Well obviously the amount of stamina you have would still affect the stun % formula in my second example. The point is that it’s a locked spread, so the difference between someone with a ton of stamina, and someone with very little is less extreme, while still maintaining the overall change in stun vulnerability over the course of a battle. Someone with particularly high fatigue would still be able to fight longer with less consequences, but they wouldn’t start out the battle comparatively invulnerable to stunning. I agree that fatigue is currently too much of a no-brainer for level-up and background/traits, but I don’t think that is enough cause to dismiss any further ideas that are tied favorably to that stat. New needs and uses for other stats have to be introduced for the fatigue + defense + attack dominance to actually change.
The suggestion for using HP is another possibility and makes sense, but wouldn’t really make for much battlefield variability. Usually if you’re at the point where you’ve lost any health, you’re just going to get killed on the next hit anyway, so why bother with stunning?
I guess stunning seems overly arbitrary right now, as one of the only battlefield events that can occur that isn’t tied to any stats on either side. Why does a club have a %75 chance to stun regardless of any of the attributes, skills or equipment of the person swinging or getting hit by the club? It seems as arbitrary as saying that arrows always have a %25 chance to hit. Why does stunning from a charge work so completely differently than with a club or 2-handed sword? The current stun system works okay enough I suppose, I just think it can and should be improved.