Southernskies wrote:
I really notice the Shield Modifier of my Tower Shield when using skills outside attack rolls (as I have 0 net Bulk on my armour).
Armour users notice even 1 Bulk on their rolls over a long period (as long as the GM reminds them!)
Over a long period, sure the 1 point may make a difference. If it takes that long to notice though, how much of a real impact is it?
Unless performed in combat, a shield can simply be stowed removing the SM penalty (while climbing for example) and then ready the shield again.
Impacted skills:
Acrobatics - has an impact
Athletics - has an impact
Larceny - has an impact
Melee - no impact; combat roll or likely to be another attribute (like Logic)
Ranged - no impact; combat roll or likely to be another attribute (like Logic)
Ride - rarely if ever comes up as basic riding is TN 5 I think. Mounted combat is rare and very situational and if you're using Ride to cause your mount to attack I would expect that falls under the combat roll.
Stealth - has an impact; whole group test though for make or fail typically
A 1 point adjustment on a 2d10 +d(Att) + modifier roll is hard to calculate in terms of % impact unlike a d20 roll where it's a flat 5%.
For the skills described above, they aren't called upon very often. If it takes many mods for their be enough rolls to notice an impact, then it doesn't have much of an effect. Of the impacted skills above, Larceny is considered a specialist's skill. Acrobatics is usually a replacement for Athletics or it's an either or roll. As noted, with Stealth, the entire party succeeds or fails.
I'm not saying it's a negligible benefit, it's nice. If you gave a martial character the option for a spell of their choice as an ability in place of AAT, at a minimum I don't think it's a no brainer to keep AAT.
For those not familiar, my primary is a Martial. My arguments for improvements for them have been fairly modest, and I still think the best way to help determine balance is to look at situations that come up and how they are solved, then map that back to mechanics and archetypes. That way the discussion would be off a common set of assumptions and ground rules.
With a sweep of his hat,
Paul