Is there anything in the rules that precludes you from aiming twice and taking strain to do it as a second maneuver? For example, I have quick draw so readying my weapon is an incidental. With my maneuver I aim to take a boost die, I take strain to get a second maneuver and use it to aim again, getting a second blue die and then fire as my action.

Is this appropriate or against the rules?

Perfectly valid.

EDIT: Thought I'd better back this up with something. Here's awayputurwpn's take.

Thanks!

It's totally legal, but don't overdo it. Powerful characters need strain to activate abilities like Dodge, Step Aside, and Defensive Stance. You can burn through your strain quickly. Sneaky GMs like to hit you with stun weapons when you're pushing it as well.

Those dastardly GMs!

Seriously though, caution to the GMs who pull this metagaming cheese: don't whip out the stun weapons just because your PCs' strain thresholds are low. It's an interesting complication if done well and sparingly, but if it's a go-to tactic for you and/or your group, I would recommend a game like Battlelore instead you'd probably enjoy it more.

/offtopic

Those dastardly GMs!

Seriously though, caution to the GMs who pull this metagaming cheese: don't whip out the stun weapons just because your PCs' strain thresholds are low. It's an interesting complication if done well and sparingly, but if it's a go-to tactic for you and/or your group, I would recommend a game like Battlelore instead you'd probably enjoy it more.

/offtopic

It's not metagame when the high efficiency of stun weapons against many foes can be observed through the eyes of the characters. They don't even have to observe it firsthand - there are likely studies done by weapon manufacturers or just gun nuts that could give this information. Using stun setting isn't any more metagame than knowing a vibroknife cuts better than a combat knife.

Those dastardly GMs!

Seriously though, caution to the GMs who pull this metagaming cheese: don't whip out the stun weapons just because your PCs' strain thresholds are low. It's an interesting complication if done well and sparingly, but if it's a go-to tactic for you and/or your group, I would recommend a game like Battlelore instead you'd probably enjoy it more.

/offtopic

It's not metagame when the high efficiency of stun weapons against many foes can be observed through the eyes of the characters. They don't even have to observe it firsthand - there are likely studies done by weapon manufacturers or just gun nuts that could give this information. Using stun setting isn't any more metagame than knowing a vibroknife cuts better than a combat knife.

Right, I meant specifically against people whom the players or GM know/suspect have a "low strain threshold." Stun is an in-universe choice made when a character doesn't want to kill (for whatever reason—but not because, "they obviously spent 2 strain and they're a Wookiee so they already have low strain thresholds, so I'm going to stun him because his wound threshold is probably really high!")

I'll agree on not basing the use of stun on how an NPC is spending Strain, but electing to use stun because the target is a wookiee makes perfect sense since the relative vulnerability of that species to stun weaponry could easily be tested and known. That's what Knowledge (Xenology) tests are there for!

I'll agree on not basing the use of stun on how an NPC is spending Strain, but electing to use stun because the target is a wookiee makes perfect sense since the relative vulnerability of that species to stun weaponry could easily be tested and known. That's what Knowledge (Xenology) tests are there for!

Well, the Wookiee thing was more targeted at the GM who runs his NPCs as such.

1) Wookiee species stats are player-character only. Nemesis Wookiees can have whatever strain threshold they want. Rivals and Minions don't even have ST, so it's a moot point.

2) Your Wookiee player is but one individual of a species, like a single (possibly insect-infested) tree in a veritable planet-wide jungle. Just because your PC Wookiee has a player that elected not to raise his Willpower or select a specialization with Grit talent ranks doesn't mean that all Wookiees are thusly "extra-vulnerable" to strain.

Now, a Knowledge check COULD identify that a certain individual might be more vulnerable to stun/lethal/ion damage. Or fire, or whatever (loved the most recent Order 66 podcast, they delved into some of that really well). But I wouldn't apply that kind of reasoning to a whole species when it just simply isn't true.

But I wouldn't apply that kind of reasoning to a whole species when it just simply isn't true.

Statistically, most Wookiees are unlikely to deviate significantly from the characteristics that are typical for their species.

So, that knowledge in hand, you might know that -- on average -- most Wookiees are a little more vulnerable to stun weapons as compared to humans or other "standard" races, even though they might be a bit more resistant to being killed.

You would certainly be able to use that information to your benefit, even if you knew nothing at all about a particular Wookiee.

Nothing "metagamey" there. Just plain logic and "common sense".

I tend to use the PC species stats for adjusting NPCs. For example, if I want to have a wookiee version of what the book lists as a human NPC, I'll up Brawn by 1, drop Willpower by 1, adjust WT up 5 (includes the increased Brawn), drop ST by 3 (includes reduced Willpower), add a rank of Brawl, drop two other skills by 1 rank each, and add wookiee rage (which in my games is replaced with one rank Feral Strength).

I make similar adjustments for other species. No, I don't have to do this, but I feel it helps with the verisimilitude if NPCs are more similar to PCs unless there's a clear reason not to be.

I tend to use the PC species stats for adjusting NPCs. For example, if I want to have a wookiee version of what the book lists as a human NPC, I'll up Brawn by 1, drop Willpower by 1, adjust WT up 5 (includes the increased Brawn), drop ST by 3 (includes reduced Willpower), add a rank of Brawl, drop two other skills by 1 rank each, and add wookiee rage (which in my games is replaced with one rank Feral Strength).

I make similar adjustments for other species. No, I don't have to do this, but I feel it helps with the verisimilitude if NPCs are more similar to PCs unless there's a clear reason not to be.

this is a cool tip that deserves to be explored...sweet!

It's not metagame when the high efficiency of stun weapons against many foes can be observed through the eyes of the characters. They don't even have to observe it firsthand - there are likely studies done by weapon manufacturers or just gun nuts that could give this information. Using stun setting isn't any more metagame than knowing a vibroknife cuts better than a combat knife.

Given that ST isn't just stamina/shock resistance but also morale/self-confidence* (very different things, IRL), could it be tested by the weapon's manufacturer?

"The the E11d Blaster Carbine! Now with a stun setting that's 15% more effective against those who feel really bad about themselves!"

* Scathing Tirade, Strain recovery from Advantages.

It would be cheesy as hell for a GM to switch to Stun because they know species X or player Z has a low ST. Adversaries should have it in their 'heads' from go if they want to kill or take players alive and that should be the deciding factor in how they confront players. That's roleplaying. Switching to stun setting for no story based reason because of a known flaw in one species mechanical make up in the rule book is not.

Having said that, if a GM finds themselves dealing with the Wookiee Marauder archetype player, that was only interested in swinging an axe and doing max wounds, and in turn has completely ignored their ST, Strain defense and recovery, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a couple of capture scenarios to demonstrate the linear single minded folly/glass jaw of their build in order to motivate them out of their MMO DPS character mindset.