Morangias said:

Actually you can. I believe it was and I believe it was $49.95 plus shipping.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Actually you can. I believe it was and I believe it was $49.95 plus shipping.

Now that is funny

Or you do this: The TA ability grants 1 more dodge, BUT if the pc spend 200xp they can buy another dodge, then another for 300 more xp, another for 400 more, and so on until they equal their Agility bonus. So for one to get 14 more dodges they'd have to pay (1st free) 200+300+400+500 ... +1400xp. So the entire 14 extra dodges would cost them 10,400xp. So if they really wanted to, they could spend an enormous amount of xp and keep increasing their dodge skill until they finally hit their AG based cap.

I don't see trouble with the 'Per Session' thing. It's more in-line with the 'Demeanours' it sounds like they're introducing in "Deathwatch". Means that Assassins can indeed have their 'Crowning Moment of Awesome', but also that that Awesome has a limit.

This means that combat still poses a threat, but that it's not necessarily an immediate threat. Keeps the assassin player on their toes, where before, eventually, they're not.

Pushing it back with XP doesn't resolve the trouble, in my eyes.The flaw is still there, eventually.

I think, personally, I'm very settled on changing the TA to 'Per Session'. Though I might modify it again if I also 'altered' the Unnatural quality.

Xisor said:

Bombernoy said:

I don't see it, myself. Just your opinion as it is, but how does it ruin the flow of a game? It's no more flow-ruining than fate-point regeneration. (Say that the TA dodge regenerates alongside FPs?) On the topic of transcendental hate, it's 'their AB' not 'there AB'

As for Unnatural Toughness; it's been said a few times before, but it comes down to the Officio assassins being super-engineered/-modified post-human warriors (hence autosanguine, for example, too). Though my 'hate' of the Unnatural stuff is mollified still by my desire to see it to a '+1' instead of 'x1'.

I like the "per session" fix.

First for it could easily be clarification in the errata: there's no explicit "per round" to these extra reactions, though it can be implied.

Second for the fact that many other ascended career traits (like those treat as 01) are "per session" too so there's precedent.

Has anyone heard anything from FFG on this subject, any hints as to what they think of the VA? I would love to hear something from them, even if it's just, "that's the way we intended it", or "we are looking at it and you can expect a change in an update".

Xisor said:

I agree about the 'per session' thing feeling odd and awkward in DH. It's a nice 'gamey' way of granting limited boosts and powers, but from a fluff point-of-view it just doesn't seem to be able to fit itself in my head without some metagame explanation as to how it comes about that a character can only get this bonus once every X times.

Reminds me of DnD 4e, and all that entails. See Bloody Path, for example, where the entire session breaks down into wondering how A) the rogue manages to make other characters attack themselves, and B) how that beholder suddenly bit itself.

Except in this case I start wondering just what is physically limiting the Assassin on a per-session basis, or the Sage on his ability, or the Interrogator on his.

Yeah, on that sidetrack, I've never liked 1/day, 1/session, 1/whosaysit, abilities ... unless it is something I can see costing a lot of energy ic it seems too mechanical and breaks the illusion. Like someone else said, there are few to no abilities I have that I could only use once per day - or even once per ten minutes. Can you imagine something like "you can drive for 1 hour each day" ... driving down the road on the way to get a pizza and all of a sudden, **** your hour is up! Car goes out of control and crashes! Knew I should have been paying attention to the time! Feh.

Maybe put some sort of mechanical limitation on it. Such as: Gains additional reactions to dodge as long as the VA has not failed a dodge roll yet that round, upto AB bonus reactions.

Or: Can spend a fate point to gain an additionla dodge. Or: Costs 1 Fate point to use, much like faith powers.

Or: Make it similar to the way movement works with AB and Unnatural Agility, i.e. it doesnt affect it.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Me like

Meatpuppet said:

7 dodges still, if your assassin ever has to dodge more then that anyways, you've pretty much gone out of your way to splatter the group, or you have all melee carrying lightning attacking enemies.

Bombernoy said:

Everyone assumes the Assassin will have AG 70+. I think 50-60 is more likely what they will have for AG. Still that is an abundance of dodges regardless, especially if they have Side Step (or step aside, or whatever talent that gives a bonus dodge).

Other simpler options would be to have extra dodges risk fatigue or to base the number of bonus dodges on Perception instead of Agility, since part of the nature is their combat sense and situational awareness.

It is a two fold problem overall. 1) A lot of bonus dodges. 2) Really high Agility, Dodge skill and bonuses (such as from their suit). So another solution may be to have each additional dodge performed at a skill level lower. First bonus dodge is at Agility+Dodge+20, second is at Agility+Dodge+10, third is Agility+Dodge and fourth and more is untrained.

Overall I think Perception is the way to go.

Peacekeeper_b said:

That is the most rational thing I think I have read in this thread. I really like this idea.

Bombernoy said:

Two Death Cult Assassins with Ambidextrous, Lightning Attack and TWW(M) . 4 attacks each, and they can do that on the charge if need be because of their Preternatural Speed trait. But the mentioned 7 dodges does not include the base reaction, plus Step Aside , so we are more likely talking 9 reactions at that point. Yes, there are a lot of ways to eat up reactions.

But, the idea that the VA gets extra reactions only calculated off of their unmodified AB isn't a bad idea... Or the perception idea.

-=Brother Praetus=-

Brother Praetus said:

The houserule (yet to be needed, but it's best to nail such things in advance) we're using vor the Vindicare is: One additional Dodge per round, which may be used to dodge things not dodgeable ( at the DMs discretion). This brings a Vindicare to 3 reactions (normal, Step Aside and Temple Assassin Training) which basically nullifies even an expert single attacker or a small group of enemies with firearms. If he gets swarmed, he's in a bit more trouble. Which is perfectly in line with his role.

Along with the reroll of physical skills, the Temple Assassin Training is still the top trait Ascended Characters get.

For my part, I am seriously considering just not allowing the Vindicare as a viable career for player-characters. I want them (VA's, as well as all temple assassins) to be darn-near unkillable, so I don't really want to nerf them. So, to avoid game-breaking, I think I may just disallow them.

And too, story-wise it just seems a bit "out there" to me that any random Inquisitor, especially a newly-minted one, can have a Temple Assassin as a permanent part of his cadre. Especially since, fluff-wise, they are only dispatched on missisons approved by the Lords of Terra themselves.

I know that Jaq Draco had one in Inquisition Wars, but she was considered an outcast, and if the powers-that-be had known about her, they likely would have been hunting her down with abandon.

Just my take on it. I do like a good many of the ideas posted by others about how to eliminate the VA's game-breaking ability. But as I said, I don't want to nerf them.

Alternately you could nerf their primary ability and give them something else, then call them Vanus Assassins. Since nothing seems to be known of the group it would be simple enough to state that they are a branch of the Assassinorum assigned to serve the interests of Inquisitors. You could even make it a "bridging" school if you wanted, designed for the sole purpose of testing and moving older, but promising individuals into the Assassinorum before they undergo full upgrade and treatment.

For that matter, however, I would never allow a PC to be an Inquisitor. Here you are essentially saying "this character is more important than the rest of you and you must do as he says". Sure groups develop leaders and the like, but the Inquisitor profession comes with the 'group leader' tag already attached. And if they don't listen to the Inquisitor because he's just another pc, they undermine the very role they are supposed to be playing and force the PC to either try and strongarm them - which will likely create IC and OOC tension - or let himself be walked over and disgrace the entire party, not to mention the people who put him up for his commission and the others who approved it.

Interrogator is as high as I'd let any PC get - at least at this point in the game. (Later I might let a PC be an Inquisitor adventuring with a Space Marine, a powerful Rogue Trader, Vindicare Assassin, and other overthetop baddasses, in an "everyone's equally epic" game.)

Zaa said:

You're missing Wall of Steel in there. Just because everyone keeps talking about dodges, let's not forget about being able to parry an attack as well. And Wall of Steel grants yet another reaction for the sole purpose of parrying. So we're looking at a potential of 4 reactions still.

-=Brother Praetus=-

Isn't that ultimately the point, though? If the GM/player group does not feel that a certain character class or power level is appropriate for them, just remove it. Because it happens to be published in a book doesn't mean that you have to use it. There is, for example, no reason whatsoever that a player couldn't take on the role of a Greater Daemon of Chaos that is in possession of a Daemonic Vessel PC. Massively different power levels, but it could be made to work if the players and the gamemaster are up for it. Same with Inquisitors, Shrine Assassins, Chapter Masters of the Adeptus Astartes , and a travelling box made out of sapient pearwood.

Just a thought.

Kage

hahaha sapient pearwood!!

Jack of Tears said:

Exactly. ................ Dang! Now I've got to nerf Inquisitors too?!? Nope, just disallow them. But still ... WTF?!? Does this sound like a fundamentally sound game concept? I hate ... I mean I really do hate ... to keep criticizing FFG's efforts, but ... this just doesn't jive!

I am sad.