My untested HR

[Rocmistro]

Regarding Fatigue Gain:

I get the historical realism but does it balance well?

For "Battle" Skill:

That was my initial interpretation of the skill too, but I have since been able to expand it's defintion to reflect a poise and coolness in combat that allows one to undertake tasks that might otherwise be too advanced or specific for a high-adrenaline newcomer. I'm not trying to sway you here into my interpretation, although I do think you can have more fun with it (and allow it to open up new things), if you expand it's definition to include poise or bearing in high-stress (ie combat) situations.

As support for my interpretation, I'd demonstrate that the attribute linked to Battle is not "wits" but rather "heart". This would suggest more of an emphasis on courage/spirit and projecting courage/confidence than on raw battle tactics (strategy), (the latter being more of an intellectual endeavor).

[Woodclaw]

Regarding Fatigue Gain:

I get the historical realism but does it balance well?

That's why I need testing :p

For "Battle" Skill:

That was my initial interpretation of the skill too, but I have since been able to expand it's defintion to refelct a poise and coolness in combat that allows on to undertake tasks that might otherwise be too advanced or specific for a high adrenaline newcomer. I'm not trying to sway you here into my interpretation, although I do think you can have more fun with it (and allow it to open up new things), if you expand it's definition to include poise or bearing in high-stress (ie combat) situations.

That makes a lot of sense. I'll think about changing the rule a bit.

[Hermes Serpent]

One thing you need to bear in mind for Battle is that it's tactical things that are affected by the ranks you have rather than any strategic things - there's no talk of logistics or manoeuvring large bodies of men - just leading a company. The options for bonuses gained with Battle dice certainly do not sound strategic - "make a roll of Battle to determine if their characters spot features of the battleground that may be exploited to gain an edge over their foes. " sounds like tactical advantages to me.

"ability to keep his head when involved in a violent confrontation" certainly meets the standard for coolness under fire.

[Woodclaw]

Okay, I've run a few math checks on my dual wielding rules and the results were ... quite interesting.

I draw the main comparing between two identical characters, one fighting with sword and buckler and one fighting with sword and short sword. All the equipment is base level.
Now both characters have the same damage output, so that isn't a factor in the equation.
If the two weapons fighter choose to go defensive (not using the reroll option) both characters are equal in close combat, but the two weapon fighter loses 1 point of defense against missiles. Hence the shield seem to be the better option while dealing with archers and such, although by a small margin.
The big divider is when a character choose to use the reroll. While the secondary weapon is usually weaker (unless a character is dual wielding short swords) having the possibility to choose between two different results effectively doubles the chances to hit and roll an Edge, reducing the chances of rolling an "Eye" at the same time. While losing 1 point of defense against all the attacks might be significant, my math tells me that the befits far outweight the penalties.
With a single dice the chances of rolling an Eye or a Gandalf are roughly 8.3% each.
With two dices the chances of rolling a Eye are around 0.7%, while those of rolling a Gandalf can climb up to 54.2% (unless my math is deadly wrong).

Given this I think that adding a 1 point of extra Fatigue to character that choose to go dual wielding isn't all that wrong.

[Hermes Serpent]

With a single dice the chances of rolling an Eye or a Gandalf are roughly 8.3% each.
With two dices the chances of rolling a Eye are around 0.7%, while those of rolling a Gandalf can climb up to 54.2% (unless my math is deadly wrong).

This doesn't seem to make sense as you've written it. I think you mean two Feat dice when you says two dices. But the chance of rolling either an Eye or a Gandalf doesn't differ if you are rolling any number of Feat dice. As there are one side of each Feat die that has each symbol the odds are the same of getting an Eye or a Gandalf regardless of the number of dice rolled. The thing that does change is the likelihood of getting one of each or two of each depending on the number of dice rolled.

One feat die: chance of rolling an Eye or Gandalf 1 chance in 12
Two Feat dice: chance of rolling an Eye or Gandalf 2 chances in 24
Three Feat dice: chance of rolling an Eye or Gandalf 3 chances in 36

If you are talking Success dice then the chances of an Eye or Gandalf don't change at all regardless of the number of success dice thrown it's always 1 in 12.

[Jakob]

One feat die: chance of rolling an Eye or Gandalf 1 chance in 12
Two Feat dice: chance of rolling an Eye or Gandalf 2 chances in 24
Three Feat dice: chance of rolling an Eye or Gandalf 3 chances in 36

If you are talking Success dice then the chances of an Eye or Gandalf don't change at all regardless of the number of success dice thrown it's always 1 in 12.

No, that's not how probability works in this case, because it is about the chance of getting one G/Eye out of severall rolls.
Think of it that way:

on a TOR d12, the chance to roll a G is 1 in 12, because there are 12 possible outcomes for the roll, one of them a G.
If you roll two dies, you have 12x12=144 possible outcomes (1/1, 1/2, 1/3 ... 2/1, 3/1, 4/1 ...). Among these 144 outcomes, there are 23 that have at least one G rune:
G/1, G/2, G/3, G/4, G/5, G/6, G/7, G/8, G/9, G/10, G/Eye, G/G; 1/G and so on, with the expection of G/G, which is already part of the previous row.) So you get a chance of about 1 in 6 to roll at least one G on two feat dice, or roughly 17%.

EDIT:
My first edit has somehow disappeared ... I just wanted to add that getting an effective Eye result when using two dice is much less likely not because you will roll less Eyes, but simply because you can choose to pick the other result. Out of 144 possible outcomes when rolling with two feat dice, there's exactly one that forces you to choose the Eye: the outcome Eye/Eye. That's probably where the 0.7% come from.

[Hermes Serpent]

Isn't the 23 chances in 144 as close to 2 in 24 as makes remarkably little difference unless you are rolling thousands of dice? 6.260869% compared to 8.33333r% so roughly 2 occasions in 100 providing you make thousands of rolls to average out the imperfections in the dice and the manner of rolling them.

Regardless of my approximating the result the chance of rolling an Eye with 2 Feat dice compared to a Gandalf does not vary by 53.5%.

[Jakob]

Isn't the 23 chances in 144 as close to 2 in 24 as makes remarkably little difference unless you are rolling thousands of dice? 6.260869% compared to 8.33333r% so roughly 2 occasions in 100 providing you make thousands of rolls to average out the imperfections in the dice and the manner of rolling them.

Regardless of my approximating the result the chance of rolling an Eye with 2 Feat dice compared to a Gandalf does not vary by 53.5%.

Yes, I don't see how one would arrive at that number, too.
a chance of 23 in 144 is not the same as a chance of 2 in 24; 144 divided by 23 is 6.26, so you would get a G about every 6 rolls, while 24 divided by 2 is 12, where you would get a G every 12 rolls.

Maybe it helps to think of it like this:
Imagine rolling the feat die 24 times. You get a row of numbers/runes, and it is likely that it will contain 2 Gs and 2 Eyes. Now, if these 24 rolls would represent 24 skill tests, You would probably have 2 G results and 2 Eye results overall.
Now imagine the same results representing only 12 skill tests; two of them are always grouped together, and you always pick the better result. Since it is extremely unlikely that both Eyes will show up in the same group of two, you will probably have no effective Eye result in these twelve tests; and since it is equally likely that both G results end up in different groups, you will probably end up having two effective Gs in your 12 skill tests.

In both cases, the die results can be exactly the same; nothing changes about the probability to roll an Eye or a G on each individual roll; the difference is how these results are grouped together, allowing you to discard Eye results and pick out G results.

EDIT:
I looked at your percentages again - the mistake is that 23 in 144 is not a chance of 6.260869%; 6.26... is 144 divided by 23 - meaning that approximately every 6.26th result will include a G. If you divide 100 by 6.26, you get the percentage, which is 15,97%. Your result for 2 in 24 is right: 24 divided by 2 is 12, and 100 divided by 12 is 8.33.

[Hermes Serpent]

This is why I use Anydice.com for probability numbers

At least we're both agreed that Woodclaw can't do probability mathematics either

[Jakob]

This is why I use Anydice.com for probability numbers

At least we're both agreed that Woodclaw can't do probability mathematics either

It's always hard to get ones head around probabilies ... I once had a mathematician explain some of this dice stuff to me, and some of it stuck and even made sense after a while.