Making Unarmed and Melee mechanically distinct?

[deuxhero]

Fallout is quite famous for including "unarmed" (which actually includes a lot of weapons that augment punching like brass knuckles and power fists) and "melee" weapon skills. It's no secret the two overlap massively. What can be done to distinguish the two that doesn't require meta knowledge (exclusive perks, unique weapons) or reducing the mechanical variety within them (as making all unarmed faster but weaker and all melee slower but stronger would do)? Guns and Energy Weapons have a similar issue, but the method of distinguishing them is pretty obvious: Energy weapons can have all kinds of whacky secondary effects while gun is pure damage and maybe better suppression fire if that's a mechanic.

 

[Trithne]

Ever tried to parry a sword with your bare hands?

Basically, what should distinguish melee is sort of what you say about guns vs energy weapons - We use melee weapons for their various characteristics - Swords have an easier time making your opponent bleed, blunt weapons are basically bigger fists but that's a quality in it's own, spears help keep your opponent at a distance.

Using fists also puts you at greater risk of harm in response and you can't really defend yourself against an attacker with melee weapons, especially if those weapons are bladed.

Unarmed should be objectively inferior to using a weapon.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Unarmed has always seemed dumb as shit honestly.

 

[lukaszek]

perhaps look at underrail?
single melee skill that handles unarmed too. All weapon categories are distinct, got their own feats etc. Pure unarmed(no knuckles) even allow to imbue your fists with cave wizardry.
Same for guns handling all... well... guns. And again - there are distinct. Even small gun sub-category contains sub-sub category of various pistols energy/chemical/ballistic and all of them are completely different build wise.

 

[baboogy]

Fallout is quite famous for including "unarmed" (which actually includes a lot of weapons that augment punching like brass knuckles and power fists) and "melee" weapon skills. It's no secret the two overlap massively. What can be done to distinguish the two that doesn't require meta knowledge (exclusive perks, unique weapons) or reducing the mechanical variety within them (as making all unarmed faster but weaker and all melee slower but stronger would do)? Guns and Energy Weapons have a similar issue, but the method of distinguishing them is pretty obvious: Energy weapons can have all kinds of whacky secondary effects while gun is pure damage and maybe better suppression fire if that's a mechanic.

I guess it depends on the theme and atmosphere of the game. Like Trithne mentioned, in most settings unarmed should be inherently inferior to having a melee weapon equipped. But when I think of unarmed skill in more pulpy settings, I tend to think of kung-fu and everything associated with that- unarmed having some mystical abilities like AD&D's quivering palm where a single open hand blow can stop the heart of an opponent due to some vibrations from the attacking master. Different schools of martial arts could unlock different abilities throughout the game, though I know that tends to veer into exclusive perks which I know isn't what you're asking for. I think that fits thematically though in a pulpy setting, your body as the weapon being upgraded instead of your weapon being upgraded when you swap it out for a better one.

Alternatively, depending on the game unarmed could allow you to throw, drop, or pin opponents, or be a form of non-lethal damage that allows you to knock out enemies without killing them.

 

[MarathonGuy1337]

One of the better RPG's that did this was Jade Empire as melee weapons were divided into different types like long sward, poles and such whilst hand to hand had different techniques, but the game borrowed heavily from fighting games and leaned more towards an ARPG like most of Bioware's future titles.

 

[deuxhero]

JE just had various fighting styles and just had melee weapons as distinct styles. The sword Fortune's Favorite and the Leaping Tiger stance are just different moveset options with the minor special property that some enemies needed weapon styles to kill. Doesn't really help making two Fallout style skills distinct.

 

[Damned Registrations]

There's basically two ways to go in my mind; if unarmed is some mystical kung-fu shit, the sky is the limit and you can do whatever you want with it. And I think that fits just fine in any setting with magic, honestly, including settings where a 'non magical' warrior can do superhuman shit like cut through enemy armour with a sword.

OTOH, if unarmed is just straight up mundane skill, it's got basically one purpose, albeit one that gets criminally underused in RPGs- fighting someone at the drop of a hat. If a skilled unarmed combatant wants to fight you mid conversation while your sword is still in it's sheathe, you should not be getting a chance to draw that sword. Unarmed combat in the real world isn't about punching good, it's about manipulating other people's limbs so they can't use them, and it works really fucking well against people who aren't trained to defend against that, because at that point you may as well be trying to ride a unicycle for the first time ever- your strength and coordination aren't going to help you, you need familiarity.

 

[deuxhero]

Including "Hard" martial arts like grapples and throws was one idea that crossed my mind, but I dismissed it as an animation nightmare (in all but the most abstract artstyles) if a game included a variety of enemy types (instead of just humans like wrestling focused games do). Maybe there's a way to make it work?

 

[std::namespace]

Unarmed can have all kinds of whacky secondary effects while a knife is pure damage and maybe better bleed if that's a mechanic.

i dont get it
your imagination is a the limit
the name "unarmed" is just fluff, might as well be "aopuy8erf"

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

One possible advantage: Unarmed is a less lethal than melee. It could be the "non-lethal/less-lethal" skill for Pacifists, or simply capturing people.

Another advantage from Unarmed: Its literally, well, unarmed. As long as you have functioning arms, legs and even a head, you can fight unarmed. You can't use any other type of combat without a weapon. If your game has circumstances or even enemies capable of disarming the player, then this suddenly becomes a lot more useful. You don't need to load a gun and unlock the safety, or draw a sword, or say a magic spell, your fists and feet are already there. A skilled, strong martial artist is a weapon by himself.

If you incorporate CQC-style mechanics regarding Guns vs close-quarter combat (think how Open X-COM Extended mods do it), then unarmed could be the ultimate in fighting in constrained quarters against foes with ranged weapons.

Van Buren's conception of unarmed was to make it more or less like "a low-powered grenade", allowing players to chain multiple unarmed attacks in multiple directions. Say, doing three jabs to the front then a kick to the side in a turn. AFAIK I remember the idea was for an unarmed specialist to be able to do extra attacks at the cost of fatigue.

 

[Tavernking]

One possible advantage: Unarmed is a less lethal than melee. It could be the "non-lethal/less-lethal" skill for Pacifists, or simply capturing people.

Maybe, but I could see this getting frustrating when players want to capture some important NPC, so they start their attacks with weapons and try to time it perfectly when to swap to unarmed to avoid a kill. Sounds like lots of savescumming

 

[Tavernking]

Unarmed would come in handy if there's a mechanic where the player can be disarmed, their weapon flying off into some ditch. Also if the story lets you compete in boxing / wrestling for money. Or the story has the player get captured and needs to escape without their old gear

 

[Pocgels]

1. Weapons breaking mid-fight
2. Dropping especially long or unwieldy weapons at close range (think a 10 foot long pike)
3. Entering into areas where you are required to give up your weapons for security reasons
4. Being captured/imprisoned
5. Barfights, arguments with party members, other situations that aren't supposed to be to the death
6. Extremely sparse resources and little access to real weapons
There's certainly more I'm not thinking of... The point is, with enough of the above, unarmed could be a very useful secondary skill. It should not be as good as melee from a strict DPS sense, but it might serve as more supplement- similar to explosives.

I also don't see why unarmed techniques necessarily require you to not have a weapon equipped. Holding a spear shouldn't stop you from being able to punch, and I'm sure you could do a karate chop or whatever with a pistol in the other hand.

 

[cretin]

you could make unarmed totally shit on average but have a small chance at scoring a fight changing status effect. I am thinking approximating a situation where a disarmed warrior gets a takedown or trip on an armed opponent.

 

[Percy]

Pocgels beat me to it but umarmed would have limited use and it would be limited to close quarters.
So in a turn based game, if you charge some cunt and are in a certain area, you could probably headbutt them or something.
In this sense, i would tie it to initiative and also make it only reasonable for specific encounters.

 

[laclongquan]

Reach and Speed
Melee must have more reach than Unarmed, because obviously.
Unarmed must have more speed than Melee, because unwieldy weapons~
In FNV Melee and Unarmed are blurred because the reach is not made distinctive enough. They simply dare not make Unarmed reach the shortest, thus they equal the two of them.
Fallout 1/2 does make it distinctive somewhat, comparing spear/sledgehammer strike with unarmed strikes

 

[Lagole Gon]

Rather lame but it's an option:
Unarmed as a quest skill. Scenarios requiring unarmed combat. Fallout did it. Requires some design effort. I would only use this as a cherry on top.

Lagole Gon's actually pretty good idea:
It's a subomptimal combat skill on its own, but it's a very good situational extra option.
- Enemy stands next to a pit? Kick/push him there. Pushes use unarmed.
- You have a bow in your hands. Changing a weapon is a hassle for mechanical reason and you need just a little bit of damage on that goblin standing next to you? Kick him in the nuts with your fantasy Krav Maga.

 

[Deadass]

Fallout is quite famous for including "unarmed" (which actually includes a lot of weapons that augment punching like brass knuckles and power fists) and "melee" weapon skills. It's no secret the two overlap massively. What can be done to distinguish the two that doesn't require meta knowledge (exclusive perks, unique weapons) or reducing the mechanical variety within them (as making all unarmed faster but weaker and all melee slower but stronger would do)? Guns and Energy Weapons have a similar issue, but the method of distinguishing them is pretty obvious: Energy weapons can have all kinds of whacky secondary effects while gun is pure damage and maybe better suppression fire if that's a mechanic.

Make fist stronger, leave melee to children to play with while adults talk (with fists)

 

[Just Locus]

I always thought it'd be best if Unarmed had much more variety in moves at the cost of having greater damage.
I mean that melee weapons would be the power option for those who prefer power over speed, while Unarmed users would have the reverse. Having moves like kick/pick-up objects/uppercut etc. will help make unarmed playthroughs feel more fun even if it isn't the most optimal playstyle in retrospect, then melee weapons would be the type of playstyle we are familiar with.

 

[Johannes]

Punching is never better than striking with a weapon. Though punching can be done with a weapon too, knuckledusters etc, it's still kinda crappy weapon for a fight compared to something bigger.
Kicks can be useful in a swordfight, opening up another angle of attack.
Grappling also potentially very useful in a fight, if you manage to close the distance.
If we're talking realistic combat here, if you include some magical stuff into it anything.

But what you can and want to simulate exactly is more about game design. Come up with a good combat system where fighting has interesting options to consider, whether striking or grappling is included or not.

Generally I don't think there's much point having separate skills for weapons that do the same thing. Like in Fallout, the unarmed/melee and small/big/energy guns splits. More interesting to have skills and stats that govern how you use weapons of a type generally - like for guns, you can have a skill for how well you handle recoil, how fast you can aim, for how long you can improve aiming by spending extra time, how fast you reload... And for melee you can have separate stats for how strong your blows are whether it's with a sword, fist, bayonet or pistol whipping, for dodging/parrying incoming blows, for how good you are at striking vulnerable spots...
You can have weapon specialisation on top of that too, but kinda boring if that's the only mechanism.

 

[Lagi]

Unarmed can be always used, even if you wield weapon in hands. This will automatically make it must have skill.

Additionally it is used for

• pushing (kicking) - into pit, lava, water
  
  
• disarming
  
  
• grappling - your pc and npc cant do anything for a turn (or winner can choke other: -hp). Main purpose is to allow other PC to land killing blow, or prevent wizard from spellcasting (sniper/granadier from shooting). Or if your archer is suprised in CC, you could choke this pesky goblin.
  
  
• if sneak, non-leathal take down - why would PC want to not kill NPC? capture for a quest. Avoid death warrant from local population. Gain religion points for your paladin.
  
  
• free melee punch - you do normal 2 attacks with sword +1 extra punch if you pass your Unarmed check.
  
  
• chance for knock down - critical, good when combine with FreeMeleePunch.

 

[deuxhero]

I always thought it'd be best if Unarmed had much more variety in moves at the cost of having greater damage.
I mean that melee weapons would be the power option for those who prefer power over speed, while Unarmed users would have the reverse. Having moves like kick/pick-up objects/uppercut etc. will help make unarmed playthroughs feel more fun even if it isn't the most optimal playstyle in retrospect, then melee weapons would be the type of playstyle we are familiar with.

Yes, but what would "uppercut" do?

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

By the way, the idea of Unarmed as an auxiliary combat skill that can be used at any time is pretty cool and would work in almost any setting. People can be disarmed, guns can run out of bullets, spell slots and mana can run out, quivers can get dry, swords can break, but you can always do an unarmed attack at any time.

It can also be a supplement, with stuff like grapples or opportunistic unarmed attacks in melee fights, etc.

Hell, you could have something similar with melee too - bayonets, gun butt attacks, bashing someone with a bow, etc.

One possible advantage: Unarmed is a less lethal than melee. It could be the "non-lethal/less-lethal" skill for Pacifists, or simply capturing people.

Maybe, but I could see this getting frustrating when players want to capture some important NPC, so they start their attacks with weapons and try to time it perfectly when to swap to unarmed to avoid a kill. Sounds like lots of savescumming

Introduce bleed/internal damage and fatigue mechanic, so you can't just toss a punch at the end and take a guy non-lethally after you spent the last ten minutes hacking him to pieces.

Open X-COM Mods actually do it pretty well, you can't just use a stunning unarmed/melee attack and take someone down 100% of the time, depending on the weapon/attack and health of the opponent, going non-lethal often has a chance of killing people anyway, "overstun" is a thing, bleed damage is also an issue, etc. This is especially an issue if you have characters using the more powerful stun alternatives (like baseball bats).

 

[Just Locus]

what would "uppercut" do?

Either stun the opponent heavily at the cost of a lot of stamina, or knock them to the ground with little stamina cost but it would keep the opponent down only briefly.