Topic: Stun and Initiative order

[rsarres]

I searched about this question on the forum and could not find the answer.
The RMC state that stun effect is applied immediately unless the PC has used more than 50% of his activity for the round. In the other case, the PC is at -25 for the remainder of the round and the stun will take effect on the following round.

So here is the scenario:
P1 and P2 are in melee combat
Initiative: P1 attacks P2 first
P1 declares weapon OB:100% / DB:0%
P2 declares weapon OB:55% / DB:45%.
P1 attack results in P2 being stunned and unable to parry.

Now the question:
Is P2 stunned and unable to parry immediately, so he cannot attack in this round?
The argument for this option is that P2 used only 45% of activity for defense, so it is below the 50% threshold of the stun effect time rule. In this case, the "unable to parry" part is lost, because P2 actually parried with part of his OB. However, in his turn, P2 cannot attack and is at -75 for maneuvers.

The other option could be: because P2 has already parried with some part of his OB, he is at -25 for the remainder of the round and stunned and unable to parry on the following round. The problem with this approach is that P2 could kill/stun P1 attacking at -25, so P1 would not benefit from the stun he inflicted.

What do you think is the best option?

[Hurin]

I don't play RMC but I do know RM2, and I think you are confusing OB/DB split with % activity.

Parrying is not % activity; it is just devoting some of your OB to DB. P2 is stunned immediately by P1's attack, and the stun last for the rest of this first round, but ends at the end of the round.

[rsarres]

But how do you deal with the fact that P2 parried in a round that he should have been unable to parry.
It is not fair.

[pastaav]

In every initiative/action system for RM you make a tradeoff between realism and ease of play. Back in the days we for RMSS/RMFRP used to the discussion about if you are stunned for three phases or until end of round. You can apply same discussion to percentage activity and say that you are stun no parry for a certain percentage of the activity for the next round if you have already done some actions in this round.

What is best at your gaming table depends on the play group, but one aspect to consider is how often the game situation happen. Weird outcomes might not be a dealbreaker for the ease-of-play version if these events are rare enough.

[Hurin]

But how do you deal with the fact that P2 parried in a round that he should have been unable to parry.
It is not fair.

P2 does not get the benefit of the parry for the rest of the round, after P1 stunned him. So if anyone else attacks P2 after that but during this same, first round, P2 will not get the benefit of the stun.

The stun has to end at the end of round 1 or else P1 would get the benefit of both stunning P2 and preventing him from attacking in round 1 as well as round 2. You shouldn't get 2 rounds of stun for the price of 1.

[rsarres]

You can only parry with a melee weapon from one foe (the same one you are attacking). P2 has already parried from P2, there is no option of parring from anyone else in this round. So, the "no parry" part of the stun is basically lost.

I like the idea of carrying over the stunned activity percentage to the next round. I don't think I would use it because it is not practical, but it's a fresh view on the matter.

[MisterK]

You have two alternatives, as far as I can see:
- apply effects for "full rounds only", which means that a Stun or SNP result will not apply until the next round in this case. This works best if you consider that all actions are simultaneous (and don't roll initiative at all)
- apply effects from one round to the next relative to the character that inflicted it, which means that the Stun or SNP would apply immediately, but would last until the next round when the character that inflicted it acts again. Requires much more bookkeeping, and probably not better in terms of overall feel.

[rsarres]

Thank you. The "consider that all actions are simultaneous (and don't roll initiative at all)" option is another great idea I had not thought about. I can see this working, however it would change a lot of combat dynamics. I don´t think my old school party is willing to consider this option. Specially the mage, that loves the fact that "spells happen first".

I am inclined to the Activity % option because, when P2 has used part of his OB to parry, he has actually spent some activity % of the round to defend himself. I think putting a threshold of 50% is a good compromise between realism, kepping the initiative order and sticking to the core RMC rules. I want to avoid a scenario where a PC uses 100% OB for parrying, got SNP before his turn and this SNP condition becomes meaningless because the PC had already parried with 100%OB in this turn.

So, following the RMC rule for activity, if the PC has used more than 50% of his OB to defend himself (more than 50% activity of the 100% melle activity), any stun will only happen at the next round.

[Hurin]

What happens in round 1 if P1 stuns (no parry) P2, and then later in that round, someone (let's say P3) attacks P2?

You are saying that P2's 'no parry' result is only in effect on round2, but that his stun is in effect in round1... and ends this round?

[rsarres]

It depends.
IF P2 has spent more than 50% of his activity in this round (i.e. used more than 50% of his OB to parry from attack of P1), P1 is not stunned but is at -25. P3 attack does not get any stun bonus. P1 cannot parry from P3 attack because it has already parried from P1.

IF P2 has not used more than 50% of his activity in this round, (i.e. did not parry with weapon or used less than 50% of his OB to parry from attack of P1), P1 is stunned and unable to parry immediately. P3 attack gains stunned bonus and P1 cannot parry because it is SUP.