I'm *glad* that non-lethal takedown has its advantages; kudos to the pros who leave the security guards knocked out but alive, and ya boo sucks to the sociopaths who issue the coup de grace to prone opponents is what I say.

As to the wounded half-stunned security guard with his DP penalty, I reiterate what I said earlier about professional rating. Unless you play a game where the NPC mooks are cardboard cutouts just waiting to be mown down by the PCs, unless he is a SWAT-level pro or knows surrender means death, said NPC is going to be looking to surrender or drop a flash-pak and get the hell out of dodge, not shoot back. Problem solved?

It doesn't affect NPCs, they don't have 2 tracks to begin with. And again, it never was a gameplay issue anyway.

--
It's not pros who take the effort to KO their enemies, though, because it's no effort. It's actually easier and better. It's not a question of whether people *should* use nonlethal. It's the basic and illogical fact that nonlethal measures are superior, even if your goal *is* killing.

I know that many GMs only use one track for NPCs for ease of bookkeeping, but is it an "official" (i.e. RAW) rule, or is it an optional rule?

And if it is the former, why have you been moaning for the last few pages of this thread about how unfair it is that a mook who takes a mixture of Physical and Stun damage is still standing?

It is an official rule for non-prime runner NPCs

Firstly, you're the one who started with the condescending comments. If you can't handle the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

Secondly, let me put it another way - will changing the stats on Stick-n-Shock and increasing the drain of Stunbolt balance fix the differences between Stun and Physical damage?

- J.

Thanks Lantzer... Maybe that was a better way to put it than my approach. I have to agree. At our table, the DP's are not monstrous, and so the penalties are pretty significant. Unfortunately, here on Dumpshock, you get 20 different answers to what the "Intended" Dice Pool Range should be.

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).

But if your DP is 20 Dice, the penalties mean absolutely nothing to you in the long run. 18 Dice trumps 8 Dice (as does 16 over 6).
The point is that to the Guy with 10 Dice Base, a -2 to -4 is significant; to the Guy with 20 Dice, it isn't.

The game assumes DP's from 8-14 for the most part. Determined by Looking at all of the Archetypes and all the Mooks that have been stated. High Threat Rating Mooks are around 15-17 Dice (Tir Ghosts). These should be a threat, and are, if your running the assumed DP's of 8-14 Base Dice in your pool.

And Yes, I know a Starting PC can start at much higher DP's (Often higher than 20 even) if they want to do so. *Shrug* I have never seen the need, personally.

Did....did you completely miss my point?

The guy with 20 dice and 6P, 6S will have 16 dice. The guy with 20 dice and 12S will still have 0.

It doesn't matter what the guy's base dice pool is, as long as his damage tracks are split between P and S, he'll be "better off" than if it was "all stun" or "all physical."

This isn't about "guy with 20 dice and 6P, 6S" versus "guy with 10 dice and 6P, 6S."

Apparently...



Which has ALWAYS been my point. Split damage is better than non-split damage, for the guy taking the damage. Not so much for the guy inflicting it. Which I fully believe is by design.



The point was that many tables see it as more of a problem (your Split damage) because the high dice pools make it not matter at all, compared to what the game assumes. It is all linked. Of course Unconsciousness is worse than having remaining dice, No arguments there. But when your table is sporting characters with massive dice pools, the penalties for the stun/physical damage taken are insignificant. Your abilities are not really all that impacted, which leads to the "I'm not hurt, I will shoot till I drop" menatlity. It is this mentality that seems to cause the problems... the "Hey, I shot at him, he did not go down, and now he is shooting back at me" complaints that have been going on. You know, those complaints that are still only theoretical, rather than actually happening in game.

No worries Draco18s. It was just an observation of Lantzer's that I happen to agree with. Dice Pool size actually matters in this discussion because it has a direct correlation to the perception of the theoretical issue.

Wait wait wait wait.





Am I the only one seeing this?

Nope... I have always contended the Defender wants Split damage (He actually counts upon it, if he is using armor, since armor is never 100% effective, which would lead to always taking stun); while the Shooter wants a single track. Look back, you will see that is exactly what I have said in the past.

Now, as a Shooter, I am always looking to KILL the target, assuming I am actually using lethal rounds. That being the case, I prefer my target to Bleed, which is Physical Damage, which means that more successes IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE BETTER THAN LESS SUCCESSES for my intended purpose. Arguing otherwise falls back into that purely Theoretical BS area that is Metagaming.

AS a Defender, I would MUCH rather take STUN damage over PHYSICAL. Why? Because Physical sucks, and I do not care if the character gets captured. Leads to more runs, after all.

AGAIN... MORE SUCCESSES does not equal a WORSE Result. How many times do I need to say that? Physical IS an objectively Better Result than Stun ALWAYS.

BLEEDING IS ALWAYS A BETTER RESULT than NOT-BLEEDING form a Shooter Standpoint if his intent is to cause harm. Period.

I have NOT changed my position, Draco18s... Go back and actually read what I wrote, rather than cherry picking for a result.

You're not. If you go back, first there was no problem. Then there is a problem but it's just metagaming and the mechanics are perfect. But TJ doesn't metagame so it's not a problem in his games and if his players try he just tells them no and doesn't allow it (which to me sounds like fixing a mechanical problem, but I could just misunderstand). Then there is no problem again. And at one point he mentions that he builds his characters to take advantage of the "sweet spot" at 8-10 where some of the attacks get through the armor but most don't, which regardless of how you justify it with in character reasoning about encumbrance is still metagaming since there are ways to get more armor than that which do not encumber you. It's why I gave up on this discussion. I swear it seems like the only position that TJ has actually held onto is that everyone else is wrong and that he likes arguing. But it's the internet, what are you going to do? He's entitled to argue his incorrect position however he wants.

It is not an Issue Thorya. There is no problem. Never was. IT IS ALL THEORY. I never complained that it was a problem for the Case B guy to be up. Look back. Not Once. I always claimed it was the expected situation from normal armor useage. I build my characters to Armor 8-10 because that is what they can support, and I fully expect that the Armor WILL get penetrated, Leaving me in Case B Territory.

AS for Encumbrance, it is not metagaming, it is just a bad choice. You can opt to have enough armor to attempt to saok everything (and yes, even non-encumbering, assuming you have the resources for such things, not all do), and I have seen that in play. You likely take stun from that decision (not an issue, per se, you just go unconscious when your Stun Track is full) and will never take Physical (Bonus, who wants to take Physical Damage, after all). I have always contended that the Defender, assuming he is using non-encumbering armor, is generally under the assumption that his armor will not stop everything. Because that is the case, he will likely take SOME physical damage. Sucks, but expected. Therefore, he is likely to be in the "Case B" of the original discussions, with some damage on the stun track and some on the physical, which, from a gaming perspective is surviveable (not optimal, to be sure; optimal would be to be unwounded), as that gives him a chance to get away, rather than being unconscious (Captured or killed outright afterwards) or dead. Of the 3 cases, conscious and somewhat mobile is preferrable to unconscious and dead. OTHERS, Including yourself apparently, HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS. I DO NOT.

Again, to be Clear. I AM OKAY WITH SPLIT DAMAGE ON 2 TRACKS. Not once have I said any different. The metagtaming BS that eventually comes into the discussion is the OP position about WANTING to take damage on the Physical. NO, NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE PHYSICAL DAMAGE. Saying that a character prefers such is complete BS (The PLAYER wants that, not the Character; which is why it is Metagaming BS), as many have agreed. The Problem, as I remember it, is that there are a few that think the THEORETICAL ISSUE has teeth, and should be corrected. I say it does not need correction, because the Theroeticall issue is just that, theoretical; it is never actually seen in play.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled debate topic.

I'll just put these two next to each other, then shake my head, and cease trying to have a rational argument.





Because over here in Rational World, we've always contended that the defender wants to split damage, and that it was a worse result for the shooter if the defender got that choice, to which you said NO NO NO, YOU ALWAYS LIKE SPLIT DAMAGE AS A SHOOTER. Can't have it both ways, Captain Irrational.

Again, I (as a character) am not Grateful for the Physical Damage, But I DO expect it (and if you cannot recognize the differfence in those two statements, well...). I do not go out of my way to seek it out, nor do I prefer it. I prefer Stun. But in the World of Shadowrun, I expect to take a mix of Stun and Physical Damage when engaged in a firefight (Assuming I am wearing Armor).

And no, What I said was that the SHOOTER PREFERS PHYSICAL DAMAGE (assuming he is using lethal means), so in the case where he casues it (The Split Damage you keep referring to), it was not a WORSE EFFECT; it is, in fact, a BETTER EFFECT than stun, and what the shooter was intending in the first place. Please, if you are going to parphrase me, do it right. You are trying to use arguments from one point to support another, and that dog won't hunt.

If the Shooter preferred STUN he would be using Non-Lethal means to inflict it, and that is a different argument all together.

No need for the name calling Draco18s. Just remain civil and we will get along fine.

Nice assumption that turned everyone into complete asses ("assume makes an ASS of yoU and ME")

Because you're the only person to have made that assumption, to the point of ignoring the contradicting, "that's not what we're assuming" statements.

Our STATED position: knock the guy out of the fight ASAP
Your assumption: must only kill people.

If being conscious and somewhat mobile is preferrable to being unconscious, wouldn't it mean that you want that to happen? And if taking physical damage rather than stun damage makes that happen, than you want physical damage rather than stun. ??

I think everyone else just wants rules where the PLAYER and the CHARACTER want the same thing. Also, it doesn't have to be metagaming BS. (and I think this is the part that keeps dragging me back into this argument, that you seem to think that players assessing possible consequences is cheating somehow or that you think your game is better because you don't see any disconnects with the rules) I think if you were to ask many criminals if they would rather be seriously hurt and get away from the police or be caught and not hurt, they would choose the first option. (even without the threat of mage masks and cranium bombs)

I get that you think the rules model the real world, but I simply do not believe that in the real world a guy wearing a bullet proof vest that stops 4 bullets is more likely to fall unconscious than a guy where 2 of them get through. Or that giving yourself an aneurysm is less likely to knock you out than giving yourself a worse headache. We can disagree on that. The rules are abstract anyway. When those borderline cases come up they can be dealt with or I can apply some of the fixes discussed here (@everyone else, I have liked several of the ideas brought up. Might give the chemical track a go).

Actually the whole thread assumes using lethal means, because otherwise you don't do Physical damage when you bypass armor (not counting overflowing stun).

Definately. Wounds heal; being arrested and found guilty of a number of takes away years of freedom (or even gets you killed, epending on the crime and the jurisdiction...).

For most criminals, even severe injuries will be preferrable to arrest, unless the crime was minor and you just need a few months of room and board.

I have made the assumption of KILLING your opponent as the goal, the entire time (after all, you are using ammunition that KILLS). That is WHY you use Lethal Rounds after all, Not to Knock them out of the fight ASAP, but to kill them. In the real world, someone gets shot, they likely stop fighting. Regardless of the amount of damage inflicted, because, you know, they do not want to actually die. It is rare for someone to fight to the death.

If your stated goal is to Knock them out of the fight ASAP, lethal means is not the way to go... AND I STATED THAT AS WELL, Many posts ago.

I originally stopped repl;ying to random posts because the arguments were incompatible. My argument is that Taking Physical Damage is NEVER a Worse effect than taking Stun (The Damage is always going to be better than if it was stun, so how can it be worse). It is only an undesireable effect, from the shooters perspective, because the shooter wants the target to go down. The counter argument (Yours and many others, IIRC) is that applying Physical Damage to A target with Stun (or Vice Versa) due to the intgeraction of Shooter successes and Armor value creates a disconnect, because now, the Shooter receives an undesireable effect (Target is still up due to split damage), and was counter to his intended goal (To take the target down ASAP). Unfortunately for that Argument, Armor tends to extend such engangements out, BECAUSE they have the potential to split that damage. And Yes, it is generally because a Shooter gets more or less successes due to the vagaries of the system. I have always accepted this, because that is what armor's role is in the game. To mitigate damage. SOmetimes it succeeds well (And elimiknates it or converts it to stun) and sometimes it does not (Wearer takes Physical Damage).

My point has always been that that is OKAY. It is not a Worse Effect, it is just unbdesireable, form the SHooter's Perspective. IF he was serious about Rendering the target Incapable of action, he would be using Stun Effects, rather than Lethal (Physical) effects. So, you see, you are arguiong the wrong point here.

Instead of arguing that the tendency for Armor to potentially split the damage across two tracks is broken, or unintended (WHich I do not think is the case), you should be arguing that the shooter is not using his resources for his stated goals. Because that is exactly what is going on here. If the Goal is to Take Down Fastest, Lethal means are not the way to go. If your goal is to Kill your Target, Lethal is the way to go, unless you want to take them down first, and then execute them. Sorry, but I fall into the First category. If my intention is to kill the target, I use lethal means, EVEN IF I KNOW AS A PLAYER that STUN effects might work better. There is a big difference between killing (or not) based upon the vagaries of combat, and an Execution. I am sure you understand that.

Of course, but then the argument falls apart, because the character/player is not using the best/fastest means to incapacitate the target.

Also True, which is why they often wear Body Armor (when they can get it). Why? Because it may allow them to escape instead of being captured.

And yes, I agree... The cases being discussed are almost purely theoretical. They are EDGE cases at best. I have never seen it crop up in a game. And from most of the other participants here, niether have they.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

Simple. Stun heals over hours, Physical heals over days. It is right there in the rules. What more proof do you need.

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.

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

So, you finally admitted it. You would rather have a more serious wound than be knocked unconscious. Wow. Thank you for that.

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.

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

TJ, I (and others) have been saying that for pages. You just never bother to listen.

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.

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'

Empty damage tracks.

Take 10 stun -> unconscious and fucked.

Empty damage tracks.

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

Your point was...?

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.

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. Your standard is not more objective: you choose 'heal time' as your measurement, while I choose 'not being KOd'.

Now who's 'metagaming'? 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's a metaphor, man. 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.