Yeah, but Occam's razor says that with words like explosive and detonation and concussive being used in multiple sources they blow up.

I'd still like to know which source you were quoting from above.

Whoops, I forgot to include the link - it came from Wookiepedia.

I'll check the sources the author of that article lists that I actually have on hand.

Given what I understood about stun grenades from previous readings, I'm still more inclined to chalk this up to sloppiness on the part of the article author.

I suppose it depends on the needs of the group and the GM, whatever any of us think, if having Stun Grenades explode (doing shrapnel damage to the wielders hands given the OP's example) is what works for the OP and his group then that is the right answer for them. I still maintain that allowing a group to get the benefit of thinking outside the box, so long as they don't keep pulling out what might appear to be an easy win tactic.

Also, even if a stun grenade doesn't explode in the classic flashbang way it may well emit a fair amount of heat as it projects the stun wave.

Have they been used on-screen in any point in the movies or cartoons?

The closest thing I am aware of are Ion grenades in the Clone Wars cartoon. Reviewing this video , the grenades definitely vanish after detonating, so it would stand to reason that there is some sort of explosion. Perhaps the explosion is small, just enough to breach the (flimsy?) container?

Obviously the universe is broad enough to allow for more than one type of stun grenade. I just didn't see why we would get the pretty blue circle stun shot from blasters and then go low tech flash-bang in a grenade.

Obviously the universe is broad enough to allow for more than one type of stun grenade. I just didn't see why we would get the pretty blue circle stun shot from blasters and then go low tech flash-bang in a grenade.

That was part of my thinking -- if the point of a stun grenade is to be a least-lethal takedown device, and you can generate a non-concussive stun effect with the technology at hand, why would most stun grenades be little bombs?

I think there's a place for concussion grenades and futuristic flash bangs, but that place is distinct from purpose-made stun grenades.

My first reaction is to say well played

okay. well there is still the pulse bubble, or field or whatever you want to call it that will be right next to his hands, and either way, it does generate heat, so his hands would still be hurting realllllly bad.

Tell the player that Strain over threshold convert directly to Wounds.

okay. well there is still the pulse bubble, or field or whatever you want to call it that will be right next to his hands, and either way, it does generate heat, so his hands would still be hurting realllllly bad.

I'd simply rule that since stun grenades normally have negligible small damage radius that a person would only ever experience if they were holding it, causing them to take wounds instead of damage or I would rule that their damage to their hands is not treatable for at least 24 hours and deny them a maneuver until that time and recieving a successful medicine check. If they continue to do it, I'd have it permanently kill the nerves in their hands and require cybernetic prosthesis. This could result in obligation should they not have the money to foot the bill.

Have they been used on-screen in any point in the movies or cartoons?

The closest thing I am aware of are Ion grenades in the Clone Wars cartoon. Reviewing this video , the grenades definitely vanish after detonating, so it would stand to reason that there is some sort of explosion. Perhaps the explosion is small, just enough to breach the (flimsy?) container?

Most recent Rebels actually has a Stun grenade going off. Spoilered since it's still a fairly fresh episode:

I forgot about that. Good call! Hmm.. My initial analysis might still stand. But in the end, I er on the side of my players and would not inflict wounds if a player held one and set it off. It's cool and dramatic.

I forgot about that. Good call! Hmm.. My initial analysis might still stand. But in the end, I er on the side of my players and would not inflict wounds if a player held one and set it off. It's cool and dramatic.

Doing it once is clever, quick witted, and dramatic. Doing it all of the time is something else entirely. I'll concede that wounds aren't appropriate but I believe the nerve damage thing is still the way to go for dealing repeated stun grenade abuse.

I forgot about that. Good call! Hmm.. My initial analysis might still stand. But in the end, I er on the side of my players and would not inflict wounds if a player held one and set it off. It's cool and dramatic.

Doing it once is clever, quick witted, and dramatic. Doing it all of the time is something else entirely. I'll concede that wounds aren't appropriate but I believe the nerve damage thing is still the way to go for dealing repeated stun grenade abuse.

I can see the nerve damage thing being reasonable for repeated "ground zero" stun grenade hits.