Last visit was: It is currently Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:17 pm


All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting
PostPosted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 4:04 pm 

Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:12 pm
Posts: 609
SamhainIA wrote:
it would however be a hindrance on people using two claw attacks (like to qualify for the tooth and claw fighting style)

Agreed, you couldn't use your second claw.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting
PostPosted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 4:16 pm 

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:36 am
Posts: 1554
on further (offline) discussion I feel it worth noting, that most anyone could take advantage of a kick attack using melee unarmed.

_________________
--Josh Elliott
Oswald val'Inares V, The Seeker of the Val'Inares
Harvester Lord of the Eastern Fields of Iowa


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting
PostPosted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 4:59 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:40 am
Posts: 2046
I'm not falling into anything. My answer was based on simplicity sake and to keep unarmed attacks and shield usage consistent with other weapons. Rather than try to stretch the intent behind it, I tend to interpret things so they are consistent.

Solution A: You can (sometimes) benefit from shield while Ubarmed TWF
One solution requires the character to specify very clearly how each attack is done every time and that description (fluff) changes their mechanical results ( head butt plus kick keeps shield) but elbow smash plus eye gouge doesn't. This also means that it's the only weapons that allow TWF and shield use.

Solution B: TWF with unarmed loses shield bonus
This solution is internally consistent (describe it how you want it works the same) and externally consistent with TWF with all other weapons.

Ss'ressen aren't immune to this. Trip Foe (with tail) is still an advanced maneuver and can't be combined with TWF.

John

_________________
- John Bellando

Kelb'Bakari Masalio, Dark-kin Altherian Corsair, Gentleman Archaeologist, and Wandering Bard
"The highest compliment an Altherian can pay you is to shoot you with his flintlock. It means you were worth the expense."


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting
PostPosted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 5:33 pm 

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:36 am
Posts: 1554
John it looks like you are just making up rules that don't appear in the books just to make something consistent. I would happily agree with you if you found some basis in the rules to ground this on, but "for the sake of consistency" doesn't cut it for me.

so TWF attacks with tail bracers aren't allowed?
how about guarded charge + spinning strikes and a dark kin with Massive Horns

here is an equally simple solution in line with the two you listed.
C You can use a shield while TWF with unarmed.

This game is simple, I think its clear that unarmed combat is supposed to be something that encompasses martial arts, boxing and wrestling. I think that you are trying to force something that doesn't fit.

_________________
--Josh Elliott
Oswald val'Inares V, The Seeker of the Val'Inares
Harvester Lord of the Eastern Fields of Iowa


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting
PostPosted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 5:50 pm 

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:12 pm
Posts: 1037
Harliquinn wrote:
Ss'ressen aren't immune to this. Trip Foe (with tail) is still an advanced maneuver and can't be combined with TWF.


I missed that that was an advanced maneuver. However, what about Tail Bracer (or unarmed with tail)? I see no reason why they couldn't do TWF including tail and still benefit from shield. I'm watching the non-Ss'ressen part of this discussion with interest as I fall somewhere in the middle.

_________________
Steve Wilcoxon
Ss'kethis - Expert Holy Champion of the Fire Dragon 3.1
G'hyu'thyh Sungha - Martial Templar of Illiir 1.7
Eryk Bauer - Martial Awakened 1.2


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting
PostPosted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 6:00 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:40 am
Posts: 2046
Nope not making up rules. Extrapolating from the given rules.
Rule 1) You cannot wield a weapon in the same hand as a shield. Therefore TWF with weapons means you gain no benefit from a shield.
Rule 2) If you attack with a shield you lose it's SB until your next action. Therefore TWF with shields means you gain no benefit from a shield.

Rule 2 implies that as you attack with a shield you are moving it in a way as to not be ready to block attacks, since by attacking with it it's still in hand and being wielded so it must be a positioning thing.

I extrapolated that the intent was that TWF wasn't compatible with shield use. One focuses on putting all your energy into a dual attack. The other means attacking in a way that still keeps your shield in the correct position to block an attack. TWF with combinations of body parts such as kicks, head butts and elbow slams certainly doesn't leave your shield in a good position to block.

It might not be the interpretation PCI was going for but it is not just making rules up.

As to your other questions:

1) No the dark kin wouldn't get their shield bonus in my interpretation
2) Ss'ressen can of course use a tail braver in a TWF attack but would not benefit from their shield. They are basically turned around backwards towards their target.
3) I said they can't use Tail Swipe as part of TWF because Trip Foe is a advanced maneuver.
4) I challenge you to show me one example of a martial artist or wrestler who uses a shield with thur techniques.

You are also free to disagree with me but refrain from making it personal Please.

John

_________________
- John Bellando

Kelb'Bakari Masalio, Dark-kin Altherian Corsair, Gentleman Archaeologist, and Wandering Bard
"The highest compliment an Altherian can pay you is to shoot you with his flintlock. It means you were worth the expense."


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting
PostPosted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 6:43 pm 

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:36 am
Posts: 1554
Nothing personal about it, I'd say that to anyone that I thought was making up rules. I still think you are making unnessascary restrictions here.

so your telling me that a knight cant stab and kick with TWF?

http://martialarts.stackexchange.com/qu ... e-a-shield
tinbe and rochin it looks like.

_________________
--Josh Elliott
Oswald val'Inares V, The Seeker of the Val'Inares
Harvester Lord of the Eastern Fields of Iowa


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting
PostPosted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:04 pm 

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:12 pm
Posts: 1037
I have to agree with Josh at least in part. I see nothing at all in the rules that says (or even hints) that a Ss'ressen can't use his tail to attack (TWF or not) and still benefit from a shield. If the tail attack facing interfered with shield use, you would think the rule books would say so somewhere in at least one of the sections talking about tail attacks but it doesn't.

I can see how you came to your conclusions if you are trying to impose rules consistency (at least one interpretation of it) in all situations but I think you are imposing your view of rules intent into areas where there is no evidence that it was supposed to be applied.

As I said, I'm in the middle on can you make an off-hand unarmed attack and still use your shield (as long as the off-hand isn't a claw). I don't see any reason you couldn't kick and use a shield but, for simplicity, I can see disallowing it.

_________________
Steve Wilcoxon
Ss'kethis - Expert Holy Champion of the Fire Dragon 3.1
G'hyu'thyh Sungha - Martial Templar of Illiir 1.7
Eryk Bauer - Martial Awakened 1.2


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting
PostPosted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:20 pm 

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:46 pm
Posts: 1311
Harliquinn wrote:
Nope not making up rules. Extrapolating from the given rules.
Rule 1) You cannot wield a weapon in the same hand as a shield. Therefore TWF with weapons means you gain no benefit from a shield.


As you noted, the second part is an extrapolation. Consider a character with the Huge talent and a quarterstaff for example. Though normally 2 handed, it can be wielded 1 handed. It has the dual-weapon trait, so can be used with TWF while still keeping a hand free. This could be for casting or for a shield.

Harliquinn wrote:
Rule 2) If you attack with a shield you lose it's SB until your next action. Therefore TWF with shields means you gain no benefit from a shield.


That's a clear logic flaw. The rule as you quote states "If you attack with a shield..." A kick, knee to the groin, head butt, tail attack etc, does not hit rule 2.

Harliquinn wrote:
Rule 2 implies that as you attack with a shield you are moving it in a way as to not be ready to block attacks, since by attacking with it it's still in hand and being wielded so it must be a positioning thing.


Except I can do any of the things I suggested just a moment before without impacting the positioning of the shield.

Harliquinn wrote:
I extrapolated that the intent was that TWF wasn't compatible with shield use. One focuses on putting all your energy into a dual attack.


This may still be ruled to be the case, though not necessarily using the logic you stated above.[/quote]

Thanks for the continued discussion. It certainly helps with clarifying things.

With a sweep of his...

Hat


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting
PostPosted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:28 pm 

Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 8:36 am
Posts: 1554
John I think you and I have a differnt opinon on what a rule is.

you say intrepretation of a rule, or extrapolation. I still call it a rule. It's text that isnt in the book, and can be read in multiple ways.

It is of my opinion that in a shared campaign like CSE, that if a particular rule intreptation is allowable by the rules, then the judges have to accept it, regarless of opinion, you may not have noticed but i tend to not express opinions and I tend to not use examples to deny something.

We keep swapping back and forth between arguments, what do the rules say and what has actually happened in the real world? the rules are not meant to mimic real life exactly, or even close to exactly, and yet thats what you are basing your rules extrapolation on, what you think is possible in real life.

Here is what I base my argument on
the rules certainly do not disallow the TWF + Shield Scenario
I have given you a real life example ( now with Video)
I have given you multiple in game examples

the only other things i can present is logic definitions, and arguments on why open interpretations produce less negative play experiences.

2 asides,1 for the record I sat down today with an eye to creating a character specialized in unarmed fighting to be my special character, I have a theortical skin in the game.

2 i might actually be cross at some point if you keep making me spell interpretation ;)

_________________
--Josh Elliott
Oswald val'Inares V, The Seeker of the Val'Inares
Harvester Lord of the Eastern Fields of Iowa


Top
Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Moderators: james.zwiers, PCI Eric, PCI_StatMonkey Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net & kodeki