Durand Durand said:
Gnarsh,
I'd say the off hand thing is pretty much a given, as people train with their shield in the off hand. However, you may choose to let people shift their actions for a round to focusing on the shield as primary weapon, and other weapon as secondary. Not a lot to gain.
Correct. My whole point was that we can't assume that all shield attacks are going to be made only using the "bonus attack" one may gain as a result of weilding an offhand weapon/shield. Clearly, if we don't assume that by equipping a shield in the offhand, only the "bonus parry" is performed with the shield, we must also not assume that only the "bonus attack" may be performed with the shield. When weilding a weapon/shield in both hands, we must assume that any offensive action may be taken with either weapon/shield and that any reaction may be taken with either weapon/shield. Only the "bonus" attack/parry must be taken with the "offhand".
Which makes the whole "precise strike with a shield" issue valid.
I do agree with you that it's a somewhat silly mechanic. Not in basic concept, but in application. As I alluded to earlier, who's to say which is the "primary" hand? Do we just arbitrarily decide which parry or attack is the bonus one? When does the character state that? More interestingly, if a character has 4 CAs, when exactly does he get to use his bonus attack? The rules don't really provide us with any clarification on this.
I still prefer adopting the earlier RQ concepts of splitting combat actions. A simple adaptation would be to state that while you get your full CAs based on dex (total number of actions you can perform), you still only get 2 "combat actions" in a round. Attack, parry, dodge, pick two. Equipping a weapon or shield in the offhand allows you to take two of the
same action if you wish (so you could parry twice or attack twice - once with each equipped item), but otherwise confers no benefit. Making multiple attacks in a round would require splitting your attacks (or perhaps could be derived from the flurry action but with a larger subtraction - like 40%).
This puts the focus back on where it matters. In the skill itself. It also eliminates the problems associated with the "bonus" attacks and parries. The objective here is that characters can increase their options in combat by equipping multiple weapons, but it's overpoweringly useful (aside from being able to parry with a shield while attacking with a weapon obviously!). And Dex allows characters to move around more often, or cast spells faster, or get more shots off with their ranged weapons, but otherwise doesn't become an "I win" button in melee combat.
As to armor points subtracting from skills? I think that's a bad rule. As several have stated, it should simply affect endurance. Armor is designed to fight in. It does not significantly impact your ability to swing your weapon(s). Assuming such massive minuses to skills is ridiculous. This is the one thing RQ has had absolutely right in past editions. Not sure why they changed it.
The GM should feel free to apply minuses to specific skills due to wearing armor (like climbing, swimming, and jumping attempts). But subtracting from combat skills? Silly. If armor was really that bad, no one would wear it...
