Paradigm Concepts
http://forums.paradigmconcepts.com/

Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting
http://forums.paradigmconcepts.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=467
Page 5 of 5

Author:  Harliquinn [ Sat Dec 28, 2013 5:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting

SamhainIA wrote:
john then why did you make a stink about it?


I didn't make a stink. I answered a question in a rational way with supporting arguments. You came in guns blazing with personal attacks instead of just voicing your thoughts on the matter, which blew it way out of proportion. Apparently, even when an official answer is given, it's not enough.

The above statement about TWF was to show TWF is already not ideal without shields and is irrelevant to the discussion.

John

Author:  SamhainIA [ Sat Dec 28, 2013 6:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting

responding in harversters forum

Author:  mighty28 [ Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting

For my 2 cents worth, I have no preference. It seems most logical that you would not lose the shield bonus unless the shield was used in the attack. You could kick, knee, elbow, headbutt...whatever. But, if a change is *needed* for balance sake, that is ok, too.

However, I think it is silly to make a Ss'ressen exception. Counting both legs and head, humans would have 3 spare appendages...i fail too see how adding a tail would really change anything.

Author:  wilcoxon [ Sat Dec 28, 2013 10:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting

mighty28 wrote:
However, I think it is silly to make a Ss'ressen exception. Counting both legs and head, humans would have 3 spare appendages...i fail too see how adding a tail would really change anything.


Because the tail is explicitly an attack-capable, weapon-wieldable (well weapon-wearable) appendage (the rules do not talk about making attacks with legs or heads anywhere - logically feasible but not in the rules anywhere). There's logically no reason why the Ss'ressen wouldn't even have triple-weapon fighting - except that it would be a set of rules for one specific race and would likely be of even more questionable value effectiveness-wise (eg likely even more additional talents for an even smaller benefit over TWF than TWF is over single-weapon fighting).

Author:  Hat [ Sat Dec 28, 2013 11:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting

If the goal is to say that the character can't benefit from the shield bonus when using two weapon fighting, keep it simple and just say that. This allows for the use of the shield as a second weapon. It avoids making special rules for races.

I can see the logic behind trying to focus on too many things at once. As such actively engaging the shield while making two attacks in rapid succession fits that bill. I don't see how requiring having a free hand should be a requirement for an unarmed attack. Especially as it's not if you make a single unarmed strike.

With a sweep of his...

Hat

Author:  mighty28 [ Sun Dec 29, 2013 1:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Unarmed Combat and Two Weapon Fighting

Unarmed
Description: There are countless styles of unarmed combat thought the lands. This weapon represents the use of any portion of the body when striking an opponent; specific styles may dictate which portion of the attacker’s body is actually used to perform the strike.

A:RPG pg. 246 pretty well says it when stating "any portion" of the body. I dont think we need to limit a player's individual options in this case. Ss'ressen get an extra "portion" to use...good for them. The game is designed (and intended t0) give players more options, not less.

Page 5 of 5 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/