How about that Penalty at -10 for an "untrained skill"?

We could boost it up to -20 instead, so that raising skills becomes more interesting and less based on your core stats.

Using a skill in the current system allows you a lot of flexibility- in terms of picking a stat which are you superior are. The idea to be able to use any characteristic is very good, but with the relatively higher starting stats on characters, this make skill rank raising relatively unattractive at low ranks and even mid-ranks, until such time where the DM decides to start boosting up the difficulty of them challenges.

A -20 would still give people a 25-35 chance of success, instead of the 35-45 (assuming people favor buying a few extremely cheap stat advances at the beginning) that most people would have gotten with just a -10.

I don't think a larger penalty jives well with what the skills try to represent in this edition.

Like I said in the other thread, a Guardsman with Rank 1 in Tech Use most likely had boot camp training in operating and maintaining whatever equipment was important for him as a member of IG - he's just not very good at applying it. A -20 penalty would make that Guardsman really hard-pressed to use military gear. And whenever he tries to operate something outside the purview of his IG training, the GM has the right to just say "nope, you have no idea".

Also, bear in mind that the new scale of stats actually redefines what's high and what's low, and even the best roll of starting stats is actually pretty low on the totem pole. When the best you can achieve before equipment and situational modifiers is a 125% chance of passing a challenging skill test (45 max stat roll + 50 all advancements + 30 max skill rank) and the worst case scenario is a 17% chance of doing the same (27 worst stat roll possible - 10 rank 1 skill) then the average of about 26% chance of succeeding at the same untrained skill, or even the average 36% chance of trained skill (average result of a 2d10 roll is 11, so an average stat is 36), are actually still very low.

Again, this would be less of an issue if skills weren't representative of core competencies that everyone has to one degree or another. Then, higher penalties would make more sense.

Ok, that's true- I will concede the point at this time and see how it goes around the table on Sunday.

I tend to agree with the original point. Thing is that everyone starts at rank 1 so apparently everyone has had some training. I'm not sure a normal guardsman would have any tech training, let alone any in investigating or subterfuge. But he still has a reasonable chance (26% for the average stat) of passing something he should have no idea how to do.

You can fudge this and say it makes sense for PCs as the Inquisition has given them basic training in everything, but for NPCs it feels odd.

I really love the new skill system, but it does feel weird that anybody can attempt any roll at -10. At least some should be at -20 to reflect the fact that your character might very well never have experienced some of those. Tech-Use at -10 for a guy that was bord on a distant feral world and has never been in contact with technology feels off to me. I guess the GM could adjust the difficulty of those rolls to reflect that, but it does feel like a pain to implement...

As per page 77. Just because he has 1 rank doesn't mean that gets to roll. It's up to the GM.

I tend to agree with the original point. Thing is that everyone starts at rank 1 so apparently everyone has had some training. I'm not sure a normal guardsman would have any tech training,

You mean they don't teach Guards the basics of operating their standard issue equipment and whatever can be found in the camp? I'm pretty sure I saw some tech-litanies in the Primer.

let alone any in investigating or subterfuge.

"Investigating" at it's basic is, being able to make a connection between two things - everyone can do that.

Subterfuge, that's more specific, but things like sleight of hand or disguise aren't exactly arcane knowledge. Security - sometimes it's as easy as jamming a screwdriver into the keyhole and jerking it around a bit. In more complex cases, either there's a penalty already involved in the roll, or the GM flat out tells you "no, you don't know how to open an Inquisitorial gene-lock, nor can you even attempt successfully dressing up as an Eldar".

You mean they don't teach Guards the basics of operating their standard issue equipment and whatever can be found in the camp? I'm pretty sure I saw some tech-litanies in the Primer.

Well I don't think lasguns are covered by tech-use. But looking at what you can do with tech-use I see repairing vehicles, setting explosives etc. are covered so I can see a guardsman having basic knowledge of those (though some of the other backgrounds I'm not so sure).

After some rethinking I can see that the skills have been made more vague so -10, ok maybe it's not too bad. Keeping this with the idea that PCs are above average guys with a variety of skills...

I suppose it's up to the GM to impose greater penalties if he feels it's necessary.

Thing is that everyone starts at rank 1 so apparently everyone has had some training.

Unless I've read it completely wrong, I think that's exactly what rank 1 in a skill doesn't mean. Rank 1 is unskilled/no training. I suspect the primary reason that untrained starts at rank 1, is so it can fit neatly into the "current rating x modifier" formular to calculate costs. If it started at 0 ranks, you'd need a special exception for training new skills.

The main problem is that skills are more expensive then straight up stat advances. So there's nothing to really justify that first purchase when you can buy stats and talents instead, which are a lot more helpful, for quite a bit cheaper.