Kloster

Don't be sorry. He gaves us a great explanation and this is what matters.

This method is very efficient (either as a fighting technique and to avoid the attack/parry ping pong), and I agree on the anathema.

You target a shield or a weapon to damage it. Once destroyed, it is useless, and your opponent has to use less efficient weapons, and/or ones he is less proficient with.

Yes, correct, much lighter. On this, we agree. This, I don't know. My only experienc (much limited) of real combat is with 80 mm mortars and assault rifle. My mistake. Thanks. Right, and as RPG are games, the fun is important. Completely agree here. But this is what I described as the problem of period generals and current historians (I should have added wargamers), not of standard RPGers, that are much more concerned by the individual efficiency than by massed fire.

What I did for my RQG play is .. use RQ3 combat rules. What I kept from RQG is the runes and passion inspiration, and the various specials. For the rest, I have almost RAW RQG. In the same vein, you can, starting from RQ3, import Runes, Passions and specials. I stay clear of the multiple parry because it is too much a game changer (gives a big advantage to defense vs offense). Additionally, I think combat vs multiple opponents should be deadly, except if you are way above your opponents.

A self bow is 1D6+1 (max 7, average 4.5, max impale 14, average impale 9), a long bow and a composite bow is 1D8+1 (max 9, average 5.5, max impale 18, average impale 11). A bronze (don't forget armor value in RQ3 are for bronze) is 8 AP, 9 with padding. An iron plate is 12 AP, 13 with padding. That means a self bow can not pierce a bronze (or worse, iron) plate without impaling. That means that a self bow that impales has 'only' 42 % of piercing a bronze plate + padding and 0% of piercing an iron plate with padding. That means that a composite bow that does not impale can not damage a target protected by a bronze plate with padding. That means that a composite bow that impales has 44 % of piercing a bronze plate + padding and 9 % of piercing an iron plate with padding. It seems to me that those number are not far from what you want: Having someone protected by steel plate immune or almost from arrows, because he will be wounded only by9% of impales. Of course, we don't speak of criticals, because they ignore armor.

For me, as I have explained, all spells that affect somebody or an item he helds or carry requires the POW vs POW roll. Let's use Joerg's 'aura's' explanation for the rationale, but for me, it is more a matter of avoiding exceptions in the rules: All of my players are not bright scientists and some (in fact, only one) had problems remembering that a spirit spell needs a POW*5 roll to be cast.

Standard recurve fiberglass training bow and steel tipped fiberglass arrows, 18 meters range, 40 cm targets (straw or plywood). I don't remember the exact pull, but it was around 20 pounds.

IIRC, if you cast a spell on someone, whether himself or his equipment, you have to do a POW vs POW roll. RQG p244: "A target always resists a spell unless that target voluntarily and knowingly accepts the spell.". At least, we always played it that way, but perhaps we were wrong it was just a house rule. P.S. Note, it does not matter if this is a house rule or not because Dullblade also affect the target, by removing 5% to his weapon skill by level of the spell, so the POW vs POW roll is mandatory.

Does a tall Agimori counts (when tossing ducks) for Yelmic wrath? I'm asking because we had one in our last RQ3 campaign.

I both agree and disagree. I for sure agree that penetration on wood is better than on steel plate. The few time I practiced archery on wooden targets, it was less than 10 mm (see, I've remembered) plywood, and the arrow never went deeper than 100 mm through the target. The only experience I have with shield is roman reenactment. The scutum is 6 mm thick pine wood, and is carried around 150 to 200 mm away from the body. That means an arrow that penetrates 100 mm will not touch the soldier behind, even without armor. What I said is that if (and that is a big if, I agree with you) an arrow pierce the plate, even by 10 mm, there will be a wound, and not with a shield. On this we agree. Agreed, but here, we are in the domain of period generals and current historians, not of standard roleplayers. I'm perfectly happy with crunchy, but simple rules, where a plate armor or a shield protects you from a single arrow, whatever the real physics are. On that matter, RQ3 rules are almost perfect for me.

Sorry. My fencing experiences don't cover much armor, and I have never shoot a bow (or seen a bow shot) on an armored target (except aforementioned car). But I think that if a target arrow shot by a light standard bow (I don't remember the pull, but as it was during an outdoor activity in a vacation spot, it should not have been a lot) can pierce a car body work, an ancient war bow should be able to pierce a not-too-thick (to be wearable) pre-industrial sheet of metal.

Yes, because the protection would be penetrated, whatever, but the shield is at least 10 cm away from you, which means the arrow has to penetrate at least 15 cm to do heavy damage, as the plate almost touches your body, and 3 cm are sufficient to do damage. For the BRP aspect, I'm sure I don't want that level of complexity in any RPG.

It does, if it is cast on the weapon of an unvoluntary target, which is most often the case (not always because of @AndreJarosch)

Which shares the same latin etimology, cum ire, that gave Emperor Karl's Comites (= those that go with the emperor), that became both companion and count (through the french comte).

Even if I agree with your basic assumption (an arrow point is much narrower than a sword blade), I am sure (and I hope) you've never been impaled by something as thin as a broken foil. I have been (this is why I have stopped fencing some 30 years ago), and I can ensure this does a lot of damage. Contrary to Vladimir Smirnov, I had the chance to have it stuck in a not too dangerous part of my belly. I thought all previous to 1982 blades had been removed and discovered the hard way this was not the case, and never touched a (steel) sword since. I have also practiced archery, and a competition arrow is much wider than a foil, although it can pierce several millimeters of steel (I am thinking to a car door I've seen pierced). A hunting arrow is even wider, producing centimeters wide wounds. If it impales it's target, the hit area is destroyed or badly damaged.

Oh, you're devious. Good idea.

Yes, that means the worshiping ceremony never ends, thus the sanctify stays in effect.

Ouch. Never thought to this. I defer to your Machiavelian mind.

IIRC, literally, κέρβερός is guardian.

IIRC, padding was nod divided in RQ3. Correct. Also correct.

Argrath and Broyan are good contenders.

And on this, you are right.

Oh, so I misunderstood your point. Yes, you are right, but I think you can play on the conditions (target, trigger) to say 'the spell (which automatically works, because the spirit is bound) commands the spirit to do <programmed> task, in that case, 'cast fireblade'. I agree this is not written as such, but Scotty's comment gave me the idea. Yes, of course, but the point was to have an automatic casting of an active (in that case, Fireblade) spell. I think I will stay with Bladesharp.

In RQ3, yes, but according to Scotty's answer (due to his position, I assume it is official), a trigger on an active spell won't work. This is why I went along his 'suggestion' of using a spirit casting the spell, directed by a triggered control matrix.