Not sure if this has been mentioned else where but what do others think on Melee weapons and Armour? I like to see a few small changes.

Melee Weapons

For ROF I like the use of Ab but I think that either all Melee weapons should have this or none. As a person who has trained for long periods would be able to attack more often then someone who hadn't.

Same with Sb I think if this is going to apply to some weapons it should apply to all. As after all an persons strength would determine how hard they could hit an enemy.

I would also like to see a return to the primitive weapon quality with a possible upgrade to take this away from weapons like the mono or lathe weapon upgrade in the old rules.

Armour

I like to see a return to the different class of armour with effects so primitive armour only counting as half against non primitive weapons, Mesh armour that is better against blast and spray weapons. This would make different armour more distinctive.

What do people think on this?

I'm assuming this was actually cut from the rules to decrease bloat (since the way primitive interacted with ap was a bit difficult to calculate at times), also primitive was almost exclusively a quality NPCs had, since PCs usually had access to better gear like armour or the aforementioned upgrades. Therefore, in line with reducing bloat, these qualities could be eliminated by simply giving NPCs that would formerly have it lower armour/damage to compensate - this way the end result is the same, but it keeps everything streamlined and you don't have to calculate as much.

I fully agree that all weapons' RoF should scale with attributes, as the way it's being done right now pretty much eliminates all weapons but the ones that scale from the game, at least on later levels, due to them simply not being competitive choices. I'm however not too happy with the way it's being done (Bonus minus a flat rate), since this makes them scale very well past a certain point. Maybe instead of WsB-3 (the way it's right now for swords) make it WsB/2, rounded down. That way you get more benefit at lower skill levels but no crazy RoA's at very high levels.

As for the Sb to damage, that seems to have been done for pretty much every weapon in the first update, with the exception of chain weapons (where Sb adds to Pen instead), the Staff (no idea why, to be honest, but probably since it's not really intended as a weapon anyways) and knives/whips (where Ab is added to damage instead). Edit: And the hunting lance. I think this one is pretty obvious

On another note, I just noticed dual chainblades with a high Ab are sick killing machines now ^^

The old Primitive weapon system essentially meant that any non-Mono weapon was useless against anyone in even basic armor. If you look at a Cadian Guardsman-- the textbook definition of what "guard flak" is-- do they look like they would be completely invulnerable to being attacked by a knife? Not even close. Removing that is IMO one of the best changes new Dark Heresy has to offer, and I would hate to see it go back in.

Primitive weapons was too much work and basically made a lot of options for me as GM just not viable. The savages are attacking you with spears? Who cares?

There's no intrinsic reason why being hit with a highly sharpened piece of steel pushed into you by a strong person should be so much less able to penetrate your flak jacket than a flying bit of sharpened metal launched from a gun. With modern Kevlar in our own world, for example, it's actually the other way around!

If you want to represent that a weapon is just less able to penetrate something, just give it a lower Pen. Or if you want to distinguish between types, give each armour a kinetic and an energy rating as you get in Eclipse Phase (E.g. 4/6 against Kinetic / Energy weapons respectively). But I don't recommend that latter for DH. I recommend dropping the distinction all together.

I fully agree that all weapons' RoF should scale with attributes, as the way it's being done right now pretty much eliminates all weapons but the ones that scale from the game, at least on later levels, due to them simply not being competitive choices. I'm however not too happy with the way it's being done (Bonus minus a flat rate), since this makes them scale very well past a certain point. Maybe instead of WsB-3 (the way it's right now for swords) make it WsB/2, rounded down. That way you get more benefit at lower skill levels but no crazy RoA's at very high levels.^^

I like this idea it's a good one it would balance out and not give too much of a penalty to either low level or non combat characters.

Primitive weapons was too much work and basically made a lot of options for me as GM just not viable. The savages are attacking you with spears? Who cares?

There's no intrinsic reason why being hit with a highly sharpened piece of steel pushed into you by a strong person should be so much less able to penetrate your flak jacket than a flying bit of sharpened metal launched from a gun. With modern Kevlar in our own world, for example, it's actually the other way around!

Not sure I agree with this as even tho they are not as scary in combat it creates a difference between them and that can be used for non combat as well. Such as your trying to infiltrate a feral tribe well only primitive weapons/armour can be seen otherwise you suffer suspicion and attacks from the tribe as they try to take your advanced weapons/armour from you. It makes the PC really think about how they want to go forward do they limit there weapons choices and find it easier to infiltrate or use the better weapons armour and suffer from resistants and attacks.

As for the modern armour comparison modern combat armour is very good at stoping knife or even low velocity attacks to the main body it only suffers in weak spots such as on the flanks, armpit and legs where it is difficult to place the heavier kevlar armour they have on the body. And as we are the setting is in the far future even a technologically regressed one I would have thought armour would have improved.

Not sure I agree with this as even tho they are not as scary in combat it creates a difference between them and that can be used for non combat as well. Such as your trying to infiltrate a feral tribe well only primitive weapons/armour can be seen otherwise you suffer suspicion and attacks from the tribe as they try to take your advanced weapons/armour from you. It makes the PC really think about how they want to go forward do they limit there weapons choices and find it easier to infiltrate or use the better weapons armour and suffer from resistants and attacks.

While certainly true, this can easily be used without implementing the distinction between primitive and modern weapons and armour as a hard rule. In your example, a little bit of common sense, previous observation (what weapons does the tribe actually use) and GM judgement should do the trick ^^

As for the modern armour comparison modern combat armour is very good at stoping knife or even low velocity attacks to the main body it only suffers in weak spots such as on the flanks, armpit and legs where it is difficult to place the heavier kevlar armour they have on the body. And as we are the setting is in the far future even a technologically regressed one I would have thought armour would have improved.

Total side-tangent, but the reason I wrote that was because I was aware that at least one type of modern armour some years ago was quite capable of stopping a bullet, but sliced apart when stabbed with a knife. It was to do with the way the armour worked. I think the fibres would catch and rapidly slow down a bullet, but the slow and relatively high force knife that made a small penetration at the point and then sliced wider and wider as the blade went further in (due to the shape of a knife being a point that then widens along two sharp edges), just sliced the fibres apart. I can't punch through a tight net - it just distributes the force of my blow. But I can stick a knife through it no problem.

I think there was also another similar case with some sort of armour that hardened on impact but a knife (which is much slower than a bullet) could push through. Or maybe I'm thinking of Dune.

Anyway, not saying that's true of all modern armours, there are lots of different types. Just thought it was an interesting digression.

While certainly true, this can easily be used without implementing the distinction between primitive and modern weapons and armour as a hard rule. In your example, a little bit of common sense, previous observation (what weapons does the tribe actually use) and GM judgement should do the trick ^^

True I suppose didn't of it that way really. I do still like the rule but could do without it.

Not so much killing actualy. I tryed to get players killed by Scullers with cainblades. Useless crap. With Pen Sb-5 you actualy limited whith 1d5+Ab, wich is maximum 9 damage. In most cases it less. With players have Flack armors and TB 4(8 def on Head and 9 on all over loc) it became realy annoing to scratch them, you have to aim for the head and then roll max damage. Even that crazy RoF doesnot help.

On the subject on chainblades, why exactly is the Pen value Sb-5? That seems quite low for what are essentially mini-chainsaws with razor-edged teeth. Maybe they should just have a small flat Pen value -- this means that they won't scale with Strength but will have some ability to pierce armor.

I don't like the idea that they scale in RoF. If you want RoF you pay more AP and/or get the lightning attack talent. If lightning attack is not enough reintroduce a swift attack talent as well. Imo give the knife/blade RoF 2 and the others RoF 1.

I absolutely love that they use different stats depending on weapon, especially the idea of using perception as pen bonus for precision weapons and str for chain weapons. Seems very fitting.

I absolutely love that they use different stats depending on weapon, especially the idea of using perception as pen bonus for precision weapons and str for chain weapons. Seems very fitting.

The idea as such is cool, true, but what strikes me as odd is that the chain weapons get a Str bonus to Pen instead of Damage.

Think about it - you're getting hit by a - simply put - giant chainsaw. First its motorized blades have to cut through armour and at this point Pen value applies. Now, I guess those of us who tried to cut a tree or a metal bar with the instrument can confirm one simple truth - if your chainsaw blade is inferior compared to what you're trying to cut, you won't exactly cut through it.

Of course, if you apply high enough pressure, you can still inflict some damage on the object - but it would not be a pretty cut line, but rather an aggravated wound and your chainsaw will lose more than a few teeth in the process. That is not 'penetration', that's just **** of a honest tool damage resulting from sheer physical might.

After all, you can bend and ultimately break or tear a metal bar, if you're strong and stubborn enough, but you can't exactly cut it with a wood saw

I think the idea is that a naked human is pretty easy for a chainsword to slice through, whereas to pierce heavy armour, it takes a lot of strength from the user, using the rather blunt method you just explained.

Probably that's the case

But wouldn't it be more logical to give chain weapons a set Pen value (say, 4 to represent their adamantium 'motorized cutting edge') and allow Str bonus to influence Damage (to represent messy & grisly wounds resulting from application of higher physical pressure)?

We could also look at what scales with the characters.

In chain weapons it is the penetration that becomes better. With power sword is the damage.

Logically chain weapons are known for the damage, while power weapons are known for their ability to cut through everything.

So maybe it would be more natural to have the str pen on power weapons, symbolising that the players use strength to push the power field through the armor and str bonus on chain weapons to symbolize the force applied to mess up the flesh and bone. That way power weapons will still be king of penetration and chain weapons king of damage.

We could also look at what scales with the characters.

In chain weapons it is the penetration that becomes better. With power sword is the damage.

Logically chain weapons are known for the damage, while power weapons are known for their ability to cut through everything.

So maybe it would be more natural to have the str pen on power weapons, symbolising that the players use strength to push the power field through the armor and str bonus on chain weapons to symbolize the force applied to mess up the flesh and bone. That way power weapons will still be king of penetration and chain weapons king of damage.

Power weapons are king of armor penetration -- that's why they have a flat Pen value. This represents their ability to slice through the thickest armor regardless of user strength.

Chain weapons are excellent at inflicting horrible wounds on unarmored enemies, so they deal a significant amount of flat damage. However, cutting through thick armor requires a substantial amount of force, so the Pen scales with Strength.

This does make the numbers a little odd in DH 2.0, where high-level melee characters will have absurdly high Strength scores. When you have 70-something strength, your chainsword will indeed cut through armor almost as effectively as a power sword. However, I feel the weapon stats as written reflect the strengths of each weapon for the average user.

Yeah, and it's worth considering that honestly I don't think power weapons are intended to be competitive with chain. They're in a class of their own, it's like comparing plasma weapons to autoguns.

Just a thought on chain weapons penetration and their reliance of Strength. Chainsaws, etc. don't have a really thin, sharp edge causing them to slice or embed on a single forceful contact as with swords, axes, etc. You don't make a chainsaw penetrate something faster by swinging it against the surface harder (if you think you do, please don't use a chainsaw). Chainsaws gouge out by the sustained motion of teeth against the surface. Short version - if you get a saw, you don't cut through a plank of wood by swinging it against that plank like an axe, you cut through it by dragging the saw across the plank. Chainswords are the same. You get relatively little extra penetrative force from being able to push the saw against the wood more forcefully - only from being able to pull and push the saw across the wood more forcefully. And in a chainsaw, that across force is provided by the motor, not your arm.

Strength should probably make relatively little difference to the penetrative power of a chainsword. Some, but it's more a property of being able to hold the weapon in place against the target, rather than being able to forcefully apply pressure.

Comparing this to the weapon values in the book - I can see how chain weapons damage shouldn't improve with strength - it's not how hard you push them down / swing them that makes the difference, but the power of the motor that drags those teeth around. I can see how it could make a small difference to penetration: the stronger you are, the easier it is to keep it in the same spot.


The oddity to me is why Power weapons are damage type "Energy" rather than "Rending".

Yeah, I've never liked power weapons being energy. I can see the logic, but the effects don't match up well.

Yeah, I've never liked power weapons being energy. I can see the logic, but the effects don't match up well.

I've actually just now emailed changing Power Weapon damage type to Rending as a suggestion to the designers. For me, Rending is not only more accurate, but adds that final missing component of nastiness to these most treasured of melee weapons.

Yeah, it just doesn't feel right that your all-powerful sword... lights people on fire. Even less so with the power fist.

Yeah, it just doesn't feel right that your all-powerful sword... lights people on fire. Even less so with the power fist.

Agreed. Though there is a certain Chuck Norris style amusement I take in a PC punching someone so hard that they burst into flames!

I could go with both concepts.

If going for rending, you focus on the sharpening aspect of the power weapon, acting as a very very very thin blade for example, that can cut molecules.

If going for energy, you rather focus on the field which is slicing through anything it touches with its bare energetic force. As this force can also contain heat on a very dense level, energy damage and even fire effects are possible.