Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I know I should probably find another place for this, but Dakka always has some pretty damn good ideas.

Our next Rogue Trader game will be firing up soon and a few of us, including myself will be designing some background to see whose got the best setup to be the Rogue Trader. I've got some ideas, but then I get to thinking I'd like to forgo the Captain's seat and make a character that will breath life into the game a bit.

I haven't played Dark Heresy but I do have access to the books and I was wondering how viable it is to pull a character class from that over, maybe even find an excuse to run an Inquisitor somehow? I'm always (and enjoy!) playing the tank, my last RT character was a beast Arch-Militant with a stupid amount of wounds and a power poleaxe, it was great. But I am looking to break away a bit and make something different.

You guys get what I'm shooting for, just an interesting idea I can throw in for a character for Rogue Trader, anyone got any previous ideas to give me some inspiration? Any suggestions?

A starting DH character is several steps behind a starting RT character, in terms of skills, stats, and available equipment. Unless the GM is going to let you start as a rank 12 character or so, you won't have access to the Inquisitor class starting out. If you're looking to go tank, the Guardsmen basic class Ascended into Stormtrooper is probably your best bet. These guys are combat monsters.

Yeah, starting at rank 12 might be a bit extreme, but I like your idea with the Stormtrooper.

I'll maybe have to look up what initial class an Inquisitor start's out with if I wanted to go that route..

Unfortunately, the various games aren't really meant to be compatible with each other. You can pull stuff over from other books as they all use the same d100 basic mechanics, but you probably have to houserule a bit in many cases.
Didn't Rogue Trader use a different mechanic for psychic powers, for example? Also, I believe that DH characters have way more skills, whereas RT characters have stronger characteristics and "aura" bonuses.

Since you'll need to houserule a lot anyways you could easily play a different class from DH and just call it an Inquisitor. Like, how abour a Rank 5 Arbitrator with some Inquisition gear? Should work well enough, but do go over the details and check if it all carries over nicely.

Lynata wrote:Unfortunately, the various games aren't really meant to be compatible with each other. You can pull stuff over from other books as they all use the same d100 basic mechanics, but you probably have to houserule a bit in many cases.
Didn't Rogue Trader use a different mechanic for psychic powers, for example? Also, I believe that DH characters have way more skills, whereas RT characters have stronger characteristics and "aura" bonuses.

Since you'll need to houserule a lot anyways you could easily play a different class from DH and just call it an Inquisitor. Like, how abour a Rank 5 Arbitrator with some Inquisition gear? Should work well enough, but do go over the details and check if it all carries over nicely.

If you're comparing DH's psychic rule set to RT's, I couldn't tell you because I just haven't played DH at all. But from remembering some of the things I looked over this morning before work you seem to be quite right, Lynata. A lot more skills, I notice instead of general weapon skills, they have way more specific like "Weapon Training (Las)" where RT has just a form of basic weapon training that covers a wide variety of things. And like I said in my initial posts...Dakka always has great ideas and the one you mentioned about subbing in the Arbitrator seems fairly solid as long as I get everything straight.

Definitely getting ideas brewing now, you guys rock.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also,

Could anyone confirm the rumor I've been hearing about DH and RT? That Rank 1 RT characters are equal to DH characters with 5000xp?

I'm working on homemade rules for Eldar Corsair characters. It's always seemed to me that playing as an Eldar would make more sense than being an Ork- actually possible with one rules supplement- but I don't know if that's what you're looking for. And this class would definitely not be a tank.

Could anyone confirm the rumor I've been hearing about DH and RT? That Rank 1 RT characters are equal to DH characters with 5000xp?

That sounds about right. There's even a note in the beginning of RT about bringing DH characters into the RT setting.

I'll maybe have to look up what initial class an Inquisitor start's out with if I wanted to go that route..

Inquisitor is a class out of Ascension, and as such they have no set starting class. However, certain classes cannot become Inquisitors, because they are already bound to another faction within the Imperium. These classes include Tech-Priests and Sisters of Battle. You can, though, have a DH character start out as, say, an Assassin, and then Ascend into a Death Cult Assassin (or Vindicare), and then later purchase the Interrogator class (GM permitting) and then be promoted to Inquisitor (again, GM permitting).

As for Xenos characters... um... there is a book, I want to say Mark of the Xeno, that includes lots of various Eldar, Tau and other Xenos that can give you a good baseline for an Eldar character. As a suggestion, I would posit that all Eldar characters have 2d10+40 base AGI, 2d10+20 STR, 2d10+20 TGH and 2d10+30 INT, and begin play with the Unnatural Agility (2) trait.

And we are off to the RPG forum!

WHOOOOOSH!

Psienesis wrote:That sounds about right. There's even a note in the beginning of RT about bringing DH characters into the RT setting.

There's also a note about bringing DH characters into DW, yet it doesn't work.

I'd recommend checking everything yourself before first playing the character. For some classes, it might work out - for others, you may need "further adaptations". The good thing is that DH and RT are much closer together than, say, DW, so the amount of houseruling - if any is actually needed - should remain low.

Psienesis wrote:However, certain classes cannot become Inquisitors, because they are already bound to another faction within the Imperium. These classes include Tech-Priests and Sisters of Battle.

I think that was an "oversight" originating in the writers apparently forgetting that there was that additional class in the Inquisitor's Handbook, which had still been produced by Black Industries and not FFG. I think the entire Ascension book contains nothing for Sisters - but they did release a PDF for Ascended Sororitas later on, which also "fixes" the Ascension career options (sort of).

A psyker might work out, but that's because psykers in DH and RT get ludicrously powerful really fast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, IIRC Ascension states that Sisters of Battle CAN become inquisitors.

Techpriests however cannot.

Lynata wrote:Unfortunately, the various games aren't really meant to be compatible with each other.

Yes they are...

H.B.M.C. wrote:Yes they are...

If stats and rules would be consistent between the games, I might believe that. Looking at the various RPGs, however, it seems clear to me that the designers involved have attempted to tailor the game towards a very specific focus or "playstyle", and since this focus carries over into the mechanics, conformity is ultimately lowered.

This is why I always thought a general "40k RPG Core Rulebook" would have been cool. This way, updates like OW's "all lasguns now get variable power settings!" (just the most recent change that comes to mind) would carry over into DH, as would the various games' unique mechanics like horde rules, squad mode, minions and comrades.

You can port stuff over from one to another, but with the amount of houseruling involved to make it work I do not deem them "compatible" just because it says so in the book. I'm sorry, but we'll just have to disagree on that matter.

The really bad thing, however, is that stat uniformity does exist in places where it actually hinders the game. Why, out of all things that could have been done, did Marine weapons have to retain their numbers from DW for DH and BC, for example, even overriding the much more leveled stats that already existed from the Purge the Unclean adventure? I understand that the Daemon Hunter book was probably meant to sell to both DH and DW players, yet primarily it was clearly a Dark Heresy product. For introducing Grey Knights into DW, all that was needed would have been a separate box with the appropriate numbers. After all, it's no secret that weapons and NPCs differ depending on which system you look at. Autoguns not having auto-fire in DW comes to mind.

Wait what?

Not all lasguns have variable settings...Just the M36 and Triplex lasguns, two very specific models of lasgun.

Even then, the M36 and Triplex lasguns have different settings.

These two are the only "basic" lasguns that exist in OW's ruleset*, and the book presents the M36 as the standard model. As such, any lasgun from the other games that doesn't have a fancy special name is rather likely to represent the M36. Considering they even had the exact same rules before the M36 was errata'ed due to popular demand by the players, it would be denial to assume there was no connection at all.

Not that this would be the only example for differing weapons between the systems, anyways. Autoguns without autofire just sounds wrong, though I realize it was probably done because someone considered this weapon to be too dangerous for Marine characters when used in conjunction with DW's unique horde rules. Just strengthens my point, tho.

*: I suppose one could argue that the Bullpup Lasgun counts as an ordinary lasgun, too. In this case, it should probably get the variable settings as well. I know there's already a number of players campaigning for it, so let's see how the next update will look like.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Lynata wrote:Unfortunately, the various games aren't really meant to be compatible with each other.

Yes they are...

Unfortunately because of the rule differences and inconsistencies, I don't play with any GM's willing to port anything over aside from gear. I am sure some exist, but I don't play with em. =)

Poison wrote:Unfortunately because of the rule differences and inconsistencies, I don't play with any GM's willing to port anything over aside from gear. I am sure some exist, but I don't play with em. =)

Are you talking from personal experience or in reaction to my rant? Because regardless of my own opinion, I would want people to try and see for themselves. I'm just saying "be careful and check twice what you're doing".

One of the good things about FFG's 40k rulesets is that houseruling can, in most cases, be done without much trouble or difficulty, since they all still use the same basic underlying d100 concept - and I would say that some games (depending on party composition and what the players' own ideas/wishes are) might truly benefit from adapting a thing or two from the other books!

That's personal experience, Lynata.

I dunno what I'd do if I were running a game. Probably create a homebrew using OW's aptitude system to run an Eldar game. Since God knows I've had it with the Imperium of Man =P

Lynata wrote:These two are the only "basic" lasguns that exist in OW's ruleset*, and the book presents the M36 as the standard model.

Standard Guard model sure, but there's plenty of patterns of construction.

Is the Eldar Ranger Sniper Las anywhere?

Melissia wrote:Standard Guard model sure, but there's plenty of patterns of construction.

Which are then represented by a special name in their specific entry. The Inquisitor's Handbook introduced a number of "variant patterns" to the game, after all.

Poison wrote:I dunno what I'd do if I were running a game. Probably create a homebrew using OW's aptitude system to run an Eldar game. Since God knows I've had it with the Imperium of Man =P

That shouldn't be hard, actually. I've been working a little on an adaption of OW's rules for a squad of Battle Sisters myself. Thanks to the open-ended progression system, it is fairly easy to whip up new "classes" and stuff. Although I would probably recommend removing some talents and skills, and replacing them with new ones ... just to keep things Eldar'ish. I'm not too steeped in Eldar lore, but stuff like "Berserk Charge" and "Luminen Shock" doesn't sound like it would carry over very well.

Poison wrote:Is the Eldar Ranger Sniper Las anywhere?

The Dark Heresy supplement "Creatures Anathema" has it, I believe.
That book contains a bunch of stuff about Eldar in general, though you shouldn't expect too much - the supplement intents to present a broad overview of potential challenges for a group operating in FFG's homemade setting, the Calixis sector, and as such the popular xenos have to share space with various vermin and animals. Strangely, some Chaos demons were included in this book as well (would've probably been better for Daemon Hammer). Still, some cool things inside.

Oh, not to worry, I'm not actually planning to run it, just musing out loud.

Lynata wrote:You can port stuff over from one to another, but with the amount of houseruling involved to make it work I do not deem them "compatible" just because it says so in the book. I'm sorry, but we'll just have to disagree on that matter.

I think you're exaggerating the differences considerably, but that is all I will say on the matter.

*shrug*

I am currently in a game where I am playing an Only War based character in a party that is otherwise balanced between Rogue Trader and Dark Heresy characters.

It works out fairly well with just a little bit of planning.

Poison wrote:Unfortunately because of the rule differences and inconsistencies, I don't play with any GM's willing to port anything over aside from gear. I am sure some exist, but I don't play with em. =)

That’s a shame, because most of the adversary profiles should port across without any real issues (the odd Talent or Skill here and there). The only thing I will say doesn’t work between games is the DH psychic system vs the RT/DW/BC/OW psychic system. That system is utterly alien to the other four games, so moving psykers back and forth between DH and the other four games isn’t that easy.

Also, DH psykers, especially with ascension, are hilariously overpowered.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Poison wrote:Unfortunately because of the rule differences and inconsistencies, I don't play with any GM's willing to port anything over aside from gear. I am sure some exist, but I don't play with em. =)

That’s a shame, because most of the adversary profiles should port across without any real issues (the odd Talent or Skill here and there). The only thing I will say doesn’t work between games is the DH psychic system vs the RT/DW/BC/OW psychic system. That system is utterly alien to the other four games, so moving psykers back and forth between DH and the other four games isn’t that easy.

My bad. I should have said gear and adversary profiles. You are right, those port well. One GM is willing to do talents from wherever via elite advance too.

Melissia wrote:Also, DH psykers, especially with ascension, are hilariously overpowered.

The main problem there, IMO, are the Thresholds. Add 10-15 to every Ascension-level power Threshold and suddenly things look a little better (not including the Unnaturals the Primaris Psyker can get!). Increasing the Thresholds on a few standard level powers wouldn’t hurt either.

I’m more used to the RT/DW/BC/OW psychic system, but I do like the DH one. It’s got a real risk vs reward feeling that we’ve all enjoyed using. Do you roll all those d10’s? Or just some and hope for the best.

Depends, I mean, my character passed most Fettered tests without bothering to roll any dice, the dice just determined howm uch overbleed.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I’m more used to the RT/DW/BC/OW psychic system, but I do like the DH one. It’s got a real risk vs reward feeling that we’ve all enjoyed using. Do you roll all those d10’s? Or just some and hope for the best.

I actually miss that even as a non-psyker, it just felt like "risk vs reward" is part of the whole deal. I blame the grimdark fluff.
Plus it made for a few hilarious situations in our group, especially since not every character in our cell was told that one of them was a psyker...

On a related note: Just checked out the new OW update. Long las with variable settings! I kinda expected it to be applied to the Bullpup and the Carbine since they're just variants, but the Long las and Laspistol are a bit of a surprise now.
Damn, makes me miss my Weapon Specialist Marksman even more...

I like the OW changes. I've yet to submit mine. Some of mine are redundant after the changes in Update 7, so I'll need to amend them.

And yeah, the psyker thing was fun. As I was the GM in all our DH games, I'd have a grin of absolute glee on my face whenever our resident psyker (Lord Baron Castus the 18th) rolled a 9. So much fun stuff on that table (for me - not for them! ).