Hi there,

In our soon to start Rogue Trader game, our Arch-Militant is thinking about taking the Untouchable quality (subject to GM approval). We’ve been wondering if this would be a good idea though.

From an in-game view, I can’t imagine a Rogue Trader turning down the change to have an Untouchable onboard, but............

Would they be allowed on the bridge? Especially during warp travel or combat? (Navigator hyjinks)
Would they make a good leader of the troops?
Would the GM have to put lots more thought into encounters for the group?
Astropath problems, etc.....

What do you guys think? Worth it for the RP possibilities or just added hassle for the group and GM?

Thanks,
Scotbloke

Would an untouchable be a great asset to the ship? It sure would. But keep them away from Astropaths and Navigators. Also keep them away from anybody else. You don't give a person with a fellowship lower then most chaos spawns a position where you expect people to obey him.

So, useful? yes, As part of the inner circle? No way.

Then there are balance issues. Someone who can kill anything with big guns AND is immune to any warp and Psyker related perils? I don't think that that would be a good idea. To much of a munchkins wet dream.

I made one up for shiz-n-giggles and even though I sort of de-optimised it in some combat aspects to be more multi-talented, GM took one look at it and told me to eff-off.

Can't say I blame him

I'm presently running a game with only two players. One player is playing the RT and the other is playing an untouchable arch-militant. They certainly aren't munchkins and so I don't have to worry about that. The interesting thing I have run into is how to treat Yu'vath artifacts and entities which aren't psykers precisely but a mix of xenos technology and sorcery? If anyone has any thoughts on the matter I'd be interested in hearing them.

I'd say that when every single PC in the game is meant to be a high-ranking officer and a leader in his or her own right, having an Untouchable as a PC just doesn't work. The low Fellowship that comes with taking it directly impacts your ability to inspire your minions, and when you have authority over the entirety of the ship's security forces, you really do NOT want to be uninspiring and rub everyone you meet the wrong way. In fact, how would you have risen to that position in the first place with an innate, always-on ability to make people loathe you?

Lyinar said:

Not necessarily. Two advances available to the Arch-Militant early on allow easy presentation of Bounty Hunters and Bodyguards... neither of which are necessarily leaders, even if they may be masters of their craft (which is, of course, shooting people in the face)

In general, my rule of GMing is, unless there's a reason to disallow it, allow it.

People seem to think that an untouchable Archmilitant would make for an unbalanced character, which is certainly a reason. I, however, disagree. If you combine a balanced template and a balanced class, there's no reason the resulting character should be unbalanced.

Certainly, if you combine a combat focused class with a combat focused template, you're going to end up with an extremely deadly character. And why not?Untouchable arch militants exist, and they are more than likely all extremely deadly people. However you are paying for that in the form of being a pariah, social and otherwise. The entire crew is probably scared or resentful of the PC. It would not be beyond reason for the captain to keep the character in stasis for voyages. Any chance the PC had at getting people to grudgingly accept him is made all the more unlikely be his class choice, and the emotional trauma of being so reviled makes for some great RPing opportunities. Especially if he becomes resentful of saving the lives of people who hate him continually.

In short, it's a legit combination. Make sure your player is understands the implications, and is ready to handle the RPing challenges, and then let him go for it.

(I myself play an untouchable in one campaign, and I have found that the drawbacks FAR outweigh the benefits, in the context of my campaign. Still, the RPing it has spawned is fantastic.)

Also, what N0-1_H3r3 said.

As a GM it comes down to is it interesting from an RP side, and does it unbalance the game. The unbalanced question is going to depend on what sort of a gmae you are running. If daemons and psykers are common foes it's a great advantage. If most of the foes the group will face are not effected by it. It's a big disadvantage. Also what are the social aspects of the game like. The fellowship hit is massive. Second is the player going to role play a null or is he just in it for the min/maxing. If the player is just making a bad ass soul less killer as a GM I'm not to interested in it.

I dont think all the Arch Militants have to be leaders of men. Otherwise you would only have a standard character for every player who plays one. You can have the bloodthirsty maniac feral warrior, the calm and cool assassin, the dedicated and merciless bouty hunter, the honorable and chvalrous duelist, the loyal, dull and yet lucky body guard, the unlucky yet plucky guardsman drafted into service of the rogue trader because of his being in the right (wrong) place at the right (wrong) time, the driven and emotionless xeno hunter n a quest for revenge, the heroic and charismatic fleet officer and so forth.

And really, what is the penalty for FEL for Untouchable? -10? A Hive Born or Noble Born is still at 20+2D10, everyone else is 15+2D10, save Death Woprlder (Feral Worlder) which would be 10+2D10. If you are using the point build system for characteristics, you could still start at FEL 40 and spend 750XP after a few adventures and be at FEL 50, and that is without any other "Origin Chart" modifiers.

And untouchable does not make them nigh invulnerable. It helps against psykers and deamons, but not orks and eldar (in general). A Ogryn will still eat you and psykers worth thier salt will still be able to telekinetically 500KG of weight on your head.

Hi there,

Thanks for all the replies. Our Arch-Militant has decided to go with.....drum roll please...........NOT being an untouchable.

Possible restrictions on being on the bridge, with the player wanting to fire the ship weapons may have been the decider. That and actually having his crew like him (well not completely hate him).

Some good ideas though, thought the idea about keeping him in stasis between 'uses' was pretty good.

From a RP view, I think the player would have handled it pretty well, so it could well be an option in case of character death.

Thanks,

Scotbloke

Peacekeeper_b said:

If you take the untouchable trait from DotDG then your fellowship (after all bonuses) is halved, if you take the one from RH then you reduced your fellowship by 10 plus suffer -10 to all interaction test, an effective -20.

Tetragon Tanebrae said:

With origin path and one free choice on the chart.

Noble Born (+5 Fel)

Vaunted (+3 Fel)

Zealot (Favoured by the Faithful) (+5 Fel)

High Vendetta or Dark Voyage (no modifiers to Fel or Interaction)

Prestige (Talented talent, choose intereaction skill, such as Command or Charm)

Using the point build characteristics you add +20 to Fel, for starting fellowhip of 45 which becomes a total of (25 base+20 points+13 for origin path) of 58. Take -10 for RH version of Untouchable and you are Fel 48 with -10 on interaction skills, but +10 on Command from Talented so it breaks even on his command skills. After one adventure you can buy +5 Fel fairly easy and be at 53 Fel even for Command tests (27 as unskilled) not bad for a blank.

But if the arch militant was suppose to actually be a leader of men and a commander of soldiers, I figure he or she would have access to command prior to rank 3.

Based on their advances fo characteristic prices and starting skill/talent availabilty pool, Id say the only role the Arch Militant would serve would be as a gun slinger.

My point is that pretty much all of the other careers are, by default, people in positions of authority on the ship.

If the Arch-Militant is just a really competent gunslinger, then why even have him as a PC when everyone else has some manner of command responsibility?

He might not be Lord-Castellan Creed at character creation, but he's not going to be personally shooting every single boarder, or planting melta-bombs on enemy ships all by himself. Why not have him in charge of the personnel who are going to be accompanying him during those actions? And if you don't go that route, whose authority DO they fall under?

Maybe I'm just thinking about things in terms of how I'm setting up the campaign I'm working on, but there are 3400 security personnel on board the frigate I'm putting my PCs on, and having the Arch-Militant at the top of that chain of command looks to be the only thing that works. It will give the Arch-Militant an equivalent level of authority and responsibility onboard the ship to those of the other PCs, save the Rogue Trader.

Lyinar said:

No command skill, no in charge of anyone. Even as a basic skill, its 1/2 fellowship. Not exactly the leader i want for my men.

Chances are a starting player is going to spend XP on dodge, BS upgrades, maybe awareness or Agilty increase. The only "leadership" skill they have is INTIMIDATE, which is not the best for leading 3400 troopers.

Fact is you have to wait to rank 3 (without any future supplements givent you alterante career ranks and backgrouns) to get command. Thats 10,000 XP.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Guess that pretty much none of the classes are in charge of anyone then, other than the Rogue Trader. Guess he can't delegate any authority to anyone, otherwise they'd have the Command skill.

Oh, other than the background and fluff stuff in the book says otherwise, of course.

MILLANDSON said:

Not my fault if the rules/mechanics dont follow the fluff. I mean you can put that arch militant in charge of the troops, and as you said, according to the fluff, you are suppose to. But when the game breaks down to "Make your command test to help maintain the troops and lead them" most arch militants and going to stare blankly at the GM.

What I am saying, is that if that is one of the roles the A-M is suppose to fulfil, well he should have access to some leadership skills and talents early on. So perhaps the Errata, if we ever get one, will add that skill to rank one instead.

But purely from a rules point of view, a Arch Militant serves better as a body guard or point man.

Peacekeeper_b said:

And it's no-one's fault but your own if you take that viewpoint.

IMO, most mundane situations where you're bossing around people under your command, merely being able to attempt a Command test is sufficient - much like a character does not have to test against Deceive for every minor lie and half-truth they concoct, against Inquiry to ask even simple questions, against Awareness to be able to see the walls of the room they're in, or against Literacy to be able to read a clearly-written text. If a person has legitimate authority over a given individual, then any simple, reasonable order will be obeyed without difficulty, which means no test is required.

It's only when a situation becomes sufficiently difficult or dangerous that a test is actually required. An Untouchable character can command men without any particular difficulty under normal circumstances... but leading them in a boarding action requires more than merely authority, and the frankly disturbing presence of an Untouchable is sufficient to unnerve subordinates such that they'll be less inclined to follow when led into an enemy ship.

An Untouchable Arch-Militant will struggle to lead boarding actions, etc... but that doesn't mean that he's incapable of possessing a commanding role...

An Untouchable Arch-Militant is a perfect example of the difference between personal authority and positional authority. As N0-1 said above, he'll still be able to order his men around under normal circumstances (positional authority), but they'll resent him, distrust him, backchat, work-to-rule and generally use every not-quite-actionable trick for insubordination while doing so.

When it comes to boarding actions, or charging a strongpoint, they're not going to be so in favour of him that they'll follow him blindly, because his Untouchable nature means he's extremely unlikely to have picked up sufficient personal authority to be a natural leader. Worst case scenario: he's trying to storm the armoury during a boarding action, and one or more of his own men decide to take advantage of the melee to hit him with a "stray" shotcannon round to the back of the head. More likely, they'll baulk at his commands and he'll wind up charging a heavily defended position alone...

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Thank you N0-1. I was about to say something similar, but you said it much more concisely and clearer than I would have put it.

MILLANDSON said:

Im sorry, I still disagree. I was merely speaking from a rules as written point, not extrapolating on concepts such as personal or positional authority. Sure you could put the arch-militant in any command position you want. The same as you could put the seneschal in charge of fixing the warp engines, the astropath in charge of flying the ship and the void master in charge of the libraries and data cores. Those are obvious position granted to anyone by whoever is overall in charge. Seneschals have the research skills, Exploratos have the repair skills, Void Masters have the pilot skills, Arch Militants do not have the leadership skills.

Doesnt mean it is the best idea or the rules recommend it. All I am saying, is simply put, is a Arch-Militant should have access to Command at rank 1, not rank 3. Not 10,000 XPs later and not as a "Elite" advance cop-out.

You could put the Arch-Militant in charge of repelling borders or to do a hit and run, but he is testing against 1/2 his Fel to succeed on those actions (page 218). You could put him in charge of suppressing a mutiny by leading armsmen and guards to secure the ship, but he tests agaist 1/2 Fel again, uness he uses intimidate which kills 1D10 morale itself (page225). In fact, since you can choose whatever character you want to roll the Fel test to quell a mutiny, chances are the Rogue Trader or Missionary will be the ones leading the troops against mutiny.

If you want the Arch Militant to lead the ship guns, well thats all Ballistic Skill and has nothing to do with Fellowship at all, Untouchable or not.

So yeah, Joe the Intergalactic Space Car Salesman can put Jed the Shot Gun wielding Arch Militant in charge of his troops, but should he? Speaking from a rules mechanic point here, not a Role Playing point.

Well, yes, with Elite Advances, since you are letting rules get in the way of playing what you want.

And you might call it a cop-out, but I call it the rules, and since that is all you are caring about here, then yes, you can, from a rules mechanics point of view, have an Arch-Militant at rank 1 being able to command the ship's security forces.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Peacekeeper_b said:

Speaking from a rules perspective, I'm still correct - there's no need to extrapolate anything. It's the application of common sense and the rules as written :

Rogue Trader rulebook, page 230

"When an explorer performs any task that could have dramatic consequences - affecting the story, a character's health, leader's reputation, the safety of the ship, and so on - a test must be performed."

There it is: a statement within the rules that says that you don't need to test unless it's a dramatic, consequence-laden situation. Thusly, a character with Command can order around as many underlings, minions and lackeys as he wants without testing... and it's only when the big dramatic consequences begin to loom will the socially-inept commander start to struggle, as, for example, his men find him less than persuasive about entering that enemy ship full of monsters.

It's easy enough to interpret that as 'auto-success on mundane tasks'. For the sake of verisimilitude and a semblance of logic, I tend to rule that a character must be able to attempt a test in order to perform a task, even if the task succeeds without actually rolling (such as using Literacy or Speak Language; seldom does either require a test, but the ability to test against those skills is a pre-requisite to performing the tasks they encompass)

The point is, leadership does not require a Command Test... leadership in challenging circumstances requires a Command Test. It's an important distinction, and one that is so frequently overlooked.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

No argument. Ill give you that.

So a Arch-Militant can be a leader and commander for day to day stuff with no issue. "Run some laps" "Clean your gun" "Make your bed" "Set up a watch schedule".

But he isnt a good or useful leader when the $#!+ hits the fan until he attains rank 3 (or Elite Advances his way into it).