The int stat represents a combination of both education and actual intelligence, the average Imperial citizen is unlikely to have much more than an elementary education and some vocational skills hence the 20-25 average "intelligence". The RT, Navigator and Seneschal are all likely to have high Int because their backgrounds tend to include really high end classical educations. The Astropath and the Explorator are both products of grueling mental training and in the latter case possibly an augmented brain. The Voidmaster and the Arch Militant aren't dumbasses unless you want to roleplay them that way they're just much more blue collar and physical.

The missionary is probably pretty dumb though, likely having never read a book that wasn't about burning aliens and mutants and possessing that practiced stubborn stupidity that is such a defining trait of screaming fundies.

Having an Int of 15 doesn't mean you've gone full retard, you might very well be kind of Forest Gump retarded but it's just as likely that you have a third grade education or some combination of the two. Unless you're an Ogryn if you're an Ogryn then yeah you should roleplay like you're a retard.

There are plenty of educated missionaries out there in the 40k world. A good missionary needs to be able to thoroughly research the background of a planet they are trying to convert. Faith and Coin talks about them looking through historical records and figures as well as researching the existing religions so they can find the commonality with the Imperial Creed. Then they identify the parts that need to be done away with and what parts need to be introduced. Then they convert or kill everyone who doesn't comply...

See so first they read a bunch...THEN they burn continents...

EDIT: Spelling errors...

Uhm...Just a question: How did you even get a fellowship of 23? Stat guidelines call for character to roll 2d10+25 for every stat!

Some of us use point buy - hell, I'd never play Rogue Trader with rolled stats. With a -5 penalty from your homeworld and the right mutation, hitting 15 ain't that hard.

While I can sympathize, I've had some very bad experience with point buy. It's a system that seems to encourage minmaxing.

Not sure if this is widespread or just something about the people I play with.

Uhm...Just a question: How did you even get a fellowship of 23? Stat guidelines call for character to roll 2d10+25 for every stat!

Some of us use point buy - hell, I'd never play Rogue Trader with rolled stats. With a -5 penalty from your homeworld and the right mutation, hitting 15 ain't that hard.

While I can sympathize, I've had some very bad experience with point buy. It's a system that seems to encourage minmaxing.

Not sure if this is widespread or just something about the people I play with.

Oh yeah it totally encourages people min maxing. But who wants to roleplay a game where you are mediocre at everything!!! Players need to feel like they are remarkable...

Oh yeah it totally encourages people min maxing. But who wants to roleplay a game where you are mediocre at everything!!! Players need to feel like they are remarkable...

That's why they get to reroll one stat and why I've implemented a house rule whereby after they reroll a stat or abstain they have the option to swap any two values so they can always have a good score in one thing that's important to them. Besides in my opinion most of the best character moments come from having to live with and work around that one bad characteristic whatever it is.

If you go with point buy you're going to end up with very cookie cutter characters that always start by grabbing a 45 in two or three characteristics and end with leaving one or two others at 25 and then when that character gets out in the world they're always either out in front being Peter Perfect or in the back being Billy Benchwarmer depending on the situation.

Man, why would you even want 45 in anything? Nine times out of ten, the stat bonus is the important thing, and you can only boost a stat by 20 points at most, so cutting those unnecessary 5s out lets you boost a whole nother attribute to 40 for a start. You can put 6 of your starting attributes at 40 with 90 points, grab two +5s from the origin path and use those last 10 points to have two stats at 50. After that, it's a question of whether you wanna have breadth of competency or a couple of really high attributes - since bonuses cap at +60, the guy with the higher base stat has the advantage in the late game.

And now that you know that, not only do the players get to play exactly the characters they wanna play (and not get saddled with a 27 fellowship Rogue Trader), but since everyone has similar stats and you know where their stats are going to be at, doing the math on monster stats got a lot simpler, all the PCs are fairly statted compared to one another, and 6/9 stats at 40+ means that a half-competently made character will always have something useful to do.

hash tag y'all got pwnd, hash tag point buy is best, hash tag Magellan for president

Seriously though, I find point-buy better since it gives players more control over what they play, which I consider important since their characters are supposed to last a long time. I'm also not afraid of competent characters - I just never use pre-written NPCs.

Oh, right, the actual topic. Guy, unless the GM takes pity on you and house rules in your favour, you're screwed. Another reason point buy would have been better.

Technically only combat bonuses cap at +60.

Technically only combat bonuses cap at +60.

I doubt that, and will require a page reference and a quote if I'm to believe you.

This text is ONLY present during Step One of the Attack action on page 244. It isn't present or referenced in Tests on page 230. I don't doubt it's due to FFG's shitbox editing and proofreading, but as I said, technically the cap only applies to combat.

..., technically the cap only applies to combat.

It doesn't say that anywhere. In context it's a general rule.

Also, the Test Difficulty table on page 232 doesn't allow for Tests easier than "Trivial" (+60).

The +60 or -60 thing only applies to modifiers not base characteristics. Meaning that an explorator with alot of bling could boost their Int for a tech use roll by a maximum of sixty which would probably put the final value over one hundred BUT if the tech use roll is something absolutely nuts like for instance shutting down a heretekal piece of malfunctioning archetech built by a non-imperial human world during the dark age of technology the test could potentially inflict a -60 modifier bringing that explorator right back around to a flat Int roll.

At least until that explorator bought a cranial implant and got unnatural intelligence, at that point you kind of just have to throw your hands up as the GM and accept that all tech use attempts are automatic successes.

At least until that explorator bought a cranial implant and got unnatural intelligence, at that point you kind of just have to throw your hands up as the GM and accept that all tech use attempts are automatic successes.

(Unnatural Intelligence does nothing for Tech-Use.)

That's not true. It lets you get extra bonus successes, no? So you can finish that extended test really really fast.

But it doesn't improve your chances of success to begin with, that much I agree with off the top of my head.

It lets you get extra bonus successes, no?

Nope. You get bonus degreees of success on Opposed Characteristic Tests. Tech-Use is not a Characteristic Tests, and hardly ever an Opposed Test.

Ah. Okay, thanks.

..., technically the cap only applies to combat.

It doesn't say that anywhere. In context it's a general rule.

Also, the Test Difficulty table on page 232 doesn't allow for Tests easier than "Trivial" (+60).

If the wording for the attack action said that you got +1 degree of success for a success but Characteristics Test didn't mention that, then you'd apply the bonus? We all know how it's intended to be used, and most everyone does actually seem to go with that RAI ruling, but per RAW, the cap only exists for attacks, as that section of text is not present in the core mechanic or any of the sections of text that describe Test types, in any of the books.

If the wording for the attack action said that you got +1 degree of success for a success but Characteristics Test didn't mention that, then you'd apply the bonus?

(I don't understand what you're trying to say here.)

We all know how it's intended to be used, and most everyone does actually seem to go with that RAI ruling, but per RAW, the cap only exists for attacks, as that section of text is not present in the core mechanic or any of the sections of text that describe Test types, in any of the books.

Per RAW, it doesn't say anywhere that the cap only exists for attacks. The plain meaning of the text - the Rule As Written - is clear. In context, the meaning is also clear.

The section heading does not have the significance you attribute to it. At best it is one among several factors to consider when interpreting an ambiguous rule. This rule is not ambiguous.

Iku Rex already said what I was going to say.

The +60 or -60 thing only applies to modifiers not base characteristics. Meaning that an explorator with alot of bling could boost their Int for a tech use roll by a maximum of sixty which would probably put the final value over one hundred BUT if the tech use roll is something absolutely nuts like for instance shutting down a heretekal piece of malfunctioning archetech built by a non-imperial human world during the dark age of technology the test could potentially inflict a -60 modifier bringing that explorator right back around to a flat Int roll.

At least until that explorator bought a cranial implant and got unnatural intelligence, at that point you kind of just have to throw your hands up as the GM and accept that all tech use attempts are automatic successes.

Who are you addressing?

If the wording for the attack action said that you got +1 degree of success for a success but Characteristics Test didn't mention that, then you'd apply the bonus?

(I don't understand what you're trying to say here.)

The point I'm trying to make is that if it were intended to be a global rule, it would be present in the core mechanic. I completely agree that the cap exists, but per the rules as written it is at best an ambiguity.

Who are you addressing?

I don't know.

While we're here though since there's disagreement how does Unnatural Intelligence actually work? The glossary only refers to the enemy NPC section and makes a longwinded reference to opposed tests. This has led to massive disagreements and constant arguing in my group mostly regarding dodge attempts by things with unnatural agility.

However as of now I have TWO players running around with unnatural intelligence so it's become all that much more relevant.

Who are you addressing?

I don't know.

While we're here though since there's disagreement how does Unnatural Intelligence actually work? The glossary only refers to the enemy NPC section and makes a longwinded reference to opposed tests. This has led to massive disagreements and constant arguing in my group mostly regarding dodge attempts by things with unnatural agility.

However as of now I have TWO players running around with unnatural intelligence so it's become all that much more relevant.

Unnatural attributes are simple -

During opposed tests you get bonus degrees of success equal to your Unnatural multiplier.

At all other times when you are factoring in an attribute's Bonus, the Unnatural bonus is used (for example Unnatural Toughness increases your damage soak).

That's all there is to it.

Well I have players swearing otherwise, that a creature with an unnatural agility (80)40 rolls against an 80 for a dodge test etc and they all claim to have as many random internet people backing them up. Yes what you've said parrots what I've seen in the book but they besiege me with their demands **** be otherwise.

Hey Fantasy Flight if you're reading clarify this bull in 2.0

Well I have players swearing otherwise, that a creature with an unnatural agility (80)40 rolls against an 80 for a dodge test etc and they all claim to have as many random internet people backing them up. Yes what you've said parrots what I've seen in the book but they besiege me with their demands **** be otherwise.

Hey Fantasy Flight if you're reading clarify this bull in 2.0

Then you need to slap your players down and if they don't get in line then remove them from your game. If Unnatural attributes were meant to just be doubled or tripled then wouldn't it say to rub out your old attribute and replace it with the new one?

In essence Unnatural only affects your bonus and any mechanics relying on Bonus, rather than the whole stat and thus all tests.

I think there just comes a point where you have to admit a character isn't a face, I mean lets face it at fellowship 23 the best your guy is ever going to do from pure characteristics is 43 which is still mediocre as hell for a face character. How much xp do you want to bury in being mediocre at something instead of awful? If the party already has a face leave the social **** to him.

What I'm saying is play to your strengths don't struggle to be average at one thing when you can easily be awesome at something else.

Yeah, I wanted to build my "Ultimate Hot Navigator" character, just to say that I could, and for story bits, and Asteira Volaris does have great Fellowship + Social Skills, but I had to pay out my ass for that Fellowship. Navigators are in the same boat as Void Masters, and while I can argue both how Fellowship is and isn't an Appearance stat, and I use it as thus, while telling others it's wrong, paying her Fellowship up to 51 (I "penalized" myself by forcing a good stat (43) into Fellowship) was not cheap.

Really going down that road with a Navigator is even worse because even when you build them up it can still all be taken away from you with the wrong mutation. One roll of the dice and over a thousand XP circles the toilet.

Well, with adequate origin options and proper training in Charm from Navis Scion, it's not such a pain really. Magisterial House Navigators don't really have a problem with mutations I think.... If you have, let's say, a base-line toughness of 40 at character creation. The background bonus gives you + 20 for having "pure genes" whenever you roll to gain a mutation from raising powers. Then, you can simply use a fate point to boost that critical toughness roll to + 30 when you gain new powers. So, your gorgeous Navigator diplomat has to roll a 74 or lower, I'd say that's a pretty good chance you won't get any nasty mutations. Playing anti-sociable and monstrous Navigators who are only good at ship stuff is ridiculously boring (to me). Take a challenge and become the socialite of the party (or the second-best at least).

Then, you can simply use a fate point to boost that critical toughness roll to + 30 when you gain new powers.