In that case it'd be Logic?

Badlapje said:

Logic is more related to math. Scrutiny is trying to figure out what someone else is going to do, their motivation, how they will go about doing an attack run, not plotting the firing solution.

Hmmm why wasn't the tech priest using a combi-tool. Them things are excellent! Also Melta-Gel FTW! My assassin , the rt is important to the inquisition so she got a kickarse bodyguard, finds that stuff so **** useful. With a decent tech-use, melta-gel, a custom las-cutter, a multi-key adn high security there's few places that sneaky little blighter can't get into one way or another... here's hoping the adeptus mechanicus don't find out some of the things he's done or there could be trouble ;-)

On a more serious note I've been trying something a few folks on these boards have recommended and it seems to work

if the acolyte/explorer fails a roll in something non-combat related, such as gathering information, and they fail it just takes longer, the time varying by how much they failed by. They do it eventually but it can make events further down the line a bit harder. i.e. they take 3 days finding the info rather than 1 giving them 2 less days to stop whatever evil they're meant to be protecting.

I only make my players roll when there are repercussions to failure. Like say the lock has an alarm and if he doesn't open it right on the first try it goes off, then he rolls a test. But a lock that is just that, a lock, and its +10 to the test, and he has a combi-tool...no roll is needed because he can really sit all day and roll till he gets it right. By the way even a -10 each time he fails only drops it to him needing a 1 to pass, which he should statistically be able to get once every hundred rolls or so, meaning if he rolls for hours on end he’ll hit that magic auto-pass number 1 eventually. And there is no reason for him not to do just that. You can say, "What's to stop him?" This really just means, him rolling all day is boring, hence why I wouldn’t make him roll at all. I'd say, "Okay, you spend the next 5 min working on this lock and get the door open," and they'd move on. This isn’t DnD, they only need to test if there is a time factor, danger factor, if it’s opposed, if it’s a special ability (psychic or navigator power), or if how well they succeed or fail matters. Other wise if the task is a basic skill (trained or untrained) or they have it trained if it is advanced they just do it. It states as much in the core rules, and even more so in the Into the Storm supplement when it goes into vehicle operation in depth. And in this system a negative to failed test doesn’t really work. There is no in game logic to have it because it uses a percentile base (a -10 in Rouge Trader is not equal to having a -1 in DnD each time they fail; the -10 is much harder to over come). You can’t justify, in game (or even out of game as far as I’ve noticed), why it’s harder then before just because you failed (now you could say for example, “You failed by 4 degrees my friend, you messed the lock up, you now have to pass a hard (-20) test” but then it’s not just because they failed, it’s because they failed very badly). Anything besides 2 or more degrees of failure should not cause any more of a penalty than just having to take the time to do it again.

Let me put it like this: using Tech-use on an ordinary (+10) test is a full action in most cases, meaning at it most rushed it only takes about 6 seconds right? This means the character can focus and take his time, and ever 6 seconds he can add a bonus to his test (kind of like aiming with an attack). How long does he have to focus till he gets the maximum +60 bonus? A few minutes would be more than enough. So a character taking his time and focusing on nothing else with no distraction has no reason to fail the test, so why make him test?

If you insist on making characters test everything (which, don’t get me wrong, is fine and if it works for you the awesome) then let it be known, you have X number of chances to get it right or you can’t test it again…say three chances, but don’t give them a penalty for failing. I as a player would never even spend exp on non-combat skills if I knew failure would just make me more likely to fail the next time; after all, if I failed already then I’m not having the best of luck right now, so why should I not only press my luck but have it hampered farther by some house rule that just make the game take long -- because I’m more likely to have to test a third time since even if I role under 49 the second time (as your example had it) but its higher than 39 well darn, I’ve failed again, and that should be passing. But see I’m a generous GM, I tend to give them a pass if it’s within 3 points of passing so long the test isn’t of high importance; I like the game to move but I don’t want to punish my players to keep it moving, I’d rather reward them for thinking of using the Tech-use skill in the first place and not just sticking a bomb to the door and aiming there pistol at it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a nice GM, just not evil. I’m neutral and as such I give and I take in equal measure (cause I’m also likely to let an enemy NPC pass a test if he’s with in 3 points, keep the game going, keep stuff happening).

Can't say I've found it difficult to pass checks, certainly not in my character's area of expertise.

56 Int (15 roll + 25 base + 5 Forge world + 3 Fit for purpose + 3 scapegrace + 5 purchased advance)

Assistance from servoskull 1 +10 +1DoS

Assistance from servoskull 2 +10 +1DoS

Combi tool +10

Good cortex implant +10 (effectively since an unnatural stat reduces the difficulty of all tests by one step)

MIU +10

=testing on 106 with two bonus degrees of success at first level.

This will quickly go up to 131 when I buy an int upgrade, electro-graft use and tech-use +10, 141 if my rogue trader is aiding me.

It's the same with other checks as well

Our rogue trader is testing on near 100 for command and our voidmaster is at 70 something with a reroll for pilot stuff. Heck, even my servo-skulls are testing on 45 for tech-use if I don't want them aiding me.

I'm not sure why your pcs are doing so poorly but you might want to point out some of the bonuses they can stack (although only up to +60 but greater than that does provide a buffer to negate penalties).

I'd also recommend only making them take tests where it is dramatically important/relevant or, as mentioned earlier, tests where they have time to retake the tests merely determine the amount of flair with which they pass. The explorator rolls well, he opens the door like a boss and within seconds of trying. He rolls badly, his attempt at opening the door is successful, eventually, and he looks awkward doing so.

weasel said:

Where did you get the information that says a servo skull gives +10 and a DoS for assisting?

And since servo skulls just have combi tools(as far as I've seen) wouldn't that just negate the combi-tool that the AdMech already has? After all, you can't just stack 6 combi tools for the +60 bonus.

Assistance: The test is 1 degree easier and confers an additional degree of success if a success is achieved. They have Tech-Use trained, so they're able to assist the Explorator with any technical task.

Errant said:

AHHHH!!! So technically, they would qualify as if they were another player assisting the AdMech? And not neccesarily just a tool as I've been treating them. Figured since they'd be basically like a combi-tool why would the AdMech get more bonuses... But I could see your point.

I am a bit looser in my interpretations of the rules. To keep the game flowing, I have the player roll against his skill and tell me his degree of success or failures. I then roleplay what happens, a failure can still means that he manages to open the door, but the tools may get damaged, he may make excessive noise or he managed to unhinge the door and get it over him for some damage on a 00, and so forth.

For something like opening a locked/damaged door, I'd say that the test to open it, if you're not in combat, isn't actually a test to see if you can get in, but to see how quickly, and if there are other complications. If you're in combat, then testing to see whether the door comes open each turn while you frantically try to open it while people are shooting at you works to increase tension and brings the "ticking clock on the screen" factor into play, which adds to the excitement of the encounter. If you're trying to open a door with no pressure or worries, then I definitely support the d20 system's "Take 20" rule. I've you've got enough time and it's within the realm of possibility for your character, then the character will eventually get it open.

In the Dark Heresy game I ran, I started it with them training in the Tricorn after having been recruited, and one of the training exercises was in investigation, for the acolytes to find the location of a hidden room in the Ordo Hereticus tower of the Tricorn that had been repurposed as a lounge. The tests for inquiry and research that I had them make weren't for whether they succeeded or failed at the tasks, though. I set a specific amount of time that it would take to, say, search through the archives for clues, and if they succeeded, it took exactly that amount of time. Degrees of success or failure added or subtracted time from that. The actual challenge of it came from the fact that they were racing against two other teams of acolytes working for their Inquisitor, who were making their own rolls on such things. Also making things more interesting were that the three teams were all trying to get the location of the room from one another, and trying to misdirect each other as well.

The main reason why I do it that way, and avoid the "increasing penalties for retries" like the gorram plague is because I firmly believe that players should never feel useless. You play the game to have FUN. If I err on the side of things being a little to easy, then so be it.