Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey all, I have loads of 40k miniatures and nobody to play it with — but I also have a D&D group that meets up every week. What I'm looking to create is a "chocolate in my peanut butter" sort of situation.

My D&D group is open to playing other RPG game systems. I could introduce them to dark heresy/rouge trader/deathwatch, but I had another idea. What I'd like to do is tweak the D&D 5e rules but replace combat with standard 40k rules, with the intention of making every PC a special character in command of their own units. They would play collaboratively against me as the DM.

D&D 5e is relatively simple and my party is familiar with it, I also still want roleplaying to be a large part of the game. Their non combat actions could strongly dictate how a battle will play out (if at all).

Here are a few core ideas...

Player classes could relate to unit type (troops, elites, fast attack etc.)

PCs will buy/hire units using requisition which will map to points cost

I will ignore unit minimum compositions (e.g. you can hire a single guardsman for 3 points)

I'll start low level, maybe 10 points, enough to buy some wargear

PCs will get special rules to stop them dying all the time (multiple wounds, invulnerable saves etc.)

Options to buy and upgrade spaceships

Here are a few key problems...

I have no idea how to consolidate the D&D stat line with 40k stat line

I don't want to disregard role play and non combat encounters (Ld isn't broad enough)

Should I replaces spells with psychic powers? What about no combat spells?

What would classes be? Should they have restrictions on wargear and units available?

Should I include non combat classes, how will they work?

A few closing points. My group aren't familiar with the 40k universe. If I go through with this, I would start them on a fairly distant imperial world, where the Imperial cult is not so prevalent. This way little back story is required. I would have the world come under assault by chaos/xenos etc. and the party would be forced to flee by civilian evacuation. I can then slowly reveal the 40k universe to them with fresh eyes. I would eventually have the Inquisition notice their talents as murder hobos and start giving them more toys to play with, perhaps becoming interrogators and eventually inquisitors/rogue traders themselves.

I would love to hear Dakka's opinion on this, is it a good idea, a terrible idea, should i just play Dark Hersey? Any advice/help would be appreciated!

You are trying to reconcile two wildly different systems. I would recommend just sticking with the D&D rules and shift over to the 40k fluff. Should be pretty simple since 40k is fantasy anyway. Magic swords becomes chainswords, power blades, force weapons, etc. Or just stay magic swords.... Magic armor is power armor, artificer armor, etc. Or just stay magic armor. Modern weaponry is going to be the big add, but there are plenty of modern and sci-fi supplements to help you out there.

The advantage of no background in 40k means you can start with relatively low power levels and not have people grumbling about not being Space Marines, Aspect Warriors, etc. Gangers, low level Inquisitors, Guardsmen, etc. provide a wealth of starting options that should appeal to many character concepts and tie neatly into D&D's class system (soldier/gang enforcer= warrior, hive ganger/criminal = rogue, psyker = wizard, sanctioned psyker/Inquisitor with abilities= priest).

 jmurph wrote:
You are trying to reconcile two wildly different systems. I would recommend just sticking with the D&D rules and shift over to the 40k fluff. Should be pretty simple since 40k is fantasy anyway. Magic swords becomes chainswords, power blades, force weapons, etc. Or just stay magic swords.... Magic armor is power armor, artificer armor, etc. Or just stay magic armor. Modern weaponry is going to be the big add, but there are plenty of modern and sci-fi supplements to help you out there.

For sure, I totally get that. I would really like to field some larger battles with lots of models though, the 40k setting is an added bonus. Imagine a situation where the PCs decisions in a non-combat encounter dictate if they get units in reserve or not? Or perhaps their diplomacy leads to them receiving a bonus unit or warlord trait? I love the idea of the diplomacy outside and around a battle having a big impact on how the broader conflict unfolds. But as you rightly point out, the systems are crazy different! I thought about making them generals with no battlefield presence (essentially a game of D&D followed by a game of 40k), but I think it would be great if there was a way to field their player characters in the battle. This would put more at stake and also compel them to personalise wargear etc.

I had an idea where the D&D modifiers would just relate to the 40k statline. For example your constitution modifier divided in half could be your number of wounds (minimum of 1 obviously). I haven't thought all of them all yet, could this get too confusing for players?

 jmurph wrote:
The advantage of no background in 40k means you can start with relatively low power levels and not have people grumbling about not being Space Marines, Aspect Warriors, etc. Gangers, low level Inquisitors, Guardsmen, etc. provide a wealth of starting options that should appeal to many character concepts and tie neatly into D&D's class system (soldier/gang enforcer= warrior, hive ganger/criminal = rogue, psyker = wizard, sanctioned psyker/Inquisitor with abilities= priest).

Exactly, my favourite D&D campaigns are the low level ones, where everything is a threat. I'd ideally have them as civilians who get stuck in a sticky situation and then realise they have an aptitude for warfare! Those class breakdowns sound good to me. I suppose everyone will have to be human though. Maybe I could throw mutants or Eldar into the mix.

Conversion is going to be iffy just because of the different mechanics. I would just pick one and run with it. D&D can do pretty good sized battles fine. Don't try to do a strict map- units with high T and wounds probably have lots of hit points, Armor/Invuln saves indicate better AC, but may also indicate other abilities such as resistances, regeneration, etc. Strength is pretty obvious, Initiative and Attacks indicate higher dex, as might BS and WS, though it may be better reflected in attack bonuses or certain skills. The goal is really to have them perform a similar role in a different system. Don't be afraid to deviate from the TT game either. Making Space Marines high level NPCs with good gear and unique skills helps distinguish them from the limited granularity of 40k where they are simply 16% more accurate and harder to hurt than a guardsman.

As to races, muties and abhumans aren't that uncommon. Most D&D "races" are just stat modifiers and ability packages. A "dwarf" would easily translate to a miner or dense grav abhuman and probably be accepted fine. Likewise, orcs map pretty well to savage worlders, pit fighters, etc. Elves would reflect a highly educated/trained individual such as a noble or ecclesiarch. Goliath/ogres works as ogryn. A dragonborn or tiefling's abilities, however, would be noticeably deviant and reflect a high level of mutation or corruption. And, of course, halflings are ratlings. Play around with them a bit.

I would avoid encouraging elder, obvious mutants, etc. as players since it tends to throw the power balance out of whack (a basic elder guardsman is probably closer to a mid level Dex/archer warrior than a standard D&D elf) and provide a lot of potential narrative coherency problems.

I'm not sure about trying to do a whole battle using D&D rules. I've done large scale conflicts with 5e before but I played it very loosey goosey to stop it takes absolutely ages. For example I'd say the Wizard's fireball would take out a whole bunch of guys, rather than actually figuring it all out and keeping track of damage. I ended the combat when it felt like they'd done enough. We usually use miniatures, but for that battle I went "theatre of the mind", otherwise we'd have been there all day

Also I have no idea how vehicles would work!

Love your suggestions using abhumans for races, great idea

GM describes a situation
Players describe what they do in response to the situation
GM uses the mechanics to resolve the described actions
GM describes the new situation that results
Players describe what they do in response to the situation

and so on.

There is simply no reason to use mechanics for a battle. Your job is to resolve the things that the players describe their character as doing. You don't need rules for larger scope items like battles (or economies or elections or anything like that) as they can be resolved as a result of resolving what the players describe their characters as doing in response to those situations. You're on the right track when it comes to your thinking about wizards and fireballs. Traditionally they've been treated in wargaming as a form of artillery.

I am starting to realise that perhaps sticking to 5e combat is the way to go. I like the idea of having different manufactures of lasgun and autopistols that are slightly different (a Hecuter vs a Tronvasse etc.), I think 5e allows for more fidelity there.

I still have no idea how vehicles would work, unless they just have high AC and a lot of hit points.

When I find some time I'll start writing out the classes in a Google doc and share them here for anybody interested.

Option 1: Vehicles are high strength monsters that happen to have lower strength things inside of them that can get out.

Option 2:
Why do vehicles need stats like that? When the players describe attacking a vehicle either the weapon is up to the task or it is not. If it's a totally unarmoured car, then even bullets can pass through doors and potentially hit passengers and the inner workings of the vehicle. Save for the passengers and save for the car (make a judgement call as to how likely the vehicle is to get disabled based on what the player is describing).

Think about armoured vehicles in broad categories. There's armour to stop small arms fire, then light, medium, heavy, very heavy/super. A bolter overcomes the armour to stop small arms fire (each shell is like a mini bazooka round) but can't hurt light (or maybe medium, your call). A plasma weapon hurts up to heavy. A melta hurts everything. Then just take into consideration what the player says they are aiming at and roll a d20 and make a judgement call. You can allow better armor penetration if they can work their way around the sides, rear (or even better, the top) of a tank.

Example: Chaos cultists have infiltrated the planetary defense force and a captured Chimera rolls into the street. A player has a bolter and says they blare away at the tank. You can describe the shells exploding on the surface, tearing the paint off the armour. You can describe how the thick front hull armour is designed to shrug off such an attack and now the turret is swinging towards them.

If another player says they are going to aim at the vision ports for the turret, great. If they roll high the gunner needs to make a save or be effectively blind. They're still unlikely to be hurt as tank vision ports are not necessarily a gap in the armour, but often use cameras and the like.

A third player has a krak grenade. They describe moving up through the city rubble and trying to lob it on top of the tank. Sounds like the type of thing the system resolves normally. Then make a save for the tank/crew/passengers as you see fit. Or if the player rolls great, don't allow a save.

When in doubt: Player rolls a d20, the higher the result the better the result you describe.

It's best not to the think of the rules as the "physics engine" of the world, but as a tool you use to be able to resolve what the players describe. Trying to stat everything up and make sure you go through strict game procedure at all times can just bog things down. Take the archetypal mechanics of the system you are using (attack rolls, saves, etc.,) and then just interpret those based on what is described. It'll be more "authoritative" that some stat block because it will be 100% grounded in what everyone at the table is describing.

I'd also make any roll of say 16+ against a vehicle with a weapon that you judge defeats its armour do something bad to the vehicle or the people in it even if the vehicle makes its save. Have the player's high rolls be worth more in your interpretation than your own. It's a classic D&D mechanic to have attacks that still do stuff on a failed save, so make vehicles the players are attacking subject to something like that so you don't get the crappy situation of a 19 rolled doing nothing. So they roll a 19 but the cultist driving the chimera rolls the save. So you describe the krak grenade attaching to the track with an audible magnetic cachunk and then detonating, rocking the tank back and forth and blowing apart the track and drive wheels. It's now immobilized. The rear ramp slams down and the cultist passengers bail out to fight on foot. Maybe the crew bails as well. The turret is blind and they can't move. Maybe one guy stays to man the hull mounted weapon like a gun emplacement, but that would be a very brave thing to do if the rest of the crew has taken off.

.

frozenwastes you're making me wish you were my GM! All great advice, thanks very much.

I've started thinking about possible classes too. I think these will need tweaking quite a bit. I've also started to think about specialisations for each class.

Fighter (Warrior)
> pistols and swords
> assault weapons

Ranger (Ranger)
> pistols and swords
> Long ranged weapons

Barbarian (Brute)
> Close combat
> Heavy weapons

Cleric (Chirurgeons)
> Missionary
> Hospitaller

Paladin (Hierophant)
> Crusader

Warlock (Warp-seer)

Wizard (Psyker)

Rogue (Rogue)

I'd also like to have the possibility of Savants and Mechanics but I don't see these fitting in with existing 5e classes (maybe Artificer from unearthed arcana).
I'm inclined to reduce the number of feats for each class and focus more on the ability to access certain types of wargear.

To start off with I think you need 4 basic archetypes to cover with your classes. That's probably enough choice to get a game going. I honestly think renaming D&D classes should work really well as they cover the types of characters people think of playing (I'm the strong warrior! I'm the smart sneaky person and so on). I think the designers of 5E did a pretty good job, so why redo the work?

I'd pick a game concept first and then design/rename around that. What will the party be? Rogue Trader exploration squad beyond the edge of known space? Inquisitorial Henchmen investigating in a hive city? Planetary salvage and clean up group that gets in over their head? If no one is going to be a living saint of the Ecclesiarchy, you don't need to put in the time or effort to reskin a cleric.

I'd also take a page from the original 80s Basic-Expert-etc., organization of D&D and only reskin 3-5 levels of each class and appropriate wargear. The sooner you get playing the sooner you'll learn what you need so you won't spend time making rules for stuff you'll never use.

Have you had a look at the FATE system? It is a relatively crunch-lite system but as a result it is incredibly easy to adapt the base rules to basically any setting you wish.

frozenwastes wrote:To start off with I think you need 4 basic archetypes to cover with your classes. That's probably enough choice to get a game going.

Agreed, better to start small and get the ball rolling

A Town Called Malus wrote:Have you had a look at the FATE system? It is a relatively crunch-lite system but as a result it is incredibly easy to adapt the base rules to basically any setting you wish.

I haven't, I wanted to use 5e because my group is familiar. I'm open to other system though. A friend has recommended using the Star Wars RPG as a base instead because a lot of the Sci-fi stuff is already there.

FATE is actually a very different experience. Basically anything can have aspects and then there's an economy of points that let you use those aspects. Aspects are words or short phrases that describe something. And pretty much anything can have an aspect. It's basically an acknowledgement that a bit of description can be used as a rules element.

If you in this thread had the aspect "open to anyone's suggestions" as an aspect, I could invoke the aspect and pay a point to get a bonus or reroll or something on my check to convince you to take a look at FATE. Or I might offer you a fate point directly to compel you to just look into the rules. You then accept or decline.

I wouldn't do that though, as I think the aspect of "sticking with what we know" is a much better aspect to invoke in support of D&D 5E as the basis for the game.