I really don't see a reason to use the extra step in aptitudes, though. You could play the entire game without them, if planets said something like "Gain 1 of these skills, 1 of these and 1 of these" and jobs provided skill packets as well. Then you progress with a simple system of fixed XP cost for Skill/attribute. One step completely eliminated, everything is exactly where you need to apply it to use it in the book and voila, people save a lot of time (sometimes hours...christ almighty...) they would have spent sifting through and constantly looking up aptitudes.

Of course if you can create lore-based character without aptitudes it's good. Many players can't, especially when they haven't big experience in tabletop rpg. I have my habit to use GURPS, and new players became lost in that hundreds of skills and tables.

... and even if a player knows the background - or perhaps especially when - the drive to pick up certain Skills and Talents because they seem necessary can be overwhelming. The last character I tried to create was a Sororitas for a PbP game , and I really had a hard time trying to merge fitting knowledge, willpower and combat capabilities into a single package due to their cost in XP.

But that's working as intended. Because if they had all cost the same, I'd have had a much easier time to get all the stuff I believed useful, but so would everyone else, and we'd all end up with characters that aren't as different as they would be with the RAW. Aptitudes force us to compromise, thus increasing the natural disparity between characters, making sure that everyone can shine in their specialisation, and thus makes for improved synergy.

It's also a matter of progression speed. Some people may regard Aptitudes as punishing characters learning outside their role, but I like to look at it from the opposite angle: they reward you for sticking to it. Sure, you could just lower the XP cost to the lowest common denominator, but then you'll end up significantly speeding up advancements. If that's really what you want and you have no problem with players blasting through the lists within a relatively short timeframe ... cool, it's your game!

Aptitudes force us to compromise

Aptitudes force players to play characters other than what they want to play and that's a feature ? What the christ...

I've said this before but it bears repeating: there are ways to do what Aptitudes do without the problems built into the Aptitude system. Want an open character progression system with varying costs by chargen choice (i.e. soft class system)? Ok, sure, nothing wrong with that. Try implementing a system without introducing trap options and system mastery (do we all agree these are bad things? I sure hope so).

Oh wait, they did do that - the original beta had perfectly balanced starting options with balanced XP costs so nobody was at an inherent disadvantage (by having many disparate Aptitudes) and the formula was obvious so you could homebrew your own classes.

Then again, if you think system mastery and trap options are good features to have in your game, Aptitudes work fine.

Aptitudes force players to play characters other than what they want to play and that's a feature ? What the christ...

Please don't call it "class system". Multiclasses are "soft class system". Very concept of class system is "you can't have any feature you want if it isn't associated with your class". WW Storytelling is not class system too, even if they have variation for cp costs and selection blocks on chargen. GURPS is not "soft class system" because you have to spend more points to level Guns skill as somebody with more Dx have.

Then again, if you think system mastery and trap options are good features to have in your game, Aptitudes work fine.

I think we can all agree that there are some problems with the minutae in DH2, but this has nothing to do with the basic premise behind Aptitudes. If you want to fix anything, why kick over the entire tower instead of just renovating the one room you're not satisfied with?

Very concept of class system is "you can't have any feature you want if it isn't associated with your class".

To be fair, whilst that definition sounds correct, DH1 was absolutely a class system, but BI added the backdoor of "Elite Advances" for buying stuff normally unavailable to your tree for higher XP cost.

But then again, one could argue that DH2 just did it more elegantly by turning this GM-approved exception into a standard option by allowing "no Aptitudes" purchases for higher XP. Which makes sense. Another reason for me to regard it as an improvement.

DH1 was absolutely a class system, but BI added the backdoor of "Elite Advances" for buying stuff normally unavailable to your tree for higher XP cost.

Yup - because defectiveness of solid class system is obvious. But as I recall that system allow one of the main universal sources for Elite Advances is Dark Pact. You character is selling his soul for the skill to ride horse! Elite Advances system is just a common cause of universal golden rule "Master is always right", to be honest. But it can be named as "soft class system" as well.

That's simple again - systems are defined by the rules described without GM intervention.

I asked it already, so sorry for repeating myself.

What exactly is "trap option"? I know it perfectly concerning tactical game as DnD was sometime ago and became today again - it's an option that limit your combat efficiency comparing other options. Which option is a trap in supposed-to-be roleplaying system of DH2?

A trap option is something that, to a new player, might look like a good thing to take that actually hinders your character with no real benefit. D&D3.x/PF has feats that literally do nothing, for example.

Your definition of a class system is apparently much more restrictive than mine and I don't really feel like arguing semantics. DH2 is a build-your-own class system in my view.

Well, what's your opinion about XP cost of Skills and Talents? Because if you are arguing for ultimate freedom in character generation and progression, that's the next step.

To clarify, I have no issue with skills and talents costing different amounts. The costs should be balanced so that no character is at an inherent disadvantage, which RAW is not the case.

The issue is that a player saying "I want my character to be good at x, y, and z" might work and another player saying "I want my character to be good at a, b and c" doesn't because of how the aptitudes line up. Does that make sense?

The issue is that a player saying "I want my character to be good at x, y, and z" might work and another player saying "I want my character to be good at a, b and c" doesn't because of how the aptitudes line up. Does that make sense?

I don't have the rulebook in front of me atm but it's fairly easy to build a hyper-focused character that has 3 cheap characteristic advances, then another than has at most 1. A well built character is going to advance way, way quicker than a poorly built one. That's the core issue with aptitudes as written.

\/\/\/ this attitude never fails to amuse me

[...] and Inquisitor was designed badly.

I challenge you to a duel, sir!

Seriously though, I disagree. Inquisitor doesn't have character creation rules because it doesn't need them. Precisely because the system does nothing to stop you from making characters as overpowered as you want, the community is empowered to deal with munchkins much more effectively. You can't defend an overpowered, unfun, unbalancing build as 'legal' if there are no such rules.

I don't have the rulebook in front of me atm but it's fairly easy to build a hyper-focused character that has 3 cheap characteristic advances, then another than has at most 1. A well built character is going to advance way, way quicker than a poorly built one. That's the core issue with aptitudes as written.

Feral Adept Assassin (yeah, he is strange - it's just first points in rulebook) have: Agility, Weapon Skill, Fieldcraft, Finesse, Perception, Social, Toughness. That gives him cheap Agility and Perception. 2. If you take Ballistic Skill in place of Weapon Skill - 3. Hey, they're great!

Also I rolled three random chars. Feral AAT Desperado, Highborn Adeptus Mechanicus Assassin, Hive Outcast Seeker. 3, 3 and 2.

Also I opened my current party, who opened rulebooks first time for create that chars (and it wasn't translated to native languages). Forge Mechanicus Sage, Hive Outcast Desperado, Hive AAT Mystic, Frontier Guard Desperado. Only one of them has 1, other have 2. I have to say Sage is completly ok with her leveling, because she wanted to create walking library with AdMech abilities, so she doesn't need any aptitude but Int and Knowledge.

So I'd say it's not so easy to generate 1 cheap characteristic. It happens only once for me by 8 tries.

I challenge you to a duel, sir!

I don't mean Inquisitor had bad character creation rules. It was just badly designed role-playing system, without real intresting solutions and systemly enough you can't just forgot you're playing system. There are a lot of such systems, and we don't even recall Inquisitor if it was any other setting.

To clarify, I have no issue with skills and talents costing different amounts. The costs should be balanced so that no character is at an inherent disadvantage, which RAW is not the case.

The issue is that a player saying "I want my character to be good at x, y, and z" might work and another player saying "I want my character to be good at a, b and c" doesn't because of how the aptitudes line up. Does that make sense?

It does, but that sounds like a criticism with the aforementioned minutae, not Aptitudes in general.

Isn't there a way to fix what you deem broken, rather than throwing it away entirely? Do you have an example of a character where it would be impossible to have the Aptitudes line up? RAW allows you to switch out doubles for whatever you want, after all.

Seriously though, I disagree. Inquisitor doesn't have character creation rules because it doesn't need them. Precisely because the system does nothing to stop you from making characters as overpowered as you want, the community is empowered to deal with munchkins much more effectively. You can't defend an overpowered, unfun, unbalancing build as 'legal' if there are no such rules.

I really like Inquisitor , as I consider some aspects actually better balanced than DH ... but it's true that some few parts of it were badly broken. Off the top of my head: the auto-heals after each round of combat. I consider them somewhat unsuitable for thematic reasons already (how would you recover from a gunshot without a medic?), but the extreme Toughness of Space Marines basically guaranteed their success in this Test with a ridiculous amount of free HP back.

You'd eventually end up with a Marine whose every limb is mangled and useless, but who still lives and is still capable of acting (well, crawling and talking) because his Injury Total was healed and he auto-passes all his System Shock tests from the holes in his chest and groin.

In terms of injuries, Inquisitor managed nicely to have Marines come off as really hard to put down -- not because they had bulletproof skin like in DH, but because the Toughness buffer between their crit-levels meant that they were just way better at dealing with injuries they still received. The Recovery mechanic, however, pushed it over the edge, and you can see that it was really only intended to work with normal people.

I admit that one is pretty much an edge case, however. I'm not aware of any other major issues the system had.

The issue is that a player saying "I want my character to be good at x, y, and z" might work and another player saying "I want my character to be good at a, b and c" doesn't because of how the aptitudes line up. Does that make sense?

Well, I have gmed a as*load of games and never saw that happen. It is indeed true that some aptitudes are clearly weaker than others (leadership, if I remember correctly), but that's not the system that is problematic. That's the fact that they didn't put enough stuff in it. Mathematically, Aptitudes system is sound.

Yes, I can do a warrior and become a warmachine in a very limited time. But that's fun, after that, there won't be many left to buy and the character will just be good at one thing while every other will do a lot of fun stuff in the game. Otherwise, the warrior boost his fighting skills, and buy some stuff like knowledge, tech-use or operate and is still very good in battles. And that's the case for every player.

I've recently joined in a game of Blue Planet (an RPG FFG published in 2000). At first glance it looks like a classless system. But then you get into character creation and find that the majority of your starting skills aren't set by you getting to spend points in whatever skill you like. Instead they are set by you having to choose from a limited number of "skill training packages" which each have specific combinations of skills in them. Then you get a small number of points to spend, but only to improve skills you got from a training package.

I bring this up only because it's another time when FFG have produced a soft-class system instead of a classless.

Well, in my opinion it's kind of "what are you want".

I want lore-based characters, so I want aptitudes. If you want maxed utility - aptitudes are bad.

How exactly do aptitudes keep characters "lore-based" ?

They don't prevent you taking specific advances. They just make them cost more.

As for "lore-based" characters, we are talking about acolytes of the Inquisition. The characters that are not expected to conform to the molds of the Imperium in order to better deal with threats. So punishing characters with higher XP costs because they want to learn something useful seems to go against lore.

What's lore-breaking about a Penitent Sorotias ?

Because that's a character that the aptitudes discourage.

How does "lore-based" fit with characters who get the same aptitude twice during character creation ?

Characters who then get to pick from any characteristic aptitude. If aptitudes encourage "lore-based" characters, shouldn't there be further restrictions on which aptitudes they can pick ?

What's lore-breaking about a Penitent Sorotias ?

Because that's a character that the aptitudes discourage.

Sorry, but how aptitudes discourage Penitent Sororite?

How exactly do aptitudes keep characters "lore-based" ?

CoC character lifespan is utterly unpredictable and depends entirely on the game you're running. Typically it's a combination of "how smart the character is", avoiding combat (frankly, unless you're a delta green type unit combat is OOC for most characters in the game anyway...) and lucking out on your sanity checks (or in some cases, failing them). I've seen people go through three characters in a session, or seen characters survive through a campaign lasting a year. Progression IS noticable, though.

And yes, most open systems use increased cost per skill rank. That doesn't necessarily mean you don't see any progression. It can even be amazingly fast at times, at least in the low ranks (TDE4, d6), or a bit slower, but with multiple avenues of advancement (SR2-4, where nuyen is about as important as XP).

That said, completely XPless like CoC is rare. I think it's a bit unfortunate, but apparently a lot of gamer's connect XP with a sense of reward, so people tend to keep it even if it can be slashed away just like aptitudes with little to know actual consequence for how the system handles progression and gameplay.

Regarding background and progression. The ONLY (!) skills a certain background restricts you from accessing in 40k, if you go by lore, are lore and crafting skills. Forbidden knowledge, secrets of the machine and all that jazz. Literally everything else is something people can learn, either by doing them constantly (you don't "train" fellowship with a teacher, beyond basic social norms and etiquette), observing your teammates or learning from them or your other inquisitorial staff. I see a lot of focus on limiting characters in their stats and crap, which harkens back to the dark ages of DnD, and much less where it really matters: Their character. Character is where the aptitude system completely falls apart, btw. By restricting them to homeworlds specifically, you are making ridiculous generalisations about a setting that do not hold water. Seriously. You're saying "everyone from this kind of world is automatically a gifted speaker". And then you go "What if I want to make a trader from this world instead?". "**** out of luck, bro, it has the wrong aptitudes."

Because sometimes kicking over the tower is a better fix than any attempt to fix it. If that is the case, why compromise ?

So far any solution is going to be a compromise between player choice and aptitudes. But I'm not seeing any good reasons in favour of aptitudes.

Trying for a compromise when the best solution is to go all the way to one end just leaves you with a subpar result.

Well, if the difference between what you are looking for and what is offered are that huge, then that is of course understandable.

I'm not convinced your simple alternative of just speeding up everyone's progression and decreasing individuality would result in an overall better game, but like I said earlier, that would just be a matter of taste.

Sorry, but how aptitudes discourage Penitent Sororite?

Bilateralrope is referring to the Penitent role not offering either a WS or BS aptitude; a criticism I can understand and have voiced myself earlier already.

However, I also pointed out that these missing Aptitudes could just be gained from Homeworld or Background. The Penitent role starts you out with (among others) Offence and Toughness, both options you also gain from the Adepta Sororitas background. Per RAW, this means you automatically get to select a free Aptitude of your choice, which could obviously be either WS or BS here. And if you are from a Feudal homeworld (recommended for the Sororitas background), you get WS from there, so technically you have everything covered.

Thinking about it this way, I may have to recant my earlier criticism. The Penitent role is pretty great for Sororitas characters! The Intelligence Aptitude is of course kind of meh for Battle Sisters, but if you consider that the Penitent role would also have to apply for scholastic characters (including the non-militant Sororitas orders), it is understandable as to why it's there. Plus, it means the many Lore skills any Sororitas should have (AdSor, Eccl, Creed) will be cheaper to acquire.

You could still say that everyone from the same Home World module having the same Aptitude is unrealistic, but "one planet = one culture" is a fairly standard cliché not just for Wh40k (as a whole) but sci-fi in general.

Note, however, that you are by no means limited to associate only a single Home World module with an entire planet. Instead, analyse your character's background and think about what sort of culture would be most appropriate. Nobles getting their own "Home World" is already an indicator for this, but to give another example: I would have every single Sororitas use the Feudal World Home World simply because she grew up in a monastic convent, even if it was situated in the middle of a sprawling Hive.

I'm not convinced your simple alternative of just speeding up everyone's progression and decreasing individuality would result in an overall better game, but like I said earlier, that would just be a matter of taste.

Uhh, what? How does making every advance cost the same for every character decrease individuality?

Uhh, what? How does making every advance cost the same for every character decrease individuality?

Decreasing all XP cost to the lowest common denominator means the characters will ultimately speed through the available Skills and Talents at a much faster rate while simultaneously having a much easier time affording non-core stuff they would have otherwise considered too expensive (exactly what was criticised). Combat characters will have it much easier picking up social or knowledge Skills and Talents and vice versa, ultimately leading to the various characters being closer to one another than they would be without Aptitudes that would reward specialisation with XP discounts over the standard price.

Decreasing the XP cost to an easily managable amount simplifies the math and speeds things up considerably. How quickly players progress depends entirely on how much XP you give, and that varies from group to group anyway.

I said in my very first post that most of the arguments against his come from a lack of experience in open systems. This has proven true, because you have it completely backwards.

In practise, players will still pursue their relative interests, and even if they start with completely identical characters on the sheet, they will pursue their own interests quickly enough. Now, with the aptitude system, if you're making a specific kind of character and want to progress reasonably, you're limited to a couple of builds. Your interests have very little to do with it. Aptitudes encourage "sameyness" by design and when you combine them with a system with very few "good" and "essential" talents for their respective archtypes, you end up with what amounts to attack of the clones. You will immediately say "This is so not true in my game!" and I'll believe you. But look beyond your game for a second. You will see a lot of very similar, nigh identical builds running around, who all have largely the same talents and stats. That's what aptitudes get you.

And then play an open progression system instead. Play D6 Space, play CoC, play FATE, play DSA4e, hell, play Shadowrun 3rd or 4th. No two characters will be the same (barring those idiots who grab a build from the net, ofc. I'm speaking about stuff you actually make yourself, though). Everyone will have campaign relevant mechanical bits as needed, and yet, lo and behold, they're all going to be different. Not just in portrayal, but on the sheet.

The real crux of the matter is if you peel off the fanboy goggles for a few minutes and actually apply an open progression system to DH2e, you suddenly notice you have very few options to develope your character, and it's all "streamlined" and "condensed". This leads to overspecialisation, which is never a good thing, at least not with a competent GM. Your face will not be able to do all the talking, your infiltrator will not always be the only one sneaking, monsters will not only attack the tank and no one else and if you've spent ten years looking over a techpriest's shoulder and learned nothing about machines, then I'm sorry, you deserve what's coming for you when the cogboy isn't around to bail you out. There's a minimum general competence you need to be able to function plausibly and if you do not have it, you're not playing a three-dimensional character, you're playing a caricature.

I have a couple years of experience in DSA4, actually, and am playing Shadowrun right now . Your assumption only suggests that you are unwilling to accept an opposing personal preference as anything but "fanboyism". I for one will retain the belief that it is a matter of taste, rather than making a bold claim that everyone who says differently just got it all wrong and can't see the wisdom in my argument.

Now, with the aptitude system, if you're making a specific kind of character and want to progress reasonably, you're limited to a couple of builds. Your interests have very little to do with it. Aptitudes encourage "sameyness" by design and when you combine them with a system with very few "good" and "essential" talents for their respective archtypes, you end up with what amounts to attack of the clones.

That only sounds like it would play into the argument about "maxed utility" Aenno was about earlier. When you have players who aren't considering suitable Advances just because they subscribe to specific builds as if this was WoW-PvP, then I doubt Aptitudes are making it much worse than it already is. People who are only interested in the numbers are prone to yield boring "clones" regardless of whether you give them Aptitudes, DH1 class trees, or have everything cost the same 100 XP. The only thing that would change is the speed of progression.

Decreasing all XP cost to the lowest common denominator means the characters will ultimately speed through the available Skills and Talents at a much faster rate while simultaneously having a much easier time affording non-core stuff they would have otherwise considered too expensive (exactly what was criticised). Combat characters will have it much easier picking up social or knowledge Skills and Talents and vice versa, ultimately leading to the various characters being closer to one another than they would be without Aptitudes that would reward specialisation with XP discounts over the standard price.

Playing a campaign so long that everyone is picking up skills they never wanted or needed just because they have XP to spend and that's all that's left to buy is ill-advised - and that has nothing to do with whether those last XP expenditures cost a lot or a little or the same for everyone. At 30k XP, yeah, every character looks the same. So don't do that.

However, until you get to that point there's still loads of customization players can engage in. Players will either specialize in a few areas or try to be generalists and no group on the face of the planet is going to come to the table having all spent XP on exactly the same thing.

Your argument doesn't make any sense.

I have a couple years of experience in DSA4, actually, and am playing Shadowrun right now . Your assumption only suggests that you are unwilling to accept an opposing personal preference as anything but "fanboyism". I for one will retain the belief that it is a matter of taste, rather than making a bold claim that everyone who says differently just got it all wrong and can't see the wisdom in my argument.

The claim that open progression results in "the same characters over and over" is demonstratably false. The only way I can see someone making that claim is if they've never actually played an open progress system. If you have, I suggest you take a good look at your party. I, for one, have never seen the same character twice in either of those systems(not even when the player was lazy and just copied the stats; couple sessions in, different experiences, different character...) , and I've played both for about 10 years or more. Furthermore, you should know that in open systems, progression rate depends entirely on how much XP is awarded. That's true in any XP system, to an extent, but more so where everything costs the same for every character.

As a counterargument against an open progress system, it holds absolutely no water and makes no sense. I mean, you could say players would be overwhelmed by the options, but that applies to aptitudes as well, so it's a double edged sword. You could say that DH2e isn't balanced for open progression at all and the necessary tweaks would mean a bit more work than just a simple process of elimination. You're definitely smart enough to come up with more valid arguments than something that is simply flat out incorrect and not applicable to anything proposed in this thread. These tweaks toward open progression were not proposed in a void and independant of each other. You do need to scale down XP to make it work with DH2e's limited options. That's a natural result of making one number smaller. You have to make all numbers tied to it causally smaller.

This leads to overspecialisation, which is never a good thing, at least not with a competent GM. Your face will not be able to do all the talking, your infiltrator will not always be the only one sneaking, monsters will not only attack the tank and no one else and if you've spent ten years looking over a techpriest's shoulder and learned nothing about machines, then I'm sorry, you deserve what's coming for you when the cogboy isn't around to bail you out. There's a minimum general competence you need to be able to function plausibly and if you do not have it, you're not playing a three-dimensional character, you're playing a caricature.

Well, I agree with you, an agent of the Inquisition in the context of dark heresy needs to have some skills like tech-use even if it isn't his specialisation.

Aptitudes system never stopped my players from doing exactly that. Because everyone wants other skills to wich they do not have easy access, so this generally balance itself.

The claim that open progression results in "the same characters over and over" is demonstratably false. The only way I can see someone making that claim is if they've never actually played an open progress system. If you have, I suggest you take a good look at your party. I, for one, have never seen the same character twice in either of those systems(not even when the player was lazy and just copied the stats; couple sessions in, different experiences, different character...) , and I've played both for about 10 years or more.

I can do the same claim as you; those that say that aptitude systems doesn't results in an open progression system clearly never played with it. As much as with one shot and long term campaigns, I've never seen more than one time the same context.

These are mechanics, not the way the character is defined in the head of the players.

Like Lynata has said, it's a question of taste, not facts, since the "facts" that are defended here clealry doesn't apply to our group.

These are mechanics, not the way the character is defined in the head of the players.

I've been waiting for someone to say that on the aptitude end for a while. Thank you.