The 2 times I recall Luke and his hand, he shows pain. The poking by the doc-bot in Empire, and being shot in Return. In Empire, the pain is clearly there to test the reflexive response, so that's another reason to likely include pain, it will compel you to remove the limb from whatever is harming it, thus preventing further damage to the limb.

I don't remember Grievous well enough, as I stopped watching CW after a few seasons. But I recall in Revenge, he seemed VERY unhappy when Kenobi force crushes his chest unit. That might be due to the organic bits in there, but I got the impression that none of it felt good.

And Vader clearly showed pain when Luke cut off his hand. He screams out in pain, and collapses to the ground. Also in Empire when Luke gets that glancing blow on his shoulder, he grunts and grabs the limb, so he clearly felt that.

As to the idea of "cybernetics made for soldiers" reason, I can think of 2 schools of thought on that.
1. The idea you have, of soldiers that feel no pain, are more dangerous. However

2. Soldiers that feel no pain, won't be cautious and might die before completing their objective, because they were oblivious to injury, and now we've wasted money on some dead cybernetic soldiers, AND failed the objective.

I guess it depends on the person building the parts. Someone like Palpatine would probably go with Option 1, because he clearly doesn't give a crap about his minions. But other agencies, like the Republic, and basically any company/military that isn't run by a sociopathic/megalomaniac would probably opt for Option 2. Pain is not a bad thing. Pain is your friend. It warns you when you are doing dumb, dangerous things, and gives you the opportunity to potentially survive and learn, and go "Ok, that hurts, I now know not to put my hand in fire anymore. Lesson learned"

6 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

The 2 times I recall Luke and his hand, he shows pain. The poking by the doc-bot in Empire, and being shot in Return. In Empire, the pain is clearly there to test the reflexive response, so that's another reason to likely include pain, it will compel you to remove the limb from whatever is harming it, thus preventing further damage to the limb.

I don't remember Grievous well enough, as I stopped watching CW after a few seasons. But I recall in Revenge, he seemed VERY unhappy when Kenobi force crushes his chest unit. That might be due to the organic bits in there, but I got the impression that none of it felt good.

I was thinking about when his hands were cut off, early in the fight.

6 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

And Vader clearly showed pain when Luke cut off his hand. He screams out in pain, and collapses to the ground. Also in Empire when Luke gets that glancing blow on his shoulder, he grunts and grabs the limb, so he clearly felt that.

You're probably right. I really need to go rewatch Empire, it's clearly been too long.

6 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

As to the idea of "cybernetics made for soldiers" reason, I can think of 2 schools of thought on that.
1. The idea you have, of soldiers that feel no pain, are more dangerous. However

2. Soldiers that feel no pain, won't be cautious and might die before completing their objective, because they were oblivious to injury, and now we've wasted money on some dead cybernetic soldiers, AND failed the objective.

Well, I never meant to suggest feeling zero pain so how about:

3. Soldiers feel some, subdued pain when injured, but once the damage (and danger) has been registered, there is no lasting pain. No need to keep them in constant pain to keep reminding them that their cybernetic is damaged. On your organic limb, constant pain serves a purpose, keeping you from making your injuries worse, and perhaps permanent, by using it. An artificial limb can be repaired or replaced, so making the damage worse isn't that much of an issue. Also, a cybernetic limb would perhaps be more resistant to minor damage. For instance, holding your hand in a candle is excruciatingly painful and will probably result in a pretty serious burn, and a prosthetic hand like Lukes (which is shown to be sensitive to things like pinpricks to the skin) would probably at least have it's skin burned off. A cybernetic hand like Anakins, with no skin and metal construction would probably only be mildly inconvenienced and there is really no need to transmit massive amounts of pain to the user.

8 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

I guess it depends on the person building the parts. Someone like Palpatine would probably go with Option 1, because he clearly doesn't give a crap about his minions. But other agencies, like the Republic, and basically any company/military that isn't run by a sociopathic/megalomaniac would probably opt for Option 2. Pain is not a bad thing. Pain is your friend. It warns you when you are doing dumb, dangerous things, and gives you the opportunity to potentially survive and learn, and go "Ok, that hurts, I now know not to put my hand in fire anymore. Lesson learned"

Good points all, but this could also be part of the reason that cybernetic enhancement is something generally applied to elite troopers (like Darktroopers) that have the experience and training not get overwhelmed by feelings of invincibility and thus can put such enhancement to the best use.

On 5/11/2017 at 3:15 PM, KungFuFerret said:

I've already stated my reason why it should be that way. If you disagree, then don't have your cybernetics inflict pain. I can't articulate it any further than I already have.

I think there is a distinction between "pain" and "crippling pain" penpenpen doesn't seem to be objecting to cybernetic limbs causing "pain" when they're damage, he's objecting to them causing "crippling pain" when they're damaged. Kungfuferret seems to be arguing that cybernetic limbs should cause "pain" when damaged and is not specifically addressing having cybernetics causing "crippling pain" while damaged so you two seem to be arguing about/objecting to what the other person isn'the actually saying. I'm actually interested in Kungfuferret'so opinion on whether cybernetic limbs should cause "crippling pain" with the emphasis on "crippling" not "pain". I haven't made up my own mind on the matter.

Cybernetics, appendages and such, should have pain as a feedback response to damage, regardless of who they're for. It gives important information in a way that is both intuitive and immediately useful. KungFuFerret put it very well. When functioning properly they should have feedback thresholds to keep that pain response from being dangerously distracting/crippling. But a damaged cybernetic may not be functioning properly, and all prosthetics will have a direct link to the nervous system, which is in and of itself risky. What happens when the battery and/or some of the power cables get mangled and start conducting electricity directly into the bits that turn electrical signals from the mechanical bits into nerve impulses to transfer feeling/information to the meaty nerve bits? Or when the nerve translator itself gets damaged? It's a pretty complicated device attached to a very complicated (and squishy) device.

As to OP, nah I wouldn't have a cybernetic arm be a sunderable item any more than I'd say someone's flesh and blood arm is a sunderable item. I would also apply critical hits as per normal, even if that particular critical affects a purely cybernetic appendage. The exact mechanics of the crit might be different, but the effects would be analogous.

41 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

I think there is a distinction between "pain" and "crippling pain" penpenpen doesn't seem to be objecting to cybernetic limbs causing "pain" when they're damage, he's objecting to them causing "crippling pain" when they're damaged. Kungfuferret seems to be arguing that cybernetic limbs should cause "pain" when damaged and is not specifically addressing having cybernetics causing "crippling pain" while damaged so you two seem to be arguing about/objecting to what the other person isn'the actually saying. I'm actually interested in Kungfuferret'so opinion on whether cybernetic limbs should cause "crippling pain" with the emphasis on "crippling" not "pain". I haven't made up my own mind on the matter.

Is there somewhere in the books that states they cause crippling pain? Or are we just assuming they inflict the equivalent level of pain that a real limb would, and thus the potential for "crippling" pain is thus possible?

If it's actually stated somewhere, I still stand by the logic of the developers doing that to keep idiots from doing stupid stuff, and possibly causing themselves even more harm. I mean, "Hey watch this!" is not an uncommon final phrase from many a real person in this world. Who went and did something stupid, and died due to said stupidity. It doesn't seem out of place, for a company who's purpose is to make consumer level limbs, to install safeguards, to prevent people from doing stupid things. And suddenly having blinding levels of pain, when you are drunk, and decide to see if your cyberlimb can withstand a plasma tube's discharge of pure energy, seems reasonable to me. You will likely realize "holy crap! what the heck am I doing?! This was stupid!" and stop doing said stupid action in the first place.

Also, since we are again trying to apply real world logic to a world of space wizards and laser swords, it's also probably for liability reasons. People have different levels of pain tolerance, and that's just for humans. For different species, with vastly different biologies, they likely need to have a wide range of stimulus to accurately explain the damage being done, and to discourage further stupid behavior. As I've stated before, pain is a very effective warning system, and for a body, the limb feeling pain is the best way to try and deter bad behavior. They can't install airbags, or seatbelts in a cyberarm, to try and protect you from bad situations that you cause, but they can make it REALLY HURT, and thus hopefully discourage you from doing it.

2 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Is there somewhere in the books that states they cause crippling pain? Or are we just assuming they inflict the equivalent level of pain that a real limb would, and thus the potential for "crippling" pain is thus possible?

If it's actually stated somewhere, I still stand by the logic of the developers doing that to keep idiots from doing stupid stuff, and possibly causing themselves even more harm. I mean, "Hey what this!" is not an uncommon final phrase from many a real person in this world. Who went and did something stupid, and died due to said stupidity. It doesn't seem out of place, for a company who's purpose is to make consumer level limbs, to install safeguards, to prevent people from doing stupid things. And suddenly having blinding levels of pain, when you are drunk, and decide to see if your cyberlimb can withstand a plasma tube's discharge of pure energy, seems reasonable to me. You will likely realize "holy crap! what the heck am I doing?! This was stupid!" and stop doing said stupid action in the first place.

Also, since we are again trying to apply real world logic to a world of space wizards and laser swords, it's also probably for liability reasons. People have different levels of pain tolerance, and that's just for humans. For different species, with vastly different biologies, they likely need to have a wide range of stimulus to accurately explain the damage being done, and to discourage further stupid behavior. As I've stated before, pain is a very effective warning system, and for a body, the limb feeling pain is the best way to try and deter bad behavior. They can't install airbags, or seatbelts in a cyberarm, to try and protect you from bad situations that you cause, but they can make it REALLY HURT, and thus hopefully discourage you from doing it.

I think the equivalent of loosing a real limb.

The thing is the GFFA is not OSHA compliant, they usually don't put handrails on narrow bridges over the ever present bottomless pit or on the skyscraper balcony that your leave your airspeeder floathing next to. So I don't think that "as a safety feature" is a good narrative justification for anything in star wars.

Again I haven't formed an opinion on this, I think a severely damaged/shorting out/being electricuted cybernetic limb is a plausible explanation for crippling pain, but that is more of an accidental/poor design justification that reputable high end cybernetics manufacturers a likely to design around because it's profitable to do so

Just now, EliasWindrider said:

I think the equivalent of loosing a real limb.

The thing is the GFFA is not OSHA compliant, they usually don't put handrails on narrow bridges over the ever present bottomless pit or on the skyscraper balcony that your leave your airspeeder floathing next to. So I don't think that "as a safety feature" is a good narrative justification for anything in star wars.

Again I haven't formed an opinion on this, I think a severely damaged/shorting out/being electricuted cybernetic limb is a plausible explanation for crippling pain, but that is more of an accidental/poor design justification that reputable high end cybernetics manufacturers a likely to design around because it's profitable to do so

But what I'm asking is, this whole point about crippling pain, is that even supported by the material? I honestly don't know, as that is a level of detail that I just don't really care about, and would simply arbitrate at my table as GM. Just like how Luke losing his hand didn't completely cripple him, aside from the fact that he was now handicapped. he was in a LOT of pain, but he was still able to move, climb, talk, jump, etc. I see no reason to have a cyber limb be any different. So this whole "crippling" thing seems to be an assumption. Do the rules say you are crippled if you get a certain amount of damage to a cyber limb, due to massive pain? If not, then why is it even discussed?

And if you are going to discount one safety related behavior (handrails) because of the Rule of Cool that Star Wars loves, then why are we harping on a completely different one? That can be just as easily discounted? That being this mythical "crippling pain in cyber limbs" debate? I've never understood selective suspension of disbelief.

2 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

But what I'm asking is, this whole point about crippling pain, is that even supported by the material? I honestly don't know, as that is a level of detail that I just don't really care about, and would simply arbitrate at my table as GM. Just like how Luke losing his hand didn't completely cripple him, aside from the fact that he was now handicapped. he was in a LOT of pain, but he was still able to move, climb, talk, jump, etc. I see no reason to have a cyber limb be any different. So this whole "crippling" thing seems to be an assumption. Do the rules say you are crippled if you get a certain amount of damage to a cyber limb, due to massive pain? If not, then why is it even discussed?

And if you are going to discount one safety related behavior (handrails) because of the Rule of Cool that Star Wars loves, then why are we harping on a completely different one? That can be just as easily discounted? That being this mythical "crippling pain in cyber limbs" debate? I've never understood selective suspension of disbelief.

Crippling comes from the OP and I think it would interact with the penalties imposed by certain critical injuries (my supposition about the OP's intent).

My comment was that 8 don't think "as a safety feature" is an adequate justification for "crippling pain" in a damaged cybernetic in star wars.

I do think that engineering a cybernetic limb to prevent crippling pain from resulting from destruction of said cybernetic limb is financially justifiable (as in is more profitable)

2 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Crippling comes from the OP and I think it would interact with the penalties imposed by certain critical injuries (my supposition about the OP's intent).

My comment was that 8 don't think "as a safety feature" is an adequate justification for "crippling pain" in a damaged cybernetic in star wars.

I do think that engineering a cybernetic limb to prevent crippling pain from resulting from destruction of said cybernetic limb is financially justifiable (as in is more profitable)

Well I can't really talk about the OP's intent, but I would simply rule it as just like a regular critical result, and move on. It's a very minor issue, that going over in this detail would simply drag a game down.

As to your differing opinion about the manufactoring likelihood of making crippling pain in cybernetics. Ok, we have differing opinions. Ultimately, to me, it's a minor issue, that is irrelevant to a gaming session, so I don't really care what the end result is. And since every GM can call it how they like, I think we might as well just say "We have different opinions on this" and leave it at that. I don't know what else to say at this point.

Crippling pain might not be a design feature, it might be a side effect. Damage to the limb causes feedback which moves through whatever interfaces between the robot part and the central nervous system, and the CNS interprets the feedback as excruciating pain.

13 hours ago, coyote6 said:

Crippling pain might not be a design feature, it might be a side effect. Damage to the limb causes feedback which moves through whatever interfaces between the robot part and the central nervous system, and the CNS interprets the feedback as excruciating pain.

I believe you meant it's might not be a design OBJECTIVE, because it would still be a feature of the design whether it was intentional or not, and undesirable features that the designer is aware of can be designed out. And in this case it's not all that difficult, in the event of loss of function (failure to pass certain continuously running diagnostic, something analagous to sn error correcting code in digital communications) the limb could be completely shut down to avoid the feedback/crippling pain.

There was an earlier question about a called shot to a cybernetic arm and how to adjudicate it.

I would handle it exactly the same way as a called shot to a normal arm. You take the aimed shot (with penalties) and if successful you can "disable" that limb. It does not inflict damage or a related critical hit it simply disables the limb.

My take on that is that it is disabled for the rest of the encounter (though I would allow healing or med checks to reanimate it).