Some folks may remember my first experiment with my old favorite rogue psyker Lilly Ryan... here she is again.

Lilly Ryan

Hive World, Outcast, Mystic

WS 40, BS 30, S 30, T 30, Ag 40, Int 35, Per 40, WP 45, Fel 40, Inf 30

Skills: Acrobatics, Charm, Deceive, Dodge, Forbidden Lore (Warp), Psyniscience, Stealth

Talents: Paranoia, Weapon Training (Chain, SP)

Special Abilities: Teaming Masses in Metal Mountains, Never Quit, Rogue Psyker

Aptitudes: Perception, Social, Defense, Psyker, Intelligence, Willpower, Fellowship, Toughness

Psychic Powers (Psy Rating 1): Influence

Wounds 11, Corruption Points: 13

...

Couple of things I noticed...

First, she has no Linguistics skill. I only skimmed the text, but I couldn't see anywhere where anyone starts with a Linguistics skill.

Second, Mystics gain the Psyker aptitude twice.. once from the Role and once from the Psyker Elite Advance, which functionally means they automatically gain a free Characteristic Aptitude. I'm hoping that will be corrected in the first round of rules updates.

Third, Lilly can use a Chainsword but she can't use a Knife (because she doesn't have Weapon Training Low Tech). That seems very wrong to me.

Finally, Acolytes seem to start as highly competent idiot savants... very good Characteristics but very few skills. At first blush, starting characters seem to start with very few skills and even fewer talents, especially when compared to their Only War counterparts (perhaps an unfair comparison but I'm going with it anyway). With the Aptitude system working the way it does, 500 exp does not go very far at all.

...

Those are just my first glance impressions of the character creation system... as things go, it seems to have retained the strengths and weaknesses of the original Beta character creation system but I'm not entirely convinced how well the starting skills, talents and starting advancement functionally meshes with the Aptitude system.

Second, Mystics gain the Psyker aptitude twice.. once from the Role and once from the Psyker Elite Advance, which functionally means they automatically gain a free Characteristic Aptitude. I'm hoping that will be corrected in the first round of rules updates.

The Elite Advance should probably read "Psyker Trait", not "Psyker Aptitude", both for the reason you point out and for the reason that technically, since the E.A. doesn't hand out that trait, it's illegal to purchase psychic powers for the character (see trait description).

Well the Elite Advance does say, under Unlocked Advances, that: "The character can now purchase psychic powers by spending experience points; see Chapter VI: Psychic Powers for full rules on purchasing and using psychic powers."

But well spotted, I'd missed that.

From what I read and this is just scanning really is that the only way to have access to the psychic advance is to get mystic for the role. If you don't have astropath background you count as a witch.

Finally, Acolytes seem to start as highly competent idiot savants... very good Characteristics but very few skills. At first blush, starting characters seem to start with very few skills and even fewer talents, especially when compared to their Only War counterparts (perhaps an unfair comparison but I'm going with it anyway). With the Aptitude system working the way it does, 500 exp does not go very far at all.

They sort of managed to skirt this by making "untrained" only a -10 (so the higher characteristics would pick up the slack) but now that they're back to -20 I have to agree. Do you think they should hand out more Skills, or more Aptitudes, or something else?

I haven't gotten the 2.0 version, but check the linguistics skills; I know the OW beta had the "all character knows Low Gothic' in the skill chapter under linguistics

Finally, Acolytes seem to start as highly competent idiot savants... very good Characteristics but very few skills. At first blush, starting characters seem to start with very few skills and even fewer talents, especially when compared to their Only War counterparts (perhaps an unfair comparison but I'm going with it anyway). With the Aptitude system working the way it does, 500 exp does not go very far at all.

They sort of managed to skirt this by making "untrained" only a -10 (so the higher characteristics would pick up the slack) but now that they're back to -20 I have to agree. Do you think they should hand out more Skills, or more Aptitudes, or something else?

At first glance, what I would like to see if either skills handed out by Homeworld and Role as well as Background or more experience points for starting advances.

I think that they just need a lot more skills and talents at char creation. I would dump a couple in homeworld (linguistics skills should go here) and some in role as that would make character creation that much more interesting. You would end up with really different characters at creation as opposed to your background basically determining your character.

EDIT: **** you beat me to it. I was saying this since the original beta, the character creation system is a good idea but it needs more diversity to make it a really good system. The odd or option would be nice.

With the Aptitude system working the way it does, 500 exp does not go very far at all.

Then what about raising the starting xp? In my experience an 5000 xp starting character in OW is only slightly above the optimal level so I would put the proper amount around 3000xp.

Well, I'm just starting to read the Beta (very stealthily in my office) and, from what I have seen, the character creation system is quite good, particularly the home Worlds. Personally I saw not one problem there. The issues begin on the backgrounds, particularly the two main flaws you noticed, those being:

1. the characters have too few Weapon Training talents;

The worst offender here, IMHO is the Arbites, which has to choose between shock or SP weapons. Show me one Arbites who can't do both!

I believe that the first solution for problem nº 1 is to give everyone the Low Tech Weapon Training talent. Although certainly not everyone in the Imperium is able to wield a knife (the lazy heretic bastards), every character should be able to, specially in a combat intense setting such as WH40K.

The second is to give at least one more Weapon Training option to each background or, as I would prefer, to each role. This way, you could pick one or two from you background and another from your role, giving more flexibility to your character.

2. the characters have too few skills.

this is even easier to fix. Just give every character three choices of skill for Roles and have them pick one or two.

Now, regarding Psykers, I think they did it perfectly. You can be a Mystic without Sanctioning (if you are a bloody heretic and hate the Empero), a Sanctioned Psyker or a servant of the AAT without Sanctioning, but still with a benefit for it, representing his training, very like a minder for Psykers.

What do you guys think?

As I believe we shouldn't just criticize the new additions, but also point out what they did right, let me just say that this is beautiful:

This is probably a controversial opinion, but I think it's worth removing weapon aptitudes entirely. They don't add much to the game except an XP sink, and seem to just be a holdover from DnD (where they matter a lot more thanks to how feats are handed out). Personally in my own houserules I've removed weapon aptitudes, and just folded the exotic ones into the associated Forbidden Lores.

This is probably a controversial opinion, but I think it's worth removing weapon aptitudes entirely. They don't add much to the game except an XP sink, and seem to just be a holdover from DnD (where they matter a lot more thanks to how feats are handed out). Personally in my own houserules I've removed weapon aptitudes, and just folded the exotic ones into the associated Forbidden Lores.

I wholeheartedly concur.

This is probably a controversial opinion, but I think it's worth removing weapon aptitudes entirely. They don't add much to the game except an XP sink, and seem to just be a holdover from DnD (where they matter a lot more thanks to how feats are handed out). Personally in my own houserules I've removed weapon aptitudes, and just folded the exotic ones into the associated Forbidden Lores.

First, I'm going to assume that you mean Talents, not Aptitudes.

Anyway; while I'm not necessarily opposed to this idea - although I fear that more than a few oddities may arise from it - I question the necessity. The issues with the current system is very easy to solve, to the point where I'm perplexed why FFG haven't already done so, considering that the oddities associated with it (such as being able to use a Chainsword but not a Swordsword) have been around since Dark Heresy.

They've made minor changes to it multiple times, most recently in Only War, and in Rogue Trader it was practically canned (which led to even greater glaring issues), yet they've never sought to rectify the issues with it.

Now, granted, those issues are very minor, chiefly because you simply don't go slumming in the weapons department very much, but they're just glaring . There doesn't need to be any problems with Weapon Training/Weapon Proficiency, and especially in the lower "power levels" (such as in Only War or Dark Heresy 1st Ed), they do add to characterization, and I guess it just feels natural to me that someone capable of using a lasgun can't necessarily operate a plasma cannon - especially when we're not talking about career soldiers.

After all, these weapon types we're talking about are more often than not considerably different from eachother.

This is probably a controversial opinion, but I think it's worth removing weapon aptitudes entirely. They don't add much to the game except an XP sink, and seem to just be a holdover from DnD (where they matter a lot more thanks to how feats are handed out). Personally in my own houserules I've removed weapon aptitudes, and just folded the exotic ones into the associated Forbidden Lores.

On the one hand, I see some merit the idea of just doing away with Weapon Training entirely, but on the other hand I like the idea that certain weapons are special/rare/difficult/unusual.

My thought is to just give every starting character Weapon Training (Low Tech, Solid Projectile and Las). This ensures that every Acolyte has the ability to use the most common weapons found in the Imperium... while at the same time make "special" weapons, like Plasma Guns and Chainswords, require special training. This essentially add a characterful limiting factor to the more powerful weapons in the game... a Plasma Pistol is a deadly, powerful weapon but you need to spend exp before you can get one and use it properly.

Now, regarding Psykers, I think they did it perfectly. You can be a Mystic without Sanctioning (if you are a bloody heretic and hate the Empero), a Sanctioned Psyker or a servant of the AAT without Sanctioning, but still with a benefit for it, representing his training, very like a minder for Psykers.

What do you guys think?

As I posted in another thread. There is NO WAY that an unsanctioned psyker is serving in any branch of the Imperium unless they are under a Radical Inquisitor from the get go.

Now, regarding Psykers, I think they did it perfectly. You can be a Mystic without Sanctioning (if you are a bloody heretic and hate the Empero), a Sanctioned Psyker or a servant of the AAT without Sanctioning, but still with a benefit for it, representing his training, very like a minder for Psykers.

What do you guys think?

As I posted in another thread. There is NO WAY that an unsanctioned psyker is serving in any branch of the Imperium unless they are under a Radical Inquisitor from the get go.

Well, I can think of one way: no one else (in authority) knows they are a psyker... but essentially, yes. Still, I like that you have the option to play an unsanctioned rogue psyker in the employ of a radical Inquisitors. We're not all running Puritan campaigns after all.

In a way, going with the Rogue Psyker would invalidate the Adeptus Astra Telepathica background.

Now, regarding Psykers, I think they did it perfectly. You can be a Mystic without Sanctioning (if you are a bloody heretic and hate the Empero), a Sanctioned Psyker or a servant of the AAT without Sanctioning, but still with a benefit for it, representing his training, very like a minder for Psykers.

What do you guys think?

As I posted in another thread. There is NO WAY that an unsanctioned psyker is serving in any branch of the Imperium unless they are under a Radical Inquisitor from the get go.

Yeah. And?

Why is this a problem? The rules allow you to play an unsanctioned psyker. Cool. Some people want to do that.

Now, regarding Psykers, I think they did it perfectly. You can be a Mystic without Sanctioning (if you are a bloody heretic and hate the Empero), a Sanctioned Psyker or a servant of the AAT without Sanctioning, but still with a benefit for it, representing his training, very like a minder for Psykers.

What do you guys think?

As I posted in another thread. There is NO WAY that an unsanctioned psyker is serving in any branch of the Imperium unless they are under a Radical Inquisitor from the get go.

Yeah. And?

Why is this a problem? The rules allow you to play an unsanctioned psyker. Cool. Some people want to do that.

All i'm pointing out is that an unsanctioned psyker is not likely to join an organization and risk getting found out. It's even more unlikely that they have the Adeptus Astra Telepathica background. I don't care too much if they leave it as is but it seems strange when you know how these organizations work. Too be honest, you would have to be insane to join some of those organizations knowing that you are an unsanctioned psyker unless they are infiltrating the organization or have a death wish.

Now, regarding Psykers, I think they did it perfectly. You can be a Mystic without Sanctioning (if you are a bloody heretic and hate the Empero), a Sanctioned Psyker or a servant of the AAT without Sanctioning, but still with a benefit for it, representing his training, very like a minder for Psykers.

What do you guys think?

As I posted in another thread. There is NO WAY that an unsanctioned psyker is serving in any branch of the Imperium unless they are under a Radical Inquisitor from the get go.

Yeah. And?

Why is this a problem? The rules allow you to play an unsanctioned psyker. Cool. Some people want to do that.

All i'm pointing out is that an unsanctioned psyker is not likely to join an organization and risk getting found out. It's even more unlikely that they have the Adeptus Astra Telepathica background. I don't care too much if they leave it as is but it seems strange when you know how these organizations work. Too be honest, you would have to be insane to join some of those organizations knowing that you are an unsanctioned psyker unless they are infiltrating the organization or have a death wish.

Unsanctioned AAT is not a thing, RAW. If an AAT gains Psyker at character creation they also gain Sanctioned. (I'm perfectly okay with this)

Join these organizations? How often are acolytes given a say in the matter? Dude with unlimited authority rolls up and says you work for him now, you work for him. It's not a job you apply for. And being a psyker isn't something normal people can see, so keep it on the down low and you'll be fine (probably).

CPS, I understand that you like that the rules support the ability to play unsanctioned psykers. The system gives you the freedom to play one with any character combination that doesn't include AAT. The problem myself and other people have is that the current rules take away the freedom to play a sanctioned psyker from non-AAT backgrounds, something which is also more common in the fluff working for the inquisition than unsanctioned psykers are.

I'm perfectly fine having the freedom to play an unsanctioned psyker. I just want more freedom for playing a sanctioned one. In this case I think you would maximize choices by making psyker ONLY be an elite advance, same as untouchables. Make it cost 200 or 300 xp and be sanctioned by default. For 100xp less, the psyker doesn't start off sanctioned. Rework the mystic role around a bit to make it a viable choice for anyone. Now you suddenly have opened up a lot more options for players wanting to play psyker characters during character creation.

I just want to throw this out there, but as far as the fluff goes all Sanctioned Psykers operating in the Imperium are members of the AAT. Heck, the AAT are the ones responsible for the recruitment, sanctioning, and training of Psykers, no other organisation is authorised by the High Lords of Terra to do this. The often quoted example of Imperial Guard Psykers are just members of the Astra Telepathica attached to a guardsman regiment.

In the 40k setting there is no such thing as a Sanctioned Psyker that doesn't work for (or in the case of those now belonging to the Inquisition; used to work for) the Adeptus Astra Telepathica.

But the argument could be made that, given most of their time has been spent on the field fighting alongside an IG regiment, the IG background suits better than the Telepathica one.

I'm a fan of this approach because it opens up a lot more variety for Psyker characters.

Now, regarding Psykers, I think they did it perfectly. You can be a Mystic without Sanctioning (if you are a bloody heretic and hate the Empero), a Sanctioned Psyker or a servant of the AAT without Sanctioning, but still with a benefit for it, representing his training, very like a minder for Psykers.

What do you guys think?

As I posted in another thread. There is NO WAY that an unsanctioned psyker is serving in any branch of the Imperium unless they are under a Radical Inquisitor from the get go.

Elior, I completely concur with your statement.

Incidentally, this is precisely the background for my future DH campaign; a Radical Inquisitor recruiting criminals and heretics that would be executed to serve the Inquisition as an elite disposable team. =)

But the argument could be made that, given most of their time has been spent on the field fighting alongside an IG regiment, the IG background suits better than the Telepathica one.

I'm a fan of this approach because it opens up a lot more variety for Psyker characters.

Tom, although you make a fair point, I have to disagree. At least in all of the fluff I've read, even Psykers that serve the IG are mostly separated from them, coming from and training almost exclusively with the AAT.

Yeah, they will definitely gain skills and abilities, as well as most peculiarities, of the IG company they work with, but this should happen in-game. Their background, by the very definition of the term, has to come from the AAT.