News:

Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

Armor of Air question..

Started by Ingenious, February 22, 2004, 03:06:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ingenious

This question came up during last night's session.
Does the +3 bonus damage for halfswording/estocs etc apply to the 'armor of air' spell? It says that it's a +3 vs hard armors.. and I was wondering everyone's interpretation of that ruling and the rules for the spell itself..

-Ingenious

Jake Norwood

Damn, good question.

Sure.

Jake
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." -R.E. Howard The Tower of the Elephant
___________________
www.theriddleofsteel.NET

Salamander

Quote from: Jake NorwoodDamn, good question.

Sure.

Jake

I would suspect so, it does seem to be a hard armour...
"Don't fight your opponent's sword, fight your opponent. For as you fight my sword, I shall fight you. My sword shall be nicked, your body shall be peirced through and I shall have a new sword".

Ingenious

Next armor of air question I forgot to ask..

It concerns the spell as it relates to the acrobatics skill, which states that you can not perform feats of acrobatics in combat while wearing armor...

....ideas? Opinions?

My view on it is that the air can be flexible, but still stay motionless in relation to my character.. etc etc etc...

*shrug*
-Ingenious

BirdMan

I would say "Yes" to #1 and to #2.  
Keeps things streamlined and everybody on the same page.  It also gives mages a real "leg up" on standard armor-wearing folk.
"You want to do what to the Balrog?"
--Anxious DM quote #35

Valamir

I would actually rule that the estoc/halfswording bonus does not apply to Armor of Air.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I didn't envision these weapons so much punching through armor as being directed to the weak spots, gaps, and joints.  If that perception is correct...there really aren't any weakspots in Armor of Air.  It really is pretty seamless...no?