Unarmed Combat

[FitzTheRuke]

I can dig it.

 

[med stud]

I like the powers.

I have a suggestion for a feat or mechanic as well;

In medieval times, wrestling was common. Old manuals on fighting with daggers consist of many wrestling maneuvers. Many times wrestling was a good counter against heavy armours.

Here is my suggestion:

Feat: Trained wrestler
Benefits: You can sustain a grab with a move action.
Normal: A grab lasts for one round and is initiated with a standard action.

This feat would allow you to hold an opponent in it's place while at the same time attacking it and being attacked back. If you want, you can make so only small weapons and unarmed attacks are allowed by both participants in the grapple.

To break out of the grab, the opponent rolls Strength vs your Fort- save.

 

[TheLastEmperor]

Great ideas.

I like the idea of more close quarter combat options and as med stud said, wrestling was a common aspect of martial training. Italian and German longsword/greatsword combat manuals included many techniques for grappling with and without a weapon, often using the sword as an implement in the grappling and trapping of limbs.

I like unarmed fighting but there are times that I would like to avoid using "monk" as it can imply monks as known in our history. I've thought of maybe using something like the pankratiast where it would be an unarmed "class" but without religious/spiritual attachment. There's also the concept of pneuma in pankration that parallels chi so you can still use the concept of a focus to achieve extraordinary feats. Of course pankration/pankratiast would be changed to a less specific name so it can be applied to any fictional setting.

 

[Stalker0]

First of all, likely unarmed attacks will be treated similarly to a dagger. If your proficient, you gain a +3 to attack rolls. That already helps level the playing field between it and other weapons.

One thing about BO9S that I loved was it made an unarmed combatant perfectly viable. Those powers added a lot of extra damage, being the base damage of your weapon wasn't that big a deal. Heck with diamond mind, it often didn't matter if you swung a greatsword or flicked a guy with your finger.

However, I'm concerned that a lot of 4e powers so far seem to require certain weapons, and that the damage of the power directly relates to the damage of the weapon. This is less favorable conditions for unarmed attacks. Then again, with that +3 to attack rolls (or heck, maybe go all the way to +4!!) it does make your attacks hit more consistently.

 

[Bishmon]

Not handled until a following book. Focus is far, far more important than a set of rules that are apropos to precisely no printed class.

What about the fighter?

 

[vagabonvoid]

First of all, likely unarmed attacks will be treated similarly to a dagger. If your proficient, you gain a +3 to attack rolls. That already helps level the playing field between it and other weapons.

One thing about BO9S that I loved was it made an unarmed combatant perfectly viable. Those powers added a lot of extra damage, being the base damage of your weapon wasn't that big a deal. Heck with diamond mind, it often didn't matter if you swung a greatsword or flicked a guy with your finger.

However, I'm concerned that a lot of 4e powers so far seem to require certain weapons, and that the damage of the power directly relates to the damage of the weapon. This is less favorable conditions for unarmed attacks. Then again, with that +3 to attack rolls (or heck, maybe go all the way to +4!!) it does make your attacks hit more consistently.

I doubt that unarmed proficiency will be a +3 (it's not as accurate as a dagger) but it will probably be +2.