They shouldn't be in the game.

Ever since DH1e, they've never made sense to me as characteristics. I get why they're there (as a holdover from tabletop), but that's not a good reason at all. Other than WS and BS, every other characteristic acts as an actual natural characteristic of a character. Whereas WS and BS would make a hell of a lot more sense as skills, given they're, you know, called Weapon Skill and Ballistic Skill.

I know this will never get implemented given the goal here seems to be backwards compatibility, but wouldn't it make a lot of sense to change WS and BS into skills (or remove them entirely), and make Per and Ag the characteristics that govern competence with guns and melee weapons, respectively?

The only major issue I see this creating is that Agility suddenly becomes even more overpowered than it is now. But that could be fixed easily enough by relocating some of its applications to other characteristics.

I think it is not a perfect solution but better than the alternatives.

I never really thought about this (probably much like most of the current designers at FFG) as it seems like a natural extension of the TT, as you already said, but you do make a somewhat compelling argument.

What I like about the idea is that it'd allow individual skills for different weapon types such as "Pistols +10" - in retrospect it's surprising that the 40k RPGs lack such perks, given how common they seem in other P&Ps.

One potential problem, however, is that not only does it make Agility even more useful (albeit fittingly; someone who's very agile should by all rights have an edge in melee .. perhaps balance this by making it more expensive?), but that you'd either end up with very low basic Per/Agi scores, or very high to-hit chances because of the weapon skill bonuses.

Is this really an issue, though? That's what I am not sure about. Yes, after having raised your Per/Agi scores by +20, you may end up with WS/BS around 70 ... but at that point, perhaps you should have a rather high accuracy, and any true challenges in combat come out of autofire DoS and/or modifiers associated with range and called shots.

Yeah, I'm wary about adding in BS and WS as skills because it does create a situation where you get the raw target numbers creeping up towards the high end of the d100 scale. But I'm not totally sure it's an issue. I mean, like you said, what it really boils down to is that you can handle negative modifiers pretty **** well. Sure, you could probably hit that traitor guardsman with your eyes closed, but that Harlequin is still going to stretch your ability a little.

Agility becoming too overpowered is definitely an issue, though. Really there's two ways to go with solving it; either give every other Characteristic more applications so that things even out, or gut some of Agility's uses and give them to other Characteristics. Perception Bonus being used for initiative is one idea I've seen that I like a lot.

Traditionally, isn't Strength the stat used to hit things in RPGs?

Traditionally, isn't Strength the stat used to hit things in RPGs?

If by "traditionally" you mean "per D&D" then yes.

Other games have other ways of doing it.

Strength never made sense to me as the hitting things stat. Brute strength doesn't really increase your chances of hitting, it just makes it hurt that much more when you do hit.

I have toyed with the idea of making Strength be the stat that's used sometimes, in an All Out Attack type deal. Something where finesse is left to the wayside in favour of killing **** particularly hard.

Traditionally you need to buy the ability to use finesse to kill things better.

Strength never made sense to me as the hitting things stat. Brute strength doesn't really increase your chances of hitting, it just makes it hurt that much more when you do hit.

You have no idea how much it bothered me that I had to buy up Strength just because I wanted a longsword-wielding drow warrior in Neverwinter Nights, especially given that the idea of a "blade dancer" was part of the concept/inspiration.

But after my experiment with a Dex-based Paladin in light leather armour as opposed to the usual platemail version that you're supposed to play, I thought I'd better conform this time.

That being said, it'd be entirely okay if some weapons in 40k required a Minimum Strength to be used correctly (meaning, no additional penalties to WS/BS). Inquisitor actually had this, in addition to Strength providing bonus damage like in FFG's 40k RPGs. In fact, I now vaguely recall at least one gun in Dark Heresy requiring a minimum Strength, too - like the Sacristan bolt pistol in IH.

Certain weapons requiring a specific Strength value to be wielded one handed could work, too.

Traditionally, isn't Strength the stat used to hit things in RPGs?

As cps indicated, only in D&D (more or less). I think Shadowrun used strength as the related attribute for the melee weapons/unarmed combat skills as well, but that's much smaller influence*.

Most other systems I've played have used a seperate attribute or some form of dexterity/agility. Or perception for ranged weapons.

* in third edition, this determined when you had to start paying more XPs to increase your skill, not your actual hit probability.

Certain weapons requiring a specific Strength value to be wielded one handed could work, too.

Inquisitor actually had that, too!

"A weapon's weight can also affect the accuracy of a shot. Compare its weight with the Strength of the character. If the weight is higher, the character suffers -1% for each additional point of weight. When firing with one hand, halve the character's Strength when working out this modifier (as you will see, weapons intended to be used in both hands can be quite heavy)."

Not sure how exactly this could be ported over to DH, assuming we actually wanted to do so. Generally I'm averse to the idea of throwing even more rules into the system, but on the other hand stuff like this wouldn't come up too much (only when you update your inventory) whilst still feeling somewhat important.

Perhaps something like:

• you can use weapons with a weight up to your total Strength when bracing without penalties
• you can use weapons with a weight up to 2x your SB when gripping them with two hands without penalties
• you can use weapons with a weight up to 1x your SB single-handedly without penalties

To be honest and realistic, strength would play a roll in how quick certain weapons could be used. The stronger you are, the lighter the weapon feels in your hands, meaning the quicker it can be used.

That's why in D&D 2E I made high strength scores reduce weapon speed by a certain percentage.

That was one of the few things the old RoF system was really good for; you could easily make it so that strength dictated the speed at which you use certain melee weapons.

To be honest and realistic, strength would play a roll in how quick certain weapons could be used. The stronger you are, the lighter the weapon feels in your hands, meaning the quicker it can be used.

That's a good point, but ultimately that only makes you swing faster, not necessarily less clumsy...

... just like being agile but not strong enough would have a similar effect, I guess.

A "proper" representation would probably be something that takes both Agility and Strength into account.

The German P&P The Dark Eye actually did something like this - skill tests there were always a combination of three characteristics, rather than one. Base melee attack score was the combination of Bravery, Agility and Strength, and base parry score the combination of Initiative, Agility and Strength, with the player being able to distribute points from the relevant weapon skill to both scores (representing training focused on either attack or defense, or a balanced approach).

Other tests worked in a similar fashion ... Dancing was "Charisma, Agility, Agility", for example, whereas Mining was "Intuition, Constitution, Strength", etc.

The German P&P The Dark Eye actually did something like this - skill tests there were always a combination of three characteristics, rather than one. Base melee attack score was the combination of Bravery, Agility and Strength, and base parry score the combination of Initiative, Agility and Strength, with the player being able to distribute points from the relevant weapon skill to both scores (representing training focused on either attack or defense, or a balanced approach).

Other tests worked in a similar fashion ... Dancing was "Charisma, Agility, Agility", for example, whereas Mining was "Intuition, Constitution, Strength", etc.

Interesting. Is this availble in english do you know?

My german simply isn't good enough for a full rulebook.

I'm not sure that there is a simple way to do this. I thought D&D 2e actually did it about right (It could be perfected however). It was easy, clear cut, and took into account the weight/length of the weapon (Weapon Speed).

Strength governed melee weapons and Dexterity governed ballistic weapons.

If we really wanted to shoot for realism with melee weapons we would have two Initiatives depending on the situation.

Closing Initiative Modifier - governs the character's ability to get within striking range of the enemy. It factors in weapon length and the Agility of the character.

In-Range Initiative Modifier - governs the character's quickness when within striking range. It factors in the weapon speed (ease of use and quickness, weight, etc) and the character's Agility.

From these two ideas we can have a character with a spear use it to keep a warrior with a shorter weapon out of striking range and effectively pick him apart. This type of situation would be symbolized by Initiative modifiers of the spear holder being subtracted from the Initiative of the enemy. If the result is 0 or less, the enemy gets no attack while the spear holder gets an attack.

To counter this, the enemy would attempt to Charge in an attempt to get past the character's longer weapon. This would give him bonuses to do so. If his Initiative manages to stay at 1 or above, he successfully closes within range.

Being within range, the enemy now has the advantage with the quicker and less cumbersome weapon so the character might elect to backpedal out of the enemy's range. This would prompt the enemy to press the attack to prevent the maneuver.

This is obviously much more and possibly too complex for people but this is probably the best example of realistic combat within a role playing setting.

Interesting. Is this availble in english do you know?

My german simply isn't good enough for a full rulebook.

Actually, yes, the 4th edition was translated into English! Though I believe they really botched the international release, as only the core rulebook, one supplement, and I think two adventures were ever published - which misses out on a whole lot of cool stuff available to the German gamer.

I'm not sure what went wrong - maybe the studio felt they just couldn't compete with D&D. Interestingly, Das Schwarze Auge (The Dark Eye in German) is far more popular than D&D in Germany, possibly making it the only country where D&D doesn't dominate the fantasy RPG market.

For the core rules, I found one amazon and one ebay listing:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dark-Eye-RPG-Fanpro/dp/1932564020/

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/THE-DARK-EYE-RPG-DSA-Core-Rules-Rulebook-Hardback-Fanpro-/281216862510

Also, here's a short description of the setting from one of the many video game spin-offs.

Be warned, though, it is about as rules/math-heavy as Dark Heresy. Actually, possibly even moreso. I kind of "grew out" of those ubercomplicated games when I discovered the back-to-the-roots approach of Green Ronin's Dragon Age RPG ... but I do miss the free character generation and the way the system supported just about everything you could do (as you can see, it even had a test for Mining).

Character generation is a pointbuy model where you first select your species, then your culture, followed by a profession. The "profession" is not actually your class, it merely means what your character did before becoming an adventurer, and as such really does mean his or her job, which determines your starting equipment and gives you a few bonus points to specific abilities. I think there were over 200 professions, from the archetypical mercenary and knight's squire all the way to farmer, fisherman, courier rider, falconer, pickpocket, even w hore. Most were part of a special supplement for expanded character generation, though, the core rulebook only has about 50 or so.

The game also doesn't use levels - any XP you get you may invest directly into raising your skills or buy new talents. A lot of weapons have unique special attacks, such as using a whip to entangle someone's legs and let him fall down, or using it to attach to some object and pull it towards you or swing across a room or ravine. Those stunts were tons of fun.

I honestly like the idea of having WS and BS separate. It alleviates some of the issue of characteristics being too powerful due to combat usage. It also adds to the them of the game that THERE IS ONLY WAR. Everyone has their own skill for fighting because the world is a violent place.

In execution, WS as BS get overshadowed by proficiency talents, gear modifiers, and the lack of any other integration that their only use conceptually is a number on the sheet. I want to see them get integrated more, using their characteristic bonuses, providing automatic weapon training, things like that. It would bring them more in line with the rest of the system and also give them more of a conceptual place.

Actually, yes, the 4th edition was translated into English! Though I believe they really botched the international release, as only the core rulebook, one supplement, and I think two adventures were ever published - which misses out on a whole lot of cool stuff available to the German gamer.

I'm not sure what went wrong - maybe the studio felt they just couldn't compete with D&D. Interestingly, Das Schwarze Auge (The Dark Eye in German) is far more popular than D&D in Germany, possibly making it the only country where D&D doesn't dominate the fantasy RPG market.

Be warned, though, it is about as rules/math-heavy as Dark Heresy. Actually, possibly even moreso. I kind of "grew out" of those ubercomplicated games when I discovered the back-to-the-roots approach of Green Ronin's Dragon Age RPG ... but I do miss the free character generation and the way the system supported just about everything you could do (as you can see, it even had a test for Mining).

Character generation is a pointbuy model where you first select your species, then your culture, followed by a profession. The "profession" is not actually your class, it merely means what your character did before becoming an adventurer, and as such really does mean his or her job, which determines your starting equipment and gives you a few bonus points to specific abilities. I think there were over 200 professions, from the archetypical mercenary and knight's squire all the way to farmer, fisherman, courier rider, falconer, pickpocket, even w hore. Most were part of a special supplement for expanded character generation, though, the core rulebook only has about 50 or so.

The game also doesn't use levels - any XP you get you may invest directly into raising your skills or buy new talents. A lot of weapons have unique special attacks, such as using a whip to entangle someone's legs and let him fall down, or using it to attach to some object and pull it towards you or swing across a room or ravine. Those stunts were tons of fun.

Ah, it was Schwarze Auge! I'd heard of it but never played it or even read it. Thank you for reminding me. Though... the direct translation would be "The Black Eye" though?

Yep! Though this is a case of the literal translation meaning something completely different - a "black eye" in German would be a Blaues Auge (blue eye) - but the name is not supposed to be a reference to someone being punched in the face, it really means a black/dark eye.

It's one of the artifacts in the setting's history, though I think it is only referenced in a few sources without actually ever becoming a real plot device (to my knowledge).

Excellent, thank you.

My pleasure! Thanks for triggering a moment of nostalgia.

I honestly like the idea of having WS and BS separate. It alleviates some of the issue of characteristics being too powerful due to combat usage. It also adds to the them of the game that THERE IS ONLY WAR. Everyone has their own skill for fighting because the world is a violent place.

I do prefer WS and BS as actual separate entities. It makes at-a-glance assessment of combat capability much easier.

Your ability to aim and fire a weapon accurately is often a combination of many statistics, including strength, agility, perception, and even intelligence. It is a useful abstraction to combine that into an attribute which basically describes how well the character uses his attributes for the purpose of war.

After all, a Techpriest might not care at all about agility to fire his gun. He interfaces with the machine spirit and encodes an adaptive targeting subroutine based upon his intelligence. He doesn't need to be a gymnast to do that.

Yep, I am fine with WS/BS being in game, they tie in all the possible stats you would conceivably use into one place.

More to the point, I like the fact this game handles it differently than other games, we do not need some massive melange of systems where the only difference in the games is the back ground / lore of a given system.

Knowing the OP idea will never see light of day in DH, I would still like to cast my vote in agreement with the OP. Fgdsfg has a thread about this in House Rules over on Only War.

I honestly like the idea of having WS and BS separate. It alleviates some of the issue of characteristics being too powerful due to combat usage. It also adds to the them of the game that THERE IS ONLY WAR. Everyone has their own skill for fighting because the world is a violent place.

In execution, WS as BS get overshadowed by proficiency talents, gear modifiers, and the lack of any other integration that their only use conceptually is a number on the sheet. I want to see them get integrated more, using their characteristic bonuses, providing automatic weapon training, things like that. It would bring them more in line with the rest of the system and also give them more of a conceptual place.

This is actually a pretty solid idea. It'd solve most of my misgivings with the system as is. Basically, BS and WS either need to be made as significant as all the other characteristics, or they need to be folded in.

The weapon training is a good idea, for sure.