In the effort to do something productive, I'm going to try making a pretty thorough post of all the main parts of the Character Creation Chapter and list the issues and concerns that I have, and also edit in the concerns I see of other people so that there is a main document for it. I'll try to add in agreements and disagreements about points as well so that people can reference the gist of what's been said so far.

Other General Concerns:

1) The entire distribution of the aptitudes may need some work. Some examples include the assassin. Does anyone have any other examples?

2) SublimeShadow is suggesting having a framework for "Create your own character options", although this would preclude having unique abilities for every choice

Another option is starting with a few aptitudes and picking the rest

3) Lots of people miss having choices with options, or options than benefit one thing and hurt another.

4) Aptitudes are not equal to each other in terms of scope (Finesse/Fieldcraft vs. Offense/Leadership)

Some players don't feel that this is an issue

5) Some people don't like having randomness in character creation (myself included) while others do. The best argument I've seen in favor of it is that players may feel more connection to a rolled up character rather than a point-bought one. I don't know that I think that merits making random rolling the default choice, though.

Homeworlds

General Concerns

1) I personally think that rolling for starting Fate Points should be done away with. The differences in starting totals are not balanced by anything in the game and I don't think that the narrative justification is very important.

This has gotten support from some members of the forum

Maybe the special ability of Shrine Worlders could be to have an extra Fate Point?

Maybe the entire group starts with the same amount of Fate Points, based on a roll or set "Pulpiness value?"

2) Due to the different aptitudes that a starting character can end up with, the xp values of their starting talents and skills can differ, introducing xp imbalance to begin with. Yes, we've had this argument before, and I still stand by the fact that if you run on the assumption that all skills are equal to each other and all talents are equal to each other, then having players start with different xp values of them is unbalanced.

*As a counter to this, the differing xp rates seem impossible to balance with the current structure of the system and may not vary by much anyway. (I'll try to run the numbers on this)

3) A lot of the special abilities are non-unique (just allowing an extra talent or skill), and are thus both boring and potentially worth different things based on aptitudes and xp cost.

4) Some of the skills listed for homeworlds are specialist skills but do not list a specialty/ability to choose. Does anyone have a list of these?

Feral Worlds :

Non-Unique special ability
2.8 Fate Points (Base number of Fate Points + the odds of getting another)
12 Wounds (Base Wounds plus an average d5 roll of 3)

Forge World:

Non-Unique special Ability
3.3 Fate Points
11 Wounds

Highborn:

Nice, always able to be used Talent
4.1 Fate Points
12 Wounds (Wow, just as hardy as a Feral Worlder!)

Hive World:

Weird hybrid non-unique special ability and bad other half (very rare to be charmed by NPCs)
2.2 Fate Points (Even less Fate Points than a Feral Worlder)
11 Wounds (And less wounds!)

Shrine World:

Nice unique special ability that is always able to be used
3.5 Fate Points
10 Wounds

Voidborn:

At least the low-gravity ability is gone. Non-unique special ability
3.8 Fate Points
10 Wounds

Backgrounds

General Concerns:

1) There is again a possible issue with starting skills/talents having differing xp values

2) There is a paucity of weapon talents for starting characters. There is some debate over just having universal weapon training or eliminating training altogether. Maybe it would be better to have each character able to use all non-exotic weapons without penalty and have weapon training add a specialty for weapons (e.g. Bonus to reloading, additional damage, better chance to hit) Maybe also tie other talents that affect weapon use into only allowing you to use them for weapons you have the specialty in.

Administratum
5 Skills
1 Talent

1) People seem to agree that having a "Gone Postal" Administratum clerk should be an official part of 40K cannon.

Arbites
5 Skills
1 Talent

1) Really? Arbites have to choose between shock and SP talents?

Telepathica
5 Skills
1 Talent

1)Again you have the issue of not allowing Guardsmen Psykers or sanctioned psykers from other backgrounds. Just package the Sanctioned trait with the Psyker Advance.

2)Why would a non-psyker ever pick this background?

Mechanicus
5 Skills
2 Talents (Wait, suddenly they get two talents?)

Ministorum
5 Skills
1 or 2 Talents (Unclear Wording on how many you get)

Guard
5 Skills
2 Talents

1) The special ability is limited to lasguns only? Boring.

Outcast
4 Skills
1-3 Skills (The wording on this is really unclear)

1) The fatigue ability for this sucks, especially given the reversion back to Only War fatigue rules.

Roles

General Concerns

1) Once again, the talents may have differing xp values.

2) The special abilities really differ in power, flavor, and how they are meant to define the role.

Assassin
Wow, a straight up additional damage ability. Combat based and seems powerful. Makes thematic sense for the assassin wanting to do a coup-de-grace/pick off the enemies closest to death

Chirurgeon
The ability lets them re-roll a single subset use of the medicae skill without cost. This is pretty weak. Why not just let them spend a fate point to automatically succeed at the test, or even just say that they never get less than 1 degree of success on a First Aid test. Make it more flavorful.

Desperado
So is the whole theme of the desperado meant to be dual-wielding. Not a very flavorful ability.

Hierophant
Spend a fate point for automatic success on social tests. Really powerful. Really really powerful.

Mystic
This role gives a baseline value of 300xp for each of the special abilities, given the cost for the psyker elite advance.

1) Does there really need to be a special psyker role? I have the feeling that FFG is looking at this like a psyker is just plain better than any average human, and that the need to buy a bunch of extra powers rather than other talents and the risk of perils of the warp don't act as a big enough balance to the psyker's power.

Some members like the ability to play unsanctioned psykers easily. However, there is agreement that Sanctioning should be a purchaseable trait. Maybe include the sanctioned trait with the psyker trait for Mystics? Or maybe include sanctioning for every background that makes sense (Guard, Telepathica, Administratum)? None of the other backgrounds seems like they'd employ psykers.

2)It seems kind of boring to have psykers who want to play like the vast majority of psykers in other games be so restricted for background and role.

Sage
Another automatic success for Fate Point talent. Flavorful for the sage being THE scholar of the group.

Seeker

Another automatic success for Fate Point talent. Maybe all of the roles should just have this special ability and differ in what skills they can automatically succe

Warrior
This ability has the potential to inflict major damage and make warriors into combat monsters.

Aptitudes

1) Having to look back and forth between a bunch of tables when using aptitudes is a bit of a pain in the ass and doesn't lend itself to smooth character creation/gameplay.

Divinations
Really? A chance roll on the d100 can seriously improve your character or seriously screw him up? Great.

*Some players like having these, although it may be good to make them optional.

Homeworlds: I think that if you have a system like Aptitudes that makes every advance available to every character at varying XP costs it will be impossible to balance out the starting skills and talents exactly. The difference is what, 200, max? Not a huge deal.

Additionally, a few homeworlds have skills listed that are specialist skills, but specify no specialty. e.g., Ministorum characters get Linguistics. No mention of which, or if they get a choice in the matter.

Psykers: I think its great that the Sanctioned Trait is separate from the Mystic (Psyker) background. This is a good thing. You don't need to take Mystic in order to be a psyker either - there's an elite advance for that, and it's cheap enough to start with. So you can choose any Role and Background and still be a psyker. Maximum openness. All great choices on FFG's part.

Divinations: unless I've been doing it wrong for years, in DH1 this was entirely optional. DH2 makes rolling a divination explicitly mandatory. I personally love them, but they should be optional.

CPS, I added everything you posted except for the stuff about the Sanctioned Trait. My issue with it is that it is not directly tied to being a psyker enough. Given that the fluff puts an unsanctioned psyker at the same rank as a mutant current sprouting tentacles and screaming for blood for the blood god, I feel like this restricts freedom. There should be an option to buy the sanctioned trait along with the psyker advance.

While I don't have anything specific to add to the already extensive list, I certainly support that something needs to be done about the starting fate points as at the moment everyone is going to gravitate towards the backgrounds with high fate points.

The poor feral worlder / hive worlder won't get much of a look in.

The distribution of aptitudes feels a little wonky for some of the classes. For example, the Assassin has neither Weapon Skill, Ballistic Skill, or Offense as aptitude choices so unlike the previous iteration of DH they're no good at melee whatsoever. Finesse means they can be "ok" ranged combatants, but for a role whose whole deal is being able to kill things it feels wrong.

As a player you can partially address this by selecting a homeworld or background that doubles up one of your aptitudes so you can pick up a Characteristic-based aptitude, but that also often feels wrong. The Characteristic-based aptitude selection should be a rule that comes into play occasionally to fix overlaps, not something you need to fish for to make a character concept work mechanically. If I want to be an effective assassin that uses blades at the moment I need to be either a former Imperial Guardsman or Hiveworlder- a Feral World Outcast might make sense , but they're never going to be good at the stabbing. Likewise, if I want to give a Warrior a stealth or larceny sub-theme, I need to go ex-Arbite (?).

The class-based aptitude assignments worked well in Only War because each character had a well-defined role they fulfilled in a group made up of people from similar backgrounds. But Only War had 12 classes to choose from (and a higher likelihood of getting a free Characteristic Aptitude), while Dark Heresy currently only really has 5 because of the degree to which Role determines what your character does. As a consequence I've felt more confined mechanically in Dark Heresy than in Only War, when it should really be the opposite given the respective settings. I think the best way to address this would be to give some more flexibility in selecting aptitudes. I think giving every character a single free Aptitude pick (Characteristic-linked or no) would be nice and promote some diversity among characters, but even giving a binary choice of Aptitudes when selecting a homeworld or background (i.e. X or Y rather than just X) would be a big improvement.

But regardless of whether or not any of the above gets considered/implemented, the Assassin aptitudes should absolutely be up for re-evaluation.

Absolutely agree with the original point about Fate Points, just give characters the same starting number. Especially given how many more things you can do with them now.

Also in agreement with the latest comment concerning aptitudes in general and Assassins specifically. Not giving them BS, WS or Offence is a bit daft.

The distribution of aptitudes feels a little wonky for some of the classes. For example, the Assassin has neither Weapon Skill, Ballistic Skill, or Offense as aptitude choices so unlike the previous iteration of DH they're no good at melee whatsoever. Finesse means they can be "ok" ranged combatants, but for a role whose whole deal is being able to kill things it feels wrong.

Oh boy... The Assassin is all over the place aptitude-wise. It is an excellent role for anything except for assassinating someone.

CPS, I added everything you posted except for the stuff about the Sanctioned Trait. My issue with it is that it is not directly tied to being a psyker enough. Given that the fluff puts an unsanctioned psyker at the same rank as a mutant current sprouting tentacles and screaming for blood for the blood god, I feel like this restricts freedom. There should be an option to buy the sanctioned trait along with the psyker advance.

I'm pretty happy about AAT getting Sanctioning and the Psyker elite advance not including it. It opens up room for a lot of unique characters. It definitely doesn't belong in the Psyker elite package or Mystic Role. I think it adds a lot of freedom as it doesn't stop you from playing an unsanctioned psyker. DH1 had how many alternate careers that let you do this?

However, I do think that Sanctioned should be moved to its own elite advance package and made free for AAT characters. Maybe make it something you can only choose at character creation (since I think fluff wise the process takes a decade or two). This way you can allow characters with any role/homeworld/background to play as a sanctioned psyker, should they want to.

Added some new edits to the main post. Keep the comments coming!

Is it a consensus that character creation needs more skills and talents in it in general and preferably spread out between home world, background and role? I feel I've seen it said a few times in a couple of places.

To me this is the main thing that held back the character creation from becoming really great in the original beta as well. Most of your characterful stuff at CC is defined by one choice (background) which gives you like 6 options for starting character instead of spreading it all out and getting 6^3 options for characters at the start. To me this change would make a huge difference to starting characters and would make them much more interesting.

Thoughts?

Is it a consensus that character creation needs more skills and talents in it in general and preferably spread out between home world, background and role? I feel I've seen it said a few times in a couple of places.

To me this is the main thing that held back the character creation from becoming really great in the original beta as well. Most of your characterful stuff at CC is defined by one choice (background) which gives you like 6 options for starting character instead of spreading it all out and getting 6^3 options for characters at the start. To me this change would make a huge difference to starting characters and would make them much more interesting.

Thoughts?

Increase starting experience points. Problem solved.

I'd do it by giving a "pick what you did" sub background like regiment types in OW so a tank driver, a scout and a officer could start with a skill and a talent that fit.

I'm sure we can come up with something for the other backgrounds but IG was the easy one to use.

Absolutely agree with the original point about Fate Points, just give characters the same starting number. Especially given how many more things you can do with them now.

Also in agreement with the latest comment concerning aptitudes in general and Assassins specifically. Not giving them BS, WS or Offence is a bit daft.

Agree with this. Fate Points are great- why do some options come with so many more? I'm okay with variable fate points, but having it just be "Hive Worlders are screwed!" seems suboptimal.

I'd do it by giving a "pick what you did" sub background like regiment types in OW so a tank driver, a scout and a officer could start with a skill and a talent that fit.

I'm sure we can come up with something for the other backgrounds but IG was the easy one to use.

I think this is a good idea too! I liked Rogue Trader's thing where there were a lot of decisions to be made. "Leap Up or Paranoia? Power Sword or best-craftsmanship Mono Sword?"

Absolutely agree with the original point about Fate Points, just give characters the same starting number. Especially given how many more things you can do with them now.

Also in agreement with the latest comment concerning aptitudes in general and Assassins specifically. Not giving them BS, WS or Offence is a bit daft.

Agree with this. Fate Points are great- why do some options come with so many more? I'm okay with variable fate points, but having it just be "Hive Worlders are screwed!" seems suboptimal.

I'd do it by giving a "pick what you did" sub background like regiment types in OW so a tank driver, a scout and a officer could start with a skill and a talent that fit.

I'm sure we can come up with something for the other backgrounds but IG was the easy one to use.

I think this is a good idea too! I liked Rogue Trader's thing where there were a lot of decisions to be made. "Leap Up or Paranoia? Power Sword or best-craftsmanship Mono Sword?"

OK should we have a choice of special abilities for each homeworld, background and role? this could sort out the sanctioned trait by letting both AAT and Mystic pick it. If you want to make each character a costum job we could have each role have a few must have aptitudes and let players pick the rest from what their homeworld, background and role unlock (the assassin might work better like this).

I would throw in that if you have character creation be entirely about aptitudes and unique abilities, with talents and skills purchased at the end, you completely eliminate the issue with weird differences in starting xp values.

For me, it would make sense that a Shrine Worlder would have the capability to have more Fate Points than anyone else as they are most likely the most fanatically devout considering their excessive exposure to the Imperial Creed.

Especially having unique abilities for the homeworlds as in DH1 would really be prefered.

Getting talents is just boring.

Fate points should be a fixed value per homeworld.

I don't see the need for these categories at all. The Imperium is too vast a place to ever be covered by an amount of expansion books. The common response is houserules and minor tweaks to already existing backgrounds to create new ones for players who are dead-set on playing a character that doesn't quite fit in the creation chapter. However, this is completely unnecessary if FFG just blends all their "choices" during each step. This would be, essentially, Regiment Creation but for Characters.

1. Home World
   1. Choose 2 favored, 1 opposed
   2. Fate Threshold (1d5? whatever)
   3. Choose an Aptitude (maybe 2?)
   4. Wounds (for those who like that sort of thing)
   5. Bonus (pick from "Bonus Options" [a pool of skills/talents/traits available only during character creation, like Master of Paperwork or something])
2. Background
   1. Choose 5 Skills to start at Rank 1
   2. Choose a Weapon Training or Specialization (X) Talent
   3. Bonus (same as above)
   4. Choose an Aptitude
3. Role
   1. Choose 5 Aptitudes
   2. Choose 1 Talent (from the bonus pool, most likely)
   3. Bonus (same as above)

Obviously a "Bonus Pool" would need to be created and the amount of Skills/Aptitudes would need to be balanced but this system would enable anyone to be whatever they wanted. That said, I understand if FFG wants easy content in the form of Char Gen stuff for their expansion books.

Especially having unique abilities for the homeworlds as in DH1 would really be prefered.

Getting talents is just boring.

Fate points should be a fixed value per homeworld.

I'm thinking of trying roll fate at the beginning of each session.

They really really need to give options with benefits, and a penalty some where else, also I think they need to give each class a core set of aptitudes, 2-3, and then you get to pick which remaining aptitudes you begin with, and thus allow some real customization to each individual character.

They really really need to give options with benefits, and a penalty some where else, also I think they need to give each class a core set of aptitudes, 2-3, and then you get to pick which remaining aptitudes you begin with, and thus allow some real customization to each individual character.

The problem with this is that the Aptitudes are not equal. For example, Finesse and Fieldcraft are superior (almost must-have) Aptitudes while Leadership and Offense are quite "bleh"-ish (or at least very situational).

Fate points should be a fixed value per homeworld.

Fixed that. Fate points basically function as 'lives' in Dark Heresy. It's kinda unfair and unfun to give players varying amounts for no good reason.

They really really need to give options with benefits, and a penalty some where else, also I think they need to give each class a core set of aptitudes, 2-3, and then you get to pick which remaining aptitudes you begin with, and thus allow some real customization to each individual character.

The problem with this is that the Aptitudes are not equal. For example, Finesse and Fieldcraft are superior (almost must-have) Aptitudes while Leadership and Offense are quite "bleh"-ish (or at least very situational).

I fail to see the issue, most people will pick what fits the character they wish to build, removing choice because of min maxers is hardly fair now is it?

Making characters should be an involved process between players and the GM, and the GM should exercise his right to yay or nay as appropriate.

There should be some effort to make it so that balanced options are a thing, though. "The GM can fix it" isn't an excuse for poor game design.

There should be some effort to make it so that balanced options are a thing, though. "The GM can fix it" isn't an excuse for poor game design.

That is not what I said at all, i am saying offering people choices should never be refuted by "well people will always take tthe most powerful options." because one, it is not true, and two I expect a GM to be interested in a players character development, that is what a GM is there for.

So I want to play class X, I want to come from background Y, and my choice for aptitude Z is because growing up this happened, or my environment was (insert background here) this is where a GM says, sure I like the sound of that, go for it, or No that doesnt fit at all.

that is not a cart blanche do not make any guidelines FFG because a GM should do this.

This way you can have an adept, who says he used to get bullied so much when he was younger, he actively worked at getting in shape to be able to stand up for himself, great says the GM, I am fine with you taking STR, or Toughness aptitude for your adept.

Currently all adepts are weaklings, with no option to be any different from each other.