Dark Heresy 2e Possession Rules?

[druid91]

So, is it just me, or are the rules for Possession in Dark Heresy 2e far more forgiving than the rules for warp-dabbling? Use of Daemonology is a slow, steady drip of Corruption until you're fully corrupt. Meanwhile, Possession you're literally fine unless you unleash the Daemon, either willingly or unwillingly. Which if you have a solid Willpower score you won't ever do. Or if you do, it will be at strategically fortuitous moments where it makes sense.

Which, at that point it's just a free Unnatural Strength Trait.

[Bunny Commando]

They might seem forgiving if one completely ignores the narrative consequences of being possessed by a Daemon and unleashing it in front of other agents of the Inquisition (the other Acolytes, of course).
Besides, voluntarily unleashing a Daemon should award 1d10 (or more) Corruption points per rules in the Corebook. And on pg. 71 of Enemies Beyond under "Roleplaying Possession", it says the GM and the player should work together to make sure Possession isn't just a nuisance one could ignore with a good Wp score.

[druid91]

They might seem forgiving if one completely ignores the narrative consequences of being possessed by a Daemon and unleashing it in front of other agents of the Inquisition (the other Acolytes, of course).
Besides, voluntarily unleashing a Daemon should award 1d10 (or more) Corruption points per rules in the Corebook. And on pg. 71 of Enemies Beyond under "Roleplaying Possession", it says the GM and the player should work together to make sure Possession isn't just a nuisance one could ignore with a good Wp score.

The same inquisitors who can use Daemonhosts on tabletop, and in the lore and have had rules to make and use Daemonhosts in every version of the game? While it's not exactly 'good' behaviour for an inquisitor it absolutely is within the bounds of what is commonly done in the inquisition.

And relying on the GM to fix it just makes things silly. You run into situations where the GM doesn't do that and the player just gets to enjoy a free power boost, with occasional costs if they unleash the daemon, or the GM becomes excessively adversarial and the player is hardly ever playing their character anymore.

[The Glyphstone]

There's a difference between relying on the GM versus the GM-and-player working together to make it appropriately difficult. If the player wants to be a cheesy powergamer who gets free Unnaturals for no drawback, there is nothing the GM can do except become adversarial in return. If the player is willingly embracing the narrative consequences of allowing a demon to time-share their character's body/soul, then the two of them can come to a mutually agreeable middle ground of benefits vs. danger.

[druid91]

There's a difference between relying on the GM versus the GM-and-player working together to make it appropriately difficult. If the player wants to be a cheesy powergamer who gets free Unnaturals for no drawback, there is nothing the GM can do except become adversarial in return. If the player is willingly embracing the narrative consequences of allowing a demon to time-share their character's body/soul, then the two of them can come to a mutually agreeable middle ground of benefits vs. danger.

I'm looking at it in comparison to the Dark Heresy 1e rules for player possession.... which, up front told you that this was a 'Burn Bright but burn quickly' path. The mechanics supported that. There was little to no extra work at all on the GM's part to make it work as compared to any other character.

By comparison 2e leaves all the work of making it something more than an occasional inconvenient WP roll to the GM. Rather than the mechanics doing the heavy lifting, the Mechanics are just a grab bag of bonuses combined with a willpower roll mechanic to keep control away from the daemon.

[Bunny Commando]

The same inquisitors who can use Daemonhosts on tabletop, and in the lore and have had rules to make and use Daemonhosts in every version of the game? While it's not exactly 'good' behaviour for an inquisitor it absolutely is within the bounds of what is commonly done in the inquisition.

It is done, but I would certainly not call creating a Daemonhost "common"; besides, creating a Daemonhost would brand the Inquisitor as Radical (and most probably Heretic) and open the hunting season.

And relying on the GM to fix it just makes things silly. You run into situations where the GM doesn't do that and the player just gets to enjoy a free power boost, with occasional costs if they unleash the daemon, or the GM becomes excessively adversarial and the player is hardly ever playing their character anymore.

Again, I would point at "Roleplaying Possession": it doesn't say "the GM has to fix it", it says that the GM and the player have to work together to make sure it is an interesting narrative experience and not just a power boost. If the player or the GM are not interested in cooperating, rules won't do much.

I do not find DH2 more forgiving in this regard unless the GM and the players like it that way.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm looking at it in comparison to the Dark Heresy 1e rules for player possession.... which, up front told you that this was a 'Burn Bright but burn quickly' path. The mechanics supported that. There was little to no extra work at all on the GM's part to make it work as compared to any other character.

By comparison 2e leaves all the work of making it something more than an occasional inconvenient WP roll to the GM. Rather than the mechanics doing the heavy lifting, the Mechanics are just a grab bag of bonuses combined with a willpower roll mechanic to keep control away from the daemon.

Is there any reason that the 1e rules can't just be used in 2e games? The core system didn't really change in the entire 40kRPG run (which I personally separate from Wrath & Glory).

But yeah, creating a Daemonhost is the most Radical thing an Inquisitor can do, likely gets then ostracised by half of their peers (at minimum), and any loyal Imperial who gets wind of it would likely start looking to kill the Inquisitor (discretely) and Host (maybe not so discretely). Sorcery itself is generally bad enough.

That's not getting into the impression I got from the wargame and lore that Inquisitors mostly made them as highly bound mostly disposable weapons. Even if your Willpower and bindings are high enough to keep you in control you're on a much shorter leash than any other acolyte, with much more scrutiny put into every one of your actions. If it seems like you're not under control probably the least you can expect is a squad of stormtroopers.