THACO22

Baldgeek

Just rolled a new Halfling Ftr/thief and base THACO is 22 unarmed. Specialized in longsword and when equiped 19 which is right ...but why 22 unarmed? ...I thought base was 20 at 1st level. He has a 16 str too ...so no penelties there..

Thanks in advance

atcDave

Somehow he's getting a non-proficiency penalty while unarmed? Maybe he was holding a quarter staff that he isn't proficient in?

You're right his Thaco with sword seems to be correct.

TJ_Hooker

Every newly created character starts out holding a quarterstaff. If you don't have proficiency in a weapon, you get a penalty to THAC0. Are you sure he wasn't wielding a quarterstaff when you checked?

Baldgeek

I'm sure .. was unequipped and simply unarmed. With the staff 22 .. without the staff 22. Is 'unarmed' in 2nd edition counted as a 'weapon' perhaps?

atcDave

No, unarmed should not give a penalty; but it sounds like its coming up that way. I wouldn't worry about it, there is no practical reason to fight that way, unless you're a Monk.

Baldgeek

Now here's a thought .. could it be due to the fact that he's a short class?

Dee

I believe that unarmed characters are treated as nonproficient because of how dangerous it is to fight with nothing in your hands when your enemy has weapons equipped.

The penalty for a fighter should be -1, though, not -2. I wonder if it's giving the -2 because you're a multiclass thief?

TJ_Hooker

Aosaw said:

I believe that unarmed characters are treated as nonproficient because of how dangerous it is to fight with nothing in your hands when your enemy has weapons equipped.

The penalty for a fighter should be -1, though, not -2. I wonder if it's giving the -2 because you're a multiclass thief?

I'm pretty sure that fighters are supposed to get a -2 penalty from lack of proficiency.

Dee

It's been a while since I looked at it all; I thought it went -1, -2, -3. (Warrior, rogue/priest, mage respectively)

But maybe it's -2, -3, -5.

bigdogchris

Since there is no profeciency for unarmmed I do not see it possible to receive a penalty for not being profecient.

Dee

Other way around, @bigdogchris; since there's no proficiency available for unarmed, it's impossible to be proficient.

The monk uses a different weapon type that doesn't require proficiency, but the unarmed "fist" weapon does, despite the fact that the proficiency doesn't exist.

Baldgeek

I read on a site that it is infact -2 for warrior class .. so that must be it ..thanks .. funny never payed that close attention .. til this time ... lol

Dee

As an addendum, I wouldn't be opposed to a mod that created a "Fists" proficiency type that would allow characters to become proficient with unarmed fighting. In fact, that would make Kensai a pretty good monk alternative.

ZanathKariashi

In BG it's only -1. It's supposed to be -2, but if you have proficiency in a similar type of weapon it's only -1 since you have partial proficiency, so they went with -1 instead.

All characters are ALWAYS proficient when unarmed. This might be something that cropped up due to that touch spell thing being worked on. In BG1 and 2, you never suffer a thac0 penalty for being unarmed. Monks take it a step further and get an entirely different thac0 table when they're unarmed (Using the fighter table instead of the cleric table).

It's possible the unarmed attack item isn't properly flagged to ignore proficiency. And no, a kensai would suck ass, since unarmed cannot deal lethal damage unless you're a monk which uses a different unarmed item.