Levyten said:

1. Space Marines are usually able to dish out more damage in close combat than most types of close range firearms. So when space marines go in for the kill it is the equivalent of sending in a squad armed with shotguns and pistols. Meaning that in some situations, actually using the bolters would be redundant.

2. Space Marines are not like conventional soldiers, they are a specialized force intended for rapid strikes and deployment. Once they hit dirtside they are to secure their objective as fast as possible. This means that they simply don't have the time to take cover in trenches and exchange volleys of fire with the enemy, becoming pinned, asking for airsupport or artillery support etc. etc. They have to get moving. Which means that they might be able to snap of a few shots at the enemy when they have the chance, but as soon as they realize that the exchanged gunfire isn't helping, they have to move in and slaughter the enemy or at the very least cut their way through the ranks so they can reach their primary objective.

Varnias Tybalt said:

Well, other notes such as logistics.

You do not need ammunition for a combat knife.

Varnias Tybalt said:

However, if you take the passed Ballistic Skill test (the "hit") as hitting the area where your target was, all that a Dodge check does is make sure you weren't in that area when the bullets hit. It makes perfect sense if you see the successes in that light, rather than getting out of the way of the bullets (your viewpoint).

Varnias Tybalt said:

The order that dice are rolled is merely a means to keep things orderly from a rules standpoint and doesn't always indicate the order of events in the in-game universe. If they did, then combat in DH, RT, and most all rpgs would be the equivalent of old kung-fu movies where the hero is surrounded by a whole lotta nasty fellas who, inexplicably, decide to attack one at a time in a nice and orderly fashion. We know that combat in DH and RT isn't supposed to be like that in the game world, we roll the dice in that fashion, one combatant at a time, simply so the GM doesn't go absolutely insane.

As for Perception then dodge, that's valid but a bit over complected. It's usually best to err on the side of less rolling, not more. As that's the case, and since one would need to be aware of an attack to dodge it, it can be assumed that a characters dodge skill includes their ability to reasonably spot danger that's in the open and not trying to conceal its self and then react to the danger they've spotted by getting the heck away from it. So, a character's dodge roll should be considered them noticing that Fella 1 as swung is gun in his direction and it's time to duck before he pulls the trigger in the next second!

Graver said:

Maybe so but it still gives the players and thereby the player characters an unfair advantage in any hostile situation. Mainly because they can choose to use their reactions only when their enemies would've actually hit their target.

If you pointed a gun at me in real life and I had a feeling that you'd fire, I wouldn't have the benefit of seeing if you'd actually hit me or not before I throw myself in cover. Neither should the characters nor their players in the game have.

While the perception test might be uncessesarily complicated players should be forced to choose whether they attempt to dodge or not before the GM rolls to hit concerning firerarms, not after. Because the way it is now the players are actually like kung-fu heroes, surrounded by nasty fellas. And the worse part is the fact that the nasty fellas aren't armed with melee weapons, but with firearms, yet still the players and thereby their PC's have a "magical" knowledge of when to dodge and when to ignore dodging becuase it is built-in to the game system.

While you could run a RT campaign centered around small groups of people fighting, that's not the thrust of this role playing game. What is important, ballance wise, is that every player have something to contribute in most game situations. I like how everyone can help in ship to ship combat. This is a game of swashbuckling commerce, salvage, and exploration. Yes there will be times when the leaders of the ship pull out their weapons, but not every minute of every game. There are tabletop role playing games that are 99% combat focused, but this is not one of them.

Varnias Tybalt said:

+1

Varnias Tybalt said:

Someone else may have already addressed this.

When dodging gunfire, I don't think players are literally dodging bullets, but rather, are reacting to gunfire and taking cover or otherwise leaping out of the line of fire.

Leogun_91 said:

How true...I can't count the number of times our Sister and Cleric have had to hold the line when all the gun bunnies run screaming.

Varnias Tybalt said:

To be fair, the enemies have the same dodge advantage as the players seeing as how the GM won't roll a dodge unless the attack roll succeeded. However, missing isn't just based solely on the attacker screwing up. When an attacker shoots at another character and misses the shot, it might not be because the attacker suddenly jerked his gun up and made the shot go wide. It could be because the target up and moved (and has probably been moving a lot anyway).

Since attacking a stunned opponents gives you a +20 to your attack roll and a +30 if the target is helpless as well as taking their reactions away, the system already supports a form of passive dodging (a dodge that doesn't require the player to do anything). As such, the characters can be seen as dodging most every attack that doesn't actually result in damage being rolled. Of course some still might be flat out misses due to a screw up on the attackers part, but most of the time, the character actively trying not to get hit is playing a part in those misses and accounts for the initially low chance of hitting them (barring crazy modifiers).

The reaction being used to parry or dodge an attack could be seen as that one attacker the character was really focused on during that exchange, or simply as a game mechanic to give the player of the target character a little more control of their fate by allowing them to roll some dice to not get stuck, but just once barring certain talents. That dodge that is rolled for may be no different from any of the other passive doges the character preforms or, and more likely, represents a dramatic moment in the conflict, a hit that the character almost didn't avoid, but, in the last second managed to. In a story, it's the part tat the author would concentrate on for the drama while glossing over the other near hits, dodges, and evasions that the character's been going though as a matter of course during the conflict.

To be honest, as far as the characters not getting hit by firearms, that isn't very kung-fu. In real life gunfights, the hit to miss ratio is insane. Most all shots tend to miss their target. I'm reminded of a section of one of those reality cop shows (I forget which one) in which a state trooper had pulled a suspicious driver over. When he approached the dirverside door, the driver pulled a gun and opened fire on the trooper. The trooper was within arms reach of the man and actually tried to grab the gun away from him. He failed to get the gun, but also, at point blank range, the gunmen failed to hit the trooper. The trooper then fell back, crouching and pulling his weapon while the gunmen stepped out of the vehicle and opened fire again. Again, the trooper fell back but wasn't hit (at about 3m, PB range again). The driver then ran turned and ran off the side of the road into the ditch. The trooper opened fire on him emptying his clip on the man in the ditch. All sots missed. The man in the ditch fired back and ran into a field and away from the dash camera. The trooper reloaded and opened fire. Again, he missed. Two clips of ammo from a cop and several shots from a drug runner all fired off from 4m or less at one another and not a single shot hit.

A month ago, some kids decided for unknown reasons to form a second line down my street. As is prone to happen in such situations, someone pulled a gun and opened fire. The gunmen (well, that's giving him too much credit, more like punk ass gangsta drugdealler waist of flesh but that's a lot more typing) ran along the sidewalk opening fire into the impromptu parade in the street. All people evolved were within 3m of the gunmen and either quickly scattered or hit the pavement. The gunmen got off five shots before breaking across our neighbors lawn, over the fence, and out of sight. No one was hit and he was firing into a crowd.

Dodge doesn't have to be matrix style bullet dodging. It could just be an indicator of the naturally hard nature of hitting anyone with an itty-bitty chunk of lead traveling at high rates of speed. It's really hard to do unless they're not expecting it (surprised and, as such, no reaction and a bonus to hit), tied down (helpless and, as such, no reaction and a bonus to hit), or otherwise unable to appreciate the fact tat you're about to put a bullet in them. It also helps if you really close to them.

The melee guys main advantage is that in melee a foe can't fire riles (aka guns) or heavy weapons, and can't fire pistols in full/semi-auto mode and doesn't get a PB bonus. Thus the defender has 3 options use a pistol single shot, run and give the melee guy a free shot, or disengauge and take a single shot. The problem with the disengauging is you can't get out of charge range, and you are in point blank range for the melee guy's next action. A smart meleer has a rifle bayonet combo, (Mono of course) a pistol in his off hand, or quick draw...

The other thing is why does a PCs have to be a melee or ranged guy. Generally you have enough XP in every rank to take both sets of talents. Sure you'll have one skill that is better, but in the greater scheme of things it's not that much. Better quality melee weapons, ranged weapon upgrades, and special actions can boost you 20-60% to hit. It only really hurts the min/maxers who pump most of their XP into one stat....

PS- As I tell my players don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Bring a gun and a knife!!!

Dalnor Surloc said:

Thats some pretty honest and honorable tips there.

The way I do it when im the player is bringing a gun to a knifefight. And when there is a gunfight... I bring explosives. Lots and lots of explosives.

Varnias Tybalt said:

They do have that nifty 5 shot missile launcher now.

Dalnor Surloc said:

Where does it say that you cant semi/full auto a pistol in melee ?

Disengage is only usefull if you have a friend ready to go fullauto on the other guy.

Back to Topic, i dont understand whats the problem with ballance. Our Gm has a rough style, he doesnt makes it to easy and if you do a stupid decission its Fatepoint Time, so everybody is happy when all players get out alive. I also think melee gets beefed up a lot through the you cant use anything bigger than pistol in melee rule. And if youve seen a Power Sword or Fist in action, you certainly dont think that melee is weak.

Graver said:

So basically you're chalking up all these inconsistencies to being abstractions, right?

Now im normally not opposed to abstractions in a rules system, it's just that I find Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader to be a bit contradictorial in game mechanic philosophy because on one hand it tends to be defended by the abstractions argument, but on the other hand the rules keep check of very minute and some times even insignificant aspects of play.

For instance, Movement in combat are painstakingly detailed in the rules, even so far as keeping check of an exact number of meters a character can move in a single round. Now why would a game using abstractions for such an important aspect as to which people actually get hit or not in a fight go to such great lengths of enforcing the exact increments these people can actually move in a combat situation?

It's just plain inconsistent from a game philosophical point of view.

That being said I couldn't really blame FFG for it, because the core rules are still a product of Black Industries and not something that FFG created alone.

And also, I'd like to stress the fact that I don't oppose abstractions in a game system. It's just that I have found, after several years of playing a variety of role playing games that it is better for a set of rules to either stick with abstractions OR go into great detail about every action and reaction occuring in combat situations. Because when you try to combine both of them, the rules system just come off as confused and inconsistent. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that I have never seen a game being able to succesfully pull off the reliance of abstractions together with in-depth detail.

Graver said:

Well, to be fair most of the situations you bring up here regard civilians and improper usage of firearms. The guy firing out of the drivers seat for instance. Now the drivers compartment in most cars tend to be pretty cramped, and my guess here is that he just whipped out his pistol with one hand and started to snap off shots out from the window. In that regard it's no wonder why he didn't hit, because contrary to popular belief, most pistols aren't designed to be used with only one hand and especially not in such an awkward angle as firing it out from a car window while sitting in a drivers seat.

But then again, that's what happens when civilians and/or non-profesional people use guns: a gross waste of ammo. On a battlefield or hostile situations with professionals present such mistakes are very rare and most rounds from small arms do hit their marks if the shooters are actually trying to hit their targets (and not just trying to keep the targets surpressed).

Now in defense of your argument here, agents of the Inquisition come from a variety of backgrounds, as do the people they are trying to catch. But in most situations I think it would be safe to assume that most PC's and NPC's involved in hostile situations are trained proffesionals when it comes to operating firearms, and they wouldn't do the same mistakes as the people in your examples do.

@Varnias

Yup, abstractions. I'm fairly certain that's what the dodge mechanic was supposed to represent, though i can't be certain. It is how I interpret things and in my own head, well, that's all that matters ;-)

But, ya, the game is... confused in some areas. The complex movement (and engaged if adjacent, etc) is because of minis and the roots of the game. They wanted to expand the wargame into an rpg and the minis, being the bread and butter of the wargame, had to stay. Oddly enough, though, from what I gather, the combat mechanics in DH are less abstract then the wargame while the movement is lossier... go figure. In the end, though, the slightly more tactical nature of the combat by the RAW is easer to ignore then changing the dodge mechanic to be less abstract and once you ignore some of the more hard rules that keep track of pointless details, treating what's left in a more abstract manner isn't very hard at all. I'm just glad they didn't go for a full on detailed approach as I would have never played it then. Half and half beats that any day.

On shooting and missing and civilians and solders and all that; the two situations I wrot about did indeed involve mostly civilians, yes. But what about the State Trooper blazing through two clips of ammo? They aren't civilians and they are trained in the use of their firearms (at least they're supposed to be). I think a state trooper would be a better picture for an acolytes familiarity with weapons as opposed to a solder (barring the guardsmen of course). But in the end, my point with that tangent is that it's a damned sight harder then most people think (thank you action movies) to put an itty-bitty piece of fast moving lead though someone who's also moving and trying to do the same to you which ties back into and validates the idea of passive dodging.

Gribble_the_Munchkin said:

Never been the WotC D&d forum have you?

Though I much perfer this forums attitude, I think that is very much possible for a pen and paper RPG to be unbalanced (if you don't believe me, check out Rifts). I would say that balace has a very different meaning for PnP RPGs than computer games or CCGs. Indeed there are several meanings, I personally divide it into three.

Symmetric Balance : which is needed in games where all the characters are expected to do the same actions. So all class should be about equally good at doing that actions, though maybe going about it in different ways.

For example, D&D, where all characters are expected to enter dungeons and fight dragons. Thus all characters classes should be about equally good in combat and exploration.

Asymmetric Balance : This for games where different characters do different tasks. Thus a class may be much better than any others at a specific task, but they will be worse at others.

This is the type of balance that RT and DH have. One class may be a combat monster (ie Arch-Militant), while another is awesome at investigation and negotiation (ie seneschal). I'd even argue that RT and DH are some of the best asymetrically balanced games I've seen.

Abalanced : games where some overarching narrative concept within the game is inconsisent with the concept of equal ability (ie balance). These are pretty rare. I consider Call of Cthulhu somewhere between abalanced and asymmetric balanced. Grimm sounds like an abalanced game, but I've never checked it out.

monkyman said:

I don't consider 4th ed DnD to be a roleplayign game so much as an abstract tabletop wargame.

For example, D&D, where all characters are expected to enter dungeons and fight dragons. Thus all characters classes should be about equally good in combat and exploration

And thats why.

On your main points though, i wholeheartedly agree. Characters should be equally awesome, but they shouldn't be equally awesome at everything. arch-militants should kick more butt than missionaries. Seneschals should have lore skills out the whazoo compared to void masters, etc.

Indeed, to briefly return to the DnD bashing, its the idea that classes such as wizards and bards should be as badass in a fight as warriors and warlocks that annoys me. The days of creating merchant mages, diviners, necromancers, etc with heavily non-combat related strengths are gone in favour of generic fire and lightning combat mages.

Wow. How'd i manage to screw the formatting up that bad?

Go me.

Just don't use anything more complex than italics in the forum and you should be fine...

As many others have said many times before: Unless your doing tons of PVP, "balance" shouldn't be anything some DM fiating can't fix with a little thought and care.

This is all a lot of words not to notice that the main advantage of melee weapons is against high Toughness enemies, where the bonus to average damage per hit from Strength has a chance to really shine. Against low toughness enemies, especially if they have low armor, the multiple hits from Autofire and/or Scatter rip things to shreds.

Guys, I'm pretty sure this was just a troll. No response from him after multiple pages intelligently reacting to highly inflammatory language.

hiho sorry 4 not answering. i just didnt know what to say ^^ this is my first real pan´n´paper game and this is not my mother language aaaand im realy bussy the last days. the guy named "levyten" is my real live bro from next city he said kind of my oppinion... i hope thats right gramma.... i dont think so

im realy glad to see how fast and kind you guys answered thx btw.

after reading all the answers we decided to change some things. like accurate weapons to just 1d5 dmg after every degree of success. and every weapon witch havent the accurate skill to get +1 dmg for 20 under your score(one degree, like semi)

the most of your answers sound logic like the "dont bring just a knife to a gunfight ... you have to take a gun and a knife" and we miss interpreted one or 2 rules ...

after all i think the arch millitant has to be better in fight and sure is a ranged weapon better than a melee but sometimes the game fells like it dosent know if it want to be realistic or balanced.

after a few test matches with my friends i still think the chars will have their posissions after lvl 2+. it will be more explicit wich char is made for

what do you think about my rules for the accurate weapons and the +1 dmg thing ?

so long xantos

The reason accurate weapons got the additional damage, was that they were underpowered compared to firing semi and full auto. Snipers, for example, ended up being a rarity since the damage they could do was minimal. Note that most, if not all, accurate weapons don't have a semi or full-auto firing mode. I would leave the 1d10 extra damage. Don't forget, you have to spend an action to Aim to get the damage bonus.

As for your second modifier, ranged combat is already deadly enough. Additional degrees of success already provide additional hits for semi and full-auto. I don't see a need to increase their damage as well.