Nihilius said:

Thing is, why does a person have to be one or the other? Why can't they be roleplayers who are none the less aware that they are playing a game in which rules and balance should matter? People seem to be under the impression that the second you start questioning issues such as balance you toss roleplaying out the window - and this just isn't so. For that matter, this whole "no need for balance" argument is really a new age gamer issue - back in the day game balance was an issue designers shot for; though admittedly it has always been one they've had some difficulty nailing down just right. Using DnD as the example of the day, in 2nd edition the classes were not only balanced through individual strengths and weaknesses, but through xp requirements to achieve new levels - so if you did have a damaging monster out there, like the mage, (and even in 2E a 12th level mage was death-on-wheels, though nowhere near what they did to him in 3.x) he was always going to be a level or two behind the rest of the party ... again, an effort made to establish balance ... yet a number of very talented role players emerged from that era.

And Bomber, you're completely missing the point I was making about backgrounds, whether the problem is on your end or mine I'll let it drop.

Bombernoy said:

Something else you have to consider; while the professions may go through hell to train to their power or whatnot as part of their background, the players do not. Unless you are going to make the player go through some extreme effort to earn the right to play them - or limit the chance of them being able to play either of these classes to a 1% roll - then the mechanics aren't reflecting the fluff you've been shouting about either. Truth is, in the mechanics of the game neither class is any more special than the others aside from being ridiculously overpowered.

And while we're on the topic, why does a sniper need 20 dodges? If he gets himself into a situation where he needs all those dodges he is one lousy sniper assassin.

Jack of Tears said:

When a character ascends from DH to Ascension, it is assumed that some time goes by during which the character receives some training or otherwise develops new skills and abilities. For example a Death Cult Assassin might be kidnapped and indoctrinated into the cult. A VA is taken, put through some extreme training (this costs him a Fate Point) and undergoes some body alteration.

Jack of Tears said:

Because sometimes bad **** happens. Vindicaire Assassins are excellent snipers, masters of stealth and combat marksmanship. But **** happens. VA's often operate without support in extreme circumstances. Extra dodging ability is always nice. It's just that a dozen dodges (or even 6) at 100%+ breaks the game (as well as being ridiculous).

macd21 said:

You're missing my point ... the argument was the VA and the PP are so powerful because they are so rare and such, but in the mechanics of the game they are no rarer than a Judge or a Guardian - so the argument concerning their rarity holds no water.

macd21 said:

Not sure if you're arguing with me or agreeing with me here. Sure it is nice to have a million dodges, but as you say it breaks the system and is simply ridiculous to boot. And just because **** happens is no reason for a class to receive an extra dozen dodges - **** happens to Inquisitors all the time but they can't dodge a titan's foot, psyker powers or 20 foaming swordsmen.

Jack of Tears said:

No, Bombernoy argued (I believe) that VAs and PPs are so powerful due to their training, not rarity and that their training justified their abilities. His point is that their abilities are an accurate representation of the fluff and that being true to the fluff in more important than balance. The fact that in actual play they are no rarer than Judges is irrelevant, in his opinion.

Overall I agree with his belief that a career should stay true to the fluff. A Vindicaire should be able to dodge bullets and kill people with ease. However that should not trump good game design, including issues such as balance and game play. VAs and PPs fail in both respects. If a career can't be balanced and made to work with the rest of the game then it isn't a viable career. Just because something is part of the 40k universe doesn't mean it's a good option for a career.

However, I think that VAs and PPs are viable careers, just not as written. Neither needs to be as powerful as they currently are to remain true to the fluff. What's more, I don't think the designers intentionally meant them to be as powerful as they are. I think they just didn't realise how big a difference the Unnatural Traits made when combined with their other abilities.

Jack of Tears said:

I'm not arguing that VAs should have 20 dodges, just explaining why the fluff states that they are really good at dodging. They should be very good at dodging, because that is a result of their training, conditioning and the alterations that were made to them physically. Just not 20 dodges good. Inquisitors are not as good at dodging, because they have not been hypno-conditioned and had their neural pathways rewired.

I agree with the "it should be balanced" camp. I understand, and even like, the fact that 40k universe is all about inequity. But this inequity shouldn't exist among player characters, save for roleplaying purposes. It's OK for a Vindicare Assassin to feel superior to the Death Cult Assassin, because he's the top dog who underwent the best training regime available and now gets his orders straight from High Lords of Terra while the DC guy is just a religious nut dressed in a bodyglove and listening to voices in his head. It's okay for the VA player to roleplay the interactions between the two accordingly, because that's the reason we have different fluff attached to different careers as opposed to just stats.

But, and that's a big but, when the 'nids starts swarming and heretics start shooting, the VA cannot be objectively better than the DCA, because there are players behind both the characters. Both players have invested their time into playing this campaign, both have built combat-oriented characters - ergo, both deserve their fair share of pwnage when it comes to combat and assassination. If the mechanics fail to deliver it (barring random happenstances like extremely bad/good dice rolls or certain enemies being better fit against some combat strategies than the other), then the mechanics are in the way of people's fun, and fun is always the priority in RPG games.

All that said, I rather like the fluff behind the Temple Assassins and their "Uncanny Dodge Skills", so I'm in favor of leaving the career available and their signature trait intact, just toned down in proportion so that it doesn't dominate every combat encounter. I'm thinking about giving Temple Assassins half their natural Agility bonus, rounded down, in additional Reactions - that's still plenty enough dodges to keep their fluff intact, especially counting additional dodges from Talents, but nowhere near the absolute invincibility they have now. If it's still overpowered compared to other careers, perhaps those could stand to be buffed a little instead of further nerfing the Vindicare?

Morangias said:

Nihilius said:

I've been saying this since Ascension was released. I've been playing/GMing this game practically nonstop with a slowly-expanding core group of my friends since BI first released the Dark Heresy Corebook, so I'm not exactly coming into this as a very new person here if I say it myself, but:

I honeslty have no idea how to run a campaign with Ascension that A) actually has some longevity, where the players can eventually reach that pinnacle of Rank 16, B) doesn't feel forced or contrived to my players and C) leaves enough of the Universe intact to run another campaign (Ascension or otherwise) afterwards, myself or someone else (we switch GMing around whenever someone else wants to take the group for a spin).

Anyone have any ideas?

The Hobo Hunter said:

Jack of Tears said:

Oh yes, I totally agree - I'm in the balance camp myself. At the same time I value roleplaying at least as much as anyone else in my group and put a lot of effort into my characters. I was more referring to the arguments on this board, where the two extremes seem to be represented the most. Or should I say, the guys who don't care about balance seem more orthodox than the others, I don't think I've really seen many pure MMORPG-like people arguing the other side.

Edit: good post bombernoy, totally agree on the scale that Ascension should be played on. Although you've probably taken it to the biggest extreme possible

Nihilius said:

Couldn't agree more. Compelling roleplaying and balanced rulesets are not anathema to each other. I've spent too much time playing games that don't get this, and I'm somewhat tired of that mindset. It's always nice to play a game where calling for dice rolls doesn't immediately break the game. Up to the Ascension level, Dark Heresy has been moderately successful in providing this. I hope Ascension too will, eventually.

Morangias said:

Could not have said it better myself

Bombernoy said:

I have a considerable dislike for introducing such grand sweeping changes on a galactic scale into my games, because it considerably messes with my (and others) ability to return to the setting for more games. I particuarly do not wish to introduce the "Emperor Rebirth" aspect, because in every example I have seen it invariably ***** fluff left right and center, and results in massive fanwank about primarchs, Illuminati, and permanently sealing The Eye of Terror, all of which ends up sounding poorly conceived and contrived. Secondly, it utterly destroys the permanent status quo of the opporessive Imperium and Cult of The Emperor, a theme which I consider paramount to 40k being what it is.

Sorry, not my cup of tea, personally. Otherwise that would've been my first thought too.

Bombernoy said:

The party did enough Inquisitor-hunting last campaign (took them from rank 4 all the way to 7-8), stopped a sector-destroying daemon and what could have been the Tyrant Star, and personally have "The Ear of the Lord Sector" as it were at this moment. They spent all last year IRL on the run and chasing down rogue Inquisitorial agents in their quest. I don't really want to rehash a lot of that again.

Bombernoy said:

And therein lies my problem. I don't want to destroy elements I consider thematically important to 40k, and I want to leave the Sector, if not unchanged, at least intact enough that I or another member of our group can step in at any time and run a campaign without undue strain and retconning (Oh ****, the Skaelan-Har Hedgemony is shattered? Well, there goes this ENTIRE plot hook. Inquisitor Skane? We killed her last week? Well, ****, there goes that one too...)

Thanks for trying though. It's the first real attempt I've seen.

The Hobo Hunter said:

Yea, the hole changing massive thematic elements is a turn off for a lot of people. Though I think the void dragon, or better yet, the outsider awakening and returning, possibly being directed in some way by the deciever would be a sound plot that allows you to get that epic scale without losing major players. What happens if you kill the outsider? Nothing major, or maybe you let loose a bunch of C'tan(the ones he ate but aren't really dead) and have to clean up that mess.

The Hobo Hunter said:

Like I said, read every piece of sci-fi ever is about out all you can do. If they like the Dan Abbot books maybe through some elements of that in as a homage. Have them face being declared traitors and fight there way back into the rank of the inquisition.

The Hobo Hunter said:

Unfortunately eventually you will probably end up running some very similar scenarios, there are only so many things that people at the rank of =I= can really consider as threats. But the death of a Chaos god or a sort of crusade into the eye(not sealing it though) is usable because it's next to impossible to gather the resources and what not(a large number of missions could be put into this itself) and then like I said, even if you kill a chaos god, they will be back, they are made of the thoughts and emotions of people, and esp if the Imperium remains with the status quo, then they will be born again. I would suggest Slaanesh if you do go that path, it's both a relatively young god and the one that would remake itself most readily. Or have them go to recover some great lost artifact from the planet of a Demon Prince. That way they never kill anything that is needed for stability, it still takes forever, its plenty hard and scary enough, and the universe doesn't change.

The Hobo Hunter said:

No, they didn't. (I.e. it reads like they did all of that IRL, not just the year of time)

For my part, I'm not averse to the idea that bits of Ascension are broken. Like N0-1_H3R3, I think the VA career, for example, is one of those which massively constrict the Roleplay element of it. Not by necessity, but I find good RP and the VA career very difficult to think about.

Though I've not properly touched on Ascension yet, I'd like to think my regular group are working that way. We have a long way to go, but I think we can manage it.

My main instinctive 'quick fix' is currently threefold:
- Re-examine 'Unnatural Traits' such that each choice is a (X+1), not *(X+1); making it geometric not algebraic
- Assert that the Temple trait is 'per encounter', not 'all the time', making it more akin to some sort of 'specialist fate' than an 'I win, let me roll to see how quickly'.
- Something about fixing the scaling of Psychic Powers as well (again, make it geometric, not algebraic; i.e. based on the 'lowest' factor, which through Ascension is almost only psy-rating, not WPB, right?)

The obvious trouble with these are:
- Checking costs
- No problem at all
- Going through it with a fine comb

Anything which people are really cheesed about which this wouldn't solve?

Alot of the assumptions I see about various class is the thought that their primary stat is going to be 70 and then multiplied by Unnatural Characteristics. I have seen very few Assassins or Psykers starting with a natural 40 or higher in Agility or Willpower. And once they have spent all the XPs on WP or Agility advances and Unnatural Characteristics they have spend huge amounts of XP

When you choose to become a VA you dont just get the extra +10 to you Agility and Unnatural Agility (x2), you still have to buy all three advances for that, which is near 3000XP or so (dont have the book with me).

Some simple fixes for ascension. The starting career bonus skills instead must be purchased as 100XP each. Characters do not start with the extra 500XP to spend and XP awards stay on the scale from Dark Heresy not that which is presented in Ascension. Career special skills and traits would also have to be purchased at 100 or 200XP fees.

Plus, IMHO, Vidicare Assassin should only be available for players making up characters for Ascension as new characters, not PCs ascending from rank 8 to rank 9. From how I have always understood the fluff, Assassins of this calibre are trained at the temple their entire life not drafted in from street thugs and soldiers.

Most assassin PCs at rank 1 I have seen may have AG of around 40, but that is after they purchased their first Agility Advance. And most assassin PCs I have seen either focus primarily on WS or BS first with STR and AG as backup, so it wouldnt surprise me if my group's assassin finished rank 8 with only agility 50 or so (still pretty f'n high).

The above adjustments are simple, stretch over all the careers and does not let the Vindicare to just show up and do his magic on day one of the game.

Peacekeeper_b said:

A friend of mine is approaching Ascension with his assassin and decided to see what his character would look like if he became a VA. Once he'd finished his transition he had an Agility of 60, giving him a total dodge chance of 90 (+10 from the bodyglove). First 1000 xp will be spend on Unnatural Agility, then the next 2500 for a total of + 10 to Agility. Note that you get 500xp for free when making the transition. Also that when playing Ascension the typical amount of xp given per session is 500-750. The end of the fist adventure would probably leave him with 14 dodges at 100%.

Peacekeeper_b said:

I think an easier fix is just to nerf the VA's Temple Assassin ability. That pretty much fixes the career.

Peacekeeper_b said:

That's been the general rule, but there's always been the exception for 'people so awesome they garner the attention of the Temples'. Basically the temples aren't going to ignore you just because you aren't 8 years old. If you are a vicious killer, you're a candidate.

macd21 said:

The 'look' of what's done to assassins seems to be vaguely similar to what's done to Astartes. Whether they accept you older or not is up in the air. Sure a thirty year old can become a space marine, it's just...different. And often death-inducing.

Should this set precedent for the Temple Assassins? For the likes of N0-1, I imagine, the answer is 'no'. Assassins trained from you, Astartes trained from young. Unless you're not 'proper' ones, of course.

Regarding talk of nerfing the Temple ability, how'd you do it, Macd21?

Xisor said:

I'd make the player chew on glass every time he pulled out the rule during the game. So long as he could continue chewing that glass throughout the encounter I'd let him use the abilities as listed - seems fair enough.

Peacekeeper_b said:

That doesn't really solve the problem. If any of the ascended traits is game-breaking, and there are strong arguments for some of them being such, then slapping a price tag on them doesn't save the game from breaking, just postpones the moment when it breaks.

I'm still in favor of toning the traits down so they retain the current flavor of their respective careers without breaking the system.

This has been a fantastic thread. Morangias you hit the nail on the head with balance. I would like to clarify some of my thoughts on balance.

There will be character classes more powerful than others. However with the characters with "more power" should have also "more drawbacks". Psyker characters are examples of these. Not just through game mechanics but through game environment (ie. psykers are looked on with superstition).

Now the VA has not got any drawbacks but is more powerful than the Crusader & other characters. As I said I'm fine with a PP being almost an order of magnitude more powerful than the Crusader (& others) but the VA is of a similar power hike but with none of the drawbacks. (Thanks macd21 for your comments on how the VA works in real average characters not just in hypothetical ones)

My underlying thoughts...

• It is okay for some characters to be a greater power than the other so long as there are drawbacks and it does not spoil other players enjoyment of the game (again nice words Morangias )
• The VA should be hit with a nerf bat. Either 1/2 Natural Ag Bonus extra dodges a round or Ag Bonus extra dodges per game session . Which do people thinks works well/best?
• For Psyker abilities when the WP bonus defines the power of the ability and using the WP bonus of high level PP characters is too overpowering (I'm looking at you force barrage) then the Psy rating used to "cast" them should be used instead. Should any other than Force Barrage be effected?

Baldrick said:

If you're going to make such a change, i think it would be best to do an all inclusive change as opposed to a handful of exceptions. If you keep doing that, all you'll end up with is a massive rules system consisting solely of exceptions.

Off the top of my head, replacing all instances of WPB with Effective Psy Rating wouldn't be all that bad for psy powers. On the lower theirs, before psy 4, it will make some powers weaker, but on the whole, they'll play about the same as they have. On higher levels, psi 7+, it will give the powers a bit more oomph without going overboard the way they would with WPB and Unnatural WP x2+. Likewise, for all powers that were reliant on WPB for part of their effect, the Priamris Psyker would be further rewarded for pushing his power, thus raising his effective psi rating, and getting even more bang, but with higher risk. While that risk wouldn't be mandatory (I think most powers are easily within the Primaris' grasp at fettered level), there'd be a greater temptation to risk the perils to raise their psi-level by a few points more often because it would have a greater payoff in the end beyond over-bleed.

That and applying it to all instances is just more symmetric. I like symmetry. It's nice.

Graver said:

They are and like I said earlier it annoys me.

To work around this, I think levels of overbleed should be capped when you manifest a power at a fettered level. Right now, I'm thinking half the effective psy rating (or maybe the overbleed values could be doubled i.e. "for every 5 points" would become "for every 10 points" and so on)

Morangias said:

Postponing it is solving it if done properly. The player gets to see the type of game being run, may have to spend XP on other things such as buying off IP or CP or learning elite advances that fit the campaign more.

Yes fixing the overall rule would fix the problem in one fell strike, but to me the bigger issue is the rate of advancement from where you go from decent, to awesome, to badass, to nigh invincible. I do not understand why they listed skills and talents and advancements at higher costs (500+ XP) only to increase the XP awards proportionately, which doesnt make the 500XP skill or talent more expensive then a standard 100XP one for a rank 1 joe.

Personally I just grabbed my big rubber stamp that says FOR GM'S EYES ONLY and marked the VA and PP pages.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Or, the player still spends his first exp gain towards purchasing the trait and you're stuck right where you were at the beginning.

Trust me, you can't put a price tag on brokenness.