When i shoot a guy, he falls down. If i get his arm, his leg, or his head, he falls down. And that's with 5.56 mm rounds (not 75 mm). Yeah, massive hit point scores do not a realistic combat system make. Sorry. Hard and fast, just like old L5R. DnD is dead. RIP.
What's wrong with Deathwatch...
ak-73 said:
1. I have no problem with the DW combat system per se. I think it's great that a Hive Tyrant can slash a PC into half with a single attack that connects. Now maybe he shouldn't have 2 attacks per round, that is the problem. It would make melee with him more survivable. Also I renew my call for making critical damage non-cumulative. It makes PCs much more survivable. If only I would get to test this any time soon. I want bloodied marines who keep on going like a deadly machine. And I want room service.
I worry about how that would work out with the existing dodge/parry mechanics, but I agree with the theme. It's not hard for someone to get two parries (well, someone who is considering charging a HT) and without two attacks (or three) it means the fight will be drawn out as they parry/feint/parry/etc. But I have no better options, so I can't really complain too much. I'll be interested to hear the results of your crit playtests though.
ak-73 said:
[...] The PCs see the load.out of the bodyguards and the players and the GM know what's going to happen boring. [...]
True enough, but isn't that just a poorly setup encounter? You could tweak it any number of ways to leave surprises, or you could leave it as is, give the players the chance to 'show them whose boss' (and if they're intent on shooting and not subduing you can totally fastforward the combat). If you want it unpredictable and you're using mortals, give them something else- a hidden assassin, sniper cover, something better than a bodyglove, xenotech defenses, etc. I don't disagree that DW doesn't provide a lot of that stuff out of the gate, but I don't know that this is bad specifcally in the case of mortals as that wasn't the real focus of the game.
ak-73 said:
You need to prepare the monsters like this: a) this is the standard 40K average critter and b) here is some cool rules variations and special abilities (or sizes) to surprise your players. You need to be able to build different specimen of a species at a glance.
I kind of agree here. In the core they have a very limited number of bad guys presented, and the only thing I felt that was really missing was some guidelines or suggestions on how to customize them. The customization was there and possible, but again like a lot of other things in DW it is very GM-time intensive.
ak-73 said:
That said, I don't think DW is broken at all, except at higher levels.
Mercifully I'm not to higher levels at this point, so I can't speak to that directly. For the most part I agree, but even at lower levels I find myself again crying 'gm-time intensive.' Now it's not bad for a GM to take time to build an adventure, far from it, but for some reason in DW it takes far longer than my experience with other settings/systems. This is for a variety of reasons, from the 'defense rich hit point poor' system to the unpredictability of some of the powers.
But, I don't think it's broken either, I just think it's rough around the edges.
ak-73 said:
AluminiumWolf said:
ak-73 said:
Kill-or-be-killed is what makes master-tiers special.
Ach, dude, surely that is the failure mode of the system. SURELY you would rather have epic battles of legend with lots of tactics, comebacks, clever strategies and whatnot.
You know, you can look to your modern video games for examples of how there is a huge range of gameplay styles. Some games go for the brutal 'one shot kill' system where if you take two hits you're reloading your last checkpoint or waiting to respawn. Other games give you regenerating health and a shield or the like that means you die a lot more slowly. Each one speaks to its own personal style of gameplay- much like the differences between systems like Seventh Sea, D&D, and 40k.
DW happens to be a game where you die much more quickly- in an RPG setting, provided you know this going in, you'd best come up with your tactics and strategies before charging the enemy and being surprised that he cut you in half.
EDIT: Once again, I hate this board software.
AluminiumWolf said:
ak-73 said:
Kill-or-be-killed is what makes master-tiers special.
Ach, dude, surely that is the failure mode of the system. SURELY you would rather have epic battles of legend with lots of tactics, comebacks, clever strategies and whatnot.
I dunno. Sit down some time and play Dungeons and Dragons with the mat and all the miniatures, or maybe just a boardgame or cardgame like settlers or magic. You will probably despair at the non-games that a lot of roleplaying games have as their combat system.
Or even World of Warcraft!
Ok, I seriously do not understand your argument. It sounds like you want to play Deathwatch, but you want Deathwatch to use the D&D 4E system instead. I've played 4E before, and it's entirely unsuited to 40k games; it's much too bright, cheerful and optimistic. Even the combat rules reflect that. If you want to play D&D, by all means go ahead. Nobody is stopping you, and there are plenty of other D&D players out there you could hook up with.
However, the rest of us play 40k games in general, and Deathwatch in particular, because we want a more gritty, lethal, blood and guts combat experience. If we wanted to play a game where our characters are perfectly safe and live in a nice, bright, fairyland unicorns and rainbows world, we would play D&D.
We all hate the forum software. I've still not figured out how to make multi quotes work. In fact I wonder if this quote will work now it isn't at the top.
Charmander said:
before
charging the enemy and being surprised that he cut you in half.
Thing is, in a Space Marine game, charging the enemy is what I came for. It should be fun. If charging the enemy isn't fun something has gone drastically wrong. The actual process of dispensing violence should be as fun as possible.
This isn't as important in games that don't feature as much combat - which is practically all games. But how fun the combat is in a Space Marine game matters . It is the meat of the game!
Seriously, we are talking about Games Workshops Space Marine game. The combat has to work.
AluminiumWolf said:
Thing is, in a Space Marine game, charging the enemy is what I came for. It should be fun. If charging the enemy isn't fun something has gone drastically wrong. The actual process of dispensing violence should be as fun as possible.
But that's all a matter of opinion- I think I can see where you're coming from in your D&D approach. The high hitpoint systems work for large longer fights of dragon versus knight.
The thing is, 40k RP isn't really that. I don't think that in itself is a bad thing. My characters still charge the enemy (and report to me they're having fun doing so), they just don't do so blindly. They try to come up with a plan ahead of time, draw the beast out and try to kite him, suppress his enemies with supressing fire, use traps, use the environment to their advantage, then when the opportunity presents they swoop in cut the baddie in half with a million melee hits.
That's the thing with the 40k RP system- it's not in and of itself broken; it may be thematically not what you're looking for. I'm not sure it really ever will be, TBH.
And to do multi-quotes, you have to make sure each text block is wrapped with the efidm=NNNN tag. So to quote you a second time I have to paste in
---" AluminiumWolf said:
"---, then at the end of that the standard /QUOTE in brackets. For hehateme's below, I change the number to his quote number, which is 610457 for this post.
Hehateme said:
However, the rest of us play 40k games in general, and Deathwatch in particular, because we want a more gritty, lethal, blood and guts combat experience. If we wanted to play a game where our characters are perfectly safe and live in a nice, bright, fairyland unicorns and rainbows world, we would play D&D.
I've had plenty of D&D characters die, they aren't all perfectly safe and in many cases weren't in a fairyland in unicorns. It's all about the story and the GM- you might be able to argue the type of players attracted to one system or another, but I find obnoxious people in all walks of RPGs
. D&D is simply a different style of gameplay than 40k is, and
liking
that style isn't in and of itself a bad thing. It just isn't what the designers made when they made the 40k system.
Well crap, it found my quote example embedded and used it as an example. The trick is to use the [ then the QUOTE in all caps with a space, then the efidm= then the post number and a closing bracket as your opening line for the quotation.
Charmander said:
It just isn't what the designers made when they made the 40k system.
I maintain they were trying to make fun combat and ****** it up.
Charmander said:
Does this Work
Well does it!
Well, we can read their intentions from the introduction to the adversaries section. Master-levels are to be tackled by a whole team. Also it's fairly obvious that they understand that a PC could hardly survive a single hit by a Hive Tyrant but certainly not two. That part seems to be intentional. Also... well.. here's where variety would come in a HT for a low-rank team might have 2 attacks. A mid-rank team might be able to deal with 4 attacks between parries and force fields.
Your desire might be a 40K setting in which the DW can charge everyone and everything but I don't think the majority of gamers would agree. The Hive Tyrant and Daemon Prince are two examples where the palyers better avoid neding up in melee with and they'd better have some tactics at hand to avoid or dely such a battle condition. Or they agree to sacrifice a a PC to save the group, which is classical Astartes behaviour.
I think DW should see more self-sacrifice by PCs than other games. Surely you don't throw an Astartes life away for nothing but if the mission or the team's survival is at stake... This naaturally goes contrary to rolling up a character and playing himj from rank 1 all the way to rank 8. I also think that mixed rank kill-teams can work quite well in DW, especially if the Watch Captain is more lax with renown restrictions.
Alex
ak-73 said:
Kshatriya said:
So, if death only occurs at high-end critical damage (9 or 10 range mostly), and critical damage is non-cumulative, and True Grit halves damage taken (so one hit will never inflict more than 5 critical damage)...how do marines ultimately get killed?
You change the mechanics of True Grit.
Alex
Actually I don't think True Grit needs to be changed at all. Firstly, critical damage IS cumulative, although True Grit does halve the amount of crit damage you take each time. I think the source of the confusion is that the Critical EFFECTS aren't cumulative. For example, if a Space Marine is clawed by a Genestealer and takes 3 levels of critical damage (after the effects of True Grit), he suffers the effects of that crit level only. He does not suffer the effects of crit levels 1 and 2 as well.
Thus, a Space Marine can certainly die. I've had a couple close calls in my campaign with PCs almost dying. All True Grit does is ensures that one hit won't kill a Space Marine. A particularly nasty hit might put him in criticals, but probably won't kill him. This of course, gives that Marine's team mates a chance to rush to hisrescue.
Hehateme said:
ak-73 said:
Kshatriya said:
So, if death only occurs at high-end critical damage (9 or 10 range mostly), and critical damage is non-cumulative, and True Grit halves damage taken (so one hit will never inflict more than 5 critical damage)...how do marines ultimately get killed?
You change the mechanics of True Grit.
Alex
Actually I don't think True Grit needs to be changed at all. Firstly, critical damage IS cumulative, although True Grit does halve the amount of crit damage you take each time. I think the source of the confusion is that the Critical EFFECTS aren't cumulative. For example, if a Space Marine is clawed by a Genestealer and takes 3 levels of critical damage (after the effects of True Grit), he suffers the effects of that crit level only. He does not suffer the effects of crit levels 1 and 2 as well.
Thus, a Space Marine can certainly die. I've had a couple close calls in my campaign with PCs almost dying. All True Grit does is ensures that one hit won't kill a Space Marine. A particularly nasty hit might put him in criticals, but probably won't kill him. This of course, gives that Marine's team mates a chance to rush to hisrescue.
No, it's no confusion here, we understand how the critical hit system works. The DW crit system is a modified version of the original WFRP crit system in which critical damage was no cumulative. I have been suggesting to adopt that approach - in which case True Grit would need to be modified because it would be too powerful.
Alex
For the love of god don't port in D&D rules to 40k. Are you barking mad? The whole feel of 40k goes out of the window if your PCs can't die from a single shot. I LOVE how that is possible, even if it took me a couple of sessions to clue on to the why of it (used to play D&D a lot myself, then pathfinder which btw is a lot better then 4E).
40k combat has a gritty realism to it which makes it so appealing. D&D runs of not being realistic at all, 40k runs of being realistic in a very dystopian way. It does not make sense that you can easily survive a hit from a lascannon. Those things are designed to punch through tanks, and you want your player to be able to take it not just once but several times? I'm sorry but to me you appear to simply not appreciate the setting and you're trying to blame it on the system. Yes PCs are heroes who are capable of extraordinary things, especially in DW. But even so, they are only mortal genhanced men. Take that idea and run with for Emperors sake. I'm hooked on 40k because i can die easily. I've no need for another rpg where your characters are so ridiculously damage-resistant that you need an entire A4 sheet (front and back) to keep track of your wounds during a session. We already got those, and it's fine.
I should also point out that to nerf the system as you suggest would go entirely counter to the published fluff so far. Yes, SM can in fact die from a single hit. It's a big part of what makes them such great and convincing heroes. Best of the best, and yet still you can't just clumsily stumble in and expect to not die. Making stat blocks easier to read is fine by me, nerfing the system as you suggest: HELL NO!
I dunno. I just think that an epic boss fight between four heroes of the Astartes and a Daemon Prince on top of a skyscraper for the fate of the sector should be a fun experience to play out. It should be satisfying in and of itself.
The rules should make a good skirmish game even if you don't want to roleplay.
Yup, what Badlapje said.
Though, to be sure, the space marines are the uber heroes of 40k, hands down; and playing them as such is cromulent and good and, indeed, necessary. But, what makes heroes truly, epically heroic is the fact that they can die. Usually in a ridiculously simple way. A hero is not a goon who slays baddies and cannot himself be slain; a hero is one who goes out and does their thing in spite of overwhelming danger and death. Frodo is far more heroic than Marneus. (not that i'm hackin' on poor Calgar: i know he's a hero, he's just an example in this case!) To take our group's gaming experience as another example: our players have slain bad guys for years, years; but the epic heroic moment came kinda unexpectedly when, as it turned out, a player chose to sacrifice himself to save everybody else at the climactic moment. It's rather difficult to describe the feeling around the game table when that all went down, but there was a definite sense that something...big?...had happened...something significant...all of our climactic battles and epic confrontations hadn't held the same gravitas as that one simple (heroic?) act...
But, if he'd had a bunch of hit points, he just wouldn't have died....and if the other players had also had a bunch of hp, they wouldn't have needed him to die to save them....no dramatic moment, no epic heroicness; just another epic mega battle smack down. woulda been cool; but we would have missed that simple moment of awesomeness and true grit. And i for one am glad we found that one moment of heroism.
...and i seem to have veered off into deep philosophicalness; apologies!
And to Aluminum Wolf: is it not fun to tussle with a demon prince on the skyscraper using the dw rules? Am i correct in stating you believe the failing to be the lack of 'staying power' of the marines? Or are there other kludgy bits? I'm all for testosterone-fueled mayhem...We're heavy on the rp, though...it kinda turns out like a zombie flick: pc's frantically trying to stay alive, cover each other, rescue each other, all while killing the uber demon from hell...lottsa fate points get used/burned, lottsa strategy and tactics get used, lottsa cover and distraction and teamwork and backstabbyness. And marines do die or get freakishly mangled. I guess we've evolved (devolved) from enjoying the curb-stomping of our enemies to enjoying the frantic mayhem of trying to stop our enemies while getting out alive. Different tastes, i s'pose. We do love to glory in our greatness, too. We've just found that, what keeps us coming back is the struggle for victory, not the victory itself...strange concept for these modern times, i know....
ak-73 said:
Actually I don't think True Grit needs to be changed at all. Firstly, critical damage IS cumulative, although True Grit does halve the amount of crit damage you take each time. I think the source of the confusion is that the Critical EFFECTS aren't cumulative. For example, if a Space Marine is clawed by a Genestealer and takes 3 levels of critical damage (after the effects of True Grit), he suffers the effects of that crit level only. He does not suffer the effects of crit levels 1 and 2 as well.
Thus, a Space Marine can certainly die. I've had a couple close calls in my campaign with PCs almost dying. All True Grit does is ensures that one hit won't kill a Space Marine. A particularly nasty hit might put him in criticals, but probably won't kill him. This of course, gives that Marine's team mates a chance to rush to hisrescue.
No, it's no confusion here, we understand how the critical hit system works. The DW crit system is a modified version of the original WFRP crit system in which critical damage was no cumulative. I have been suggesting to adopt that approach - in which case True Grit would need to be modified because it would be too powerful.
Alex
Oops, apologies Alex, I guess the confusion was on my part!
I think the central issue here is between roleplayers that want to play an epic, high adventure fantasy game, and roleplayers that want to play a more gritty and lethal military science fiction game. Both styles of game are equally valid, but for those who want D&D-type high adventure, 40k games are definitely not going to be their cup of tea.
I've always enjoyed rules-heavy, simulationist combat type games like Rolemaster and the 40k games, so Deathwatch is certainly my type of game. However, it certainly isn't for everyone, and that's fine.
I think the central issue here is between roleplayers that want to play an epic, high adventure fantasy game, and roleplayers that want to play a more gritty and lethal military science fiction game. Both styles of game are equally valid, but for those who want D&D-type high adventure, 40k games are definitely not going to be their cup of tea.
I've always enjoyed rules-heavy, simulationist combat type games like Rolemaster and the 40k games, so Deathwatch is certainly my type of game. However, it certainly isn't for everyone, and that's fine.
Hehateme said:
I think the central issue here is between roleplayers that want to play an epic, high adventure fantasy game, and roleplayers that want to play a more gritty and lethal military science fiction game. Both styles of game are equally valid, but for those who want D&D-type high adventure, 40k games are definitely not going to be their cup of tea..
My group fit fairly squarely into the first category; gamers that like playing high-adventure sci-fi. To them, they aren't playing mere genetically enhanced, superhuman ubermench - they're the Angels of Deaht, grandchildren of the God-Emperor of Terra, all praise Him On Earth!
And they are absolutely fine with the core ruleset (plus errata et al) because of one thing - Fate Points. The Hive Tyrant chooses not to go in for the quick kill, instead, it lunges forwards to stare eye to alien eye with the battle brother. The fall would have killed the astartes instantly, if not for the smaller building that he falls through, each floor braking his descent slowly but surely. The Lascannon Blast is intercepted at the last second as an Imperial Guardsman sees the enemy trooper raising the weapon and jumps in the way, figuring his life is a small price to pay for the life of one of the Angels of Death.
Whenever a player spends a fate point and actually gives a little narrative like that, I give a +10 bonus to the reroll, or increase healing by d5. THey get to tell a cooler story, big threats become cinematic fodder for as many rerolls as are required, and the group can rest assured that tehy won't get one shotted unless it tells a better tale.
AluminiumWolf said:
I dunno. I just think that an epic boss fight between four heroes of the Astartes and a Daemon Prince on top of a skyscraper for the fate of the sector should be a fun experience to play out. It should be satisfying in and of itself.
The rules should make a good skirmish game even if you don't want to roleplay.
How can it be epic if every marine has an array of abilities and 3+ Fate Points to burn? The outcome will be a foregone conclusion, the only question is how how fate has to be burnt. That is the other side of the Fate Points coin. At least as-is a Daemon Prince can chew through Fate Points with ease. (In total 4 FPs last time one manifested, btw.)
Alex
Hehateme said:
I think the central issue here is between roleplayers that want to play an epic, high adventure fantasy game, and roleplayers that want to play a more gritty and lethal military science fiction game. Both styles of game are equally valid, but for those who want D&D-type high adventure, 40k games are definitely not going to be their cup of tea.
I've always enjoyed rules-heavy, simulationist combat type games like Rolemaster and the 40k games, so Deathwatch is certainly my type of game. However, it certainly isn't for everyone, and that's fine.
I am not so sure that is the reason. Perhaps it is merely that some people want boss fights to be an attrition race, D&D-style. I enjoy differing formats in different games.
That said, I think DW could use the option for more Wound Points. Rank 8 Characters with 35 wounds should be possible. Look at Marine Special Character Models in 40K. They can withstand as much damage as a Tyranid Warrior. Or more if your first name is Calgar or Lysander. Those would have like 60 Wound Points in Deathwatch.
Alex
ak-73 said:
That said, I think DW could use the option for more Wound Points. Rank 8 Characters with 35 wounds should be possible. Alex
You can. Count up the number of sound constitutions available and you can hit low to mid 30s, depending on starting wound totals. Storm Lords can easily do that. The gimmick is that its 1000 points per sound constitution after your first two. If anything, they should reduce the cost of sound constitution to 500 until rank 5 or 6 then go to 1000.
Yeah, you can reach 35 if you roll maximum wounds, pick the right speciality and take every SC advance you can. This isn't realistic though. Even at 500 all the way you'd be spending 5,000 XP on getting merely 10 Wound Points. Not a good idea.
So how much are 10 Wound Points really worth? Maybe 3,000, I'd say? So 300 on average? 6x200 + 1x300 + 3x500?
Alex
I suppose I could see a cheaper cost other than what I suggested but to be honest I play in a very brutal DW campaign and my Black Templar Assault Marine started with 19 wounds and 3 fate points. I have been close to death "many" times, still have all my fate points and have only purchase one Sound Constitution. Meanwhile the Apothecary has only 1 fate point left, the devastator has none, and the techmarine still has 3, started at 4.
They complain but its their play style. Drooling slope fore headed killers that think they are invincible get mowed down. Thats not to say that I don't get in there and mix it up, I do, a lot. Which is why I have been close to death many times.
There are issues that I think BC fixes with the talents and traits that DW should use, we now do. The idea that I was running around with a Thunder Hammer and Lightning Attack drove the GM mad, because I would **** the bad guys, and the bosses couldn't withstand the Toughness tests. BC fixed that, somewhat. The idea of only purchasing Sound Constitution up to double your Toughness Bonus is a great idea, but then again, Sound Con is cheaper in BC.
I just firmly believe that combat should be deadly, and sacrifice should be an important theme. L5R, as I and others have mentioned, initiated that thought mindset. A player thinking they are a DnD fighter and wonder why they can't just weather the storm of a Hive Tyrant is what is silly to me.
35 Wound Points doesn't make a marine that much more survivable. It be nice to have the option though. Kinda like building a 40K marine with 2 or 3 Wounds.
Alex
I say Dungeons and Dragons because I think that adopting the system would please the largest number of people.
But having steadily decreasing hit points does have some definite advantages over miss miss miss miss SPLAT systems. They are easier to balance because they are more predicable. They are more likely to result in a satisfactory fight duration rather than miss SPLAT or miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss everyone gives up through boredom. And you can more easily see if you are losing a fight and do something about it by either running away or changing tactics. And it is easier to have lesser foes do a little bit of damage rather than bouncing off. I am assuming no one wants a system where whoever wins initiative wins the fight.
I'd also like to see more emphasis on either minis and a battlemap or some other form of positioning, because if you are not using one there tends not to be much significant manoeuvre.
I disagree. I generally like how the system works. I feel like a d&d system would undermine some important 40k themes: grit, cheapness of life, danger.
If you get a splat, burn a **** Fate. That's what it's there for! If your lesser foes don't do anything, learn to use hordes. A single gaunt or cultist has no business actually threatening SMs.
Regardless, in the end a system is not going to please everyone. I prefer what we have to 3.X d&d. 4th Ed isn't worth mentioning IMO.
Kshatriya said:
Regardless, in the end a system is not going to please everyone. I prefer what we have to 3.X d&d. 4th Ed isn't worth mentioning IMO.
I agree.
4E is a very divisive system, one where I fall squarely in the "it's a steaming pile" camp. I found it to be nothing but a mind-numbingly boring, overly long and drawn out grind of combat that was built for power gamers not interested in anything but re-enacting WoW on the table top. Combats in DH/RT/DW I find to be fast paced, engaging, and exciting.