Random stats will never go away. It's there to satisfy the grognards. I think it would be great if FFG presented point buy as the default and random stats as an optional rule, though.

I posted my own thoughts about AAT and sanctioned psykers in the other thread.

I mentioned it in another thread just now, but I'd suggest you cut out sanctioning and the psyker trait from all chaarcter creation options and make it elite advance only. 300xp to be a sanctioned psyker and 200xp (maybe even 100?) to be non-sanctioned. Rework the mystic role and suddenly you've freed up equal choice for sanctioned and non, and opened up a lot more choice for sanctioned psykers.

Which is something I mentioned eariler in this tread as well Nimsim.

I had similar opinions! A "Survivor of the Black Ships" Elite Advance would enable pretty much any character to be a psyker. Useful.

Random stats will never go away. It's there to satisfy the grognards. I think it would be great if FFG presented point buy as the default and random stats as an optional rule, though.

I posted my own thoughts about AAT and sanctioned psykers in the other thread.

I dislike point buy. However, this is only due to personal experience, I've never really analytically thought about it. In all my group's games point buy was only ever used if someone really wanted to do one thing. Unfortunately, with point buy caps and the budget, they wound up mediocre at the one thing and terrible at everything else, which led to incompetent characters and players who weren't having fun. As a rule of thumb, I'm not fond of min/maxing outside of video games. That said, if the point buy system were changed somehow, not sure how myself, then I would be open to it being default.

I dislike point buy. However, this is only due to personal experience, I've never really analytically thought about it. In all my group's games point buy was only ever used if someone really wanted to do one thing. Unfortunately, with point buy caps and the budget, they wound up mediocre at the one thing and terrible at everything else, which led to incompetent characters and players who weren't having fun. As a rule of thumb, I'm not fond of min/maxing outside of video games. That said, if the point buy system were changed somehow, not sure how myself, then I would be open to it being default.

I feel I should clarify that I'd like to see point buy the default not for any real reason other than it would make the 3d6 2d10-straight-down-the-line grognards irrationally angry.

Ah, I see! A stab at the DnD old-guard. At any rate, there is something to be said for point buy though, isn't there? Most people have character concepts going into creation and it can be disappointing to roll lousy for the necessary stuff. Perhaps a pool of 5's or 4's to distribute followed by adding 1d5 to every characteristic? That way you could weight the things you wanted but still randomize it slightly?

I don't like rolling at all, but the way DH handles rolling is really ******* abysmal. Rolling each stat one by one gives you little to no control over the kind of character you end up with. It should really be a case of rolling an entire set of values, and allocating as you see fit.

If we go points buy I see no point in keeping d% as all stats will end up a multiple of 5 we may as well use a d20.

I think people would be happier with random characteristic generation if the rolling went something like this:

- Roll 2d10 ten times.

- Allocate each roll to a characteristic

- Add 25 to all characteristics, + characteristics get 30 instead, - characteristics get 20.

What do you think?

Much happier, for sure.

I think people would be happier with random characteristic generation if the rolling went something like this:

- Roll 2d10 ten times.

- Allocate each roll to a characteristic

- Add 25 to all characteristics, + characteristics get 30 instead, - characteristics get 20.

What do you think?

That's what I do with my own players, in fact. I let them roll one more time than the usual and discard the lowest result, also.

I think people would be happier with random characteristic generation if the rolling went something like this:

- Roll 2d10 ten times.

- Allocate each roll to a characteristic

- Add 25 to all characteristics, + characteristics get 30 instead, - characteristics get 20.

What do you think?

This is how my RT group makes characters (I think, it's been a while)

I'd like to remind everybody that this is a beta test. We're supposed to play this game rules as written and report how it actually plays in practice.

\/\/\/ That's one of the most creative misspellings of 'committee' I've ever seen.

Yes we could do what they want us to but clearly we would rather act as if we're the design comity.

It's like role playing without any GM or dice.

I'd like to remind everybody that this is a beta test. We're supposed to play this game rules as written and report how it actually plays in practice.

\/\/\/ That's one of the most creative misspellings of 'committee' I've ever seen.

To be fair, some people on this board have been playing pen and paper a long time, so they can peruse and come to a conclusion with minimal game-play before going back to their house-rules. They can come back here and report problems they've found and propose solutions (if they have them) without playing it extensively. Sure they're anecdotal evidence is limited to non-existent but sound theory regarding the rules is more important anyway.

Plus once it's been identified that there is a problem, the people playing by house-rules that fix the problem can offer playtested solutions.

I'd like to remind everybody that this is a beta test. We're supposed to play this game rules as written and report how it actually plays in practice.

\/\/\/ That's one of the most creative misspellings of 'committee' I've ever seen.

To be fair, some people on this board have been playing pen and paper a long time, so they can peruse and come to a conclusion with minimal game-play before going back to their house-rules. They can come back here and report problems they've found and propose solutions (if they have them) without playing it extensively. Sure they're anecdotal evidence is limited to non-existent but sound theory regarding the rules is more important anyway.

To be fair, though, some people who have been playing pen and paper a long time (and some who haven't) vastly overestimate their design skills and assume that they can come to a conclusion with minimal (or no) game-play. Which is why we have a beta test.