Here's a question....

Stunning Blow, the talent, acts the same as the weapon quality Stun Damage (Passive), aka Stun Setting on some weapons. They both say to apply Soak to the Strain damage.

Meanwhile, the weapon quality Stun (Active) simply states the weapon does X amount of Strain damage where X equals the quality's number. Stun 3, for example, on shock gloves means they do 3 Strain as damage. Is this cut by Soak?

Here's a question....

Stunning Blow, the talent, acts the same as the weapon quality Stun Damage (Passive), aka Stun Setting on some weapons. They both say to apply Soak to the Strain damage.

Meanwhile, the weapon quality Stun (Active) simply states the weapon does X amount of Strain damage where X equals the quality's number. Stun 3, for example, on shock gloves means they do 3 Strain as damage. Is this cut by Soak?

Nope. That ignores all Soak. Hence why a Doctor Brawler character would be effing awesome.

Keep in mind that the "Stun" quality can only be activated by spending 2 advantage.

Keep in mind that the "Stun" quality can only be activated by spending 2 advantage.

And also that the Pressure Point talent specifies that no Brawl weapons can be used. So unless your fingers have an innate Stun quality, no dice

Also, @bradknowles, Strain and Wounds are not equivalent with each other. So even though your reasoning is well-presented and logical, I don't think it applies in this instance.

1) Strain and Wound thresholds are different for various PC species. Grit and Toughened don't have equivalent numerical values. A character can't gain 2 wounds to take a maneuver, but can for 2 strain. Exceeding a character's Strain Threshold doesn't result in an automatic critical injury, but exceeding one's Wound Threshold does. Threat and Advantage are designed to play with Strain, but not Wounds.

They simply aren't numerically equivalent.

2) We're not talking about one strike. We're talking about a potential minute's worth of activity being described by one action. So one Melee roll could include a pommel strike for the hurt, a blade flat strike for embarrassment/demoralization, and maybe a couple elbow/knee strikes for added effect.

3) Consider that blasters often have a stun setting, and this also keeps damage ratings consistent even when targeting different thresholds.

So converting lethal damage to stun damage for stunning blow is, IMO, both simple and elegant, and allows for a wide array of narrative and mechanical opportunities.

Inflicting Strain also need not mean direct physical contact, as it is also used as a measure of stress while performing a task. Strain inflicted 'by' a melee weapon using Stunning Blow might be an indication of the wielder using their superior skill to whiz the blade a millimeter from the target's face or ding ding repeatedly, and thereby scaring the pee pee out of them.

Here's a question....

Stunning Blow, the talent, acts the same as the weapon quality Stun Damage (Passive), aka Stun Setting on some weapons. They both say to apply Soak to the Strain damage.

Meanwhile, the weapon quality Stun (Active) simply states the weapon does X amount of Strain damage where X equals the quality's number. Stun 3, for example, on shock gloves means they do 3 Strain as damage. Is this cut by Soak?

That is exactly how the talent is supposed to be interpreted. I'm not sure what the SCA guy is trying to talk about. I have two degrees in history and if you have any familiarity with medieval "fight books" you know how warriors were trained to use every aspect of the weapon AS A WEAPON including the flat of the blade or the hilt. Stunning blow sounds exactly like someone using a hilt of a weapon to an opponents head or abdomen with the clear design to disorient ie "stun" instead of trying to kill the opponent outright.

Actually, at the Fair Lakes School of the Sword, Sir Strykar and his retinue used many of the best known historical "fight books", and combined that with modern experience in sword fighting from Escrima, Kendo, etc…. We were fortunate that we had a number of people in our group who were students, grad students, professors, etc… at various local universities and colleges who were also in the SCA, and we had a particularly high concentration of history experts in the DC area.

So, I agree that anyone properly trained to fight with a weapon will be at least acquainted with various different ways to use the weapon and the various parts of the weapon.

But anyone who has actually fought with those weapons will know that being bashed with the pommel of a sword isn’t going to do anywhere remotely close to as much damage as could be done by slicing them with the blade. You don’t just trade "killing damage" for "stun damage" and call it even.

And hitting someone with the flat of the sword is even more ludicrous, unless you and your opponent are fighting an unarmored duel and your goal is to embarrass them publicly. You’re certainly not going to hurt them much beyond their pride.

The only way this system makes sense is to remove it entirely from the realm of how real swords actually work. It’s cinematic and it works the way it does because that’s what makes a good story.

I think you are missing a crucial element in what you just posted:

"So, I agree that anyone properly trained to fight with a weapon will be at least acquainted with various different ways to use the weapon and the various parts of the weapon.

But anyone who has actually fought with those weapons will know that being bashed with the pommel of a sword isn’t going to do anywhere remotely close to as much damage as could be done by slicing them with the blade. You don’t just trade "killing damage" for "stun damage" and call it even."

That is exactly what Stunning Blow is designed for: a strategic use of a weapon with the express intent to stun and NOT kill. Of course the edged weapon of a sword, axe, halberd, etc would inflict more serious if not lethal damage used properly. I also have to point out actual battlefield casualtes that show a suprising amount of lethal or serious injury that led to eventual death due to disorientation from the hilt or pommels of weapons. If someone who knows what they are doing is bringing down a heavy object to your skull, protected or not, it can simply kill by the bone being pulverized by the concussive force.

The same principle applies to melee weapons. Soldiers were trained to not just stab or thrust but to absolutely crush an opponents head with the hilt of a weapon. This can either kill someone outright or do enough to stun them to allow you to kill them due to their weakened state. Or, as in some cases recorded in history, they would take someone captive in the hopes of ransoming them later. You can't do that by simply killing them in combat. I believe they used the real life version of "Stunning Blow" to disorient their target and disarmed them making them surrender or face death.