Unnatural characteristics were a hack to get around the scaling problems of the d100 system. They made characters better at tests involving the unnatural characteristic without having a drastic effect on the chances of success. The Medicae example is a good one - you're not more likely to succeed, but if you do you heal for more.

Unnatural characteristics were a hack to get around the scaling problems of the d100 system. They made characters better at tests involving the unnatural characteristic without having a drastic effect on the chances of success. The Medicae example is a good one - you're not more likely to succeed, but if you do you heal for more.

The greatest effects of the Unnatural Characteristics Trait(s) was never Tests, though, it was everything else.

The only bad thing about the Unnatural Characteristics Trait(s) is that they vary wildly in value. Some are nearly useless while others are worth their weight in gold. Unnatural Strength, Toughness and Agility comes to mind. Whereas Unnatural Intelligence, Perception and Fellowship is circumstantial at best, or very dependant on character concept.

Or Willpower as a psyker, depending on what system you use. +2 straight to your PR, right there. Woah.

It's mostly moderated by the fact that some of these are incredibly hard to get, but as the system develops, basic design decisions taken early tends to be forgotten, nevermind the fact that I don't really *like* that they vary so much in value, if only on sheer principle.

Unnatural characteristics were a hack to get around the scaling problems of the d100 system. They made characters better at tests involving the unnatural characteristic without having a drastic effect on the chances of success.

Yep, and that's why I hope 2E retains them. I think they work very well for what they are intended to do, even if they are somewhat 'inelegant' in doing it.

I'm always using Unnatural characteristics to make NPCs work in my games. Need a big bruiser who's melee attacks can threaten heavily-armoured PCs, but you don't want him to be able to throw boulders like a D&D Giant? Unnatural Strength! Have a cult leader that you don't want to be one-shot-killed when the PCs find him? Give him a Daemonic Pact that grants Unnatural Toughness! Have a scratch-built monster whose low Agility would normally make too easy to escape from? Unnatural Speed! Etc...

Because when stats hit 100 it gets really dumb to be playing a game where its about simply burning away peoples dodges until you instant kill them with your stack of hits. I don't know if you've played DW or not but being able to just atomise targets with a heavy bolter at rank 1 is pretty nonsensical . So either you need every target is be an ungodly stack of wounds or the game is about who wins initiative and kills each other with their auto-hit abilities.

The issue I see with a unified system is the d100 mechanics of 40kRPG really don't scale spectacularly. Unless you use a mess of workarounds like Deathwatch did, Space Marines and Acolytes don't coexist well in the same ruleset. A major mechanical change might be needed.

Why, though?

I've still not heard a compelling argument for why d100 breaks down at really high levels. Assume that difficulties are scaled for a human level and then apply ridiculous penalties for ridiculous tasks.

I'm more than ready to concede this point (hell, I'm halfway assuming that I'm wrong, just because it seems I should be). Maybe I'm just missing the obvious.

It's just that I've asked several times now, and I've yet to hear anyone chime in with why it's a problem when characteristics hit 100.

When the combat resolution mechanic is about whether you can hit your target or not, the entire dynamic changes changes massively when you are able to constantly hit your target.

Nonsensical?

Now, Deathwatch is not my cup of tea. I love Warhammer 40k, but I don't enjoy being over-the-top ridiculous - at least not if I haven't deserved it somehow. But nonsensical? That is an accurate portrayal of Space Marines. That's how it's supposed to function.

What would be nonsensical - that is, make no sense - was if the Space Marines DIDN'T atomize their opponents at "Rank 1".

Besides, there's a lot more facets to combat than just getting hit or not.

I don't think you understand. Prior to the errata, a Rank 1 Devastator Marine armed with standard issue Heavy Bolter could kill 2 Hive Tyrants in one burst. Hive Tyrants, as in the thing that in fluff tore Marneus Calgar a new one. I'm pretty sure that's nonsensical even for Space Marines. I've seen that happen in game (there were 2 Hive Tyrants there because the GM was kinda stupid - in another session he threw 4 Daemon Princes at us, the first two also went down in one round thanks to the very same Devastator).

Why are we using the poor balancing of Deathwatch (especially pre-errata..?) to argue why 100+ characteristics wouldn't work? Deathwatch didn't even have characteristics at 100+.

Deathwatch had many problems. I don't think the chance to hit was one of them (or, at least, that was only a problem because of the ridiculous modifiers you could get in first edition - something I was happy to see rectified in DH2).

The comparisons being made to Deathwatch is because it is a system that let you get to 100+ for checks very easily. Its a demonstration of why it can break down at higher levels and why you dont want scenarios to exist where rolling 100 is the norm.

Yeah I am still pointing out that BC and OW did handle unnaturals better than DH, RT, and DW. Though dice mechanics wise the three older games do unnaturals more justice. Didn't like the fact that a +4 strength space marine has the same difficulty to open a door as a normal human being. So I try a mixture of the two. It works like old rules unnatural characteristics in dice mechanics, but for every +2. So if you face against a human, or some abhuman with +6 strength in a hellish task. The human gets the full -60 while the abhuman gets only a -30. This still keeps the bonus that strength offers at a reasonable level too as I would rather face a enemy with a +6 instead of a x3 in strength. Say the abhuman is 72 strength. In my house rule that is +13 bonus damage from strength, but the x3 version makes that damage bonus into +21. Like I said much more reasonable.

Just give Space Marines & Co a bobus on the characteristic instead of the Unnatural characteristic. Works without any problems and still remains realistic.

Like - strength & toughness would get, lets say +50 on these characteristics instead of the starting +30.

This would lead to rank 1 values there between 52 and 70.

Depending on the number of allowed increases, even the beta approach, the values for these 2 characteristics could go up to 120 as absolute max, and up to 100 for the other characteristics.

120 means, that all tests that dont have a penalty of at least -30 are an auto-pass.

Why is that a problem ? I this case we would talk about a rank 10 full maxed out Space Marine ! Should this guy really be made to roll, if it is not about a difficult task ?

I think it makes the game even more realistic and saves time for some unnecessary rolls.

This however will not effect every characteristic, as it is not possible to max every stat out. Also, only strength and toughness are much higher than the rest.

Wouldn't having such obscenely high characteristics just make combat dull though? You'd be autohitting 90 percent of the time, which isn't fun at all.

To reach a 90 at BS, you need to be as an average space marine (starting with BS around 40), at rank 10 and maxing out this characteristic.

And a 90% hit for a rank10 space marine is far from being absurd.

Keep in mind, that is no difficult shot, but just a regular one. Never read any book where a space marine missed a regular shot ;D

As an average acoylte with a starting 35, you could maximu reach 85 at rank 10.

And also keep in mind that the target can still evade (your high BS doesnt change that).

High rank characters should also have high BS and WS. I also like that the new npc stats show often higher values here.

As is before the beta, these values often seem too low, which leads to unnecesary long combat.

If both pcs and npcs are having a little higher values here, that is still balanced and helps to shorten combat by skipping some of the frustrating fail-rolls.

An issue i do have with the combat system is, that the own agility and ws has no general influence on the % of the attacker.

Yes - evade kind of represents this. But why may i evade once and all other attacks just may hit me as usual. Might be too complicated to bri g in a modifier here, but it could be thought of, if there is some easy way to do this.

Especially in melee - if you leave aside evade, it is no difference if I try to hit a rank 10 Space marine weapon master of doom, or if i attack an underhiver.

Just doesnt feel right - but i am not really sure how to change such a think.

In Shadowrun, you do always have a defense throw, with the additional option to go full defense by sacrificing future actions. Feels better - but not really applicable for the current dh system.

Wouldn't having such obscenely high characteristics just make combat dull though? You'd be autohitting 90 percent of the time, which isn't fun at all.

Well.. maybe. It's a different dynamic, at least.

Keep in mind that your to-hit stats are WS and BS, and nobody's really mentioned those as stats that a certain race would boost. I see no reason why Astartes should have higher WS/BS than humans - just higher Strength and Toughness.

Anyway. Let's assume that we do have a creature that gets to 120 BS. It would auto-hit 95% of the time, assuming no modifiers (to be fair, a human under the current DH2 rules could also get to 95 BS, which would give them the same odds, but that's beside the point).

It now becomes a game of Degrees of Success. You can dodge the shot of this incredibly accurate shooter, but if he rolls really well, you better have good Evasion. The "opposed" evasion roll means that this is still interesting. A poor BS roll could be easy to evade. Saving your reactions becomes more of a gamble.

Against less agile opponents, the focus is moved from actually hitting (which was always easy, due to crazy modifiers) and becomes a matter of doing enough damage.

I don't see this being terribly different from first edition where you could pretty reliably get +50 BS.

from a fluff point if view, they could indeed have higher BS/WS due to their intense training.

As these characteristic are more characteristicized skills, it is a little bit special here - but thats secondary to the discussion.

To make my conclusion:

I think there is no problem to go over 100 in the % system, if it is about certain powerful entities (which includes Space Marines, Demons, horrible Beasts etc.) - it makes sense and it even doesnt break the games balance.

It just might look strange as you might expect a maximum of 100 in a % system.

The Unnatural stuff is much more odd and leads to strange rules-around-the-rule, which is a little bit different in every line.

Just make the characteristics sometimes higher and give them some variety - that also leads to more interesting NPC design.

Honestly - the old NPCs almost always range between 25 and 45 - great range. In the beta I have regularly seen stats up to the 60ies, which is great. With such a range, the stats get more importance - before the equipment of the NPC was more important than its stats.

I am going to side with Tom Cruise on the issue of Unnatural Characteristics. It makes the rolls better because it has a better chance at failure thus providing challenge. If you jump it up to 90% chance success all the time the game is going to get dull and quickly. You have to constantly force feed difficulties to make things fair.

Unnaturals while not the greatest do in fact avoid this. You can still fail while doing none difficult stuff. The GM isn't force to constantly have to make up ways why your having a harder time to do things in order to provide a challenge. Instead it is nice to see a challenge made easier because of your unnaturals. Walking on tight rope in a middle of rain storm is -60 task for sure, but to a eldar with unnatural agility +4 that task is -40. Still a large chance to fail, but not compared to the human who is chasing after the eldar.

I know I'm unfashionably late for the party, but I have to leave my two thrones here:

PRAISE TO THE EMPRAH.

I know I'm unfashionably late for the party, but I have to leave my two thrones here:

PRAISE TO THE EMPRAH.

It's never too late to give praise to Our Undying Lord, Brother!

Also from my side a late but intense: Praise the emperor! XD

I am really happy that FFG recognized their failure of breaking away from the established systems. Now me and my group are looking forward to DH 2.0 to integrate it and use it together with the already existing material. Backwards compatibility was a very important point for us and in addition, we do not have to learn a new system from scratch which is also important for groups and players with only limited time to play.

Regarding the handling of unnatural characteristics: I would also prefer using the standard values even if they go >100. I mean characters and creatures with such high values are superhuman and elite and yeah if they can't fail in standard situations it's ok for me. I mean if an elite soldier or even more an astartes should hit within their weapons range 100% of the time and if they have +100 strength they should be always successful when breaking open a wooden door.

I think that if a GM or players belief that it is no fun not being able to fail in such situations, they should consider playing on a lower power level instead of making elite throne agents or space marines or whatever weaker.

In combat +100 characteristics can still fail if they fight equally strong adversaries though opposed BS/WS vs. high evade. In contrast, non combat skill tests can by simulated with high difficulty modifiers and work very well.

I am a big fan of a constant world & system in regards of power levels, because I love mixed groups consisting of humans and astartes like in BC. So for example ripping away a certain adamantium hatch of a bunker should be always -60 no matter if you play a str 40 human or a str 120 space marine. The difference is that the astartes has a 60% chance of doing it while the human has no chance. Through this the GM can save time cause if a task is impossible or a guaranteed success he move forward faster and skip unnecessary dice rolling.

Through that you can also avoid awkward situations like an astartes unable to force open a wooden door because of bad rolling while the weak human succeeds because of better rolling. Such situations are of course good for nice laugh while playing but killing for the 40k atmosphere on the gametable. ;D

I think that if a GM or players belief that it is no fun not being able to fail in such situations, they should consider playing on a lower power level instead of making elite throne agents or space marines or whatever weaker.

Sorry, but that's a cheap cop-out. As a person who likes high-power play very much, there is a middle ground between wanting to have a festival of random fails each session and wanting your successes to be more relevant through the possibility of failure still being there.

As it stands, unnatural characteristics handle this middle ground way better than stats above 100, as they don't require the GM coming up with contrived circumstances each and every scene just so players still get the thrill associated with succeeding.

Sorry, but that's a cheap cop-out. As a person who likes high-power play very much, there is a middle ground between wanting to have a festival of random fails each session and wanting your successes to be more relevant through the possibility of failure still being there.

As it stands, unnatural characteristics handle this middle ground way better than stats above 100, as they don't require the GM coming up with contrived circumstances each and every scene just so players still get the thrill associated with succeeding.

Well I can see what you mean, but when you play a high lvl group of, let's say throne agents or space marines do you really still want the possibility of failure for absolute mundane and ridiculously easy tasks being there?

A space marine game should not be about rolling str for forcing a wooden door open but about epic encounters like wrestling with a daemon or cracking open tank hatches ;D.

In such epic situations your skill and success or failure count and have meaning. If you have high, like +100 characteristics and a guaranteed success you can just skip rolling for unepic encounters, where failing would be ridiculous. Instead you can concentrate on epic scenes where rolling has meaning.

I don't see what you mean by contrived circumstances by the GM I am thinking about fixed modifiers which represent the difficulty of certain tasks. Like for example modifiers which are presented under every skill in the OW sourcebook.

Well I can see what you mean, but when you play a high lvl group of, let's say throne agents or space marines do you really still want the possibility of failure for absolute mundane and ridiculously easy tasks being there?

A space marine game should not be about rolling str for forcing a wooden door open but about epic encounters like wrestling with a daemon or cracking open tank hatches ;D.

I see what you are getting at, Sharp, but the solution there is simply to not require rolls for 'mundane and ridiculously easy tasks'- and it's perfectly reasonable for the GM to make that judgement based on the individual character attempting the action (so a 'mere Mortal' may have to roll for breaking down a wooden door while the Space Marine does it automatically; or a Techpriest can automatically find a particular unencrypted file on a cogitator while a less tech-adept Space Marine has to roll, etc).

I honestly thing super high stats are fine for out of combat situations, it's just when you get into combat that things get pretty dull. Once you've worn down an enemy's available evasions, there's no challenge whatsoever; you're basically guaranteed a hit every time.

You could skip those mundane rolls you know. I mean if the roll is like offers a bonus because it is easy thing to do and is not important I just tell the player to just skip the roll.

The thing is that ultimately makes combat really dull. It's easy to scale out of combat rolls so that things stay challenging, but combat is a lot more rigid, it's hard to make engaging for high statistic characters without a lot of bandaid rules.

I honestly thing super high stats are fine for out of combat situations, it's just when you get into combat that things get pretty dull. Once you've worn down an enemy's available evasions, there's no challenge whatsoever; you're basically guaranteed a hit every time.

I really don't see how that makes combat dull. If anything, the stakes are higher: If your opponent is as strong as you, you can expect them to have an easy time hitting you as well. Cover becomes important again. Burning down strong targets fast is more important than ever.

It's a different dynamic, sure, but I don't see why it'd be any less interesting.

EDIT: And, again, we're now speaking very specifically about high WS/BS, which are stats that wouldn't need a racial boost for any 40k creature that I can think of.

If high level D&D has shown us anything it's that rocket tag is an unfun game.

If high level D&D has shown us anything it's that rocket tag is an unfun game.

I definitely agree with this sentiment.

I try to not railroad the development of my players' PCs, but I think there is an underlying mentality that all RPG players tap into, even unconsciously, that funnels character development toward survival at the expense of "waste" stats. Even when the mechanics prove that sinking early XP in stat X or Y isn't doing what the player wants of it, they continue to spend XP on "that one stat." Players that want their bookish PCs to survive will spend higher XP costs on Toughness or WS or Agility to increase their chances of defense/survival, because they all know they're going to get hit, because they know they're not going to be playing to the PC's inherent strengths, that they're instead going to be role playing Conan the Librarian, instead of Archivist Linus.

This bothers me, but I realize there is nothing I can do about it other than to make the following statement: "If you want to play an arms race then we'll play an arms race. Realize, however, that this significantly widens the mortality rate between PCs. If you would rather play a story-driven campaign, we can all leave the nuclear weapons and titanium-alloy Toughness development behind.". Still, people will play how they want to play.

If high level D&D has shown us anything it's that rocket tag is an unfun game.

I definitely agree with this sentiment.

I try to not railroad the development of my players' PCs, but I think there is an underlying mentality that all RPG players tap into, even unconsciously, that funnels character development toward survival at the expense of "waste" stats. Even when the mechanics prove that sinking early XP in stat X or Y isn't doing what the player wants of it, they continue to spend XP on "that one stat." Players that want their bookish PCs to survive will spend higher XP costs on Toughness or WS or Agility to increase their chances of defense/survival, because they all know they're going to get hit, because they know they're not going to be playing to the PC's inherent strengths, that they're instead going to be role playing Conan the Librarian, instead of Archivist Linus.

This bothers me, but I realize there is nothing I can do about it other than to make the following statement: "If you want to play an arms race then we'll play an arms race. Realize, however, that this significantly widens the mortality rate between PCs. If you would rather play a story-driven campaign, we can all leave the nuclear weapons and titanium-alloy Toughness development behind.". Still, people will play how they want to play.

This! Without doubt. Couldn't have said it better myself!

Yeah - but thats because in most (not all!) situations, a failed charm or knowledge test will not be as bad as a failed evade test.

You might get a second chance on a bad first impression - but a bullet to your head wont give you the same favour.