Stunners - Overpowered?

[zace66]

Seriously these weapons are soooo powerful, in fact I think i would arm my army with them as their backup weapon after ACR/whatever.

Armour really doesnt play a part in them and then END role or you are
out - hmmmm.

HELP PLEASE.

 

[rust]

There was a discussion about this in a thread titled "Stunners too power-
ful ?" a while ago, you can find it with the forum's Search function.

 

[BP]

Note: armour does effect stun...

Here's the thread rust mentioned.

Some of my comments:

... any armour [Core pg 101 - '...Endurance check with a negative DM equal to damage (after armour is subtracted)']. MGT Core is is non-specific as to nature of 'stun' - so protecting hearing/eyes/head may not be sufficient.

After examining the rules [Core pg60-66, pg87, pg101]
Stun appears fairly balanced IMHO - at normal initial combat range (Medium) it is DM -2 and at shorter ranges, the character must run away (or risk self-stun) - making them more vunerable during the round. With a 6m effective radius - it can be avoided by moving, and dodge and cover can still work - or it can be picked/kicked out of the air or off the ground right back at you (minor action - may mean they can still attack as well). and if the opponents are wearing combat or battle dress, the DMs make the stun unlikely to succeed.

Plus it is an all or nothing affair - it either stuns or doesn't - and thus leaves the thrower vulnerabe to counter attack.

Also, unconsciuosness is not permanent and opponents may come around with no direct lasting effects [Core pg 74]

In MGT they are back in a matter of minutes (+1 DM each chance) [Core p74 - in the Encounters and Dangers section], with no ill effects mentioned (that I found)...

 

[CosmicGamer]

Anyone knocked unconscious by a stun weapon would probably be dead or unconscious and in need of medical attention if other energy weapons were used instead.

 

[BP]

Anyone knocked unconscious by a stun weapon would probably be dead or unconscious and in need of medical attention if other energy weapons were used instead.

And they become most uncommunicative in these senarios

 

[Woas]

I still hold the belief that based on stock rules that the stun rules that apply to stunners, stun batons and stun grenades are overpowered. Most of my points were made in the linked thread.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Sorry, but to me, the stun equipment is doing exactly what it was designed to do - knock people out. From the other thread:

Maybe I'm over reacting but last session was very anticlimactic when the PCs tossed a single stun grenade into the cargo hold of a Pinnace where some space pirates were making a stand. So instead of a gun fight the four pirates in there who all had flak jackets on (damage protection rating of 6) all needed to pass an Endurance check with a -4 DM. None of which passed cause that's a pretty hard check (need to role an 11 or 12 to pass!).

Some people complain that certain parts of the game are unrealistic when the game mechanics are designed to enhance game playability. In this case it seams some people are complaining that game play is being hurt by a realistic game mechanic, no?

As I indicated before though, the stun weapon is used in place of the more lethal counterpart. What would have happened if a frag grenade was used instead?

Woas discovered this himself but it bears repeating because I know I missed it at first too. The options on page 64 for explosions. Reacting by dodging reduces damage by 1d6 and diving for cover reduces damage by 1/2. This would have made the saving roll vs stun grenade quite a bit easier.

 

[rust]

I have no problem with the stun weapons. In the real world, even mean-
while "oldfashioned" stun weapons like the infamous "flashbang grenades"
have almost 100 % efficiency unless the target is blind and deaf, so in my
view any stun weapon that uses a more sophisticated physiological attack
mode than via sight and sound is also very likely to be very efficient.

Besides, as a referee I very much prefer stunned player characters to
dead player characters, so highly efficient stun weapons give me a way
to use something else than the death penalty for stupid player mistakes.
"Escaping from captivity" is simply more fun than ending the campaign
because the player characters managed to get themselves killed.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Is a stun weapon 'more effective' or overpowered?
My quick analysis. Add to it if I missed something.

Melee Weapons
Stunstick Melee(bludgeon) TL8 1d6 damage
vs
A club Melee(bludgeon) is much lower tech level at TL 1
A club does 2d6 damage, an additional 1d6 damage
A club can be improvised
or vs
Cutlass Melee(blade) is much lower tech level at TL 1
Cutlass does 2d6+4 damage, an additional 1d6+4 damage (average of aprox +7 damage over what is done by the stun weapon.)

Energy Weapons
Stunner TL 8 2d6 max range short
vs
Laser Pistol is close to the same TL at 9
Laser Pistol does 3d6 damage, an additional 1d6 damage
Laser Pistol has more range
Laser Pistol may be harder to acquire and more restrictive to carry
or vs (if using lethal force, you probably want to 'get the job done' :twisted
Laser Rifle is close to the same TL at 9
Laser Rifle does 5d6 damage, an additional 3d6 damage (average of approx +10 damage over what is done by the stun weapon.)
Laser Rifle has much more range but is not as useful in personal range
Laser Rifle would be harder to conceal
or vs
Shotgun is a lower tech weapon at TL 4
Shotgun does 4d6 damage, an additional 2d6 damage
Shotgun has more range but is very slightly less accurate (range DMs)
Shotgun not as restricted as energy weapons
Shotgun would be harder to conceal

Cutlass, shotgun and Laser Rifle would be a different skill than the comparable stunner. When not using a stunner, you would be able to use a variety of weapons, whatever you may be most skilled in or whatever is best for the task at hand.

Much of the other weaponry does more damage than stunners. As I've said before using lethal weaponry would likely knock out or kill an opponent that would otherwise be simply knocked out by a stun weapon.

 

[Woas]

Comparing stunners and other weapons stats and whether or not the characters can get them isn't really the problem and (for me) is besides the point. Everyone's game is different so claiming Rifle A could be 'hard to come by' is opinion. Furthermore guns should do a lot of damage; after all they are lethal weapons. There are weapons that do much more than 3d6. But again this is all besides the point.

It is how the damage interacts and works mechanically with characters as I pointed out in the linked thread that is the problem. We need to compare how these two systems work at there base (lethal damage from lethal weapons vs stun mechanics from stunner weapons).

 

[zace66]

Yup - its not the damage. Ive had players do more damage with a club than a FGMP, HOWEVER, its the save or Die, well ok, Save or Be STUNNED and the save isnt an easy one really, given the ability to continually roll low.

 

[BP]

From a cost/acquisition point of view this may seem a load of crap = but a truckload of fertilizer can very easily do much more damage (casualties and structurally) than the most expensive modern high caliber weapons. Can stun grenades be overy effective versus their cost? Most definitely. This year good men will surely die in expensive Humvee's due to cheap IED's.

IMHO the game mechanic in MGT supports this very simple and real world idea - cheap, but effective weapons can always overcome technology and situations that don't anticipate it.

As a referee - you gave an example with 4 pirates in a ship being easily taken out by a stun grenade. If the players had used a frag grenade instead - the pirates probably would still be able to fight - they just might loose some stat DMs. The problem, actually, is that MGT combat mechanic doesn't faciliate the pirates being only wounded and conscious - but still not be in any condition to fight - i.e. blast shock should have knocked them to the ground and made them temporarily blind/deaf and involved in sucking air. Which would be more realistic, but probably less enjoyable to play - either way grenades, and stun grenades are powerful, unbalancing weapons in the RW.

The real problem was lack of planning or response. Planning on the part of the Ref -
- how did players get stun grenades without the Ref's knowledge?
- why were the pirates bunched together as an easy target?
- with inadequate armor?
- and not in a place that made it hard for stun grenades to be used without a good chance of stunning the stunners?

Response on the part of the Ref -
- 4 pirates weren't able to return a grenade (that's a lot of minor actions, even without giving up initiative)?
- Pirates are deaf, stupid and immobile - they don't dodge or make use of cover?
- Jumping on grenades is a time honored technique that can be pretty effective(though, perhaps 'being pushed onto' would be more appropriate with pirates)

The mechanics aren't broken - stun weapons are powerful, because they are supposed to be. And the mechanics offer lots of ways to get around this.

So we waste a lot of good material/planning time because players do the unexpected... So we plan on players doing the unexpected - they don't - meaning we waste a lot of good material/planning time.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Everyone's game is different so claiming Rifle A could be 'hard to come by' is opinion.

When I mention restrictions/availability/'hard to come by' I am referring to the fact that the rules, not opinion, restrict weapons based on law level.

It is how the damage interacts and works mechanically with characters as I pointed out in the linked thread that is the problem. We need to compare how these two systems work at there base (lethal damage from lethal weapons vs stun mechanics from stunner weapons).

From the other thread:

Really the crux of the issue to me is that stun mechanics are just flat out way more effective in knocking out an opponent then trying to do so through conventional, deadly force.

Stun 'damage' is not the same as other weapon damage. It may only be called that because mongoose didn't want to make another column in the tables just for stun weapons.

A concern regarding comparable chance of being knocked out does not seam realistic, to me, since one weapon is designed to do it and the other is designed to cause physical damage. So, I'm ok with the mechanics representing that being knocked out by a stun weapon is different than being knocked out by other weapons. But lets go ahead and do the analysis.

Ok, lets see if I have this right. Roll to hit. If it is a hit
(End = 7 for this analysis)
(using the optional knockout rule on page 66)

non stun attacks: roll for damage then add the effect of the to hit roll then subtract armor and the result is the amount of damage.

stun attacks: perform an endurance roll with a negative DM equal to the damage after armor is subtracted.

So, lets say the stun weapon does one point of 'damage' after armor is subtracted. I think that the stun weapon with just one point of damage generates an endurance roll of 2d6-1DM>=8. I believe you are knocked out less than 75% of the time?

The non stun weapon typically does at least 1d6 more damage. The non stun weapon gets to add the effect of the attack roll. So we have damage = 1+1d6additional damage+effect. How often will the result be 7? I don't know, but if you have an effect of 0 you need to roll a 6 for damage to negate that 7 endurance. So the minimal chance of knocking someone out under these circumstances is 20% of the time.

Bump this up to the stun weapon doing 3 points of damage after armor is subtracted. 2d6-3=>8. I believe you are knocked out a whopping 92% of the time.

The non stun weapon would be 3+1d6additional damage+effect. With a die roll of 4 or better the effect can be a zero and you still knock out your foe.

I may be completely wrong with this analysis, but if I'm close, the chance of stun weapons knocking someone out may be higher than the chance for non stun weapons but not so much that it concerns me.

The above is just to show that non stun weapons have a decent chance to knock a person out while causing real damage too.
---
Regarding a non stun weapon that results in one point of damage not knocking someone out while a stun weapon can with just one point of stun damage. It's just numbers and mechanics.

Non stun weapon damage causes wounds and damage that require healing and affect characteristics. When characteristic(s) are damaged, a character can fall unconscious and also die. It doesn't matter if it is one point or 30 points of damage, it is the value of characteristics that determine unconsciousness and death.

Stun weapons cause 'stun' damage that does not affect characteristics. Characteristics do not get reduced. When hit by a stun weapon, an endurance check must be made to determine if a character becomes unconscious.

Tranq gas does 0 points of 'damage' and with a failed endurance roll the character is unconscious.

If you try to make the mechanics similar consider that when a character takes one point or more of damage, they are wounded. No endurance check. To make stun weapons similar, ANY stun damage results in unconsciousness instead of a wound. No endurance check. Does this make the mechanics more comparable?

EDIT: Correction to earlier post and to statements that actual damage for all non stun weapons is typically 1d6 greater than a stun weapons stun damage. Unlike the stun gun and stun grenade, I just noticed that the melee stun stick damage of 1d6 is regular damage and the stun damage is in the description at 2d6.

Woas, I hope you realize that I am in no way trying to attack you or your opinions. I'm still not 100% clear on what your exact issues are with stun weapons. Hopefully we are getting closer to understanding one another, even if we don't agree.

 

[BP]

Yup - its not the damage. Ive had players do more damage with a club than a FGMP, HOWEVER, its the save or Die, well ok, Save or Be STUNNED and the save isnt an easy one really, given the ability to continually roll low.

That applies to many things - consider that a knife may not do a lot of damage - yet a simple skill check for 'slit throat' will be applicable in some situations - which will generally result in save (mildly wounded) or die.

Sorry, I missed that you started off the post about stunners (and not stun grenades)!

I haven't played stunners per se - but they do have weaknesses. Limited range for one - a lot of good the stunner does you against medium range attacks. Cover and dodging and stance all can play against stunners as well. Plus no damage what-so-ever if check fails. There are several weapons in the TL of stunners that have 4d6+Effect damage that could result in instantaneous death for characters with average stats in the event of high rolls. Additionally, I don't think there are any skill bonuses and such when using stunners - just the normal things that give negative DMs.

The way I read it - stunners don't do any damage (just 'virtual' stun damage) - unless you use them as a club or lob them at someone.

This isn't to say they aren't powerful - which helps balance them out against heavier weapons. Plus they leave 'shoot, then ask questions' options available.

(P.S. Maybe they should just use their FGMPs as clubs )

 

[Edsan]

I believe I have the perfect solution for the OP's dillema and those that feel stunners are too good at incapacitating people when compared to other weapons (I personaly don't but here's how I would solve it). This won't make stunners any easier to resist but will make people fall down easier with bullets, lasers and fists.

Simply extrapolate from Optional Rule: Knockout blow on pg. 66.

Now, whenever a character suffers a number of damage points equal to or greater than his END starting value from a single attack he is knocked out instantly; regardless of what characteristics are reduced by that damage.

Presto!


So Bob the Belter with UPP 867545 will bite the dust whenever he takes 7+ damage from a single attack whether he is hale and hearthy, scratched, battered up or at death's door.

By the book Bob would only get a visit from Mr. Sandman if his UPP was reduced to 0N0545 or N00545 (N = 1+). This will still occur providing none of the blows, bites, cuts, plasma bolts, etc that gets him that far down does not exceed 6 points of damage.


With this small change to the aforementioned rule you get Punch Knokckouts AND Sleep by a Thousand Blows.

 

[BP]

Thanks Edsan I kinda skipped that rule myself - the Knock-out Blow sounds like a melee thing. But actually reading it - the rule is general.

This fixes the problem I have with grenades not stunning people (though it may not make sense for some types of attacks - one might have to presume a secondary blow to the head or airway).

I have made one tweak to Unconsciousness - to allow an END check to allow for quicker revival - with Exceptional Success resulting in a transient knockout (< 3 seconds). Meaning they only lose one minor action - i.e. current round or next if they have no actions remain this round.

Marginal and Average Success means that they will regain consciousness within 1 minute or less via END check each following combat round - Marginal Success checks start after 3 full rounds - if they fail round checks they still regain consciousness on 10th round (including first so max of 9 rounds instead of minimum 10).

Otherwise its an END check each minute with DM-1 accummulating as per normal.

It now occurs to me that this could also apply (in reverse) for stun - i.e. Marginal Failure = Exceptional Success, etc. when applied to END check against Stun. (This avoids two seperate END checks).

I ignore amnesia (not remembering the combat) to avoid additional complexity.

 

[CosmicGamer]

This seamed to end the discussion on the other thread. Lets see what happens here.

Both ways folks, both ways. I'd rather the local authorities have a very capable stunner to rely on so they don't use deadly force on my characters comrades when they get out of line (My characters never get into trouble!).

Sleeping gas grenades, tranquilizer darts, chloroform, all of these are legitimate ways of knocking someone out and then having your way with them. Don't see why there is an uproar about stunners.

Perhaps you are equating them to technology you are familiar with? The stunners are TL8 or better - this is future technology. Our current technology, according to the book, is between TL7 and TL8. Think of the very best stun weapon currently being designed in a test facility today, and these military/law enforcement grade stunners are specifically designed to knock out its target, not just temporarily immobilize them.

Possibilities:
- Perhaps in YTU you adjust the law level for restricting stun weapons because too many citizens use them on each other for robbery, rape, or just controlling their unruly children.

- For less effective stunners
1) Drop the Endurance roll and change it to to Must roll over the amount of stun damage (after armor is subtracted) using an End DM.
2) Stun 'damage' goes to Endurance (Tracked separate from regular damage). An endurance check is only needed if you sustain stun 'damage' which brings your endurance down to 0. Repeated successful attempts to stun have cumulative 'damage'. Possible -1 DM for each time stunned.
3) Make the endurance check routine (+2DM) instead of average. Possibly adjust the difficulty of the check based on the TL of the weapon.
4) Give different types of armor a DM against stunners.

Regaining Consciousness. This is an endurance check (and endurance would be at normal level since stun 'damage' is ignored). Normally you can't do this check for 1 minute, which is 10 rounds. you could however:
1) rule that an immediate check can be made if certain things are done to the stunned individual. Possibilities: smelling salts, adrenalin injection
2) if unconsciousness was caused by a stun weapon, allow the check to occur after X number of rounds. You decide what X is. You can get complicated here by using the effect of the stun attack, the persons Endurance, and so on as modifiers to X.
3) The Unconsciousness endurance check occurs after 10-60 seconds, roll 1d6 to see how many 10 second increments.
4) The Unconsciousness endurance check can occur sooner similar to going faster/slower and the time frames on page 50. Instead of a average check after 1 minute, do a difficult check after 6 seconds (one round) and every 6 seconds after, if it fails.

As usual, these are just some thoughts for you to ponder and I have not play tested it. My personal preference is to not modify the rules and only create house rules for things that are not covered.

 

[BP]

Those are nice variants CosmicGamer. My own adjustment for faster recovery from unconsciousness was originally to address allowing what is called a flash knockout in boxing since it nicely fits in 1/2 combat round (<3 seconds) as well as to allow possible recovery during combat for both PCs and NPCs. At the time, I wasn't specifically addressing stun weapons per se.

I also wanted to cover short term amnesia often associated with unconsciousness as well as concussions (so the effects of a fight might have an impact on later activities) - but I didn't come up with a simple mechanic, so I dropped the idea.

I like added detail if it can be kept to the KISS model. I'd take a simple die roll - win/lose - compared to 15 die rolls and 9 lookup tables anyday. That said, supporting added realism can add spice and flavor, not to mention more opportunities for player and referee creativity. MGT combat has a nice balanced feel so far, though, with practice I'm sure it can be enhanced.

 

[Woas]

CosmicGamer, fully understand and reciprocate the feeling. Hopefully I am not coming off too harsh. I simply come baring thoughtful debate to the table.



Would you feel it appropriate if the rules for lethal weapons where the following?

1) Roll appropriate skill for attack (same as current rules).
2) Roll appropriate damage adding effect of attack roll, minus armor of target (same as current rules).
3) Target must make successful END check, any damage taken from attack is a point-per-point negative to the roll. If successful, the bullet/laser/explosion/lethal attack was really just a bruise or scratch. Failure means your character is incapacitated and or unconscious until medical aid can get administered (or more severe, is out right dead).



In essence that is what the rules for lethal weapons are except it needs to be repeated perhaps multiple times until a target is at a point where the damage would bring 2 of their physical stats to zero.

The way I see it, stunners go from 'zero' to 'unconscious' in one swing. It is in essence a 'save or die' in that the onus is now on the target to succeed, so long as even one point of stun damage is delivered. And the end result of failing this is too steep (completely unconsciousness of the character and thus complete lack of control).

 

[BP]

...The way I see it, stunners go from 'zero' to 'unconscious' in one swing. It is in essence a 'save or die' in that the onus is now on the target to succeed, so long as even one point of stun damage is delivered.

No points of damage are 'delivered' as it is not really damage - it is basically a modifier - with at least 2/5/3 points based on TL always applied. If in range, the stunner can be quite effective given this modifier - especially against lighter armored characters with low END. Then again the same can be said for many power weapons, but then most have better ranges and a greater chance of at least doing some damage instead of just nothing.

And the end result of failing this is too steep (completely unconsciousness of the character and thus complete lack of control).

That is the objective - since they don't wound. Instant death is even steeper - just less likely from many weapons (based on average die rolls) - though more DMs may be applied from the attacker. The knock out rule would tend to balance this more.

With consciousness, you are either conscious or not. One could track partial consciousness. I opted (not directly for stunners) to allow quicker recover times - so character could have greater chance to get back into combat. (This can also affect initiative if opponents are expecting rapid recovery).

Stun grenades seem to mimick RW very well - if you are in range you will probably be stunned assuming the throw is good and you didn't have cover, couldn't return it and had no special armor - things that have been accounted for. The probability and the ease certainly don't seem steep at all. However, in your TU it doesn't sound like you desire that...

Stunners are not RW - if you make them more like Tasers - it would require the stunner to be held on the victim for the duration. Meaning the assailant might be incapable of anything but free actions or minor actions that don't lose site of the victim during those combat rounds.

In the RW the three law enforcement officers I know who have gunned downed suspects - all did so with multiple hits (none died). Another officer I know fired point blank into a subject 3 times and the guy was still wrestling with him! However - with the taser - as long as they hit skin most subjects loose their control (they don't neccessarily go down - and the drunks often come right back around - requiring mutliple charges to complete the arrest).

Elite law enforcement and special forces (depending on mission) are armed with stun grenades - for somewhat differing reasons - but both because they are such effective weapons for gaining control over opponents in confined spaces (its nice when your own weapons aren't likely to bring the roof down on ya!).