What's the point?

[SkyeFyre]

Why does the evil KS taunt us with wonderful HTH bonuses stuck up at levels 10+ when the system is designed so that most characters will never even see level 7-8. The highest level character I have ever had in my game was level 13... but that's a rarity... and me being generous.

Does anyone have some sort of reasoning why some of the best bonuses are deliberately placed out of reach? Have you ever had a character hit 15 or even beyond? (I have rules for levels beyond 15, not that I've ever had the chance to use them) Or am I just a whiny forum writer?

[Glistam]

It's a reward for dedication, for if you do ever get a character up there. Also, it's good to know for NPC's.

[Mack]

Why does the evil KS taunt us with wonderful HTH bonuses stuck up at levels 10+ when the system is designed so that most characters will never even see level 7-8. The highest level character I have ever had in my game was level 13... but that's a rarity... and me being generous.

Does anyone have some sort of reasoning why some of the best bonuses are deliberately placed out of reach? Have you ever had a character hit 15 or even beyond? (I have rules for levels beyond 15, not that I've ever had the chance to use them) Or am I just a whiny forum writer?

The reason they are "wonderful" bonuses is that they are rare. If everyone character got them, then they would be "mundane" and not "wonderful."

[SkyeFyre]

Yes, but if nobody gets them... they're not unique... they're non-existant.

Like... I understand why, but I think they should at least be a little bit more obtainable than... one in a million characters.

[taalismn]

Yes, but if nobody gets them... they're not unique... they're non-existant.

Like... I understand why, but I think they should at least be a little bit more obtainable than... one in a million characters.

Yes, but that one in a million character could be YOURS...if you're smart, lucky, and exercise both good judgement and better aim.

Failing that...well, maybe you'll have better luck in your next incarnation!

[Lenwen]

Why does the evil KS taunt us with wonderful HTH bonuses stuck up at levels 10+ when the system is designed so that most characters will never even see level 7-8. The highest level character I have ever had in my game was level 13... but that's a rarity... and me being generous.

Does anyone have some sort of reasoning why some of the best bonuses are deliberately placed out of reach? Have you ever had a character hit 15 or even beyond? (I have rules for levels beyond 15, not that I've ever had the chance to use them) Or am I just a whiny forum writer?

The reason they are "wonderful" bonuses is that they are rare. If everyone character got them, then they would be "mundane" and not "wonderful."

The PC's are the "rare" .. And by default they are not supposed to be categorized as being "everyone" by their very definition they are the heroes of the system .. how would it be mundane for them to receive said bonus's at an earlier stage of character development ?

I'm sorry mack I do not agree with your post.

[Rallan]

Why does the evil KS taunt us with wonderful HTH bonuses stuck up at levels 10+ when the system is designed so that most characters will never even see level 7-8. The highest level character I have ever had in my game was level 13... but that's a rarity... and me being generous.

Does anyone have some sort of reasoning why some of the best bonuses are deliberately placed out of reach? Have you ever had a character hit 15 or even beyond? (I have rules for levels beyond 15, not that I've ever had the chance to use them) Or am I just a whiny forum writer?

The reason they are "wonderful" bonuses is that they are rare. If everyone character got them, then they would be "mundane" and not "wonderful."

I don't buy it, on the grounds that Palladium's experience system just doesn't work very well. Experience point requirements keep getting bigger and bigger until they hit a plateau (almost as if they'd copied the whole concept of Experience from some other game... I think it had something to do with going into dungeons and fighting dragons or something). But experience points awards are flat and there's no such thing as scaling XP to meet your level, because it's a flat "X points for a minor threat, Y points for a bigger threat, Z points for a biggest threat" that never changes no matter how objectively powerful the critters are. Which means that every level takes twice as long to reach as the previous one, and experience point progression turns into a Zeno's Paradox race where top-level characters are things that only exist as NPCs, and even 10th or 11th level characters are things you only see in marathon campaigns that have been going forever.

[Rallan]

Yes, but if nobody gets them... they're not unique... they're non-existant.

Like... I understand why, but I think they should at least be a little bit more obtainable than... one in a million characters.

Yes, but that one in a million character could be YOURS...if you're smart, lucky, and exercise both good judgement and better aim.

Failing that...well, maybe you'll have better luck in your next incarnation!

Except that those things won't help you, because the only way to turn a starting character into that one in a million character is to be way more obsessive than most fans and get in a campaign that never ends.

[Mack]

Why does the evil KS taunt us with wonderful HTH bonuses stuck up at levels 10+ when the system is designed so that most characters will never even see level 7-8. The highest level character I have ever had in my game was level 13... but that's a rarity... and me being generous.

Does anyone have some sort of reasoning why some of the best bonuses are deliberately placed out of reach? Have you ever had a character hit 15 or even beyond? (I have rules for levels beyond 15, not that I've ever had the chance to use them) Or am I just a whiny forum writer?

The reason they are "wonderful" bonuses is that they are rare. If everyone character got them, then they would be "mundane" and not "wonderful."

The PC's are the "rare" .. And by default they are not supposed to be categorized as being "everyone" by their very definition they are the heroes of the system .. how would it be mundane for them to receive said bonus's at an earlier stage of character development ?

If that was true, then the OCC's (and experience tables) for PC's would be different than those of NPC's. They're not different. PC's and NPC's use the same data. Therefore a PC Rogue Scholar is not inherently different than an NPC Rogue Scholar.

Are the PC's the "epic heroes" of the GM's campaign? Of course they are. But that doesn't mean they should get extra bonuses that their contemporaries would not.

--break--

I tend to agree with Rallan's point on actually earning your way to the upper levels. It's not practical, but it's not really intended to be either. Personally, I see nothing wrong with creating a character at level 6 (or level 10, or whatever) provided the GM and all the other players are cool with it.

Being in a campaign is like starring in a movie. Now imagine if you had to suffer through watching Maximus' (Russell Crowe in Gladiator) whole life prior to the start of the film. That would suck. Sometimes that journey is an important part of the story (aka Luke in Star Wars) and sometimes it's just needless background.

[jaymz]

Being in a campaign is like starring in a movie. Now imagine if you had to suffer through watching Maximus' (Russell Crowe in Gladiator) whole life prior to the start of the film. That would suck. Sometimes that journey is an important part of the story (aka Luke in Star Wars) and sometimes it's just needless background.

Couldn;t agree more on that last section Mack. I never understaood why the vast majority of GMs insist on starting campaigns at 1st level....

[DhAkael]

Couldn;t agree more on that last section Mack. I never understaood why the vast majority of GMs insist on starting campaigns at 1st level....

Guilty as charged
Reason being, I have TRIED allowing higher level PC's into my game(s) but...most of the players in question are not willing to give me a reason (I.E.; thumbnail sketch / PC background) of why the character is even in location X, or HOW they got that wonderful Kung-fooey.
Thus, I start at ALL PC's at level one unless the player(s) are able to pull off the "experienced veteran" schtick. *shrug*

Many has been the time I've had a player whine and winge at me for starting at begining, only to have said higher level PC go:
"Hey I got like a +15 to strike and +20 to dodge yo! Check this out, I am a badd [censored for public good]r and no one can tell me [censored] I don't wanna hear! Let's go take on Prossek and the whole CS. Or better, let's go kill Splyncryth, he's only 10,000 MDC!"

-ahem- Mind you, these were relatively new gamers BUT... I've even had expereinced ones go overboard on the whole stats-ego thang.

No.

Only if I KNOW I can trust the player will I let one start at higher levels. Otherwise...here's your diploma, your first suit of MDC armour and Wilks Las-pistol. NEXT!

[Kalidor]

It's a very good point. I like starting at level 1 because the experiences of the adventures the character goes through shapes who they are at level 6.

If I were making a level 6 character I might say "Pfff, my guy hates water so he never learned to swim." Which is well and good.. but of a dramatic ship battle took place at level 3 and the character almost died and picked swimming at level 4 as a result... then that is truly 'experience' that was earned. Almost drowning had an impact and made the choice for swimming clear. That's good character building, I think.

True, the same thing could happen at level 6, so I guess it just depends on how you look at it. I just think your skills and abilities develop a better synergy by starting at level 1 than they do if you 'build' a character essentially from a template to be level 5 or 10 or what have you. Sometimes you might get an over powered character because you gloss over certain requisite abilities and lump them all together.. and sometimes you gimp yourself because you don't realize that having certain abilities is pointless at that level. With a character that goes up in levels, there's more weight in your decisions each time you pick a new skill or ability.

[Killer Cyborg]

Being in a campaign is like starring in a movie. Now imagine if you had to suffer through watching Maximus' (Russell Crowe in Gladiator) whole life prior to the start of the film. That would suck. Sometimes that journey is an important part of the story (aka Luke in Star Wars) and sometimes it's just needless background.

Couldn;t agree more on that last section Mack. I never understaood why the vast majority of GMs insist on starting campaigns at 1st level....

Because most players are low-level players.
By the time a character is high level, he/she is experienced.
Say we're talking about a CS Grunt. By 10th level, he's one of the best soldiers in his army. He's seen countless campaigns and battles, and he's lived through them all.
The player, on the other hand, is some guy fresh out of high school, who has never served in the military.

That character is going to know more than the player.

The player, being nowhere near as experienced as the character will make foolish, rookie mistakes that his character would never make.
So you end up with a story where an elite badass soldier of the first order gets killed because of a rookie mistake.
Or a story where the player doesn't have as much freedom, because the GM is always saying, "Uh... your character wouldn't do that. Do something else."
You can end up with James Bond getting killed in the first reel.
It's not very epic, or very interesting, and the storyteller in me doesn't want to waste time with that particular story.

Just for one reason.

[jaymz]

Being in a campaign is like starring in a movie. Now imagine if you had to suffer through watching Maximus' (Russell Crowe in Gladiator) whole life prior to the start of the film. That would suck. Sometimes that journey is an important part of the story (aka Luke in Star Wars) and sometimes it's just needless background.

Couldn;t agree more on that last section Mack. I never understaood why the vast majority of GMs insist on starting campaigns at 1st level....

Because most players are low-level players.
By the time a character is high level, he/she is experienced.
Say we're talking about a CS Grunt. By 10th level, he's one of the best soldiers in his army. He's seen countless campaigns and battles, and he's lived through them all.
The player, on the other hand, is some guy fresh out of high school, who has never served in the military.

That character is going to know more than the player.

The player, being nowhere near as experienced as the character will make foolish, rookie mistakes that his character would never make.
So you end up with a story where an elite badass soldier of the first order gets killed because of a rookie mistake.
Or a story where the player doesn't have as much freedom, because the GM is always saying, "Uh... your character wouldn't do that. Do something else."
You can end up with James Bond getting killed in the first reel.
It's not very epic, or very interesting, and the storyteller in me doesn't want to waste time with that particular story.

Just for one reason.

Isn't this more of a result of a new/inexperienced player though? Are you assuming every player is unable to play a higher level character and MUST start every character at 1st level?

I think it is safe to say that most of us here who can game on a regular basis (sadly I cannot anymore) play with people who are relatively experienced players for the most part or are you assuming we all only play with new players all the time? I;d think it to be not the case and that the regular games are full of mostly peopel who are experience players and can handle higher level characters to start with. It's in these cases I cannot understand why a GM will insist on starting at 1st level every time. Eventually experience players don't want to face the low level opponents anymore or it just gets simple to get thru it which isn't any fun either. That's where letting them start as a veteran character (4-6th level) is not such a bad thing. They aren't going to rocket to 10th level and there are many more threats that that level can deal with than a 1st or 2nd level character. At least in my opinion there is.

[keir451]

Why does the evil KS taunt us with wonderful HTH bonuses stuck up at levels 10+ when the system is designed so that most characters will never even see level 7-8. The highest level character I have ever had in my game was level 13... but that's a rarity... and me being generous.

Does anyone have some sort of reasoning why some of the best bonuses are deliberately placed out of reach? Have you ever had a character hit 15 or even beyond? (I have rules for levels beyond 15, not that I've ever had the chance to use them) Or am I just a whiny forum writer?

The reason they are "wonderful" bonuses is that they are rare. If everyone character got them, then they would be "mundane" and not "wonderful."

I don't buy it, on the grounds that Palladium's experience system just doesn't work very well. Experience point requirements keep getting bigger and bigger until they hit a plateau (almost as if they'd copied the whole concept of Experience from some other game... I think it had something to do with going into dungeons and fighting dragons or something). But experience points awards are flat and there's no such thing as scaling XP to meet your level, because it's a flat "X points for a minor threat, Y points for a bigger threat, Z points for a biggest threat" that never changes no matter how objectively powerful the critters are. Which means that every level takes twice as long to reach as the previous one, and experience point progression turns into a Zeno's Paradox race where top-level characters are things that only exist as NPCs, and even 10th or 11th level characters are things you only see in marathon campaigns that have been going forever.

That's exactly why I use D&D 3.0 exp. table standards w/Palladium exp. as rewards for truly exceptional feats. This way I can scale things better and if you truly di just "save the world from X horrible monster" the 500-1,0000 extra exp. actually seems worth it.

[dragonfett]

If you are worried that it's harder for your players to earn XP as they level up, here's a suggestion that I just thought of, every other level or so (or more or less if you want), increase the maximum XP reward for everything increase by like 25% or something. It makes leveling up not quite as much of a burden as it had been, however it still makes the characters level up slower after about 4th or 5th level.

[Killer Cyborg]

Being in a campaign is like starring in a movie. Now imagine if you had to suffer through watching Maximus' (Russell Crowe in Gladiator) whole life prior to the start of the film. That would suck. Sometimes that journey is an important part of the story (aka Luke in Star Wars) and sometimes it's just needless background.

Couldn;t agree more on that last section Mack. I never understaood why the vast majority of GMs insist on starting campaigns at 1st level....

Because most players are low-level players.
By the time a character is high level, he/she is experienced.
Say we're talking about a CS Grunt. By 10th level, he's one of the best soldiers in his army. He's seen countless campaigns and battles, and he's lived through them all.
The player, on the other hand, is some guy fresh out of high school, who has never served in the military.

That character is going to know more than the player.

The player, being nowhere near as experienced as the character will make foolish, rookie mistakes that his character would never make.
So you end up with a story where an elite badass soldier of the first order gets killed because of a rookie mistake.
Or a story where the player doesn't have as much freedom, because the GM is always saying, "Uh... your character wouldn't do that. Do something else."
You can end up with James Bond getting killed in the first reel.
It's not very epic, or very interesting, and the storyteller in me doesn't want to waste time with that particular story.

Just for one reason.

Isn't this more of a result of a new/inexperienced player though? Are you assuming every player is unable to play a higher level character and MUST start every character at 1st level?

Nope. But I was responding to " I never understaood why the vast majority of GMs insist on starting campaigns at 1st level...."
The vast majority of players are not good a playing high level characters.

It's in these cases I cannot understand why a GM will insist on starting at 1st level every time.

Maybe he just thinks that you can't have any pudding if you don't eat your meat.

[Killer Cyborg]

What I don't like is that most PC's want to start at a higher level and get all the fancy bonuses, spells, combat moves or play a dragon or tattooed man yet they will only read the first three sentences of the powers and get mad when they get smoked because they don't know how there character works.

Amen!
That's another facet that I forgot to mention.
Also, there's times when they don't get killed from not knowing their character, but it bogs the heck out of game play.

[jaymz]

Nope. But I was responding to " I never understaood why the vast majority of GMs insist on starting campaigns at 1st level...."
The vast majority of players are not good a playing high level characters.

While I can understand the sentiment, if you have played characters to a high level already and the gM starts a new campaign then why is it many insist on startng at level 1 again? These players have proven at that point that they can play a high elvel character. Why mush through the low end garbage when you can start a bit higher and do good stuff. I am not even talking about bonuses per se cuz thats reletive the specific character and many dont really get all that good of abilities or bonuses per elvel anyway.

Maybe he just thinks that you can't have any pudding if you don't eat your meat.

Ok Pink Floyd


Also, I am not syaing give the newby player a 10th level character but in many campaigns I ahve tried to get into the GM wants to start at 1st level and knows all the players are experiecned and know thier charcater types quite well. I myself can comepup with pretty good back grounds to help explain my character to his current level as can most of the guys I play with so why not skip that and get tot eh save the Kingdom stuff? As opposed to save the farmer, followed by save the village followed by save the hamlet...

Just sayin is all.

[Rallan]

Being in a campaign is like starring in a movie. Now imagine if you had to suffer through watching Maximus' (Russell Crowe in Gladiator) whole life prior to the start of the film. That would suck. Sometimes that journey is an important part of the story (aka Luke in Star Wars) and sometimes it's just needless background.

Couldn;t agree more on that last section Mack. I never understaood why the vast majority of GMs insist on starting campaigns at 1st level....

Well the vast majority of RPGs are kinda designed so that starting-level characters are balanced. If you start at the beginning then you can (hopefully) rely on a big of help from the designers of the game to make sure that some PCs don't upstage the rest.

Although yeah, insisting on a first level start in Rifts is pretty pointless, since Rifts is a game where "game balance" just means "stacking your pile of sourcebooks up neatly so it doesn't fall over"

[Grafsburg]

I rather liked the way my GM handled it. We just got a certain number of points each session depending on what we did and how well we did it, and when our point total reached one hundred, we levelled up and went back to 0 points. It made us level fairly quickly, but not so quickly that the game felt rushed.

[Killer Cyborg]

Nope. But I was responding to " I never understaood why the vast majority of GMs insist on starting campaigns at 1st level...."
The vast majority of players are not good a playing high level characters.

While I can understand the sentiment, if you have played characters to a high level already and the gM starts a new campaign then why is it many insist on startng at level 1 again?

That would depend on the campaign and players in question.
Some campaigns just don't work with high level characters. Some players just don't work well with high level players, even if they've played them before. Some GMs don't work well with high level characters.

These players have proven at that point that they can play a high elvel character. Why mush through the low end garbage when you can start a bit higher and do good stuff. I am not even talking about bonuses per se cuz thats reletive the specific character and many dont really get all that good of abilities or bonuses per elvel anyway.

Ah.
I'll just sum up and say that not everybody shares your priorities in gaming, and different people like different kinds of stories.

[Razzinold]

I tend to agree with Jaymz about not understanding why PCs always need to start out as level 1 characters. Never mind the bonuses you get from higher levels, sometimes being level 1 just doesn't make sense from a story point of view. The current game we are in we got to start off as level 2 (or possibly 3, can't remember i don't have my sheet in front of me and we haven't played in like a month ), but to me that still doesn't make sense. My character alone is a member of the CS Special Forces (the rest of the group is a mix of all different CS OCCS) now not only am I SF, but I was now just assigned command of a special recon team ? So I managed to go through basic training, x number of years of combat, then Special Forces training, and now heading up a special 6 man recon team and I have only made it to level 2 ? I personally felt we all should have started at level 4 or more, just to fill the gaps in the back story. Going by other people's examples that were posted a level 4 -6 is more experienced (as in the character is more experienced, not the person playing it) and a level 1 is a FNG, wet behind the ears, day after the academy, new recruit, everyone with me so far ? So how (in one level/that short amount of time) did everyone on this squad go through all their training and stand out enough to be given this honour ?
See it has nothing to do with players wanting bonuses all the time, sometimes it has to do with the plot of the campaign making a little more sense.

[Killer Cyborg]

I tend to agree with Jaymz about not understanding why PCs always need to start out as level 1 characters. Never mind the bonuses you get from higher levels, sometimes being level 1 just doesn't make sense from a story point of view. The current game we are in we got to start off as level 2 (or possibly 3, can't remember i don't have my sheet in front of me and we haven't played in like a month ), but to me that still doesn't make sense. My character alone is a member of the CS Special Forces (the rest of the group is a mix of all different CS OCCS) now not only am I SF, but I was now just assigned command of a special recon team ? So I managed to go through basic training, x number of years of combat, then Special Forces training, and now heading up a special 6 man recon team and I have only made it to level 2 ? I personally felt we all should have started at level 4 or more, just to fill the gaps in the back story. Going by other people's examples that were posted a level 4 -6 is more experienced (as in the character is more experienced, not the person playing it) and a level 1 is a FNG, wet behind the ears, day after the academy, new recruit, everyone with me so far ? So how (in one level/that short amount of time) did everyone on this squad go through all their training and stand out enough to be given this honour ?
See it has nothing to do with players wanting bonuses all the time, sometimes it has to do with the plot of the campaign making a little more sense.

Absolutely!
Key word being "sometimes."
But most of the time, for most groups, you start off inexperienced.

[Spinachcat]

I play OD&D and the XP problem is same. It's based on the issue of how much RPGs were played back in the 70s-80s versus today. Back then, there were far less entertainment choices (pre-computer, pre-console, pre-web, pre-VCR!) so groups got together more often so RPGs had these inflated XP charts. Also, there were far fewer RPGs on the market so the gamer community wasn't so fragmented.

Today, these outdated XP charts make zero sense.

Sometimes, it's fun to start at level 1. But a veteran group of players should start at whatever is best for the campaign and XP should either be modified to the real gaming schedule of the group.

For me, I eliminated XP altogether and just raise levels as appropriate.

[Shorty Lickens]

If you campaign long enough you could easily have a party of level 15 characters.
Also, you could start off with a high level campaign.
And NPC's of all sorts exist no matter what kind of campaign you run.

[Damian Magecraft]

if you are having trouble reaching higher levels I have to ask how much exp your group is garnering per adventure. mine going strictly by the book are averaging roughly 1000 per player, sometimes less sometimes more.

[Mack]

if you are having trouble reaching higher levels I have to ask how much exp your group is garnering per adventure. mine going strictly by the book are averaging roughly 1000 per player, sometimes less sometimes more.

Even at 1000 / session, it takes a Cyber-Knight 342 sessions to reach level 15... that's over 6.5 years with one session per week.

[SkyeFyre]

We game for about 3-4 hours... like once a month. We used to game like every night, then every week, then eventually life caught up with us and we can only get our game on once a month now.

For each 3-4 hour session my players usually run anywhere from 250 (When they're complete idiots... and I do mean idiots) to 800-1000 (when their awesome role playing twin brothers take their place). I follow the guidelines in the book.

Now one of the players just started a new Wilderness Scout. At the average rate of approximately 600-700 (we'll say 700 to be nice) per session he will hit level 15 in about 34 years. Yeah... that's just insane.

[Damian Magecraft]

true at one session a week.
my group runs 2 to 3 a week.
2 regular meets a week and a 3rd when schedules permit.
(an advantage of reaching our late 30s early 40s)
when we were younger (teens early twenties) we gamed more often often up to 5 sessions a week.
as we grew older (mid/late twenties to early 30s) we slacked off to one session a week some times only 1 a month.(new spouses and kids interfered).
now that our marriages and children have matured to a more stable point our get togethers have as well. (an interesting side effect of this is that the size of our group has grown over the years... spouses joining in the kids getting involved etc...)

[Damian Magecraft]

We game for about 3-4 hours... like once a month. We used to game like every night, then every week, then eventually life caught up with us and we can only get our game on once a month now.

For each 3-4 hour session my players usually run anywhere from 250 (When they're complete idiots... and I do mean idiots) to 800-1000 (when their awesome role playing twin brothers take their place). I follow the guidelines in the book.

Now one of the players just started a new Wilderness Scout. At the average rate of approximately 600-700 (we'll say 700 to be nice) per session he will hit level 15 in about 34 years. Yeah... that's just insane.

3-4 hour sessions?
is this common?
not just to your group I mean... players at other gaming sites I visit have stated similar session times...
My group meets for our scheduled sessions for 6 to 8 hrs of game and 4 to 6 hrs of just plain socializing.

[SkyeFyre]

We game for about 3-4 hours... like once a month. We used to game like every night, then every week, then eventually life caught up with us and we can only get our game on once a month now.

For each 3-4 hour session my players usually run anywhere from 250 (When they're complete idiots... and I do mean idiots) to 800-1000 (when their awesome role playing twin brothers take their place). I follow the guidelines in the book.

Now one of the players just started a new Wilderness Scout. At the average rate of approximately 600-700 (we'll say 700 to be nice) per session he will hit level 15 in about 34 years. Yeah... that's just insane.

3-4 hour sessions?
is this common?
not just to your group I mean... players at other gaming sites I visit have stated similar session times...
My group meets for our scheduled sessions for 6 to 8 hrs of game and 4 to 6 hrs of just plain socializing.

I dunno, it seems like most people have at least a little more time than we do as well, but I know we're all severely limited on time... but we love us our gaming time

[Balabanto]

We've played in my game on and off for close to 11 years. The highest level PC is level 7. That's right. 7. There's a couple level 6es and everyone else is in the 4-5 range. If anyone in the game ever hits level ten, it will be a miracle. That's how the game is SUPPOSED to be played, according to Kevin. It's meant to be very old school D+D in it's experience point gaining style, and if you don't like that, consider selecting a different game system.

To borrow something from Pathfinder, consider doubling all the XP awards in the guide for a fast advancement, and multiplying them by 1.5 for medium. I award far more XP for RP than I do combat, and most characters tend to get around 300 or so a session.

[SkyeFyre]

It's meant to be very old school D+D in it's experience point gaining style, and if you don't like that, consider selecting a different game system..

1. Why? When the maker says it himself "Write your own rules if you see fit"
2. Then why does it bother me? Because I like playing things by the book.
3. Naw, I love too much about this system. I am one of those fans who got into RPGs with Rifts, play's Palladium titles exclusively, and could essentially be regarded as a Palladium fanboy because for all of the positive points people have brought up about D&D, I refuse to play it again, nor even consider trying a different system.

[Killer Cyborg]

We've played in my game on and off for close to 11 years. The highest level PC is level 7. That's right. 7. There's a couple level 6es and everyone else is in the 4-5 range. If anyone in the game ever hits level ten, it will be a miracle. That's how the game is SUPPOSED to be played, according to Kevin. It's meant to be very old school D+D in it's experience point gaining style, and if you don't like that, consider selecting a different game system.

My highest level character is level 7 shifter, level 3 Summoner, and that's from well over a decade of play (on and off).
And yup, that's how it's supposed to be.

I'm not sure that's how it should stay, though. Newer gamers have shorter attention spans and a much, much wider variety of entertainment. Not many like the idea of not leveling up every session or three.
Of course, with Rifts the classes are mostly front-loaded; there's not a lot of power difference between low level and med level, sometimes not a lot between low and high.
Because everybody starts off crazy powerful to begin with.

[Rallan]

if you are having trouble reaching higher levels I have to ask how much exp your group is garnering per adventure. mine going strictly by the book are averaging roughly 1000 per player, sometimes less sometimes more.

Well if we go by what's in the rulebooks, you'll have more and more trouble reaching every passing experience level. There are no sliding scales in there, there's a flat "X for a minor thing, Y, for a major thing, and Z for a huge thing". Which means that unless your GM knows enough to ignore the rules, your experience level advancement is going to get slower and slower and slower.

There's probably an awful lot of really good houseruled ways of giving out XP to make sure level progression doesn't suck, but what's there in the rules is pretty lousy.

[Damian Magecraft]

if you are having trouble reaching higher levels I have to ask how much exp your group is garnering per adventure. mine going strictly by the book are averaging roughly 1000 per player, sometimes less sometimes more.

Well if we go by what's in the rulebooks, you'll have more and more trouble reaching every passing experience level. There are no sliding scales in there, there's a flat "X for a minor thing, Y, for a major thing, and Z for a huge thing". Which means that unless your GM knows enough to ignore the rules, your experience level advancement is going to get slower and slower and slower.

There's probably an awful lot of really good houseruled ways of giving out XP to make sure level progression doesn't suck, but what's there in the rules is pretty lousy.

what kill factor is the only way to earn xp in Pally? when did that happen?

[Supergyro]

I'm not sure if those higher level bonuses are really all they're cracked up to be.

I don't have my book with me. Can someone post, for reference, a level 1 CS grunt and a level 15 CS grunt (same stats) alongside one another?

[Shark_Force]

if you are having trouble reaching higher levels I have to ask how much exp your group is garnering per adventure. mine going strictly by the book are averaging roughly 1000 per player, sometimes less sometimes more.

Well if we go by what's in the rulebooks, you'll have more and more trouble reaching every passing experience level. There are no sliding scales in there, there's a flat "X for a minor thing, Y, for a major thing, and Z for a huge thing". Which means that unless your GM knows enough to ignore the rules, your experience level advancement is going to get slower and slower and slower.

There's probably an awful lot of really good houseruled ways of giving out XP to make sure level progression doesn't suck, but what's there in the rules is pretty lousy.

what kill factor is the only way to earn xp in Pally? when did that happen?

to clarify, in a game like D&D, as you gain levels the amount of exp required to level up increases, but so does your ability to gain exp. in rifts (or any other palladium game), the amount of exp required to gain levels also increases as you level... while if anything, your ability gain exp probably drops, because things that once were a major threat become a minor threat to you (and are therefore worth less exp), clever and inventive ideas and plans cease to be clever and inventive after you've already used them once, and even if you do face something that is now a major threat it's still worth no more than a major threat was worth back at level 1. you can still get the same amounts of exp in theory (though as i pointed out, in some ways it will be harder), but that amount as compared to the amount required to level up becomes comparatively smaller. so no, killing stuff isn't the only source of exp... but stuff is pretty still either a minor, average, or major challenge and you get exp based on that, and the amount you gain never increases as you level. a clever idea is worth the same at level 1 as it is at level 14, but at level 1 you can reach level 2 with maybe 10 clever ideas that work etc, whereas at level 14 you probably need thousands to gain a level.

[SkyeFyre]

Level 1 grunt with default of HTH:Expert
4 attacks per melee, +2 pull, +2 roll with

Level 15 Grunt with default of HTH:Expert
7 attacks per melee, +3 pull, +2 roll with, +5 parry, +5 dodge, +2 strike, +2 disarm, Critical strike on 18-20, Paired Weapons, +3 damage, Knockout/stun on 18-20, Critical strike or knockout from behind (triple damage on critical strike), Death Blow on Natural 20, not including special attacks.

[Damian Magecraft]

if you are having trouble reaching higher levels I have to ask how much exp your group is garnering per adventure. mine going strictly by the book are averaging roughly 1000 per player, sometimes less sometimes more.

Well if we go by what's in the rulebooks, you'll have more and more trouble reaching every passing experience level. There are no sliding scales in there, there's a flat "X for a minor thing, Y, for a major thing, and Z for a huge thing". Which means that unless your GM knows enough to ignore the rules, your experience level advancement is going to get slower and slower and slower.

There's probably an awful lot of really good houseruled ways of giving out XP to make sure level progression doesn't suck, but what's there in the rules is pretty lousy.

what kill factor is the only way to earn xp in Pally? when did that happen?

to clarify, in a game like D&D, as you gain levels the amount of exp required to level up increases, but so does your ability to gain exp. in rifts (or any other palladium game), the amount of exp required to gain levels also increases as you level... while if anything, your ability gain exp probably drops, because things that once were a major threat become a minor threat to you (and are therefore worth less exp), clever and inventive ideas and plans cease to be clever and inventive after you've already used them once, and even if you do face something that is now a major threat it's still worth no more than a major threat was worth back at level 1. you can still get the same amounts of exp in theory (though as i pointed out, in some ways it will be harder), but that amount as compared to the amount required to level up becomes comparatively smaller. so no, killing stuff isn't the only source of exp... but stuff is pretty still either a minor, average, or major challenge and you get exp based on that, and the amount you gain never increases as you level. a clever idea is worth the same at level 1 as it is at level 14, but at level 1 you can reach level 2 with maybe 10 clever ideas that work etc, whereas at level 14 you probably need thousands to gain a level.

and yet I see players consistantly earn an average of 800 to 1200 exp every session...
must be a difference in play styles...
If a GM hands me less than 700 for a 6 to 8 hour session I want to know why the xp awards were so low. (no I am not asking him to just hand me xp... I want to know what he/she felt needed improvement.)
I design my adventures to generate 600 (do nothing but take up table space and roll dice) to 1800 (perfect in all regards, RP, combat, unique thinking, etc.) xp. no one ever has obtained the 1800 but then no one ends up just taking up table space either.

now granted even with an average of 1G per adventure it is still gonna take awhile to get to those higher levels...
I have never made it past level 10 but then ... Either I grow bored of the character or I have achieved that characters goals.

[Supergyro]

Level 1 grunt with default of HTH:Expert
4 attacks per melee, +2 pull, +2 roll with

Level 15 Grunt with default of HTH:Expert
7 attacks per melee, +3 pull, +2 roll with, +5 parry, +5 dodge, +2 strike, +2 disarm, Critical strike on 18-20, Paired Weapons, +3 damage, Knockout/stun on 18-20, Critical strike or knockout from behind (triple damage on critical strike), Death Blow on Natural 20, not including special attacks.

Now my next step would be to give each of them standard CS laser rifles and standard CS armor, put them at a range of 1500 feet from each other, and have them fight. The level 15 guy would win, but if the level 1 guy used simultaneous attacks, I'm not sure the level 15 guy would win by that much. I'd estimate the level 15 guy would win 8 times out of ten (I think lucky dice plus simultaneous attacks could give the level 1 guy a victory every now and again)

The final step would be to have a level 15 guy fight *two* level 1 guys, but my $$ says that the level 1 guys would win.

By my estimation of Rift: combat effectiveness, the level 15 guy is about equal to 1.5 level 1 guys in terms of combat effectiveness . This is more effective, but considering what you have to do to get to level 15, it's a bit disappointing how little it actually helps.

I'd want to do the matches before I was totally sold, but my first estimation is that most of these bonuses aren't that great.

Critical strike on 18-20 is a good bonus. +2 to disarm? Barely worth the ink used to print it. +5 to dodge? Not that useful, and *particularly* silly when you realize that +3 of that +5 comes at level 2.

[Killer Cyborg]

Level 1 grunt with default of HTH:Expert
4 attacks per melee, +2 pull, +2 roll with

Level 15 Grunt with default of HTH:Expert
7 attacks per melee, +3 pull, +2 roll with, +5 parry, +5 dodge, +2 strike, +2 disarm, Critical strike on 18-20, Paired Weapons, +3 damage, Knockout/stun on 18-20, Critical strike or knockout from behind (triple damage on critical strike), Death Blow on Natural 20, not including special attacks.

Now my next step would be to give each of them standard CS laser rifles and standard CS armor, put them at a range of 1500 feet from each other, and have them fight. The level 15 guy would win, but if the level 1 guy used simultaneous attacks, I'm not sure the level 15 guy would win by that much. I'd estimate the level 15 guy would win 8 times out of ten (I think lucky dice plus simultaneous attacks could give the level 1 guy a victory every now and again)

The final step would be to have a level 15 guy fight *two* level 1 guys, but my $$ says that the level 1 guys would win.

Just like in the real world.

Critical strike on 18-20 is a good bonus. +2 to disarm? Barely worth the ink used to print it. +5 to dodge? Not that useful, and *particularly* silly when you realize that +3 of that +5 comes at level 2.

Yeah, some of the bonuses for HTH skills are pretty lame.

[SkyeFyre]

What do you mean a +5 is weak? Sure the first +3 comes from level 2, but an additional +2 is still nice. I dunno, I don't just play with power gamers so an extra +2 is always welcome. We just wish we could get our hands on it.

Not only that but if you couple that with high level W.P. bonuses things really take shape.

Level 1 grunt with W.P. Sword
+1 strike

Level 15 grunt with W.P.Sword
+8 strike, +10 parry

Does that look any better? There's a significant difference there.

[Supergyro]

What do you mean a +5 is weak? Sure the first +3 comes from level 2, but an additional +2 is still nice. I dunno, I don't just play with power gamers so an extra +2 is always welcome. We just wish we could get our hands on it.

Not only that but if you couple that with high level W.P. bonuses things really take shape.

Level 1 grunt with W.P. Sword
+1 strike

Level 15 grunt with W.P.Sword
+8 strike, +10 parry

Does that look any better? There's a significant difference there.

Looks like it, except when put head to head against one another and use the magic of simultaneous attacks. Try this out before arguing further. Given opponents who simultaneous attack, determine how *many* level 1 grunts it would take to kill a level 15 grunt. I wont have time to do this until this weekend, but I would be surprised if the level 15 grunt can beat two level 1 grunts without some lucky rolls. 3 Level 1 grunts, simply isn't going to happen (by my initial math, the level 15 guy wont even last 1 round).

And if 15 levels doesn't make you tough enough to take on 3 level 1 guys, it's a pretty good argument that levels don't matter in this case. (Conversely, a level 15 T-man could kick the SNOT out of 3 level 1 T-men, but Tattoo magic is uniquely level-sensitive).

[Shark_Force]

and yet I see players consistantly earn an average of 800 to 1200 exp every session...
must be a difference in play styles...
If a GM hands me less than 700 for a 6 to 8 hour session I want to know why the xp awards were so low. (no I am not asking him to just hand me xp... I want to know what he/she felt needed improvement.)
I design my adventures to generate 600 (do nothing but take up table space and roll dice) to 1800 (perfect in all regards, RP, combat, unique thinking, etc.) xp. no one ever has obtained the 1800 but then no one ends up just taking up table space either.

now granted even with an average of 1G per adventure it is still gonna take awhile to get to those higher levels...
I have never made it past level 10 but then ... Either I grow bored of the character or I have achieved that characters goals.

ok, i'll express this in a different way, since i think you missed the point.

let's use a rogue scholar as a nice, base point to begin with. and we'll use 700-1000 exp per session.

to go from level one to level two, a rogue scholar need to earn 2,001 exp, thus reaching their total of 2,001 exp.
this is about 2-3 of your theoretical sessions.

to go from level two to level three, a rogue scholar needs to earn an additional 2,000 exp, thus reaching their total of 4,001 exp.
this is about 2-3 of your theoretical sessions, for a total of 4-6 sessions.

to go from level three to level four, a rogue scholar needs to earn an additional 4,200 exp, thus reaching their total of 8,201 exp.
this is about 4-6 of your theoretical sessions, for a total of 8-12 sessions.

to go from level four to level five, a rogue scholar needs to earn an additional 8,200 exp, thus reaching their total of 16,401 exp.
this is about 8-12 of your theoretical sessions, for a total of 16-24 sessions.

(skip a few)

to go from level fourteen to level fifteen, a rogue scholar needs to earn an additional 50,100 exp, thus reaching their total of 329,401 exp.
this is about 50-72 of your theoretical sessions, for a total of 330-472 sessions.

now, the thing to pay attention to is that at no point did your ability to earn experience points go up. however, your requirement to earn experience points before you saw any difference in experience level definitely did. in comparison, 3.x D&D was designed so that after 14 encounters of appropriate difficulty, you would typically level. the amount of experience you gained for defeating an encounter increased at roughly the same rate as the amount of experience you needed in order to gain a level, in theory at least... so for example, if you could handle 5 encounters per session (for the sake of argument, i doubt many groups saw that happen) you would hit one level every 3 sessions. 3 sessions at level 1, 3 sessions at level 2, 3 sessions at level 3, and so forth up until you spend 3 sessions at level 20 (mind you, i doubt you'd get 5 encounters in a typical 6-8 hour session, but it's just an example). in rifts, you spend 3 sessions at level 1, 3 sessions at level 2, 6 sessions at level 3, 12 sessions at level 4, etc, up until 72 sessions at level 14.

that's the difference that is being talked about. your exp gain remains constant (give or take) while your exp required to go up a level increases dramatically.

[Damian Magecraft]

and yet I see players consistantly earn an average of 800 to 1200 exp every session...
must be a difference in play styles...
If a GM hands me less than 700 for a 6 to 8 hour session I want to know why the xp awards were so low. (no I am not asking him to just hand me xp... I want to know what he/she felt needed improvement.)
I design my adventures to generate 600 (do nothing but take up table space and roll dice) to 1800 (perfect in all regards, RP, combat, unique thinking, etc.) xp. no one ever has obtained the 1800 but then no one ends up just taking up table space either.

now granted even with an average of 1G per adventure it is still gonna take awhile to get to those higher levels...
I have never made it past level 10 but then ... Either I grow bored of the character or I have achieved that characters goals.

ok, i'll express this in a different way, since i think you missed the point.

let's use a rogue scholar as a nice, base point to begin with. and we'll use 700-1000 exp per session.

to go from level one to level two, a rogue scholar need to earn 2,001 exp, thus reaching their total of 2,001 exp.
this is about 2-3 of your theoretical sessions.

to go from level two to level three, a rogue scholar needs to earn an additional 2,000 exp, thus reaching their total of 4,001 exp.
this is about 2-3 of your theoretical sessions, for a total of 4-6 sessions.

to go from level three to level four, a rogue scholar needs to earn an additional 4,200 exp, thus reaching their total of 8,201 exp.
this is about 4-6 of your theoretical sessions, for a total of 8-12 sessions.

to go from level four to level five, a rogue scholar needs to earn an additional 8,200 exp, thus reaching their total of 16,401 exp.
this is about 8-12 of your theoretical sessions, for a total of 16-24 sessions.

(skip a few)

to go from level fourteen to level fifteen, a rogue scholar needs to earn an additional 50,100 exp, thus reaching their total of 329,401 exp.
this is about 50-72 of your theoretical sessions, for a total of 330-472 sessions.

now, the thing to pay attention to is that at no point did your ability to earn experience points go up. however, your requirement to earn experience points before you saw any difference in experience level definitely did. in comparison, 3.x D&D was designed so that after 14 encounters of appropriate difficulty, you would typically level. the amount of experience you gained for defeating an encounter increased at roughly the same rate as the amount of experience you needed in order to gain a level, in theory at least... so for example, if you could handle 5 encounters per session (for the sake of argument, i doubt many groups saw that happen) you would hit one level every 3 sessions. 3 sessions at level 1, 3 sessions at level 2, 3 sessions at level 3, and so forth up until you spend 3 sessions at level 20 (mind you, i doubt you'd get 5 encounters in a typical 6-8 hour session, but it's just an example). in rifts, you spend 3 sessions at level 1, 3 sessions at level 2, 6 sessions at level 3, 12 sessions at level 4, etc, up until 72 sessions at level 14.

that's the difference that is being talked about. your exp gain remains constant (give or take) while your exp required to go up a level increases dramatically.

no I didnt miss the point...
yes its going to take time and 300+ sessions sounds about right.
I remember it taking about that time for AD&D 1E & 2E
The "need" to level faster has always perplexed me.
I pointed out how the players have a more direct effect on how much exp they earn in Palladium.

[SkyeFyre]

Ok. For the sake of this test we're going to hand both parties the same load out. Also since all we're looking at are melee bonuses our scenario will say that one level 15 CS grunt gets jumped by 2 level 1 CS grunts just because they don't like him... he stole their cookies or something. Also we're going to assume a stand up fight, forgetting about setting. These guys are just standing out in the open beating on each other with vibro-swords (2D6MD). Armor will be classic CA-2 (50 MDC)

Level 1 grunt with default of HTH:Expert
4 attacks per melee, +2 pull, +2 roll with, +1 strike with his vibro-sword

Level 15 Grunt with default of HTH:Expert
7 attacks per melee, +3 pull, +2 roll with, +5 parry, +5 dodge, +2 strike, +2 disarm, Critical strike on 18-20, Paired Weapons, +3 damage, Knockout/stun on 18-20, Critical strike or knockout from behind (triple damage on critical strike), Death Blow on Natural 20, not including special attacks. +8 to strike with his vibro-sword, +10 to parry with his vibro-sword. Also we're going to assume that the level 1s have no regard for self preservation and will use simultaneous strike at every opportunity. And we'll even ignore that the level 15 gets a critical strike on 18-20.

APMR = Actions per melee remaining

Round 1:
(1)Lv1:50 MDC: 4 APMR: Rolls a 16 for initiative
(2)Lv1:50 MDC: 4 APMR: Rolls a 5 for initiative
(3)Lv15:50 MDC: 7 APMR: Rolls a 12 for initiative

(1) rolls to strike [13+1=14], (3) rolls to parry [9+10=19] PARRIED -- (1) has 3 APMR
(3) waits patiently watching his opponents, he didn't attack, so no simultaneous attack is possible. (3) has 6 APMR
(2) rolls to strike [4+1=5], (3) rolls to parry [4+10=14] PARRIED -- (2) has 3 APMR

(1) rolls to strike [6+1=7], (3) rolls to parry [6+10=16] PARRIED -- (1) has 2 APMR
(3) waits patiently watching his opponents for a chance to strike, he didn't attack so no simultaneous attack is possible (3) has 5 APMR
(2) rolls to strike [3+1=4], (3) rolls to parry [20+10=30] PARRIED -- (2) has 2 APMR

(1) rolls to strike [17+1=18], (3) rolls to parry [16+10=26] PARRIED -- (1) has 1 APMR
(3) waits patiently watching his opponents -- (3) has 4 APMR
(2) rolls to strike [16+1=17], (3) rolls to parry [10+10=20] PARRIED -- (2) has 1 APMR

(1) rolls to strike [2+1=3], Automatic fail -- (1) has 0 APMR
(3) waits patiently watching his opponents -- (3) has 3 APMR
(2) rolls to strike [3+1], Automatic fail -- (2) has 0 APMR

(1) out of actions
(3) Unleashes on both opponents using paired weapons. No simultaneous strike can be done as they are out of actions. Rolls to strike [17+8=25], [18+8=26], (1) and (2) roll to parry [12+1=13], [9+1=10], FAILED. Both take 2D6 damage in the amounts of 3 and 9 -- (3) has 2 APMR
(2) out of actions
(1) has 47 MDC
(2) has 41 MDC

(1) out of actions
(3) rolls to strike [1] FAILED [18+8=26], (1) is missed, (2) rolls to parry [19+1=20], (2) is hit for 3 damage -- (3) has 1 APMR
(2) out of actions
(1) has 47 MDC
(2) has 38 MDC

(1) out of actions
(3) rolls to strike [6+8=14], [6+8=14], (1) rolls to parry [16+1=17] PARRIED, (2) rolls to parry [12+1=13] FAILED, (2) is hit for 11 MD -- (3) is out of actions
(2) out of actions

End of round 1
(1) has 47 MDC
(2) has 27 MDC
(3) is unscratched with 50 MDC

I could continue this but it would take forever, I'm sure you can see how it seems to be working out for the two level 1s. Also notice that I ignored the critical strike on a roll of 18-20. If I had taken that into account (2) would be down to 15 MDC.

That level 15 is holding his own pretty well. "BUT SKYEFYRE! HE DIDN'T ATTACK ON HIS TURN!" So? If he's level 15 he's bound to be smart enough to know that waiting for an opening and focusing on defending is the smarter thing to do when out numbered. If he wanted to he could just go nuts on (2) in the next round using paired weapons on him and take him out nice and quick and then just focus on (1). Yeah... the level 15 easily wins this fight.

The best part is I realized that due to how the combat system is set up, the Level 15 could expand this strategy against more than just 2 opponents. Even if we threw 3 against him they would all run out of actions before him and he could just do the same thing.

[jaymz]

Ther eis only one problem. It was pointed out that using simultaneous attack woudl negate many of the advantages he could heave since you cannot defende yoursefl form a simultaneous attack the last I checked. I could be wrong though.

[dragonfett]

First things first. How are the level 1 grunts getting a simultaneous attack at long range? I thought those were only for melee combat. I saw nothing in the Ranged Combat section about being able to perform simultaneous attacks.

Secondly, a grunt (or any other class for the most part) is not going to reach level 15 by standing out in the open, blasting away at their target. I think that the first thing he's going to do is use his Vibro-knife to loosen the soil and dig out a quick fox hole to climb in if he's out in the open or take cover behind a boulder or tree. At 1500', it should be very difficult for a level one grunt to hit the level 15 grunt without taking time to take his shot. The level 15 grunt has a +7 to hit with Energy Rifles while the level 1 having no bonus to hit (they get a +1 to hit at level 2). At 1500' with the level 15 taking cover (or at least laying prone), I would have to rule that the level 1 would have to make a called shot or a aimed called shot at a -4 to hit. If the level 1 grunt takes cover as well, the level 15 grunt would have to do the same as well. However the level 1 grunt is only going to get 1 to 2 shots off each round (whether or not he aims or not) while the level 15 will be able to get 2 to 3 (depending on whether or not he decides to aim). If the level one grunt doesn't take cover, the level 15 could get as many as all of his attacks in one melee round.

And Thirdly, the experience system was designed to simulate how in real life your ability to learn new things slows down as you age. I think this is a better system than D&D 3.x's which is designed for characters to level up after about 14 encounters (in D&D 3.x, there is no guide line on awarding XP for role playing or skill usage).