Dreamingfurther
Baron
its definitely a grey area... but it seems to me that a desire to seem like I actually "damage" the character would lead me to attack their body, not the weapon sticking out... :?
Fighting Styles.
- Thread starter Joel Mathis
- Start date
phedre said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I knew anything that someone is wearing is, in fact, a legal target for a weapon blow, other than weapons and shields currently being wielded, and illegal targets such as the head and groin. Otherwise we'd all just have shields strapped to our backs and be immune to waylay and rogue damage.
The arguement made was that the tucked weapon isn't being "held," and while it is still a valid target for spellstrikes, spells and gasses, it is not a viable weapons target.
I'm not saying that in all instances should you not take damage, there are surely circumstances where you would, but that it's more toward the "non-valid target" side of the grey area than the "valid" side.
I'm not saying that in all instances should you not take damage, there are surely circumstances where you would, but that it's more toward the "non-valid target" side of the grey area than the "valid" side.
Page 93: If you do not have the skill to use a weapon you are carrying, or if you are presently unable to use a weapon in which you are skilled, you must either immediately drop the weapon or take any damage that hits your weapon.
markusdark
Knight
Nope, if you're not skilled in the shield you are carrying and it gets hit with the eviscerate, you take the eviscerate. In this case, carrying a shield you can't use is equivalent to it being a part of your costuming/possessions and if they get hit, you take the damage.
The main point that was made in the conversation I heard take place between two marshals was that if you have a tucked weapon ("in hand" was then-agreed-upon definition of "held") it is considered garb, which, if the blow doesn't contact the body, you don't take damage from.
If I have the weapon tucked but the blow would have legally struck me had the weapon not been there, I will take the damage... no one likes rules lawyers that abuse loopholes.
If I have the weapon tucked but the blow would have legally struck me had the weapon not been there, I will take the damage... no one likes rules lawyers that abuse loopholes.
taken from the "A legal weapon blow" thread, viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5129&p=73184&hilit=garb#p73184 (I added the bolded emphasis)obcidian_bandit said:
phedre said:
The problem here is that a weapon tucked beneath an arm is being actively held there by your efforts. So it is in fact 'wielding a weapon in an illegal manner', as you are not holding it by the designated grip with your hand, and hence any shots blocked by the weapon should be taken as damage.
That's the logic I'm following, here.
I can see both sides of the argument. I'm just playing devil's advocate. My boyfriend keeps telling me to stop poking the rules nerds
I guess the decision was made because wielding is an active word: if it's not being actively hand-held it's being stored (the action of tucking it under your arm becomes a passive action).
The marshal that brought it up nearly made the HoR's head pop, but it threatens to do that all the time, and the way things are worded in the new book (which is all the way out in my car and I'm in my PJs) led the HoR to agree that if it's tucked it's not a valid weapon-strike target.
It's yet another example of how we can all read the same rulebook and swear that we're playing by the spirit of the rules... even though we disagree on what it is
I guess the decision was made because wielding is an active word: if it's not being actively hand-held it's being stored (the action of tucking it under your arm becomes a passive action).
The marshal that brought it up nearly made the HoR's head pop, but it threatens to do that all the time, and the way things are worded in the new book (which is all the way out in my car and I'm in my PJs) led the HoR to agree that if it's tucked it's not a valid weapon-strike target.
It's yet another example of how we can all read the same rulebook and swear that we're playing by the spirit of the rules... even though we disagree on what it is
Yep yep. I figured the easiest way to think on it was this. If I had a sword tucked blade-first under my arm, and some bastard came along and whacked the end of it, it would hurt me. Bad.
Since we're discouraged from trying to manually disarm people, the natural reaction to this sort of thing (hitting the tucked weapon hard enough to strip it out of the hold) doesn't happen as often as would be likely in a harder combat system. Which is probably for the good, as flying weapons are to be avoided, even if they are safer than Nerf.
Since we're discouraged from trying to manually disarm people, the natural reaction to this sort of thing (hitting the tucked weapon hard enough to strip it out of the hold) doesn't happen as often as would be likely in a harder combat system. Which is probably for the good, as flying weapons are to be avoided, even if they are safer than Nerf.
obcidian_bandit
Count
Go here. Read this.
This has been addressed. That is all.
This has been addressed. That is all.
That text covers a ruling if you do not have a skill for a weapon.
What about tucking a weapon under your arm that you do have a skill?
Example:
Argus picks up a shield of a fallen adventurer and tucks it under his arm for safe keeping. Since he does not have the skill to use a shield if he gets hit in the shield, he will take damage.
This I understand.
Now this next example:
Argus is searching a body and tucks his long sword under his arm. He has the skill to use a one handed edged weapon.
If Grubber the goblin smacks the long sword under Argus's arm, will he take damage under the spirit of the rules?
What about tucking a weapon under your arm that you do have a skill?
Example:
Argus picks up a shield of a fallen adventurer and tucks it under his arm for safe keeping. Since he does not have the skill to use a shield if he gets hit in the shield, he will take damage.
This I understand.
Now this next example:
Argus is searching a body and tucks his long sword under his arm. He has the skill to use a one handed edged weapon.
If Grubber the goblin smacks the long sword under Argus's arm, will he take damage under the spirit of the rules?
jpariury said:
Page 65, Shield: This skill allows a character to use a shield.
Shield use in our game is unrealistic, as shields are practically indestructible. To compensate for the, shield use is somewhat restricted.
Note that a shield is not considered a weapon. You cannot use a shield to perform weapon-based skills such as Parry or Riposte. If hit with a Summoned Force effect that references a "weapon" (such as Shatter, Destroy, etc.) the shield will not be affected. However, "I summon a force to shatter your shield" will work.
Again, Page 93: If you do not have the skill to use a weapon you are carrying, or if you are presently unable to use a weapon in which you are skilled, you must either immediately drop the weapon or take any damage that hits your weapon.
You may not hold more than one weapon in a hand and have the ability to use those weapons. If you are holding more than one weapon in a hand and one of those weapons is hit with a weapon blow, then you must take the damage. For this purpose only, a shield is considered a "weapon".
Page 34, SPIRIT OF THE RULES: I'm not going to reproduce the entire text here, but it clearly says that loop holes found in the wording of the text should not supersede the intention of a rule if that intention is clear.
It seems clear to me that the statement about shields being weapons applied to both statements, although yes, it could have been better worded. Further, the Shield skill says that it gives you the skill to use a shield. This is a build bought skill. If you were drained, or nauseaed, or under any other no skill effect, you would then lose the ability to use the shield. Since a shield is to be used for blocking only (Pg. 78), by extension without the skill you would not be able to block with it. I cannot imagine it was the intention of the writers that shields be usable by those who cannot use them, thus to my fault is found in the wording on page 93, namely that when holding a shield and some other weapon in one hand the shield causes you to take damage, but that if you do not have access to the skill Shield, then it does not.
obcidian_bandit said:
jpariury
Duke
So, when the rulebook explicitly states that if you block with a weapon in which you are not skilled, you must drop it or take the damage, your stance is that they really mean/the spirit of the rule is "you just take the damage, dropping it and not taking the damage is not an option"?
Look at the wording of the rule again. It implies that if you pick up a weapon (or shield, in my interpretation) you cannot use you will take damage from any weapon blow that hits it. In addition, the moment you become unable to use a weapon (or shield) for any reason, you will begin to take damage from any weapon blows that hit it. Your only defense against this is to drop the weapon right away, as in before it actually gets hit. I really don't see where in the wording you find this idea that you can block once with a weapon you are unskilled in and then drop it, and that seems completely contradictory to the spirit of the rules.
So, when it comes to glancing off garb, how does that pertain to armor? It's pretty easy to tell that the weapon didn't hit your body and just your cloak or something, but I have stiff leather that prodrudes off my shoulders. How would a graze be considered into this? Because it's possible to hit my armor without actually hitting me. I've always just taken hits to the few inches of armor on either side that protrude out, but should I have not been?