Does remove paralysis remove a stunning effect?

[Joker]

As the title reads, does it?

 

[lukelightning]

I think RAW it doesn't. The description says it removes paralysis and related magic. I'd consider allowing it to work on stunning effects, though maybe only magical stunning (from spells) and not stuff like a monk's stunning fist.

 

[Whimsical]

No, but it should.

 

[3d6]

As the title reads, does it?

You can free one or more creatures from the effects of any temporary paralysis or related magic, including a ghoul’s touch or a slow spell.

If slow is a "related effect", then magical stunning certainly is.

 

[the Jester]

If slow is a "related effect", then magical stunning certainly is.

I disagree with this assessment, but I think it's a dm call.

 

[lukelightning]

It's worth asking a DM before you need to use it.

Now that I think of it, I definitely would allow it to work on stun, even non-magical stunning. It's such a specific spell and I would reward any character with the foresight to prepare it.

 

[moritheil]

Stun and paralysis are two separate and generally unrelated conditions.

3d6 is right in pointing out that the author of the spell text throws a considerable amount of confusion into the issue, but fundamentally someone who is only stunned is not paralyzed, and vice versa.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I read it as removing almost any effect that impededs movement that isn't an outside force. That would include things like being stunned and dazed.

 

[moritheil]

I read it as removing almost any effect that impededs movement that isn't an outside force. That would include things like being stunned and dazed.

So in your reading, would it remove entanglement, or dimensional anchoring?

Personally, each time I see the text I shake my head and wonder if the author of that blurb played too much FF, and thinks of "Slow" as being halfway to "Stop."