Personally I'm more than happy with the 20+ stating stats and lower XP starting value. There is nothing stopping a GM just giving players extra XP to start with to represent there higher skill level (I've done this very thing in DH1, starting people at anything from rank 2 to 5).

I don't think it needs to be codified into the game system, other than possibly a side bar to explain that GM might like to do it to give the game a different feel.

Excellent to hear that Evasion is being looked at too.

Personally I'm more than happy with the 20+ stating stats and lower XP starting value. There is nothing stopping a GM just giving players extra XP to start with to represent there higher skill level (I've done this very thing in DH1, starting people at anything from rank 2 to 5).

I don't think it needs to be codified into the game system, other than possibly a side bar to explain that GM might like to do it to give the game a different feel.

Excellent to hear that Evasion is being looked at too.

How about a sidebar that gives the option to 2 different starting power levels ?

A.) +25 + 500 XP: Inquisitor chose individuals which already do have some experience in their field of profession

B.) +20 + X XP: Inquisitor chose rather average Joes

So everyone could have his/hers - and all it would need would be a small sidebar, without annoying any of the 2 different player types.

I am also a fan of the changed assassins aptitudes - but the special ability that was suggested should really be something more general for all characters when using called shots (which very much need a buff) - and I think, DoS in single shots really should matter in same way in general (with auto / semi-auto they do matter too).

How about a sidebar that gives the option to 2 different starting power levels ?

A.) +25 + 500 XP: Inquisitor chose individuals which already do have some experience in their field of profession

B.) +20 + X XP: Inquisitor chose rather average Joes

So everyone could have his/hers - and all it would need would be a small sidebar, without annoying any of the 2 different player types.

I'm all for different levels of starting XP, as there is no difference between a lower level character that has worked up to that level and a higher level character that went straight there.

However, if you allow characters at the same XP to have different starting stats (which also means higher max level stats) I think it might complicate trying to balance the game if at the same XP level players could have 45 stat points worth of difference (not in the same game obviously (I hope)).

A lesser issue is comparison to other systems. Starting Rogue Trader characters already have an effective 4500xp rating to cover the extra 5 they get on all stats (plus the rogue trader character abilities). If this comparison was still required then DH2 characters would sometimes need the same depending on how they were stat'd up.

Therefore I think it'd be better if either 20 or 25 was picked and used all the time for consistency (and personally I'd go for 20. Then the GM could just give everyone enough xp to buy the first rank of each advance and start from their).

I like this idea, I'll throw a vote in for it as well.

To me, the acolytes of Dark Heresy do represent the average imperial citizens. They are chosen for convenience, a certain skill, or simply the right place at the right time.

The Inquisitor obviously does have his hand picked and his Throne Agent homies, but they are busy saving the sector. You are doing the grunt work.

Especially since the new Sector sounds like there will be very few Inquisitors, they must rely on large networks of acolyte cells, ordinary people are the best fit.

Just the power level I like playing at.

Maybe even 3 power levels, to represent average, chosen, and Throne agent.

How about a sidebar that gives the option to 2 different starting power levels ?

A.) +25 + 500 XP: Inquisitor chose individuals which already do have some experience in their field of profession

B.) +20 + X XP: Inquisitor chose rather average Joes

So everyone could have his/hers - and all it would need would be a small sidebar, without annoying any of the 2 different player types.

I'm all for different levels of starting XP, as there is no difference between a lower level character that has worked up to that level and a higher level character that went straight there.

However, if you allow characters at the same XP to have different starting stats (which also means higher max level stats) I think it might complicate trying to balance the game if at the same XP level players could have 45 stat points worth of difference (not in the same game obviously (I hope)).

A lesser issue is comparison to other systems. Starting Rogue Trader characters already have an effective 4500xp rating to cover the extra 5 they get on all stats (plus the rogue trader character abilities). If this comparison was still required then DH2 characters would sometimes need the same depending on how they were stat'd up.

Therefore I think it'd be better if either 20 or 25 was picked and used all the time for consistency (and personally I'd go for 20. Then the GM could just give everyone enough xp to buy the first rank of each advance and start from their).

I would be open for +20, IF (and only if) also the amount of possible characteristic increases would be adjusted to 5 times instead of 4 times - otherwise the development of characters would be limited too much (and they could never really become fully capable throne agents).

But that would also mean to adjust the costs of these increases, as otherwise the 5th increase would be unaffordable high.

I still think it would be best to offer player groups 2 options in the rules:

> start with +20 (low level game)

> start with +25 (more capable game)

The groups should agree on one of these options and play all with the same.

Thats a simple solution that would piss no one off and it would all fit into a sidebar or a small box of text.

Otherwise you will make one of the 2 groups of players grumpy.

At least I would be annoyed if I had to play again as an average Joe who is inferior to a rogue traders choice of guys.

The groups should agree on one of these options and play all with the same.

Thats a simple solution that would piss no one off and it would all fit into a sidebar or a small box of text.

Otherwise you will make one of the 2 groups of players grumpy.

At least I would be annoyed if I had to play again as an average Joe who is inferior to a rogue traders choice of guys.

That's the problem, cash strapped public services like the Inquisition just can't afford the best staff whereas the private sector rogue traders can just flash the thrones and get the top talent.

Ultimately, my concerns are more at a game balance/integration level, which is a headache for FFG rather than one for the players (more choice is always good for players).

I wouldnt change the games balance at all. If the inquisition hires noobz, its their own fault ;D they need to try their best to survive then. If you adjust the whole balance to +20 then you could also leave it as is - the only thing you'd achive would be more failed tests on both sides (PCs and NPCs), which makes everything taking a longer time without any benefit.

I wouldnt change the games balance at all. If the inquisition hires noobz, its their own fault ;D they need to try their best to survive then. If you adjust the whole balance to +20 then you could also leave it as is - the only thing you'd achive would be more failed tests on both sides (PCs and NPCs), which makes everything taking a longer time without any benefit.

It would for certain thing, like FFG's new threat rating system. If you have two characters in two games at the same XP with average starting rolls, but one has 45 points worth of stats extra, that's going to be a big deal (hitting 5% more often, taking 5% less hits and so on), which makes it harder to say what a fair level of opponent was unless you gave two ratings, one for each system.

Printed adventures would also have to be more careful about the printed XP levels they were targetting.

It's not like this is a big thing (stuff like threat ratings are always pretty rough anyway and depend a lot of the group make up), but I don't think it's fair to say there are no balance issues at all.

I'm definitely with the 25 base value crowd. The last time we actually played with 20 base stats was when testing Only War beta, and only because it seemed fitting for the kind of shmucks that get drafted into IG all the time. For DH, we've been rolling with 25 pretty much since Rogue Trader, with maybe one exception when whomever was currently GMing wanted to run a more low-key game.

I don't much mind it becoming either in the official release, since it literally takes five seconds to houserule, but I strongly consider the higher baseline superior for the kind of games I like to run and play in Dark Heresy.

I wouldnt change the games balance at all. If the inquisition hires noobz, its their own fault ;D they need to try their best to survive then. If you adjust the whole balance to +20 then you could also leave it as is - the only thing you'd achive would be more failed tests on both sides (PCs and NPCs), which makes everything taking a longer time without any benefit.

It would for certain thing, like FFG's new threat rating system. If you have two characters in two games at the same XP with average starting rolls, but one has 45 points worth of stats extra, that's going to be a big deal (hitting 5% more often, taking 5% less hits and so on), which makes it harder to say what a fair level of opponent was unless you gave two ratings, one for each system.

Printed adventures would also have to be more careful about the printed XP levels they were targetting.

It's not like this is a big thing (stuff like threat ratings are always pretty rough anyway and depend a lot of the group make up), but I don't think it's fair to say there are no balance issues at all.

By no way I'd change NPC stats for adjusting the threat level. I think whenever this was done, was a very bad idea.

An average arbitrator NPC always has the same stats - it doesnt matter if he fights against average Joe NPCs or experienced ones. Why should it ? He is the same guy in both scenarios.

If you want to adjust the threat level, then send in only 2 of such Arbites instread of 3 for example. Or give them smaller guns and equipment.

And as I said - if you want to play low-level, the threats should be higher. If the threats also adapt, what use is low-level-playing then ? Its the same game just scaled down equally for all. The only effect is, that tests take longer (icl. combat), as missing is more often.

How about a sidebar that gives the option to 2 3 different starting power levels ?

A.) +25 + 500 XP: Inquisitor chose individuals which already do have some experience in their field of profession

B.) +20 + X XP: Inquisitor chose rather average Joes

C.) +20 + 2000/3000 XP: Inquisitor chose individuals who actually know what they do and not just naturally gifted retards.

I wouldnt change the games balance at all. If the inquisition hires noobz, its their own fault ;D they need to try their best to survive then. If you adjust the whole balance to +20 then you could also leave it as is - the only thing you'd achive would be more failed tests on both sides (PCs and NPCs), which makes everything taking a longer time without any benefit.

It would for certain thing, like FFG's new threat rating system. If you have two characters in two games at the same XP with average starting rolls, but one has 45 points worth of stats extra, that's going to be a big deal (hitting 5% more often, taking 5% less hits and so on), which makes it harder to say what a fair level of opponent was unless you gave two ratings, one for each system.

Printed adventures would also have to be more careful about the printed XP levels they were targetting.

It's not like this is a big thing (stuff like threat ratings are always pretty rough anyway and depend a lot of the group make up), but I don't think it's fair to say there are no balance issues at all.

By no way I'd change NPC stats for adjusting the threat level. I think whenever this was done, was a very bad idea.

An average arbitrator NPC always has the same stats - it doesnt matter if he fights against average Joe NPCs or experienced ones. Why should it ? He is the same guy in both scenarios.

If you want to adjust the threat level, then send in only 2 of such Arbites instread of 3 for example. Or give them smaller guns and equipment.

And as I said - if you want to play low-level, the threats should be higher. If the threats also adapt, what use is low-level-playing then ? Its the same game just scaled down equally for all. The only effect is, that tests take longer (icl. combat), as missing is more often.

I'm not saying change the NPC stats. As you say, a basic arbite is a basic arbite (I really don't like it either when the stats change across the systems, like the Ork ones). What I'm saying is that the table on p275, Threat Threshold would need adjusted so that a new GM could easier see that 20+ starting stats means 2 arbites not 3.

Personally I like lower starting values simply because it make the Max values smaller (and stops people capping out too quickly at high levels) rather than it just being a 'hard mode' for the game.

Character Generation: Several testers have suggested lowering the overall starting characteristics and increasing the starting experience points. We’d like folks to try starting with 20 rather than 25 for generating characteristics, with the points allocation system using a base 25 (+ characteristics at 30, – ones at 20). Players can also increase their starting xp to 600. Try these out and let us know how it goes.

Two things, firstly I was glad to see +5/-5 absent from Only War. 2 +3s from HomeWorld and a +5 for role works better IMO. Secondly 1,000xp please, I'm part of the 20+2d10 crowd but I want a bit more than DH1 started with.

Character Generation: Several testers have suggested lowering the overall starting characteristics and increasing the starting experience points. We’d like folks to try starting with 20 rather than 25 for generating characteristics, with the points allocation system using a base 25 (+ characteristics at 30, – ones at 20). Players can also increase their starting xp to 600. Try these out and let us know how it goes.

Two things, firstly I was glad to see +5/-5 absent from Only War. 2 +3s from HomeWorld and a +5 for role works better IMO. Secondly 1,000xp please, I'm part of the 20+2d10 crowd but I want a bit more than DH1 started with.

I could see this working

I wouldnt change the games balance at all. If the inquisition hires noobz, its their own fault ;D they need to try their best to survive then. If you adjust the whole balance to +20 then you could also leave it as is - the only thing you'd achive would be more failed tests on both sides (PCs and NPCs), which makes everything taking a longer time without any benefit.

It would for certain thing, like FFG's new threat rating system. If you have two characters in two games at the same XP with average starting rolls, but one has 45 points worth of stats extra, that's going to be a big deal (hitting 5% more often, taking 5% less hits and so on), which makes it harder to say what a fair level of opponent was unless you gave two ratings, one for each system.

Printed adventures would also have to be more careful about the printed XP levels they were targetting.

It's not like this is a big thing (stuff like threat ratings are always pretty rough anyway and depend a lot of the group make up), but I don't think it's fair to say there are no balance issues at all.

By no way I'd change NPC stats for adjusting the threat level. I think whenever this was done, was a very bad idea.

An average arbitrator NPC always has the same stats - it doesnt matter if he fights against average Joe NPCs or experienced ones. Why should it ? He is the same guy in both scenarios.

If you want to adjust the threat level, then send in only 2 of such Arbites instread of 3 for example. Or give them smaller guns and equipment.

And as I said - if you want to play low-level, the threats should be higher. If the threats also adapt, what use is low-level-playing then ? Its the same game just scaled down equally for all. The only effect is, that tests take longer (icl. combat), as missing is more often.

I'm not saying change the NPC stats. As you say, a basic arbite is a basic arbite (I really don't like it either when the stats change across the systems, like the Ork ones). What I'm saying is that the table on p275, Threat Threshold would need adjusted so that a new GM could easier see that 20+ starting stats means 2 arbites not 3.

Personally I like lower starting values simply because it make the Max values smaller (and stops people capping out too quickly at high levels) rather than it just being a 'hard mode' for the game.

As I am one who does NOT the max values to be smaller, I would appreciate 2 different modes as described.

Threat-level adjustment only sounds like a good solution.

I for one prefer the 20 +2d10. If the goal is to make the game more gritty and deadly than this is good. Overall it's just a preference though. I certainly wouldn't mind two options as Guant said though, that would cover both bases. I personally like campaigns where the characters over the coarse of their lives are up against odds that they should not overcome. It should be a struggle and feel that the 40K Universe has a feeling of borderline imperial collapse with a cloud of hopelessness piled on top. It's literally a worst case scenario for humanity. Narratively speaking, many acolytes have probably asked, "What is the point of it all?" But mankind is resilient and stubborn. We fight on for the sake of survival and to snub those that would wipe us out. Characters should (in my opinion) feel the burden of what they do. They are ill equipped and expendable as far as the Imperium is concerned.