Why go unarmed?

[Kaeso]

This is not a thread about the viability of unarmed combat. Yes, I know that unarmed combat is strictly inferior to armed combat because it's (nearly) impossible to magically enhance your fists, while magic weapons are thrown around like candy. This, however, is not the point.

My point is this: how can unarmed combat be justified from a roleplay perspective? What kind of deranged masochist would look at a magical sword, throw it to his side and say "Nah, I'm good. I'll just punch this otherworldly terror out of our plane of existance"? In any game world that's seriously thought out, such a man would be considered insane if not suicidal, right?

How do you guys justify unarmed combat, if you've ever had to justify it?

[HunterOfJello]

Well, you can't be disarmed and your weapon can't be sundered. If you have an open hand and successfully disarm someone else, then you get to hold their weapon in your hand rather than just having it fall to the ground (though I don't remember if you take a penalty to disarm checks like you do with light weapons).

Fighting without having to use your arms can also be helpful. Builds don't usually capitalize on this, but you could hold two important items like wands, shields, magic items, etc. while still unarmed fighting with headbutts and kicks.

If you grab the Snap Kick feat, you can also get an additional attack in against your enemy. That can be handy with precision damage builds.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

So, in terms of real-world combat, there actually are some advantages.

First, you pretty much have to include "Grappling" in unarmed combat. Punching, especially against armored opponents with bladed weapons, is just... no.

That being said, your hands do have a few natural advantages over any weapon you can get - they're always going to be lighter, faster and more natural. A lot of work in weapons training is about making your sword "An extension of your body" - your hands already are.

Second, armor; armor can be made very tough against a sword blow. If, however, you're just trying to twist someones arm until it breaks, armor isn't going to stop you. Any armor that can resist joint manipulations is too rigid to effectively fight in.

There's also the fact that, in battle, you face the risk of being disarmed - either by someone knocking your weapon from your hand, or the risk of your weapon getting stuck inside someone's body, and you not having the time to pull it out before engaging another attacker.

Also, depending on the society you're in, you may not always have your weapons on you - and you certainly won't always have them drawn. Being able to defend yourself with your bare hands means being able to defend yourself, always.

So, that covers pragmatism. There are plenty of philisophical justifications, as well: Focus on personal power, ascetic lifestyle, emphasis on willpower and self-control above all else, etc. You could even swing something with a semi-pacifistic philosophy.

Depending on your characters back story, it might also just be what he's used to. Maybe he grew up in a region where weapons were forbidden; maybe he learned to fight in a prison, where only the guards were allowed to bear arms.

[Waddacku]

Victory through superior skill and/or strength. Perhaps the character's body has been honed (or is naturally, for whatever reason) to be equal to or superior to regular weapons.

Also, the unarmed warrior is an (or even several) archetype. How many books/movies/comics/shows/etc. are there that have some characters fighting unarmed even though weapons are readily available? Very, very many.

And of course there's the thing about grappling. It doesn't matter how much more of a skilled fencer someone is than you if you can just grab them and crush them with physical power they can't rival. In theory, anyway.

[Matticussama]

In a world where people can reshape reality with their minds and swords are enchanted with enough magic to destroy primordial beings, I don't find it that hard to imagine that ki, chakra, or whatever else you want to call it is strong enough to allow fists to stand up to swords. You're basically looking into the myths and legends of the unarmed warriors who perfect their body to such a state that it transcends mortal comprehension.

Thus, from a RP perspective you shouldn't think of it as some "normal person" punching the otherworldly terror into oblivion. They see weapons as a crutch; by relying on these external forces to fight with, they allow their own body and its innate skills to atrophy. You should think of it as someone who has perfected and transcended the human form and using their mastery of their body to strike as hard as steel could. That doesn't seem any harder to justify from a RP perspective than anything else in D&D.

[Bulldog Psion]

Most real world unarmed combat techniques were developed either to help once disarmed (grappling, for example) or by those people who were not allowed to carry weapons, as a second-line, "better than nothing" choice.

[limejuicepowder]

A note on disarming and grappling: While a trained unarmed striker in DnD has a lot of advantages over someone using a weapon in a grapple, this isn't really true IRL. I can't think of a single martial art that recommends wrestling against a knife attack, for instance. The move would always be 1) disarm, 2) (whatever this particular style thinks you should do).

In fact, grappling is NEVER recommend in a street-fight type of situation. Due to proximity to the opponent and the almost complete inability to respond to another attack, grappling is a bad idea (not to mention what may or may not be on the ground - glass, rocks, etc.). A fight for your life should always be ended as fast and efficiently as possible, and grappling just ein't it.

So in a way, DnD got grappling right: it's usually a loser strategy for non-monsters xD

[Madwand99]

In an IRL fight for your life, unarmed martial arts have ONE use: it's for when you don't have a weapon.

If your life isn't in danger, it has other uses. It can pacify opponents in a less-than-lethal form, or it can be used for such classic strategies such as "I hold him, you hit him".

[Yora]

Aikido is an extreme case, but there you can very well see that modern martial arts are almost always just part of a well rounded and practical fighting training. Martial arts techniques seem to be the most useful when they suplement the way you are fighting.
Kendo would be a lot more awesome if competitors were allowed to use grapple techniques in addition to sword strikes. :smallbiggrin:
Or naginata sparring is pretty much asking for it to shove your opponents with your shoulder or or hook your legs behind theirs.

Old German and Italian sword manuals include a lot of grappling, and I think some modern revival groups are actively encouraging improvising and trying out whatever might work. It's not even remotely anything like olympic fencing.

[hymer]

But the real reason grappling is out is because Mom gets so annoyed when you come home with dirty trousers.

[Darius Kane]

Read History's Strongest Disciple Kenichi. Weapon Users in this manga are chumps (except Shigure, who is a boss and doesn't even kill, and Freya's grandfather; Freya still has a long way to become a badass).

[Fyermind]

When I build unarmed fighter I do so because I personally enjoy Judo. Building characters who bring Judo (designed as the close range combat of samurai, usually in conjunction with short swords drawn for finishing blows, it focuses on throws using the opponents weight as well as joint manipulations) to the game is fun. I love it particularly because I can describe the maneuvers I use very well. Unarmed combat works well in conjunction with druid allies who can buff unarmed combatants to the nines.

[Krobar]

In an IRL fight for your life, unarmed martial arts have ONE use: it's for when you don't have a weapon.

If your life isn't in danger, it has other uses. It can pacify opponents in a less-than-lethal form, or it can be used for such classic strategies such as "I hold him, you hit him".

In the real world ... unarmed techniques are very important even when you carry a weapon. When someone is attacked, that person will very often find himself needing to create space between himself and the person attacking him so that he actually has time and room to even DRAW that weapon. It's as simple as that. A person can cover about 20 feet (give or take) in less than a second, and be on top of you, making it VERY VERY difficult to effectively deploy any weapon you might have.

Take a course or two one of these days that includes real world force-on-force training, using blue guns and training blades. It will be a real eye opener.

[razorback]

In fact, grappling is NEVER recommend in a street-fight type of situation. Due to proximity to the opponent and the almost complete inability to respond to another attack, grappling is a bad idea (not to mention what may or may not be on the ground - glass, rocks, etc.). A fight for your life should always be ended as fast and efficiently as possible, and grappling just ein't it.

I'm assuming you mean as the defender.
Recommendations or not most fights end up in a grapple. Either because 1) one of the participants feels that that is their strength and goes to that mode, and/or 2) because one of the participants sees the opening, and/or 3) one of the participants is being pummeled with blows and feels it is their last/best option.
To be clear, I'm to disagreeing with you.
I've been in fights and in one I was jumped while walking home. One of the guys tackled me so I didn't have a choice. Unfortunately for him I did wrestling in school and grappling as part of my marital arts training. Unfortunately for me there were three of them.

[willpell]

I make a lot of characters who are, well...rather commonly found without any of their gear, you can probably guess at why. In any event, it's definitely good for them to have something they can do if a monster attacks and their enchanted knife is under several layers of discarded clothing.

[Spiryt]

. I can't think of a single martial art that recommends wrestling against a knife attack, for instance. The move would always be 1) disarm, 2) (whatever this particular style thinks you should do).

Uh, how is 'disarm' supposed to happen without grappling then? :smalleek:

About only 'serious' way to deal with knife attack I've ever seen mentioned is to wrestle and control the knife arm - to prevent the stabbing death.



In fact, grappling is NEVER recommend in a street-fight type of situation. Due to proximity to the opponent and the almost complete inability to respond to another attack, grappling is a bad idea (not to mention what may or may not be on the ground - glass, rocks, etc.). A fight for your life should always be ended as fast and efficiently as possible, and grappling just ein't it.

So in a way, DnD got grappling right: it's usually a loser strategy for non-monsters xD

That's pretty much misunderstanding about principle of combat - it's not about applying some 'attack' whether it's grappling or not. Grappling is something that most probably will happen, whether by form of someone being actually grounded or just clinched.

http://ejmas.com/jnc/2007jnc/jncart_Leblanc_0701.html

Whether it's 90% of cited examples, or closer to 50% - it happens.

Being able to grapple is pretty much being able to hold and advantage in this situation, and avoid grapple if it's actually necessary.


A fight for your life should always be ended as fast and efficiently as possible, and grappling just ein't it.


Why and how exactly? Wrestling/judo throw, especially in concrete, is about the fastest possible way to end someone's life, not only particular encounter.

That's not what one should be usually attempting to do anyway, 'ending it as fast as possible' would mean running away usually.

And being proficient wrestler is again, really crucial here - to be able to stay on the feet, and brake free if someone is trying to tackle, for example.




As far as OP question goes - well, in 'realistic' circumstances, there's indeed no reason to fight unarmed.

D&D is not 'realistic' in any way for most part though. By the laws of human body, weapon gives huge advantage in fighting, but D&D characters don't follow those laws at all, obviously.


"Nah, I'm good. I'll just punch this otherworldly terror out of our plane of existance"?

High level monk punches apparently can tear walls apart pretty easily, without injury, and so on.

Why carry around clunky hammer then?

Assuming that said fists operate with some mysterious 'ki', are treated as 'lawful' so they actually are undoing chaos itself and so on....

In short, those are not average punches anymore, so there's no way to debate about them as such.



In the real world ... unarmed techniques are very important even when you carry a weapon. When someone is attacked, that person will very often find himself needing to create space between himself and the person attacking him so that he actually has time and room to even DRAW that weapon. It's as simple as that. A person can cover about 20 feet (give or take) in less than a second, and be on top of you, making it VERY VERY difficult to effectively deploy any weapon you might have.

Take a course or two one of these days that includes real world force-on-force training, using blue guns and training blades. It will be a real eye opener

Good example.

If someone wants to swing a sword, wrestling may be crucial only for that split of second it takes to push opponent off you, to create space for actual swordity.

But it's still crucial.

[Greenish]

I can't think of a single martial art that recommends wrestling against a knife attack, for instance. The move would always be 1) disarm, 2) (whatever this particular style thinks you should do)."Run" seems popular. Incidentally, something that monks are quite good at. :smallcool:

[hymer]

Yeah, but have you noticed how you always train other stuff? I've never gotten sprinting lessons from any MA teacher, as much as at least one kept advicing us that running away is the best course of action.

[Greenish]

Yeah, but have you noticed how you always train other stuff?I wouldn't know, I've never done martial arts of any sorts. Maybe they assume that's something people can train for on their own.

[hymer]

Yeah, you're probably right. :smallbiggrin:

[limejuicepowder]

I'd like to make clear a few points, since it seems a lot of people disagree with me. For starters, when I use the term grappling I mean in the DnD use of the word, and the obvious real-world event the designers were trying to represent: full-out rolling on the ground wrestling.

It is very true that in a RL fight, at one point or another you will be clinched, or engaged in a shoving match of sorts. However, I would not call that wrestling or grappling. There isn't a perfect translation for that in DnD, since combat IRL is a much dirtier affair than some die rolls can project.

If I had to call that something though, I would call it AoO against your opponent's (grapple attempt, bull rush, etc). If an opponent charges you with the intention of tackling, in DnD terms it would be a charge followed by an attempt to start a grapple. The defender would get an AoO - if they succeed, the grapple doesn't start and they have maintained the space they need to draw their (gun, sword, club) or run away. Tactics like that aren't used as frequently in DnD as they are in RL, but that doesn't change what it is. Also, outside of ToB, common moves like throws are not represented at all.

With that clarification, I believe my first point remains: if you are attacked, the last place you want to be in rolling around on the ground.

[Greenish]

I'd like to make clear a few points, since it seems a lot of people disagree with me. For starters, when I use the term grappling I mean in the DnD use of the word, and the obvious real-world event the designers were trying to represent: full-out rolling on the ground wrestling.

With that clarification, I believe my first point remains: if you are attacked, the last place you want to be in rolling around on the ground.Grapplers aren't actually automatically prone, so they're not quite rolling on the ground.

[Edit]: Also, hooray for Legend's grappling rules!

[Madwand99]

In the real world ... unarmed techniques are very important even when you carry a weapon. When someone is attacked, that person will very often find himself needing to create space between himself and the person attacking him so that he actually has time and room to even DRAW that weapon. It's as simple as that. A person can cover about 20 feet (give or take) in less than a second, and be on top of you, making it VERY VERY difficult to effectively deploy any weapon you might have.


I agree. But all of this re-iterates my point... unarmed martial arts are for when you don't have a weapon. It could be because you don't have one, or because you haven't had time to draw one, or even because you just happen to have a hand free and you want something to do with the hand that isn't holding a weapon. It's important to learn unarmed martial arts. It's even MORE important to have a weapon.

[ericgrau]

I think it's from people who watch a lot of kung fu movies, anime or video games like final fantasy and wrongly assume the next rpg they play must have a way to support that. Even monks aren't supposed to be 100% unarmed.

Realistically I don't see much of a reason, except to grapple at times. Or in heavily social/political games when weapons and spell components may not always be allowed.

[hymer]

Grapplers aren't actually automatically prone, so they're not quite rolling on the ground.

Well, snakes aren't considered prone, either.

[Greenish]

Well, snakes aren't considered prone, either.Until you trip them, obviously. :smalltongue:

[Dusk Eclipse]

Eh if possible I like to have my characters get some sort of non-weapon attack (natural weapons or unarmed strikes), in all games that I've played in, there has always been a situation when having a weapon isn't allowed (a royal ball, thrown in prison without equipment, etc). It is handy though only rarely make unarmed attacks my main combat form.

[Spiryt]

I'd like to make clear a few points, since it seems a lot of people disagree with me. For starters, when I use the term grappling I mean in the DnD use of the word, and the obvious real-world event the designers were trying to represent: full-out rolling on the ground wrestling.

It is very true that in a RL fight, at one point or another you will be clinched, or engaged in a shoving match of sorts. However, I would not call that wrestling or grappling. There isn't a perfect translation for that in DnD, since combat IRL is a much dirtier affair than some die rolls can project.

If I had to call that something though, I would call it AoO against your opponent's (grapple attempt, bull rush, etc). If an opponent charges you with the intention of tackling, in DnD terms it would be a charge followed by an attempt to start a grapple. The defender would get an AoO - if they succeed, the grapple doesn't start and they have maintained the space they need to draw their (gun, sword, club) or run away. Tactics like that aren't used as frequently in DnD as they are in RL, but that doesn't change what it is. Also, outside of ToB, common moves like throws are not represented at all.

With that clarification, I believe my first point remains: if you are attacked, the last place you want to be in rolling around on the ground.


Wrestling or grappling in clinch/bind or whatever is still a grappling, I don't get that point at all.

And 'wanting' or not to be on the ground doesn't change the fact that it will often happen, and 'rolling' or not depends on the participant comparative skill/strenght/size and so on.

And if it's the last or first place one wants to be depends on so many factors, that's it's impossible to generalize.

If opponent has great advantage while standing, then of course best place would be to have him on the ground, obviously. For simplest example.


Grapplers aren't actually automatically prone, so they're not quite rolling on the ground.

And yeah, there's nothing about grapplers being prone in 3.5. Grappling can be fluffed however players want in particular encounter, I guess.

[Phelix-Mu]

Enchanting natural or unarmed strikes isn't that hard, but it usually requires a piece of equipment (amulet of mighty fist, necklace of natural attacks, enchanted gauntlets). There are only a couple ways to bypass this need for an item, and none of them are particularly good. Houserules for the win.

I find the ability to never be disarmed, never be caught weaponless, never be sundered, and to fight with any part of the body to be effective pros to the unarmed fighting style. I can carry my friend's body and still fight; I can hold a wand, cast a spell, and still be armed. This is a purely in-game perspective.

Out of game, all other things equal and assuming equal mastery, unarmed v weapon is probably going to favor weapon. That is why many MA focus on acquiring a level of skill superior to likely opponents, and also throw in some weapons training, even if it isn't a huge focus. When you disarm your opponent and flourish your enemy's knife, significant intimidation can be achieved. Most MA irl suggest that if you are fighting a superior opponent in lethal combat, that you attempt to avoid engaging them, running, countering then running, suing for peace, giving in to demands, etc. If forced to fight, disarming the enemy is the first and only goal, upon which the entire fight will pivot. Once you've removed the weapon, you are primed to assume a superior position, and with initiative can even transition directly from disarming to a take down.

If the enemy is as good as you are and armed, get ready to make a sacrifice, because you are unlikely to escape such a fight uninjured.

Much of this is hardly relevant in game, though, as many monsters can't be disarmed of their natural weapins, never wear armour, and realistic modeling of any kind of damage that can be inflicted, armed or not, is pretty much thrown to the wind. Yay, magic!

[ericgrau]

And yeah, there's nothing about grapplers being prone in 3.5. Grappling can be fluffed however players want in particular encounter, I guess.

I always imagined them as standing up and grabbing each other. As for being prone, you could trip or pin while grappling.

[Mato]

This is not a thread about the viability of unarmed combat. Yes, I know that unarmed combat is strictly superior to armed combat because it's you have like double the sources to magically enhance your fists, while magic weapons totally suffer from no venomfire. This, however, is not the point.

My point is this: how can unarmed combat be justified from a roleplay perspective? What kind of deranged masochist would look at a magical sword, throw it to his side and say "Nah, I'm good. I'll just punch this otherworldly terror out of our plane of existance"? In any game world that's seriously thought out, such a man would be considered insane if not suicidal, right?

How do you guys justify unarmed combat, if you've ever had to justify it?fify and justify it?

How could you not? Seriously, it's a world were people blow things up with interpretive dance. If you hear about a guy punching dragon to death and learn there are monasteries dedicated to just that why wouldn't you sign up? I mean, does the Hulk need to validate not using a machine gun? Should Batman stick to carpet bombing? Does Jet Li need a peacemaker? When you're already have an epic badass persona such as twice as fast and better than any dagger (human monk 1) why would you throw it away? Specially for something like a +1 club (not all weapons are greatswords btw) found laying around in a smelly basement?

[Endarire]

Going 'unarmed' works better if you're 'unarmed' as a creature with potent natural attacks. For a typical Humanoid? The rules generally discourage it.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Why go unarmed?

Why? Because I'm a soulknife. :smalltongue:

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I spent about a year studying Aikido in college - nowhere near anything that even rhymes with "Expert", but I at least have some context.

Both of my instructors and everyone I talked to described Aikido (and the more brutal Jiu Jitsu) as pure grappling styles. A lot of the time these grapples only happened for the seconds it took to broke an opponents wrist, trip them or throw them at something unpleasant, but it's still grappling. According to my teacher (who had also studied Kung Fu extensively), real fights are almost all about grappling, unless you're up against multiple opponents. When you punch someone, you just don't do that much damage, and you may break your fist in the process; when you get someone in a sleeper hold, break their arm or slam them into the pavement, the fight is over.

Now, of course there aren't a lot of real-world warriors who go into battle without weapons - though, most do have at least some form of unarmed combat training, as well they should. In D&D, getting disarmed is rare, and you can't really do the sort of cross-training that IRL soldiers do.

But, within the setting described by D&D (but not the mechanics of D&D), there are a lot of other advantages to unarmed combat- channeling ki and so forth. Personally, I'd like to see someone (not me) homebrew an unarmed combat class that went a bit heavier on the magic, but limited spells to things that modified the casters body- gave them a variety of unarmed weapon or armor enchantments, say.

[ArcturusV]

Mato has the whole of it. Not to mention things like, "You can never be unarmed and unprepared for a fight". Also a question of scale. There's often the saying about "Bringing a knife to a gun fight". And while that is true, there's also a reverse of it "Bringing a gun to a knife fight" that applies (Though is not as well known).

In character? I justify it like the scene from Starship Troopers. As funny and bad as that movie is at parts, it's a somewhat valid point.

"Why do we have to learn to throw a knife? I mean all you need to do is push a button and nuke the enemy."

"... put your hand against the wall."

"Um..."

"Put your hand against the wall recruit!"

"... okay..."

*Throws a knife and pins the guy's hand to a wall* "Your enemy cannot press a button if you disable his hand!"

"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"

"Medic."

So there is that. I mean yeah, that Fighter might have the huge Greatsword that does a lot of damage and has a lot of innate advantages. But you get up in his face, dodge that first blow (or series of blows), you grab him and suddenly the guy who can punch someone effectively is king. It's not silly. It's opportunistic, and a hard counter to the Greatsword user. That's how a guy in character is going to think of it.

[Greenish]

Personally, I'd like to see someone (not me) homebrew an unarmed combat class that went a bit heavier on the magic, but limited spells to things that modified the casters body- gave them a variety of unarmed weapon or armor enchantments, say.It's called Tashatalora.

[Togo]

One common combination I see in game is someone with a reach weapon also taking some form of unarmed strike, just in case someone gets too close, and they can't back off for some reason.

One common combination I see out of game in real life martial arts is combinnig unarmed strikes with use of a long weapon, so you have an option if someone gets in under your guard and you can't back off for some reason. So you get the one-handed unarmed attacks and counterstrikes in Bastard Sword fighting, the combination stick and unarmed strikes in aikedo, and the brutal combination of punches and pugalism moves that's the hallmark of English style fencing.

Grappling in game has more or less the same function as grappling in real life - it's an attempt to restrain your opponent and hamper him from doing damage. It's a very useful tactic for a monk, who is practically the only entity in the AD&D universe who can fight as well in a grapple as out of it. (granted that's still not that great....) Even monsters who are specialised for grappling often do more damage out of a grapple - the point of the grapple is to immobalise or hamper the opponent. So send in the monk, throw him into the monsters jaws, and while he's grappling with it, everyone else can gather around and pound it to peices without worring about reach, attacks of opportunity, or getting grappled themselves.

[The Viscount]

Perhaps, like the battledancer fluff discusses, you were prevented from learning armed combat. Perhaps you have taken a vow of poverty. Perhaps you have sworn to never use a weapon of war.

[Newoblivion]

Well.. Most unarmed fighters become themselves supernatural. So I guess that knowing that their body becomes the ultimate weapon somehow bolster their will when it comes to fighting huge terrors from beyond time. The logic is, if I can split a wall of stone with a kick I can most likely split a devil in half as well.

[MukkTB]

IRL a serious fighter trains unarmed combat as a supplement for their fighting styles.

In game a serious fighter sticks all his feats in one place so at least his one fighting style is good. Sticking one feat into unarmed combat pretty much means you'll suck at unarmed combat and be one feat short on your main fighting style.

The only exception to this is the TOB classes. A TOB character may learn a throw or some other unarmed attack as a maneuver. This doesn't hurt their attempts to excel at one kind of combat. A TOB character may even have enough free feats to take unarmed combat because their stances and feats are applicable to an unarmed strike. Who's up for mountain hammering down this wall with their fists?

Its a bit different when unarmed combat is your preffered style. The Monk is a low tier class. Its not so good at dealing with bad things anyway. So you could ask 'why be a monk?' Now the Unarmed Swordsage is totally capable of doing just fine with his fists. The Swordsage gets most of his goodies from maneuvers and stances. I always thought going Unarmed Swordsage was so you could fit better into social heavy campaigns. I think martial arts were popular in the east because many people could not legally obtain serious weapons. Imagine wandering a paranoid king's halls or a dictatorial 'no weapons' city.

Personally I like to dip something else onto my Swordsage. So I take Unarmed Swordsage and then I pick up my proficiencies in the dip.

[Kyberwulf]

I would say it is pretty cool to charge in and or disarm, trip or start grappling with someone. Especially if you want them alive. Since most enemies who use weapons don't see the need to get unarmed fighting, you will have an advantage over them. Seeing how damn near everything they want to do will provoke an AoO. You can use them to start a grapple, or trip them. If you wear Gauntlets, you can choose to do lethal or nonlethal damage (I say this because it says in the description you they let you, implying choice) The Gauntlet can also be enchanted as a weapon. Be made of various materials.

Btw, I am of the school Gauntlets let a monk enchant his natural attacks. If he takes the Weapon Proficiency for it. It says it is considered a unarmed attack, thus granting their improved Unarmed Damage. Seeing how the description doesn't say it changes the nature of the damage your unarmed attacks do, just whither it is considered Lethal or nonlethal.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is not a thread about the viability of unarmed combat. Yes, I know that unarmed combat is strictly inferior to armed combat because it's (nearly) impossible to magically enhance your fists, while magic weapons are thrown around like candy. This, however, is not the point.

My point is this: how can unarmed combat be justified from a roleplay perspective? What kind of deranged masochist would look at a magical sword, throw it to his side and say "Nah, I'm good. I'll just punch this otherworldly terror out of our plane of existance"? In any game world that's seriously thought out, such a man would be considered insane if not suicidal, right?

How do you guys justify unarmed combat, if you've ever had to justify it?

I'm sure these have been mentioned at some point in the thread already but they're true enough to bear repeating if they have.

First of all, we're talking about martial class adventurers. These are people who, magical equipment or no, go toe-to-toe with dragons, demons, eldritch abominations, the living dead, etc on a regular basis. There's no getting around the fact these people have a few screws loose to begin with. That some sort of hubris, madness, tradition, or any other irrational motivation is behind the character choosing the unarmed strike as his prefered weapon isn't really a stretch.

For another thing; those that do choose unarmed combat really don't have any trouble keeping up with those that choose other melee weapons in terms of combative prowess. There exist several options to make the unarmed strike just as powerful as, and sometimes even more powerful than, any manufactured weapon. Wielding an effective unarmed strike has no greater opportunity cost than wielding any exotic light weapon. It just gets a bad rap because unarmed combat is so strongly associated with the monk class; a class with a very strong reputation for epic failure.

Having now established that there's no logical reason not to choose an unarmed strike over any other light weapon, let's look at some of the other things that might lead a character down that path.

Tradition: everybody is influenced to no small degree by those who raise them. In a pseudo-medieval world with adventurers *cough murder-hobos cough* running around boozing and wenching and setting things aflame, more than a few kids end up orphaned and being raised as wards to one or another church. Some of those churches have a strong monastic tradition which includes, you guessed it, monks. If you're raised in an environment where perfection of the mind and body through martial arts is a major factor it's only natural that you might cling to that idea yourself and eschew manufactured weapons as crutches that impede your perfection of your own body.

Hero emulation: many kids have heroes growing up and some of those heroes will be unarmed fighters that came to use unarmed strikes for one of the other reasons I'm describing. This leads to some of those kids growing up wanting to be like their heroes and using the unarmed strike for that reason.

Pride: some warriors get it in their head that they're the greatest thing since sliced bread and feel the need to prove it by intentionally handicapping themselves in some way. Their use of the unarmed strike is viewed as showing how much better than their armed oppenents they are and how much braver than their armed colleagues they are.

Sadistic pleasure: some guys just like to feel bone crunch beneath their bare hands.

Gishing: you can deliver a touch spell with an unarmed strike. This works out nicely for certain gishes.

Piety: some deities favor the unarmed strike. Adherents to the faith, not necessarily clerics or monks, choose the unarmed strike as a show of devotion to their chosen god.

Reluctance to kill: an unarmed strike can deliver non-lethal attacks without penalty without giving up the ability to deal lethal damage when necessary and without any extra costs. This allows the unarmed fighter to subdue opponents that might be reasoned with or safely abandoned, rather than simply killing them all.

Talent: some people are just better at fighting unarmed than they are with any other weapon. This isn't really reflected in any mechanical way but that's not really important.

There may be a few others, but I think that covers most of the reasons one might choose the unarmed strike.

[KillianHawkeye]

What kind of deranged masochist would look at a magical sword, throw it to his side and say "Nah, I'm good. I'll just punch this otherworldly terror out of our plane of existance"? In any game world that's seriously thought out, such a man would be considered insane if not suicidal, right?

I played a high-level Monk back when 3E first came out. He had a veritible collection of magic swords by the time the game ended. Even got a vorpal githyanki silver sword. His battle cry was "I drop my swords and prepare for battle!"

I'd say the main justification was that Monk's aren't proficient in swords, so he was actually better off just punching things.

[Rubik]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14680213&postcount=38

That is all.

[edit] Not quite.


I've been in fights and in one I was jumped while walking home. One of the guys tackled me so I didn't have a choice. Unfortunately for him I did wrestling in school and grappling as part of my marital arts training. Unfortunately for me there were three of them.:smallconfused:

[Azoth]

Gotta agree with alot of the other Martial Art practitioners on here, it is a complimentary part of your training. I also have to agree with it being something someone may be better at. I suck at fencing, am decent at kendo, and am pretty good with a kusari-gama over all...but aside my knives, the weapon I am best at using and use most fluidly is my own body.

Often times when sparring with my friends who love various weapons, that can annoy me beyond compare (mostly polearms or limp weapons), my best bet to win is to let go of my weapon and put them in a situation where they have to give up their weapon or get hurt. Even then I lose more often than I win, but I honestly feel at times it is better to drop my katana and try to catch the spear than to continue using my sword to no effect.

[Talionis]

Mechanically, it has its niches.

Example I'm a fan of two level dipping Unarmed Swordsage and one level of Shadow Sun Ninja to get some decent healing.

Greater Mighty Wallup a spell from Races of the Dragon makes unarmed damage acceptable.

But having a character that visually doesn't need a weapon can be appealing. Often once I start thinking about a character he or she will go in a direction and once I start visualizing the character without a weapon in hand...

But you can have your hands full with wands. I've seen some Monk builds with high Charisma and Use Magical Device that are pretty cool.

Role play is one of the best reasons and the mechanics are there to make decent unarmed attackers.

They aren't all Monks either... Binders, Swordsages (Warblade and Crusaders also can use maneuvers without weapons), Barbarians, even casters can be unarmed attackers.

[Scow2]

The answer's simple - Sometimes, you just wanna punch a Black Dragon God in the face.

[Togo]

There may be a few others, but I think that covers most of the reasons one might choose the unarmed strike.

You've left out the main one - carrying weapons may be illegal, or restricted to certain social classes. Like, you know, China, and Japan.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You've left out the main one - carrying weapons may be illegal, or restricted to certain social classes. Like, you know, China, and Japan.

While this does sometimes come up, concealing some other light weapon or using a farming tool as a weapon are both reasonably simple ways to get around it. That's how the kama, sickle, nunchaku, sai, and scythe came to be weapons to begin with. Even a dagger can be fluffed as a kunai, and that's only a modified digging trowel.

Stern faced town guard "Why are you carrying that scythe into the city?"

PC "I've come to sell it. The harvest was poor this year and I need the money. I'll just get a sickle to replace it and spend the difference on food for my family."

Alternately "It needs a new head. I'm taking it to the tool-maker to get it refitted."

[hymer]

"The black hood and cloak? Oh, it was just the first thing in the closet this morning. Well, I'll make sure to stop by the tavern for a hearty meal, shall I? Yes, yes, if you think so, I'll go catch some rays this afternoon. Thanks awfully, officer."

[Frozen_Feet]

:smallconfused:

Any misspelling of "martial arts" as "marital arts" is not a accident. Especially when it comes to grappling or wrestling. :smallbiggrin:

On a more serious note, all of the reasons for going unarmed have already been mentioned. However, I'd like to dwell a bit deeper on reason 1: "not having a weapon".

In a lot of places throughout history, carrying visible weapons has been illegal. Carrying concealed weapons and getting caught has been synonymous with forfeiting your right to live. In a lot of places (such as taverns or churches), you were expected to leave your weapons in the lobby. In such circumstances, being able to whoop ass without a weapon, at least against other people without weapons, was and is very valuable indeed. (Real-life advice: you are seldom allowed to take your bo staff, your knives, your sais or your assault rifle into a bar. However, bars, and their immediate surroundings, are one of the likeliest places to get into a fight, due to drunken debauchery.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

"The black hood and cloak? Oh, it was just the first thing in the closet this morning. Well, I'll make sure to stop by the tavern for a hearty meal, shall I? Yes, yes, if you think so, I'll go catch some rays this afternoon. Thanks awfully, officer."

Hooded cloaks were very common travelling garb in middle-ages europe. Pointing out the armor most characters wear would've gone much further toward the point I think you're trying to make here.

However, in most places where it was illegal to carry any weapon, period, it was just as illegal for the peasantry to be armored.

[hymer]

I was merely continuing the scene with the idea that the guy being questioned by the guard is actually Death personified - the scythe thing drove me to it. It was an attempt to be humorous. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Sorry, I ruined Greenish' riddle!

[Greenish]

Hooded cloaks were very common travelling garb in middle-ages europe. Pointing out the armor most characters wear would've gone much further toward the point I think you're trying to make here.Riddle me this: who wears a black, hooded cloak, carries a scythe, and is very thin and pale?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Riddle me this: who wears a black, hooded cloak, carries a scythe, and is very thin and pale?

Does he ride a pale horse too? :smalltongue:

[Greenish]

Does he ride a pale horse too? :smalltongue:Named "Binky", yes.

[razorback]

Riddle me this: who wears a black, hooded cloak, carries a scythe, and is very thin and pale?

Goth farmer?

[Psyren]

A lot of this seems to be focused on kung-fu/wrestling and not so much on natural weapons, but those are important too. Both in-universe and mechanically, natural weapons have plenty of advantages over manufactured (and plenty of disadvantages as well), but melee should weigh all their options to make the best choice just like casters have to.

From second-level on (or even 1st with the right race), a class like the Totemist has very little reason to be armed for instance. Many powers that give you natural weapons - and even powers that give you better unarmed fighting skills - also give you a bestial/martial artist mindset or instinct to go with them. It's this mindset that can make you a terror for an armed fighter to face as you get all up in his business and start rearranging his body parts.

[Togo]

While this does sometimes come up, concealing some other light weapon or using a farming tool as a weapon are both reasonably simple ways to get around it.

Oh, sure it's easy to get around (most of the time - meeting the king or entering the HQ of these thieves' guild may not be), but it's still a good societal reason for unarmed combat to exist in the game setting, and thus be around as an established combat style for PCs to learn.

[Greenish]

A lot of this seems to be focused on kung-fu/wrestling and not so much on natural weapons, but those are important too. Both in-universe and mechanically, natural weapons have plenty of advantages.Well, if you have natural weapons, you're not really unarmed, which is probably the reason they've mostly been excluded from the discussion thus far. I'm a big fan of natural weapons, though.

[Telonius]

Why go unarmed? One thing could be fear-based. Say, an early-career encounter where a Rust Monster ate his sword, or his own weapon got Sundered. (You can pretty much pick whatever Bad Stuff happened as a result of that). He barely escaped with his life, and vowed that it would never happen again.

[Psyren]

Well, if you have natural weapons, you're not really unarmed, which is probably the reason they've mostly been excluded from the discussion thus far. I'm a big fan of natural weapons, though.

By the OP's definition, you would be:


My point is this: how can unarmed combat be justified from a roleplay perspective? What kind of deranged masochist would look at a magical sword, throw it to his side and say "Nah, I'm good. I'll just punch this otherworldly terror out of our plane of existance"? In any game world that's seriously thought out, such a man would be considered insane if not suicidal, right?

So I was answering that question - if one has powerful claws, a bite etc., tossing a sword aside wouldn't necessarily make one a "deranged masochist." (Though often, humanoids with natural weapons are considered insane, or at least maniacal, for other reasons.)

[Kelb_Panthera]

Oh, sure it's easy to get around (most of the time - meeting the king or entering the HQ of these thieves' guild may not be), but it's still a good societal reason for unarmed combat to exist in the game setting, and thus be around as an established combat style for PCs to learn.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Just that it's not a particularly compelling reason. Adventurers tend to exist in a state just a bit at odds with normal society anyway. We do, after all, refer to them as murder-hobos for a reason.