Physical and stun damage, Somtimes stun seems to be worse... Options

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I think you mean the opposite of that. (giving you the benefit of the doubt)

Sort of. Physical is Always Worse (damage wise) than Stun is... ALWAYS.
But the Arguments from the other side are that taking Physical Damage (for a traget that has 9 boxes of Stun) is a Worse Effect for a better shooter (or a shooter with more successes), because in the end, the target stays up longer, and thus is worse than had the target taken Stun (A more desireable Effect, to be sure, but a Better effect for those arguing on that side). My argument is that it is NOT worse, becaused the Damage is Physical. It is a better effect for a better level of success. Make sense now?

The problem is one of terminology, I think. How about this. Taking Physical Damage is Always more fatal than taking Stun is. Never will it be less fatal.

[Draco18s]

Taking Physical Damage is Always more fatal than taking Stun is. Never will it be less fatal.

No one has argued that that is not the case.

(There is, however, little difference between "everyone unconscious, lets throw them in the meat grinder" and "everyone dead, lets throw them in the meat grinder.")

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

No one has argued that that is not the case.

(There is, however, little difference between "everyone unconscious, lets throw them in the meat grinder" and "everyone dead, lets throw them in the meat grinder.")

What was argued was that Physical was worse than Stun (as in The target would have been better to take stun than physical). My contention is that it was a false statement. Physical Damage is always Worse than Stun (more prefferable if you are trying to kill someone). Unfortunately, Physical Damage is undesireable if all you want to do is remove the piece from the board, assuming the piecce already had stun. Which was where the Comment "Physical is Worse than Stun" originated from. It is NOT WORSE, it is just undesireable. The dual meaning for the word "Worse" in this case is what is causing issues, I think

You are right. There is little difference between Unconscious into the meat grinder, and dead into the meat grinder (End result, both dead and ground), except for the mindset required to do such a thing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

What was argued was that Physical was worse than Stun (as in The target would have been better to take stun than physical). My contention is that it was a false statement. Physical Damage is always Worse than Stun (more prefferable if you are trying to kill someone).

That's called "taking the statement out of context."

The context is "target has 6 stun" and is taking 5 physical, when 1 less success would result in 4 stun: enough to knock the target unconscious.

[Lantzer]

See, here's the thing about dice pools:

If you have 10 dice (I'm sure we can all agree that this is intended or below indended) and have 5 stun and 5 physical you have a mere -2 penalty. That leaves you with 8 dice.

On the other hand, if you have 10 dice and 10 stun damage, you have.....0 dice, because you're unconscious.

I don't know about you, but 8 dice is 8 dice more than no dice.

Even at 6P and 6S, you've got 6 dice (and that's still 6 dice more than none).

Agreed.

And 10 physical is even worse off. Zero dice because you may be dying.

Only the guy who is wearing armor _won't_ be taking 5P and 5S, neccesarily. He'll be taking less. That is the point of armor, after all.

Remember that for the same attacks, the guy with no armor wil be taking the most boxes, and it will be all physical.
The guy who has moderate armor will take fewer boxes, and it will be split.
The guy with heavy armor will be taking the least boxes of damage, and it will all be stun. The big question becomes:

How much less?

It depends on the specific quantities of armor, the amount of Body and the damage applied and how the rolls go - lots of variables. If you deal with averages, you can at least get it down to a 3-D surface plot. Hmm.

This makes me want to go play with Excel for a bit.

[Irion]

@Lantzer
Again, it is not about a guy with 0 armor, one with 10 and one with 100. Yes, here more armor is better...
It is about:
0, 6 and 7.
If you get fired upon with a DV 5 weapon and the guy has 2 more attack dice, than you have dice to defend, the armor 6 guy has a higher chance of winning this encounter.

Now stundamage is also easyer to inflict.

The best example are mages: Stun means you get one point less drain. This translates in 2 points higher force and therefor 2 points more damage. (Lets assume both are not overcasting)
Normally this would not be a problem, because the "Stun" damage is not that bad, so inflicting more for the same price is "ok".
But actually your target will most likely have less boxes in his or her stun monitor, it will more likely have existing stun damage and stundamage will always be stundamage.
So the spell, which inflichts stundamage , is much better if it comes down to taking out humans.

[Draco18s]

Only the guy who is wearing armor _won't_ be taking 5P and 5S, neccesarily. He'll be taking less. That is the point of armor, after all.

Missing the point.

It's not about how much armor (the defender) has, nor the number of successes he rolls (as that's an independent random event that has no bearing on the shooter). It's about the shooter knowing that none of his bullets has caused the defender the bleed, making a wildly successful shot (or not so wildly) and getting a shot that penetrates the target's armor by 1 DV (that is, just barely breaking the threshold between stun and physical).

So it comes down to the following equasion:

(D+1) - A, in physical boxes (D is damage, +1 for just breaking the threshold, A is armor)
versus
D - A, in stun

Sure, it's 1 more box, but it's also on the physical track which is currently empty, instead of on the stun track where (D - A) >= number of boxes remaining.

That's the issue.

[Lantzer]

Missing the point.

It's not about how much armor (the defender) has, nor the number of successes he rolls (as that's an independent random event that has no bearing on the shooter). It's about the shooter knowing that none of his bullets has caused the defender the bleed, making a wildly successful shot (or not so wildly) and getting a shot that penetrates the target's armor by 1 DV (that is, just barely breaking the threshold between stun and physical).

So it comes down to the following equasion:

(D+1) - A, in physical boxes (D is damage, +1 for just breaking the threshold, A is armor)
versus
D - A, in stun

Sure, it's 1 more box, but it's also on the physical track which is currently empty, instead of on the stun track where (D - A) >= number of boxes remaining.

That's the issue.

Looking at the charts, this becomes more likely as your target's body lowers, as at high body, the damage resistance pool gets big enough that the DV range for stun results gets narrower. At lower body, the stun range is about 4-6 DV (max stun DV- zero damage DV) wide, for midrange armor and DV.

I understand your point here, and to be honest, it means that there will probably take one more hit to take down said opponent. On the other hand, my groups would probably not even notice. If this is happening because the target is low-body, high armor, he'd probably be down by stun damage before the players notice enough to be frustrated. If this is a high-body, low armor target, that damage would most likely be all physical due to the narrow/nonexistent stun band. If this is a high-body, high armor target, the players would be overjoyed that they just gave the target a glimpse of his own mortality by doing any damage at all. If this is a low-body, low armor target, the damage was probably all physical.

Can this situation happen? Yes - this could be mildly annoying if the shooter's DV hovers right around the armor rating. To be honest, I've never seen it come up much. As described, this is a place where the system isn't perfect. It's pretty much a given when you have two damage tracks. Back in 3rd edition, you'd run into this situation fighting gangers where some had knives and others had clubs (horribly inefficient).

My response as the shooter would be to shoot again, because drek happens. Just like an abdominal wound. He's not unconcious, but has taken some more penalties.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Missing the point.

It's not about how much armor (the defender) has, nor the number of successes he rolls (as that's an independent random event that has no bearing on the shooter). It's about the shooter knowing that none of his bullets has caused the defender the bleed, making a wildly successful shot (or not so wildly) and getting a shot that penetrates the target's armor by 1 DV (that is, just barely breaking the threshold between stun and physical).

So it comes down to the following equasion:

(D+1) - A, in physical boxes (D is damage, +1 for just breaking the threshold, A is armor)
versus
D - A, in stun

Sure, it's 1 more box, but it's also on the physical track which is currently empty, instead of on the stun track where (D - A) >= number of boxes remaining.

That's the issue.

But is should not be an issue. 1 box of Physical damage is more damaging than 10 boxes of Stun. Only in the Theroetical World of Metagaming is that not the case. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

But is should not be an issue. 1 box of Physical damage is more damaging than 10 boxes of Stun.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/proof.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/proof.gif)

Simple. Stun heals over hours, Physical heals over days. It is right there in the rules. What more proof do you need. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

There is nothing wrong with the 'theoretical world of metagaming'. But, of course, that's beside the point; that's why you keep mentioning it. What *is* the point is that I'd always rather have 1 Phys than 10 Stun (KOd); notice how I don't say 'everyone' would rather. Just because you have a definition for 'worse' doesn't make it the correct one. This is the same thing you said pages ago. Clearly, several people agree that being KOd is 'worse'.

Physical *should* always be less desirable than Stun; everyone agrees there, I think? That's exactly why the half-and-half situation is messed up: Phys is more desirable there.

[snowRaven]

Simple. Stun heals over hours, Physical heals over days. It is right there in the rules. What more proof do you need. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

If you have a skilled mage with heal present, physical damage heals over combat turns. Stun still heals over hours.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

There is nothing wrong with the 'theoretical world of metagaming'. But, of course, that's beside the point; that's why you keep mentioning it. What *is* the point is that I'd always rather have 1 Phys than 10 Stun (KOd); notice how I don't say 'everyone' would rather. Just because you have a definition for 'worse' doesn't make it the correct one. This is the same thing you said pages ago. Clearly, several people agree that being KOd is 'worse'.

Physical *should* always be less desirable than Stun; everyone agrees there, I think? That's exactly why the half-and-half situation is messed up: Phys is more desirable there.

So, you finally admitted it. You would rather have a more serious wound than be knocked unconscious. Wow. Thank you for that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

As a character, I would rather take a beating (and go unconscious) than actually take a Physical Wound, Period. However, that is not a realistic expectation when it comes to combat, as I KNOW that the armor worn by the character is not going to be 100% effective all the time, and thus I EXPECT to take Physical Damage from time to time. I plan for that and move along (because that is the in-game reality). Just wanted to point that out. NO BODY WANTS TO TAKE A WOUND THAT HEALS ON THE ORDER OF DAYS RATHER THAN HOURS. Arguing otherwise falls back into Metagaming. As a PLAYER, I have no doubt that that is what you wish, but as a Character, I would bet that would not be the case.

As for what I have been saying pages ago, and again now, I admitted that already. You pointing it out is nothing new. And it is not MY definition of Worse. Physical Damage is OBJECTIVELY worse than Stun is. Even the rules point that out, so it is not MY defintion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

So, you finally admitted it. You would rather have a more serious wound than be knocked unconscious. Wow. Thank you for that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And have you admitted yet that the rules are FUBAR because that is the case?

[Yerameyahu]

TJ, I (and others) have been saying that for pages. You just never bother to listen. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

It's not 'objectively' worse when it's the difference between being conscious or not. That's the issue. It *should* be always 'worse', but it's not. You always ignore the context.

It has nothing to do with 'expecting armor to fail' in-character (and never did). The issue is that, unlike in reality, there are situations in SR where it's more advantageous to take P damage than S (if characters were aware of it, it'd be 'hoping for armor to fail'). SR should not have mechanics that mostly follow reality, and then totally reverse themselves at the edges.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

And have you admitted yet that the rules are FUBAR because that is the case?

How can they be FUBAR when it is obviously intended that the System model a variance of damage, when armor is worn, between Stun and Physical, based upon how the attacker rolls, and how the defender rolls, their dice? The rule works exactly as intended.

How can they be FUBAR when the only defense of your position is that THEORETICALLY it is an issue? Especially when the vast majority claim to never actually see it occuring in the game itself, whether they believe in the theory or not.

Just Sayin' (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

How can they be FUBAR when it is obviously intended that the System model a variance of damage, when armor is worn, between Stun and Physical, based upon how the attacker rolls, and how the defender rolls, their dice? The rule works exactly as intended.

How can they be FUBAR when the only defense of your position is that THEORETICALLY it is an issue? Especially when the vast majority claim to never actually see it occuring in the game itself, whether they believe in the theory or not.

Just Sayin' (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Empty damage tracks.

Take 10 stun -> unconscious and fucked.

Empty damage tracks.

Take 1 physical -> suffer no penalties, of any kind.

Your point was...?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

TJ, I (and others) have been saying that for pages. You just never bother to listen. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

It's not 'objectively' worse when it's the difference between being conscious or not. That's the issue. It *should* be always 'worse', but it's not. You always ignore the context.

I don't ignore the context. I ignore the subjectivity of the Situation. Physical Damage is always something you want to avoid. Period. Subjectively, however, it is in the shooter's interest to keep all the damage on a single track (whether it is on teh stun track or the physical track). Realistically, that will never happen, unless you are using Strictly Non-Lethal Means to inflict that damage, because lethal damage MUST interact with Armor, and can thus be reduced to stun. The fact that Physical Damage is Objectively more damaging than Stun Damage cannot be disputed.

[Yerameyahu]

Again, there's nothing dirty about 'theoretically', despite your repeated attempts to say so, and the measure of a rules errors is not 'does it always show up in play'. (In fact, many people have noticed it in and out of play, though.)

In no way does this specific glitch 'model a variance of damage'; that's what the Damage Resistance test does (and the combat tests, I guess). You have no basis to claim that the half-and-half effect is intended. What it models, quite accidentally, is the ability of a person to be less incapacitated by P than S damage. This is contrary to reality, where an equivalent amount of P is always more incapacitating.

It clearly can be disputed, cuz I just did. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) Your standard is not more objective: you choose 'heal time' as your measurement, while I choose 'not being KOd'.

Now who's 'metagaming'? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It's not in the shooter's interest to 'keep all damage on one track', but to simply *do the most damage*. The mechanic intervenes, though, and makes that simple goal undesirable when it's the difference between KOd and not.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Empty damage tracks.

Take 10 stun -> unconscious and fucked.

Empty damage tracks.

Take 1 physical -> suffer no penalties, of any kind.

Your point was...?

You will recover from the Stun in under 10 Hours, most likely, while that Single point of Physical Damage will not go away for a Minimum of 24 Hours. My point stands. Physical Damage is more damaging than Stun Damage. It is OBJECTIVELY WORSE to take Physical than it is to take Stun.

You cannot argue that point. It is a Fact of the game, and a Fact of reality in the world. Everything else is just the smoke and mirrors of the THEORETICAL Problem problem that does not appear in game.

[Yerameyahu]

You'll only recover if nothing else happens to you while you're out. As I just said, your *personal* measure is 'heal time'; by no means is that the only measure.

Again, 'theoretical' doesn't mean 'smoke and mirrors', and while this issue certainly can appear in the game, that is not the measure of whether something is an issue or not.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Again, there's nothing dirty about 'theoretically', despite your repeated attempts to say so, and the measure of a rules errors is not 'does it always show up in play'. (In fact, many people have noticed it in and out of play, though.)

In no way does this specific glitch 'model a variance of damage'; that's what the Damage Resistance test does (and the combat tests, I guess). You have no basis to claim that the half-and-half effect is intended. What it models, quite accidentally, is the ability of a person to be less incapacitated by P than S damage. This is contrary to reality, where an equivalent amount of P is always more incapacitating.

I never claimed the Theory is "Dirty." I said it is irrelevant.

The attack roll is part of the Combat Test, so by design is part of the damage resolution. As such, it has a bearing on how damage is resolved. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

You'll only recover if nothing else happens to you while you're out. As I just said, your *personal* measure is 'heal time'; by no means is that the only measure.

Sure, if you are not thrown into a wood chipper while unconscious, you will recover more quickly. But that is a situational issue that has absolutely nothing to do with damage resolution. They are TWO DIFFERENT things. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

It's a metaphor, man. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) You obviously consider theory worthless, unworthy, ignorable, etc. There's no reason that personal opinion of yours should count as evidence or truth. What you're continuing to do is present that opinion of theory as argument against what people are saying; it is not. You might as well say that Draco18s is wrong because you don't like his avatar.

I don't understand your point. Obviously the combat tests are involved. That doesn't imply that the half-and-half effect is intended, nor still that it's an intended 'model of damage variance'.

It has everything to do with gameplay. You can certainly expect to have bad things happen if you're KOd. It is unreasonable to expect the opposite. Your position tacitly assumes that nothing bad will happen.