Hi

I am a relatively new GM to Dark Heresy, we have only been playing it for about 3 months. Last session something terrible happened. the Psyker in our group experienced his first psyhic phenomena, rolling 99 he had to roll Perils of the Warp as well, coming up with a 93. Daemonhost. this led to a wild discussion, since apperantly there was no roll the psyker could do to prevent this, not even to use his mercy blade to kill himself.

After much flipping and reading through the rulebooks and checking the interenet. We decided to go for an optional rule, a opposed Willpower roll to see if the psyker could maintain enought controll to use his merceyblade. but of course he didn`t stand a chance.

I noticed that the effects on Perils of the Warp somewhat superseedes the other rules about deamon possession found in the rulebook.

My question is: can the psyker burn a Fate point to avoid this happening to him? I found nothing to support that when reading over the Fate point rules. They appear rather vague, and the whole section about fate points is rather short.

Is there anything that could help my player`s character? I will hate to let him die simply because of a freakish dice roll, but I am a GM that follows the rules, and are bound by our group`s codex: never to cheat, never to break rules.

Mal Reynolds said:

I'd say that, Yes, he can do that. Burning a Fate Point should mean that a character survives something that he/she should not, like Daemonic Possession due to a freak roll.

thanks for your input

I am considering to allow him to burn a fate points.

my fellow swedish neighboor, greetings from Norway.

Sorry for double posting

But i was wondering if there was any rule clarification about burning fate? as it is written now, i find rather open to speculation and interpretations from individual GMs. It doesn`t specificly says you can burn fate points to save a character from the perils of the warp. But it says you can burn a fate point to survive something that otherwise would have killed him.

but can there be circumstances when Fate points are not allowed to be used? in my years as GM in WFRP I have found that it can be.

could the effects of perils of the warp superseeds the fate point rules? this things I am not sure of.

So I would love to get furhter additional imput from you guys. And then I will make a rulling based upon your well-founded answers.

Mal Reynolds said:

As you said, it's all pretty much up to individual GM's and how they like to handle things.

My take on Fate Points is they are there to be used by the player to make sure his or her character can still be played giving them a more direct hand in what dose and dosen't happen in the story and that's how I treat them. If a situation were to come up where the character would become unplayable in the player's eyes, they can burn a fate point and I would rework things so the character remains playable in their eyes.

The former psyker of my group burned a fate point to avoid becoming a daemon host once (I gave her the choice, but she had to chose right then of either 1: burning a fate point to avoid the possession, 2: killing herself with her mercy blade, or 3: trusting in her WP and chancing that -30 check and what ever she chose, she would not be able to burn an FP to reverse it -she chose the safe path and burned an FP). The character she's now playing (her psyker ran out of fate points... interestingly enough, the daemon host ate her last one and the psyker was later eaten by the slought) has his sights on becoming an inquisitor and she's decided that it's that or nothing for him. He has 29 CPs and if he gets one more, his career just might be over as his Inquisitor would never elevate such a corrupted soul. If she so wanted, I would let her burn an FP to avoid getting that 30th CP, or burn an FP to avoid a mutation, etc -what ever would keep the character playable in her view. Of course I don't had those things out like candy either. The most any character has ever gotten from me has been 2 fate points throughout their entire career and they were a fluke -one is about average. So they only have, on the average, 3 get out of sticky situation cards before they have to face the music. How the player choses to spend or waist them is up to the player in my opinion.

Of course, none of that is covered in the book, but most things that come up in a game wont be. You just have to go with what matches your vision and what is most fun for your group. Theres no rule that can dictate either of those things.

Graver said:

Thanks for you reply and your illuminating example of choices that your psyker could choose from. I very much liked the idea of presenting the character in question with pivotal choices to make. 1) burning fate point 2) kill herself with the mercy blade or, 3) make the WP roll. I think I will do the same for my psyker. thanks for your well-thought input.

I have one final question about the example you illustrated. did your psyker get corruption points as to the deamon touched her for a second or so, or did you rule that it didn`t happend at all?

Mal Reynolds said:

Ya, I ended up giving her 2d10 points because it did touch her and she felt it starting to worm in before the brilliant golden light burnt it away in a blaze of eagle feathers...

To my players credit, she initially picked up 4d10 and was about to roll them before I stopped her.

"But it says if I survive, i get 4d10 corruption points." she said in her odd defense.

"If you survive being possessed... Cerra (the psyker) wasn't, so, er... 2d10?"

"Oh, um, wow, that's all? Okay, cool!" and she proceeds to roll.

This is the same player that, when creating her RT character, a Noble Born Seneschal, was faced with the choice of a BQ Hell Pistol or a CQ Inferno Pistol and, after reading up on both, even after I pointed out that the Inferno Pistol was one sick weapon, she not only reluctantly settled for the BQ Hell Pistol, but asked if she could trade it in for something a bit more elegant, such as a nice Dueling Las -I gave her 2 (they should come in a nice set with a velvet lined box after all). While the Hell Pistol was better then some anti-tank weapon in her eyes, it still seemed awfully utilitarian and not at all something he would want to be seen in public with -any other noble might actually start thinking he couldn't pay someone to shoot his enemies for him and then what would he do?!

I love my players sometimes :-D

Graver said:

Sounds like a player with a similar play philosophy to my own.

I never pick weapons with only firepower in mind, I pick weapons and armour that seems cool and fitting for that particular character. If I were to play a musclebound brute, then trying to get his hands on a heavy weapon or a powerfist or something would definetly fit the picture. But if I play a noble born character that might (due to peculiarities in starting gear rules) force him to start out with something like Stormtrooper carapace armour, I usually trade it in for something more elegant that might even be worse than the original armour I could have gotten (like xeno mesh or something that's comfortable and discreet).

Also, I might pick equipment for comedic effect. Let's say that you play this scrawny looking adept or something, with no shooting skills what so ever, just imagine him dragging a heavy assault cannon into combat each time. His shots will mostly go wild all the time, but there's something extremely hilarious about a wiry old pencil neck struggling with dragging an extremely big gun along whenever he expects trouble. Pretty much going like this:

-"Hnnnggg!!!" *scraaaaape*

-"Hnnnngggg!!!" *scraaaaape*

-"Hnnnnngggg!!!" *scraaaaape*.

-"Huff-puff" *swooosh... chuh-chunk... vrrrnnnnnBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG!!!*

I like it when players think like this instead of just staring themselves blind at numbers all the time and always favor the stuff that does most damage just for damage's sake.

Although it might be excusable some of the time, especially in the case with this assassin that I play in one particular DH campaign. This assassin favors knives over more overt weapons like sniper rifles or power swords, so I pretty much have to take every possible upgrade available for knives (like taking the Bolo knives described in IH, the mono upgrade, and giving the assassin a Moritat Reaper background and such). Since it's flat out impossible to actually make a character deadly with knives only, unless you take every power gaming aspect available.

But I like the idea of a psychopathic assassin who wouldn't dream of using firearms or long blades of any kind, but rather prefers using veritable butcher's tools to "get the job done" in the most gory manner possible. So I pretty much have to power game him as hard as possible, but I don't have a problem with it since im trying to achieve something "cool" rather than something "effective".

Haha, you just gave my week a really good start.. Hihih... .hehe.. ehh..

I think I might just use this in an NPC... an ally of sorts that the players will have tag along for a while... dragging an oversized cannon of some sort. Perhaps in a coffin he dradrs around everywhere

Graver said:

And you should love your players if they are like the one who played Cerra. They are true roleplayers and don`t care much for maximising characters or picking the weapon that deals the highest amount of damage, they choose weapons that complements their character . and your story was kinda cute.

I play in a all-male group myself here in icy Norway, but I consider myself lucky to have such good roleplayers and friends. They do maximise their characters and study the rules hard to get the best bonuses for their characters, but they also roleplay, and make choices that they know are not good for them, but it tells a great story instead.

I think I go for your example and give him 2d10 corruption points if he decides to burn a fate point.

thanks for your help

You could also allow them to spend (rather than Burn) a Fate Point to reroll the Psychic Phenomena roll.

Mr Adventurer said:

Thanks for your input.
I have thought of that, but found that spending a fate point in such a way falls outside their rules. I think it will be to powerfull. but on the other side no psyker would hardly ever be Daemonhost. And that again may lower the danger of using psychic abilites. that is great if you want to down play the danger, but it certainly takes away some of the dark and gritty atmosphere of the setting.

Spending fate points is better explained in the rulebook than actually burning it.

Mal Reynolds said:

How come?

I mean, spending a fate point might let you do a re-roll, but what if that re-roll ends up being a worse result? Remember that you can't re-roll a re-roll and the results are final once re-rolled. So I'd say burning a fate point will ultimately be more powerful than a re-roll. Mainly because it insures survival or avoiding effective character "retirement", while spending one is just as big a gamble as rolling the original test.

Mal Reynolds said:

Ithink this might be at the core of core of your question. A GM has to be able to make the rules his own. Ultimatly a hige amoutn of what the PC's get up to won't be completly covered by the rules so you have to tweak them as you see fit.

Mal Reynolds said:

Luckily your group's codex isn't too restrictive because a GM by definition can never cheat or break the rules.

(PS Remember the first rule of successful GMing; If the dice come up with a number you don't like, the dice are wrong).

You expressly cannot spend a Fate Point to re-roll Psychic Phenomena.

And yes, burning a Fate Point can save you from almost anything - they effectively re-write the game's reality. They let you survive at any cost. They do not necessarily let you avoid all consequences of your survival.

Graver's description was fairly elegant.

There was originally a section on Mercy Blades and Willpower rolls in the psyker rules that was removed somewhere along the line. There is still a power specifically devoted to saving you from possession though.

@TS Luikart

There was originally a section on Mercy Blades and Willpower rolls in the psyker rules that was removed somewhere along the line.

Mind telling us what that section said?