Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Aramithius

Get 2nd ed or tweak 1st ed?

52 posts in this topic

I've already got 1st edition, but haven't got a guaranteed group to run, so not sure if the rules upgrade is worth it just for my reference.

 

To fix something of the worst of it, I houserule that all injury totals are location-based for the purposes of critical hits. That avoids the problem of a minor strike to the head causing it to explode after nearly hacking a limb off - are there any other tweaks needed to enhance 1st ed play, or is 2nd edition enough of an overhaul to merit a new purchase?

ColArana likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I actually had to look up the example in the core rulebook to see what you mean. I think any of my groups has always interpreted the rule "added to the existing damage" as referring to that one location, not the total! Interestingly, only the example actually clarifies this.

 

I suppose we played it "wrong" all the time, but on the other hand it actually feels much more "right" than the RAW. :P

 

Anyways, from what I've heard and seen, 2E seems to do some things better than 1E, whilst doing other things worse, and then (subjectively speaking) repeating mistakes that were already causing issues in the previous edition. It thus may depend on your own preferences, and you should endeavour to find out about all the differences that may affect your personal enjoyment of the game.

 

Do you have access to the Beta? If not, at least check out the discussions in the Beta forum (it'll help you get an idea of the changes), and download the freely available update PDFs from the FFG website to check out their content.

 

Other factors that might play a role would be the availability of supplements (DH1 has a veritable library of additional content by now) as well as fluff changes (Black Industries had different ideas than FFG on some topics, which you can see when comparing certain products from before the license takeover to newer supplements written by the FFG team).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serves me right for never really reading examples, then!

 

What sort of fluff differences are there? I'm always interested in how these things evolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i read about the Beta you no longer have the skill Inquiry but the new attribute Influence. You use it to get equipment and information. There is no longer Throne money.

For me that is a horrible change since it makes (for me) narativly less sense to roll Influence in an underhive bar to get infos about cults and such instead of slipping someone some cash. Influence would represent my Inquisitors network of contacts and servants ... why am I down there rolling for it?

I am also no fan of the aptitude system like in OW. As i once compared them in my DH group against their OW counterparts you are stronger. But you trade that in for being more confined in your role since getting Elite advances at a much higher price. In DH1 you pay 150-400 XP for something out of your reach, in OW and DH2 you pay 400-600 XP.

And as an OW collector i am also worried about the amounts of Talents that show up in each new book. I mean, the huge numbers make D&D3.5 look tame in comparison. That further complicates things since so many sound the same but have different effects and lead to the same min/maxing as in D&D 3.5.

So far, i am not a fan.

Once i see the new book at my store i will look into it. But i doubt that i will like and buy it.

Edited by segara82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also no fan of the aptitude system like in OW. As i once compared them in my DH group against their OW counterparts you are stronger. But you trade that in for being more confined in your role since getting Elite advances at a much higher price. In DH1 you pay 150-400 XP for something out of your reach, in OW and DH2 you pay 400-600 XP.

Suggested XPs for a four hour gaming session (or the tables for XPs per task) suggest that this is because the XPs aren't the same. You get about twice as many XPs per time played in OW as in DH1.

If you use task-based XPs, it get's even wierder. So the costs end up being much closer than it looks at first glance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i hand out twice the XP and stick to my aptitude-defined role i still buy talents for 100-200 XP and get twice as much as an old DH1 char. Considering that there are far more Talents floating around (I just look at my OW books and shudder) that might be appropriate. Still punishes me for getting something else (1 against up to 6)

And it still leaves us with that flood of Talents.

As i said, i will take a look at the book once it's out.

Edited by segara82

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... stuff

 

Yep. Perfect example of what I meant about pros and cons! Personally, I love the Aptitude system, and I always found it silly for Inquisitorial operatives to be short on money. On the other hand, I totally agree about the Influence score and the Talent bulk.

 

Then again, some stuff could probably be fixed with an easy house rule - for example, tracking stuff like Influence individually, like a sort of reputation for each faction. Of course with the potential for a bit of cross-usefulness: if a player is able to come up with ideas for how to apply one faction's reputation to another, awesome.

I think this is how Influence is actually meant to work in the background, but it's just so abstracted in the RAW that it just ... feels a bit cheap for an RPG?

 

The rising number of Talents feels like some sort of Codex creep to me, tbh. It's nice to get new stuff, but at some point it should be enough.

 

 

What sort of fluff differences are there? I'm always interested in how these things evolve.

 

I don't think it's a lot, tbh, as Black Industries only published, like, 3 or 4 books before the game got a new developer. But one thing that I as an SoB fan noticed was that the number of Sororitas in the Calixis sector skyrocketed from 50 (suitable to the rarity they have in GW fluff) to about 5.000 if you compare Black Industry's Inquisitor's Handbook to FFG's Blood of Martyrs. This not only made them feel less elite, it also kind of ruined a plot hook from IH revolving around the presence of these 50 newly arrived Sororitas being a major concern for some nobles, because nobody knew why they were here and what they wanted.

 

Blood of Martyrs also changed the appearance of their powers from "ambiguous" to "all-out space magic" - this is less of a fluff change and more a mechanical one, but it still has the potential to affect their roleplaying. Considering that before a Sister did not actually have any way to prove anything, whereas now it just looks silly that all those Space Marines are still denying the Emperor is a true god, considering how easy it'd be to show them and make them look like fools for their stubborn refusal.

I could see this throwing a wench into the RP and possibly even the enjoyment of many Marine players, should such characters ever play side-by-side.

 

Speaking of Marines: the Deathwatch RPG also retroactively inserted an entire Space Marine Chapter into Dark Heresy's Calixis sector, where once the only things Astartes were an abandoned keep and a lone shrine guarded by an ancient Black Templars Dreadnought.

 

There may be more, but those are the glaring changes I've noticed.

Fgdsfg likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, ok. The march of systemising things all the time is a bit much. The SoB changes do sound a bit much, although...

 

I could see this throwing a wench into the RP

 

...aren't SoB wenches anyway? :-P

Fgdsfg likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i read about the Beta you no longer have the skill Inquiry but the new attribute Influence. You use it to get equipment and information. There is no longer Throne money.

 

You still use Inquiry to seek things out; Influence is just for buying stuff. And it's not just waving a badge and declaring "I'm with the Inquisition!"- it's an abstract representation of 'whatever is needed in this particular situation': cash, credit, favors, commodities for barter, etc. Since I desperately hate the D&D-style "horde those coins!" mindset that hard currency encourages, losing coins is one of the changes I'm most looking forward to.

 

Blood of Martyrs also changed the appearance of their powers from "ambiguous" to "all-out space magic"

 

I also prefer 40K 'miracles' to be ambiguous, but to be fair to FFG it wasn't just BoM that uses 'space magic'- that's the direction official 40K fluff has been going for the last few years. For example, one of the Gaunt's Ghosts novels features a meeting with the reincarnation of Saint Sabbat, and she has very blatant magic powers.

Edited by Adeptus-B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I also prefer 40K 'miracles' to be ambiguous, but to be fair to FFG it wasn't just BoM that uses 'space magic'- that's the direction official 40K fluff has been going for the last few years. For example, one of the Gaunt's Ghosts novels features a meeting with the reincarnation of Saint Sabbat, and she has very blatant magic powers.

 

Yeah, but that's the Abnettverse. Or rather, 40k novels in general. If you're expecting consistency towards the original material, you always had a sort of "hit and miss" approach there, as it always came down to the individual author and how much they'd synch with your preference here.

 

Thus I was happy that Inquisitor's Handbook stayed relatively close to the Codex fluff - but all the more miffed when I saw that Blood of Martyrs, which is now paraded as a sort of update to IH, has basically retconned it. I suppose it's one thing when a new product doesn't "get it right" (subjectively speaking!) in the first place, but another when an update messes up what you've grown to like.
 
I suppose you could say that the RPG has moved (even) closer to the novels, but whilst some or even a lot of players may like this, there is that lingering feeling of betrayal in me. :P
 
The sad thing is, there's quite a lot of stuff in BoM that I like, but dropping the Novice as well as the different Sororitas paths in favour of Adept and Cleric specialities was another huge step back. I think a hybrid between BoM and IH would be ace.
 
On a sidenote: it is also worth noting that the GW core studio has - so far - stuck to the ambiguous nature of Acts of Faith whenever they were described (or in their last proper book even blatantly stating they are just misinterpreted due to superstition, which is the version I'm still sticking with, as I consider it more fitting to the setting, and more badass for the Sisters).
 

...aren't SoB wenches anyway? :-P

 

my-little-pony-%D1%84%D1%8D%D0%BD%D0%B4%

Edited by Lynata
Fgdsfg likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO Aptitudes are rather bad. On the one hand, they provide none of the ease of use of Advance schemes, so players have to construct their own. On the other, they encourage specialisation far too much. And on the tentacle, they make it hard to hack the system.

The Roles out of the cancelled edition were vastly better. They provided a simple list of cost modifiers, following a simple formula that meant you could make up your own as needed. And, of course, the cost modifiers didn't vary nearly as much.

The advantage of enabling people to make their own Advance schemes should be obvious: it lets people build the characters they want.

The danger of over-specialisation is more subtle, but also an enormously much greater issue in the same vein as god-gear: every time a player becomes better in one particular way, you're effectively punishing the player for not playing to that particular strength. You are, in a very real sense, undermining their freedom of choice and action. Up to a point that's fine, but there's most definitely a limit past which it starts to become incredibly bad game design (or if we're talking god-gear; lousy game mastering).

segara82 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm afraid I don't understand - didn't the Roles in DH2 use Aptitudes? Was there a change in the Beta I somehow missed?  :huh:

 

Either way, I'm glad the Advance schemes are gone, because they were overly constrictive and could potentially force people into buying Advances they did not want just so they could level up. Not to mention that there were quite a lot of Advances that a Career for some inexplicable reason did not have access to, even though it would have made perfect sense. Yes, there was always the option for the GM to allow Elite Advances, but that's just another term for "let's disregard what it says in the book", and whilst this should always be kept in mind as an option for the group, it can't be the goal of a proper ruleset.

 

Not to mention that they cluttered up the book and made it a serious hassle to come up with new Careers. I'm still procrastinating when it comes to continuing my SoB fan-supplement for Deathwatch, simply because it's so utterly dull to write a gazillion different tables, even though I'm partially copying from the Marine ones. Coming up with an entirely new Advancement scheme on my own? The horror...

The designers have my respect for having stuck with this system for so long, with only some wrong or missing entries here and there. That's another advantage of Aptitudes, by the way: The Freeform system lowers the risk of errors.

 

Yes, I suppose Aptitudes and Freeform leveling do come with a risk of overspecialisation and minmaxing, but ... to be honest, a group who suffers from this issue would have had problems under any system, including the previous Advance schemes, and I don't see why players who are more concerned with the actual roleplaying aspect and the background of their characters should have to suffer for this, and be forced into the tight corset that was Advance schemes. This way, at least everybody gets to have fun.

Tenebrae likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... what I actually like about the Advance scheme system, it gives some sort of progression. 

You can't instantly learn Bulging Biceps to Run and Gun with Maximal effect. That's something the Advance Schemes depicted very good in my opinion: Gradual improvement in various areas.

Also they improve the "visibility" of those more RP-Flavor oriented Skills (like Performer and all those obscure trades). Mostly because you see them on the AS itself. Cause let's be honest: which player will even consider taking for example the Trade (Miner) Skill unless he either sees it on his Advance Scheme or has a special character concept in mind?

 

I do agree those Tables can be a major pain to manage though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't Bulging Biceps have a Strength requirement you have to meet before you can take it even in Freeform?

The only thing that Advance schemes add to this is time, but what does it matter to my physical body that I have to buy potentially entirely unrelated (non-physical) Skills and Talents just to get to the Level where I can take BB?

 

And to be fair, which player will consider taking Trade (Miner) even if they see it on their Advance scheme, if they don't have a special character in mind? ;)

 

The only reason I took Perform (Singer) as a Sister back then was because I thought it fits to the character. I could've skipped it entirely, just like I'd take it again in a Freeform system. So in my opinion this particular problem rests with the player, not the system.

 

 

Semi-OT: If it were up to me, I'd actually do away with Bulging Biceps entirely. Either you have the required Strength or you don't. :P

Edited by Lynata
Tenebrae likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I largely agree with Lynata's last 2 posts, except I feel no need to give respect to the designers for having gone with that abomination of a system for that long, it was their own bloody fault.

Semi-OT: If it were up to me, I'd actually do away with Bulging Biceps entirely. Either you have the required Strength or you don't. :P

Personally, I'd just do away with Bulging Biceps, full stop.

But that's probably just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I don't understand - didn't the Roles in DH2 use Aptitudes? Was there a change in the Beta I somehow missed?  :huh:

[...]

Yes, I suppose Aptitudes and Freeform leveling do come with a risk of overspecialisation and minmaxing, but ...

I'm talking about the cancelled beta.

DH2.3b Roles were a list of XP modifiers for every Characteristic and Skill in the game. And so in appearance very similar to a DH1e Advance Scheme, despite not being tied to Job, Rank or Career.

You would use the single DH2.3 Advance Scheme relevant to your Role from Character Creation to you Retired your PC.

The really cool thing about DH2.3b Roles, however, was that they followed a recipe: 3 Characteristics at *50, 4 Characteristics at *100, 2 Characteristics at *150, and similar for Skills.

That meant you could make your own Role that would be reasonably balanced against any other Role, and you could do it as fast as you could type. In other words, DH2.3b Roles gave you VASTLY more freedom to build the PC you wanted, than OW does and DH2e will. In terms of freeform character building, DH2e is a gigantic leap backwards from the cancelled beta.

As for over-specialisation, what I was trying to say is that a system can try to leave it in the hands of the players, or it can try to make players behave in a particular way. With the Rules system, the XP cost modifiers are not hugely different. The difference between something core to your character and something way the hell outside her expertise, is at most *3. With Aptitudes, the difference is *6. A point at which I suggest the system is locking players into very specialised builds.

Perhaps even worse: because the Aptitude system makes it just about impossible for players to get an overview of how their character can evolve and at what cost, you can expect anyone with less than perfect system mastery, has a pretty great chance of suddenly finding out, ten sessions in, that their character wants to be built differently from how they want to build it.

- Mind that I' not saying the Talent Trees from DH2.3b were a good idea. But the Roles system never required Talent Trees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm still having trouble following you. Let's see if I get this right:
 
DH2.3b had a system where you'd calculate the final XP cost of whatever advance you wanted to take based on a modifier you'd gain from the Role you took at character creation?
 
How is this different from a system where you'd calculate the final XP cost of whatever advance you wanted to take based on a modifier you'd gain from the Aptitudes you got at character creation?
 
The only difference seems to be the difference between the advances being either x3 or x5 times apart in cost - but frankly, it would be so easy to houserule this. Just change a few numbers in a single table and you're done! :)
 

Perhaps even worse: because the Aptitude system makes it just about impossible for players to get an overview of how their character can evolve and at what cost, you can expect anyone with less than perfect system mastery, has a pretty great chance of suddenly finding out, ten sessions in, that their character wants to be built differently from how they want to build it.

 

Every player has an overview of which Skill or Talent connects to which Aptitude. To me, this means that everyone should be able to get an idea of what kind of archetype would be able to get them cheap or expensive simply by looking at what Aptitudes are connected to them. More Aptitudes = cheaper advances.

 

How did DH2.3b explain it? If it had a list of modifiers for Skill and Talent cost, it must have a way to mark them, similar to Aptitudes.

 

Mind that I' not saying the Talent Trees from DH2.3b were a good idea.

 

How did they look like? I wouldn't mind Talent Trees if they were limited to something like a series of optional bonuses augmenting freely available abilities. I just wouldn't want to see the system return to something as limiting as DH1.

Tenebrae likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Mind that I' not saying the Talent Trees from DH2.3b were a good idea.

 

How did they look like? I wouldn't mind Talent Trees if they were limited to something like a series of optional bonuses augmenting freely available abilities. I just wouldn't want to see the system return to something as limiting as DH1.

 

 

Well, you had various "Talent Trees" (think it was defensive, offensive, gunslinger, or however they were called) which focused on one set of talents. Every tree had a starting talent, which "unlocked" more talents, etc etc. Something like that. 

 

Anyway, I'll stay with my opinion that I actually like the Advance-Schemes. Yes, they are far from perfect, but so is the Aptitude system in my opinion. Please note I didn't say I hate it, it's a solid system, for some reason I just prefer the Advance-Schemes.

Edited by darkforce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, so a bit like the old requirements in how you needed Swift Attack before you could get Lightning Attack?

 

Okay, could be hit or miss for me, all depending on just how many abilities are "locked away" like this. But the idea does have potential, especially if it serves to illustrate a sort of progression between related Talents.

 

In regards to the Advance Schemes, I guess this also hinges largely upon past experiences and character concepts. If someone had an idea for a character that synched nicely with the Scheme, they're likely not to see any problems. On the other hand, someone who has had ideas "sabotaged" by the constrictive advancement is likely to have developed a strong bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lynata each Role listed an XP cost modifier for every Characteristic and Skill. The result was a table much like an Advance Scheme from DH1e, except the Role table covered every Characteristic and Skill in the system, and listed the XP costs for characters with that Role all the way from CharGen to retirement.

The advantage of having a table isn't just that it is easier for players to look stuff up. The much more important advantage is that it gives players an easy overview of what their characters can become.

Aptitudes work more like a smokescreen, obscuring things.

...

Roles were made using this recipe:

  • 1 Special Rule the equivalent of a Talent in scope.
  • 3 Characteristics with an XP cost modifier of 50
  • 4 Characteristics with an XP cost modifier of 100
  • 2 Characteristics with an XP cost modifier of 150
  • 4 Skills with an XP cost modifier of 100
  • 14 Skills with an XP cost modifier of 150
  • 3 Skills with an XP cost modifier of 200​

 

Note that we striped out the '1 Special Rule' bit, because simply giving players a free Talent during CharGen seemed like a better idea. Anyway...

The advantage of having a 'Role recipe' is that it lets you easily create exactly the character you want, with the exact progression you want, while staying reasonably balanced with any other character.

Aptitudes does a great job of the opposite: it's highly arguable whether RAW aptitudes are as balanced as the 'Role recipe', and customising the Aptitude system is both ridiculously over-complicated and a nightmare to try to balance.

 

...

I'll grant you the XP cost modifier is easily customisable using either method. My only comment in that respect, is that DH2.3b RAW had XP cost modifiers that didn't massively encourage a laser-focus, while DH2e RAW has the opposite.

 

...

 

DH2.3b had a pile of different Talent Trees each build around theme. All characters would have access to the top talent in each Talent Tree, but would then have to buy their way through a Talent Tree to get the Talent they wanted.

 

In the Defence Tree, the top Talent was Evasive, which unlocked Hard Target and Disarm. Hard Target would unlock Step Aside, while Disarm would unlock Counter Attack and Deflect Shot. Step Aside and Counter Attack would unlock Nimble. Nimble would unlock Responsive, and finally Responsive would unlock Snap Fire.

 

So if you wanted Deflect Shot, you would first have to buy Evasive & Disarm.

 

Basically, the Talent Trees went overboard.

 

We've done something very different involving 'soft-linking' [buy Talent Z and you get no discount, buy Talents XYZ and you get a big discount] Talents and Talent Tiers, but I'm actually not crazy about our current system, so I shan't bother you with it.

 

What I think I'd like to do, though, is to link Talents to Characteristics in a similar sort of way as how Talents and Aptitudes are linked in DH2e.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lynata each Role listed an XP cost modifier for every Characteristic and Skill. The result was a table much like an Advance Scheme from DH1e, except the Role table covered every Characteristic and Skill in the system, and listed the XP costs for characters with that Role all the way from CharGen to retirement.

 

Now I'm confused (once again). Why would the table list a modifier rather than the actual cost right away? That makes it sound as if the final cost would be modified by something else (Backgrounds? Racial bonuses?) - which the player would then have to look again anyways, with the potential of considerable changes to the end result, making the table look misleading.

 

Other than that it sounds pretty much like a hybrid between the old Advance Schemes and the new system in that it (I assume) gave up on requiring Ranks to unlock stuff or various Skills and Talents being entirely unavailable, rather making everything available from the start.

 

Is that update still online somewhere? I have a feeling I might understand it better if I have it in front of me.

 

In regards to the "laser focus", I think this ought to depend on the specific background. I have no problem with massive differences in XP cost if it fits to the character in question, just like I'd hope that there were "Jacks of all Trades" who would have an easy time getting a bit of everything, all depending on their Role. Huge XP cost differences, in my opinion, are not only a reflection of role focus, but also a reflection of the setting favoring characters whose development is hampered by their origins. A Hive ganger growing up in the streets and tunnels of Necromunda will have a ridiculously hard time learning skills that have to do with survival in the wilderness, and a Schola graduate growing up surrounded by fascist indoctrination and religious zeal may have much more difficulty wrapping their head around the concept of bartering than a Feral worlder.

 

In this respect, I think x5 multipliers are "just right" in reflecting the massive discrepancy, compared to just x3, which I'd consider suitable for someone who has at least a basic grasp of some aspects of the new Skill/Talent they want to learn. The only thing I would re-think is whether or not such things are accurately reflected by the choice of Aptitudes that ultimately ended up being in this system. Or, alternatively, if this could be simplified somehow - such as basically throwing all the Aptitudes together into categories such as, say, "Combat", "Social", "Knowledge", "Physical" and "Mental" (all featuring simple XP-cost modifiers for each class), augmented by Role-specific bonuses or even exclusive Talents/Abilities.

 

Just off the top of my head, mind you. There's a ton of possible ways to approach this. My group is about to start Black Crusade and I really like how it works with the 4 Chaos Gods there.

 

As for the Talent Trees ... sounds like a great concept as far as I'm concerned, but way too limiting because too much ended up being in there. It should not go deeper than, say, 3 levels imo.

 

What I think I'd like to do, though, is to link Talents to Characteristics in a similar sort of way as how Talents and Aptitudes are linked in DH2e.

 

You mean that Skill and Talent costs are derived from Characteristics? Such as, for example, having a Fellowship of 47 would mean you get to divide the cost of Air of Authority by factor 4, and having Strength 52 means you get to divide the cost of Bulging Biceps by 5?

Or more like multiple Characteristics "unlocking" a discount for Skills and Talents when you've reached a certain Threshold, such as raising both Perception and Ballistic Skill above 30 means you get Deadeye Shot a bit cheaper, and if you go above 50 you pay even less?

 

I think this could be a cool idea. :)

Edited by Lynata

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I'm confused (once again). Why would the table list a modifier rather than the actual cost right away? That makes it sound as if the final cost would be modified by something else (Backgrounds? Racial bonuses?) - which the player would then have to look again anyways, with the potential of considerable changes to the end result, making the table look misleading.

The XP cost of a Characteristic of Skill increase would be 'XP cost modifier* level of increase' so the table only needed to show the XP cost modifier.

FX: Skill Rank 3 would cost the XP modifier times three.

 

Other than that it sounds pretty much like a hybrid between the old Advance Schemes and the new system in that it (I assume) gave up on requiring Ranks to unlock stuff or various Skills and Talents being entirely unavailable, rather making everything available from the start.

 

Basically, all Characteristic and Skill Advances were available to everyone, with a player's chosen Role determining the exact XP cost.

 

Talents were locked up in Talent Trees, so uhm... Not really comparable to anything.

 

Is that update still online somewhere? I have a feeling I might understand it better if I have it in front of me. 

 

Unfortunately FFG took down the cancelled beta rules. I don't think there's any way to get a hold of them now.

 

 

In regards to the "laser focus", I think this ought to depend on the specific background. I have no problem with massive differences in XP cost if it fits to the character in question, just like I'd hope that there were "Jacks of all Trades" who would have an easy time getting a bit of everything, all depending on their Role. Huge XP cost differences, in my opinion, are not only a reflection of role focus, but also a reflection of the setting favoring characters whose development is hampered by their origins. A Hive ganger growing up in the streets and tunnels of Necromunda will have a ridiculously hard time learning skills that have to do with survival in the wilderness, and a Schola graduate growing up surrounded by fascist indoctrination and religious zeal may have much more difficulty wrapping their head around the concept of bartering than a Feral worlder.

 

In this respect, I think x5 multipliers are "just right" in reflecting the massive discrepancy, compared to just x3, which I'd consider suitable for someone who has at least a basic grasp of some aspects of the new Skill/Talent they want to learn. The only thing I would re-think is whether or not such things are accurately reflected by the choice of Aptitudes that ultimately ended up being in this system. Or, alternatively, if this could be simplified somehow - such as basically throwing all the Aptitudes together into categories such as, say, "Combat", "Social", "Knowledge", "Physical" and "Mental" (all featuring simple XP-cost modifiers for each class), augmented by Role-specific bonuses or even exclusive Talents/Abilities.

 

 

I vehemently disagree. This is stuff the player and GM should decide, based on the character the player wants and the needs of the campaign.

 

This is also why my reaction to the complexity of the Aptitude system is "Kill it with fire!" The system not only makes no provisions for the cases where it doesn't mesh well with the needs of the players and campaigns, it goes out of its way to make it hard for a group to hack it.

 

s for the Talent Trees ... sounds like a great concept as far as I'm concerned, but way too limiting because too much ended up being in there. It should not go deeper than, say, 3 levels imo. 

 

This, however, I completely agree with. The Talent Trees, as they were, had the same issues the Aptitude system: it took build decisions out of the hands of the players to a much too great extent, and hacking it was hideously complicated.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding how you can playtest either, and not go: "Oh... These systems are actually pretty terrible."

 

 

You mean that Skill and Talent costs are derived from Characteristics? Such as, for example, having a Fellowship of 47 would mean you get to divide the cost of Air of Authority by factor 4, and having Strength 52 means you get to divide the cost of Bulging Biceps by 5?

 

Or more like multiple Characteristics "unlocking" a discount for Skills and Talents when you've reached a certain Threshold, such as raising both Perception and Ballistic Skill above 30 means you get Deadeye Shot a bit cheaper, and if you go above 50 you pay even less?

 

I think this could be a cool idea. :)

 

 

Just Talent costs. As far as we're concerned, Roles work brilliantly. So we're unlikely to mess with them (beyond changing the '1 Special Rule' to '1 unspecified Talent'). I should probably also say that we have used DH2.3b as a basis for how we handle Skills, and have further Skill-ified a bunch of stuff that weren't Skills by RAW edition (such as Psy and attack Characteristics).

 

But yeah, maybe a combination of what you just mentioned. I should get a hold of my playmates. Like I said, right now our way of handling Talents is possibly even more ass-backwards than DH2.3b RAW. The KISS principle sounds a lot easier than it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The XP cost of a Characteristic of Skill increase would be 'XP cost modifier* level of increase' so the table only needed to show the XP cost modifier.

FX: Skill Rank 3 would cost the XP modifier times three.

 

I see. But ... why not just print the final cost right away, then?  :huh:

 

I'm really not a fan of uberhuge tables like they existed in DH1, but if you're going to include them, you may just as well make it so that a player doesn't need to go back and forth in the book again and again just to look up what they can afford. Emperor knows, there's way too much page-flipping in FFG's books as-is.

 

Talents were locked up in Talent Trees, so uhm... Not really comparable to anything.

 

All Talents? Oh. Gotcha.  :wacko:

 

 

I vehemently disagree. This is stuff the player and GM should decide, based on the character the player wants and the needs of the campaign. This is also why my reaction to the complexity of the Aptitude system is "Kill it with fire!" The system not only makes no provisions for the cases where it doesn't mesh well with the needs of the players and campaigns, it goes out of its way to make it hard for a group to hack it.

 

But, how so? I actually regard the OW system as much easier to "hack". If a player or a GM has a cool idea and it's not covered by the rules already, just trade one Aptitude for another. Should be much faster than re-calculating and balancing dozens of individual modifiers in some huge table.

 

Yes, this might still mean that a player won't be able to pick everything they want as a cheaper advance, but I'd interpret this as realism getting in the way of min-maxing, not an arbitrary limitation of ideas.

 

The Only War forum is filled with suggestions for alternate classes and mods, which I think is a good example to the level of freedom opened up with Aptitudes. A freedom gained by ease of modification. Those long modifier tables you described sound only marginally better than the option of re-writing entire DH1 Advancement Schemes we had all along, and considering how few people did this, it's a testament to which system seems easier to "make your own".

 

Yes, I think the concept introduced in Only War can still be improved somewhat (see the ideas the two of us kind of brainstormed in the previous posts), but if I were to write my own Unified 40k ruleset and had to pick an existing FFG RPG to base it on right now, I'd pick Only War. Same for that Necromunda mod I posted about here. My biggest problem with Aptitudes is that they're so many, which is kind of realistic, but not very user-friendly.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding how you can playtest either, and not go: "Oh... These systems are actually pretty terrible."

 

I'm thinking the same about a lot of rules in these books. But, to be honest, it's probably just a matter of focus. In one's own mind, stuff may sound totally brilliant (otherwise you wouldn't have written it down), and it's not until someone else follows a different path than the one you are used to that problems may arise.

And even then you might dismiss the other's input because you think the path you took should be the one everybody takes.

 

The pitfalls of development. Or of the critic, because we tend to be just as convinced by "our ways". ;)

 

 

[edit] Thanks for explaining DH2.3 to me, by the way! I must've totally missed out on that update.

Edited by Lynata
DarkForce2 and Tenebrae like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe, guess our tastes in RP-Systems are quite different at least in that regard. The Problem you mentioned, Lynata, with "Advances not being on the Table" and stuff I solved simply by giving away Elite Advances, of which I am actually a great friend.

 

I remember a Dark Heresy Campaign of mine where the players got quite a lot of those, as I really like handing out Adventure-Specific rewards (like Peer-Talents and some Lore-Skills and Secret Tongue/Ciphers where also among them). Not that the Aptitude-System makes that impossible, by the simple virtue of allowing everyone to buy everything, however, it devalues those rewards... but then again, one could always say that being a problem of the restrictions of the Advancement-Scheme system in itself. 

 

But still, I'm curious for the second edition... not gonna adapt it for the campaign I'm writing currently though, since one does not change horses in mid-stream, right? And converting those Characters later would probably not be worth the hassle, especially since I have a few ideas on how to not play Ascension (Will Adapt a few rules from Ascension, but overall it's rather... meh... in my opinion, but different can of worms.)

 

Especially curious how various in-game mechanics will or will not change... I do hope it will have the Psychic-Mechanics of the first Edition, cause I really love them. Like, really really... muchj better risk vs. reward system in my opinion then in other systems of the wh40k RPG-line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Especially curious how various in-game mechanics will or will not change... I do hope it will have the Psychic-Mechanics of the first Edition, cause I really love them. Like, really really... muchj better risk vs. reward system in my opinion then in other systems of the wh40k RPG-line.

 

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it's got the psychic system of Only War. =P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0