Kloster

Ok, after taking in account Windchild's remarks, here are the calculations for a 90% skill, possibly augmented by a 55%, 65% and 75% skill: Without augment: Critical 5% Special (18-5)=13% Success (90-18)=72% Failure (10-1)=9% Fumble 1% With 55% skill augment: Critical ((7*3)+(6*8)+(6*44)+(4*44)+(2*2))/100=5.13% Special (((28-7)*3)+((24-6)*8)+((21-6)*44)+((14-3)*44)+(3*2))/100=13.57% Success (((95-28)*3)+((95-24)*8+((95-21)*44)+((70-2)*44)+(2*2))/100=70.21% Failure=(100-(1.49+70.21+13.57+5.13))=9.6% Fumble ((1*3)+(1*8)+(1*44)+(2*44)+(3*2))/100=1.49% With 65% skill augment: Critical ((7*3)+(6*10)+(6*52)+(4*33)+(2*2))/100=5.29% Special (((28-7)*3)+((24-6)*10)+((21-6)*52)+((14-3)*33)+(3*2))/100=13.92% Success (((95-28)*3)+((95-24)*10+((95-21)*52)+((70-2)*33)+(2*2))/100=70.07% Failure=(100-(1.37+70.07+13.92+5.29))=9.35% Fumble ((1*3)+(1*10)+(1*52)+(2*33)+(3*2))/100=1.37% With 75% skill augment: Critical ((7*4)+(6*11)+(6*60)+(4*24)+(2*1))/100=5.54% Special (((28-7)*4)+((24-6)*11)+((21-6)*60)+((14-3)*24)+(3*1))/100=14.49% Success (((95-28)*4)+((95-24)*11+((95-21)*60)+((70-2)*24)+(2*1))/100=71.23% Failure=(100-(1.26+71.23+14.49+5.54))=7.48% Fumble ((1*4)+(1*11)+(1*60)+(2*24)+(3*1))/100=1.26% This is now more in line with what you have experimentally got. And you are right, the breakpoint is caused by the fumble % going from 99-100% to 100%.

If you survive the birth, why not. I would say yes.

You're right. My calculation is wrong here.

I already had a look, and I didn't find any mistake, but I also redone my maths and also found nothing, hence my question. Fairly possible.

Same for me.

Can you please explain that. If your augmenting skill is 55%, you have 3% of having a bonus of 50%, 8% (11-3) of getting a bonus of 30%, 44% (55-11) of getting a bonus of 20%, 43% (45-2) of getting a malus of 20% and 2% of getting a malus of 50%, whatever the value of the augmented skill. So augmenting a 90% skill with a 55% skill, in 3% of the case, your augmented skill will be 140% (90+50), in 8%, it will have a value of 120% (90+30), in 44% of the case, the value will be 110%, in 43% of the case, it will be 70% and in 2% of the case, the value will be 40%, giving an average of ((3*140)+(8*120)+(44*110)+(43*70)+(2*40))/100=93.1, which is above 90.

In fact, not. For RQG, each weapon in the same group is a different skill, but you can use the higher at half your best. The character sheet has been done that way to save space (this was clarified by Jeff, iirc). In RQ3, each of the weapon in the same group share the same skill.

In RQ3, you had a skill for a group of weapons.

Yes, but this is a completely different can of worms. Completely true.

As I have replaced the whole RQG combat chapter by it's RQ3 equivalent (with a few adds from RQG), I don't have the problem: Sword trance affects only attack, you have only 1 parry (except if you split) and the opponent's skill is not reduced by your score over 100%. An Humakti is still a killing machine, but not an invulnerable one. I have only one, and he is using the same tactics. I am not the one that spoke of inconsistencies (I have even written that Bladesharp is not inconsistent). I have just answered to your question about game effects. Because of our house rule, I have no trouble. If we were not using them, the main trouble is that somebody casting Sword trance with only 10MP becomes almost impossible to hit. Completely agree. Why -20 per parry? Because of the skill above 100%?

Bladesharp is not inconsistent, but can be confusing as it affect only attacks. When attack and parry are 2 different skills, there is no ambiguity, but when the skill is the same, the spell affects some use of the skill but not others. For sword trance, I fully agree with @Akhôrahil and this does affect the game because somebody affected by sword trance can not be hit anymore, in addition to what he told.

Completely agree.

In fencing, you are not allowed to use your non weapon arm, so it is a fault that can make you disqualified (I never saw this rule applied because you use your 2nd arm in your back as a way to keep your equilibrium). If you are hit with the foil in your (weapon) arm, it is not a hit, but the fight stops. With sabre or epee, it is a hit, so you never try to parry with your arm.

Right.

In fencing, you always actively defend, but with foil, the valid hit area is quite small: Only the torso is valid, and quite a number of attacks are hitting a non valid area (arms or legs, you almost never hit the head, and never voluntarily). All non torso/abdomen hits are not counted. Other weapons have different rules.

I agree that English is not my primary language (I am french), but it does not seems to me it is a language problem. In that case, BRP/RQ seems correct to me: A 'no hit' is either a missed attack or a successful parry (in fencing, there is no idea of HP: either you hit or not). In my championship affair, all my attacks were successfully parried, and I just didn't manage to parry all his attacks because he was better at parrying than myself, that's it (I am not complaining: he was better than I was and went to next step. I didn't). I am just explaining that, from my experience with sword fighting (fencing), you learn to attack and defend at the same time, but that does not mean you are proficient at the same level (=different experience rolls in BRP terms).

I remember that with 0%, you can not succeed, but my memories about RQ2 are from 40 years away, so I can be wrong.

No, I was by far better than him in attacking. He didn't manage to hit every time and I parried some of his attacks, but not all. He parried (in fencing, more properly deflected) all mine. And my experience with HtH combat is close to 0, so I can not comment on that point.

This is Jeff's argument to go to 1 single skill. This is right, nobody learns to attack and not to parry (or to parry and not to attack), but the experience is a completely different matter. My personal experience as a fencer was that I was quite a good attacker (probably above 90%), but not a good defender (around 60%). I lost during a french national championship finals with ... 0 points because my opponent parried all my attacks, and I could parry only some of his. The separate skills, the moves integrated with the SR, the number of actions per round, the special maneuvers and effects (disarm, knockback,...), the 10 SR round, ...

The rule was :'+10% if attacking from rear or unshielded side', so rear is specifically covered. I find perfectly correct to count front as shielded (of course, if there is a shield), but I personally don't apply this modifier for a front attack. If you feel a rule to be bad, do as I do: Change it. I personally reverted to RQ3 combat.

You don't miss anything, your math are right and your skill is 0%.

In fact, it is not difficult to parry with a sword ... if you don't attack with it. What is difficult is parrying with your attack weapon (or, if you want, attack with the weapon you just parried with). Having never fought with a sword in each hand, I can't say anything about real world 2 sword fighting.

No. Even with a shield, you pay attention to everybody in range. What changes is the quantity and speed of movement you have to perform to stay protected. What I understand with 'Unshielded side' is the right or left side where there is no shield. Of course, when you have no shield, both are unshielded, but front and back are not side, so are not unshielded side.

In RQ3, age was 2D6+15, and each year of the roll was a skill increase: if you rolled 7, your age was 22 and a skill described as x3 received 7*3=21% to add to the base. Same for me.

Everybody that is not just in front of the defender, yes. They are much easier to use, or at least to learn to use, hence their quite high base skill value. On the other hand, it is pretty difficult to parry with your attacking weapon, and this is one of the reason I don't like the single skill for attack and parry.