Stunners overpowered?

[rust]

Some people seem to think being shot with a Taser is too dangerous.

After more than 250 documented cases of deaths caused by taser shots,
those people may well be right. :wink:

Besides, the alternative to taser use is usually not firearm use, but ano-
ther "less lethal" method to get someone arrested - more than 90 % of
those 250 people killed by tasers were unarmed.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Look, I am not defending how tasers are used, and accept that they are not completely non-lethal, though how non-lethal they are would be hard to assess unless you know how many suspects have been successfully stopped by tasers, and then recovered fully afterwards.

Still think that, as a %, the suspect is much more likely to die or receive permanent injury from a pistol bullet, and perhaps even from being banged around the head with a truncheon. (Though I don't have any comparative figures on either!)

Egil

 

[rust]

Look, I am not defending how tasers are used ...

I am aware of that, and I never assumed otherwise.

 

[rinku]

To my mind the range limit on stunners is enough of a limit. They're pretty much useless in a firefight at any range, though I realise that is a moot point for any interior battle.

How do they work, anyhow? It's not discussed in the rules. If it's some kind of sonic device, enclosed head covering (i.e. vacc suit, combat armour) should provide better protection, while if it's an electric discharge, some kind of EM shielding could help. Make "stun shielding" an armour option for full body suits and add some extra points (maybe 6?).

Either way, there would be some minor chance of complications (weak heart, brain haemorrage etc). Anyone that fumbles their END check should take some extra damage.

 

[rust]

How do they work, anyhow?

In my setting they are indeed sonic weapons, a directed and focussed
"beam" of sound that works somewhat similar to those "flash-bang-gre-
nades" used by special forces which momentarily "overload" the sensory
system of the target. However, this is only a "dual use effect", the stun-
ners originally were lethal underwater hunting weapons.

Since these stunners attack the sensory system, it is quite easy to pro-
tect against them - if one cannot hear them, they have no effect at all,
and therefore are completely useless for example in a vacuum.
This is different under water, there they create a shock wave that does
serious physical harm, with a hardsuit as the only reliable protection.

 

[rinku]

I note that Central Supply Catalogue has an electric stunner at TL7 and a sonic one at TL8, neither of which use the same rules as the ones in the basic rules.

Pages of pages of oddball weapons, yet they ignore stuff in the main rules...

 

[DigitalMage]

I must admit GMing Living Traveller that stunners could be very effective (also in my own TRaveller con scenario too). It might be nice if failure of the Endurance roll ave varying effects, e.g. Marginal Failure - You get to stay on your feet for another 2 rounds before dropping unconscious, Average Failure - You get 1 more turn before dropping, Exceptional Failure - You drop unconscious immediately.

Having said all that I saw a PC shrug off a Stunner shot at point blank range, so at that point the attacker has effectively just wasted a round (no closer to defeating the PC than before).

 

[locarno24]

The maximum range of Short is somewhat of a limiting factor, but in my experience, more combats take place at close quarters than not (i.e. bars, spaceship interiors, offices), making it fairly easy to close to Short range and fire in one turn.

Then if people start using stunners as a first choice because they're 'so much better', introduce them to a long-range firefight situation....

Stunner, meet ARMP. Blam.

 

[rinku]

Having said all that I saw a PC shrug off a Stunner shot at point blank range, so at that point the attacker has effectively just wasted a round (no closer to defeating the PC than before).

Hmm... but the same can be said for any weapon where the dice are kind. Plenty of pistol shots will fail to penetrate armour, or cause annoyance damage that is easily treated by first aid.

The flip side of the "wasted shot" example is when a character fails their End check after only getting a point or two past armour.

I'm happy to let the basic rules stand, but to apply the existing degree of failure rules to the End check. I'd stick with immediate unconsciousness for an average failure (-2 to -5), a heavy penalty for marginal failure (-1) such as a -4 to all tasks for 1D6 rounds, a minor penalty for a marginal success (+0) such as -2 to all tasks for 1D6 rounds, and the risk of complications for an exceptional failure (i.e. actual damage). You may want to require a second End check to determine the degree of complications - passing it just resulting in being out of it longer than expected, with degrees of failure resulting in increasing dice of damage (1D6 per bracket of failure perhaps?).

Keep in mind that degree of success applies to the shooter's damage roll, so it is possible to have quite large -DMs on the initial End check. You may want to run some tests before imposing this sort of thing.

 

[alex_greene]

Some people seem to think being shot with a Taser is too dangerous.

After more than 250 documented cases of deaths caused by taser shots,
those people may well be right. :wink:

And how many millions killed by bullets since the invention of the gun?

 

[rust]

And how many millions killed by bullets since the invention of the gun?

Guns were never marketed as non-lethal.

Anyway, in my view this is neither the right forum nor the right thread for
this kind of discussion, so I will not continue it from here.

 

[justacaveman]

There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon. Anything that incapacitates you, puts you at the mercy of the attacker. If the attacker has no mercy, then the weapon is lethal. If the use of the Taser is unwarranted, then THAT is the issue to address. All weapons are just tools designed for a specific use. If you use a tool improperly, there will often be consequences to such abuse. A Taser is designed to substitute for a gun in certain circumstances, not replace physical effort in the subdual of an unarmed person. In the case of an armed person, I prefer shooting them with a very lethal weapon. An armed person isn't being considerate of other people's lives, and I'm a great believer in not turning the other cheek. I don't believe there is hardly any need for a Taser since you should shoot armed people who won't drop their weapons, and let unarmed people calm down before you arrest them.

 

[BP]

Well put, though just because someone is unarmed does not mean they are not a threat to themselves and others.

Calming down isn't necessarily an option - if all such individuals where that sane or in control they would not likely be a problem to begin with.

Taser are a nicer way of dealing with drugged up persons and otherwise emotionally or mentally impaired individuals.

 

[DigitalMage]

Hmm... but the same can be said for any weapon where the dice are kind. Plenty of pistol shots will fail to penetrate armour, or cause annoyance damage that is easily treated by first aid.

The comparison is not quite the same, even after penetrating armour a stunner shot can be ineffective if the Endurance check suceeds whereas a normal weapon in that situation will at least reduce Endurance, bringing that person closer to being taken out.

As for First Aid, applying that in combat takes two combatants (assuming the injured person isn't First Aiding themself) out of the fight for a round at minimum (and then at a -2 penalty to improve the time frame by two steps) a significant advantage.

The flip side of the "wasted shot" example is when a character fails their End check after only getting a point or two past armour.

Oh yes, and that what makes Stunner potentially so powerful. For me at present the issue is they are effectively an All or Nothing attack, but at present the penalty to the Endurance check is often so high, its often All rather than Nothing.

 

[justacaveman]

If an unarmed person attacks someone who is armed with a gun, there are only 2 choices for the armed person. The first choice is to shoot them, and the second choice is to use a Taser (If you have one.). The reason that an armed person would shoot an unarmed person is to keep the unarmed person from taking their gun (And no, running away is not an option for many reasons.). I have no consideration for those who deliberately endanger others through their own violent actions. The world is better off with a Darwinian solution to the problem of uncontrolled violent people.

 

[CosmicGamer]

The flip side of the "wasted shot" example is when a character fails their End check after only getting a point or two past armour.

Oh yes, and that what makes Stunner potentially so powerful. For me at present the issue is they are effectively an All or Nothing attack, but at present the penalty to the Endurance check is often so high, its often All rather than Nothing.

I still don't see the problem with this. Even the lowest tech stun weapon in the game (core rulebook) is more advanced than the stun weapons we have today (Taser). [I'm curious about the details of the lower tech stunner in the CSC]

There are lots of high damage weapons that can knock unconscious and even kill someone with a single shot.

A person doesn't get to roll the dice against some stat to see if a successful gun or blade hit doesn't do any damage. If the hit gets through armor, the person takes damage.

I'd be perfectly ok if stun weapons had no roll of the dice against some stat (endurance check). If the hit gets through armor, the person is stunned. This is what the weapon does.

How should a tranquilizer dart that hits and gets through armor be handled? [Is this in the CSC or elsewhere?]

If a water gun hits, the person gets wet. If a paintball gun hits, the person gets a messy, colorful, splat. If a shrink ray hits, the person gets reduced in size

If a stunner hits...

 

[justacaveman]

If stunners prove to be a problem in your world, introduce Stun Shields. Stun Shields would stack with armour vs Stunners, and be completely ineffective against other weapons. This would be a reason that the police still use firearms. On a high law level planet where the police only use Stunners, Stun Shields would be very illegal outside of police/military hands.

 

[DigitalMage]

I still don't see the problem with this. Even the lowest tech stun weapon in the game (core rulebook) is more advanced than the stun weapons we have today (Taser). [...]
There are lots of high damage weapons that can knock unconscious and even kill someone with a single shot.

I am not sure what weapons you are referring to with your last statement, but my possible issue with stunners is that they are small, easily concealable and thus a viable choice when considering personal sidearms. In terms of taking someone out of a fight, they seem preferable to AutoPistols, Laser Pistols etc.

I wonder how they would fare if you didn't add the Effect of the attack roll to the damage? That might be a decent enough fix that they are still tough against unarmoured people, but against a decent armour the target has a fare chance to succeed.

 

[CosmicGamer]

There are lots of high damage weapons that can knock unconscious and even kill someone with a single shot.

I am not sure what weapons you are referring to with your last statement

Lets go with a character going unconscious.

If using the optional knockout blow rule on page 66, you only need to reduce endurance from it's starting value to 0 in a single attack. On average, a characteristic is 2d6 so any weapon that does 2d6 damage (+ effect, - armor, and so on) would have a fair chance to knock someone out. 2d6 is 2-12 with an average of 7. Most pistols do 3d6-3 which is 0-15 with an average of 7.5 I believe.

If not using the optional rule, you need to knock two stats down to 0 to knock someone out. This is a bit harder to do in one attack. A characteristic is 2d6, so two would be an average of 14pts. A shotgun is 4d6. Energy rifles are all up there in damage. Of course there is the always fun PGMP and FGMP. A frag grenade tossed your way makes for an unhappy day. Some rifles do 3d6 and with burst fire can do an average of 14.5pts. Get hit with a couple rounds of rifle auto fire and 3d6+3d6 = avg of 21 pts of damage.

All this is only comparing one thing - the ability to 'take someone out' in one attack.

but my possible issue with stunners is that they are small, easily concealable and thus a viable choice when considering personal sidearms. In terms of taking someone out of a fight, they seem preferable to AutoPistols, Laser Pistols etc.

Range? Seriously, would you take several rounds of fire while charging at someone to close within range so that you can use a stunner. Would a normal person gamble with their life like that?

[someone please check my analysis] Movement is a minor action and a character can move 6 meters. You get 3 minor actions a round. So a character can move 18 meters. Short range (the max range for stunner) is 3-12 meters. Long range (the max range for pistol) is 51-250 meters. In the most favorable situation of closing from long range at 51 meters to short range at 12 meters you have to cover 39 meters. This would be 2 rounds of taking fire. In the 3rd round you would be close enough to attack. Two successful hits with a pistol and the person with a stunner could be down before they get within range. The person with the pistol doesn't even need initiative. At only 105 meters, the pistol wielder would have 5 rounds to act. An unarmed person could just run the opposite direction keeping out of range.

Next, an auto pistol has an auto rating of 4 so they can hit twice in one round. 3d6-3 x2 = avg 15.

So, with criteria of 1) 'take someone out of the fight' quickly 2) concealable 3) within short range
The auto pistol still looks viable to me. It even meets additional criteria of available at a lower tech than stunners and costing less.

When you start picking and choosing criteria for a specific situation maybe the stunner is the best choice but for many other situations it is not. And even if the stunner is the best option, there is no reason that an opponent won't realize this and be carrying one too so people should think twice before getting into a fight.

I wonder how they would fare if you didn't add the Effect of the attack roll to the damage? That might be a decent enough fix that they are still tough against unarmoured people, but against a decent armour the target has a fare chance to succeed.

There are many, many ways of modifying the rules. I prefer to add to the rules and not change what is written. Often supplemental rules, or exceptions are added. For example chargen characteristics are always 2d6 right? What about those Aslan that get a +2 strength and -2 dex. What about the optional point buy chargen.

So, here are some optional additional rules:
- The book never says how long it takes for a stun weapon to recharge and be ready to fire again. Maybe it takes a full round so a stunner can only be fired every other round.
- The book does not determine the availability of the weapons. Are grenades, explosives, and the FGMP available at the typical weapons shop? I see no reason that stunners can't be limited to law enforcement personnel.
- Stun damage is already treated differently than regular damage. Go ahead and treat being stunned unconsciousness differently from other types of unconsciousness. Maybe it only last a number of rounds = to the effect.
- The book does not determine how easily concealable a weapon is. Maybe the stunner with it's power pack is a bit harder to hide than slug pistols.

If you don't care about modifying existing rules:
- I don't like a lot of random rolls so: If (Stun damage + effect) > (armor + endurance) then the target is stunned.

 

[DigitalMage]

Lets go with a character going unconscious. [...]
If using the optional knockout blow rule on page 66

Just for clarity, my comments did not utilise this rule because it is optional, also because two of the games I GMed where stunners were involved were Living Games where optional rules aren't used.

If not using the optional rule, you need to knock two stats down to 0 to knock someone out. This is a bit harder to do in one attack. A characteristic is 2d6, so two would be an average of 14pts. A shotgun is 4d6. Energy rifles are all up there in damage. Of course there is the always fun PGMP and FGMP. A frag grenade tossed your way makes for an unhappy day.

Oh I quite agree that shotguns, rifles, PGMP, FGMP and frag grenades could all take someone out with one shot, but they are a little more conspicuous than a stunner.

I am not saying the stunner is the best weapon ever, but more that it is possibly a noticeably more effective routine sidearm for taking opponents out of a fight that breaks out in close quarters (such as in a bar whihc was one of the examples I encountered). It is actually more legal than most pistols, indeed in one Living Traveller scenario the PCs were having to try smuggling snub pistols through customs but were allowed stunners.

Range? Seriously, would you take several rounds of fire while charging at someone to close within range so that you can use a stunner. Would a normal person gamble with their life like that?

I wasn't suggesting that. Yes range is a significant limiter on Stunners that make them only of use in close quarters shoot outs, however if in a gunfight at Long Range I would hope to have something other than a pistol (-4 DM) anyway, e.g. a rifle (+0 DM). If I only had a pistol I would likely be looking to bug out or manouevre around using cover to get into Medium or Short range.

Next, an auto pistol has an auto rating of 4

I believe this is no longer the case - I noticed the change from my original printing and the latest PDF and pocket rulebooks. Only the Gauss pistol has an Auto rating now it seems.

There are many, many ways of modifying the rules. I prefer to add to the rules and not change what is written. Often supplemental rules, or exceptions are added.

Well my musing on not adding Effect to Damage for Stunners was just that, a musing about a possible rule update. I tend to run Rules As Written, especially as I plan to run Living Traveller, so for me its a moot point unless the rule change is official.

Your suggestions may also be appropriate but I also feel that my suggestion was a viable exception that would actually make the rules slightly faster, rather than add more steps.

In summary, I don't think stunners are Uber weapons, just that they may possibly be more commonly chosen as a sidearm for PCs than may be expected due to their significant take down ability in close quarters fighting.