Armour skill penalty

[halorix]

I agree.
Somehow I can't picture a great axe or a maul wielding warrior making a precise attack to ignore armour.

 

[RMS]

I agree.
Somehow I can't picture a great axe or a maul wielding warrior making a precise attack to ignore armour.

The maul I can buy, but the joints in armor would be no harder to hit with a great axe than with any other edged weapon. A great axe is just a large two handed wood axe, and when you chop wood you hit an area smaller than the join in armor repeatedly. (Granted the tree isn't moving....though in the right fantasy world it certainly could! )

 

[Gnarsh]

Which makes the whole "precise strike with a shield" issue valid.

Except it isn't valid at all. Again, the rules are quite clear. The bonus attacks you get for using a second weapon CANNOT be used for a precise attack. Doesn't matter what hand is primary and which is the 'off-hand'. Stop dancing around the terminology. If your using sword & board, your getting ONE precise attack only, same as if you were using sword & dagger.

No, just that you can't make a precise strike with the bonus attack. A Precise attack with a shield is valid. Just not a precise attack with the bonus attack if you take one.

By the rules a character with a 15 DEX could to 3 precise attacks with his shield and then a non precise attack @ -20% with his sword.

Ayup. I was not trying to argue that precise strikes could be made with the "bonus attack" one gets for equipping a second weapon/sheild. I was simply saying that there's nothing in the rules that precludes one using any or all of his "normal" attacks with a shield...

Thought it was obvious, but I guess not. Not one word in the rule says that all of your attacks in a round must be with the same weapon. A character with 3CAs could attack with his sword, then use a kick, then a shield smash. All count as normal attacks. All use the normal rules. All can be precise strikes if the player chooses. If the character happens to have a weapon/sheild in each hand, he may choose each round to gain either one bonus attack or one bonus parry. But only the bonus attack is prevented from being used as a precise strike. All others can be used normally.

 

[Arkat]

Ayup. I was not trying to argue that precise strikes could be made with the "bonus attack" one gets for equipping a second weapon/sheild. I was simply saying that there's nothing in the rules that precludes one using any or all of his "normal" attacks with a shield...

If you are attacking with your shield then your certainly not parrying with it, so unless your sword arm is rendered inoperative it makes little sense to be bashing with a shield as your primary attack instead of the weapon your wielding in your other hand. Odds are pretty high that the 'weapon' is a lot more of an effective tool for killing your enemy then your 'defensive' item, the sheild!

 

[gamesmeister]

Dont think this has been addressed in the thread, but its coming up in my campaign as one of the characters is an outlaw dragonnewt.

natural armour - penalise or not?

I'm ruling not as i think a creature would be used to living in its skin. Given how difficult it is going to be for a dragonnewt to access additional armour in a humanocentric campaign i dont think it will unbalance the group.

What do others think?

If you read the Creatures section of the rulebook, every creature with natural armour states: "No skill penalty" in the Typical Armour section.

So no, you shouldn't penalise natural armour.