It seems to me that the unarmed skill is being weighted too heavily in terms of its usefulness in the current combat system:
Unarmed: Affects chance to hit while unarmed, as well as chance to avoid damage with Dodge, Combat Meditation, and Death or glory?
Melee: Affects chance to hit with melee weapons and chance to avoid damage with only the shield maneuver.
Marksmanship: Affects chance to hit with bow and arrow.
With this model, an archer is forced to take on two separate skills (unarmed and marksmanship) in order to achieve the same balance of survivability:hit chance that someone using melee gains from a single skill (melee). This imbalance is slightly offset by the fact that much less marksmanship is required to hit, but even so then the Dodge maneuver is still 50% less effective than Shield so to actually achieve the same avoidance rate, the archer needs 50% more unarmed than someone using melee would need in that skill.
My biggest concern, however, is with two-handed weapons. Obviously you aren't using a shield so your melee skill will be of no use to you in terms of avoidance, even though a two-handed axe or sword(should they ever appear) is clearly a melee weapon. So instead you must level your unarmed skill to raise your avoidance while using a two-handed weapon. That seems extremely counter-intuitive.
Finally, my suggestion: Have every maneuver determine its avoidance based on the weapon(or lack thereof) equipped. In other words, if you have a melee weapon equipped, and your combat maneuver is Dodge, it will determine your avoidance based off of Dodge's general formula and your melee skill. If you have no weapons equipped, it will use your unarmed skill. If you have a bow equipped, it will use your marksmanship.