Page 1 of 1
Book references to beginning PCs at higher levels
Posted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:43 pm
by Tor
I am interested in consolidating a list of references in ANY of the Palladium Books games which make references to starting characters at levels higher than 1. I am wondering if anyone can offer suggestions. I can edit them into the initial post with credit to those who suggest them as time goes on. Here's something to get the ball rolling...
Heroes Unlimited 2nd Edition Pg212 says Ancient Masters start at levels 4-9, and Pg214 suggests half as much if using N&SS martial arts
Rifts Dimension Book 1 Wormwood Pg55 mentions Apoks should start at levels 1-2
Rifts Dimension Book 2 Phase World Pg103 mentions Fallen Knight PCs start at levels 1-3
Rifts World Book 2: Atlantis Pg 96 says that Maxi-Men characters start at level 2. (Nekira)
Rifts World Book 3 England Pg 66-7 lets Temporal Wizards start at levels 1/3/5 while 69-70 does the same for Temporal Warriors
Rifts World Book 30; D-Bees of North America, all have a starting lvl higher than 1 (Snake)
Those 4 (counting Temporals together) are all that come to mind at the moment, interested in knowing if anyone else remembers any other instances of referring to starting at higher than level 1.
Re: Book references to beginning PCs at higher levels
Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:10 pm
by Nekira Sudacne
Rifts World Book 2: Atlantis Pg 96 says that Maxi-Men characters start at level 2.
Re: Book references to beginning PCs at higher levels
Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:19 pm
by Snake Eyes
Rifts World Book 30; D-Bees of North America, all have a starting lvl higher than 1
Re: Book references to beginning PCs at higher levels
Posted: Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:37 am
by Alrik Vas
Uh...other than what's listed, i remember in N&SS if you were Zanji Shinjinken-Ryu trained your WP Sword started at like level 5?
Not quite the same...
Re: Book references to beginning PCs at higher levels
Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:45 am
by Tor
Yeah I mean entire classes, not particular skills. Heck in TMNT you could start with skills at much higher levels if you had siblings who selected the same ones.
Thus the 100 frog archer brothers was born, and the world trembled.
Re: Book references to beginning PCs at higher levels
Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:13 am
by drewkitty ~..~
Depending on how the text is read, an Ancient Master DMA starts out at ether L10 or L3. N&S HU1 conversions.
HU1 the Ancient Master starts out at L15.....in his h2h.
(But this is not a class.)
PU2 immortals start out between L2-L6. (
These are not a class ether.
)
In reality you can make a char starting at any level of experience. I have chars made of arena games that were I made to L15. I hardly ever used them, even in arena games, cause the other guys would complain about the char being so powerful.
Re: Book references to beginning PCs at higher levels
Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:30 am
by Tor
For simplicity's sake, let's lump in power categories with classes and talk about "characters starting at higher levels" .. or wait, I already did that.
Re: Book references to beginning PCs at higher levels
Posted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:55 pm
by drewkitty ~..~
Tor wrote:For simplicity's sake, let's lump in power categories with classes and talk about "characters starting at higher levels" .. or wait, I already did that.
No, that would pervert the power cat. concept.
That is the problem with lumping things together into a huge group, that the Idea/concept of the groups "lumped into another" get perverted. See how rifts lumps some races into RCCs labels or how PCCs are lumped into other classes. Now people call races ->RCCs and PCCs -> RCCs/OCCs. *
like the whole situation caused by said lumping is stupid*
Which is why I pointed them out as power categories. Opposed to letting the ignorant think they were classes. The only point I was making was that the PCs I mentioned were PCs, nothing more.
You did not lump power cats in with classes, you
ignored that the distinction between the two in your OP.
Re: Book references to beginning PCs at higher levels
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 1:07 am
by Tor
Lumping OCCs and character classes as "character" types perverts nothing. Where it is a PC/OCC/PCC/RCC is irrelevant to whether or not it's a char starting at 2+.
My 'already did' was in reference to saying just 'characters', not lumping.