I have a player in my group that wants to play a unarmed fighter/brawler type of character.

So I have to ask. When an action card says that you need a melee weapon to use it, can your melee weapon be the unarmed attack? (It usually states "melee weapon equiped" , that's what's confusing us)

there is an unarmed entry in the melee weapons category but I still thought I'd ask here.

How would you handle this?

As a general rule I would say no. However if your player wants to play an unarmed fighter it depends on your game. If you want to keep it very realalistic I'd say no, but if you want to just let the player play the unarmed fighter and have fun with it then I would look at the cards he wants to take on a case by case basis and make a judgement then. In either case I'd make it clear that this was just for his character and his "special training" and if another character is disarmed they can't start using their actions that require a melee weapon while unarmed.

Maybe make the character specialize in unarmed as a weapon skill specialization, then you could have a house rule that if people have that specialization they can use those cards when unarmed.

One thing that might be interesting to try, is to give the player access to the to the appropriate action cards that currently require melee weapons and let him buy the same cards but have them require being unarmed ...

Basicly, the actions the character buys for his fist, can not be used with a weapons, and the actions other characters by for weapons can't be used with fists. This gives him the chance to be a strong fighter but it forces all the characters to differentiate between armed and unarmed. Some characters might decide to buy some of each, or maybe buy the same action twice ... once for armed and again for unarmed.

Gully

Melee action "Mighty Blow" is an unarmed attack (0 recharge), Athletics based. And it hurts (Grapple too is Athletics)

No. As Cwell mentioned, there are specific attack action cards that require unarmed, and there are one or two that aren't specific. If an action card has a requirement for a 'melee weapon equipped' it cannot be used unarmed.

I would rule that fists (or brass knuckles) are indeed a melee weapon. They are even listed as such.

If you can't use basic melee attack unarmed, then you can't attack unarmed unless you buy other cards which is wrong.

Since it is listed as a melee weapon, and nothing in the rules exclude it from this category I would say that you can of course use all attacks that require a non-specific melee weapon when you're unarmed.

Ruling that you can't is just making assumptions and guessing what is written between the lines, when unarmed is in fact listed as a melee weapon.

There are specific attacks for great swords and other weapons... but they are still melee weapons.

There are special ranged attacks using intelligence instead of agility as well. But most ranged attacks use agility.

I see your point ... but if fists are in fact a 'melee weapon', then there is absolutely no need to EVER list "melee weapon" as a requirement on an action card, as everyone will be at least be "equipped with a fist/foot". Since unarmed fighting is *not* something everyone is trained in (and we're talking essentially martial arts/boxing type training here to get use of action cards), it makes sense that even the basic "Melee Strike" that everyone gets doesn't apply.

The way I see it, unless you are trained in it (ie, you learn an unarmed attack action), unarmed fighting is essentially performed with "Perform a Stunt", inflicting fatigue for the most part and doing no real damage. There are quite a few melee action cards whose requirement is "melee weapon equipped", that would just seem silly allowing someone only armed with their fists to perform reasonably well against an opponent armed with a sword/melee weapon.

Great stuff, thank you

I think that I will allow him to use unarmed strikes on those actions that require melee equiped, because he really wants to make a brawler type of character. But I might give him a misfortune die, or even a challenge die on attacks that target armed enemies. The only exception where he will not get penalties is with the cards that list unarmed as a prerequisite.

What do you think about that?

I also thought about giving him some type of brass or spiked knuckle. Should I use the stats of a dagger for that? It seems to me that such a weapon could have the fast quality.

Use "Mighty Blow" as a reference : increased Defense vs heavier armor than Leather

dvang said:

I agree with some of your points dvang. One of the issues is that the damage of unarmed melee is too high. But still with unarmed you will not be able to parry, so that is one limitation.

Everyone can throw a punch without having any training... especially a hardened fighter who doesn't have mighty blow . Having mighty blow is extraordinary training (like boxing or other MA).

Although the rules does in no way limit using all cards (that aren't weapon specific) for unarmed combat, I would rule that only the basic melee attack and all specific unarmed action cards can be used.

But not allowing someone to throw a punch, because he doesn't have MA training is silly, when everyone can pick up a sword/gun and use that without any sort of training (basic melee/ranged).

As for the damage, it makes sense for me to give unarmed combat a damage of 0 or 1, which is much more reasonable.

Nothing is preventing someone from throwing a punch. They just must use the "perform a stunt" action card to do so, rather than the more damaging Melee Strike action card. I see unarmed attacks without training as inflicting more fatigue than anything else. Only with actual training does unarmed become deadly and really start inflicting wounds. Thus, perform a stunt, which inflicts fatigue, except for the occasional critical.

Chaos85 said:

The guy is suffering by using a DR3 CR4 weapon for purely RP reasons - I see no point penalising him any further by disallowing the melee actions that require a weapon.

If he want to use improvised weapons they are already in the tables. Using spiked knuckle that counts as a dagger also seems reasonable though the Mighty Blow card essentially lets you attack with bare hands (using athletics) as a dagger with a good Comet effect.

dvang said:

But that doesn't work since with that mechanic unarmed fighting is more dangerous than using a sword. You can only get toughnessx2+1 fatigue before passing out, making it even more dangerous than if inflicting wounds.

From a balance perspective allowing them to use basic/generic melee based action cards while unarmed isn't going to hurt things, I'd certainly allow it. If the card allows you to attack with any weapon from Dagger to Halberd then how does it suddenly become unbalanced if the attacker is unarmed. I say go with it. There are specific action cards for unarmed attackers in the same way that there are specific action cards for only great weapons, only fencing weapons, only daggers etc... Those specific cards are what differentiate certain weapon styles. Otherwise an attack is an attack with fist, dagger, mace, sword or axe.

Further more you've got the potential to all for a player to make for a very interesting unarmed brawler. If you are fine with bending flavor a bit you could allow him to make a martial artist or fancy footwork type character by allowing him to incorporate some moves traditinally reserved for the War Dancer action cards.

As for the concept of penalizing the unarmed fighter he can't parry (except perhaps another unarmed fighter) and can't block. I'm betting he's probably also not going to be wearing a lot of armour because the visuals of a Knight in plate armour boxing is just ridiculous. Even someone decked out in full mail would look silly boxing.

I'd give the player lots of leeway. Right now what's the worse case scenario? An excited player that has a goal of what he wants and bringing that fun and enthusiasm to the table. That falls far more inline with the design principles of WFRP 3 then trying to work out the statistical and limiting effects of fighting unarmed.

Again it's not necessarily about which elements of realism you want to pick on when the unarmed fighter is facing off beside the magic wielding human, the elf who can launch a barrage of arrows in a heartbeat as you are trying to strike down an army of greenskins. Yet "oh noes' the fighter is unarmed...

Kryyst said:

Exactly. From a rules perspective nothing indicates that it isn't allowed and from a balance perspective he will be doing less damage than with a weapon and can't parry. On the other hand if a player wants a unarmed fighter it would be silly to deny him, when nothing is unbalanced. In fact he would hurt his damage output by doing so and not get a single benefit.

Less damage... you mean the, what, 2x DR less between fists and a hand weapon? If I'm not trained in fighting unarmed, there really isn't any way that any unarmed attack that I make will come close to hitting someone with a sword. 2 DR less doesn't even come close, IMO.

Now, if one of my players wants an unarmed fighter ... I don't have a problem house ruling him to gain a 'custom' version of a melee attack action that changes "requires melee weapon" to "unarmed". At that point it becomes a dangerous trained unarmed attack move. It couldn't be used, however, if the PC picks up a greatsword, for example, because unarmed fighting is much different than fighting with a weapon.

Honestly, the whole verbage of "Unarmed" means "without arms", and refers to armament (ie weapons, not the body parts called arms). So "without weapons". If you are unarmed, you therefore do not have a melee weapon equipped.

I disagree that unarmed = equipped with a melee weapon

dvang said:

There is neither rules or balance issues that requires any special rules to be made, so the OP is safe to allow his player to use unarmed with melee cards. The game is more abstract in nature IMO, so it doesn't need rules for something that will never be an issue.

<shrug> Seems unbalanced to me that everyone will always only be @ 2 DR/wounds less effective in combat whether they are armed or unarmed. That amount is easily made up for in some of the action card damages. So, people can always use Double Strike, with only a single sword, because a fist is a melee weapon so they have a melee weapon in each hand. Seems like there is little need to melee weapons unless you're using a 2-handed version, since nearly all melee action cards be be used pretty much equally well whether you have an actual weapon or not.

None of that sounds right to me personally, and seems unbalanced.

dvang said:

As I said the sensible thing to do would allow just basic melee attack. That's the one I see no reason to limit. I also said the damage on unarmed was too high.

That said I see no issue with cutting someone with your sword followed up by a punch, when you would have been better off with a weapon anyway. The damage IS lower although it isn't low enough, so that there is NEVER an advantage to using unarmed.

There is an unarmed melee action card in the set, as there is a grapple action card you use with athletics (not weapon skill).

willmanx said:

hehe déjà vu.

I'd be inclined to allow most melee attack actions done unarmed, especially with a good description, though I might double armor Soak value against it, or maybe separate normal wounds and critical wounds and apply Soak separately against each stack, so that criticals are harder to get with a bare fist but still not impossible.

dvang said:

It really depends on what you want to allow. Doesn't mean it's the rule, just the exception in this case for this character in this campaign. If you want to add some realism do like WFRP 2 did and double the soak value of armor. That'll pretty much mean that unarmed combat is really only effective against unarmoured opponents. - Incidentally this is what I have done in my campaign.

One strange thing however is that I have seen some of the actions from the creatures guide influct "Unarmed damage" as if it's something special. Anyone know what this is?

Gallows said:

My guess would be so you can easily move those cards around to other similar creatures that would attack unarmed or with natural weapons as opposed to claws.