Topic: Controlling Songs question

[jaranka]

The first few spells in this spell list:
1. Calm Song - Target cannot take aggressive action.
2. Holding Song - As Calm Song, except target is limited to 25% action.
3. Stun Song - As Calm Song, except target is stunned.

My question is related to activity required to parry.  It is my understanding that:
1) You *may* use some or all of your OB to parry your opponent.
2) Even if you use all your OB to parry, you *must* still attack, albeit with zero OB. (RMFRP 212, Special Note)
3) You need at least 60% activity to attack, and thus at least 60% activity to parry.
4) Stun limits one to 50% activity, but allows parrying with 50% OB.

I would rule that one may still parry while under the effects of Calm Song, including getting a zero OB attack, but that one may not parry while under the effects of Holding Song, and that one may parry with 50% OB while under the effects of Stun Song, including getting a zero OB attack.  Stun appears to be a special case that allows parrying, albeit with limitations, while only having 50% activity.

Given that the higher level spell allows the target more activity in a round (50% vs 25%), as well as allowing one to parry, it seems to me that it isn't necessarily more powerful.  The stun effect does give a bonus to the attacker, and does give a penalty to maneuvers, but this is certainly offset by allowing a 50% OB parry.  And you could do plenty more while stunned than while restricted to 25% activity, especially with Stunned Maneuvering.

How would you guys interpret the above?  I would wager that disagreement will stem from Understanding #3 above.  To that I would ask: Can you parry while casting a spell?

[VladD]

although I don't have the rules about, so I can't check for certain, BUT

I don't think you need to attack, to be able to parry. In fact I think that a full parry is just 50% action, meaning a HALF parry is just a 25% action, meaning you can parry 50% OB and still cast a spell for a total of 100% activity.

[jaranka]

@VladD

That doesn't jive with Understanding #2, which states Even if a combatant parries with 100% of his OB, he must still make a +0 OB attack - he may still fumble or roll high open-ended.  Which makes sense - you're still swinging your sword in order to deflect blows, which can indeed cause you to fumble your weapon, or perhaps score a lucky crit on your opponent.

I'd also point to RMFRP 211, where it says that your penalty to OB from %activity = (% activity used for attack) - 100.  (Assuming melee)

Thus, if I spend 10 full seconds focusing on the melee, I don't suffer any penalties.  If I get distracted for 2 seconds psyching myself up for an Adrenal Speed, I pay for it by getting a penalty to that attack.  This also leads me to believe that the activity penalty should be applied to parry as well.  If I need to spend a couple seconds circling an opponent, I have to think about that movement, which is focus I lose for any parry I may have declared.

In the Common Actions Table (RMFRP 39) it mentions 50% action to parry a missile, but does not mention melee.  That may be what you are thinking of.  And that's just another thing I feel reinforces the concept of the singular attack/parry option.  Why wouldn't they list it there if parry was conceptually different than attacking?  They really are parts of the same concept; they're just describing each end point of that concept's spectrum.

A caveat here is the fact that it does mention parrying a missile.  That concept is fundamentally flawed, which has been pointed out elsewhere on the boards, so I don't think that argument can be reasonably applied.  (Why does missile parry require a shield or suitable terrain, yet can still be modified by your sword's OB?  Utterly silly.)

[yammahoper]

Your rule three assumption is incorrect.

A basic attack requires at least 60%.  As I see it this says an attack requires at least 10%, as defedning is assumed to take 50% (to gain basic Qu DB, shields, parry, move the basic 5' allowed, percieve, etc).

So parry/defence requires 50% action, not 60%. 

[providence13]

Different opinions..

I have heard the parry is 50%Act before, but I find conflicting rules that that don't backed it up and just plain don't like it.

I feel the problem lies with OB being allowed to apply vs missile DB.
If it read, "Melee OB can't be applied vs Missile attacks. Only shield bonuses, Qu bonus, etc can be applied vs Missiles and this "Parry vs Missile" is a 50%Act." It would make a lot more sense. To me..

jaranka, I think you are correct.
"Note: Even if a combatant parries with 100% of his
OB, he must still make a +0 OB attack—he may still
fumble or perhaps roll high open-ended." pg 92 RMSS.
An attack requires 100 to 60%Act; -1OB/1%Act less than 100.

"Stun appears to be a special case that allows parrying, albeit with limitations, while only having 50% activity."
Yeah, it does muddy the waters OR reinforces the 50%Act parry opinion. Which ever way you go on the topic.
 


If you compare Calm Song to 4th lvl Calm, Ment Base, it could be similar. "Target will take no offensive action, and he will fight only in self-defense."
Fighting in self-defense sounds like a "full parry", all OB on DB, +0 attack roll, to me.
IMHO, Calm Song is 1st lvl (easier to access) because the List is Controlling Songs. But I handle them both the same.

[yammahoper]

Different opinions..

I have heard the parry is 50%Act before, but I find conflicting rules that that don't backed it up and just plain don't like it.

I feel the problem lies with OB being allowed to apply vs missile DB.
If it read, "Melee OB can't be applied vs Missile attacks. Only shield bonuses, Qu bonus, etc can be applied vs Missiles and this "Parry vs Missile" is a 50%Act." It would make a lot more sense. To me..

jaranka, I think you are correct.
"Note: Even if a combatant parries with 100% of his
OB, he must still make a +0 OB attack—he may still
fumble or perhaps roll high open-ended." pg 92 RMSS.
An attack requires 100 to 60%Act; -1OB/1%Act less than 100.

"Stun appears to be a special case that allows parrying, albeit with limitations, while only having 50% activity."
Yeah, it does muddy the waters OR reinforces the 50%Act parry opinion. Which ever way you go on the topic.
 


If you compare Calm Song to 4th lvl Calm, Ment Base, it could be similar. "Target will take no offensive action, and he will fight only in self-defense."
Fighting in self-defense sounds like a "full parry", all OB on DB, +0 attack roll, to me.
IMHO, Calm Song is 1st lvl (easier to access) because the List is Controlling Songs. But I handle them both the same.

  Page 92, RMSS Standard Rules states, under parrying missile fire, defender must be aware, he must also have a shield or suitable terrain, the shift must be declared in the Action Declaration Phase and parrying a missile requires 50% of a characters normal activity for a round.

So parry versus missile is allowed, but removes the opportunity to make a melee attack.  A thrown weapon is possible, as is a missile attack if terrain is being used in place of a shield (like a door jam or low wall).


Additionally, flipping the spells, making level 3 spell the level two spell and the level 2 spell the level 3 spell, should resolve all your stated problems.

[markc]

Holding SongIn the past I have done this, the person gets and action which totals 100%, then multiply that by 25%. So if a person has 75 OB and 25 DB, he puts 25 OB into DB = 50 OB and 50DB, then multiply that by .25= 12.5 OB and 12.5 DB.


 Yes hold type spells suck very very much.
MDC

[rdanhenry]

"Missile parry" is a misnomer and has always had a broken logic. Nothing about it should be applied to any other situation.

The Hold versus Stun issue is one reason I removed the Holding Song when I revised the Bard lists. http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2009/sep/therangerandthebard.html

Still, actions while Stunned are at -50. Where are you getting the 50% Activity restriction? If that was inserted into RMFRP, it is something they broke since RMSS.

[jaranka]

Still, actions while Stunned are at -50. Where are you getting the 50% Activity restriction? If that was inserted into RMFRP, it is something they broke since RMSS.

This is probably something I've incorrectly inferred from the other rules of stun.  Usually, actions modified by -50 mean you've only spent 50% action on it.  And being stunned precludes the ability to attack, which needs 60% action.  Probably also because my GM only allows 50% activity while stunned.

Your rule three assumption is incorrect.

A basic attack requires at least 60%.  As I see it this says an attack requires at least 10%, as defedning is assumed to take 50% (to gain basic Qu DB, shields, parry, move the basic 5' allowed, percieve, etc).

So parry/defence requires 50% action, not 60%. 

Can you back up any of this with RAW?  Where does it say defending is assumed to take 50%?  It seems to be a somewhat common (mis?)conception but I have yet to see (or remember) anything that states it in the RAW.  Perhaps something from an older version of Rolemaster? I've only been playing this system for a couple years or so now, but was so enamored I wrote a program that keeps track of just about everything, so I attack these problems with the reasoning and unerring nature of a computer.  I'm trying to make computer sense of all these books that were written by a bunch of different humans.  A daunting task if ever there was one!

[yammahoper]

Daunting indeed.

So how much activity is required to gain Qu DB and possible shield and parry and allow the minimum movement (5') allowed to be used while gaining said advantages?

IMO, the math says 50%.  A melee attack also requires 50%, but can be preformed with as little as 10% (at a -40 penalty).

Or defence might require 5% activity, allowing a melee attack with 60% and leaving 35% to move, cast instant spell while moving, etc.  Whatever makes sense to you and your program, of course.  I have over 20 years in the system, but I would be willing to look at my assumptions. 

Yet another issue the rewrite should cover.

[jdale]

I'm in the camp that says parry is necessarily a part of an attack action and therefore has a minimum activity of 60% (with the noted exception for Stun).

For Calm song, I would allow them 100% parry and 0 OB attack, if they are attacked. Otherwise they should stay out of melee.

I think the most reasonable solution for Holding Song and Stun Song is to reverse their positions on the spell list. Considering that Mentalists can Stun as a level 1 spell, that does not seem problematic.

[kevinmccollum]

Holding song and stun song, as they are, are holdovers from RM2 when you could attack with 50% and there was no solution to stun besides herbs or spells (no remove stun or stunned maneuver skill).

[providence13]

rdanhenry, on the reworking of Bard's Base List,
good job with the
 "1. Calming Song: Targets are calmed and cannot take aggressive (offensive) action during the performance. This spell also soothes pain and can offset up to -10 in penalties due to injury."
Soothing pain and injury makes sense to me. 

kevinmccullom, 50%Act to melee in RM2 huh.. I suspected as much. I'll bet it was changed to ensure that you could only attack 1/rnd. I'm sure 1/rnd was a rule, but the 60%Act min removes any ambiguity in the "new" versions.

jdale, I agree. If a Harpy, Beholder, Bard, etc. had you Charmed (as Calm and caster is a good friend), I'm pretty sure that you'd defend them; full parry to anyone who wishes them harm.

jaranka, keep up the good work.

markc, you just like numbers. 

VladD, I would allow someone to cast an Instant and still parry. As long as they save 10%Act for the spell, taking a -10 on OB before the split.

yamma, your experience is always appreciated.

[markc]

providence13,
 Yes I love numbers.
MDC

[MariusH]

I'm also in the camp that says you need to attack to be able to parry, and an attack is minimum 60% activity (and minimum 80% activity unless it's a "full melee" attack). As for "basic" DB, I allow that to anyone, even if they use 100% activity to other things than combat.

I also agree that "holding" is more powerful than "stunning", with one exception: You can't cast spells while stunned, but you can cast instant spells while "held". There are probably a few other situations where being stunned would be worse too, but ordinarily I agree that holding is worse, because you can't attack (and thus not parry) while being held to 25% activity.

Also note that this effect goes for the "Speed" spells: During the "recovery" period, you have only 50% activity - not enough to attack or parry, meaning that the "Speed" spells should be used VERY carefully (or rewritten to read "60%", maybe with a -10 additional penalty).

[markc]

MariusH,
 Very good info on the Stun vs Held and instant spells.
MDC

[providence13]

I also agree that "holding" is more powerful than "stunning", with one exception: You can't cast spells while stunned, but you can cast instant spells while "held". There are probably a few other situations where being stunned would be worse too, but ordinarily I agree that holding is worse, because you can't attack (and thus not parry) while being held to 25% activity.

Also note that this effect goes for the "Speed" spells: During the "recovery" period, you have only 50% activity - not enough to attack or parry, meaning that the "Speed" spells should be used VERY carefully (or rewritten to read "60%", maybe with a -10 additional penalty).

As RAW, my players figured out long ago that by casting Speed again, the next round is 100%Act. Sure, that means the next rnd is 50%Act but for only 2 PP, they can keep it up for a while. Most of the time, until combat ends. Haste is more efficient, but at low lvl with a PP Adder (+5, 10, 15PP aren't uncommon), it's a tactic that works.

[Ynglaur]

Holding is "better" than stun only if you're attacking the person.  If you're trying to prevent them from doing something else (i.e. a maneuver), stun is better.  Thus, the places on the spell list may be appropriate.

[MariusH]

As RAW, my players figured out long ago that by casting Speed again, the next round is 100%Act. Sure, that means the next rnd is 50%Act but for only 2 PP, they can keep it up for a while. Most of the time, until combat ends. Haste is more efficient, but at low lvl with a PP Adder (+5, 10, 15PP aren't uncommon), it's a tactic that works.

Sure. Let's say you need to keep going for five rounds. That means that for every one of these five rounds, the mage has to cast Speed I. The effect? For the first round, the "target" gets 200% activity, for the next four rounds, he/she gets 100% activity (followed by a sixth round with 50% activity). Effectively, you have locked your mage to spending lots of PPs (five spells), and casting no other spells that can affect the situation (Bladeturn/Deflection? Stun Cloud? Fire Bolt? Sleep?) for the entire five rounds. And all you gain is one single round of 200% activity. You better need that round very badly for it to be worth such a cost!