Jump to content



Photo

Help with a Human Melee Marauder


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21 bradknowles

bradknowles

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 08:41 PM

Not to sound too flippant, but you can't hit someone with the flat of the axe blade or with the handle? I'd think that the intent of the talent would be training to use a weapon in a way the weapon's creator didn't originally intend, which would be using the blunt parts of a weapon to deal stun damage.

First off, I'm not a GM, so anything I say with regards to how I would run things in my game are purely theoretical.

Secondly, I take my cue from many good GMs I've had in the past, and if you can give me a good logical explanation for something that would otherwise disagree with RAW or RAI, or my personal interpretation of the rules, then I'm likely to change my mind and follow your interpretation instead.


In this particular case, I could see using the other end of the vibro-axe to do Stun Damage, if you had the Stunning Blow talent. I had not previously considered this option, hence the answer I gave.

However, you would be much harder pressed to convince me to let you use the flat of the blade with this talent -- I've fought Heavy Weapons in the SCA, so I have a good idea of what it's like to be hit with a weapon, and what various parts of various weapons would be like.


I like to think of myself as a reasonable kind of guy, but I'm only willing to go so far -- if you want me to meet you in the middle, you either have to also give up some ground, or be really convincing.

Edited by bradknowles, 14 July 2014 - 08:41 PM.

Unless stated otherwise, these are just my personal opinions about how I feel things should work.  Even if I quote chapter and verse of a particular rulebook, only the part that's quoted is likely to actually be official.  Each GM will have to decide for themselves what rules they will use and which ones they won't, and how they will interpret the rules they do use.  That is their right -- and their responsibility.

"A FFG Star Wars Index" by Aahzmandius_Karrde: <http://community.fan...ar-wars-index/> | Github project at <https://github.com/k...rde/ffg_swrpg/>

"Dice Probability Generator" by Litheon: http://community.fan...lity-generator/


#22 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,891 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 09:11 PM

 

I like to think of myself as a reasonable kind of guy, but I'm only willing to go so far -- if you want me to meet you in the middle, you either have to also give up some ground, or be really convincing.

 

There are a number of talents that let you break the walls a bit, and Stunning Blow is low on that list. You'll likely have bigger problems with things like Bad Motivator and It's Not That Bad.

 

"What's that? Vader's life support system just spontaneously failed (Bad Motivator) and that limb that we all though got lopped off is really just fine according to the medic on the comlink (It's Not That Bad)? Well then, we've got the Dark Lord now..."


  • RLogue177 likes this

Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#23 Dead-Pool

Dead-Pool

    Member

  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 14 July 2014 - 11:19 PM

More Roleplaying less Rollplaying :P

 

I think it would be better to decide on your character's history and backstory when raising certain characteristics.  Example: A Marauder that spent their whole life of 35+ years on a desert planet, living in a group of nomadic hunters/forragers who follow a scrict warrior's code pertaining to anykind of conflict, might have a low Intellect and Presence since they didn't have access to formal education, or were exposed to a political or technical world.  They would be socially awkward travelling the Galaxy, everything a new experience, and possibly have a more simple vocabulary as well.

 

If you have a decent GM, they won't punish your character in combat with hordes of enemies because you only put 3 into Brawn so you could spread some to other talents that make sense for your character's history so you could roleplay them better such as Agility (Coordination and Stealth) and Willpower (Dicipline and Vigilance)  But that's just my thinking I suppose.  I wouldn't enjoy a 'one trick pony' character that can only just smash things, sometimes enemies. I'd like to be able to preform other feats.


Edited by Dead-Pool, 14 July 2014 - 11:45 PM.

  • Sofia Corba, Bulwyf and 2P51 like this

#24 Bulwyf

Bulwyf

    Member

  • Members
  • 50 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 07:09 PM

 

 

Stunning Blow is designed exactly for the purpose of allowing non-lethal use of melee weapons that normally do lethal damage. You can do what you want, but if disallow a Talent to do what it's made to do, then you're doing it wrong.


If the weapon in question could be used in a non-lethal manner, then I would allow that talent to work with it. But unless the vibro-weapon in question has a particular stun mode, then in my book it isn’t possible to use it in a non-lethal manner no matter what talents you might have.

That’s just one of the things you give up by going with a vibro-weapon that doesn’t have a built-in stun mode.


There are some blasters that don’t have a stun setting. I see no difference in this respect.

 

 

Not to sound too flippant, but you can't hit someone with the flat of the axe blade or with the handle? I'd think that the intent of the talent would be training to use a weapon in a way the weapon's creator didn't originally intend, which would be using the blunt parts of a weapon to deal stun damage.

 

 

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.


  • Jamwes likes this

#25 bradknowles

bradknowles

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 08:50 PM

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.

Unless stated otherwise, these are just my personal opinions about how I feel things should work.  Even if I quote chapter and verse of a particular rulebook, only the part that's quoted is likely to actually be official.  Each GM will have to decide for themselves what rules they will use and which ones they won't, and how they will interpret the rules they do use.  That is their right -- and their responsibility.

"A FFG Star Wars Index" by Aahzmandius_Karrde: <http://community.fan...ar-wars-index/> | Github project at <https://github.com/k...rde/ffg_swrpg/>

"Dice Probability Generator" by Litheon: http://community.fan...lity-generator/


#26 RLogue177

RLogue177

    Member

  • Members
  • 87 posts

Posted 21 July 2014 - 09:26 PM

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?



#27 Azrael Macool

Azrael Macool

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 07:40 AM

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.


  • RLogue177 likes this

#28 kaosoe

kaosoe

    Not the GM my players need, but the one they deserve.

  • Members
  • 1,531 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 07:43 AM

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


  • RLogue177 likes this

Scavenger - On the d20Radio forums.

Pronounced: Kay - Oh - So


#29 awayputurwpn

awayputurwpn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,424 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:10 AM

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 :)
  • RLogue177 likes this

#30 awayputurwpn

awayputurwpn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,424 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:26 AM

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.
  • Bulwyf, Jamwes and Aservan like this

#31 2P51

2P51

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,551 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:33 AM

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.


  • awayputurwpn likes this

My group's Obsidian Portal campaign site: It's All in the Trigger Squeeze


#32 awayputurwpn

awayputurwpn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,424 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 11:49 AM

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?

Note also that the Stun quality doesn't use the word "damage" anywhere. All it says is, "inflicts strain." Same as a character "suffering strain." If a quality or other effect inflicts wounds or strain, it just applies directly to the appropriate threshold. But if it "deals damage," then soak applies (barring Breach/Pierce/etc).

Edited by awayputurwpn, 22 July 2014 - 11:50 AM.

  • RLogue177 and Jamwes like this

#33 Bulwyf

Bulwyf

    Member

  • Members
  • 50 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 07:24 PM

 

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.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS