here. The more I think about it, the more I agree that Unarmed Combat is not well-served as a skill group. My players almost entirely ignore it, instead focusing on either an Armed Combat or Ranged Combat skill. I can't exactly blame them, since Unarmed Combat lacks specialties and thus can never match the modifiers of the other combat skills. Ineti has a good point about STAR TREK, though the rules really don't contain any help for the specific variations (Starfleet martial arts vs. Klingon head-butting or whatever).

As for Armed Combat, I have thought about the very same thing: getting rid of the skill group. However, I have strongly decided against that -- everybody already focuses on Armed Combat skills, and it would be way too easy for them to max out their combat skill very quickly were it just one single skill. What my group has been doing is treating Armed Combat as a group of 3 skills: Hilted weapons (swords, daggers, etc.), Hafted weapons (maces, axes, etc.), and Pole weapons (spears, staves, etc.). This seems to work pretty well, and it does mean that the fighter who maxes out his Hilted weapons and later has his sword disarmed is at a disadvantage when he picks up a nearby club to defend himself.

[Turloigh]

Originally posted by Sarge
For instance, a spear is only good for thrusting and an axe is only good for swinging. (I've used both in SCA combat.)

"You want to learn something about weapons? Go ask the Sarge."
"Yessir!"

(Sorry, couldn't resist...)

No really, thanks for the input! It's nice to profit from other people's experiences.

[Sarge]

Scottomir, your weapon groupings are very good. In my experience, each weapon in your groups is used in very similar style. In the SCA, we'd call them sword, mass weapons, and polearms.

Turloigh, I'm always glad to share my experience and answer questions.

[Ineti]

Originally posted by Scottomir
What my group has been doing is treating Armed Combat as a group of 3 skills: Hilted weapons (swords, daggers, etc.), Hafted weapons (maces, axes, etc.), and Pole weapons (spears, staves, etc.). This seems to work pretty well, and it does mean that the fighter who maxes out his Hilted weapons and later has his sword disarmed is at a disadvantage when he picks up a nearby club to defend himself.

Something I've messed with in my game is to add a Shield group to Armed Combat. That way, a warrior could get better at using a shielf for attack and defence. Just a thought that you might want to consider.

[Scottomir]

Thanks for the feedback, Sarge and Ineti. My three Hilted/Hafted/Pole classifications were imported from when we used ALTERNITY for fantasy gaming -- it worked well there, so we thought it would work well here. The inspiration came from examining medieval military history, noting that fighting styles clustered around thrust-and-cut (hilted blades), heavy crushing blows (hafted weapons, definitely "mass" in the SCA language), and long-reach pole weapons (probably technically different between pikes on foot and lances on horseback, but that's a gradation of complexity not needed in a RPG).

Ineti, it's interesting that you bring up the shield idea because that was a back-and-forth issue for us when playing fantasy ALTERNITY. At first we didn't have a shield skill because we thought it was unfair to make character pay a lot of skill points to buy ranks separately, but after playing we put a shield skill back in because it was *too* good not to have separate ranks. In LOTR, though, I'm tending toward the opposite reaction. My concern is that there are already too many separately advanced skills, and making players buy separate ranks for shield use is probably unfair in the same way that I felt advancing Wrestling and Brawling separately was unfair/counterproductive.

That said, I much more readily support the idea of an "Armed Combat: Shields" separate skill rather than the insipid current errata of using "Armed Combat: Clubs" for shield attacks...

[Sarge]

Whether or not you call it a skill in your game, using a shield is most definitely a learned skill. I know this to be true; I collected some very impressive bruises learning the skill.

To specify: First, you don't just hold a shield. You have to move it to block the blows coming at you. The best moves to block different blows are not instinctive. It takes instruction and practice to learn the blocks. Second, not all shields are used the same way. The size, shape, and handle/straps can vary a lot, and every change means you have to learn all over again how to use the shield. Third, there are lots of different offensive moves: bashes, presses, hooks, punch blocks, etc. Finally, remember that most of your opponents also know how to use a shield, so they know lots of tricks to get past your defenses. You need to learn to recognize those tricks and counter them if you want to keep their weapons out of your armor.