| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Centinull
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Posts: 156
Location: The Outer Rim Territories
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 3:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm pretty certain that the only reason blasters have a stun setting at all is because of the one scene in Episode IV, and that the only reason the blasters have a stun setting in Episode IV was it was convenient in the story at the time that they did.
| Darth_Hilarious wrote: |
If the weapon is larger than character scale, unless it specifically says it has a stun setting then no it is a kill only weapon.
|
That's a pretty fair guideline, I'd be comfortable using.
| Nico_Davout wrote: | | As I remember in D20/Saga/FFG system weapons above Blaster Rifle did not posses STUN option. |
I think I've been using that as a general guidline for the past 20 years without even realizing it.
| crmcneill wrote: | | Anyone have any ideas as to how they function? |
I don't believe it's ever explained in the cannon or RPG materials, but in the novel "Visions of the Future" by Timothy Zahn, Mara Jade mentions that the Stun settings on blasters greatly diminish the range.
The expanding rings, shown in Episode IV, would never have the same effective range as a cohesive directed beam.
I've house ruled that stun settings reduce the maximum effective range to 10 meters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16345
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2013 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose an acceptable answer would require a consensus on how exactly blasters work and the manner in which the energy delivered could be altered or dialed down to inflict stun damage only.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dromdarr_Alark
Commander
Joined: 07 Apr 2013
Posts: 426
Location: Boston, MA
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Edge of the Empire discusses this. Let me check it and get back to you.
_________________
"I still wouldn't have a roll for it - but that's just how I roll." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tinman
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 26 Dec 2013
Posts: 110
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: Light, medium and E-web repeaters Stun??? |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | got asked this question. Can repeating blasters, such as the light and medium repeaters, as well as the tripod mounted E-web heavy repeater get set on stun, or cause of the type of weapon they are, they are "Kill only"??
If you can show anywhere it says one way or the other, that would be great. |
The short, official answer is that any character-scale blaster can be set for stun unless its description specifically states otherwise. (Second Edition Core Rules, Expanded & Revised, pg. 98 under "Stun Damage.") Better information on types of weapons which do stun damage can be found in Pirates and Privateers (pg. 42-44) and includes such interesting items as stun grenades, stun gauntlets, stun gas delivery items and the ever-popular Merr-Sonn Deck Sweeper Stunning Blaster.
Our privateering crew used to use a fair number of these sorts of things, as we were known for leaving crews alive and unharmed, and only confiscating cargo intended for delivery to the Empire and taking only crew who were actually Imperial personnel. (Our captain would insist on sharing a drink with a civilian captain of a raided ship as the Imperial cargo was offloaded.. if they were reasonably civilized about the situation.. and would occasionally slip a bottle of Correllian whiskey with a "My apologies for the delay" note into non-Imperial cargo aboard those ships.)
Last edited by Tinman on Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vulture811
Ensign
Joined: 19 Feb 2013
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| in the d20 star wars, stun setting was limited to 4 meters range,single shots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Merrick
Ensign
Joined: 05 Jun 2014
Posts: 45
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vulture811 wrote: | | in the d20 star wars, stun setting was limited to 4 meters range,single shots. |
Thank you for this bit of information. Stun setting has been one of the most abused features in my campaign. Not any more...
Muahahahah!
_________________
"Maximum firepower!"
-General Veers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lurker
Commander
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 423
Location: Oklahoma
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2014 9:29 pm Post subject: Re: Light, medium and E-web repeaters Stun??? |
|
|
| Tinman wrote: |
...
Our privateering crew used to use a fair number of these sorts of things, as we were known for leaving crews alive and unharmed, and only confiscating cargo intended for delivery to the Empire and taking only crew who were actually Imperial personnel. (Our captain would insist on sharing a drink with a civilian captain of a raided ship as the Imperial cargo was offloaded.. if they were reasonably civilized about the situation.. and would occasionally slip a bottle of Correllian whiskey with a "My apologies for the delay" note into non-Imperial cargo aboard those ships.)
|
Nice, I like that. If I ever play a pirate, or on a pirate crew, I'll have to remember that!
_________________
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain
Forgive all spelling errors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zarn
Force Spirit
Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 698
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Killing or damaging an organism as opposed to merely incapacitating the same organism is a matter of energy transfer - either fairly directly, such as with blasters and their ilk, or more indirectly such as riot foam, stun bag projectiles, and so on. Arguably, even darts with paralytic or stun agents in them is a matter of energy transfer, but let's not get into semantics on this.
Essentially, my point is this: Even with today's stun gun technology, there's always the risk of cardiac arrhythmia or cardiac arrest, or other complications leading to death. A powerful blaster set to 'stun' should, in my opinion, have much the same problem. Even if the blast itself did not set fire to the target, it might lead to cardiac arrest, aneurysms, brain injuries or brain dysfunction (similar to, say, electroconvulsive therapy), and all sorts of fun stuff. Sooner or later, it's the amount of energy transferred that is the problem, not whether the blaster's on 'stun' or on 'extra crispy'.
Looking through the various weaponry available with a stun setting, it seems that a maximum of 5D - 7D of stun is doable - anything beyond that doesn't come with a stun setting or the 'stun' setting is irrelevant because of the amount of energy involved.
Though it would be hilarous to have an 8D Death Star / Planetary scale stun gun in order to hunt Zonama Sekot, that amount of energy tends to just fry stuff to a crisp at any rate.
Same goes for blaster artillery or vehicle mounted blasters - though they could conceivably be built with a stun setting, unless you're a Rancor or something, a character-scale person would still be dead if hit full-on with something like that because of the amount of energy involved.
I would think that the convulsions alone could take care of that - people in severe convulsions have been known to break their own limbs (and back!) with the force of their own, muscular contractions. Bursting or otherwise ruining your brain or heart by means of a huge energy transfer into your nervous systems seems a certainty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
