Stunned after taking Wait maneuver

[Ultraviolet]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Then rule on this:

Player: I Wait, and if a stunning spell is cast on me I Do Nothing.

If I'm GMing in a setting with wizards, where this kind of things happens sufficiently often, AND the character has enough knowledge about stunning spells (like warriors training to 'steel their minds' to avoid this trick) - then yes, I'd allow it. It kind of makes sense to me in this way. My previous post did say the opposite, but I changed my mind. I like tactical choices.

But then the warrior does not get to pre-emptively attack the rushing bear instead, just because the Wait described above does not get set off.

But in a setting where wizards and stunning spells are very rare I don't like it. Not until the characters get this knowledge.
I play in a Cliffhanger campaign, where I'm the GM a lot. I think we'd allow it, if the character has sufficient knowledge and training. Maybe they'll get caught with their pants down the first time, but from them on those mind-mucking ninjas won't pull their stunt as easily.

I may allow an "unspent" Wait to yield more observational information. So even if the enemy does not approach or whatever, you still see what he's doing, and might notice something useful.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

If I'm GMing in a setting with wizards, where this kind of things happens sufficiently often, AND the character has enough knowledge about stunning spells (like warriors training to 'steel their minds' to avoid this trick) - then yes, I'd allow it. It kind of makes sense to me in this way. My previous post did say the opposite, but I changed my mind. I like tactical choices.

But then the warrior does not get to pre-emptively attack the rushing bear instead, just because the Wait described above does not get set off.

But in a setting where wizards and stunning spells are very rare I don't like it. Not until the characters get this knowledge.
I play in a Cliffhanger campaign, where I'm the GM a lot. I think we'd allow it, if the character has sufficient knowledge and training. Maybe they'll get caught with their pants down the first time, but from them on those mind-mucking ninjas won't pull their stunt as easily.

I may allow an "unspent" Wait to yield more observational information. So even if the enemy does not approach or whatever, you still see what he's doing, and might notice something useful.

Good point on having to know stunning spells are a thing and what recovering from them would actually be like!

[Donny Brook]

If the player had moved instead of Waiting, it seems like there would be no question.

If the player had a lower speed than the sorceress, it seems like there would be no question.

The problem is an artifact of the Wait maneouver which is a complicated way of allowing faster characters to move later. As such, it merely takes the PC from state 1, above, into state 2.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

If the player had moved instead of Waiting, it seems like there would be no question.

If the player had a lower speed than the sorceress, it seems like there would be no question.

The problem is an artifact of the Wait maneouver which is a complicated way of allowing faster characters to move later. As such, it merely takes the PC from state 1, above, into state 2.

That's my take too. If Wait were implemented as lowering your place in the Basic Speed order for the rest of the combat instead of just until the next cycle through the order - which would have been an equally reasonable way to implement it from a game design perspective - the player might have a point, but that isn't how it works.

[Gnome]

From B366: "You may transform your Wait into an Attack, Feint, All-Out Attack (you must specify the option before acting), or Ready maneuver."

Since "Do Nothing" is not listed, by RAW you cannot use Wait to prepare for being stunned in order to recover faster. And it doesn't make much narrative sense to me either. Does being prepared for being magically stunned allow you to break the magical stun faster? If so, it's something about the way magic works in your world and nothing to do with Waits or the combat sequence...

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by malloyd

That's my take too. If Wait were implemented as lowering your place in the Basic Speed order for the rest of the combat instead of just until the next cycle through the order - which would have been an equally reasonable way to implement it from a game design perspective - the player might have a point, but that isn't how it works.

I think they just made it too fiddly. A faster character moving a beat slower deliberately doesn't seem implausible to me. But this privilege is traded off against other options passing by, hence the need to set conditions for action (which can be either quite broad or very narrow). So far, so good.

The real problem is that Wait splits the turn instead of moving the turn. The privilege should be built into the Speed stat. Just before their Turn starts, faster characters should have the option to delay their (whole) turn by setting conditions on what they will do. If the conditions don't materialize, their Turn is lost*.



*Not the same as Doing Nothing. Experientially they spent their turn in a activity not unlike what Evaluate would feel like.

[Anthony]

The real rules anomaly is that it doesn't actually say that being stunned prevents your wait from triggering. Stunning controls what you can do on your turn.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Lancewholelot

Recently in a game I was running, a player took the Wait maneuver to attack a cave bear if it came toward him. Before this Wait was triggered the player was stunned by a sorceress' Death Vision spell. The cave bear then gets to move in on its turn without the stunned player's Wait triggering. The player's next turn starts and I tell him he must take the Do Nothing maneuver due to stun. The player protest that he had already lost a turn and should have already gotten a chance to recover. I stuck to my ruling, but how would you call it?

I would rule with you.

The player took their turn, and chose to do a Wait (Attack) maneuver.

They were then stunned.

On their next turn they must take a Do Nothing maneuver to try to recover from stunning.

This does cause them to lose the rest of their Wait (Attack) action, but this seems to make the most sense. They were waiting to ambush the bear and the wizard stunned them to make them vulnerable. They didn't lose a turn, they took a Wait (Attack) maneuver and were unable to complete it. If the bear did not move to them, say, someone caused the bear to flee, and it moved in a different direction, would they get their turn back? No. Would they have "lost their turn?" Yes. They chose their maneuver on their turn (Wait), and were unable to complete it when the opportunity came up (due to stunning).

I would also rule this way if the party tried the same trick--they tried stunning an ambusher.

In response to Anthony's last statement: Stunning takes over from the moment you're stunned until you recover. The moment you're stunned, you're at a penalty for Active Defenses, that seems to indicate that it's an immediate effect.

Keep in mind, this is what Campaigns says:

Originally Posted by Campaigns, pg 420

If you are stunned, you must Do Nothing on your next turn. You may perform any active defense while stunned, but your defense rolls are at -4 and you cannot retreat.

Stunning controls what you can do, in general. I agree that it does need to be clarified, especially with Waits.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

Stunning controls what you can do, in general. I agree that it does need to be clarified, especially with Waits.

I assume the intent is that you can't take your Wait when stunned, but I wasn't able to find any text confirming that assumption.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I assume the intent is that you can't take your Wait when stunned, but I wasn't able to find any text confirming that assumption.

And, I agree.

And after going through the books again, I discovered this, in the Glossary, which phrases it differently:

Originally Posted by Campaigns, pg 565

stun: The result of an enemy blow, surprise, or a failed Fright Check. A stunned character defends at -4, and cannot initiate any action until he recovers. See p. 420.

(bolding from glossary)
Which does seem to indicate that, once stunned, you're done until you recover.