Topic: Shaking off Stun and new Combat Action "Defend"

[Karizma]

Reading Nicholas' "Resisting Stuns" article in The Guild Companion (2004 December), I was inspired by the idea of giving the player something to roll for, because being stunned sucks.  But at the same time, a stunned player might just become background noise.  He gets a roll, but it's filler between other players' independent actions.

Let's assume Stun is what happens after being hit really hard, and you need a moment to recover your wits.  The -50 to Parry is a distraction while you're recovering.

I'd like to allow a character to roll to shake off stun during every round of stun, that way he has something to do when it's his turn.  Further...

I propose a new Combat Action, Defend.  A character may jump in between two individuals engaged in melee combat.  The Defending character must parry, and suffers a -10 penalty for each 5' area, with a minimum penalty of -10 and a maximum of -50.  If the Defended individual is stunned, he now gains a +50 bonus to shake off his remaining stun.  So his 150 (or 100 if you're using Nicholas' alternate rule from TGP) becomes 100 (or 50).

The purpose of Defend is to promote teamwork.  It makes character location slightly more important (so someone can Defend a stunned ally), and adds a little more thought into battle.

So, thoughts?

[Arioch]

I like it, but maybe it has to be playtested a little (+50 bonus may be a little too high...).

BTW, I'm currently working on a mechanic handling similar situations in RM... these things seems to be a problem in both systems 

[jurasketu]

Re: Defend

Hun. In my ancient RMC days, we allowed characters to parry for other characters as long as they could reasonably do so and were not under attack themselves. Essentially, characters would say - I'm parrying THAT attack against my friend (cleric, mage, STUP'd fighter or whatever).

I allow it in HARP as well - its so Heroic how could one not allow it?

I might humbly suggest calling the combat action: "Defend Friend" or "Defend Other" instead of just "Defend".

Shaking off stun every round is a perfectly reasonable approach. I'm not clear on your procedure though...

Does the 'shake off' chance reflect the current number of remaining rounds of stun or the original stun result? Either way, allowing modifiers to the roll based on whether the character is still under attack or other pressures seems reasonable. So if the character doesn't have to parry - I could easily see that they get a bonus +25 for "being left alone" or +50 for "heroic efforts of friends to protect them".

[janpmueller]

@Shaking of stun: Like it a lot, not only for the reasons you gave, but also because players won't be able to judge if someone is still a threat to them or not. I hate it when they know they do three rounds of stun, and start shifting weapons or going away, knowing they have the three rounds.

@Defend Other: I agree that only "Defend" is slightly misleading, so I go with the proposed name. I don't quite see a need for that, because I believe it could be reflected by the existing rules. Move and attack so that you are between friend and foe - you get a modifier for each moved hex, and you are in melee just like that. The minor change is to make it possible to get between two combatants although there's no free hex, but I believe that's as easier way to do it.
The part about stun being easier to shake off when you're not under attack is a very interesting take, though. I like how this means players would try to play for time, busying foes so that comrades can catch their breath.

[Karizma]

After a good night's sleep and reading your posts (read as: realizing how silly it is to propose a combat action almost exactly like Move and Attack), I think the "Defend~" Action is unnecessary.

See, this is why I post with you guys!

@Shaking Stuns:  I hadn't quite figured it out when I posted, but here is what I propose.  When a character receives a stun, he immediately makes a Stamina-RR, exactly as explained in the core rulebook.
With a high target, as explained by Nicholas in the aforementioned TGP article, it'll be often that the character will fail the roll to resist being stunned.
Then, if the character does indeed fail his Resistance Roll, he may continue to make a Stamina-RR against 150 during each of the rounds he would be stunned (this one is flat, not modified by any stuns over 1, this is to save paperwork mostly).  However, if the character is no longer engaged in melee (if one of his companions jumps in and grabs the attention of the attacker), his RR target will be 100.  If he succeeds, he may perform an action that round.

In theory, this could allow a "second chance" for the character to get rid of stuns but at an easier target.  However, I believe that it will be hard for a companion to jump in and protect him within that first round (I would rule that the companion would even need to make a Combat Awareness maneuver for the initial stunning.), so the "second chance" will still be at 150 (which most likely would be easier, if he had obtained multiple rounds of stun, yet it's still not an easy number).

Alternatively, we could say that the roll for Resisting being stunned also counts as the roll for shaking stuns in the first round.

[Mattiyaho]

I have made a house rule that instead of performing an action while stunned a character may get an additional RR vs. stun at their init. if he succedes he may act the following round sice the additional RR counted as his action. A character always got a free RR vs. stun at the end of every round.

[Duskwalker]

@ Stun:
I use the following house rule:

To resist stun, a cascading RR:Stamina is made against a target number of  (120 + 10/round of stun).
Example: Attack results in 3 rounds of stun. Target has to make a cRR with a target number of 150. The individual results are:
cRR (150)   no stun
cRR (140)   1 round of stun
cRR (130)   2 rounds of stun
Fail           3 rounds of stun

This favors characters who put a lot of DP into Resistance: stamina and provides smoother results than the "all or nothing solution" in the core rules.
Using this rule, I don't like the idea of shaking off stuns, otherwise I'd go with Mattiyaho, but only allow one RR at the characters initiative instead of any other action ("Try to focus, moron"!) .

[janpmueller]

I have made a house rule that instead of performing an action while stunned a character may get an additional RR vs. stun at their init. if he succedes he may act the following round sice the additional RR counted as his action. A character always got a free RR vs. stun at the end of every round.

Beauty in simplicity. Idea point for you.

[Mormegil]

I like the idea. One of the issues I have with both RM and HARP is that it's easy to get into "stun lock" (you get stunned, you are now more vulnerable to being hit again and stunned again and you spend the entire combat parrying at half and never getting out of stun).

[Pat]

To be honest stun is not a factor in our games. Every character carries Jada leaves which remove 1-10 rounds of stun and, if you have a herbal bandoleer and 1 rank in herb craft, is a free action to eat. Also they're only 12 siilver each, a bargain.

[Karizma]

Wow.  I didn't factor out herbs.  HARP surprises me often with its excellence.  If the players want to prevent it, they need to forage and herbcraft.  Perfect.

[Mormegil]

I'm just glad HARP has no addiction rules.

Hi. I'm Mormegil and I'm a stun-relief aholic. It has been 4 seconds since my last jada leaf.....

[Karizma]

A whole two rounds!  *Clapclapclap!*

I'm just glad HARP has no addiction rules.

Hi. I'm Mormegil and I'm a stun-relief aholic. It has been 4 seconds since my last jada leaf.....

A whole two rounds! 

Actually though... addiction rules could be... fun! Muahahaha!

[Duskwalker]

Would one who took too many Jada leaves actually become "knurd"? 
Would Klatschian Coffee be a stun-relief as well?

(Thanks to Mr. Terry Pratchett for his wonderful world)