Stun Attacks

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

IIRC match the "damage" against target's CON on the resistance table - if the damage overcomes the targest CON, the target is stunned (see Stunning Spot rule) for a few (1d3+1?) rounds, if the target resists they take minimum damage and are still conscious.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

Thanks Nick.

I'll just have to pump up the damafges a little (it's one of those Sci Fi setting where "Stun" setting pretty much always drops people. So I'm probably wanting damage in the 20+ range. Couse it works like crap on aliens, but I didn't create the setting).

[Atgxtg]

Hey! I just realized. While no one seems to shrug off a stun in the setting. A few people, especially the main characters, seem to recover from one a lot faster (in seconds) that they are supposed to (an hour).

So I guess I could run resisted stun attacks as dropping people for a few rounds rather than for an hour or so.

It might bend BRP a little, but fits the setting. Plus COC had the automatically successful Tasers, so I'm not straying too far from the source.

[drohem]

Originally Posted by Jason Durall

The Spot Rules chapter has a section on Stunning and Subduing.

The footnotes from the weapons charts indicating "Look there" are inexplicably missing.

Yes, I saw this section, but is vague on how one becomes stunned. I couldn't any reference to matching stun damage vs. Con to become stunned. It just explains the consequence of being stunned, but not how you become stunned.

Where does it explain how a person becomes stunned?

Also, the the second principal way to stun someone (blunt weapon) references the same page (232) which has no rules about blunt weapons on it.

[drohem]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

IIRC match the "damage" against target's CON on the resistance table - if the damage overcomes the targest CON, the target is stunned (see Stunning Spot rule) for a few (1d3+1?) rounds, if the target resists they take minimum damage and are still conscious.

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

These rules/concepts about how stun works make sense to me, but I couldn't find any concrete reference to this in the ARC.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by drohem

These rules/concepts about how stun works make sense to me, but I couldn't find any concrete reference to this in the ARC.

BTW, I think I'll match the Stun against hit points rather than CON. My thinking is that larger creatures should be harder to stun than smaller ones. Same with drugs, too. It takes a lot more to knock out an elephant than a man. HP would handle that sort of nicely.

[drohem]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

BTW, I think I'll match the Stun against hit points rather than CON. My thinking is that larger creatures should be harder to stun than smaller ones. Same with drugs, too. It takes a lot more to knock out an elephant than a man. HP would handle that sort of nicely.

That makes sense as well.

[NickMiddleton]

Originally Posted by drohem

These rules/concepts about how stun works make sense to me, but I couldn't find any concrete reference to this in the ARC.

Its one of the footnotes to the weapon tables that has apparently gone AWOL in edition zero...

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

Its one of the footnotes to the weapon tables that has apparently gone AWOL in edition zero...

Cheers,

Nick Middleton

Now we know why they call them footnotes. They got up and walked away!

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

BTW, I think I'll match the Stun against hit points rather than CON. My thinking is that larger creatures should be harder to stun than smaller ones. Same with drugs, too. It takes a lot more to knock out an elephant than a man. HP would handle that sort of nicely.

As you know, I'm right with you there, though I understand why Jason did it on Con (heritage from the poison rules, which make a similar error IMO).

[Triff]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

As you know, I'm right with you there, though I understand why Jason did it on Con (heritage from the poison rules, which make a similar error IMO).

Good idea.

SGL.