NO player character is invincible to a proper GM.

Remember the old adage of "if you stat it they will kill it"?

Well guess what player characters are made of?

They have stats; you can kill them.

Or failing that, collapse the multiiverse on them.

This approach has many traps that are going to eradicate the fun from the game: from the usual gearing-the-NPCs-against-the-PC adventure (also called PC/GM War), to the dying screams of Fluff Fred: "I just wanted to have fun!" as he gets his butt blasted into another universe by a multi-melta because that's the only weapon that can harm MinMax Mike, so every combat encounter has at least one.

I think there is a difference between an ******* GM who doesn't care about the fun of his players and just having a setting where people, despite being powerful individuals, don't necessary feel invincible. Being powerful just allows different kind of obstacles to be presented, different challenges to overcome.

There's that and also just the expectations of the GM and the players. If everybody is fine with min-maxing then sure why not. You'll get that in any game though, not just 40k RPGs.

Invincible Acolytes? Patently untrue. Sure, most characters will survive one hit from more popular (i.e. weaker) weapons, but there are tons of stuff that can one- or two-shot even the toughest Acolytes, and even those weaker weapons will take their toll on characters' resources, eventually having them succumb to attrition.

Overly complex combat? What's so complex about it? I can easily run three or four combat encounters in one game session while still having time for other stuff.

Chasing after better guns? What would you have instead? Players like having cool toys as much as they like having adequate tools for dealing with heavily armed gangs, ridiculously advanced aliens and abominations from beyond reality, so naturally they will want to acquire better weapons, and there's nothing you can do about it short of removing weapon variety from the game altogether. If anything, the Influence system really streamlines the process of acquiring them, as you won't have Acolytes rifling through dead heretics' pockets for small change in order to save up for a better pistol.

Horrible skill gaining system? It's hard to refute an argument so completely based in personal opinion, but what's so horrible about it?

Horrible skill gaining system? It's hard to refute an argument so completely based in personal opinion, but what's so horrible about it?

The Aptitudes system has some cool upsides, but with those cool upsides you get some really irritating stuff. Like the fact that deciding what advancement you want to buy and how much it will actually cost you involved a ton of page flipping. There is no synopsis on the various talents in the part of the book that lists XP costs. So unless you have memorized what every talent does, you will have to flip through the pages to find that talent, then flip back to find out how much that talent will cost you, then probably flip back to compare one talent to another. It takes forever and its a huge pain.

This has less to do with skills and more to do with talents though. I assume he was referring to the whole advancement system. Did I mention that you have a ton of different Aptitudes? Add even more flipping, character sheet glances and yet more flipping on top of all the flipping you have already done. The idea is great, but the reality isn't.

NO player character is invincible to a proper GM.

Remember the old adage of "if you stat it they will kill it"?

Well guess what player characters are made of?

They have stats; you can kill them.

Or failing that, collapse the multiiverse on them.

This approach has many traps that are going to eradicate the fun from the game: from the usual gearing-the-NPCs-against-the-PC adventure (also called PC/GM War), to the dying screams of Fluff Fred: "I just wanted to have fun!" as he gets his butt blasted into another universe by a multi-melta because that's the only weapon that can harm MinMax Mike, so every combat encounter has at least one.

Most RPGs have that. Any system that gives you the greedom of choice between being strong and not being strong will cause issues when both ectremes are present. Only way around it is try and pigeonhole everyone who n a narrow power range but that drives away ppl that like building characters.

Horrible skill gaining system? It's hard to refute an argument so completely based in personal opinion, but what's so horrible about it?

The Aptitudes system has some cool upsides, but with those cool upsides you get some really irritating stuff. Like the fact that deciding what advancement you want to buy and how much it will actually cost you involved a ton of page flipping. There is no synopsis on the various talents in the part of the book that lists XP costs. So unless you have memorized what every talent does, you will have to flip through the pages to find that talent, then flip back to find out how much that talent will cost you, then probably flip back to compare one talent to another. It takes forever and its a huge pain.

This has less to do with skills and more to do with talents though. I assume he was referring to the whole advancement system. Did I mention that you have a ton of different Aptitudes? Add even more flipping, character sheet glances and yet more flipping on top of all the flipping you have already done. The idea is great, but the reality isn't.

A simple 3x5 card with the costs and a list of your character's Aptitudes eases that pain considerably. If you're adverse to just pulling out a pen and doing it yourself, I'm sure somebody has already made a pdf for this purpose.

Horrible skill gaining system? It's hard to refute an argument so completely based in personal opinion, but what's so horrible about it?

The Aptitudes system has some cool upsides,

What? Where?

*Facepalm*

I'm sorry, I won't even bother responding anymore at this point.

That said, I agree with DJSunhammer on the downsides of the Aptitude system.

*Facepalm*

I'm sorry, I won't even bother responding anymore at this point.

Hey, do it, that's why I asked ! I mean, seriously, I'm curious.

Let's turn it around, if you compare it to DH1, what do you dislike about the aptitude system?

Let's turn it around, if you compare it to DH1, what do you dislike about the aptitude system?

Everything I dislike when it is not compared to the DH1 system: lack of customization, forced specialization, inflexible character development, unbalanced aptitudes, and unforgiving selections.

Yeah, the aptitudes system worked in OW as nobody cared about the problems above because everyone was a guardsman so everyone needed the same set of abilities: customization, specialization and inflexibility were written in the theme, the unbalanced aptitudes rarely got a role, and you couldn't really have random situations that punish your character build.

Let's turn it around, if you compare it to DH1, what do you dislike about the aptitude system?

Everything I dislike when it is not compared to the DH1 system: lack of customization, forced specialization, inflexible character development, unbalanced aptitudes, and unforgiving selections.

Yeah, the aptitudes system worked in OW as nobody cared about the problems above because everyone was a guardsman so everyone needed the same set of abilities: customization, specialization and inflexibility were written in the theme, the unbalanced aptitudes rarely got a role, and you couldn't really have random situations that punish your character build.

To expand on this, Aptitudes give the illusion of open character development - you can buy any advance you want! In reality, buying advances outside the ones you have matching Aptitudes for is extremely punishing in terms of XP cost.

That, and there's actual work involved in spending XP. In DH1 you had a nice set of tables that listed the cost for everything available to you. With Aptitudes, you have to cross reference your character sheet, the cost table at the start of the skill/talent chapter, and the description of the advance (since you're probably weighing several options). It's burdensome.

Given there's no option to actually change aptitudes, this is pretty much true. Uniform costs would create a more free progression...and make things simpler.

you can buy any advance you want! In reality, buying advances outside the ones you have matching Aptitudes for is extremely punishing in terms of XP cost.

Isn't that the point? You can learn anything, but some things are more difficult to learn than others.

They probably didn't repeat the table everywhere because of space issues.

you can buy any advance you want! In reality, buying advances outside the ones you have matching Aptitudes for is extremely punishing in terms of XP cost.

Isn't that the point? You can learn anything, but some things are more difficult to learn than others.

No, it isn't because learning something outside of your specialization costs a lot.

No, it isn't because learning something outside of your specialization costs a lot.

I meant as a reflection of actual learning. So what if they cost "a lot" that's the price. They have to cost something.

Then just make sure that at least 1 aptitude matches the sort of skills/talents you like to get. And it's easy to get an aptitude overlap from homeworld - background - role so you can pick whatever characteristic aptitude you like for your customization.

No complaints there, I understand that the cross referencing from a bunch of tables can be a pain if you don't know it by heart, but the actual aptitude system for character/class development works fine.

No, it isn't because learning something outside of your specialization costs a lot.

I meant as a reflection of actual learning. So what if they cost "a lot" that's the price. They have to cost something.

The price is simply too high. To the point where nobody will take the option to learn anything outside of their specialization or sacrifice too much in terms of possible performance increment (if they would learn something from their specialization) for very little actual gain.

If you believe it to be too high, just modify the XP costs a bit.

If you believe it to be too high, just modify the XP costs a bit.

If you don't like the rules, don't play by the rules!

What other industry has this as an acceptable attitude? The rules out of the box should work. There's a strong case to be made that Aptitudes don't actually solve the problem they purport to.

The difference is they DO work, but everybody has a personal preference.

I would play it as written, but if AtoMaki believes the costs are too high then he can still tweak it to his liking.

That's what I'm saying.

The price is simply too high.

In your opinion.

If you don't like the rules, don't play by the rules!

What other industry has this as an acceptable attitude? The rules out of the box should work.

Isn't one of the golden rules to use the book as a toolbox and modify as needed for the enjoyment of the group?

Other industries...uh fringe programming where they don't follow general guidlines? Mercenary work?

The rules out of the box do work, they don't work they particular special snowflake way you want them to work.

The price is simply too high.

In your opinion.

Why, yes, 900xp (no aptitudes) for a meager Rank 2 Stealth sure won't put me in any disadvantage when I could just take three(!) cheap Skills at the same rank, or one cheap Skill almost at Rank 4(!).

And if I lower the cost or let the GM hand out XP like candy, then why bother with the aptitude system at all?

Why, yes, 900xp (no aptitudes) for a meager Rank 2 Stealth sure won't put me in any disadvantage when I could just take three(!) cheap Skills at the same rank, or one cheap Skill almost at Rank 4(!).

Exclamation points aren't needed to try and improve your point.

"meager" again, in your opinion.

It would put you at a disadvantage when you needed to stay in stealth and you didn't get the DoS needed. It's all about application of skills in the game.