This is a pet-peve of mine and some folks will probably disagree… but one the things I hated most about Dark Heresy was that the PC careers could not duplicate the NPC profiles in the back of the book… a starting PC Scum could not have the same skills and talents as a NPC Dreg, the lowest of the Imperial low. Sadly, Only War seems to follow in this tradition.

I looked at the Guardsman, Ogryn, Ratling, Storm Trooper and Commissar profiles in the Adversaries and NPCs chapter and compared them to the equivilent Specialities in Character Creation (treating Guardsman as Weapon Specialist). I disregarded Regiment modifiers, since those are highly variable, and I know that will throw off my  totals somewhat. Nevertheless, the results did not please me.

The Guardsman has roughly the same Characteristics as a starting character but appears to have spent 2800 experience points on skills and talents (including 800 exp(!) for Nerves of Steel).

The Orgyn has +18 more Characteristic points than a starting character (and has an outragously high - for an Ogryn - Intelligence of 22). Disregarding the exp spent for those, he has spent 1200 experience points on skills and talents.

The Ratling has 18 fewer Characteristics points than a starting character, and has spent 2800 experience points on his skills and talents.

The Storm Trooper has roughly the same Charactersitics as a starting character but has spent 5900 experience points on skills and talents.

The Commissar has 55 more Characterisitics points than a starting character and has spent 10,300 (!) experience points on skills and talents. He also has the Talent "Cold Hearted" which does not appear to be listed in my book.

From this alone, I think the entire Adversaries and NPCs chapter needs to entirely reconsidered. IMO, your millage may vary.

I think the cause for that is, that the NPC Profiles are definitly not made with the rules for PCs in mind or follow the creation rules of them. I never put much thought in this circumstance, but I just wanted to say that Cold Hearted is a proof reading error. It is the Black Crusade equivilant of Chem Geld, so you should mentioned it in the proof reading section.

I don't think that's really a problem.
An NPC Comissar is not the same thing as a PC Comissar and the same goes for all the other NPCs there.

If it really bothers you all that much you could write up correct profiles or try to post the errors in the profiles in the Proofreading Subforum though I doubt that this would be a priority of FFG.

Musclewizard said:

Why not? Why shouldn't a PC be able to create a character as good or better than the standard one included in the NPC section. After all, the PCs are the heroes of the game. OK, maybe the NPC Commissar represents a more experienced Lord Commissar backing up the unit Captain, but if so, it should say that and maybe give me stats for the guy backing up my Lieutenant. At the very least, my Weapon Specialist should be as good or better than the other generic grunts on the line.

As for writing up my own stats, yeah I could… but if I have to WTF is the point of this chapter?

Apart from Cold-Hearted, could you please rephrase the problem? Yes, starting characters are really starting characters and others in the middle of their careers will have higher stats. So what? The guardsman profile isn't called "rookie guardsman".

I think you should take the opposite direction here: If you don't want rookies that survive their first missions mostly by luck and quick thinking, but veterans, buff up the PCs and hand them a couple thousand XP to round out their profiles. Otherwise… the NPC profiles are meant for use in the whole campaign - it's the PCs that grow and will eventually surpass them.

LuciusT said:

The point of the Chapter is to provide the GM with Profiles for typical allies and aversaries, what else?

Cifer said:

So, when I see a profile labeled Guardsman, I expect to see an average Guardsman. When I create a character who is a Guardsman, I expect to create an average Guardsman.

The notion that starting characters are green rookies is fine, though I don't believe it's explicately stated and that it goes against all the arguments that Support Specialists have been with their Regiment long enough to have assimilated their Homeworld traits.  The notion that the Guardsman profile is a more experienced character would be fine, except that it's 2800 exp. That's 7 sessions or about 2 months of play if you're group meets weekly. After two months of games, I expect my PCs to be a little better than the generic NPCs who surround them, not finally catching up.

Ultimately, the problem is that my PCs are the heroes of the game… not the mooks. The generic NPCs are the mooks. I expect them to be creating heroes. Sure, I could start them with 3000 exp instead of 600, so that they can make average Guardsmen… maybe 5000 so they can make heroes… but frankly, if that's what I'd need to do, why does the game start them at 600? Alternatively, the good folks at FFG could bring skills and talents of the Guardsman NPC template back to something a little more in line with a starting Guardsman. Could I do that? Sure… but if I'm writing my own game, why am I paying FFG another $40 or $50 for theirs? The art isn't that good.

Musclewizard said:

If typical allies are that much more powerful than my PCs, in what way are my PCs the heroes of the game?

LuciusT said:

You are aware that you don't have to be powerful to be a hero?
I'm not really sure how else I should reply to this but where's the story if the PCs are the most powerful beings right from the get go?

I mean sure there's a story in there but in general most stories have a main character (or more than one) and they are faced with situations that are larger than them (i.e. they are not strong, smart, loving, successfull, whatever enough to overcome them from the get go).

@LuciusT

The generic NPCs are the mooks. I expect them to be creating heroes. Sure, I could start them with 3000 exp instead of 600, so that they can make average Guardsmen… maybe 5000 so they can make heroes… but frankly, if that's what I'd need to do, why does the game start them at 600?

Because you don't need to. It's an option. This is still Warhammer we're talking about. Grim, gritty and all that stuff. And more to the point, this game is Only War. It's not Rogue Trader where you play the captain of a flying cathedral on his way to even more ludicrous riches. It's not Black Crusade where you're trying to overthrow a few worlds and become a Daemon Prince. And it's not Deathwatch where your gene-engineered superman is usually all that stands between a planet and some vile xeno threat.

This is Only War. You're one of the uncounted billions of guardsmen that are expected to die for the Emperor. Any tales of heroism to be told here start not with "How these supermen with their incredible gear and super-duper skills saved the day" but "How these completely ordinary men and women managed to do something extra-ordinary by being the right people at the right place in the right time".

And if you want to go for heroes in the greek sense of the word, just slap on a few thousand XP. Problem solved.

Cifer said:

 I've never had a problem with NPCs (especially enemies) being individually more powerful than PC counterparts. If you look at almost any RPG gaming system, GM-controller characters are usually more powerful than the PCs on a 1-to-1 basis. In traditional fantasy campaigns, "bosses" are usually almost as powerful as the entire PC group combined-- and that's exactly the point. The big advantage that PCs have is that they're working in a group, and in combat and many other situations the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. 

You'll notice especially that the Ogryn, Stormtrooper, and Commissar are listed as "Elite" versions, which is the 40kRPG version of bosses (or at least subbosses). Despite having better stats, they don't have things like Fate Points, they don't have the chance to advance in skills or gain new talents, etc.

In my experience as a GM, even if each of my enemy NPCs are individually more powerful than the PCs (and even when they outnumber them) the PCs in my group almost always win, regardless. If these NPCs were statted identically to PCs, it would be even more of a push-over. 

This isn't to say your view isn't legitimate, because the big thing with traditional RPGs is that unlike electronic ones, they can vary a lot from group to group. All I can say is that in my experience both as a player and GM this stat difference has always been positive, and I've never been bothered by it. And as the explanation on pg. 244 notes, they're merely suggestions anyway, so if you need to modify them or completely make your own, you're free to do so :-). 

…………………………………..deleted……………………………………………

LuciusT said:

Here's the thing: they're not heroes, they're protagonists. By design, their importance is in the fact that the limelight is pointed at them, not in their unique skills or high virtues.

Unless the PCs choose to be heroes. Which doesn't really require any skills, just the right attitude.

Morangias said:

I agree to disagree.

You are both right in a sense. A campaign can be many things, a ragtag band of heroes or a ragtag band ordinary joes with guns.