Snowman0147 said:

Perception actually benefits considerably from Unnatural Characteristics (at least in the DH/RT/DW version - I can't go into detail about the BC version); many Perception Tests are opposed by something, so bonus degrees of success are extremely valuable for unearthing stealthy enemies (much as the current version of Unnatural Agility is extremely good for sneaking)

Strength gets a big benefit, yes, but the benefit is in the use, not in the number of functions. Under the current Unnatural Characteristic rules, an Adept from DH with Unnatural Intelligence (x3) (from good Cortex Implants and the ability to buy the trait in his career path) gets an effective +20 on all Intelligence-based skill tests... which is huge, as the entire career is built around having lots of Intelligence-based skills. The Intelligence Bonus increase is a nice little side perk (most commonly affecting the number of wounds you restore with Medicae), but it's not the big attraction.

On the other hand, Toughness pretty much just benefits from the Bonus increase, because there aren't many Toughness-based skills or opposed tests requiring Toughness. Unnatural Agility's benefit to tests (particularly opposed ones, which are common for Agility-based skills) is far greater than the boost to Agility Bonus. Unnatural Willpower is only really broken with psykers if you're playing Dark Heresy; the RT/DW psychic power system deals with the trait in a more reasonable manner, and opposed tests resisted by Willpower are common when facing psykers and the like. It's not about what the benefits are in isolation, but how they interact with the characteristic tests around them. You'll pretty much never be rolling Strength vs Intelligence in an Opposed Test, so the differing benefits don't actually matter all that much because each characteristic serves within a different context.

Remember, the boost to the characteristic bonus is not the only effect of Unnatural Characteristics in the current (pre-BC) rules, and that Broken Chains is (in the majority of regards) a simplified version of the system.

Man, unnatural characteristics are profoundly retarded.

Seriously. If we consider the identical mechanic of adding stat to D100 and needing 100 or more for success, we instantly see that you can have 400+D100 against any target number you like.

There is no need to be afraid of numbers over 100.

The fear makes even less sense when you consider degrees of success. Strength 240 just means you automatically generate 14 levels of success on an unmodified test. But with the roll you may generate total of 14 to 24 LOS.

"The fear makes even less sense when you consider degrees of success. Strength 240 just means you automatically generate 14 levels of success on an unmodified test. But with the roll you may generate total of 14 to 24 LOS."

Is that an argument in favour of dropping the Unnatural stats? I'd really say it's much more retarded that way...

Why? It is exactly the same as saying you can't get less than 7 on a D6+6 roll.

You know, if I ever get to a roll where I am sure to get at least 14 DoS, why would I roll?

This is D&D all over again. "Take 10" means that if you have enough skill, there is nothing stopping you from just passing through difficulties like it's nothing.

An RPG is not about having your character succeed in each and every way, that is boring. You get much much more happiness when you overcome a potential failure, imho.

@Stormast

This is D&D all over again. "Take 10" means that if you have enough skill, there is nothing stopping you from just passing through difficulties like it's nothing.

Er... no. "Take 10" means that you don't waste outgame time rolling stuff when the outcome is (or should be) already certain when there's no distraction or outside pressure. "Difficulties" generally translate into a more than even chance the roll could fail, in which case Take 10 only converts this into an automatic failure.

An RPG is not about having your character succeed in each and every way, that is boring. You get much much more happiness when you overcome a potential failure, imho.

Your second point does not follow from the first and the first has nothing to do with the "take 10" mechanic or any other mechanic that converts a ludicrously easy test into an automatic success. Yes, you get a sense of accomplishment from overcoming hardships - but I like those hardships to actually mean something. If I roll to disarm the bomb that will otherwise destroy the hive's support structure and kill billions, I can feel the tension around the table, the eyes staring at the die and daring it to succeed. If I roll to see if I can tie my shoelaces in the morning... I don't. And if I can (through superior stats, external help or whatever other means) reduce the difficulty of a check to that of tieing my shoelaces in the morning, chances are it isn't that dramatic.
It may be dramatic to see if Hephastius Bore can kick in a semi-flimsy low-tech door to get to the cogitator mainframe controlling the murder servitors while they're slowly overwhelming his friends on another deck of the ship. But are you telling me it's equally dramatic to see if his buddy Asrodel can kick in that door? I'd say there are only two results of that test: Either he manages it, in which case everyone goes "Er... yeah, ok. On to Bore's action." or he doesn't make the roll - and can prepare for a little ridicule about the Chaos Space Marine losing against his mightiest opponent... the Cardboard Door of Doom.

I know it's hard to scale and balance systems correctly when the power levels of characters diverge dramatically, but if we're using a d% mechanic with added modifiers, it's just a logical extension - if there already are modified rolls with a success chance greater than 100% or less than 0%, why not allow the base abilities to go to that point as well?

>>>>You know, if I ever get to a roll where I am sure to get at least 14 DoS, why would I roll?<<<<

In case you need 15 obviously.

It is directly equivalent to rolling 1D10+13 to determine your level of effort.

Like I say, convert the system to being Stat Bonus+1d10, needing 11+ for a basic success.

So Str43 gives a roll of 1D10+4, scoring 11+ on a roll of 6 or greater.

But not all tasks are equal. Maybe opening a particularly tough door needs a 12+ or 13+ roll

A stat of 130 or 1D10+13 can't fail there, but if he tries to pick up a car and throw it at someone, he might need 18+ or 19+ giving him a 4/5 in 10 chance of failing.

Where I disagree is that I don't see why you should have a 130% chance to make it with a "Challenging" (+0) test.

For the Big E's sake, the WH40k RPG system considers that you don't have to roll for everything. You don't even "Take 10", you just manage to do it. If Asrodel wants to kick a sh*tty wooden door, I won't make him roll, i'll just tell him "Yeah, you kicked it well, you cheap bastard!". Honestly, i'm not even sure I'd make Bore roll for that (kicking a door is fairly easy and doesn't require strength, unless it is strengthened or locked with a good lock, in which case you'll need much strength, or better, something to apply your strength with).

Where I disagree is that I don't see why you should have a 130% chance to make it with a "Challenging" (+0) test.

Because what's "challenging" for one person doesn't have to be "challenging" for another, especially when another person may indeed be a genetically engineered super soldier with daemonic enhancements. How do you decide when something is automatically successful? The easiest way would be, in my opinion, to just use the percentages - if you can get to over 100% by raw stats or bonuses, you're succesful, no need for eyeballing.