Mugen

Wow, I just noticed on RQG character sheet that there are 3 shield skills, which means that if I start with a medium shield and loot find a kite shield, I'll have to grow a new skill to use it. Fighting with a shield is really difficult in Glorantha.

Don't forget that not all skills are equal either, and a +25% to Play(Instrument) or Farm is very likely to have less impact on the game than a +5% in Dodge, Search or First Aid. Not counting the need to have 2 skills when you fight with a shield and only one with a 2 handed weapon, or the fact the important of each skill will depend on context... However, I'm surprised to see that Hunter and Priest are amongst the occupations that got the lowest skill allotments, and Scribe is the winner.

As I'm speaking of RQG and not a previous edition, it's not Attack/Parry but Main Hand/Shield. I'm assuming someone with 90% sword will parry with his sword, and not risk taking a nasty hit because of the 20% difference between skills. He'll still benefit from the shield protection from missile and added AP to some locations.

But what about a very big Uz wielding a great maul instead of a Giant, then? It's very likely the 4d6+2 damage of the troll will inflict damage on the duck if he parries it, even if he uses a kite shield. That's a situation where common sense would dictate that he'd better dodge, but where the rules may make parrying a good alternative.

And, again, if your skills are different, protecting your main weapon instead of your body is not a good idea. Of course, if your shield skill is equal or superior to your sword skill, there's no reason not to use it. But due to the very random nature of experience in RQ, it's very likely they'll diverge. A!so, trying to have similar skill levels in both sword and shield skills is not a good defensive strategy. Say you have to chose between having 85/85, 90/70 or 70/90, it's better to go 90/70 or 70/90, because missing your parry means you'll block 0 points instead of 12 to 16. And you don't need to use your shield skill to benefit from its passive protection.

What do you mean'by MGF ?

But, again, less expensive than a lost limb. Fighting with a shield requires two skills, and it's their major problem in this edition, as your character could die because you tried to parry with his 70% shield skill instead of his 80% sword skill.

But how do you decide when it is realistic to parry something or not ? Remember the original question was about a duck parrying a giant, not a truck. Without the rule for skils above 100%, the answer is easy : you don't parry a giant because it's useless. I mean, even if your opponent is "just" an Uz wielding a Great Maul, you'd consider dodging instead of parrying.

If protection from missiles is the major reason to carry a shield, you can always switch to dual wielding when in melee. And it's also a good idea even if your shield skill is only 15% and you have 100%+ in both main and off-hand sword skill.

Well, if your sword skill is (significantly)higher than your shield skill, I suggest you use your sword nonetheless. It's better to lose a broadsword than a limb. What you have in your left hand will either grant you a partial parry or a second attack with very low chances, but with the possibility to use the second weapon as a spare for your main hand. Of course, if you're very quick and your shield SR is low enough to use it for the second attack, it's a no-brainer.

Well, since the system doesn't make a difference between parrying with your main or off hand, the only occasion where you'll have to parry with your left hand is when the weapon in your main hand is so damaged it's no use to parry with it, and you don't have enough SRs to switch weapons.So, basically you'll just have to drop your main hand weapon to have a better parry chance.

Thank you !

Well, it's easier to break one two-handed weapon than two one-handed weapons. If your two handed weapon is broken, you're out of options. If your main hand is broken, you can rely on the weapon in your off hand. Anyway, I think we'll agree the rules make two-handed weapons just too good and shields not interesting enough. That would be excellent for a game set in medieval japan (Vormain ?), but not so much for a game set in DragonPass

Well, the ruling says " It's up to your gamemaster but I would say absolutely not." So it's explicitely a houserule, and of course a wrong rule can be houseruled. I also strongly disagree with your example. I tried, and having a pen in my main hand doesn't make my off-hand more clumsy than it already is. Of course, when I tried to write with both hands at once it was a disaster. But I don't picture people with a good weapon skill trying to attack with both weapons at once. Again, I'm suggesting that you'll use your main hand to parry, not your off-hand.

I thought the rules said that, by default, you could use your off-hand weapon using half your main hand skill. Am I wrong ?

Fact is, you don't need to learn that second skill, as you'll still be able to use half you main hand weapon's skill to attack. What you'll do is attack once with each weapon (using half your weapon skill with the second attack), and parry with your main hand. And when your main hand is nearly destroyed, you just switch weapons. On the other hand (wink), you need to learn the shield skill to use it effectively in melee. If you have a sword skill of 80 and a shield skill of 60, using the shield is definitely a good idea to prevent your main hand weapon to break, but not so much if you want to survive.

Organization ranks and skill thresholds are from RuneQuest 2 and 3 requirements for becoming Priests or Runelords in cults.

I'm sure other non-french games re-used the idea, those are just examples I know well.

To my eyes they're more reminiscent of Shadowrunks rules for Adepts. Both let characters chose permanent powers, up to a limit based on Magic attribute in SR, and a skill/10 in Mythras. I remember seeing the idea of a skill that you can only learn once you've reach a high level in another skill in two games. Nephilim, where you need to have 90+ in a magic skill to learn higher level magic. Also Hawmoon's french edition, which introduced "bottes" in the supplement on France. Bottes reproduced duelists' special moves as attack skills that automatically applied a major wound to an opponent, with no damage roll required, and always with the same major wound effect.

LoN Ki rules are very good for characters whose skill level is so far above mundane human that it allows them to perform feats that would appear supernatural. It would be in fact very good for Tolkienesque elves magic, which is more a reflexion of one's perfected abilities than traditional D&D magic.

An idea could be to reduce the character's Hit Points for extra Magic Points. Or reduce physical skills to increase mental ones. In Sandy Petersen's Sorcery rules for RuneQuest 3, vows increase your Presence, which is basically the maximum intensity of spells one can maintain at a given time. In RQ3's Gods of Glorantha, Humakt initiates can take vows in exchange with a technical benefit. There's a list of possible vows and benefits listed. For instance, one can take the "do not speak one day in week" in the vows list, and "+5% to a Sword skill" in the Benefits list. I think Yelmalio has something similar. In old French game Légendes Celtiques, you could take vows (Gesa) at character's creation in exchange for extra skill points.

I think anyone with a world-class skill has way more than 100%, whatever his field of experience is.

I think it's unrelated, given the weapon damage values are a legacy of MRQ1, which didn't have special effects. My guess is it was an attempt to make the game less deadly (hp per localisation was also higher), and perhaps to use values closer to D&D OGL.

That's how Mythras damage bonus works, with a 0 db between 21 and 25, and a die that grows or decreases by 1 step every 5 points. Base weapon damage have a tendency to be smaller, though, with daggers doing 1d4 instead of 1d4+2 and broadswords dealing 1d8 instead of 1d8+1.

Note that using Characteristic +10 will give you 55% chance to win if both protagonists have the same Characteristic value. You need to add 11 to have 50% chance. As for myself, I wouldn't mix so different systems in my games. I'd either convert all mechanisms to a d20+(skill/characteristic) or use Characteristic x5 as a "pseudo-skill"' in standard skill opposition rolls (which can be Mythras', RD100's, roll under 50+(difference in skills)x5, or whatever works for you). But it's your game.