Guys, use 1d10-3 instead of 1d10 for Unarmed Master. It's good enough and gives players lots of incentive to use a combat knife.

Alex

gives players lots of incentive to use a combat knife.

Not sure about that... isn't the intention of Unarmed Master to fight unarmed ? So why use this skill to provide an incentive to fight with a weapon? That doesn't really make sense to me.

Yes, its purpose is to be able defend yourself. Including against power-armoured opponents. That does not mean that an unarmed Astartes should be able to make a Bolt Pistol look like a playtoy in melee combat. Non-primitive 1d10-3 is more than adequate, especially given high SB and Feat of Strength. It is way better than a regular sword against PA. It will still do more damage to an unarmored person than a SB4 human does with a sword. And that is discounting Feat of Strength again.

Alex

It is way better than a regular sword against PA. It will still do more damage to an unarmored person than a SB4 human does with a sword.

I don't see any problem here. There are martial arts that are directed towards optimising impact damage. Now imagine a ******* Astartes doing that. To me, it seems quite fair to say that does more damage than a normal human with a sword. If I think of an Astartes hitting a normal human with full force (even without further training towards beeing an unarmed master) I imagine a fleshy bag of broken bones, failing organs and inner bleedings.

A Bolt Pistol is still no playtoy in comparison, it's more like an equivalent. And there are also ways to raise the damage of a bolt pistol, so comparing standart bolt pistol use with fully trained unarmed combat isn't the best comparison.

Edit: In Germany we have a saying, "Jemanden unangespitzt in den Boden rammen" (literally: to ram someone into the ground (like a wooden pole) without pointing/sharpening that very pole.) I'm pretty sure an Astartes could do that...

A Bolt Pistol is still no playtoy in comparison, it's more like an equivalent. And there are also ways to raise the damage of a bolt pistol, so comparing standart bolt pistol use with fully trained unarmed combat isn't the best comparison.

Again: if unarmed damage is that good, there is really no need for marines to go out with bolt pistols, chainswords, combat knives for melee. You can't tell me that 1D10+5 non-primitive for a standard Rank 1 marine isn't good enough and that he needs 1d10+8. Especially with Feat of Strength. A Marine with Strength in the 60s and Feat of Strength makes a Heavy Bolter round look like a toy by merely punching. Also, PA is adding to SB too...

Nah, it's better to have this buffer between unarmed and armed combat. Unarmed combat is merely a fallback option if there is no other choice; and it is still very viable with 1d10-3.

Alex

PS I am German.

I suppose the problem is not exactly that unarmed combat does too much damage, but that bolt weapons (or rather, any weapons) do too little. This is a problem of the "P&P spirit", where foes and PCs alike are supposed to survive more than one or two hits from such weapons. Many more. This in turn leads to a very narrow range in the amount of damage most attacks are "permitted" to do - it's almost a mirror issue of the tabletop, just that instead of most attacks being able to kill, it's the opposite for the P&P.

That being said, at least bolters still have their Pen going for them. Though I do feel reminded of the "Space Marines throwing rocks" thread again.

PS: Willkommen im Club. :b

You're still comparing fully trained unarmed combat to untrained ranged combat. And it doesn't let anything look like a toy at all. A Marine with Strength in the 60s trained Strength enough that you can say even for a marine he's very strong! Moreover, the marine we're talking about focuses a lot of his training on fighting unarmed and mastered his technique over the time. I think a punch from such a marine, maybe even supported by a PA, should be fatal to a lot of living things, just like a single Bolter shot.

To make my point more clear, I can imagine both:

- A Marine punching your chest, ripping your heart out.

- A Marine shooting a single bolter shell into your chest, letting your heart explode.

And this makes the bolter look like a toy to you? I don't know...

Anyhow, even though it might still be viable with 1d10-3, I just like the idea of an Astartes causing severe trouble to the enemy with his bare hands - it's just epic, like Spacemarines should be!

I suppose the problem is not exactly that unarmed combat does too much damage, but that bolt weapons (or rather, any weapons) do too little. This is a problem of the "P&P spirit", where foes and PCs alike are supposed to survive more than one or two hits from such weapons. Many more. This in turn leads to a very narrow range in the amount of damage most attacks are "permitted" to do - it's almost a mirror issue of the tabletop, just that instead of most attacks being able to kill, it's the opposite for the P&P.

I don't feel like they are doing too little. (I'm using new damage and old ROFs though.) Why do you think it does? Mortals die, Astartes can withstand burst but after that, it's going to be dangerous.

As for the permissible range of damage, that is due to Critical Damage being cumulative. For DW, I consider rewriting True Grit so that it only makes Critical Damage non-cumulative - except for a +1 on the Critical Damage for each Critical inflicting hit taking previously. "Luck running out."

That makes Marines fairly rugged and should give a good range of various Criticals.

That being said, at least bolters still have their Pen going for them. Though I do feel reminded of the "Space Marines throwing rocks" thread again.

PS: Willkommen im Club. :b

Wait, you're profile says you're Irish!

You're still comparing fully trained unarmed combat to untrained ranged combat.

Well, compare a Rank 1 Apo Unarmed versus his Bolt Pistol shot. 1d10+8 versus 1d10+9.

And it doesn't let anything look like a toy at all. A Marine with Strength in the 60s trained Strength enough that you can say even for a marine he's very strong! Moreover, the marine we're talking about focuses a lot of his training on fighting unarmed and mastered his technique over the time. I think a punch from such a marine, maybe even supported by a PA, should be fatal to a lot of living things, just like a single Bolter shot.

To make my point more clear, I can imagine both:

- A Marine punching your chest, ripping your heart out.

- A Marine shooting a single bolter shell into your chest, letting your heart explode.

And this makes the bolter look like a toy to you? I don't know...

Anyhow, even though it might still be viable with 1d10-3, I just like the idea of an Astartes causing severe trouble to the enemy with his bare hands - it's just epic, like Spacemarines should be!

What is not severe trouble about a 1d10-3 based Astartes attack for anyone but another Marine in PA? If you face that, take a combat knife.

Alex

I don't feel like they are doing too little. (I'm using new damage and old ROFs though.) Why do you think it does? Mortals die, Astartes can withstand burst but after that, it's going to be dangerous.

Even "Mortals" (and I still find this expression offensive ) only die to multiple hits. Assuming average damage*, my flimsy Only War sharpshooter with 3 AP cardboard flak and TB 2 (!) has enough Wounds to take one of these cal .50 armour-piercing explosive bolts to the head without feeling any ill effects at all. And even with maximum damage (19), she'd only be in the first two Crit levels. Depending on the hit location, this is akin to being "blind and deaf for 1 round" (head) or receiving Fatigue from getting knocked off her feet (body).

For Space Marines, it's more crass. With average damage and after subtracting TB and AP, we get about 3 damage per hit. My current DW character has 20 Wounds, which means about 7 hits until I'd get into Criticals. With maximum damage we'd be looking at 3 shots bare minimum.

I'm not advocating people being one-hit kills, but the combination of Armour and Toughness and Wounds and Crits gives people a lot of resilience, and I feel it cheapens the "threat level" of many weapons that ought to feel more dangerous.

I guess this sort-of goes back to my long-held criticism against Toughness Bonus being able to soak damage entirely. GW's Inquisitor seemed somewhat more clever in how it managed to have any armour-piercing attack injure the target, with Toughness only determining the "how much". Characters actually being noticeably injured by an attack goes a long way to make stuff feel dangerous, even if they don't die immediately.

(* sidenote: I only looked at errata'ed raw damage, discounting both the chance for Righteous Fury as well as the chance for weapon jam, as both are essentially "bonus effects" whose rate of occurrence also depends on various other conditions, such as the type of enemy (DW characters automatically confirm against Xenos) or a weapon's quality level)

Your idea about True Grit also sounds good, though ofc it too adds another layer of bookkeeping (# of previous crits).

Wait, you're profile says you're Irish!

You caught me - I emigrated. I was made "an offer I could not refuse".

What is not severe trouble about a 1d10-3 based Astartes attack for anyone but another Marine in PA? If you face that, take a combat knife.

Yeah, I fear there's just not much "wiggle room" in the lower damage brackets. With a mere 3 points of difference between a bladed weapon, a chainsword, and a power sword, the equipment gets outshone by the PC's Unnatural Strength. As "epic" as this might look, I'm not sure this fits well into the setting. On the other hand, this also depends on how much "Epicness" (with a capital E) we are okay with. The old "superman versus superhuman" discussion.

Even "Mortals" (and I still find this expression offensive ) only die to multiple hits. Assuming average damage*, my flimsy Only War sharpshooter with 3 AP cardboard flak and TB 2 (!) has enough Wounds to take one of these cal .50 armour-piercing explosive bolts to the head without feeling any ill effects at all. And even with maximum damage (19), she'd only be in the first two Crit levels. Depending on the hit location, this is akin to being "blind and deaf for 1 round" (head) or receiving Fatigue from getting knocked off her feet (body).

For Space Marines, it's more crass. With average damage and after subtracting TB and AP, we get about 3 damage per hit. My current DW character has 20 Wounds, which means about 7 hits until I'd get into Criticals. With maximum damage we'd be looking at 3 shots bare minimum.

I'm not advocating people being one-hit kills, but the combination of Armour and Toughness and Wounds and Crits gives people a lot of resilience, and I feel it cheapens the "threat level" of many weapons that ought to feel more dangerous.

I guess this sort-of goes back to my long-held criticism against Toughness Bonus being able to soak damage entirely. GW's Inquisitor seemed somewhat more clever in how it managed to have any armour-piercing attack injure the target, with Toughness only determining the "how much". Characters actually being noticeably injured by an attack goes a long way to make stuff feel dangerous, even if they don't die immediately.

(* sidenote: I only looked at errata'ed raw damage, discounting both the chance for Righteous Fury as well as the chance for weapon jam, as both are essentially "bonus effects" whose rate of occurrence also depends on various other conditions, such as the type of enemy (DW characters automatically confirm against Xenos) or a weapon's quality level)

But that's not the Bolter's fault. Autoguns, Lasguns, Stubguns... all not super-lethal as single hits. The Astartes Bolter is very lethal in comparison. Also, there is the Sudden Death rule for mooks. Your Dasha is a PC, so should withstand more.

Your idea about True Grit also sounds good, though ofc it too adds another layer of bookkeeping (# of previous crits).

No, it merely replaces normal Critical Damage notation. I could rephrase the rule to say that every Critical Wound has the effects as normal but only adds one to the tally. If you get 4 Crit Damage, you record the effects of that wound and instead of adding 4 to your Crit tally, you only add 1.

Yeah, I fear there's just not much "wiggle room" in the lower damage brackets. With a mere 3 points of difference between a bladed weapon, a chainsword, and a power sword, the equipment gets outshone by the PC's Unnatural Strength. As "epic" as this might look, I'm not sure this fits well into the setting. On the other hand, this also depends on how much "Epicness" (with a capital E) we are okay with. The old "superman versus superhuman" discussion.

Yeah, Pen is of course another factor but... it's still harder to manage.

As for how epic marines should be... epic enough to warrant the special status they have in an empire of a million stars with uncount Imperial Guardsmen and Stormtroopers, etc. They can't be just slightly better than other special forces or else the reaction would have to be "Why bother?" Marines must be "more than mortal. They are steel and they are doom."

Alex

But that's not the Bolter's fault. Autoguns, Lasguns, Stubguns... all not super-lethal as single hits.

Oh yeah, the bolter was just a random example. I am of the opinion that all weapons found on the battlefields of the 41st millennium are terribly lethal. That they aren't "here" is simply a result of the usual P&P environment. It is, after all, fairly standard for games of this type to have characters whacking away at each other with swords over half a dozen turns. Dark Heresy (and, if you include Horde rules, Deathwatch too) are more lethal than most, but still not lethal enough to have it "feel right". There's just too many factors mitigating damage, turning a 10 into a 6, which gets turned into a 3, which then becomes a 2. If you know what I mean.

Also, there is the Sudden Death rule for mooks. Your Dasha is a PC, so should withstand more.

For the purpose of this evaluation, I'm looking at standard profiles without any modifiers.

I don't particularly like making a huge difference between PCs and NPCs, anyways ... or rather: the difference should be in aptitude, not inexplicably tough bodies - especially at TB 2, else you have the system contradicting itself. The profiles of NPCs from the official adventures also don't seem to make much use of Sudden Death, anyways.

No, it merely replaces normal Critical Damage notation. I could rephrase the rule to say that every Critical Wound has the effects as normal but only adds one to the tally. If you get 4 Crit Damage, you record the effects of that wound and instead of adding 4 to your Crit tally, you only add 1.

Ahh, gotcha - I misunderstood and thought "non-cumulative" here meant that you'd be calculating each Crit from the start, and then add +1 from all previous ones. Nevermind then.

As for how epic marines should be... epic enough to warrant the special status they have in an empire of a million stars with uncount Imperial Guardsmen and Stormtroopers, etc. They can't be just slightly better than other special forces or else the reaction would have to be "Why bother?" Marines must be "more than mortal. They are steel and they are doom."

Ah, it depends on whether you want to play The Legend or something more gritty. As to why the Imperium would bother? There's a ton of other items that could be put on that list. That's part of what makes the setting Grimdark, at least to me.

But this really depends on what we as individuals see in the setting, and the many puzzle pieces that make it up or how they fit together. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to play it, as long as each group shares a common basis, and the community as a whole can get along in a civilized manner in spite of all those clashing interpretations.

That's almost a topic for its own thread, though. Let me know if you want to talk about this some more!

Sure, bring it on.

Alex

Good reason for Chainsword: more Pen + Balanced.

Yeah, combat knives sorta suck.

Bolt pistols have range and special ammo options, per se more versatile than a fist.

A Bolt Pistol is still no playtoy in comparison, it's more like an equivalent. And there are also ways to raise the damage of a bolt pistol, so comparing standart bolt pistol use with fully trained unarmed combat isn't the best comparison.

Again: if unarmed damage is that good, there is really no need for marines to go out with bolt pistols, chainswords, combat knives for melee. You can't tell me that 1D10+5 non-primitive for a standard Rank 1 marine isn't good enough and that he needs 1d10+8. Especially with Feat of Strength. A Marine with Strength in the 60s and Feat of Strength makes a Heavy Bolter round look like a toy by merely punching. Also, PA is adding to SB too...

Nah, it's better to have this buffer between unarmed and armed combat. Unarmed combat is merely a fallback option if there is no other choice; and it is still very viable with 1d10-3.

Alex

PS I am German.

1d10+10 R Pen 2 is better than 1d10+10 I Pen 0, and 1d10+13 R Pen 3 Tearing is much much better than 1d10+10 I Pen 0.

Guys, use 1d10-3 instead of 1d10 for Unarmed Master. It's good enough and gives players lots of incentive to use a combat knife.

Alex

I feel like if you worked on your tact (say, "this is what I have been using and this is why" as opposed to "Everyone, do things my way") you could really sell this better.

From your first post alone I have a biased view against your argument simply because of how you presented it.

Having said that, unless it becomes an issue - which it hasn't - I am going to keep rocking and rolling as I have been in this aspect. I had a great encounter with an Ork Boy and a half naked "unarmed" space wolf that proved the merit of his unarmed prowess. Besides, shooting it in the face would have taken the sport out of it.

Your True Grit sounds hardcore. That would breed some tough Shlt PCs.

I'm not trying to sell it though, I have no stake in how other people run their games. It's a house rule section! Instead, I am presenting it here and weigh any counter-argument for myself.

As for True Grit, you're losing halving the damage. The effect is that high damage attacks can take down PCs more easily, while it's harder to attrite them to death.

Alex