Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enforcer" data-source="post: 3756771" data-attributes="member: 396">Learning to punch well may or may not require any more or less effort than using a sword well, but the sword is the better investment, as it works better. The reason humans use tools (and weapons are a big subset of tools) is because they work better than one's bare hands. If something works better, you're going to use it more than something less efficient. Hence, it doesn't bother me at all that 3e Fighters are better with weapons than without them--weapons work better than punches, so that's what they choose to use. It takes special discipline (i.e. using a feat on Improved Unarmed Strike or taking Monk levels) to achieve similar proficiency in the &quot;less effective&quot; unarmed combat. A 3e Fighter isn't even a bad combatant unarmed. In fact, due to his high BAB he's better than anyone who hasn't specifically devoted time and effort to fighting unarmed. That works for me.I still want to see a competent unarmed, non-mystic fighter in 4e though, simply because the brawler is a valid fantasy archetype. And hell, beating up monsters with your bare hands is just fun. This is where &quot;it's a game&quot; comes in. So if we see a good unarmed talent tree in 4e, I think we'll be in good shape. But if a brawler can choose to be good unarmed, doing so should create an opportunity cost for weapon skill.I like how Star Wars Saga does it. Easy, effective Martial Arts feats let one customize their level of unarmed combat ability, while the Soldier's Brawling talent tree lets the Soldier be better than anyone else unarmed, if they so choose. So you can have a tried and true martial artist with all the feats and talents, or you can have a gun bunny who can still tear things up in your average cantina fight because he chose Martial Arts I.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enforcer, post: 3756771, member: 396"] Learning to punch well may or may not require any more or less effort than using a sword well, but the sword is the better investment, as it works better. The reason humans use tools (and weapons are a big subset of tools) is because they work better than one's bare hands. If something works better, you're going to use it more than something less efficient. Hence, it doesn't bother me at all that 3e Fighters are better with weapons than without them--weapons work better than punches, so that's what they choose to use. It takes special discipline (i.e. using a feat on Improved Unarmed Strike or taking Monk levels) to achieve similar proficiency in the "less effective" unarmed combat. A 3e Fighter isn't even a bad combatant unarmed. In fact, due to his high BAB he's better than anyone who hasn't specifically devoted time and effort to fighting unarmed. That works for me. I still want to see a competent unarmed, non-mystic fighter in 4e though, simply because the brawler is a valid fantasy archetype. And hell, beating up monsters with your bare hands is just fun. This is where "it's a game" comes in. So if we see a good unarmed talent tree in 4e, I think we'll be in good shape. But if a brawler can choose to be good unarmed, doing so should create an opportunity cost for weapon skill. I like how Star Wars Saga does it. Easy, effective Martial Arts feats let one customize their level of unarmed combat ability, while the Soldier's Brawling talent tree lets the Soldier be better than anyone else unarmed, if they so choose. So you can have a tried and true martial artist with all the feats and talents, or you can have a gun bunny who can still tear things up in your average cantina fight because he chose Martial Arts I. [/QUOTE]

Verification