Warrior Role + Inescapable Attack = Broken?

By foryst, in Dark Heresy Second Edition Beta

At present, with the given errata 5, I cannot see a mechanical reason for someone with the "Warrior" Role not to take Inescapable Attack with their starting experience, assuming they can get the minimum prerequisites (which are low enough to be quite possible), and if not with starting than as soon as possible.

After all, if you can spend a FP to get your WS/BS bonus as DoS on a successful attack before calculating hit, and then make said DoS a minimum -40 dodge/parry penalty for your opponent (since the prerequisite is 40 WS or BS), there's basically nothing early game that can compete, and it still is incredibly sexy mid/late game when your WS/BS is even higher. I understand it's limited to the number of FP you have left to spend, but still, it seems to boil down to a spend a FP to to make any successful attack practically unevadable.

Am I missing something here?

You know there's already a rank 2 talent that let's you spend a fate point to make an unavoidable melee attack, right?

The ranged part of the warrior ability is pretty good, but overall things tied to fate points are never that broken.

It does, but the Tier 2 talent requires making an All-Out-Attack and giving up your own reaction where as the Tier 3 talent combo works for any attack, including called shots, aimed shots, charges, etc.

Edited by foryst

I asked this in another thread but didn't get an answer and it's relevant here, so I'll repeat it. In the situation where the negative modifiers on a test exceed your characteristic (-40 against low-level mooks definitely would, they'd be at -5 to -10), are you allowed to even roll?

What happens when the target number is negative?

Still, it's limited to like 3 uses per game. The warrior is already entirely geared to fighting. Fighting is what he does. So 3 times per game he can kill a guy extra hard. The other talents that require fate points can be equally good and have even greater effect in a lot of situations.

Also I'm hoping that they will change inescapable attack to only work with Standard attacks.

I think it's less that warriors are good, and more that chirurgeons, seekers, mystics have boring

I asked this in another thread but didn't get an answer and it's relevant here, so I'll repeat it. In the situation where the negative modifiers on a test exceed your characteristic (-40 against low-level mooks definitely would, they'd be at -5 to -10), are you allowed to even roll?

What happens when the target number is negative?

They can if they want, but it won't do anything

I asked this in another thread but didn't get an answer and it's relevant here, so I'll repeat it. In the situation where the negative modifiers on a test exceed your characteristic (-40 against low-level mooks definitely would, they'd be at -5 to -10), are you allowed to even roll?

A roll of 01 is an auto-success regardless of the penalties so they can and pray for that 01.

Also, I can't see why this combo is so overpowered. Yeah, it is pretty cool but at the current (ridiculously low IMHO) level of lethality it is hardly decisive.

One more reason to get rid of this Talent. It's even worse than all-around opposed evasion.

One more reason to get rid of this Talent. It's even worse than all-around opposed evasion.

You really seem to hate this talent, and usually we agree on things. Can you lay it all out for me?

You already convinced me that opposed evasion was a bad choice, ha ha

I'd suggest changing Inescapable Attack to something like the Fast Quality from 1st Ed. Just make it a flat penalty to either melee or ranged evasion.

I'd suggest changing Inescapable Attack to something like the Fast Quality from 1st Ed. Just make it a flat penalty to either melee or ranged evasion.

That has a problem of having to adjust the penalty so that it's neither overwhelmingly good at lower rank nor insignificant at endgame. Still, better than the current version.

Okay... Can someone enlighten me about why an inescapable attack is a bad thing? Especially if it is PCs-only? I would deeply appreciate it, because as it now stands, I simply can't understand what's wrong :) .

What's wrong with PerBx5 like it was at one point?

Standard -10, -15 to dodge and parry which is decent, and perception raisers could get it to -20, -25 and really profit

Okay... Can someone enlighten me about why an inescapable attack is a bad thing? Especially if it is PCs-only? I would deeply appreciate it, because as it now stands, I simply can't understand what's wrong :) .

PCs-only is bad all by itself

I guess it depends on what your design intention is. Many games just take the position that "PCs are special", even above the common (though not universal) assumption that PCs tends to be more competent than average individuals (higher or broader skill levels, greater survivability etc). This would be one aspect of that. There is very often an attempt to allow a PC to shine, above and beyond what even tough NPCs can, so giving players resources to say "My character just wins at this." Now, truthfully GM fiat can give this to NPCs anyway, but there does seem to be a move away from also allowing NPCs these kind of resources. This seems to be a part of this. One of the problems with this is that jars with the original design intent of Dark Heresy, where starting characters are explicitly fairly average, at best, except for Fate Points. FFG clearly didn't like this, so this explains the change.

Also, it clearly fits with the design intention of other special abilities etc, that spending Fate Points shouldn't just make success more likely, or save a dire situation, but it is a resource players have to use that allows them to just do something. Now, in this case stuff still isn't guaranteed with this one (unlike some of the other abilities where they just say "you succeed"), but it still makes a VERY big difference, unlike simply just getting to re-roll a 45% attack roll.

What's wrong with PerBx5 like it was at one point?Standard -10, -15 to dodge and parry which is decent, and perception raisers could get it to -20, -25 and really profit

I think it would be wrong as it would still leave attackers DoS without meaning.

Thats my main problem currently. It makes no difference at all if you score 1 DoS or 7 DoS with standard attacks. And that feels frustrating.

I use the old rule from Rogue Trader that allows you to substitute DOS for the results on a damage die roll. I can't remember if any further games used that mechanic but its works for us.

Edit:
Yeah, I know it doesn't do anything about some of the frustrations inherent in the Binary Evasion system, but it's something.

Edited by khimaera

I use the old rule from Rogue Trader that allows you to substitute DOS for the results on a damage die roll. I can't remember if any further games used that mechanic but its works for us.

Edit:

Yeah, I know it doesn't do anything about some of the frustrations inherent in the Binary Evasion system, but it's something.

Yeah, the entire line has that rule. Probably one of the most oft forgotten

I use the old rule from Rogue Trader that allows you to substitute DOS for the results on a damage die roll. I can't remember if any further games used that mechanic but its works for us.

Edit:

Yeah, I know it doesn't do anything about some of the frustrations inherent in the Binary Evasion system, but it's something.

I think this sounds not bad at all. YOu mean, your attack gets Proven (DoS) ?

I use the old rule from Rogue Trader that allows you to substitute DOS for the results on a damage die roll. I can't remember if any further games used that mechanic but its works for us.

All the games use that mechanic, even the 2.0 Beta :) .

I think this sounds not bad at all. YOu mean, your attack gets Proven (DoS) ?

I'm pretty sure Rogue Trader was the first to implement the rule, but yeah that's how it works. The way I interpret the rule is that it only applies to one damage die.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, if you manage to get ten degrees of success you can have an automatic RF.

I use the old rule from Rogue Trader that allows you to substitute DOS for the results on a damage die roll. I can't remember if any further games used that mechanic but its works for us.

All the games use that mechanic, even the 2.0 Beta :) .

What ??? What page ? Did ol'Gaunt miss something ??

It's not quite Proven(Dos). The exact text is :

For all attack rolls, count the degrees of success. The attacker

can replace the result on a single damage die with the number of

degrees of success from his attack roll. If the attack inflicts more

than one hit or more than one die of damage, the attacker can

replace the result on one die of his choice with the degrees of

success from the attack roll.

So yeah, a replace a single die with DoS. Now, if your gun only does 1d10 and you're only hitting once, then sure, it's Proven(DoS).

Edit: Page 183, if you're curious.

Edited by IronFistWarrior

That's not a great use of a fate point. Unless you roll more than 5 DoS you're better off using the fate point to reroll the damage. It's only maybe worth it if you're rolling multiple die (not that common) and get a high result and a low result.

That does not need a fate point

My mistake. I haven't read Rogue Trader.