You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
In FO3 I was unarmed and I thought it was really good. I was wondering if any one thinks that melee will be better then unarmed in vegas. Please don't tell me that both suck because they don't and the deathclaw is god like.
From: Auron66 | Posted: 6/27/2010 3:20:37 PM | #004 Unarmed! It's the way of the Warrior. Weapons may break, but your fists... Your fists will always be a part of you! Literally and figuratively speaking of course.
Almost no one willing finishes F3 with bare fists. At Unarmed 100 and 3 Iron Fists, you do 40 damage (if that one FAQ about fists doing 1/4 the skill level is correct). Which is garbage compared to what you COULD be doing with Unarmed weapons. You want to take on a Feral Ghoul Reaver with 40 damage? **** that, almost no warriors use bare fists.
"Learn the lesson that George Lucas fails to learn: despite the fact that you created this series, it doesn't belong in your hands." Langis on Sonic
true fists only do 40dmg but when you have paralyzing palm.. well, i was killing deathclaws with bare fists. Also you can let out like 8-10 punches in VATS which means 8-10 punches whilst invincible to attack.
You can paralyze a whole room of raiders then burn em with a flamer or blow em up with a grenage lol
Unarmed is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Realistically, a man with a minigun will defeat the man using just his fists, 100 percent of the time. I know games aren't realistic, but it's stupid when a woman can beat a SUPER MUTANT or YAO GUAI to death with her fists. That's just idiotic.