Topic: They are 12+ Level. Now what? ^^

[lorenen]

another solution to avoid this problem since the beggining can be put a limit to the number of ranks in skills..
for example.

during normal development put these requirements to limit the number of ranks you put in a skill while gaining a new level

+1 rank  = you used the skill few times
+2 ranks = you used the skill a couple of times
+3 ranks = you used the skill and also trained a bit on it
+4 ranks = you used the skill a lot and/or trained on it (maybe with a teacher)
+5 ranks = you used the skill often and also trained with a teacher
+6 ranks = you used the skill daily and endured a frequent training with teacher
+7 ranks = daily used, theory and pratical study, almost daily training
8+ ranks = daily use, daily training, expensive teacher and expesive books

using these kind of rules (this was only an example) an high level mage that want to learn a new spell cannot put 12 ranks in one level, so if you want to have a lot of spells you have to gain a lot of level in a "mage" profession.

the same for warriors, using rules from battlemaster give importance to the different kind of weapons!! historical fighters used a lot of different weapons, at least 2 melee and one missile, oriental ones used katana, bow and wakizashi while western ones were good with lance, broadsword and mace. If you develop a lot of weapons you need to use a LOT of DP.

for stealthy characters, missile and short weapon, poisoning, sniping, streetwise and a lot of skills can really rise the DP needed and we must consider one thing..
how can you put a lot of ranks in picking locks if you only find easy locks around you? this force the "thief" to wait when he find HARDER locks to become more and more trained =) so this can means "no more then 2 ranks/level" in certain skills.

just because rules say "you can put as many ranks you want every level in a skill until you reach the maximum of LVx3 +3" this not mean you (as gm) must allow it!!!

 

[Crypt]

using these kind of rules (this was only an example) an high level mage that want to learn a new spell cannot put 12 ranks in one level, so if you want to have a lot of spells you have to gain a lot of level in a "mage" profession.

I think (Lvl * 3) +3 actually means that no character can add more than 3 ranks to a skill when gaining 1 level.
So a level 10 warrior gaining 1 level of mage cannot buy 36 ranks in a single spell. It would make no sense. I would throw over a window a game allowing this.
He can only buy 3 ranks.

and, IMO, the +3 ranks works only at character creation so he could not even buy 6 ranks.

Simply replace  (Lvl * 3) +3  by :
max skill ranks (for a single skill) at character creation = 6.
max skill ranks increase  (for a single skill) when gaining a level = 3.

[Ecthelion]

Crypt, this question was asked before (don't ask me which thread that was  ). The official HARP ruling is that lvl*3+3 is the skill rank limit and that there is no special limit on the maximum number of ranks that can be learned in a given level. Rasyr IIRC explained, however, that GMs may put a limit on the number of ranks per level if they prefer.

[Crypt]

Crypt, this question was asked before (don't ask me which thread that was  ). The official HARP ruling is that lvl*3+3 is the skill rank limit and that there is no special limit on the maximum number of ranks that can be learned in a given level.

  20 hits, 2 bleed, 5 rnds of stun, major brain failure 

i can't believe it......arrrr     3 more rounds of stun

Rasyr IIRC explained, however, that GMs may put a limit on the number of ranks per level if they prefer.

i feel better...

so, for me, this is:
max ranks at character creation = 6.
max ranks increase when gaining a level = 3

I thought it was the way it was supposed to work. I'm really surprised.

[Dr_Sage]

GUys I promisse I will come back. Being busy lately...

[jurasketu]

Powerful characters can be challenging - but let their creativity and goals work for you rather than against you.

The Knight wants a griffon? Sure. But convince him he wants the BEST griffon - so now he has to go seek the best griffon. So he has to find this griffon - meanstwhile secret enemies keep trying to assassinate him by poison, sneak attacks, ambushes. No end of entertainment if you ask me.

Thief wants to join a great guild - sure. But they give him a nigh impossible thieving task as a requirement.

Elementalist wants to build a tower? Sure. But its got to be in the RIGHT place for best magical benefit. But there's a pesky horde of Goblins occupying the spot (and not a small bunch of wimpy ones either - I mean 5000 with spell casters, healers, 15th level goblin general heroes, etc). Its gonna take an army to move them off. So the Knight's gotta help. Hire the army, organize a supply line, actually make a military campaign. And that's not the GM's job - its the Knight's job to figure it out.

Which brings up a good point, your characters keep slaughtering your favorite monsters?

Use numbers and trickery.

When those PCs get arrogant, use numbers to see how they handle a sudden attack by a goblin patrol (60+) with goblin mages, clerics and a squad of Ogres as grenadiers. It can be exhausting and take 6 hours - but it can be loads of fun.

Plagues, peasant riots, insurgencies, extreme weather all make for great plot complications.

Use trickery, "Message from the King..." except its NOT! Watch them fall for it. Nothing more hilarious than silly con jobs to test your PCs acumen and leave them wanting. (BTW - works great for teaching children lessons about trust and verification)

But most of all. Open, plain trickery. Even veteran players will fall for the simplest of tricks.

Good luck!

[Ecthelion]

jurasketu, I agree that playing monsters smarter can be a good means of creating more challenging adventures. I'd suggest to not suddenly let previously dumb goblins act smart but perhaps have some goblin groups be led by smart orcs shamans or the like. Why should all of a sudden the whole fantasy world act smarter than before? But some of the monsters might act smart and the PC might now more often than before encounter these smarter, more dangerous foes.

But why do you create additional hurdles for the characters for reaching their basically simple goals? If the Knight wants a griffon let him have it. And why should the Thief get a nigh impossible task to become a member of the guild? That does not make sense to me. Most of the thieves in the guild are probably level 2-5, how then did they become a member?

IMHO it makes more sense to show them the way to a more challenging goal instead of artificially making a simple goal to an extremely difficult one. E.g. you might give some hints to the Thief how he could quickly rise to higher ranks in the guild and that might involve a nigh impossible thieving tasks. Or the knight might easily get his griffon but might later hear of a famous tournament where only griffon-riders who ride a special, very rare sub-race of griffons are allowed to participate. That might become a much more difficulty task.

Just my 2 cents

[jurasketu]

Etchelion-

Oh. I agree with you on letting players have what they want. I'm very laissez faire with my players - I want them to have fun. I was just saying - you can turn the simplest things into challenges - my players rarely are saving the world. But that's our personal gaming preference.

As far as dumb vs smart monsters. All intelligent beings (monsters, races) should act intelligently ENOUGH to make it challenging. Even though I might throw a large group of goblins at my players and have them do smart tactics, I don't let them turn into fight-to-the-death Samurai warriors. I always make my monsters play with "emotion" - ie they panic when things go against them, will bargain or surrender if they are losing a fight, aren't all-knowing. So as GM, you have the job of "role playing" the situational tactics. Smart monsters (just like us) can do the dumbest things under pressure and limited knowledge. Good GMs usually can adjust encounters "on-the-fly" to reach an appropriate level of challenge. I hate to kill characters except when they deserve it.

Robin

[munchy]

We changed our type of challenges or adventures to a more political level in some cases and a more riddle-heavy one in others. In those skills and spells weren't that important, it was more mind-boggeling than dice rolling. Worked pretty fine but isn't actually a solution as this is just moving from the skills and the system to sort of story telling where after a while - when it's done too long - the character is not important anymore, which would be rather sad.

[Ecthelion]

I was just saying - you can turn the simplest things into challenges

Fully agreed.

As far as dumb vs smart monsters. All intelligent beings (monsters, races) should act intelligently ENOUGH to make it challenging.
...
Good GMs usually can adjust encounters "on-the-fly" to reach an appropriate level of challenge. I hate to kill characters except when they deserve it.

Also agreed  .

[Dr_Sage]

Ecthelion,

I agree with most of what you said. I hate some rpg scenarios when suddely all the normal orcs disapear from the world (huge influence of the video games).

munchy,

you just went to the heart of the problem. I could do heavly political campaign. In fact its the natural course of my current campaign. What I am sad about is: I HAVE to do something like that. And frankly I don?t want a "dwarf-orc berserker barbarian" in my group having to develop social skills just to keep the pace.

jurasketu,

Thanks for all the insighs. This current group is ok. What terrifies me: If the knight didn?t wanted that? If the Elementalist just wanted more and more power? The system should be able to provide that, but being realistic system, it does not. At least not directly.

Just to clarity: my players are not complaining, but I look into the future and become a bit scared as a DM. I guess I must ajust myself to that. 

I guess I will have to adapt. Probably HARP characters are supposed to be just have way more broaded skills, and not necessarly been "one trick poney"  like other rpgs (like real life ppl).

********************************************************

Optional Rule  (Really limit investment):

If we rule that only 2 ranks max investment per level that would keep things more interesting until level 18. And inducing characters to invest more broadly from start.

[Willen]

I believe that when characters become more and more powerful, and mundane challenges are no longer a challenge, all the advice is: simply roleplay and let it flow.
Roleplay the barbarian getting insanely drunk or bored, and then let a hook of some uber-monster legend or something. The basic idea of most adventures still works at higher levels: hook, challenge, choice, consecuence.
So now they are requested to actually convince a dragon and not an orc chaman? The idea remains. Or send them to the orc chaman, but add a moral twist. High level characters are prone to turn attention away of combat and more into the moral side of things... they're looking for a challenge! And it happens naturally as well