Topic: No parry

[Marc R]

I have no stake in it being either way, but there are two possible scenarios here:

1) "Stun No Parry" is stun, and "No Parry" is some other type of result that is not stun and so could stack in the same round with a stun and not be removed via stun removal. (Amusingly, you could be "Stun-no-parry no parry" which  is almost as crazy as "Stun-no-Parry Must-Parry"

2) Or, the "no parry" stand alone results are a typo, and it's actually intended to be "Stun No Parry". . .it's not like our discussions over the last 24 hours have not uncovered other mistakes relating to the "Effects of Stun Rounds" section of the book, so assuming that a mistake or typo is impossible seems a strong position to take in light of the fact the writers/editors have provably been human and fallible in other instances.

I could not justifiably say it's definitively one or the other at this point.

[rdanhenry]

Given that the text specifically indicates that No Parry does not always occur with Stun (indeed, it doesn't even state that it does so "usually", but merely "often"), and that they made additional work for themselves by creating a No Parry symbol rather than a Stun-No Parry symbol, thus requiring the addition of two symbols in every case of Stun-No Parry (entirely unnecessary work unless you want a decoupled No Parry result to use without Stun), assuming that all cases of No Parry without Stun are in error is far stronger than thinking these are typos. Typographical error does not account for the changes that were made that clearly indicate a distinct No Parry state that is not necessarily connected to Stun. A position that states that all cases of No Parry without Stun are in error needs to answer the question of why the definition was rewritten, why the need for double symbols was inserted, and why the name of the condition was made "No Parry" and then joined to "Stun" separately, and why all this additional work was done if no actual change was intended.

[Marc R]

It might have been nice, if that were their intention, if they'd updated the "Effects of stun rounds" section to make it clear. . .which was what I was saying. . .either way this is screwy and unclear as to how it works because either something is missing, or something was added by mistake. . .like if you're indeed correct, there's like 2-3 paragraphs of explanations or examples missing from somewhere.

[rdanhenry]

It is, however, far more likely that someone misses updating some section by mistake than that they put forth additional effort that does nothing but insert mistakes. Not much is missing that isn't missing in any case - like definitions for "down" and "prone". What is there that probably should not be are simply the "Down and Out" part of the section on stun, since that wording has been largely removed. An error that is easily explained as copied over from previous editions and missed in revision. Examples would have been nice, but there is a shortage of combat examples generally.

[pastaav]

Given that the text specifically indicates that No Parry does not always occur with Stun (indeed, it doesn't even state that it does so "usually", but merely "often"), and that they made additional work for themselves by creating a No Parry symbol rather than a Stun-No Parry symbol, thus requiring the addition of two symbols in every case of Stun-No Parry (entirely unnecessary work unless you want a decoupled No Parry result to use without Stun), assuming that all cases of No Parry without Stun are in error is far stronger than thinking these are typos. Typographical error does not account for the changes that were made that clearly indicate a distinct No Parry state that is not necessarily connected to Stun. A position that states that all cases of No Parry without Stun are in error needs to answer the question of why the definition was rewritten, why the need for double symbols was inserted, and why the name of the condition was made "No Parry" and then joined to "Stun" separately, and why all this additional work was done if no actual change was intended.

I totally agree.

Also I must ask what the gaming beneift is of not allowing must parry to be a state of its own...from my point of view it only makes the game better.

[Marc R]

The issue is that if "No parry" is a separate status that's not stun, does that mean that only "No Parry" that exist stand alone will affect stun immunes like undead, and are non curable by unstun, and stack with other stun effects. . .

Or if it's always independent, so if you are Stunned + No Parry then will that just "No Parry" an immune like an undead, and that an unstun will just shift you from SNP to "No parry".

And if indeed "No parry" and "Must parry" are not stun, then does it stack in duration the way only stun results do RAW. . .so that 5 separate "No Parry" or "Must Parry" results last for 5 rounds, the way 5 separate "Stun" results last 5 rounds.

Not denying the benefits of a non stun type of staggering or unbalancing type crit result, just pointing out that the devil lies in the details, as usual.

[Cory Magel]

...so assuming that a mistake or typo is impossible seems a strong position to take in light of the fact the writers/editors have provably been human and fallible in other instances.

Two of the three mistakes I recall spotting in the Channeling Companion came after we submitted the final book to ICE.  I believe the explanation for that was that someone (the printer?) had to retype the book in a different format for some strange reason.  I suspect you can find some kind of typo in just about any book of decent length.  With RM you had freelancers writing a large portion of the books and there were problems with consistent and reliable oversight in terms of rules and balance.  Just one of the inherent problems in how things work with processes like the one RM works under.

[Ecthelion]

Even if this handful of entries (in more than 1000 critical results), where RMSS Arms Law introduced No Parry critical results without a corresponding Stun, was really intentional, then it is IMO the better idea to revert these criticals to their RM2 results instead of introducing new rulings for how to handle No Parry results for undead etc. In RM2 times we could live fine without this additional result and what on earth is the benefit we now would get with this new result?

[Cory Magel]

Having a "No Parry" would add an extra level into penalties.  After all, "Stun No Parry" has an extra penalty involved compared to someone is was not stunned but could not parry.  Although it does allow them to attack with full OB since they are not allowed to Parry... but that could start an entire conversation on why that may or may not be a good thing.

[pastaav]

How long does it really take to decide about Undead and No Parry? I mean really...if you don't trust your judgment just sit down with your gaming group and talk a bit and it should be clear what feels right for your group.

There are loads of situations when RM force you make very complicated decisions, adrenal speed and the mess around that comes to mind. Still I have difficulty to see why this topic would be one of those. It is given that there are blurry lines. Some damage might be of stun nature or not depending on your point of view. Still...it is just sit down and make a decision...if you can decide what happens if you hit the arm of a monster that has no arm then I am sure you can also handle the situation when the players are attacking an undead.

[rdanhenry]

No, the No Parry status does not allow them to attack. The No Parry status prohibits any action but movement and maneuvers at a penalty of at least -75. The "Stun" in "Stun-No Parry" does four things: makes it part of the stun rounds progression so that it does not overlap with other stun effects, makes it curable by stun relief measures, makes it count towards "total rounds of stun" that may cause unconsciousness, and it gives an attack a +20 "Stunned Target" bonus. The prohibition on activities is not affected by whether the No Parry is the result of a stunning attack or from some other cause.

[Cory Magel]

No, the No Parry status does not allow them to attack. The No Parry status prohibits any action but movement and maneuvers at a penalty of at least -75. The "Stun" in "Stun-No Parry" does four things: makes it part of the stun rounds progression so that it does not overlap with other stun effects, makes it curable by stun relief measures, makes it count towards "total rounds of stun" that may cause unconsciousness, and it gives an attack a +20 "Stunned Target" bonus. The prohibition on activities is not affected by whether the No Parry is the result of a stunning attack or from some other cause.

I was talking about having the No Parry result without being Stunned.  You would have a No Parry result and a Stun No Parry result.

[rdanhenry]

No Parry (which is what is actually defined in the rules) limits activity as stated. So does plain Stun, but the No Parry restriction stands on its own. You can house rule anything you want, but RAW No Parry (without regard to any additional Stun status) prevents attacking.

[Cory Magel]

You can house rule anything you want...

This is pretty much what I've been saying.