Stun Setting

[ccatkins]

Not related to D6 but in the origianl D20 stun range was capped at 10m. And since I went back to D6, after the horror of Saga, I have kept this in place because none of the players know any different.

[atgxtg]

I suppose someone could cap stun range at medium or even short range.I've never felt a need to.

Are some Star Wars groups lacking in the desire to resort to lethal force?

[Bren]

My groups are more that reverse. We don't like the stun much. It seems a bit of a crock way to down opponents on the one hand. One the other you end up with prisoners crowding your ship that you can't spare anyone to guard and then you have to feed them...and the player Jedi's object to all the solutions to those problems.

Seriously part of the objection with stun is the fuss of dealing with captured imperials. Similar to having a Jedi use called LS attacks to avoid killing opponents just leads to a bunch of armless foes which somehow seems asthetically displeasing (to me).

[ZzaphodD]

I removed the stun setting alltogether. I cant get my head around how you could modify a laser/plasma discharge to cause neurological overload without causing damage. At least in the same gun wich will shoot the same bolt several hundred meters with deadly force. You want stun, buy a stun weapon..
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course..

[Bren]

[ZzaphodD]

[Esoomian]

Because an opponant wounded with a normal weapon still gets to fight back and if they're armed with a blaster type weapon then the wound penalties don't cause any reduction in the damage they can dish out, a lucky hit can still kill you.

However someone 'wounded' by a stun weapon is out of the fight.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.

[garhkal]

[ZzaphodD]

[cheshire]

The question was, if I'm not mistaken, "Why run around with a stun weapon?" His answer essentially is, "Because it makes people easier to take down, thus more easily neutralizing the threat in a firefight."
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.

[ZzaphodD]

[mdlake]

[Esoomian]

[Bren]

Yep. The reasons our group does not like stun is

A. The easier take down of opponents feels like a crock.
B. If I am wounded I can still act. If I am stunned I am out of action. Players don't like being helpless.
C. If you always stun the enemy you end up with prisoners that you have to manage, unless you are ruthless in which case see 1 and 2 above.

Thus we tend to ignore stun. If that doesn't work I would be inclined to do the following:
1, Make stun less effective e.g. by lowering the effect of the damage (i.e. with stun weapons a "stun" result is no effect, a wound result = stun, a wounded twice or more = unconcious).
2. Modify the damage for regular weapons set on stun by -1D.
3. Lower the range; treat ranges as one level higher, e.g. point blank = short range, short range = moderate; moderate = long range; long range = no effect.
4. Increase the difficulty to hit by one level.
5. Combine one or more of the above.

A, B, and C above supports the need (to me) to modify the game stats. The rare use of stun in movies, clone wars cartoons, books, etc. to me supports the need to reduce the effectiveness of stun from a consistency POV.

[ZzaphodD]

IIRC in one of our earlier campaigns some armours had some kind of energy compensators negating stun blasts.

In real life non-lethal weapons are actually harder to make effective for the same price as lethal weapons if even possible.

I think Ill just lower the range to a fraction of the original range. Perhaps a weapon on stun setting should have its own range instead of it being a percentage of the 'lethal' range.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course..