Are the Dark Heresy rules suited to play agents of a Rogue Traders?

I did it reverse, my gang moved to Rogue Trader at about rank 7, and some even switched careers (Noble Born Scum became Rogue Trader naturally ). It worked well, but required a bit of thinkering and spot rules. I would not advise it if you play Rules as Written, or have players who insist on rules lawyering.

There's no reason why not. The rules themselves simply describe different careers most of which ( Adept Assassin Guardsman,& Scum) who will work for anyone' Clerics could well work for a Rogue Trader as household priests A Rogue Trader undoubtably has Tech Priests workign for him although they are more likely to be independant. Adeptus Arbites takes a little more explaining although easy enough if you simply say they represent Bounty Hunters or Household enforcers.

Where the system breaks down slightly is when you reach Ascension which has rules explicitly designed around the PCs working for the Inquisition.

Are the Dark Heresy rules suited to play agents of a Rogue Traders?

I don't see any problem. As long as the difficulty of the adventure is adapted to the weaker power of the pcs.

If your Acolytes are simply employed by a Rogue Trader instead of an Inquisitor, you can easily sidestep the biggest problem entirely, which is the thoroughly incompatible Psychic Systems, by only using the Psychic System in Dark Heresy.

Profit Factor is a potential minefield, but you don't have to use it, and even if you do there's no particular reason your players should be able to use PF-based rolls. Or alternatively, your campaign may be sufficiently high-powered that it is appropriate for the Acolytes to have infinite wealth.

Are the Dark Heresy rules suited to play agents of a Rogue Traders?

I don't see any problem. As long as the difficulty of the adventure is adapted to the weaker power of the pcs.

Interesting that you say DH characters are weaker, its been my group's experience that Dark Heresy produces the most powerful characters at a given experience level - we've had combat players reject deathwatch space marines in favour of crusaders and stormtroopers from ascension. But even pre-ascension our DH Guardsman was far more dangerous than her Only War alternatives.

I'd be interested to hear how and why you and your group feel different to us in case I'm missing something as the GM.

As for combineing RT and DH, I've been doing it since the Rogue Trader core book came out - just watch out for the differeing psyker systems and the different wording on a few of the talents (its a rules-lawyer gold mine unless you specifically say at the start which set of rules takes precident).

Regards

Surak

Are the Dark Heresy rules suited to play agents of a Rogue Traders?

I don't see any problem. As long as the difficulty of the adventure is adapted to the weaker power of the pcs.

Interesting that you say DH characters are weaker, its been my group's experience that Dark Heresy produces the most powerful characters at a given experience level - we've had combat players reject deathwatch space marines in favour of crusaders and stormtroopers from ascension. But even pre-ascension our DH Guardsman was far more dangerous than her Only War alternatives.

I'd be interested to hear how and why you and your group feel different to us in case I'm missing something as the GM.

I had interpreted the question of Iacton19 in this way: "can I start with level 1 DH characters (and the according rules) in a rogue trader setting?" I hadn't considered the expansions (and definitely not Ascension) as being part of the question. As I have insufficient experience with those expansions, I'm not going to start a debate on power levels between characters

@Iacton19: I'm a believer of the thesis that "rulesystem and universe aren't connected per se". In my opinion you can use any rulesystem and paste it on any setting (this is a bit of an exaggeration - there are always exceptions). For example, I don't think it would pose a problem to swap the RT ruleset with the DH one. I even think you could paste the Star Wars rule set on Dark Heresy, but perhaps D&D rules for a DH setting would be stretching it a bit too far.

It all comes down for me on balancing the encounters with the player's level, independant from the rulesystem.

Just my two cents though

DH PCs pay the least xp for everything, so xp for xp they'll tend to be stronger than PCs of the other lines. That said, they also start with less xp than PCs of other lines, so it is technically right they're the weakest. They just don't stay that way.

The other fact is, RT PCs have a free +5 to every stat and the origin path can boost them up further, before skills and such.

DH characters will all be skill/Talent-monkeys compared to equal-XP RT characters. But RT characters will have higher pre-XP-expended characteristics and much better gear at a default.

On the characteristics - RT characters have higher baselines (25 is the starting baseline, not 20, and the Origin Path has a lot of "+3 to Characteristic" options) but DH characters will pay less for each advance, generally.

My experience of doing this has been that the DH characters end up much more powerful at specialised skills than the RT characters (most due to the offset stats at creation). Because of this an assassin of similar XP to the suggested guidelines of the RT characters will be much more combat adept than his counterparts, having already had access to a variety of skills that are locked for the RT characters until significantly higher ranks (comparitive to their advance schemes).

Its not a deal breaker, but my RT based characters became very unhappy with the disparity as the campaign progressed, so be mindful of that.

My experience of doing this has been that the DH characters end up much more powerful at specialised skills than the RT characters (most due to the offset stats at creation). Because of this an assassin of similar XP to the suggested guidelines of the RT characters will be much more combat adept than his counterparts, having already had access to a variety of skills that are locked for the RT characters until significantly higher ranks (comparitive to their advance schemes).

Its not a deal breaker, but my RT based characters became very unhappy with the disparity as the campaign progressed, so be mindful of that.

Off course this is only a problem if you mix pc's from Dark Heresy with pc's from Rogue Trader. If everybody is overpowered, it's just the GM that has to scale his encounters.

I would not say that it are a problem as such to take rank one acolytes and then having a rogue trader pay them instead of the inquisition (one of the interpretations of the question). The thing is that acolytes are weak at best when they start out, so why is it again that the rogue trader who generally have hundreds if not thousands of fighters on his ship wants to send such a little group out to do his bidding? The same could be said about spying or any other job really, he have the power and the money to pay for someone better, so why is it that he are using people with acolyte powers?

If they are following the rules there is for this in the RT book (can´t remember how many EXP there are thrown at you, I am without my book for the moment) and are mixing and matching characters from both books, are the first problem of levelling the characters out with their setting not a problem anymore. Do just note as others have said that acolytes are going to kick ass in what ever they chooses to focus on, so rather far into the game would they be the better characters to all things. We have all had trouble keeping the balance between tech-priests and psykers and the rest of the group, mixing and matching are taking this up to 11, each and every acolyte simply just owning more tools than the other characters does

Everybody seems to have missed that these are not the same XPs :-/

DH1 recommends 200 XPs for 4 hours of play, while RT recommends 500.

Alternatively, compare tables 8-1 (DH1, p. 229) vs 10-1 (RT, p. 291).

If you're giving both types of characters the same amount of XPs after a session, you're skewing things wildly in favour of the acolytes. Stating that 5k XP acolytes are about balanced against 5k XP RT character may be true, but after that, it's a joke.

Everybody seems to have missed that these are not the same XPs :-/

DH1 recommends 200 XPs for 4 hours of play, while RT recommends 500.

Alternatively, compare tables 8-1 (DH1, p. 229) vs 10-1 (RT, p. 291).

If you're giving both types of characters the same amount of XPs after a session, you're skewing things wildly in favour of the acolytes. Stating that 5k XP acolytes are about balanced against 5k XP RT character may be true, but after that, it's a joke.

Tenebrae,

The differeing assumed exp levels are definately the source of the problem, but you can't exactly give half the group over double the exp of the rest and not expect some sort of argument. Personally I've found the best way of handeling a mixed group is run all the PC's through Dh upto ascension, and then add the RT careers to the ascension ones and simply have the character jump into the RT career at rank 4 - with access to all the ranks below and the career special ability and gear, but not the starting skills and talents.

This seems to event the playing field out as much as we are ever going to manage without a single unified rule system.

Regards

Surak.

we've had combat players reject deathwatch space marines in favour of crusaders and stormtroopers from ascension.

This just sounds like the players either simply preferring human characters out of personal preference, or because they thought the (much) higher amount of skills and talents would result in a more versatile character. Purely in terms of combat efficiency, I can't think of anything that comes close to the considerable bonus damage and small arms nigh-invulnerability that Astartes get in FFG's games. Aside from the Vindicare maybe.

The differeing assumed exp levels are definately the source of the problem, but you can't exactly give half the group over double the exp of the rest and not expect some sort of argument.

My initial reaction to this was "watch me", but instead I'll point out that I wasn't even suggesting that - merely pointing out that most of this thread has been based on the false assumption that XPs correlate between the 2 versions of the system and that using them together will be practical.

In general, I would advice against mixing DH1 and RT characters. It's going to be a bloody mess and whomever designed it, clearly didn't intend the games to be used together in this fashion.

My advice would be to ignore DH1 (sod, to throw it out the window and hope you won't hit anyone) and import characters from OW or DH2. Even BC.

Ofcourse, this would expose just how inflexible character progression in RT is, but hey, we all knew that already, right?

The differeing assumed exp levels are definately the source of the problem, but you can't exactly give half the group over double the exp of the rest and not expect some sort of argument.

My initial reaction to this was "watch me", but instead I'll point out that I wasn't even suggesting that - merely pointing out that most of this thread has been based on the false assumption that XPs correlate between the 2 versions of the system and that using them together will be practical.

In general, I would advice against mixing DH1 and RT characters. It's going to be a bloody mess and whomever designed it, clearly didn't intend the games to be used together in this fashion.

My advice would be to ignore DH1 (sod, to throw it out the window and hope you won't hit anyone) and import characters from OW or DH2. Even BC.

Ofcourse, this would expose just how inflexible character progression in RT is, but hey, we all knew that already, right?

Sorry for my misinterpretation, and having re-read my last post I probably should have made it clearer I was talking about me and my group when I was talking about differeing EXP handouts - in a less "competative" group you probably could do it and keep everything in balance.

As for RT being inflexible, it is a little. But I don't seem to have picked up the alergic reaction to career paths that some seem to have developed in recent years. Don't get me wrong I really like the open systems in BC and OW (I reserve judgement on DH2 until I ee the full release) but my newer players prefer the guidence of the career system. Plus I do like the fluff that comes with the alternate ranks.

Of course all I've really found with experienced players and open game systems (not just OW) is a massivly powerful group of min-maxed uber-characters with very little soul to them. They just don't seem to collect those flavour/random skills that give characters in DH and RT a bit of life, becuase why would you dump exp in a skill you'd only use once in a blue moon without the incentive of needing to rank up to get access to new upgrades.

Back to the topic (I may of drifted a little there) I have mixed RT and DH from the very begining, and as long as your able to think fast enough when an odd situation comes up it shouldn't be too traumatic an experience for the GM, and it becomes even easier at ascension exp levels and the ranks and assumed exp levels sync.

Hope that helps

Regards

Surak

Sorry for my misinterpretation, and having re-read my last post I probably should have made it clearer I was talking about me and my group when I was talking about differeing EXP handouts - in a less "competative" group you probably could do it and keep everything in balance.

And you might well be right.

One of my groups, I forget giving out XPs half the time.

The other one has some competitive elements. Could probably smash it through, but it'd be work.

As for RT being inflexible, it is a little. But I don't seem to have picked up the alergic reaction to career paths that some seem to have developed in recent years.

Don't get me wrong I really like the open systems in BC and OW (I reserve judgement on DH2 until I ee the full release) but my newer players prefer the guidence of the career system. Plus I do like the fluff that comes with the alternate ranks.

Of course all I've really found with experienced players and open game systems (not just OW) is a massivly powerful group of min-maxed uber-characters with very little soul to them. They just don't seem to collect those flavour/random skills that give characters in DH and RT a bit of life, becuase why would you dump exp in a skill you'd only use once in a blue moon without the incentive of needing to rank up to get access to new upgrades.

I've seen that problem very strongly in OW I must admit, though the stories we are run through are somewhat one-dimensional.

Shadowrunners tended to be much more varied, though certain skills propped up again and again.

I mostly play Ars Magica these days, where I see a rather wide spread of character set-ups, within groupings (wizards tend tend to be more intelligent than bodyguards, but I've seen both stupid wizards and clever soldiers).

To be honest I think it's more about the group than anything.

Back to the topic (I may of drifted a little there) I have mixed RT and DH from the very begining, and as long as your able to think fast enough when an odd situation comes up it shouldn't be too traumatic an experience for the GM, and it becomes even easier at ascension exp levels and the ranks and assumed exp levels sync.

I own most of the books, but mostly to use them for background for RT.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying DH is unplayable, just that there are better systems for the purpose out there.

Also, my Significant Other likes DH, so it does get some direct use