This is paraphrased from conversation between Clinton Nixon and Eero Tuovinen.

Weapons and armor (pg. 51): the GM may issue a +1 weapon or armor "in a particular situation", based on the fictional details. Should "having a sword" give you +1 in "fighting situations"?

Not necessarily. Clinton assumes that in combat you're expected to have some kind of reasonable weapon, and if not, assigns a penalty die to the unarmed combatant.

But is it allowed to play with "having a sword" giving you +1 in "fighting situations"?

Yes. The rules are deliberately unspecific.

If you do play that way, is there any point to Imbuing a sword with a +1 bonus for fighting?

No. Modifiers never stack. But you could Imbue it with a +1 bonus for leadership, or a +2 bonus for fighting infidels, or so on.

How about armour?

You can either assign a penalty die to the unarmoured combatant, or you can assume that all reasonable armours are +1.

An interpretation of "Weapon Ratings"

Non-official, from Colin Roald?.

The rules say: "When using a weapon, if your character is successful in an action, you can add the weapon's rating to your success level. If you are unsuccessful, the weapon does nothing." This does not require BDTP -- you can improve the success level of ANY ability check with an appropriate weapon.

For example, suppose you are unskilled at Riding, but are in possession of prize-winning quarterhorse. The GM agrees that this superb animal counts as a +1 weapon for horse-racing. When you make an ability check, first you roll and add your Riding skill (0). If you roll a 0, your base Success Level is Unskilled (0) plus the roll (0) = 0, a Failure. You couldn't stay on the horse, so its quality is irrelevant. But if you rolled well and got a 2, you'd have a base success level of Unskilled (0) plus the roll (2) = 2, a Good success. Now you can add the bonus from the quarterhorse and improve your success level to Great(3). The bandit leader trying to escape only got a Good(2) success, so you ride him down!

A "weapon rating" is the combination of a success-level bonus, a skill, and a situation.

+1 ratings will generally affect most checks made with a given skill, or a limited range of situations for a collection of skills. For example:

• An expensive tailored silk ballgown might count as a +1 weapon for Seduction checks against straight men.
• A bag of gold coins might count as a +1 weapon for Social checks against greedy persons.

+2 ratings can only affect a small fraction of the checks made with a given skill. For example:

• A perfume carefully mixed by an alchemist might count as a +2 weapon for Seduction checks against men of the Giscard House.

+3 ratings will only affect a unique (or nearly unique) situation. For example:

• A liquor prepared by a witch using a drop of Mathieu's own blood, might count as a +3 weapon for Seduction checks against Mathieu Giscard.

All such ratings are situational, and require GM consent. It may be that your slinky gown is normally +1, but at the Royal Ball it is so outclassed as to seem non-descript.

Items with +1 ratings may often simply be purchased from a sufficiently skilled craftsman, with GM consent. Items with +2 or +3 ratings must be paid for with a character advance (spent on Imbuement), and may require in-game justification as well. Found or stolen items with weapon ratings may usually be used once or twice without paying a character advance, but if you want to keep the item, eventually it must be paid for.

Each such rating is entirely independent. Whenever something like Secret of Imbuement talks about "adding a rating", it means add a new line to the item's description, specifying a new bonus/skill/situation combination. You never "improve" an existing bonus.