Hi all.

Just a quick question...

A Bounty Hunter (Nemesis) have 20 hit points and 13 Strain (difference might be due to the fact that it is easy to get additional hit points with talents)

Strain damage is really easy to do (Stun setting, shack grenades, power gloves, special weapons and so forth) and can even bypass soak all together in some cases.

Any reason not to hit until unconscious and then coup de grace?

Same goes for players... they become very squishy if enemies focus on strain instead of actual damage...

Sure. That's one way, if the that's the goal...

Its a lot easier to recover strain, (you can just spend advantage on it) and the more damaging weapons don't have stun setting.

Plus you can't do stun damage beyond short range.

Yeah, its way easier to recover strain, also the issue of range will come up. Stun damage is one of those things that looks great on paper, but isn't all that practical if the GM is doing any serious encounter design.

Two reasons, both mentioned in separate posts.

The first is that ranged weapons with the Stun Setting quality are restricted to Short Range when set for stun. It's described under Stun Setting itself. This means ranged attacks are at a single difficulty die for the PCs, which is nice, but that also means the bad guy's difficulty for their ranged attacks is also a single difficulty die, which isn't so nice as most combat- centric NPCs tend to have far better gear than the PCs, particularly in the early going. The Master Hunter is packing some serious frakking heat, and can easily use auto-fire to brutalize one or more PCs given they'd be rolling 3 proficiency dice and 1 ability die vs. 2 purple dice. The Journeyman Hunter is also packing a wallop thanks to their disruptor rifle, and I got to see first-hand as the party's "big gun" nearly got crippled after taking two hits from that monster.

The second is that it's a lot easier to recover from Strain damage, since the NPC can just spend any Advantage they earn on their rolls to do just that, and can recover multiple Strain if they roll multiple Advantage.

Now with that being said, if it fits the player's concept for their character to only use the stun setting, or they've deliberately picked up a "stun blaster," then the above elements aren't really a concern, as the player has made a choice to use a specific form of attack, even if it's not the best way to take an enemy down.

I feel that Strain (Stun) damage is WAY more effective. Here are a few counters to previous arguments against it:

Any Advantages spent by a target to reduce Strain are not being used to hamper the PCs (through critical hits, weapon traits, etc.). Using this option frequently is only a delaying tactic that makes for a slightly longer and duller fight.

NPCs can use stimpacks too. This means that Wounds can be regained quickly at the cost of a few Maneuvers. There is not an equivalent way to quickly regain lumps of Strain.

Combine stimpack use with WT>ST and it takes much more to drop many targets with Wound damage than Strain damage. Add to this that a target taking Strain damage may be tempted to spend Advantages to reduce Strain, and you're now fighting a less effective opponent too!

I've seen this talked about before. Some things I'd like to point out (some of which others have pointed out elsewhere first):

It takes a turn to use a stimpack (maneuver to get it out, maneuver to use it). A turn an NPC uses a stimpack, unless he's behind total cover such that he can't be hit, he's probably going to take more damage than he heals.

Weapons with autofire don't have stun settings. Autofire will knock down an opponent real quick, unless they're a rancor or a hutt.

In addition to strain being recoverable via advantage and stun weapons being generally only usable at close range, there's a third reason to not shoot to stun. If you want them dead, you should shoot to kill. There's a huge moral difference between killing someone in a fight, and executing a helpless opponent afterwards.

A fourth reason is that the knowledge that most characters generally have lower strain thresholds is something called metagaming.

In addition to strain being recoverable via advantage and stun weapons being generally only usable at close range, there's a third reason to not shoot to stun. If you want them dead, you should shoot to kill. There's a huge moral difference between killing someone in a fight, and executing a helpless opponent afterwards.

There might be a moral difference to you, but among the tens of thousands of cultures and species in the Star Wars galaxy, there might be far less of a difference - or even no difference. As an extreme example, all a player has to do is state that his character likes to eat the heart/brain/genitals of his kills and he keeps them fresh until right before he takes that bite. If it's a species trait, then he's just following his nature.

It takes a turn to use a stimpack (maneuver to get it out, maneuver to use it). A turn an NPC uses a stimpack, unless he's behind total cover such that he can't be hit, he's probably going to take more damage than he heals.

For a Nemesis, taking an extra Maneuver for 2 Strain still allows an Action for an attack back.

A fourth reason is that the knowledge that most characters generally have lower strain thresholds is something called metagaming.

If it's observable in game that most characters fall faster to Stun weapons than to lethal fire, it's not metagaming. The character doesn't even have to spend time observing this himself - there have been tens of thousands of years of conflict in Star Wars, and I'm sure medical and tactical articles exist explaining the benefits of stun settings.

In addition to strain being recoverable via advantage and stun weapons being generally only usable at close range, there's a third reason to not shoot to stun. If you want them dead, you should shoot to kill. There's a huge moral difference between killing someone in a fight, and executing a helpless opponent afterwards.

There might be a moral difference to you, but among the tens of thousands of cultures and species in the Star Wars galaxy, there might be far less of a difference - or even no difference. As an extreme example, all a player has to do is state that his character likes to eat the heart/brain/genitals of his kills and he keeps them fresh until right before he takes that bite. If it's a species trait, then he's just following his nature.

A big key word within your own argument is the word kill. It's not a kill if you capture it. I don't want to argue relativism on a gaming forum, but executing prisoners (for any reason) would be considered an evil act in a fantasy RPG no matter what culture they're from. I don't see why a space fantasy is any different.

The character that popped into my mind from your example was Dannik Jerriko . Despite it being his species' way, what he does is still considered evil in the Star Wars universe.

For a Nemesis, taking an extra Maneuver for 2 Strain still allows an Action for an attack back.

It takes a turn to use a stimpack (maneuver to get it out, maneuver to use it). A turn an NPC uses a stimpack, unless he's behind total cover such that he can't be hit, he's probably going to take more damage than he heals.

True. Didn't think about that.

If it's observable in game that most characters fall faster to Stun weapons than to lethal fire, it's not metagaming. The character doesn't even have to spend time observing this himself - there have been tens of thousands of years of conflict in Star Wars, and I'm sure medical and tactical articles exist explaining the benefits of stun settings.

A fourth reason is that the knowledge that most characters generally have lower strain thresholds is something called metagaming.

If you went by this it then becomes a matter of intellect/education.

The easiest counter to this as a GM is to not have all enemies at short range. The weakness of stun is range. Sure they might take down anyone close to them like that but I'd make sure there was someone at longer range raining hell down on them.

Also, if my players did this where there were witnesses and they were facing enemies who would hear about what happened from those people then I would have them adjust tactics accordingly. While I could just do it on my own as a GM I personally like having an in game justification for the actions.

This is a great situation to remind the players that that the GM can do everything they can do. If my players did this all the time and became arrogant about it, I would most likely turn the tables on them and stun them into submission. The first time I did it I would definitely make it clear that I could very well execute them right then and there. Then I would most likely adjust the story and give them a chance to get out of it.

I think resorting to stun weapons is a perfectly valid choice (I play a guy who reluctantly keeps a stun blaster around 'just in case'. Enemies tend to get really uppity after you've killed a couple of their mates). Now, murdering people after you've knocked them out is... uhm, well. It's kinda psychotic. Which is fine if that's what you're going for.

I've found that the "D&D mentality" can be hard to shake though. Like, when I asked people in my group if they were seriously suggesting we murder our captives because it was inconvenient to take them with us.

I got looked at funny for going back to a flop house where we'd tied up some swoopgangers to make sure they didn't die of dehydration (it had been a little over a day).

My character is a bounty hunter, so of course he has a weapon capable of stun. I'm not knocking the use of stun in certain circumstances. I'm just saying, unless you're some kind of pacifist, you shouldn't be using it in *all* circumstances. And if you were a pacifist, you wouldn't be ok with your party members killing guys you had knocked out.

Depends on the type of game and GM you have. Capping unconscious opponents can be valid at times. If unconscious opponents are down and out of the fight, then there is no need. There is no difference whether they are dead or not mechanically. Most people run games as such. But if unconscious opponents can get back into the fight, then sometimes you have to make sure that doesn't happen. There is also the "playing dead or unconscious" scenario. You don't want to leave an opponent behind you that may become a problem. You could always bind them if you are unsure, but that isn't an absolute solution sometimes. Many times we see a bad guy get back up after you think he is down (or you're supposed to think that), but I don't think it translate to RPGs as much. You never know, though.

Players that have their characters perform such capping shots are deemed murderers or psychopaths. It may be in character, though. As a special ops soldier you may be trained to make sure there is no one behind you as you move through a building or some such. Now a soldier that only had access to a stun weapon might do something like that, but most soldiers are trained to use killing shots with weapons that can kill. If the only reason you are doing such a maneuver is for game mechanical reasons, then you are now playing the system not the game.

If someone persisted in performing such an action, I would probably do the same to them to get that TPK. Then have them wake up from the nasty nightmare and see if they learned their lesson.

A fourth reason is that the knowledge that most characters generally have lower strain thresholds is something called metagaming.

If it's observable in game that most characters fall faster to Stun weapons than to lethal fire, it's not metagaming. The character doesn't even have to spend time observing this himself - there have been tens of thousands of years of conflict in Star Wars, and I'm sure medical and tactical articles exist explaining the benefits of stun settings.

Except that, as far as any fan of Star Wars has seen, this isn't the case ¹ . People in Star Wars use the Stun setting when they want their target alive, and the Kill setting when they want them injured or dead. Just look at the fighting in the tightly-packed corridors of the Tantive IV ; despite the close-quarters and the well-trained Stormtroopers (or, you know, just Vader), the only time they bother with Stun is when they find Leia.

Stun being a superior combat option is a case of the game mechanics not matching the setting, and (most importantly) not making for a better role-playing game. For example, people have argued about Lightsaber stats and the Lightsaber skill, but FFG did it this way with a conscious eye towards making a game where Jedi don't necessarily trounce everyone else all the time. By contrast, the Stun setting as-is probably is not intentional, nor can I see how it might improve the game.

^{1. I do understand where you are coming from. I'm a big fan of Exalted (an awesome Epic Fantasy RPG), where the most recent edition suggested that in-universe scholars had quantified magic points, could recognize specific spells and powers, and generally knew all about the mechanics underlying their world. But the Star Wars universe is not defined by a single RPG book, and the overwhelming precedent in this case is that Stun is not supposed to be better at anything besides leaving a target breathing.}

Basing the decision to use/not to use stun damage on what is seen on the movie screen is metagaming too. The PCs don't experience what's on screen, merely what the mechanics of the game allow. Sure, the game is an imperfect simulation of the films, but it's not wrong to play to the way the system works.

Basing the decision to use/not to use stun damage on what is seen on the movie screen is metagaming too. The PCs don't experience what's on screen, merely what the mechanics of the game allow. Sure, the game is an imperfect simulation of the films, but it's not wrong to play to the way the system works.

And I never said either way of playing was right or wrong. Nor do I expect the game to perfectly emulate the films. I said as much in my last post.

But I do believe that Stun being notably more effective at taking down a Nemesis or PC, was likely unintended by FFG. When the rules-in-effect are so different from both player expectations (the reason I mentioned existing lore) and (what seem to me to be) rules-as-intended, it is often a sign that errata or house-ruling is required.

From my experiences with the system, yes, stun damage can take someone down very quickly. However, any GM worth his weight in dice can come up with ways to neutralize a party that always rushes forward with stun blasters. A nemesis bounty hunter would probably be smart enough to know that it would be ill advised to take on a group of heavily armed targets single handedly. 4 on 1, of course a party can rush down just about anyone with stun weapons. But if you throw in a handful of lower ranked hunters and some minion-group thugs armed with blaster rifles, it becomes a lot harder for a party to close with one target without taking some major risks. Throw in the element of surprise, and a party is in serious trouble. Running into an ambush in this system can be downright nasty, just like real life.

Stun setting should not affect Droids. They would need a lethal setting or Ion gun of some sort.

I would let them try that all the time, but Droids are very common in the Star Wars setting. Another thing to consider is that if there are enemy around when you try to coup de gras the unlucky sap, the nearby foe will interfere with it.

How are they performing the coup de gras? Are they switching to a bladed weapon, and stooping down to slit their throat? Are they switching to lethal setting stooping down and putting the barrel of the gun to their head? Or are they staying back at short range and saying that now that the enemy is unconscious I should be able to shoot them once from way back here and call it a coup de gras?

In addition to strain being recoverable via advantage and stun weapons being generally only usable at close range,

Wait - where does it say that in the book? I've somehow missed that!

The stun weapon quality at short range is on page 157. You can spend advantage to recover strain page 206.

Maybe if the stun damage knocked them out and then the real damage woke them back up that would be a way to neutralize the effectiveness of stun damage?