AD&D1 training rules

[Bullgrit]

To me, it looks like the AD&D1 training rules (for level advancement), the xp award rules, and the xp needed rules (for level advancement) were all mutually contradictory – they could not function together as written.

1- Each class required different xp totals for level advancement: thief needed 1,250 for 2nd level, cleric needed 1,500 for next level, fighter needed 2,000 for 2nd level, magic-user needed 2,500 for 2nd level, etc. [I’m rounding down the 1 xp to make nice easy numbers to work with – that is: 1,251 = 1,250; 2,001 = 2,000.]

2- XP came partially from defeating monsters (~30%) and mostly from treasure acquisition (~70%). http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...d-d-d3-updated-11-17-08-q1-7.html#post3552709

3- Training required an average of 3,000 gp per level to advance. (1,500 per level per week, average play quality = 2 weeks)


The party goes on an adventure. They earn 8,000 xp in total (2,400 from monsters, 5,800 from treasure). That comes to 2,000 xp (and 1,450gp) for each of the four party members.

By the RAW, the thief stops at 1,250 xp (750 is lost), the cleric stops at 1,500 xp (500 is lost), the fighter gets the full 2,000 xp, and the m-u gets the full 2,000 xp.

The thief, cleric, and fighter want to stop adventuring for two weeks to train and level up. Unfortunately, they don’t have enough money to level up yet. So, they just go on another adventure.

On this second adventure, they earn another 8,000 xp in total (2,400 from monsters, 5,800 from treasure). That comes to 2,000 xp (and 1,450gp) for each of the four party members.

The thief is still stuck at 1,250 xp (all gained this time lost), the cleric is still stuck at 1,500 xp (all gained this time is lost), the fighter is stuck at 2,000 xp (all gained this time is lost), and the m-u gets just 500 xp (1,500 is lost).

So now they all have 2,900 gp each -- still not enough for an average player to level up. But let's say they somehow each get an extra 100gp, so they have 3,000 gp each. They can take their couple weeks and pay the trainer, and all PCs are now 2nd level.

But if they all level up at the same time, why have different xp amounts needed for level up? What is the purpose of the thief only needing 1,250 xp for level up if it does him no good whatsoever. It was my understanding that the different xp needed was a balancing feature of the rules. But the training rules negates this feature.

This effect didn’t only happen from certain xp awards or treasure finds, it happened at any xp/gp amounts.

So, why did the rules have one rule for balance and then another rule that essentially negated the balance rule? Why make rules that worked at cross purposes?

Bullgrit

 

[Bumbles]

I never even tried to use those rules.

 

[Ariosto]

It can be mighty inconvenient for a thief -- but not necessarily quite that much!

(1) A 1st-level thief needs 2,501 XP to attain 3rd. Therefore, by my interpretation, 2,500 can be amassed before any more are wasted. One might cut it off anywhere between 1,251 (minimum for 2nd) and 2,500. However, that calls for decreeing an arbitrary cut-off event -- whatever in your example has been called an "adventure" (a term that does not appear in the DMG paragraph in question, although the verb "adventures" does), presumably some scheduled calculation of XP.

(2) The training cost per week is (regardless of class) trainee level x 1,500 g.p.. Number of weeks required depends on average performance rating, ranging from 1 (excellent) to 4 (poor).

(3) Excellent performance means merely "few deviations from norm." The norm under consideration is whether actions were basically in keeping with class and alignment. It is up to the DM's subjective judgment; in mine, the standard of excellence should not be hard to meet. UPON THIS OBVIOUSLY DEPENDS MUCH.

(4) There is no rule decreeing that one must deal with 643 XP worth of monsters to acquire 1,500 GP worth of treasure. Nor is there any rule but whatever players enforce among themselves requiring equal shares of treasure.

 

[MerricB]

The training rules were included to slow down advancement and remove treasure in the case of too-rapid advancement through large windfalls of treasure. In fact, Gary Gygax rarely used them. (I asked him about it a few years back on EN World).

http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/22566-q-gary-gygax-part-i-34.html#post554666

http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/46861-q-gary-gygax-pt-3-a-16.html#post984260

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

It can be mighty inconvenient for a thief -- but not necessarily quite that much!

(1) A 1st-level thief needs 2,501 XP to attain 3rd. Therefore, by my interpretation, 2,500 can be amassed before any more are wasted.

This was the explicit method in Moldvay (and later) Basic, as I recall.

My interpretation of the rule was that you gained XP from an adventure at one time, and if you'd gone above the XP required, you were then frozen until you trained. I never played with the rule, though. (Never was DM to a group that gained so much XP!)

(4) There is no rule decreeing that one must deal with 643 XP worth of monsters to acquire 1,500 GP worth of treasure. Nor is there any rule but whatever players enforce among themselves requiring equal shares of treasure.

According to one interpretation I've seen of the rules - and, I feel, it might be the right one - XP was awarded for GP gained by the individual character! So, if four PCs gave an extra 500 GP to the rogue, they'd all miss out on 500 XP and he'd gain 2000 XP! (Assuming the DM ruled that 1 GP = 1 XP, which was not necessarily the case).

Note that the mentor also had the option of service instead of charging gold, so I assume that for those using the strict rules, that occurred a lot!

Cheers!

 

[Gilladian]

When we played 1e, we used training rules with the following being typical:

1) you could gain enough experience (eeps) to be 1 shy of your next level - so one short of 3rd level at 1st.

2) we never used any multipliers for needed gold - it was always a flat 1,500 x level and always took 1 week per level.

3) When a PC was ready to go up, the whole party chipped in to be sure he had enough gold to pay the training cost. Although that was rarely necessary for the rogue...

After all, going up a level did benefit the whole group's survival chances.

 

[Ariosto]

Note that, with an excellent rating, the total training costs for a thief to attain 7th level are 31,500 g.p. -- versus a total of 42,501 XP. From that point on, things are a bit easier.

 

[amysrevenge]

I never even tried to use those rules.

I only played in 1E, didn't start DMing until 2E. I didn't even know there WERE formal training rules until I read this thread - I thought training rules were always informal house rules that other people made up.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

When I'm running BTB on this:

1. I take note of DMG pg 86: "Note that the tutor might possibly accept some combination of gold and service in return for his tutelage…" Thus, a Thief or a Cleric who doesn't have the cold hard cash still has some options; and Thieves and Clerics both have built in organizations that can potentially work with them on this (i.e. guild and church). There's no reason other classes couldn't have similar options. Some good role-playing opportunities and adventure hooks, there. The "service option" is very popular, in my experience.

2. I've seen PCs pool their resources to train someone right away.

That said, the training rules are one of those things that I've never been entirely comfortable with. I've been tinkering with the "XP for gold allocated to areas of interest" mechanic from Arneson's First Fantasy Campaign; I think there's some promise, there.

 

[billd91]

We used the rules, more or less. We'd spend 1500 per current level (not target level) per week, training was usually just one week.

The rules themselves are pretty complex, even irritating at times, but I don't think they're contradictory. They're just designed to include a lot of opportunities for wasted XPs. If you get more XPs than your next level, you lose them. If you sell your gear after the XPs are awarded in order to afford training, you didn't get XP for the gold. If you were in adventure that didn't allow getting out to train for a week, you kept going knowing you weren't gaining any more XPs. If you didn't have enough money to afford the training but were between adventures, you worked or went adventuring for no XPs just to get the money.

All part of the puzzle in why 3e really does level up faster than 1e, by the rules.