Ok, I've run three sessions now, and I'm finding that I'm running into a problem.

When I first started researching Dark Heresy, I read quite a bit from people suggesting that starting Acolytes were just far too squishy. I tried to keep this in mind, and created combat encounters that I thought were challenging but not completely overwhelming. In each combat I generally used 1.5 opponents per Acolyte, so the PCs were typically outnumbered. Using the stats provided in the book, I've thrown them up against Mutants and Abominations, Cult Intiates and Fanatics. It doesn't matter; the PCs seem to be untouchable. We've had five combat encounters so far, and the PCs have yet to take any damage (physically, anyway; they have managed to rack up some Insanity and Corruption points).

It seems to me that the NPCs provided in the Dark Heresy corebook are just not very effective. I'll admit that my PCs all rolled uncommonly well on their BS attribute, but the NPCs are just getting torn apart. I've only managed to score a single hit with the NPCs' lousy WS/BS, and it did so little damage that the PC effortlessly soaked it. Meanwhile, the PCs are mowing down heretics like it's going out of style (it doesn't help that the psyker tends to soften the NPCs up with his Fearful Aura before calling in the rest of the gang to mop up).

Is there something that I'm missing here? Is there something that I should be doing to put the tiniest bit of fear into my players? I'm not looking to completely overwhelm the group, so dropping a Lord of Change into the game isn't the answer that I'm looking for; I just want to know how to make the NPCs that I'm using present the tiniest bit of a threat. The PCs have just reached Rank 3, so what makes for an appropriate challenge, and how can I make the most of it?

Whatever kind of heretics you'll be throwing in next, I'll suggest you take a look at the environment and initiative. If Acolytes always open the fire first at comparatively short ranges with little or no cover for the other side they will probably slaughter everything they weapons are capable of hurting.

Next time get some backup for heretics. Put two or three shooters with autoguns at autogun long range with good cover. A common heretic might have a sucky BS of 30, but when you give him full Aim (+20) firing Full-auto (+20) he will likely hit with multiple shots. When the acolytes shoot back they'll be in for a rough surprise since pistol sized weapons are simply out of range and even for their rifles the full cover with firing slots just large enough to accommodate the autogun will be a very hard target to hit.

Or, have a group of heretics from passing vehicle throw a few grenades and spary the group with full-auto fire. Hitting a speeding vehicle isn't easy and the vehicle body will cover the heretics quite nicely from the worst.

In the start of my own campaign I gave the acolytes pretty heavy weapons and ordnance since they were an Arbitor squad. Hell, I even gave them rhino with the pintle mounted stormbolter and plenty of grenades and explosives to boot. They had a lot of fun driving over low rebels and other scum. I did this on purpose because I wanted to show the players Adeptus Arbites are bad-ass judges taking on scores of rabble scum and a lowly rebel should rightfully fear them.

Then I hit them with 500 pound VBIED (aka car bomb) rigged into deadman switch the driver of that particular heretic vehicle was sitting on. They tried to detain the driver so they approached within 50 meters of the heretic and told him to stand up and exit the vehicle. The resulting explosion detroyed their stormbolter and vehicle radio, did some damage to rhino transmission, put one acolyte on critical and did some damage to everyone inside.

What I noticed right away is that you made no mention of what your acolytes are and what gear they are using, neither any particulars about the baddies you are using. No acolyte worth the name will willingly participate in a "fair fight" so that is not the angle I am going with here. That being said, balance of encounters is something you should spend a little time on: Too easy and it is dull, too hard and it is a bloodbath.

Say for example your team (you mentioned rank 3) consists of a Guardsman in IG flak, an Arbitrator in Light Enforcer Carapace, an Assassin in an armoured bodyglove and a Sanctioned Psyker in flak. Each is armed with a rifle/lasgun/shotgun, a handgun or two, a functional melee weapon or two. The Guardsman has a few grenades and the Arbitrator packs a shock-maul. If you are are using basic level hive-scum mercenaries with little to no armour and packing stub pistol/knife combos in close open conditions then there is no fight. It is simply an execution with an initiative order... Send them to pick a fight with an Eldar Warlock and his 10-man Dire Avenger bodyguard squad and the opposite happens: "Inquisitor seeks acolytes for exciting and dynamic work environment. Please provide resume and 4 living references. Good medical plan! Immediate openings."

I personally try to mix things up a bit, and the existing published adventures have some decent examples of this. I try to make the more dramatic encounters that run a high chance of combat to be challenging, but something that my team can handle if they are willing to invest a little blood and sweat. I also toss in the occasional pushover fight for fun/comic relief and as a fun reminder of how much more awesome than basic mooks they are. I also toss in a brutal bloodbath once in a while to make sure that my players are THINKING! As long as they notice the clues I along the way they usually can figure out when they are in over their heads and make plans to pull their fat out of the fire or avoid the entire mess in the first place. They also tend to get cunning and brutal themselves, using teamwork to claw their way back from certain doom and win. I know some GMs out there have a "me against the players" mindset, but I get personal joy from seeing my players think their way through problems and then work together to kick some serious heretic butt! The other thing that really makes your fight scenes fresh is to stage them in unusual situations or locations. Plain old generic baddies are so much cooler to fight when they are balanced on rickety scaffolding framing a war-damaged factory (or whatever) with a still-lit forge, tarps flapping in the wind and perhaps a very annoyed/frightened bunch of workers frantically trying to avoid the acolytes and baddies as they chase and fight their way through the scene.

I also deliberately mix up the types of missions they go on. One day they will be doing a kick down the doors and put the fear of the Emperor in some deserving fools mission (full tactical wargear!) and the next week they might be wearing fancy formalwear and doing sneaky undercover work (little to no armour, light weapons at most). Obviously what constitutes a challenging fight is very different in these two cases. Furthermore an "easy fight" might have unfortunate consequences: You are undercover as merchant factors in service to a Rogue Trader of negotiable loyalty, now what are you going to do about the bodies of the 3 guards you just killed? There are bootsteps echoing down the hallway and seem to be drawing near....

Always remember that an acolyte spending an encounter thinking "****! I am SO dead!" only to have them emerge unscathed is just as good as one where you blow off limbs. The drama and tension are the important parts.

Whelp said:

Well, this is actually true but it all bottles down to how smart your players are in combat and how smar their antagonists are acting.

For instance, if you pit 4-6 Acolytes in their 3rd and 5th ranks against 50 angry cultists with autoguns, then the Acolytes will actually have a very real chance of beating those cultists if the cultists act like crazed maniacs rushing headlong towards the Acolytes instead of doing smart things like using cover, using full auto fire, supressive fire etc. etc.

If the Cultists however where to use some of the latter tactics mentioned, there's a very real chance that the acolytes will get slaughtered. So cooperation (both in the case of the main characters and hostile NPC's) is a very big issue in combat in Dark Heresy. If everyone acts like retarded glory hogs (or "valiant knights" in fantasy RPG's where they want to get stuck-in as fast as possible), combat will most likely be a deadly affair.

Also, the factor of outnumbering must always be taken into account when you pit the player characters against "big, bad monsters" (like Tyranid Lictors, Charnel Daemons, Fenksworld Pit Thing's and the like). Most GM's might think like this:

-"Well judging from the stats of this beastie, I'll just send one of them against the PC's because it just looks so big and evil that one should be enough for the PC's to handle."

This is NEVER the case in Dark Heresy. It doesn't matter how big and scary looking stats a monster might have, because if it goes up against a group of moderately to well armed acolytes that are cooperating against that monster, the monster will most likely lose, despite having insane amounts of toughness bonus, armour, wicked weapons and attacks etc.

If you want to use big baddies, either send them against the PC's with a small army of lesser baddies (like a Charnel daemon accompanied by a bunch of cult fanatics, instead of just one Charnel Daemon), or you can send several big baddies of the same kind to split the PC's concentration of fire (what's worse than ONE charnel daemon? Well TWO or THREE charnel daemons of course ). OR you pit the PC's against particularly insidious big baddies that will try to lure the PC's into fighting on it's own terms (like a tyranid Lictor, stalking some seriously narrow alleyways in a dark part of town, and it will try to break up the group of PC's into smaller fractions and try to take them out one by one, instead of going up against the entire group at once etc.)

Also, high level Psykers/witches or creatures with Telepathy powers can prove to be extremely nasty enemies due to the fact that they can turn the player characters against eachother for a certain amount of time.

If you keep these things in mind you should be able to create interesting battles for the PC's that may force them to burn a couple of fate points in order to manage through.

The main thing that goes against NPCs are the micromanagement required by the GM & lack of talents.

My PCs are rank 3/4. What I'd suggest you should be facing them against are...

• NPCs that have a few combat talents and skills. e.g. Dodge, sidestep etc. Manstopper rounds, the odd sniper
• NPCs who will use tactics. Suppressive fire is great for this, suppressive fire & grenades
• NPCs who have low level witches (fearful aura is a great leveller)
• Scope out the combat beforehand. For major NPCs I create cheat sheets with all their stats and quick notes on their abilities together.

Generally the PC's will still win but they'll have a harder time. Take them out of their comfort zone & into fights they don't want to have.

A month ago there was a thread with a couple of very well formulated posts on the matter of creating combat encounters. They were written as guides to a fresh GM. Read it here: www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp I'm sure you can get some inspiration.

Or, you could just go the route that my last GM went ... and give the opportunity for Righteous Fury to all the baddies. Talk about an equalizer! All it takes is one lucky roll, and even the wimpiest baddie becomes a lethal threat. Not that this is the ideal solution, but it does make your Acolytes start to THINK about their options ... and it does require that they start to plan their actions ... if they want to survive.

In fact, since my players are "perrenial thugs", I intend to use this method, among others, to get them in-line with the idea that D&D actions in DH are totally innapropriate. I will break them of their "thuggish-ness", one way or the other. They will learn to "investigate", or they will die horribly .. or they will become hopelessly-corrupted NPC's.

That's an interesting point Sister Cat makes. I'm currently running an adventure I ran to another group ages ago that's a bit dungeon crawly (simply cause of the final area is a large underground base). Anyway in it there's a point where 5 Kill Squad Troopers attack the Acolytes. I'm using the exact stats from the rule book too.

So the first group I faced them off against I rarely used the Crit Tables and would never Righteous Fury with bad guys, instead just using the instant death at 0 wounds thing. The Acolytes walked through them with maybe a wound or 2 if you're lucky.

The second group (played just recently) unfortunately got surprised due to where they were and what they'd done previously and this time I used the full rules with them. At the end of the combat I had 1 player have to fate out dropping to the Crit Tables another down to about 1 wound (this was the two combat heavy characters btw) and the rest with minor wounds.

My point being is If you use Crit tables on bad guys they essentially gain another 8 or so wounds. Plus the Righeous Fury thing can make mundane weapons deadly. I still mostly only use those rules though for important bad guys/highly trained troops though or in adventures where there isn't much combat.

Scaling enemies is always a tricky part for the GM and that link Mellon posted has some good advice on it plus the above comments too.

Remember though at the end of the day it's about having fun and telling/participating in a good story!

I use full crit tables for everyone (even gretchin) and allow anyone to get righteous fury, so have no problems there.

One thing I have found, at least until they get some major WP boosts or the proper talents is, as mentioned above,:

Suppresive Fire = Players Cry . Especially when just enough of the baddies suppress to keep the acolytes pinned and the rest fire for effect on full-auto.

This kept my players bitching and moaning for months until they reralized "Hey wait, we can do that too!"

One nasty option is the pistolero with the ambidextrous and two-weapon wielder ballistic talents and an autopistol in each hand. He can suppress with one autopistol and full-auto shoot to kill with the other.

Sister Cat said:

I've had these problems before in other games and as years have gone my players have learned to be a bit more carefull about when and where to pick fights. The simplest technique I've used in past was what I called "a barbarian trap", that involves writing the scenario with one or several NPCs that are way too powerfull for Player Characters to kill even if they get insanely lucky. These may or may not be "bad guys" but thats not instantly clear on the surface. If players just jump into conclusions and charge in with guns blazing they WILL get their asses handed over by the "barbarian trap" NPC in very short order. Now, here is the place where I have to be a bit careful, if a PC ends up into fighting overpoweredNPC due to little or no fault of his own I give him a way out. If he is smart enough to run away to fight another day, I'll fudge enough so that he makes it. If he is pigheaded and fights to the bitter end he ends up hurt, maimed or dead.

The nice thing is that at least my players have been pretty quick learners and I don't really have to use these "barbarian traps" much anymore. Once they learn that there are certain fights you should stay well away from and I reward planning and intelligent judgement with success and stupidity with death things pretty quickly set on the right path.

There is nothing wrong with players crushing the enemy with little or no trouble at times. Sometimes you need them to wade through a large crowd of rabble level enemies untouched just to give them the feeling of repective power levels. Sometimes the players simply plan the encounter and stack everything on their favor so strongly that its only proper to reward them with success. Keeping some encounters easy, some challenging and some too hard AND giving the players a chance to distinguish these from each other is the real art.

Polaria said:

Exactly. Which is why I intend to teach them that, at least sometimes, they should excercise caution. And ... technically, in DH, caution should be the norm, rather than the exception. This setting should be both lethal and horrific, IMHO.

I have no problem with my players having some encounters where they wade through the enemies. But I don't want them to think that they can continue to act as though they were playing an "action-adventure", rather than a horror-sch-fi-RPG. Just sayin' ...

Polaria said:

As a personal note, I'd have to say that I disagree. At least with a game such as Dark Heresy where the players are supposed to be human characters.

In my games, you won't percieve "power levels" per se, and a rank 8 character isn't by any means a superbeing in comparison to a rank 1 character. The only difference in sheer combat power always stems from the types of weapons they carry, the armour they wear and the smarts and skills they possess to use these things.

Of course, I might be taking your statement a bit too litteraly now but I'll just state it for the record: in my game, no group of acolytes would be able to wade through a crowd of rabble untouched. They might be able to cut down a crowd of rabble by using heavy weapons of course (but then it would be a case of weaponry and not "power level" per se), but if they are just trying to push their way past in melee, then they will most likely get slaughtered due to being outnumbered. Even if they do have chainswords and powerswords and the like, they will only be able to kill so any people before they just pile up on them and start to strip away their armour to get at the fleshy innards.

Anyhow, my point here being that even if acolytes do rise in power, I'd say the game is taking a seriously wrong turn if the players ever start to feel that they are somehow on par with alien monsters and space marines. In Dark Heresy, part of the fun is being "just a human" that goes up against incredible odds and somehow manage to pull through. Not because of having a high "power level" but because of their wit and cunning, not brute force. Because with the enemies they face, brute force would only land them in a coffin.

With "power level" I mean nothing that has anything to do with game mechanics like levels, talents, skills etc. I mean the fact that Imperial Agents are way above common ground-pounders in the arsenal they have and in their authority to use it. Acolytes, and infact many other Imperial forces, are feared and respected among normal people for a very good reason.

Example from my last game:

I set my Acolytes (squad of Adeptus Arbites with a few specialists attached to them) to investigate a rebellion in a mine in Sepheris Secondus. The mine was inhabited of literally thousands of rebels armed with clubs, picks and odd laser rifle here and there. The local PDF at the site was several hundred poorly trained infantrymen who carried laser rifles, bayonets and maybe grenade or two.

There was only five acolytes and all were technically lvl 1, but they were all equipped with mesh vests, carapace helmets, clubs, laserpistols and combat shotguns (one had autogun) and they were riding a Rhino (with standard issue pintle-mounted Stormbolter) and carried an ample supply of explosives. Securing some of the secondary tunnels into the mine had earlier proved impossible for the PDF even though they had tried it for several weeks. The Acolytes, once they decided to do it, managed to do this in no time at all. They simply drove into the tunnel door with Rhino, gunned down everyone who came to stormbolter and autogun range and blew up the tunnel entrances, collapsing the tunnels.

Later they met with a rebel detachment of couple of dozen rebels that had apparently killed several dozen PDF in ambush. Once again, rebels had no chance when our Adeptus Arbites squad drove over people in Rhino, grenading everyone who came too close and shooting runners with copious amounts of autogun and shotgun fire.

It was in no way challenging for the Acolytes but it quite clrealy showed them why even the local PDF doesn't normally want to mess with Arbiters. As 4 out of 5 of my players aren't familiar with 40 000 world they were first a bit too carefull in their operations and too eager to call for backup at any sign of trouble. I felt they needed to be shown that a fully-armed squad of Adeptus Arbites isn't expected to ask, or doesn't really need, backup from local PDF against common criminals, scum or rioters.

Varnias Tybalt said:

I agree that DH players should never start to feel they have nothing to fear from all the big bad nastiness that's out there in the 40K universe. We saw some of this in the last DH game I played in. However, I disagree that there are not appropriate times for "over the top" brute force, when skilled and well-equipped servants of the Inquisition can, and should, mop the floor with a bunch of low-level baddies. That "over the top" aspect is a part of 40K as well, IMHO.

The thing is, if acolytes are squishy that's why they have fate points. Keep pushing the opponents up in terms of tactical ability and power level and sooner or later the acolytes will have a real scare. Maybe they'll even get iced - but that's ok, they'll burn fate points and you both learn something.

Cardinalsin said:

I agree with this on one level, but ... at the same time, I don't believe any kind of linear progression of threats is appropriate in DH. It wouldn't have the same "horror" impact if that were the case. My preferred method (given that I am new to running this game) would be to give hints, through a few previous encounters, of the real crap that's about to go down, then surprise the players when they least expect it with the big, scary, nasty. JMHO.

to make a combat scarier there are some very simple things that can be done.

Outnumber: you said you used a 1 to 1.5 ratio intead outnumber them three to one or more.

Tactic: as said before make the enemies smart, make them flank, use cover, suppresion fire, assist each other and so on.

weapons: have one or more enemies armed with more deadly weapons, a hidden sniper or two, a grenade launcher, heavy bolter, grenades, etc.

Leader: a good idea is often to have some sort of leader that controls the others. if your acolytes' psyker uses Fearful Aura give the leader "Iron Discipline" or "Into the Jaws of Hell" if you wants him to be deadly in himself give him better stats and equipment, for example a chainsword, a bolt pistol and carapace armour then he is dagerous without being anywhere near impossible the defeat.

sometime if the acolytes are havin it too easy I find it useful to trow a fight at them where the are heavily outmatched, for example not long ago my acolytes (a psyker, an arbitraot and a cleric all about level 5 or 6 at that time) met a squad of 10 traitor guards with an above average statline armed with good-quality Guard Flak armour, Hellguns, at least two grenades each, a special weapon trooper with a plasma blaster, and a sergeant with a bolt pistol and a power sword. the traitors used tactic insead of just getting themself killed.

the acolytes won the fight if only just and were all really happy to fight a challanging fight.

I've always likened DH to Call of Cthulhu in that the real bad guys are so powerful the players have no chance.

Every so often just so them the tiny fraction of the real powers in the universe. Have them wet themselves as it bitchslaps them around for a bit. Then have them postpone it's emergence into the real world by whatever get out clause you are using.

Remind them that they are ants and every so often a foot comes along...

Baldrick said:

Well, sometimes you have a "chance". A LOT of dynamite can triumph over eve the worst specimens of Shoggoths sometimes, even if it basically means having to collapse an entire mountain over the beasts and not actually be able to confirm they "died".

Well, sometimes you have a "chance". A LOT of dynamite can triumph over eve the worst specimens of Shoggoths sometimes, even if it basically means having to collapse an entire mountain over the beasts and not actually be able to confirm they "died".

Confirm they died? What for? Noone could survive that... Right? Right?

Cifer said:

Yes, "none" could survive that... But "no-THING"?

You're the Gamemaster/Storyteller, so ... simply upgrade the opposition until they can induce fear in your acolytes ... er, players. Or, there's always the option of GM caveat. Fudge die rolls if you have to. It can be unpleasant, I know, and you must try and maintain consistency. But when it comes down to it, as a GM you can decide not to roll any dice whatever, if it advances your story. You will still want to be fair, and try not to be arbitrary in kicking your players' butts. But you don't have to let them get away with game-breaking "bad-ass-ness". JMHO. To be clear, I am not advocating random PK's, or anything remotely similar. But if your players are entirely too full of themselves, it is incredibly easy to feed them a meal of "humility", if you are willing. Just don't make it a case of "revenge-of-the-frustrated-GM" ... that only breeds bitterness in your players.

Sister Cat said:

I wholeheartedly agree. I always base threats on what is appropriate to the situation and never on power level of players. If a group of rank 1 players decide they want to try to assassinate Lord Governor Hax, they'll face the exact same level of opposition that a group of rank 8 characters trying to pull the same trick will. The threat will be appropriate to the context and the only differece will be that the rank 1 guys die faster (unless they have a really really genius plan). On the other hand if the rank 1 or rank 8 pcs decide to smash up a local pub, the opposition will be the samew regardless of the power of the PCs. The rank 8 guys will just win faster. Setting and circumstance appropriate opponents provides a much greater sense of immersion than the idea that threats automatically scale based on some balance of PC rank and "challenge rating" of the badguys. Autoscaling the challenges makes the game seem unrealistic and overscripted, thus damaging the story.

DocIII said:

Hell, beyond seeming unrealistic, autoscaling and enforced balanced challenges completely negate any form or feeling of a "heroes progression" or advancement. After all, if any situation that your character ever gets is always as difficult as any other situation that they've ever gotten into and ever will get into, then why bother tallying up XP and spending it? Seems like a lot of bother if nothing really changes in the end...

We're not talking about auto scaling the encounters but the adventures.

Rank 1 PCs -> Infiltrate a hive gang with supposed connections to the dark gods. Final battle is a big gang shootout

Park 3 PCs -> Infiltrate a enforcer unit with supposed connections to the dark gods. Final battle is a big enforcer shootout

Park 7 PCs -> Infiltrate another group of acolytes with supposed connections to the dark gods. Final battle is a big etc. etc. etc.

As the players go up in rank they expect harder challenges. Yes the Rank 7 PC are going to handle a punch up in a bar better and they will expect to show off their l33t talents and skills but if you give a group of Rank 7 players a Rank 1 adventure they might not enjoy it as much.

The game is not about auto-leveling, power playing, fudging rolls it's about having fun. You need to use the tools at your disposal to generate that fun. You are the funmaster not gamemaster (hmm might trademark that...)