The much more open system that was first introduced in Black Crusade, then refined in Only War, for character advancement, awesome. To me, it only makes sense to adopt this to a new edition of Dark Heresy. This to be the consent that I am seeing.
Want to do a new edition set in a different sector? That's cool, it keeps things interesting, especially if your group schwacked the Calixis Sector at the climax of a Black Crusade game already, but bring back aptitudes.
Roles basically take the place of aptitudes without much issue, honestly.
I wasn't a fan of aptitudes.
Roles do that, its true- but at least there's some control, which keeps players from cherry-picking "the good skills" instead of naturally evolving their characters.
I know some people aren't fans of the Talent Trees, but I believe that the core idea is good- and they allow some sort of control and progression (Specialising in talent trees and themes) instead of a completely open system.
I say just have the roles define what aptitudes you have. Simple, elegant.
I've got to say the new character creation system is one of the saving graces of the new DH, once the options are expanded a little in the future suppliaments there will be plenty of variety. The new Talent Tree system should work if a little though it put into some of the talents and where they are - I know a few of my players had some problems when they couldn't find a talent to do what they wanted (ambidexterous I'm looking at you - or rather the lack of you). The Psi tables need some serious work though, the method is sound but the content needs expanding, and please bring back the minor powers in some form - I know they were a little broken last edition but they gave the psyker some much needed non-combat abilities.
Hope that made sense
Surak
I've got to say the new character creation system is one of the saving graces of the new DH, once the options are expanded a little in the future suppliaments there will be plenty of variety. The new Talent Tree system should work if a little though it put into some of the talents and where they are - I know a few of my players had some problems when they couldn't find a talent to do what they wanted (ambidexterous I'm looking at you - or rather the lack of you). The Psi tables need some serious work though, the method is sound but the content needs expanding, and please bring back the minor powers in some form - I know they were a little broken last edition but they gave the psyker some much needed non-combat abilities.
Hope that made sense
Surak
I believe ambidex is now handled by the Blade Dancer and Gunslinger, certainly in combat at least.
As to the psi tables, minor powers would certainly broaden the options for a psyker, but one concern I (and other players I've spoken to) have with psykers in general is that if you give them too much extra stuff, you end up with everyone wanting to play one as effectively you get a normal character plus cool stuff no one else can take (tech priests also had this problem in DH1). This was some what balanced in DH1 with the classes, but as DH2 is a freer system, I can see why they took them out.
Not that you couldn't do it, just that they would have to price them carefully so that psyker can't out do the rest of the group using just psy powers (especially as it can often allow them to focus on willpower rather than a range of stats like the rest of the group).
Back to the ops question (and to sound like a massive fence sitter), I like both systems. Aptitudes was certainly a good system, and allowed for different costs on a range of things. Roles are a little less flexible, but to me seem a cleaner system.
I like the change to talent trees.
Maybe it's because I'm the only "serious" 40k fan in my group of friends, meaning I'm the one trying to convince them to play 40k RPGs with me. As a result, they don't really want to read through the entire book, and it's up to me to try and make everything presentable to them.
Dark Heresy is okay. If you stay out of Elite Advances, it's pretty straightforward. Deathwatch, with its myriad of interlocking tables, was a nightmare. I made a Windows application with the sole purpose of making it easier for them. I haven't attempted Black Crusade/Only War with them, simply because I can't imagine asking them to select a talent from the entire pool available to them.
DH2 talent trees seems like a happy medium to me. I do think each tree could be a bit "wider" though, so you have multiple entry points and crossing paths throughout, to make them slightly less cookie-cutter. It's a balancing act, I guess.
I like the refinement in Dh2e, because having five players who all had different costs for the same Talents was a nightmare. That said, I hate hate haaate the talent trees for forcing you into taking random crap to get to the talents you need.
I like the refinement in Dh2e, because having five players who all had different costs for the same Talents was a nightmare. That said, I hate hate haaate the talent trees for forcing you into taking random crap to get to the talents you need.
While I understand this from a gamers perspective, I sort of agree with the talent trees from a realism perspective. When I teach a student to use a sword; I must first teach them to stand with it; Then to walk with it and finally to move with it. This is not arrogance on my part. I had to learn it the same way! The point being that there is a 'logical' progression a person must take in order to get good at something. Perhaps the tables could be adjusted but I like their premise.
I gotta ask, what are these talents you don't want to buy in the talent trees?
Sure maybe their ordering is less useful to you, but there are only a few instances where there is an absolutely useless talent in the way (only one that comes to mind is Bastion of Iron WIll).
Personally, I would be less (or at least not only) concerned with what is "useful" or "useless", but with what fits to the character concept that I as a player would have in mind. Especially if each of these classes are supposed to represent not a specific archetype but a plethora of possible character types.
It's part of why I like class- and levelless systems more than those that force you into following a pre-established path that someone else laid out for you, especially given that your interpretation of X may not even be compatible with the ideas of whatever game designer wrote the class. Aptitudes simply leave more room to follow one's own preferences (within the confines set by your GM), not to mention easier adjustment to radical changes in the character's environment and range of duties - and I would have hoped that the character system presented in Only War would come to form the basis of future products for FFG's 40k RPG line.
Our group were not fans of aptitudes, feeling it was actually hindered what you wanted to do with your character and pushing you down a specific route. Here with the different trees to pick from actual feels like you can customise more.
I really liked the aptitudes I saw in Only War (Haven't really played Black Crusade, so this was my first exposure). HOWEVER, I am currently undecided on whether I liked that or if I like DH2e's way of doing things better.
That being said, I WOULD like to see a better balancing of Background and Specialtiy special abilities.
Specifically it feels like Desperado's ability to get +20 on their second attack seems a little OP.
The Imperial Guard background ability of increasing carrying capacity by 2 feels pretty weak. I can get what they are doing from a fluff perspective, but in practice carrying capacity is rarely something that people worry about too much. Even with the re-haul of how they handle capacity in DH2e, it is still a micro-managment type system that I think would only be enforced when the DM is trying to punish someone.
The new system is really just Aptitudes But Easier to Calculate Quickly and with standardized talents. I'm quite happy with it.
Personally, I would be less (or at least not only) concerned with what is "useful" or "useless", but with what fits to the character concept that I as a player would have in mind. Especially if each of these classes are supposed to represent not a specific archetype but a plethora of possible character types.
I like the talent trees, both as an in-game mechanism (your PC 'learning to walk before he can run') but also as a meta-game element...
We've created our characters so far (boosting with +1000xp to give us some experience of the xp/development system) and already pretty much all of us have said 'i really want that talent, but i need to get X and X before it'. To which our response has collectively been, 'well at least our Pcs now have something to aim for!'
I think that's an excellent metagame element.
However...Lynata, you're right. Limiting the mechanical build around a character concept is a problem, especially as you point out that the rules are freer and allowing you to define your own archetypes (something i think is EXTREMELY positive in DH2b).
I guess the answer is:
1. Start the PCs with more XP
2. Have the character concept as an aspiration for the PC - begin the build towards that, and have it develop into the fully fledged concept during play.
'My PC is a ghost sniper, never seen and killing from a mile away...but i don't have the talents to back that concept up.'
'OK, well, that's what your PC wants to be, so now you know what talents and skills you'll be spending your xp on! Give it a good few sessions and you will soon be that ghost sniper you wanted to be'...
The new system is really just Aptitudes But Easier to Calculate Quickly and with standardized talents. I'm quite happy with it.
Pretty much sums it up.
The only way I could see Aptitudes working better would be by spreading them across the character creation options - your homeworld would give you two Aptitudes, your background another two, your role another two (or something like that). I think that'd be pretty nice, but it could also lead to certain combinations becoming vastly more optimal, so I see some merit in keeping chargen options discrete.