BS

[Zhym]

They specifically state that if the attacker takes damage in the round that they try to grapple/overbear, the attempt is canceled.

I wonder if that was supposed to mean weapon damage, not grappling/overbearing/pummeling damage. It would make sense that if you're hit by a sword you can't really brawl in response. and sure, if you're successfully grappled or overborne, it's hard to fight back. But if you get punched first, the other can't punch back? That's kind of weird.

[Monsieur Rose]

I wonder if that was supposed to mean weapon damage, not grappling/overbearing/pummeling damage. It would make sense that if you're hit by a sword you can't really brawl in response. and sure, if you're successfully grappled or overborne, it's hard to fight back. But if you get punched first, the other can't punch back? That's kind of weird.

Hmmm. That would make more sense to me. Again I'm seeing that the rules for weaponless combat have holes. Since it looked like the 1E rules were designed (but not written) for non-lethal contests, I thought UA may be as well. I'm not a fan of 'damage prevents characters from acting'. Unless they get stunned which can happen when pummeling. It feels more appropriate that characters push through the damage to tackle or punch a foe.

That said, let's keep trying it as written, with the change to the initiative.

So, full disclosure, I apparently forgot how 1E does initiative and speed. I'm going to break from the book and roll initiative for everyone instead of per side. I will use a d6, as suggested, which will make pummeling (with its -4 penalty) much slower.

Thanks for helping tweak the process.

[max_vale]

One of 1E's many weird factors is that Initiative is listed at rolling a d6 and HIGH number goes first whether using group or individual rolls; and if using individual rolls, then the Missile Weapon/Reaction adjustment per DEX comes into play....again giving a +/positive modifier to get a higher number.....all is well....

But then, they list Weapon Speed Factors....and the bigger/heavier/longer the weapon, the higher the Speed Factor.....soooooo if you use THESE, suddenly you have to switch things to LOWER number is better or it makes no sense......

Good times!

(Lest anyone think I'm being a "hater".....I MUCH prefer 1E, 2E and BECMI over anything 3E and beyond......something about seeing all these "Figther 3/Sorcerer5/Noble 6/Gun-Voodoo-Mystical-Assassin 2" characters just doesn't sit right with me....but to each their own!

[Rex]

Yup, initiative in 1e is most likely the most confusing part of the rules.

[tibbius]

I'm sorry, I just realized that I've been forgetting to check this thread ...

Honestly, I think the reason is that after the baroque approach in 1e, the unarmed combat rules get pretty dull ?

[Monsieur Rose]

I suspect you're right. I've been trying to make it somewhat interesting, but I think the unarmed combat needs a bit more flavor.

Has anyone seen a set of unarmed rules that supplement armed combat? I know of some things like feng shui or wushu that do combat very narratively, sometimes freely substituting fist and gun damage. Bringing a knife to a gunfight should mean something, let alone bringing boxing gloves. Trying to find that nice balance between "Hulk smash puny man" and "two heavyweights going 12 rounds".

[Zhym]

I think the lesson here is that a system designed around armed combat doesn’t always work for unarmed combat—especially if you’re looking for fun details in the latter and the system is built to streamline the former. You can add narrative details to armed combat, of course, but AD&D intentionally doesn’t make that much of a distinction between, say, which part of the body is hit. I think that’s why the 1e weaponless combat rules seem so strange; they’re so convoluted compared to the armed combat rules that you'd think different people came up with them.

Unarmed combat rules are tough to fit in with armed combat anyway. Like you said—if someone brings boxing gloves to fight an armored, sword-weilding knight, there’s no need even to give the boxer a roll. Any system that tries to pretend fisticuffs have any effect against armored opponents with weapons Is doomed to being silly and unworkable. Weapons=win.

[Rex]

All valid points. As far as anything D&D rules wise I don't think I have ever seen anything that really worked. We always house rules that unarmed does 1 + Str damage bonus of subdual damage and always goes last in the round. Not really any better than the regular rules but simpler and easy to use.

[tibbius]

A while ago I played around with house rules where weapon length controls who gets a chance to hit:

- at the start, the engagement is controlled by the longest weapon
- you can only inflict damage on the person with the controlling weapon length if they don't hit you and you do hit them
- whatever weapon inflicts damage becomes the controlling weapon for the next round
- if no weapon inflicts damage, the longest weapon becomes the controlling weapon

These rules tended to bog down bc of hit points vs damage

[Zhym]

I wonder if that was supposed to mean weapon damage, not grappling/overbearing/pummeling damage. It would make sense that if you're hit by a sword you can't really brawl in response. and sure, if you're successfully grappled or overborne, it's hard to fight back. But if you get punched first, the other can't punch back? That's kind of weird.

Hmmm. That would make more sense to me. Again I'm seeing that the rules for weaponless combat have holes. Since it looked like the 1E rules were designed (but not written) for non-lethal contests, I thought UA may be as well. I'm not a fan of 'damage prevents characters from acting'. Unless they get stunned which can happen when pummeling. It feels more appropriate that characters push through the damage to tackle or punch a foe.

That said, let's keep trying it as written, with the change to the initiative.

I wonder if it's worth revisiting this. It seems like a side-effect of that rule is that it would slow down combat. Imagine regular combat rules if one side getting in a hit meant the other couldn't hit at all. Combats would take about twice as long, wouldn't they?

[Monsieur Rose]

I wonder if it's worth revisiting this. It seems like a side-effect of that rule is that it would slow down combat. Imagine regular combat rules if one side getting in a hit meant the other couldn't hit at all. Combats would take about twice as long, wouldn't they?

That's fair. It actually hasn't come up since changing the initiative to individual rolls, but I'll start allowing PCs and NPCs to act even if they have been hurt in the round.

[Monsieur Rose]

One thing I'm noticing is that this is less satisfying and has less action. Too many misses or non-actions. I think using a combat system that is meant to condense and portray a minute of armed combat doesn't work for brawls.

I can see how AC and 'to hit' are intended to be used in armed and armored combat. Not every strike is damaging, most are blocked, deflected, or weak. That system makes less sense when simulating punching or grappling. Having a one-minute MMA fight that results in no serious blows landed is unsatisfying.

[Rex]

D&D unarmed combat has always been problematic. D&D combat in general is very abstract and unarmed combat for some reason always seems to suffer more in an abstract combat system.

[Rex]

I am heading into the woods for some much needed camping/hunting. This will be through the 25th and every weekend through mid-December. I will update as more weekdays get added later on. I may be able to check in once or twice depending on how things go but don't count on it. Feel free to NPC my character so I don't slow things down.
Thanks and good gaming,
Rex

[dmw71]

It's been a month since the last post in this one.

Is this game still active or should it be archived?

[Monsieur Rose]

It has been brought to my attention...ahem...that I've let this fester.

I'm still interested, but understand if others would like to let it die. Can I get an up or down vote from everyone? If we continue, we would run 2e rules. Probably in some sort of gladiatorial arena, or underground fight club.

Thanks, and sorry again.

[tibbius]

No need to apologize! It was fun exploring the older edition rules.

I don't think much will be gotten from later editions, especially 3e+ where I don't recall any specific mechanics for unarmed combat.

[Rex]

I am fine with 2e if you want to continue.

[Zhym]

I’m still up for moving though the later editions.

[max_vale]

As always, I am down to continue.