Jump to content

Graspar

Members
  • Content Count

    445
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About Graspar

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Arboga, Västmanland, Sweden
  1. I guess one of my biggest concerns is that I'll be stuck with pistols when everyone else is toting around a machine gun or powerfist or whatever and I won't be able to hurt anybody worth a ****. Sitting around behind cover is the adept's job from what I hear and he'd hate competition : P Plenty of pistols are nasty. SP->Bolt->Plasma->Melta will kill increasingly big things with little problem. The only way you'll be left behind in damage potential with pistols is if it's super long range combat or heavy weapons. Or melee, but there's no prohibition against melee or heavy weapons that i'm aware of. Might not fit the character concept though...
  2. In what way is that a more apt analogy than mine? The character is trying to heal, already has biomancy and is now learning medicae, pray tell how healing with biomancy is x-ray vision while healing with medicae is running really fast. Because it seems to me both of those get the same end result, healing. Unless you propose that one can move about fast with X-ray vision or see through objects with the ability to run fast I don't really see it.
  3. Yes, those are all out of the ordinary situations which strikes me as a little odd to base a career choice on. That doesn't mean it never happens, just that it seems somewhat odd to plan for and pursue an education for conducting healing in such situations. A normal doctor might plausibly loose a hand (in fact, that's bound to happen a lot more often than the situations you bring up) yet I bet we all agree that'd be a pretty weak rationale for learning to stitch up wounds with his toes.
  4. I dont know, put on a lab coat and pretend? Learning a profession just to pretend to be what you in fact are after the learning process seems a bit much. But like I said, that's not an issue with the package, just a comment on the percieved usefulness of the package and that's very much just my opinion. Also, I noticed Denmar and me finally found some common ground when talking psykers, the stars must be right. Cthulhu is coming soon five!
  5. Yeah, that one really far fetched situation totally justifies months of training so you can heal that one in a million untouchable whom you're not even supposed to be able to hold down breakfast in the vicinity of let alone stick our hands in his gut and perform surgery. Totally. But of course, if the player WANTS to get medicae there's no good reason not to let him, I personally just dont see much of a point from either a game mechanics or a role playing perspective. It strikes me as somewhat similar to superman deciding that he really wants to get better at setting things on fire and so decides to practice throwing matches. When you've got heat vision it's sort of pointless, but I wouldn't tell superman he's doing it wrong. At least not to his face.
  6. Then yeah, recoil gloves and you're good to go. Doesn't say in the rules that power armour offers recoil glove functionality, ask your gm and He'll probably let you pay someone to install that at least.
  7. Medicae works as follows for First Aid: Once per time you take damage. I.e. you get hit trice in battle, the first one for one point of damage, the second for five points of damage and the third time for three points of damage. Alltogether you've taken nine wounds. Now there are three scenarios for healing this with first aid depending on how badly wounded you are. Lightly wounded, Heavily wounded or Critically wounded. You're lightly wounded when you've less or equal damage to twice your TB, i.e. with TB 3 you're lightly wounded at six wounds taken and heavily at seven. For lightly wounded: Your medic gets three rolls each of which heals his intelligence bonus wounds up to the amount you were wounded in that hit. I.e. for average INT you'd get up to three wounds per roll. First wound gets one for success, second gets three, third gets three. Heavily wounded and critically wounded characters get's one wound back on a success , two if the healer has Master Chiurgeon. So yeah, medicae is of somewhat limited use for first aid, but it's still great to have around and once characters start running around with the talents that cause them to always be considered lightly wounded and the healer gets his intelligence bonus up it's quite awesome. On top of first aid you've got extended care, which might not be of immediate use in dungeon crawls but really goes a lot faster than expected with a decent medic. For undercover missions and/or extended infiltration where one might not want to go to a proper hospital and turn up on the radar it's really essential. How do you mean that failing medicae tests giving no benefit renders the ability nearly useless? Seems overpowered otherwise.
  8. I'd like to chime in with the following: Why would a biomancer need all this stuff? You'll eventually get medicae and such through natural progression up the psyker ranks and in the meanwime you've got seal wounds and all of the other nice psychic powers that does the job a lot better than medicae and master chiurgeon.
  9. The 2 GMs from the group I was in interpret it that way, as do I for that matter. The main point of it I guess is simply this: you're trying to come up with a way to balance Psykers in Ascension, and the easiest way I see to do that is to ONLY allow Primaris to use the Fettered/Push option. Any other option is unbalanced from the word go, requiring massive rules modifications to make it balanced. If I may quote the dude: Well, you know, that just like your opinion man. The primaris isn't balanced using the RAW fettered/unfettered/push rules. Shortly after ascension was released there was a mathhammer thread wherein it was demonstrated that a late game primaris psyker would kill 3.6 greater daemons (the toughest enemies statted in any of the books) per combat round, and this would be only slightly hampered by fettering the power. Granted, this isn't so much a problem with fettering as it is with unnatural willpower, but these house rules adress that too. Simply put, fettering as per ascension RAW is horribly overpowered. It takes all the game mechanical risks out of playing a psyker, not some of it, all of it and doesn't even slightly hamper the psykers ability to pull of crazy overpowered stuff. Let me outline the problem since you're obviously suffering from don't-nerf-my-beloved-character-blindness. The psychic powers in DH, unlike in RT for which the fettering rules were designed, does not have the same correlation between power level and psy rating used. The instances where the power gets better as the psyker gets better is mostly handled by WPB. You get 1d10+WPB damage and WPB penetration in DH while you get 1d10+EPR damage and EPR pen in RT. This helps make the unfettered and push options viable compared to fettered. These "house rules" do exactly that in pretty much exactly the same way as is done in RT. "But overbleed" I hear you say, using my powers of divination. Well, yeah, overbleed is a slight link between how good a power is and how much psy rating you use, but it's much to tenuous to be of any real significance. Besides, by the time you're a primaris you'll have power well, WPB ejecting from every orifice, discipline mastery etc. etc. etc. that'll pretty much enable you to get some overbleed even while fettering. And many powers dont even have overbleed. So the problem isn't inquisitors fettering per se, it's fettering, period. I have read Eisenhorn. 3 books of dreadful writing was enough for me to not to want to read anymore of anything 40k. As for Psyker Inquisitors... poetic license of the writers in question. After all, how many drow rangers running around in the realms were there prior to Drizzt Do'Urden? Writers will go outside the box for effect. If he wrote about the norm, people would be bored after 3 chapters and put the **** thing down. But then once someone sees that in a book, then everyone wants to play one... no matter how terribly unbalancing it may be. Right, if you're not getting the idea that psykers wouldn't be allowed to become inquisitors from the background stories, and seeing as how the ascension rules specifically makes provisions for a psyker inquisitor you're not getting it from the rulebooks either. So where does this assertion that the -=I=- wouldn't allow a psyker inquisitor come from? Also, I noticed that you didn't respond to my argument that defending against fettered powers should be easier, should I just take that as agreement? But Denmar, lets bottom line this and not hijack this thread for a general psyker balance discussion. Do you agree or disagree that it's reasonable for fettered manifestation to result in a less potent psychic power than the same power manifested unfettered or with push? I make the claim, and feel I have backed this claim up in this and previous posts in this thread, that this is simply not the case in any significant way using ascension RAW and that these house rules are a good way to adress this problem. If you disagree I'd like to know on what point and most of all, why. You know, some justification for your stance instead of your usual thinly veiled "but I want my psyker to be as powerful as possible" argument.
  10. First of all, the interpretation that only primaris gets fettered is a point of contention and there's no official word from FFG on the matter, the part you quote is part of the fluff text describing the ability, not the actual rules segment. But the main thing is, what difference does it make if the example uses Primaris or Inquisitor? The rules mechanics work out the same, I guess inquisitors might get unnatural willpower earlier (dont have the books at hand at the moment) but so what? Primaris still gets it and it's only one point of EPR anyway. And for the "no psyker inquisitor" comments, have you read Eisenhorn and Ravenor? It might not be the norm but it certainly happens, and there are rules for allowing such an inquisitor to continue developing their power. And how come you think that having defence against fettered powers being easier is a problem? It seems entierly appropriate that when you hold back to not over-extend yourself and accidentally the whole hive you're also less effective than in no holds barred die motherf*cker mode. As for fettered powers being easier to conceal I would agree, but then again I'd probably require more DoS for detecting a manifest roll with one power die than detecting a power roll with thirteen regardless of fettered/unfettered/push so that would sort of already be included. All that being said, I had missed the double overbleed thing, I'd have to agree with Denmar that it might be excessive. Psykers using fettered casting would get less overbleed anyway due to having less dice on their manifest roll.
  11. LOL. Sorry...wasn't trying to be rude. But it seems every month or so we get someone on the forums who's talking about OP Psykers and then they come up with some rule for nerfing them. For good reason, Psykers are (or can be if played by a powergamer) horribly overpowered beyond what other classes are capable of. FYI one thing my group did...too much of... increasing the rate of perils. Often for no good reason that I could see, other than the Psyker was OP. Or first shot (in any ambush on the party) almost always goes at the Psyker (sometimes it's the Tech-Priest). Sounds like your GM agrees that psykers are overpowered and tride to remedy the situation with somewhat more of a sledgehammer than a scalpel. If that's the source of your rants about how horrible it's to play psykers I understand. But please understand in turn that most psykers don't get that. Most psykers get the standard one in ten per power die chance of phenomena and only get prioritized target status once people know they're the psyker. Which, you know, isn't a good thing to tell the enemy. OK...I'll tell you what...I take a serious look at your rules proposal. But on face value, it seemed more complicated than the old system. On face value it's almost exactly the same system that is used in RT and DW. That is, this is how fettered/unfettered/push was intended when thought out. They did a horrible job with converting it to DH and these rules are what ought to have been done to keep the spirit of the rules intact. The thing is, Denmar, that psykers can still be effective with less overbleed and an effective WPB of 1/2 their psy rating. All these rules alterations do is make fettered/unfettered/push actually matter in more ways than "do I want to summon daemons or not". Surely there needs to be some tradeoff between safety and power in order for the unfettered and push options to be viable at all? And really, that tounge in cheek "Captain Defends Psykers" is spot on my observations about you. You play a psyker whom you like very much and any issue about the mechanics behind psykers you're bound to be there, championing more power for the most powerful class in the game, to the point of even working out an entire new "hybrid" class which, tbh, was some of the most blantant munchkinism I've ever seen. So it's sort of hard for me to take your usual cry of "but this makes psykers useless" at face value without some actual examples. Could you perhaps provide some specific example of how you feel that psykers are underpowered with these rules? From what I can tell they're still useful, just not instant win useful unless they're prepared to take risks, which feels quite right. Or is that the underpowered part? That psykers no longer get to one shot 3.6 greater daemons per round without taking risks.
  12. At Last Forgot said: I know you're Captain Defends-Psykers Best. Nickname. Ever!
  13. That same psyker with a psycannon of his own would do more damage and penetration with the same weapon. Hexagrammatic wards might help lots against direct damage attacks, especially force barrage and such "death by a thousand cuts" powers, but there is still plenty of single attack high damage powers, powers that ignore armour (not stated how that works anywhere in the rules, I'd work it out the same way as warp weapon vs. wards, i.e. they cancel out and AP is the same as against a normal attack) and TB completely as well as any number of things that doesn't do damage at all. Compel, dominate, see me not, soul killer , holocaust, distort vision, weapon jinx, constrict (this one is especially good, the guardsman doesn't get to act even if he succeeds in resisting the power), fire storm, incinerate (ignores armour and TB), fling (the projectile isn't psychic).... I think that's most of them actually. So there's "just" a metric f*cktonne of powers that would still cause that poor guardsman serious problems. And those wards are not a "minor armour upgrade". They are about as major as armour upgrades come in DH.
×
×
  • Create New...