>
One approach would be to assume that the ability score includes/takes into account the player's standard equipment, and thus doesn't need adjustment (i.e. that soldier's "sword and shield: 5w" is taking into account the quality of his preferred arms and armor; he'd be penalized if he had to grab inferior or unfamiliar stuff off a corpse). Don't give someone a bonus for sweet weaponry, increase his skill to reflect the improvements to his kit.
BUT: If the particular weapons the character has are inappropriate to the situation, penalize him. This would be the "ends up fighting nude" qualifier, but I think it could be a lot more common than Donald suggests. Take, for example, that scene at the end of the "Rob Roy" flick ten years or so back. There's a duel between Liam Neeson and Tim Roth, both of them first-class swordsmen. But they're fighting unarmored, and Neeson is using his broadsword--a weapon which sacrifices finesse for power, great if you need to slice through thick leather on the battlefield but a bad choice for an unarmored duel. Roth, on the other hand, is using a rapier, a weapon designed for that very situation.
So in that case, they may have equal "sword combat" skills, and equipment bonuses might cancel (or in my suggested scheme, their equal skills might reflect the fact that Neeson is a better fighter but the wealthier Roth has a better sword)--but Roth is using a more appropriate weapon for the fight, so give him a bonus.
In short, "one of the characters is fighting in the nude" will be the rule, rather than the exception. In any given fight, one side is going to be equipped more appropriately to the circumstances than the other--so give that side a bonus, small or large depending.
Powered by hypermail