I think a good idea for a perk tree would be to have two main sides. One side for finess attacks, and one for heavy hitter attacks. Thi way you could have your standard monk class as well as a unarmed hulk-like tank. The latter is very fun, as I got a mod that improves unarmed attacks, and I created an orc shield brawler. he's a heavy armored, unarmed badass.

They shoulda added a dragon execution with hand to hand. You like, punch it in the throat really hard, or kick it in the neck and break it.

do you really want to get technical here? yes, killing a dragon with a sword is much more 'realistic' (in the world of skyrim). the dovahkiin has dragonrend to put him on the ground, and is capable of resisting fire. he can don armor to withstand physical attacks. some well placed sword attacks (which we can attribute to a high skill in one-handed) should be able to cut the dragon's skin and maybe even sever vital organs.

i agree hand-to-hand is fun. do you think skyrim is not? what would be the point of sword and sorcery if hand to hand could beat it? maybe it would be fun, but it could potentially alter the game. how could we have a useful hand-to-hand perk tree without either a) rendering weapons useless, or b ) making this hand-to-hand tree useless itself? i just don't see any place for it in this game.

How would unarmed render weapons or magic useless? Does magic render weapons useless? Do weapons render magic useless?

good questions. magic and weapons are supposedly balanced (we can argue whether one is better than the other elsewhere). however to survive in skyrim combat one needs to be proficient in either. if we introduced hand-to-hand as a valid form of offense/defense, then why would one ever want to carry a cumbersome sword when he could just rely on his fists? personally, i like swords and medieval weapons. i think they are cool. but what would be the point of them if hand-to-hand could beat them? i feel like i'm just reiterating everything i've already said. but i don't see any valid counterargument. if magic and weapons are balanced then neither are useless; they are simply two different choices one must make when entering battle. but if hand-to-hand were good enough, then yes i think they would make weapons useless for reasons previously stated. i feel like what the pro-unarmed folk are arguing for would be a magic/weapon/hand-to-hand system. it just doesnt make much sense when you think about it. the choice would come down to 1) weapon, 2) no weapon, 3) magic. why would anyone pick #1 when #2 is viable?

i hope no one takes offense to my argument. i think it is a good discussion and i feel strongly about my opinion.

To that I say why have two-handed weapons AND one handed weapons? Or why have maces, swords, and axes? Why not just swords? Why would anyone use a mace if they can just use a sword?

What about bows?

i honestly cant tell if youre trolling and just trying to prolong the argument. but i'm having fun.

why have two-handed weapons and one-handed? because theyre both cool? so we have a choice? same goes for the varieties of one handed weapons. they each have different swing speeds and damage, one coming at the expense of the other. its all about your playstyle. bows can be better than melee, but only if youre willing to invest in that particular tree (and maybe also alchemy/sneak). by the same token a one-handed wielder can block the arrows if his block skill is good enough and overcome him in melee.

we could do this all day, and come up with a way to make hand-to-hand balanced with everything else. but i think a brawler class, while cool to think about because its new (and lets face it, it would be pretty amusing), is just dumb. you could just ransack an entire fort using only your fists, not to mention dragons. sword and sorcery is my favorite genre of fiction and i would prefer to keep it that way in skyrim.

Exactly. All reasons why a Unarmed skill would not undermine weapons or magic.


You think it's dumb. I thik it's cool. D&D is sword and sorcery, and the monk class (unarmed) can be a VERY powerful class. Also, previous TES games had unarmed (and unarmored) as seperate skills. Weapons and magic survived just fine.

And in a fantasy setting such as TES, using "realism" as a barometer is a facile argument.

i actually think you make some really good arguments. i remember the monk class from oblivion (never played it though). does this mean, though, that you would need good alteration/resto skills for protection? or could you just use heavy armor. i'm just trying to imagine how this would 'fit' into current skyrim builds.

There are many possibilities.

You could be a stealthy khajiit that wears only robes, and sneaks up on enemies to get an advantage, then rip them to shreds before you take too much damage.

You could be a hulking orc that uses heavy armor and a shield to tank enemies. This is especially fun since you can "fight" with shields, now.

You could be like a Dragonball Z super sayan or whatever and enchance your unarmed attacks with magic.

That's just three options.

All of these characters are completely viable in Skyrim simply by tying unarmed gamage to the one-handed skill tree (using a mod). I've made all of these characters (the orc shield brawler was my favorite). No mods were necessary in previous TES games.

you have my vote

so i just read http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1342368-lets-talk-about-monks/and http://uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Master_Zoaraym%27s_Tale. all in all, i think skyrim has enough going on already in terms of combat variety. imo another tree seems excessive. like i said it could be fun. but theres already fists of steel and unarmed enchantments. that, plus magic cloak spells, stealth, etc.... i think theres enough here to make yourself an unarmed build if you really want one. Day_Man posted a few already. i just feel like another tree would be overwhelming.

The thing that stinks is they already added some great finish moves for unarmed, they put in the Gloves of the Pugilist that add an unarmed bonus, and there's the one unarmed perk in the Heavy Armor tree. Just so close to making it possible without quite getting there. I'm hoping that maybe one of the DLC's will add in a perk tree for it. I would love to make an unarmed character. I think it would be fun. I've already played all of the major classes and that would be a great way to mix things up.

You forgot Chuck Norris. I'm sure he could bodyslam a dragon.

There are already items, animations and racial bonuses that involve hand to hand. I could see hth as a last minute cut from Skyrim that probably wouldn't take much effort to implement a perk tree for.

I also don't believe unarmed needs its own perk tree. I wouldn't mind though seeing hand-to-hand being incorporated more into other skills so it is a little more viable. Honestly though, the way it is now you can already make a powerful unarmed character

I want it badly. Both Unarmed and Unarmoured skill trees, the latter perhaps improving dodge and chameleon abilities and being some kind of alternative (albeit weaker) to alteration's mage armor, restoration's wards and illusion's chameleon for a martial artist character who doesn't want to use magic.

The only excuse for Unarmed and Unarmoured not being implemented as skills is that using these "skills" can slow down (unwanted) leveling up. But yes, IMO they defentily deserve their own skill perk trees. There are plenty of roles for characters who don't want to use weapons or armour or neiteher. There could be a heavily armoured Nord drunk brawler, a character who doesn't want to spill blood for either practical (evidence), aesthetic or ethical/religious reasons, monks and mages, thieves and assassins - they all could use unarmoured, unarmed or both skills. I'd love to have a special perk in Unarmed tree that would knock NPCs unconscious without killing them.

Unarmed needs help, a new tree would be great, but if they just included it in either the one or two handed trees would be enough though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhBiNx749Zw
I think i made my point