Improved Unarmed Strike: [Archive] - Wizards Community

Improved Unarmed Strike: [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
JarHead031
06-02-07, 08:06 PM Alright, I know some may say this should be in the Dungeons & Dragon's general forums, but I wanted to discuss this more with Eberron players.

While going on a walk and thinking about D&D and Eberron, I started thinking about Improved Unarmed Strike. Now, I can understand not be very proficient with your hands. I mean, it is easier to beat the **** out of someone with a quarterstaff than with your hands if you haven't had any training with it.

But I was wondering why characters with +1 level adjustments were not proficient with their own hands. I can understand not having a proficiency with that of the monk class, but I would think that at the very least barbarian and fighter classes would be able to hit lethal with their hands without provoking AoO.

When I think of the fighter class, I envision elite fighters. Troops trained to kill. Something akin to our special forces (though a rogue with fighter bonus feats would be more like special forces). Except for exotic weaponry, the fighter and barbarian classes are proficient with every weapon. The same with the paladin and the ranger. Why would they have training with every average weapon known, but not able to kill proficiently with their own bare hands?

The fighter is trained to fight any enemy, but the fighter should never be reliant on his own weapons, now should he? If his weapons are taken, he may very well need to use his bare hands.

OOPS! Forgot to take the feat. Well he's screwed, eh?

Or how about the savage barbarian? The savage barbarian that lives with a small tribe that doesn't have the skills to create or train with a longsword? How does that make any sense? And wouldn't a savage be able to use his own hands to rip open his enemies? I mean...that's pretty barbaric if you ask me.

I guess this could all be solved by taking the weapon category alternative given in UA, but I am just wondering if any of you have thought the same thing? Why would someone be trained how to use a longsword or rapier before learning how to use his own bare hands?
Altyrium
06-02-07, 08:44 PM its about balance. if everyone could just punch each other and make it really hurt then it'd be like an army of monks in fullplate
also, think about it, dnd isnt like today. feats represent training, if you wanna make your guy good with his hands, you take a feat. all the classes get certain profs with weapons because thats the flavour of the class.
JarHead031
06-02-07, 08:58 PM You wouldn't have a bunch of monks on the battlefield wearing fullplate.

If you're going into battle using your bare hands and you're not a monk, you're an idiot. A sword is more powerful than the fist(generally speaking). But what warrior wouldn't have IUS? I mean, wouldn't you want to learn how to use your fists and swing a sword?

Saying you would have a bunch of monks on the battlefield doesn't make any sense at all. Monks get improvements to the damage they deal with their fists, not warriors. They can also enchant their fists (and I'm guessing feet) with magic. Having fighters know how to use their fists in combat would be nothing like a monk. Medium sized monks start out dealing 1d6 damage with their IUS. Fighters, barbarians, paladins and rangers would only be able to deal 1d3.

I find that it takes away some of the flavor of the classes. Especially a fighter and barbarian. But who do you think would win in a fight? A level 1 fighter in fullplate who has improved unarmed strike, or a level 1 monk using his bare hands? The monk would run circles around the fighter, and though it would be a difficult match for the monk, I'd say nine times out of ten the monk would win.

So would it be a balance issue? Not at all.
tallric_kruush
06-02-07, 10:57 PM I'm guessing from your forums name you were/are a U.S. Marine, or at least fairly familiar with them? I had a buddy who was a Marine, and he said their hand-to-hand combat skills were indeed trained.

This is one example, though, of DnD not imitating reality in every respect. All real warriors may know how to fight with their hands, but not all DnD warriors do. I have thought of the contradiction, but I've never been moved to do anything about it.

If you wanted to make your warriors more "real to life", you could give all the combat types (monks excepted) Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. Of course, then you'd have to give the Monks a different bonus feat, and each of the casters a suitable feat. Because, in the end, it is a game-balance issue.
JarHead031
06-02-07, 11:23 PM I wanted to be a Marine, and I have many friends that are Marines, and I am in a civilian militia. So, I have some experience with Marines. =) But my name is Jared, and Jarhead has been a nickname ever since I was born.

Anyway. I still don't see how having IUS for free for +1 BAB classes (or just a select few) is unbalancing. The monks are ALWAYS going to be the best when it comes to IUS, so having a fighter have IUS for free doesn't make much difference. It adds flavor certainly, but unbalancing the fighter to the monk isn't an issue I see.

Oh, and my friend pointed out that I said level adjustment in the start, I meant to say +1 BAB.
tallric_kruush
06-02-07, 11:30 PM Not a bad nickname, I guess.;)

It probably wouldn't be tremendously "unbalancing" for the warrior-types to get IUS as a bonus at level one. Honestly, how often will a fighter choose to fight with his hands, anyway? (That last point is the reason I never cared to do anything about the lack of realism. It just doesn't impact games often at all.)

Yet, fighting unarmed with proficiency in DnD requires a feat. In the interest of fairness, should you choose to give warriors an extra feat, you'd really need to give everyone else something of equal value to their characters. They'd deserve a feat, too.
JarHead031
06-02-07, 11:38 PM Well, I would just go with the weapon categories anyway. I think it's rather silly they are proficient with such a variety of weapons in the first place.

But you gotta think about this. Technically each weapon that a character is proficient with is a feat. =)

You can take simple and martial weapons as a feat, but only one at a time.
tallric_kruush
06-02-07, 11:53 PM Well, I would just go with the weapon categories anyway. I think it's rather silly they are proficient with such a variety of weapons in the first place.

That rule definitely adds verisimilitude. The standard system is in play merely for simplicity's sake.

But you gotta think about this. Technically each weapon that a character is proficient with is a feat. =)

That shows you just how many feats a warrior-type gets to begin with!
Edymnion
06-03-07, 03:13 PM They all get training with weapons, and the option to either work on their hand to hand abilities, OR to further their weapons training. Its represented by the Fighter bonus feat.

Its just that, instead of learning to fight bare handed, you decided you wanted to take advanced courses in swordplay (Weapon Focus [Longsword]).

The reason your fighter isn't a bare handed killing machine is because you decided he wasn't.
MageWeasel
06-03-07, 04:44 PM Getting punched by a fighter without IUS still hurts.
tallric_kruush
06-03-07, 06:05 PM Getting punched by a fighter without IUS still hurts.

Not much, though. That's the OP's complaint. That Fighter also provokes an Attack of Opportunity if you're either armed or have the IUS feat. I'm content with the RAW, but I undertand his logic.

JarHead031, if you're seriously considering giving warrior-types IUS as a bonus, might I suggest "Eschew Materials" for casters and "Improved Grapple" for monks? I don't know about you, but I've often wanted to eliminate spell components of that "1 gp or less" category, anyway. As to roguish sorts, I'm feeling lazy and will leave that to you.
keropie
06-03-07, 11:27 PM I fully expect that the average 'trained' fighter who attempts to punch the average 'trained' fighter who is carrying a sword is in for a world of hurt. I mean, I have some sword like training (I fence), and I have no doubts that if I were carrying a sword and some guy tried to punch me, I could step back and whack at his hand real good.

So no, I don't think that fighters really deserve the ability to make attacks barehanded without provoking AoO. If there were an inbetween feat that allowed you to deal lethal damage but still provoke, I might be ok with that, but the full feat seems a bit excessive.

Though I also have a hard time thinking that your basic 'trained' fighter can hit someone as lethally as he would stab them with a dagger (more or less). I think that the whole system (in this small case) is fairly well modeled.
Shady314
06-04-07, 04:55 AM I always thought the lvl 1 fighters better ability to fight barehanded than say, a lvl 1 rogue, was shown in his bab and hp. :rolleyes:
tallric_kruush
06-04-07, 01:29 PM I always thought the lvl 1 fighters better ability to fight barehanded than say, a lvl 1 rogue, was shown in his bab and hp.

This pretty much sums it up.
Captain_Kobold
06-11-07, 11:26 PM Yep. Improved Unarmed Strike is not smply training to injure or kill someone barehanded. It is training to the point where you would be an even match-up to someone equally well-trained who is wielding a knife.
That degree of training is highly unusual. Most lethal unarmed striking techniques concentrate on disabling an opponent in order to apply a finishing move (coup de grace). There are only a few ways for an unarmed person to do 'lethal' damage to another person, without an extremely high degree of training, and this is represented by the -4 to hit penalty.

Everyone is proficient with their unarmed strike (except maybe wizards). IUS is very much a different level of competency.
Cifer
06-12-07, 02:19 PM I agree with Captain Kobold and keropie - being able to not blow your (virtually non-existant to begin with) defense against a swordfighter and get into punching distance without being sliced open is something I'd say few people manage.

Further, it's mostly irrelevant whether you deal lethal or nonlethal damage as long as you're not up against constructs or undead - as soon as they're down, they're out of the fight anyway.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JarHead031 06-02-07, 08:06 PM	Alright, I know some may say this should be in the Dungeons & Dragon's general forums, but I wanted to discuss this more with Eberron players. While going on a walk and thinking about D&D and Eberron, I started thinking about Improved Unarmed Strike. Now, I can understand not be very proficient with your hands. I mean, it is easier to beat the **** out of someone with a quarterstaff than with your hands if you haven't had any training with it. But I was wondering why characters with +1 level adjustments were not proficient with their own hands. I can understand not having a proficiency with that of the monk class, but I would think that at the very least barbarian and fighter classes would be able to hit lethal with their hands without provoking AoO. When I think of the fighter class, I envision elite fighters. Troops trained to kill. Something akin to our special forces (though a rogue with fighter bonus feats would be more like special forces). Except for exotic weaponry, the fighter and barbarian classes are proficient with every weapon. The same with the paladin and the ranger. Why would they have training with every average weapon known, but not able to kill proficiently with their own bare hands? The fighter is trained to fight any enemy, but the fighter should never be reliant on his own weapons, now should he? If his weapons are taken, he may very well need to use his bare hands. OOPS! Forgot to take the feat. Well he's screwed, eh? Or how about the savage barbarian? The savage barbarian that lives with a small tribe that doesn't have the skills to create or train with a longsword? How does that make any sense? And wouldn't a savage be able to use his own hands to rip open his enemies? I mean...that's pretty barbaric if you ask me. I guess this could all be solved by taking the weapon category alternative given in UA, but I am just wondering if any of you have thought the same thing? Why would someone be trained how to use a longsword or rapier before learning how to use his own bare hands?
Altyrium 06-02-07, 08:44 PM	its about balance. if everyone could just punch each other and make it really hurt then it'd be like an army of monks in fullplate also, think about it, dnd isnt like today. feats represent training, if you wanna make your guy good with his hands, you take a feat. all the classes get certain profs with weapons because thats the flavour of the class.
JarHead031 06-02-07, 08:58 PM	You wouldn't have a bunch of monks on the battlefield wearing fullplate. If you're going into battle using your bare hands and you're not a monk, you're an idiot. A sword is more powerful than the fist(generally speaking). But what warrior wouldn't have IUS? I mean, wouldn't you want to learn how to use your fists and swing a sword? Saying you would have a bunch of monks on the battlefield doesn't make any sense at all. Monks get improvements to the damage they deal with their fists, not warriors. They can also enchant their fists (and I'm guessing feet) with magic. Having fighters know how to use their fists in combat would be nothing like a monk. Medium sized monks start out dealing 1d6 damage with their IUS. Fighters, barbarians, paladins and rangers would only be able to deal 1d3. I find that it takes away some of the flavor of the classes. Especially a fighter and barbarian. But who do you think would win in a fight? A level 1 fighter in fullplate who has improved unarmed strike, or a level 1 monk using his bare hands? The monk would run circles around the fighter, and though it would be a difficult match for the monk, I'd say nine times out of ten the monk would win. So would it be a balance issue? Not at all.
tallric_kruush 06-02-07, 10:57 PM	I'm guessing from your forums name you were/are a U.S. Marine, or at least fairly familiar with them? I had a buddy who was a Marine, and he said their hand-to-hand combat skills were indeed trained. This is one example, though, of DnD not imitating reality in every respect. All real warriors may know how to fight with their hands, but not all DnD warriors do. I have thought of the contradiction, but I've never been moved to do anything about it. If you wanted to make your warriors more "real to life", you could give all the combat types (monks excepted) Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. Of course, then you'd have to give the Monks a different bonus feat, and each of the casters a suitable feat. Because, in the end, it is a game-balance issue.
JarHead031 06-02-07, 11:23 PM	I wanted to be a Marine, and I have many friends that are Marines, and I am in a civilian militia. So, I have some experience with Marines. =) But my name is Jared, and Jarhead has been a nickname ever since I was born. Anyway. I still don't see how having IUS for free for +1 BAB classes (or just a select few) is unbalancing. The monks are ALWAYS going to be the best when it comes to IUS, so having a fighter have IUS for free doesn't make much difference. It adds flavor certainly, but unbalancing the fighter to the monk isn't an issue I see. Oh, and my friend pointed out that I said level adjustment in the start, I meant to say +1 BAB.
tallric_kruush 06-02-07, 11:30 PM	Not a bad nickname, I guess.;) It probably wouldn't be tremendously "unbalancing" for the warrior-types to get IUS as a bonus at level one. Honestly, how often will a fighter choose to fight with his hands, anyway? (That last point is the reason I never cared to do anything about the lack of realism. It just doesn't impact games often at all.) Yet, fighting unarmed with proficiency in DnD requires a feat. In the interest of fairness, should you choose to give warriors an extra feat, you'd really need to give everyone else something of equal value to their characters. They'd deserve a feat, too.
JarHead031 06-02-07, 11:38 PM	Well, I would just go with the weapon categories anyway. I think it's rather silly they are proficient with such a variety of weapons in the first place. But you gotta think about this. Technically each weapon that a character is proficient with is a feat. =) You can take simple and martial weapons as a feat, but only one at a time.
tallric_kruush 06-02-07, 11:53 PM	Well, I would just go with the weapon categories anyway. I think it's rather silly they are proficient with such a variety of weapons in the first place. That rule definitely adds verisimilitude. The standard system is in play merely for simplicity's sake. But you gotta think about this. Technically each weapon that a character is proficient with is a feat. =) That shows you just how many feats a warrior-type gets to begin with!
Edymnion 06-03-07, 03:13 PM	They all get training with weapons, and the option to either work on their hand to hand abilities, OR to further their weapons training. Its represented by the Fighter bonus feat. Its just that, instead of learning to fight bare handed, you decided you wanted to take advanced courses in swordplay (Weapon Focus [Longsword]). The reason your fighter isn't a bare handed killing machine is because you decided he wasn't.
MageWeasel 06-03-07, 04:44 PM	Getting punched by a fighter without IUS still hurts.
tallric_kruush 06-03-07, 06:05 PM	Getting punched by a fighter without IUS still hurts. Not much, though. That's the OP's complaint. That Fighter also provokes an Attack of Opportunity if you're either armed or have the IUS feat. I'm content with the RAW, but I undertand his logic. JarHead031, if you're seriously considering giving warrior-types IUS as a bonus, might I suggest "Eschew Materials" for casters and "Improved Grapple" for monks? I don't know about you, but I've often wanted to eliminate spell components of that "1 gp or less" category, anyway. As to roguish sorts, I'm feeling lazy and will leave that to you.
keropie 06-03-07, 11:27 PM	I fully expect that the average 'trained' fighter who attempts to punch the average 'trained' fighter who is carrying a sword is in for a world of hurt. I mean, I have some sword like training (I fence), and I have no doubts that if I were carrying a sword and some guy tried to punch me, I could step back and whack at his hand real good. So no, I don't think that fighters really deserve the ability to make attacks barehanded without provoking AoO. If there were an inbetween feat that allowed you to deal lethal damage but still provoke, I might be ok with that, but the full feat seems a bit excessive. Though I also have a hard time thinking that your basic 'trained' fighter can hit someone as lethally as he would stab them with a dagger (more or less). I think that the whole system (in this small case) is fairly well modeled.
Shady314 06-04-07, 04:55 AM	I always thought the lvl 1 fighters better ability to fight barehanded than say, a lvl 1 rogue, was shown in his bab and hp. :rolleyes:
tallric_kruush 06-04-07, 01:29 PM	I always thought the lvl 1 fighters better ability to fight barehanded than say, a lvl 1 rogue, was shown in his bab and hp. This pretty much sums it up.
Captain_Kobold 06-11-07, 11:26 PM	Yep. Improved Unarmed Strike is not smply training to injure or kill someone barehanded. It is training to the point where you would be an even match-up to someone equally well-trained who is wielding a knife. That degree of training is highly unusual. Most lethal unarmed striking techniques concentrate on disabling an opponent in order to apply a finishing move (coup de grace). There are only a few ways for an unarmed person to do 'lethal' damage to another person, without an extremely high degree of training, and this is represented by the -4 to hit penalty. Everyone is proficient with their unarmed strike (except maybe wizards). IUS is very much a different level of competency.
Cifer 06-12-07, 02:19 PM	I agree with Captain Kobold and keropie - being able to not blow your (virtually non-existant to begin with) defense against a swordfighter and get into punching distance without being sliced open is something I'd say few people manage. Further, it's mostly irrelevant whether you deal lethal or nonlethal damage as long as you're not up against constructs or undead - as soon as they're down, they're out of the fight anyway.