Quote:
Why is it easier to strike an unarmed man offering no Defence than an armed man offering no Defence?
It depends on what you visualise as "zero DEFENCE". A person cowering, covering their head with their arms, isn't offering an active DEFENCE (and could be said to have zero DEFENCE)... In such a situation, an armed cowering individual might end up struck on weapon or shield - while an unarmed person will get hurt wherever the strike lands.*
* Armour By-pass Rolls notwithstanding.But you make a very good point. I'll have to think about it some more...
Quote:
I have a house rule that halves your Defence (rounded down) if you're unarmed and facing an armed opponent. And that could include Defence that has been split between multiple opponents, some of whom may be armed and some not.
...then again, maybe I don't have to think after all. I like that suggestion: it is (a) reasonable,* and (b) simple.**
Excellent. Thanks.
* Unless you are very, very good indeed at Martial Arts, it is very difficult indeed to avoid being hit by a weapon when you are unarmed.
** Which is perfect for DW rules.EDIT: a bonus to striking first* might apply, however, as a combatant fighting an unarmed barbarian charging towards them, fists flailing, casting DEFENCE to the wind (
berserk or
Bloodrage) should be at a disadvantage - virtually running onto their opponent's weapon. Probably only applies in the first round of combat (and if the armed opponent is not
Surprised).
(I can't that a situation where a barbarian would enter
Bloodrage and charge unarmed at their opponents would be all that common... But it might happen.)
* Bonus to order of combat, that is. The "Combat Initiative" bonus my old rules refer to.