So, on another forum, I noticed someone talking about how they could get a Rogue Trader to 70+ Fellowship at Rank 1, and that it's trivial to get a Navigator making Navigation checks at over 140 by Rank 3

Could someone post some setups that amount to craaazy numbers? I'd like to see what exactly links together to get these kinds of results, so I can understand the limitations of the system a little better.

susanbrindle said:

Im an old fart when it comes to gaming. Been doing it for 25+ years now. So I promise you that this system is not broken one bit. No system ever is. A good GM armed with a team of players trying to tell a story and play real characters with backgrounds and motivations will always be able to balance a game in any system. But a munchkin will always be able to waste hours and hours crunching numbers trying to min max. Once they inveritabily find something to exploit someone usually starts crying about how this or that rule is broken. But usually it's not the system that's broken but rather the player and any GM that allows those silly ass shinanigans. 

Forget about how u or anyone can abuse numbers to make unrealistic characters without any semblance of realism or depth. And focus on playing the game as it was intended. Because that's what's will suck the group into the story and make it come alive. You dont ever need to see how bad a system can be broken because I promise each and every one can be shattered by munchkinesqe behavior or the desire to institute rules that fail to reflect the realities of the setting that are made with the false hope of preventing abuse of the rules by said munchkins. 

If you find a munchkin at your table that is more interested in abusing the system than telling an amazing story with a deep character that utilizes the rules to bring that PC to life… I advise you immediately ban that person before they handycap your game. 

I always demand a player starts defining a character without crunching any numbers at all. Only after the pc has been brought to life with the settings fluff is a player allowed to crunch the numbers to flesh out the characters stats. 

If a PC is made without me being around I go thrue it with a fine tooth comb checking to see that the stats support the PCs backstory rather than the backstory justifying stats. (cuz backstories dat er invented only to legitimize munchkinesque behaviors just ain't allowed)

DigitalRedneck this might come as a shock to you but.That's not what he asked. Personally at least, i don't give two thrones about your gaming bonafides or your opinions. Because frankly not only are they conceited as all heck, off topic as all heck, they completely overlook the fact that Rogue Trader does have some concerning power issue/overspecialization built right in. Whether or not they are a show stopper is a matter of opinionin. It's a matter of the way the advancement system is set up.

To answer the original question in both cases It's not so much a matter of having the straight stats that high from start but that with the situational/skill modifiers they might add up that high rather quickly.

Lets presume a Noble Born Rogue Trader Using the point buy system. If you are not using point by of course things get a lot more random and therefore more nuanced. Of course the problem with that is you have a situation where people's character concept or role might not be born out by their stats. A noble born Rogue Trader will presumably max out their points in fellowship (45), add 5 for being noble born, and can could pick up another +3 points from things like vaunted. There you have a RT right out of the box with a 53 fellowship. They will also get things like peer (nobility) and peer(Their Choice) giving them up to a 63 in those areas of speciality.At the end of the process by the book they have to take pride as their last link in the origin path, and presuming you are only using the base book, which i personally recommend against as it limits options a lot, or opening up the career options based on backstory. Pride will net them a talented trait which means if they select charm for it, which really why wouldn't they other then to make sure they conform to DigitalRedneck's ideals, They will be rolling against a 63 for charm tests for everyone and a 73 against their favored groups before spending a drop of even their character building experience.

For better or worse Rogue Trader by default tends to encourage and build really specialized characters, who are extremely good in their field in the early game and fairly worthless outside their area of speciality. Then you throw stuff like characteristic advance pricing in and things could get very silly very quickly. Alternatively you a school of thought where people build against type (that is say a rogue trader who wants to sink the experience at a premium into being a sniper) who then use their class discounts to still be more then passable in their chosen field.

Basically the game supports playing "big damn heroes" and rare paragons of your particular class in life at the expense of others. Whether this is a problem or not is up to you.

DigitalRedneck said:

I'm.. I'm not sure what your point is. Was there one? Because I don't see how this relates to the thread at all. Am I missing something? Because that's a mighty hefty rant to go on, like the homeless person going on about Vietnam when someone asked for the time.

That said, returning to the topic at hand; I'd love to see some of these builds too. Because while I can see how it would be fairly easy to reach 70+ on specific skills, against specific persons, on creation.. I have no idea how you'd reach 70 Fellowship on a Rogue Trader on creation without spending any experience. Maybe if you spend the starting 500xp on the really good picks in Into the Storm.

I heard about someone managing to push Commerce up to a flat 100 on creation with a Seneschal. Using Press-Ganged (Trials and Travails) to pick Commerce, Disgraced: The One to Redeem Them (Legacy) for 300xp, Seneschal (starts with Commerce) and Prestige (Motivation) for Talented (Commerce) and you get +30 to your Commerce checks right there. Still, even with a Fellowship of 50, that's only 70 Commerce. Get a Calculance Array (Scarce availability) for another +10. That'd be a flat Commerce of 80, which, while impressive, still isn't near 100.

Edit: Although it is entirely possible to spend a Fate Point for another +10, and, if you succeed, spend another Fate Point for another degree of success, effectively making it as if you had had 100 Commerce. Get your Rogue Trader (who also starts with Commerce) to Assist for another degree of success. 110 Commerce. Boom.

Edit 2: Seneschals add an extra degree of success on successful Commerce Skill Tests. So as long as you make that Commerce 90 check, the result will be as if you had a Commerce of 120. And this is without having bought a single Fellowship Characteristics Advance, which can potentially add another +20, but at a hefty price, and obviously not on creation.

Fgdsfg said:

A couple people have indicated that my first post did not address the OPs topic. The OP asked how to build in order to get craaazy numbers to learn the limitations of the system. I think I coverd the fact that the system was made to make interesting characters to explore the Warhammer universe. So any limitation of the system would be where the rules fail to support effective roleplaying. Just because a bunch of numbers are crunched and exploited is not going to actually demonstrait any failings of the system. Because the system was not designed to be maxed out and exploited. 

Your right. I should not have attacked how the poster chooses to play. I apologize for that. used to do it like crazy with D&D. But I do stand by my point that min max does not outline any weakness in a game system designed to reflect a setting and not designed for min maxing with implausible characters. 

Testing the boundaries is fun - and educational. It helps in learning the system quite a bit. Even without going completely overboard, detailed knowledge of the rules might just work out well enough to make that new character concept viable instead of bloody hell stupid, efficiency wise.

Concept > numbers, yes. But a routinely useless character isn't fun to play, and rather strange to be on an RT team. The knowledge you gather through thought exercises like this can help in making that useless concept become a useful concept, instead.

DigitalRedneck said:

Honestly I'm still quite lost on some of the conclusions you draw. Everytime you bring up implausable characters or number crunching I actually find myself wondering if you've ever actually played rogue trader for any length of time, as in sat down and played a re-occuring campaign. The simple fact is unless a character is actively not spending skills within their classes own advancement path they will very quickly be very very good at their primary skill set. They would have to actively try not to be. But that raises the question why should characters actively try not to be good at their supposed role. These characters will absolutely DESTROY book listed NPC's. They will take out battlecruisers with wolf pack raiders in ship to ship combat and a host of other assorted things covered in a myriad of thread on this very forum. I refuse to believe when there is a systemic occurance like that described by so many people and witnessed with my own eyes at my own table that all those people are playing the game wrong or trying to game the system. I tend to believe the system has some functional limitations. That it has a real feast or famine issue, your either exceptionally good at a skill or your so feeble at it that your honestly better off not even trying in many cases against a like experience opponnent. That is something people should be aware of because it seems to come up all the time.

lurkeroutthere said:

I don't get you question? If, as you say RT PCs are already bad ass to the hilt why would you need to min max your pc when as you say all you have to do is  just use any combo of your classes advancements to be a bad ass? Also. If your having overpowers pcs walking thru your NPCs how is maxing out a pcs stats going to make  the game run smother? Instead… Have the GM toughen the NPCs. 

You do describe real flaws in the system when u describe a pc not being any good at their supposed role. But you did not need to min max in order to find that limitation of the system did you? Also. The answer will lie in housruling a solution rather than crunching numbers until a pc does not suck. Same with the wolf pack raider scenario. Fix your cruisers or your raiders but don't expect to balance the game by tossing another broken build into the mix. 

And for the record. I never said the system was perfect. What I said was that min max will not expose any actual limitation because the game is not made to have maxed pcs.  As you pointed out you have to work at creating a weak pc.

DigitalRedneck said:

The thing is.. nobody has argued that the system is functionally broken. The idea of "Broken Builds" assumes that we are all talking about the same things - the system itself, not the adjustments GMs are encouraged to make to it. While a game is intended to be played by RAI, adjustments made by the GM to tell a communal story that makes sense to the individuals involved and is (on average) mutually satisfying, we can only factually discuss the objective ruleset; RAW.

The same goes for any roleplaying system, none which can cover all situations (except.. FATAL, maybe?). Take DnD 3.5Ed:s Pun-Pun as an example. Or the Peasant Railgun. No GM in their right mind would allow you to create these abominations, save for the most autistically stubborn "That Guy"-GMs. Does the mere existance of these things mean that the rulesets are "Broken"? No, of course not.

But it does mean that it can be "Broken" insofar we can abuse the Rules as Written before adjustment or interference. A RAW that we all need to agree on as a matter of social protocol, simply because we cannot discuss the inherently subjective nature of RAI in this context, nor what adjustments would be necessary to "unbreak" the system.

Nobody argued that the system was broken. What was asked for was broken builds. The basic assumption has to be that we are all following the same general ruleset - RAW - before countermeasures to prevent shenanigans are taken.

Hell, the entire topic is based around shenanigans!

Musing on about "Broken Builds" is a legitimate mental exercise and has nothing to do with what a GM chooses to do at the table, or group dynamics, or homebreweing (unless specifically called upon).

That said, the Rogue Trader system is actually surprisingly robust when it comes to "Brokenness"; If you choose to specialize - which is in many ways encouraged by the system - it means that you will be doing other things worse. It it entirely legitimate to make a character in a group that will end up with potentially-possible Commerce-90-Succeeds-as-120 stats.

I even have an old criminal Acquisitionist Penal-Worlder build that is all about Commerce and the Peers, with a backstory as well-written and fleshed out as any other, that could arguably be considered "broken". But then you see a group of Space-Accountants taking on a group of Space-Crabs and the Space-Soldier takes the lead; after half the group has bled for two rounds, he Meltabombs 5 of the enemies in a single round. Broken? Of course not, because he's about as charming as a brick toaster. Every point of experience spent in one field, or every choice made during creation, is another point that could've been spent elsewhere, and a choice not taken.

So can we please get back to the topic at hand?

Wildy "overpowered" builds of varying shape or form, please.

Fgdsfg said:

Fgdsfg said: