And that's why unarmed should focus more heavily on grappling. The power of using just your hands is that you have TWO hands free to grab what you want.

And to those of you claiming it would take a lot of animation: Weapons each get 4 power attacks (forward, backward, left & right) plus several normal attacking animations, and now with what we've seen in Skyrim, they're also have finishing moves unique to each weapon and to what you're fighting. I think they can have more than left and right punches for unarmed users, especially if they're going to take the time to include the skill and all of its perks. I never asked for a whole grappling system with generated grappling positions using a on-the-fly animation system, although it would be nice. Just give me a few more options that punching like a buffoon.

um no, no it couldn't. You see, what I'm looking for...well hoping for, is balance. You on the other hand are hoping for unbalance for the sake of making you feel powerful compared to a skill that you're probably going to throw to the side. I get the whole non lethal way of killing someone vs lethal, but the reasoning you gave in the previous post has to do with you wanting swords to feel more powerful compared to unarmed. Something that's totally pointless in an RPG that's about choice and is single player. Another way to look at it is, If i've murdered hundreds of people...WITH MY BARE HANDS....then i should be a monster at that, capable of taking out armed men with ease. If they want to make it so weak that you have to sit there for hours on end punching people for them to die, sure, go right ahead...but when i walk into town, people better RUN THE HELL AWAY. because i don't think anyone besides the most low down dirty would want to deal with someone who stood over an unconscious guard and punched them over and over and over and over and over and over and over until they died....that's just sadistic. Besides, if you get your unarmed to 100 that should matter for something shouldn't it?

I think Unarmed should gain strength from magic, as that will silence all of the "realism" nay sayers out there.


I believe Skyrim "Monks" are unarmed/unarmored fighters that let magic freely flow throw their viens (much like Ki) and they use this magic to bring power to their strikes, and to harden their skin against weapons. Monk fists and feet flow with the power of mana, and thus hit with great force even causing mini "explosions" on impact. As the monk's mana decreases in combat, his attacks lose their extra magically enhanced strength and his skin loses its empowered ability to repel enemy attacks.


Thus the monk is also a balanced fighter, who must manage his mana in order to keep the magic flowing within him.

Especially considering 100 is literally superhuman levels in TES terms. Same for 100 in an attribute. Its not even the physical limitation, but the super human level, for that stat/skill. 100 in unarmed should be able to nearly insta-kill most enemies in the game on the same level as swords or axes can.

One of unarmed's LARGEST issues is that you can not use enchantments. Most people run around with 100 fire damage on their blades, but unarmed users get none of that. Hopefully we'll get weak "weapons" like hand-wraps, brass knuckles, claws, spiked gauntlets, etc for unarmed users in Skyrim, just as we saw in Fallout 3 or New Vegas.


No...just no. Its totally unnecessary. Make unarmed good, that is all that is needed. Excuses are for those who need them, and unarmed certainly doesn't need an excuse to improve it from the totally sorry state its been in since the beginning of this series.

I haven't been keeping up with game info as much as I should but was hand to hand ever in question? If so, what is the fallback for weapons degradation? I would like to see what finishing move they may have in store for hand to hand, albeit it was just a fatigue drainer.

As much as i'd just want unarmed to be better for the sake of, "It's a skill in the game, why make it underpowered"....if people wanted to argue realism, i wouldn't mind that magic enhancing it idea lol. although i'd prefer they just increased it.

No. I'm not hoping for unbalance. I only want that giving two contendants with the same skill level, one of them wearing apropiate tools designed for that kind of activity, this contantand have advantandge on her foe. The same could be aplied to armor, horses (for runing) and so on. You call this unbalance and I call this sense and playability. If you can use swords or not, but using a sword didn't give you any advantadge, this is not a choice, its only a mock. I don't understand the carnage and sadistic part (maybe you think that I want the need of punch someone forever to take the kill? it's not the case). Of course you should get something upon reaching 100 in hth as well as someone who reaches 100 in blade. Imagine two masters of hth and blade fighting, after a few blows, the master of blade is disarmed. Game over. Is this balance? the combat continues untill the only one capable of being disarmed, the one with the weapon! is disarmed? Well, I preffer things the other way. I'm not saying, my idea of things is better or better balanced, but it's how I like it.

So it is realism you're looking for. Because if that's the case, then level 1 sword vs level 1 unarmed, sword always wins. and so forth and so on to the point where weapons always wins. there's literally no point to doing unarmed. Heck, level 100 unarmed and level 1 arrow, but the unarmed guy gets hit in the chest from far away...arrows win. In this case, the only thing unarmed would be useful for is well, fighting against other unarmed people. Considering most of the enemies you fight are gonna be armed...i guess unarmed always loses...unless you get lucky of course.

How about you get 30%-40% of the damage based on you HtH skill level?
Like if your HtH level is at 50, you do around 20 damage per hit with your bare fist
At max level 100, you do 40 damage.
That sounds fair to me.

Why would they get rid of H2H? If they did, I probably wouldnt get Skyrim.

I like realism, but only to some extent. Playability is way more important and I don't want an escenario where an unarmed oponent will loss always. I want to be in a notable disadvantadge (yet not unsurpasable one) when I am unarmed, and yes I want to fight unarmed against armed foes sometimes. I realy like it. I suppose you want as I to be in disadvantadge agains various foes at once, but this didn't meant that you want to be unable to defeat them, only that you want a challenge. Its the same in my case with unarmed combat. Well, this and I don't want to be in disadvantade when I am the armed one. But believe me, I don't want unarmed combat being meaningless, I love unarmed combat,I want it in the game and I want a really challenging battle when I find myself unarmed.
EDIT: forgot quoting :blush:

We are fighting dragons, not just guys with swords. It would look silly and awful. Not to mention that they would have to spend the same amount of animation time as all the other weapons combined.

If there was ever a RPG to leave it out, this is it.

But killing a dragon by shouting at it doesnt look silly? There's no reason to get rid of it and every reason to keep it.

Really? One skill such as hand-to-hand determines whether or not you play the game at all?


This isn't just a dragon fighting simulation though, there's a lot more to the gameplay than that. Plus, how satisfying would it be to be able to say you killed a dragon with your bare hands? That alone is enough to include it.

Yep, they dont need to get rid of stuff. I dont advocate the cutting of content, or support the dumbing down of one of the last good RPG franchises left.

Edit: Although I believe that in a tweet Todd or someone sarcastically confirmed unarmed.

Yeah I hope unarmed gets some lovin'.

Was such a shame about New Vegas. It got some real love in that game but most of the takedowns freeze the game up. Soooo yeaaahhh.....