 April 29, 2016 - 7:30pm | http://starfrontiers.wikia.com/wiki/ES-01_Improved_Electrostunner?venotify=created Made both myself! :D |
 April 29, 2016 - 8:11pm | I approve. The game lacks nonlethal weapons that have better ranges... or at least weapons ones that you can shift between a lethal setting and a stun setting. Joe Cabadas |
April 29, 2016 - 9:59pm | Electrostunners and Needlers are it afaik. |
 April 29, 2016 - 10:40pm | While it's not a ranged weapon, don't forget electric swords with their selectable stun and kill settings. For ranged weapons there is also the sonic stunner and various grenade-shooters when loaded with dozers & tanglers. Seriously though, for a game as written where you actually don't die until below -30STA and the minimal damage caused by the actual "lethal" weapons, you really don't NEED non-lethal weapons as combat itself really isn't lethal...the stun weapons only get you there more efficiently than the lethal ones. Which probably explains the lack of these game "imbalancing" items. ;) "We all draw blasters and I shout 'Halt, or we'll shoot!' " The bad guy calmly turns around and walks away. "We all draw electrostunners and I shout 'Halt, or we'll shoot!' " The bad guy, visually shaken, drops to his knees and pleads for surrender...fearing what dastardly things you might do if he were rendered unconcious. |
 May 11, 2016 - 5:56am | Chris, Sonic Stunner too. You can't argue with the invincibly ignorant. - William F. Buckley |
May 11, 2016 - 7:06am | Ok, a few more than I originally thought. I still like the added flexibility. |
May 13, 2016 - 4:58am | Seriously though, for a game as written where you actually don't die until below -30STA and the minimal damage caused by the actual "lethal" weapons, you really don't NEED non-lethal weapons as combat itself really isn't lethal...the stun weapons only get you there more efficiently than the lethal ones. Which probably explains the lack of these game "imbalancing" items. ;) "
The people of the Frontier are actually bio-enhanced superbeings. Normal humans from the 20th-21st centuries should have their stats lowered by -10 in all categories if created in the SF universe. Hence a measely laser pistol with its 1d10 worth of damage per SEU can be easilly sneered at. Joe Cabadas |
 May 13, 2016 - 8:22am | Not sure if they are bioenhanced or that the Player Characters are supposed to be Heroes so their stats are better than an average for their race. But that is my take yours works just as well. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
May 13, 2016 - 11:47am | Not sure if they are bioenhanced or that the Player Characters are supposed to be Heroes so their stats are better than an average for their race.
By the book NPC stats are generated the same way PC stats are. If PCs consistently get above average stats, the players are either lucky with the dice rolls or a house rule is being implemented to enable such results. |
May 13, 2016 - 2:26pm | A "measley" 1d10/SEU adds up quickly. Do you know anyone who doesn't usually have their lasers set on 2 or more/shot? |
May 13, 2016 - 9:38pm | A "measley" 1d10/SEU adds up quickly. Do you know anyone who doesn't usually have their lasers set on 2 or more/shot?
That would depend on whether you are invoking Basic or Expanded rules.  Then for the latter there are those infernal albedo screens...even without the proctection a 5 SEU setting will average 25 points of damage, survivable by even the lowest unmodified STA scores. Even an average 45 STA character can survive the average damage from a point blank machine gun burst. Like I said, it's non-lethal combat harkening back to the shoot-outs in the wild west. No, not that Hollywood crap where a quick draw and a single shot leaves someone laying in the dirt, rather actual history where they reloaded five or six times before anyone actually got hit due to the inconsistency of bullet manufacturing back then. That's the issue with SF combat: in an even match you're guaranteed to have to reload before the first opponent falls. Unless of course you happen to have a stun weapon handy, then the balance tips into your favor. Both the sonic stunner and electrostunner use 2SEU per shot, you get ten shots before swpping the powerclip. When the bad guys are reloading every two to four rounds, you're getting a free shot. The "balancing" factor here is the short range, although oddly enough the sonic weapon has nearly three times the range over the electrostunner. |
May 13, 2016 - 9:45pm | Well, that's not necessarily true. Any roll of a 01-02 is an auto KO (AD pp.25). And that 25 points damage is still enough to put most NPCs into Wounded status (reduced to 1 shot/round at -10%). |
May 13, 2016 - 11:50pm | Well, that's not necessarily true. Any roll of a 01-02 is an auto KO (AD pp.25). That's only applicable to melee combat. Even though the p.25 description begins with "as with ranged combat", there actually isn't anything in the preceding ranged combat descriptions that mentions auto-knock outs on a 01-02...the closest thing is automatic hits on 01-05. At least there's nothing mentioned in the purple rulebooks, I've never seen the magenta books so it could have been edited in those later printings. And that 25 points damage is still enough to put most NPCs into Wounded status (reduced to 1 shot/round at -10%).
True, but they're still alive nonetheless. I never said it wasn't harmful, I just said it wasn't lethal. It only gets lethal the longer it gets drawn out. And even so, death doesn't actually happen until -30 assuming a staydose is administered within 10 combat turns/one minute (failing that, a freeze field can be utilized regardless of damage past zero if applied within 20 turns/2 minutes) followed by surgical procedures in the given time frames for each device. Aside from old age, it's difficult to die and stay dead in the game. ;) |
May 14, 2016 - 5:04am | There's no reason to scrap it just because they forgot to include it previously. Obviously they intended for it to be there or they would not have referenced it. (side note, I have the "magenta" edition) I expand on it by also using the "ends in 0" KO rule in ranged. |
May 14, 2016 - 10:58am | If we are going to go with the premise of "they neglected to include it earlier" then we should also consider the fact that melee weapons (and fists, for that matter) also malfunction on a roll of 96-00 because it could very well be possible that they forgot to include that in the melee combat descriptions as well. As a cynical critic of Zeb's Guide, what's good for that book in the way of editorial errors can also apply to the core books. ;) |
May 14, 2016 - 12:17pm | Actually, passing out as the result of a GSW is not unrealistic at all. I personally know people with EMT training and ran the idea by them and they agreed that it does happen. |
May 14, 2016 - 3:41pm | While true, the "rule" still paints a rather broad stroke. Say a STA:70 character gets hit by a 1d10 shot with an 01-02, that simply isn't enough damage or injury to warrant passing out as that grade of injury is about as serious as hitting your thumb instead of the nail with a hammer. |
May 14, 2016 - 5:03pm | Side note: 1d10 is roughly equal to the damage potential of a 9mm bullet. There are a whole bunch of things that are abstracted into these rolls. Shot placement, pain tolerance of subject, etc. A relatively low-damage shot in the right place can cause a systemic reaction way out of proportion to the actual wound, similar to the mechanism behind the "funny bone". The other thing to remember is that stunners as they are per AD are nerfed. Simple roll vs STA at full value despite the fact the character just got zotted with not inconsiderable amounts of electrical current. |
May 15, 2016 - 12:57am | Side note: 1d10 is roughly equal to the damage potential of a 9mm bullet. In SF rules, yes. Consequently, those same rules dictate that the aforementioned hammer blow (classified as a club type weapon) causes the same 1d10 damage. In real life...if I were to load ten 9mm bullets (averge damage in SF: 5 STA points) into my pistol and fire them at an average person, that person would run out of "STA" long before I am halfway through that magazine. There are a whole bunch of things that are abstracted into these rolls. Shot placement, pain tolerance of subject, etc. A relatively low-damage shot in the right place can cause a systemic reaction way out of proportion to the actual wound, similar to the mechanism behind the "funny bone". Which would be applicable if, like Top Secret, there was a hit location table with corresponding damage adjustments and other tables describing the type of wound (laceration, puncture, etc) with those assciated damage adjustments etc. SF lacks such tables, you roll to hit and if successful you roll for damage (or non-harmful effects such as stun etc) and that's it...the turn is over, proceed to next turn. The other thing to remember is that stunners as they are per AD are nerfed. Simple roll vs STA at full value despite the fact the character just got zotted with not inconsiderable amounts of electrical current.
All the stun weapons are rolled at current STA to avoid the effects. If you zap the target with a shock blast first for 4d10 (or someone else in the party has caued some damage) then the following switch to stun attack the victim rolls against a new/lower value. It's a different sort of shock when set on stun, just like an electric sword...you can either cause 4d10 of STA damage or roll vs current STA or be stunned. I don't see any nerfing here as the rules also dictate penalties for lower STA such as the aforementioned one shot per round and -10 to hit. The nerfing that I see lies with the anti-shock implant...it only works against the stun setting of an electrostunner and not the damaging blast setting, but at the same time offers 100% protection against the same setting on an electric sword (and shock gloves). |
May 16, 2016 - 5:55am | There another thing about combat... I've not been in one in real life, being a cushy civilian (unless you read my description as being a "writer" then you might realize it's not so cushy, but I digress)... From what I've read, in combat, a lot of soldires may not actually be shooting to kill an opponent. They might be shooting at them, in the general direction, but more for effect. Let me see if I can find an appropriate article on line and post a link in a bit... Joe Cabadas |
May 16, 2016 - 6:40am | Here's an interesting story: Men Against Fire: How Many Soldiers Actually Fired Their Weapons at the Enemy During the Vietnam Warhttp://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers-actually-fired-their-weapons-at-the-enemy-during-the-vietnam-war.htmI suppose you could say the damage in Star Frontiers comes from characters weaving around and such. Some fan rules allow for double damage when you score the automatic hit. There have been the sniper rifles listed in Star Frontiersman magazine that also up the lethal damage. But, this is a game from the makers of Dungeons and Dragons where your level 20 paladin with armor class -2 could take some considerable punishment that would have mowed down dozens of level 1 NPCs. A PC is a terrible thing to waste.  Joe Cabadas |
May 16, 2016 - 11:41am | Yes I read where 3 out of 10 writers use blue ribbon typewriters for bashing out their novels. Now that I have your attention don't put to much faith in one report from one source about combat. More than two and half million US soldiers went to Vietnam but like in every army in the world there was a huge variety of them. Special Forces Snipers can not really be lumped in with mechanics trying to stop their base from being overrun. In game terms as in real life Mission determines Weapon. If your PCs are on a covert snatch mission then electrostunners are needed. If they are trying to stop a planet from being overrun by Sathar with Quickdeaths in tow shoot to kill weapons would probably be better. Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
 May 16, 2016 - 12:52pm | I always felt that games like D&D & SF are meant to mirror the heroic bigger than life literary character like John Carter or Gandalf. Real Life on the other hand is a very different critter... I have my "skills" but I would be no match for Special Forces in RL. But I can not thank folks enough who helped me develop "skills" that have kept me a live when I should have died in RL. So I think it depends on how RL you want to go, how fantasy heroic. It's a bit of a tight rope act at times. "Never fire a laser at a mirror." |
May 18, 2016 - 12:01am | But, this is a game from the makers of Dungeons and Dragons where your level 20 paladin with armor class -2 could take some considerable punishment
Which is pretty close to what SF combat is like: all those hit points but your sword still only does 1d8 damage. ;) |
May 18, 2016 - 6:31am | Side note: 1d10 is roughly equal to the damage potential of a 9mm bullet. In SF rules, yes. Consequently, those same rules dictate that the aforementioned hammer blow (classified as a club type weapon) causes the same 1d10 damage. In real life...if I were to load ten 9mm bullets (averge damage in SF: 5 STA points) into my pistol and fire them at an average person, that person would run out of "STA" long before I am halfway through that magazine. All of the "non-specific 'hit point' based systems have this issue. I dont see how it applies here. There are a whole bunch of things that are abstracted into these rolls. Shot placement, pain tolerance of subject, etc. A relatively low-damage shot in the right place can cause a systemic reaction way out of proportion to the actual wound, similar to the mechanism behind the "funny bone". Which would be applicable if, like Top Secret, there was a hit location table with corresponding damage adjustments and other tables describing the type of wound (laceration, puncture, etc) with those assciated damage adjustments etc. Since SF doesn't have those, they use abstractions like 1-2 and ends-in-0. I don't see what your problem is. SF lacks such tables, you roll to hit and if successful you roll for damage (or non-harmful effects such as stun etc) and that's it...the turn is over, proceed to next turn. Which my modifications attempts to work with as an improvement, not a replacement. The other thing to remember is that stunners as they are per AD are nerfed. Simple roll vs STA at full value despite the fact the character just got zotted with not inconsiderable amounts of electrical current.
All the stun weapons are rolled at current STA to avoid the effects. If you zap the target with a shock blast first for 4d10 (or someone else in the party has caued some damage) then the following switch to stun attack the victim rolls against a new/lower value. It's a different sort of shock when set on stun, just like an electric sword...you can either cause 4d10 of STA damage or roll vs current STA or be stunned. I don't see any nerfing here as the rules also dictate penalties for lower STA such as the aforementioned one shot per round and -10 to hit. The nerfing that I see lies with the anti-shock implant...it only works against the stun setting of an electrostunner and not the damaging blast setting, but at the same time offers 100% protection against the same setting on an electric sword (and shock gloves). Well, I'll agree on A-S being a huge nerf. But you can't deny that it's a huge nerf on stun NOT to include an effect for the power of the stunbolt itself. High STA characters still have a significant advantage over low STA ones because they will have more STA remaining after applying the penalty. I see by the way that our quoting problem seems to be back. |
May 18, 2016 - 6:39am | Now that I have your attention don't put to much faith in one report from one source about combat. More than two and half million US soldiers went to Vietnam but like in every army in the world there was a huge variety of them. Special Forces Snipers can not really be lumped in with mechanics trying to stop their base from being overrun. The report is actually pretty typical, and consistent with reports from many wars over the years. Here's a good article, which cites an excellent book about soldiers and firing: http://www.milsf.com/psychology-of-killing/ |
May 18, 2016 - 7:18pm | Since SF doesn't have those, they use abstractions like 1-2 and ends-in-0. I don't see what your problem is. My problem is while one person can assume that there was "supposed to be a parallel rule in ranged weapon combat", another can equally presume that whoever penned that melee combat blurb "assumed such a rule existed". We don't know for sure, so I go with what is written --- or in this case, what is not written and/or presumed as supposed to have been written. But you can't deny that it's a huge nerf on stun NOT to include an effect for the power of the stunbolt itself. "There's one, set for stun!" I don't recall seeing bumps, bruises, cuts, or wounds on Leia after that scene. But hey, I have no qualms of any bumps and bruises resulting from the fall causing any damage, more so if they fall farther than just the distance to the floor. Like I said, it's a different form of energy. One causes damaging wounds, the other goes after the nervous system. High STA characters still have a significant advantage over low STA ones because they will have more STA remaining after applying the penalty. High DEX characters have a better chance of hitting with guns over low DEX characters. High INT characters have a better chance at detecting minute details over low INT characters. We can make similar comparos for the other five abilities as well, in fact we can make multiple comparisons for each stat to boot. If you don't want the effects of a low STA character, stat swap for higher STA or save up for the A-S implant...it's not an unreasonable purchase after two or three beginning adventures and it makes you immune to both settings of melee weapons and one setting on the electrostunner. |
May 20, 2016 - 6:39pm | @ Chrisdonovan again I can show many reports refuting that one, mostly written by militaries. Here are some things to consider: Training of the army in consideration. The US Army has always prided itself on marksmanship. The previous and current Russian armies teach mass fire tactics. Basically keep firing at the enemy to overwhelm them and close with them to kill them up close. These examples are clearly shown in the main infantry weapons of two armies. M4s have a safe,fire,burst selector switch and cannot fire full auto. AK74M which have safe,full auto, single shot selector switch. Similarly pyschology of the soldiers affects kill rates. Do you think ISIS has a 3 out of 10 rating? Same for the Waffen SS, Khymer Rouge and Boca Horon Terrain plays a factor. Vietnam was famous for jungle ambushes where the enemy could not be seen. Many troops just fired where they thought the enemy would be and hoped for the best. As a Desert Storm Vet, the open desert where you can clearly see the enemy made shooting to kill was much easier. The open plains of Dead Man's Land in WWI clearly show killing fields at there best. Stage of a War is another factor. In the early stages of a war where volunteers and the fighting spirit are high, killing the enemy and taking the objectives to end the war quickly means alot of killing. As a war progresses and towards the end all the soldiers are just trying to stay alive till the politicians finally say its over then active avoidance of trying to kill the enemy becomes more common. (Side note the American Civil War was the opposite where 25% of the total casaulties occured in the last year of the war mainly due to the war shifting from a war of manuever to a static defensive war and General Grant constantly pressing the attack.) To a lesser extant time period does not seem to be included in these reports. Vietnam keeps getting mentioned but the facts stated were more for the end of the war where as previously stated the "Just get home alive" mentality had taken effect. Also Vietnam War was famous for not being able to confirm hits. Does this 3 out of 10 apply to ancient and medievil bowmen? Does it apply to musketeers firing at each other from 100 feet apart? How does this number apply to the 17 million dead from WW I (using your author's numbers they would have needed 884,000,000,000 rounds of ammuniton) This whole premise also has another fault built into it. It assumes every soldier is an infantryman. Does this don't shoot to kill policy apply to artillerymen? Combat pilots? Tankers? Bombadiers? Engineers laying mines? Resistance troops working behind enemy lines? Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go? |
