Yeah, a player in another game I play gave the rest of us a similar heads' up. Don't worry, just survive and thrive.

We have a typhoon incoming, which isn't nearly as bad as a hurricane, and it probably won't pass directly through the part of the island I'm in, and even if it does the chance of power cut is minimal, but still.

Aren’t they just the same thing, just different terms depending on which ocean?

Anyways hope the typhoon is minor for you!

Oh, sorry, my sleep-depraved brain thought you said it's a tornado. Yeah, typhoon and hurricane are basically just the same thing with different names.

Both of you guys stay safe!

 Be safe and god bless.

Had a terrible 24 hours, me. Might be back tomorrow...

Sorry to hear.  Deal with real life, fantasy will keep.

Take your time, real life is all that matters.

We need to talk about combat.

I've hacked this game out of the Dungeon World rules, basically.

But I've been running combat more like PvP combat... where the bad guys roll to hit you, and can miss.

It's been pointed out to me that in that case, if the bad guys miss, the PC should get to counterattack. I think I'm fine with that.

But another issue that's been raised is that attacking with weapons should do more damage than attacking without a weapon.

One problem is that Dungeon World says little about this.

One rule I've seen to deal with this suggests that attacking without weapons should have a -2 penalty to damage.

I didn't really like that... but the proposed alternative, that attacking WITH a weapon should give a bonus, seems overpowered to me.

So I'm asking in general... what should be done about this?

I'm thinking about having the penalty to damage if no weapon is used... but should it be -1 or -2...? (I have to admit that -2 seems more realistic, but who said we have to be realistic...?)

I'll give my 2 cents on the damage unarmed issue, as I might need time on thinking about the more general combat action thing.

If there is a penalty, there will be opportunities to get around that issue with a little inventiveness (say hidden weapons, extra tools, techniques or magic to transform some natural claw/horns etc. Don't let me be the one to limit imagination). Plus it gives those who go Special Study - Martial Arts or those generally good at combat that extra worth.

Here is something to consider, problems can be fun to overcome. So the best thing to ask is, is this a situation people want as a challenge?
I'm game for a penalty. But as a combat guy. I might be shooting my own foot a little with my lacking magic spell solutions to problems.

Way I see it
-2 gives strong incentive to always have a weapon or appropriate tool on hand.
Meanwhile
-1 gives a little punishment without it being end of the world, what with how exceptional the PCs are in the setting.

I'm not particularly bothered on the matter but there should be a difference between using a weapon and you bare fists.

A -2 penalty might be steep but maybe it also encourages the use of improvisation, presumably there's always some sort of makeshift weapon you could use that could at the very least move that penalty up to -1.

Maybe instead of a damage penalty, do it as a penalty to the attack roll?  A -1 there would leave you more likely to have to expose yourself to counterattack as you have to get in closer.

If do damage penalty, maybe just say unarmed d4 - avoid 0 damage possibility, but still lower average.

But depends on how granular we want to make it.  I'm fine with mostly abstract.

I'm also curious where a 'normal' human's stats would land in this system.  I know we're not the centuries-old blenders like Corwin, and my character isn't HTH focused, but wonder how scared we should be of a random guy with a knife; if we're going to end up bloodied in pretty much any combat unless we roll really well.

I think "random human with a knife" would absolutely do less than 1d6 damage, very possibly less than 1d4... AND/OR have a serious penalty to hit. AND/OR would roll a normal damage die but then have a penalty (say 1d4-1 or 1d4-2 or 1d6-3 or something)... you get the idea...

Anyone else wanna weigh in on this issue?

The common advice with self defense instructors for an unnarmed person vs. a guy with a knife? Run away.  I'm sure their advice for fighting a sword would be even more so a case of 'run away, you fool.'

A sword has reach, it can casually cause serious damage with just a small amount of pressure because it's a ~3 foot razor blade built to do the damage it does, and in the hands of a guy like a Prince of Amber it's a monstrous proposition to tell someone to attack them unarmed.

The system without the accessories proposed by Dungeon World gives no benefit one way or another, unless the DM imposes it. As it exists without those modifiers, the difference between a guy with a sword and a guy with a spoon is nil. The question in my mind isn't if there should be penalties, it's just how much.

Having read the Dungeon World's weapon rules, regarding reach and the various other qualities on weapons, I'd suggest just using their weapons rules. It's not so scary and daunting it requires a PhD to read through and suss out what the various qualities mean, and it gives a relatively fair weighting to the weapons.

Are... we talking about this sort of thing:

http://www.necropraxis.com/201...ngeon-world-weapons/

?

Yep.

Okay, I think I'm gonna install a new rule where attacking without a weapon means a -2 damage penalty to PCs in general, unless they picked the Combat major option at character creation, in which case it'll be only -1.

Anyone wanna talk me out of it, or into changing this new rule somehow...?

I guess what I have is more of a clarifying question.

As I've yet to be spell slinging, I don't know if you've let "Cast a Spell" move cause damage or not.

What happens when someone in fiction casts a fireball? Cast a spell and then unmodified damage or have they just been using the basic moves Attack and Shoot?

As I recall, none of my people who picked magic have chosen to start with direct-damage-dealing spells. Certainly none have been cast yet.

But when the time comes... spells will do damage...

...Does that answer your question (I'm honestly not sure)...?

Ah so there are chosen spells then.

I think that does answer my question then if that is the case.

Yep--

Works for me!

I'd rather see it go down a die (d6 to d4, d10 to d8).  I'd hate to go through all the mess of getting counterattacked and everything to end up with a hit but zero damage. The combat option folks still come out ahead comparatively.

I like that, actually. I think it's an improvement. Anyone else got a yay or nay argument for or against this new idea...?