Topic: No parry

[Kristen Mork]

In another thread, someone suggested that "no parry" results always occur in conjunction with "stun" results.  However, several tables include "no parry" results that don't involve stun (e.g., the Grapple, Large and MA Sweeps critical tables).  A concrete example is Sweeps degree C, 91-95: "Sweep downs foe and you put him in a leg-breaking hold.  You pin foe and may break his leg at your leisure."  More generally, the criticals that involve "no parry" without stun often involve incapacitating your foe in some way (a bear hug, a stomach shot that drops the foe, etc.).

It seems odd to me that the opponent is free to attack at this point.  What do people think about interpreting "no parry" without "stun" as "unable to attack or parry, -90 to maneuvers, but not stunned."  Compared to "stun no parry":

• Stunned no parry gives opponents +20 to hit.
• Both prevent attacks and parries.
• Both subtract 90 from maneuvers.
• Stunned no parry can be alleviated with Stun Removal, Stun Relief spells, Stun berries, etc. while simple no parry cannot.

[Marc R]

Same with a must parry. . .unless you consider that stun also.

[yammahoper]

I always assumed must parry to mean being off balance or at such a disadvantage, all you can do is defend yourself for a while.  Since you are not stunned, you can parry at full.  We never bother to roll the attack, but a 0 OB attack could be done, which may represent getting lucky.  Me, I'll continue to not roll an attack.

Attacking a stun foe results in a +20 OB mod.  Attacking a stun no parry results in a +50 OB mod.

[rdanhenry]

If you are downed, pinned, and subject to leg-breakage at will, I'd say you're in no position to attack, regardless of other considerations. I recommend begging for mercy, offering service or bribes if spared, or praying for divine intervention. In any case, the definition for no parry in my Arms Law (RMSS version) limits allowable actions to maneuvering (at a minimum of -75), so no attacks. Without the stun result, attackers don't get the stunned bonus. And, yes, stun removal effects won't help. Otherwise no difference.

If the attacker chose to break those legs, I think I'd throw in some rounds of stun as well, though.

I agree with yammahoper on the must parry interpretation, except that the +0 attack should always be rolled. No defense without the risk of fumble, weapon breakage, or accidentally stabbing someone you want to take alive.

Not sure where yammahope gets that extra +30 against the stun no parry foe. That'd be pretty excessive considering he can't parry and you can go full OB. You get another +30 if the target is downed, but there's nothing about no parry that implies that.

[Marc R]

I think Peter was also referring to the "No parry" with no stun indicated?

[vroomfogle]

How many specific cases are you referring to?    When we did the Fantasy Grounds ruleset the assumption was that No Parry always meant "
'Stunned and Unable to Parry', and in fact that's the way that it was coded.   I thought I had looked through the charts and convinced myself that No Parry never showed up without a stun, or at least not enough times to warrant special consideration.   I'd treat it as the same and just assume that No Parry meant "Stunned and Unable to Parry"

[Kristen Mork]

Vroomfogle: In Arms Law, there are around 8 instances of "No Parry" without the "Stun" symbol.  Here's another example from Grapple (D severity, 61-65): "Clumsy bear hug around foe.  Foe can do little to escape for the moment.  Both his arms are pinned."  Based on the text, you would expect the foe to be in trouble.  But, here are the game mechanics: "No Parry" for 2 rounds, "Must Parry" at -20 for 1 round.  For the first two rounds, the foe can all-out-attack you; he just cannot parry.  So, despite having pinned your foe's arms, he's free to whallop you, assuming he wins initiative.

There are several others that I found with a quick read through of the critical charts.

So, my question remains.  In those cases when the "No Parry" symbol appears and the "Stun" symbol does not appear, how do others resolve this?  A strict RAW treatment would suggest that "No Parry" without "Stun" just means you cannot move OB to DB, but that's not really much of a penalty, especially given the fairly nasty flavor text associated with these results.

[rdanhenry]

Peter, read the definition of No Parry (RMSS Arm Law has it on p.94), it prohibits any action but maneuver at a very high penalty. RAW, it prevents attacks, even in the absence of any stun. Also, "his arms are pinned" is game mechanical information. It just isn't a standardized result that gets turned into a pretty symbol in the RMSS Arm Law. Since the character is held by the hug, unless he is big and strong enough to carry his attacker along with him (at whatever additional penalty the GM imposes on top of the -75 No Parry minimum), he can't even move except to try to slip free.

[MariusH]

I always concidered these rare cases "misprints" - I assumed they MEANT "stunned no parry". I think I'll still threat them that way.

But I DO have a problem with allowing a "stunned maneuover" to remove your stunned rounds when they are caused by someone holding you in a grip - or does a success simply mean that you are able to break free? In general, I find "stunned maneuover" to be very powerful, and also to cause the strange effect that giving a "must parry" result to an opponent with high stunned maneuover skill is more effective than giving a "stun" result.

[Ecthelion]

I always concidered these rare cases "misprints" - I assumed they MEANT "stunned no parry". I think I'll still threat them that way.

Fully agreed.

[Ecthelion]

Attacking a stun no parry results in a +50 OB mod.

I would assume this to be a house rule of yours. Or do you have any reference in the official rules?

[Ecthelion]

Peter, read the definition of No Parry (RMSS Arm Law has it on p.94), it prohibits any action but maneuver at a very high penalty. RAW, it prevents attacks, even in the absence of any stun.

Aren't you confusing "no parry" with "must parry"?

[Kristen Mork]

Peter, read the definition of No Parry (RMSS Arm Law has it on p.94), it prohibits any action but maneuver at a very high penalty.

I guess I was confused by the wording.  In RMSR, stun indicates that the target cannot attack and can only half parry.  No parry states the target cannot parry (it does not mention attacks at all, which implies that attacks are allowed, as does the name of the effect!).  However, it then states that movement and maneuvers are the only allowable activities.  So, a careful parsing of the RAW suggests that both Stun and No Parry (and Stun + No Parry) preclude attacks.

Thus, the only difference (per RAW) between Stun + No Parry and No Parry is: the former gives opponents +20 to attack.  This raises another set of questions: Can Stun + No Parry be cured by Stun Relief spells?  Or would only the Stun result be removed (leaving the more severe No Parry in effect)?  If Stun Relief cannot remove Stun + No Parry, then it's utility is drastically reduced!

(I'm pretty sure that we cannot chalk this up to typographic error.  If Stun and Stun + No Parry were the only options, then No Parry wouldn't need a second symbol.  The charts could include one symbol for Stun and a different symbol for Stun + No Parry.  Moreover, IIRC the old RM2 critical charts would sometimes include a result of "Unable to Parry" without mentioning Stun.)

[Carontir]

Peter, read the definition of No Parry (RMSS Arm Law has it on p.94), it prohibits any action but maneuver at a very high penalty. RAW, it prevents attacks, even in the absence of any stun.

Aren't you confusing "no parry" with "must parry"?

No, he is not. It says the same in RMSR p. 89

What I find funny is the definition of "Must parry" in RMSR (p. 89) It also says that "the only allowable action is movement and maneuvering" just after it says that the target must parry. In Arms Law (p. 94) it doesn't mention the "only allowable action"-part. It just say the target must parry.

So how do you use this? Do you allow maneuvers instead of parrying in the rounds of must parry?

[Marc R]

The many varieties of stun. . .and might be stun. . .always a barrel of confusion to be had here. 

I think the only way to clear that up is to decide if "Must parry" and "No Parry" are stun or not. . .the books disagree going back as far as RM2 AL.

I have no idea which way to go. . .on the one hand, if they are stun, then the easiest way to deal with "no parry" is just to consider it SNP. . . .OTOH if they are not stun, then they can affect stun immunes like undead. (Gonna bear hug a zombie or major demon?)

[Kristen Mork]

So how do you use this? Do you allow maneuvers instead of parrying in the rounds of must parry?

I certainly allow actions (at a penalty) other than parrying.

[Marc R]

(Also, do these go off in parallel or series with stun, and SNP rounds. . . if it's stun, they go off in series. . .If it's not stun, so they resolve in parallel rather than series. . if you are SNP and NP do the penalties stack in the round both are active?)

[Kristen Mork]

OTOH if they are not stun, then they can affect stun immunes like undead. (Gonna bear hug a zombie or major demon?)

Mark raises a fascinating point!  If you obtain a result of Stun + No Parry against an undead (immune to Stun), does the No Parry still apply?  I would be tempted to rule that there are four distinct conditions: Must Parry (off balance), Stun (pain), Stun + No Parry (extreme pain), and No Parry (largely immobilized through other means).  Undead are immune to Stun and Stun + No Parry, but not immune to Must Parry or the rare No Parry result.  Similarly, Stun Relief will handle both forms of stun, but not Must/No Parry.

Alternatively, there might be three conditions: Must Parry, No Parry, and Stun.  Undead would only be immune to Stun, so No Parry results will still stop them in their tracks.  This makes #@ creatures much less dangerous!

[Marc R]

In the note in RMC CT, regarding stun immunes. . .it gets into how a knocked down or knocked back undead still get knocked prone or knocked back "Immune to stun does not mean immune to physics."

But the stacking if not stun does raise issues here. . .and "Stun" "Stun No Parry" "Down" and "Out" are explicitly laid out as types of stun. . .so it's not "Stun" then "Stun" + "No Parry" since SNP is defined as a stand alone, distinct that resolved after all out and down rounds resolve, before any stun rounds resolve.

I personally dislike how undead can't be staggered, but finally just decided to fall on the "Must Parry is the least form of stun" side of the fence, and handled all that staggering via physics with the knocked back and knocked prone results. . .it makes life a lot easier than trying to figure out what to do if "Must Parry" is not stun, and then resolving what to do when someone is simultaneously "Must Parry" and "Stun no Parry" in the same round.

[rdanhenry]

Peter, read the definition of No Parry (RMSS Arm Law has it on p.94), it prohibits any action but maneuver at a very high penalty. RAW, it prevents attacks, even in the absence of any stun.

Aren't you confusing "no parry" with "must parry"?

No. If you Must Parry, you must attack (per Arms Law; RMSR either has a extraneous and contradictory statement about movement added, or is missing the word "other" and allows an option not allowed in Arms Law). If you have No Parry, you cannot attack. Is it really that hard to take three minutes to look up the rule?