Topic: Is "Must Parry" Stun?

[smug]

It's always seemed to me that the defender could probably opt not to defend and just take the hits (if desired), as well.

[Marc R]

The text in RM isn't much different, less coherent, but says essentially the same thing.

"For this # of rounds, the target may not attack, he may only parry with 1/2 his OB, and the only other actions allowed are movement and maneuvers, both modified by at least -25."

[darksilver]

Can someone tell me where the information stating that must parry provides a MM penalty of -25 is located, because every search I have performed of RMSS rulebooks yields a -75 reference. Also, what is the community wisdom on knocked out results? Specifically, how long do they last (when not explicitly specified)? Likewise with comas. And finally, which of these effects does an Awakening spell affect?

[Kristen Mork]

Must parry provides a penalty of -75 to static and moving maneuvers.  The same holds for no parry results (absent the "stun" result).

If knocked out doesn't specify a duration, then I would assume it lasts until First Aid can be administered.  A coma probably requires more serious intervention (Second Aid?).  Do you have examples of "out" or "coma" absent a duration.

I allow Awakening to affect either.

[yammahoper]

Knocked out: d100+Cox3.

75 or less, 10 days - Co mod (min one day)
76-90, 20 hours - Co mod
91-110, 20 minutes - Co mod
111+, 20 rnds - Co mod.

[markc]

Knocked out: d100+Cox3.

75 or less, 10 days - Co mod (min one day)
76-90, 20 hours - Co mod
91-110, 20 minutes - Co mod
111+, 20 rnds - Co mod.

 I use something close to the above but AFAIK there is not an official rule as to how long you are out.


 The Awakening spell is supposed to wake up targets who are asleep and not knocked out, again IIRC. A GM might rule that it wakes people knocked out or provide another roll like the above or maybe modify the spell saying that if you cast this spell at a higher level then it will awaken a target knocked out.
 Also when you are knocked out it is generally for a reason so if you were awakened I would apply some penalty that would go away a little every round and/or treat it like additional rounds of stun.
MDC

[Kristen Mork]

I find Awakening (especially the non-subconscious versions on Concussion's Ways and Concussion Mastery) to be nigh useless unless it works on effects like knocked out or comas.  After all, for 0 PP you can just shout or kick the sleeping "friend."

If I typed correctly, the text for Awakening is simply: Target is instantly awake.  At the least, that sounds like it should work on a coma.  I would also rule that it works on "knocked out" targets because when knocked out, the target is not awake, and the spell changes that status to "is awake."

[providence13]

The text in RM isn't much different, less coherent, but says essentially the same thing.

"For this # of rounds, the target may not attack, he may only parry with 1/2 his OB, and the only other actions allowed are movement and maneuvers, both modified by at least -25."

To complicate it more, RMFRP gives the above quote but has -50 (instead of -25) +3x SD stat bonus. Pg 209.
Also, 'stun', 'stun no parry' and 'down' and 'out' all add to unconsciousness. 10 +2x Co stat bonus. You come to when the number of 'stuns' is less.

Does this mean wakening relieves stun?

[Ynglaur]

I think that six rounds in the Sweeps crits comes with a dislocated shoulder. Perhaps that's the time needed to relocate it. Which would make it a rather fast recovery considering a combat situation and the difficulty of performing such an operation on oneself. The text also describes a situation where the attacker remains close to the attacked. Once you are on the defensive, the need to evade further assault may keep you from fully recovering your balance as quickly as you otherwise would. I think that is my preferred interpretation, and if the victim suddenly found himself out of the combat situation (e.g., teleported to safety or all attackers killed by his allies), a single round would suffice to return to normal (although in this case it is likely to be irrelevant).

Dislocated shoulders can--though they don't always--pop themselves back in.  It hurts like hell.  If you dislocate them enough, though, the ligaments get permanently stretched (and scarred), and so don't "spring back" as easily.  After that, you need either impact (risky: you can hit a couple key nerves), twisting (painful, takes forever), or traction (best).

[Ynglaur]

It's always seemed to me that the defender could probably opt not to defend and just take the hits (if desired), as well.

Also called "Pulling an Obi-Wan".

[MariusH]

Whether "Must Parry" is a form of stun has been an issue in our group too. I remember something about it being stun from old books, but can't point to where I read it. For most fighters, getting a "Must Parry" of one or two rounds is far worse than getting a "stun" for one or two rounds, since the latter can be dealt with using "stunned maneuover" or similar. Also, the "Must Parry" is definitely worse for undeads and others who ignores stuns (such creatures should really have separate crit tables...). Still, "Must Parry" results always appear at lower crit numbers than stuns. In addition, you never get the "Must Parry" and "Stun" result simultanuously, which would really make sense to do if it's not stun, since the stun can be removed, but not the "Must Parry" part.

Anyway, we use it as NOT being a form of stun when it comes to stun removals and undeads (although personally I disagree with this), but we DO stack "must parry" results with stuns rather than deal them simultanously, so if you get two rounds of "must parry", and next round you get two rounds of "stun", you're stunned the next two rounds and then have one round of "must parry" (the first round of "must parry" was when you received the "2 rnds stun" result, obviously).

[markc]

I like the point MariusH brought up about creatures not being able to be stunned and must parry above.
MDC

[Kristen Mork]

Whether "Must Parry" is a form of stun has been an issue in our group too. I remember something about it being stun from old books, but can't point to where I read it. For most fighters, getting a "Must Parry" of one or two rounds is far worse than getting a "stun" for one or two rounds, since the latter can be dealt with using "stunned maneuover" or similar. Also, the "Must Parry" is definitely worse for undeads and others who ignores stuns (such creatures should really have separate crit tables...). Still, "Must Parry" results always appear at lower crit numbers than stuns. In addition, you never get the "Must Parry" and "Stun" result simultanuously, which would really make sense to do if it's not stun, since the stun can be removed, but not the "Must Parry" part.

Anyway, we use it as NOT being a form of stun when it comes to stun removals and undeads (although personally I disagree with this), but we DO stack "must parry" results with stuns rather than deal them simultanously, so if you get two rounds of "must parry", and next round you get two rounds of "stun", you're stunned the next two rounds and then have one round of "must parry" (the first round of "must parry" was when you received the "2 rnds stun" result, obviously).

I agree that undead should be subject to "must parry" and "no parry" results for two reasons: 1) they reflect tactical disadvantages (as opposed to short-term pain) and 2) it's one of the few ways to get the upper hand against undead.  I used to stack "must parry" and "no parry" with stun, but I've since reverted to the RAW and found it to work just fine.

[MariusH]

Note that the book explicitely states that one can not have "Must Parry" and "No Parry" at the same time. With "No Parry" almost always coming along with a "Stun", it seems to me far more logical to add the round(s) of "Must Parry" after the round(s) of "Stun" or "Stun No Parry" than to just delete the entire "Must Parry" round(s).

To me, it is also a danger sign when you prefer a lower crit roll so that you get a "Must Parry" result rather than a "Stun" result. Say you're ambushing an undead or a good fighter, and roll somewhere in the 30s, you may want to NOT increase the crit result to get it to the 40s, since that could alter a "Must Parry" result to a "Stun" result. Am I the only one who finds that weird?

[Marc R]

I suspect, based in the original logic, and the one of the two versions of the rule in the 1989 book stating it was stun. . .that the logic would run downhill, per the stun wears off worst to least.

i.e. Out, Down, SNP, Stun, MP

But that's presuming as valid the strand of the RM2 logic that was latter overruled to be the rule, while in the RAW "MP is not stun" became the rule.

[Old Man]

Must parry provides a penalty of -75 to static and moving maneuvers.  The same holds for no parry results (absent the "stun" result).

Peter - which version has the -75? (2nd ed - red border - has -25)

Curious,
Old Man

[Grinnen Baeritt]

Ok. Now I'm confused. Well done everyone. 

Obviously I've never read the RAW.... I always thought that Must Parry...meant just that, an enforced period of purely defensive action. The target is forced to use all thier OB defensively and can make no attacks.

I'd never applied any penalty, (unless the crit result stated it) and never considered it to be a stun result (unless the crit result also stated it).

[Kristen Mork]

Must parry provides a penalty of -75 to static and moving maneuvers.  The same holds for no parry results (absent the "stun" result).

Peter - which version has the -75? (2nd ed - red border - has -25)

Curious,
Old Man

It's a difference across versions.  As you noted, RM2 uses -25.  RMSR (page 89) uses -75.

[Old Man]

Must parry provides a penalty of -75 to static and moving maneuvers.  The same holds for no parry results (absent the "stun" result).

Peter - which version has the -75? (2nd ed - red border - has -25)

Curious,
Old Man

It's a difference across versions.  As you noted, RM2 uses -25.  RMSR (page 89) uses -75.

Huh. Perhaps its a typo in RMSR?

[Marc R]

Nah, in the early RM2 era (some time around 1989) there seems to be some confusion on if "Must parry" is or is not stun. . .and it started out as the "least" form of stun at -25 so you have:

-25 must parry
-50 stun
-75 SNP
-100 down

But also in the 1989 versions, it also says that must parry is not stun (it managed to say it was and was not in the same book). . . the "MP is not stun" line became the RAW as RM2 continued to evolve and passed on to RMSS as not stun.

During the RMSS rewrite, someone decided it should have a bigger penalty than -25 and hiked it to -75. . .it no longer needed to be part of the -25/50/75/100 progression since it was no longer stun, and a -25 penalty was likely deemed to be too mild to impair high end creatures. Especially since "must parry" is the only status effect that will impair some high end undead, demons and constructs.