D&D 5E Do you allow lucky feat and Wiz. divination portent feature for downtime activity rolls?

The Crimson Binome · Nov 1, 2018

5ekyu said:
I always wondered about trainer-blocked systems... why adventure at all? I mean you level and get better by training. So, why not do other things to make money then pay these tutors to get you your levels? Get a lucky score, marry well and go from pretty con man or lucky miner to 3rd level whatsit in the safety of walled splendor.

In many settings, money is hard to come by, unless you're born rich. Adventuring is one of the very few opportunities which is open to everyone, regardless of social class. Besides, the level 3 wizard who works for a wealthy merchant, and doesn't go on adventures, is not a PC. Regardless of how the setting works, the only characters eligible to be PCs are the ones who are fun to play, so it doesn't really matter how easily the NPCs can gain levels. (I mean, it matters in terms of having a setting that makes sense, but it's less important to gameplay.)

A similar problem shows up in any game where you can improve through training, without even mention of wealth. GURPS is the big offender here, because you gain 1 character point for every 40 hours (IIRC) of training, so it strongly incentivizes spending as much time as possible to train between adventures. If you can get away with only going on one adventure per year, and you can cram as much training into the intervening months as possible, then you gain something like 50 character points per year (compared to ~4 points per session, while you're actually risking your life on an adventure). The smart play would be to take seven years off at the start of the game, train until you're Batman, and then stomp all over the slackers who didn't spend all of their time training. It's kind of a problem.

5ekyu · Nov 1, 2018

Saelorn said:
In many settings, money is hard to come by, unless you're born rich. Adventuring is one of the very few opportunities which is open to everyone, regardless of social class. Besides, the level 3 wizard who works for a wealthy merchant, and doesn't go on adventures, is not a PC. Regardless of how the setting works, the only characters eligible to be PCs are the ones who are fun to play, so it doesn't really matter how easily the NPCs can gain levels. (I mean, it matters in terms of having a setting that makes sense, but it's less important to gameplay.)

A similar problem shows up in any game where you can improve through training, without even mention of wealth. GURPS is the big offender here, because you gain 1 character point for every 40 hours (IIRC) of training, so it strongly incentivizes spending as much time as possible to train between adventures. If you can get away with only going on one adventure per year, and you can cram as much training into the intervening months as possible, then you gain something like 50 character points per year (compared to ~4 points per session, while you're actually risking your life on an adventure). The smart play would be to take seven years off at the start of the game, train until you're Batman, and then stomp all over the slackers who didn't spend all of their time training. It's kind of a problem.

You are of course right... in some games whether or not anything makes sense or is consistent can be irrelevant. PCs can have their own advancement system that is completely disconnected from how anybody else does if thsts the game folks want. It's not necessary for consistency to exist.

And also, the definition of PC can be as limited as desired.

As for GURPS it sounds like you are describing a not-trainer-blocked-system. One where advancement can come from a variety of ways. Either way, not sure why starting a campaign 7 years " later" seems a problem for you, but hey, I am sure it had its reasons.

WaterRabbit · Nov 1, 2018

The main issue I have with your system is that it is a misdirection. The DM always controls how much XP is given out, whether that is through selection of monsters, the time flow of the campaign, when milestones happen etc.

You are just creating a system to disguise this fact and add more tedium to the process, at least from my perspective. To me the training system is there to give players the chance to build attributes they cannot get from normal leveling like more languages, skills, and tool proficiency. This system also works best in an episodic campaign rather than a continuous one.

But don't try to gloss over the fact that the DM is still in control of the rate of advancement. I suppose you could create a campaign rule that three weeks out of every month is downtime and that the 4th is a specific adventure that has x% XP to remove the DMs control of advancement -- but that sounds dull and I would rather just play a computer game then.

The Crimson Binome · Nov 1, 2018

5ekyu said:
You are of course right... in some games whether or not anything makes sense or is consistent can be irrelevant. PCs can have their own advancement system that is completely disconnected from how anybody else does if thsts the game folks want. It's not necessary for consistency to exist.

I'm a big fan of consistency, personally, but most of the problems can be resolved by just assuming that non-adventurers don't advance in any meaningful capacity. Only adventurers really care about how powerful they are, because being powerful doesn't put food on the table, and they have better things to do with their time.

5ekyu said:
As for GURPS it sounds like you are describing a not-trainer-blocked-system. One where advancement can come from a variety of ways. Either way, not sure why starting a campaign 7 years " later" seems a problem for you, but hey, I am sure it had its reasons.

Sometimes it's fun to play as Robin rather than Superman, but it's hard to justify anyone willing to risk their life on a dangerous adventure when unstoppable power is so easy to attain. It would be different if there was a monetary cost, and not everyone could afford it. If the world was going to make sense, then everyone in a GURPS setting would start adventuring at the age of 35, and they would start as the equivalent of level 14.

5ekyu · Nov 1, 2018

Saelorn said:
I'm a big fan of consistency, personally, but most of the problems can be resolved by just assuming that non-adventurers don't advance in any meaningful capacity. Only adventurers really care about how powerful they are, because being powerful doesn't put food on the table, and they have better things to do with their time.
Sometimes it's fun to play as Robin rather than Superman, but it's hard to justify anyone willing to risk their life on a dangerous adventure when unstoppable power is so easy to attain. It would be different if there was a monetary cost, and not everyone could afford it. If the world was going to make sense, then everyone in a GURPS setting would start adventuring at the age of 35, and they would start as the equivalent of level 14.

"Only adventurers really care about how powerful they are, because being powerful doesn't put food on the table, and they have better things to do with their time."

Except of course where being powerful does put food on the table. By 5th level, a druid can put out quite a bit of spell based food and water each day, right? If training is the key thing limiting advancement and money is the key thing limiting that would seem to make it worthwhile to support that advancement as a community.

The Crimson Binome · Nov 1, 2018

5ekyu said:
"Only adventurers really care about how powerful they are, because being powerful doesn't put food on the table, and they have better things to do with their time."

Except of course where being powerful does put food on the table. By 5th level, a druid can put out quite a bit of spell based food and water each day, right? If training is the key thing limiting advancement and money is the key thing limiting that would seem to make it worthwhile to support that advancement as a community.

If that was true, then many settings would collapse under the weight of their community-service druids, and the world would cease to resemble the sort of fantasy adventure setting that the books describe.

So, that being the case, we know that it doesn't work for some reason. The world doesn't look like that, so something we believe must be false. In this case, it's probably that divine favor is more important than training time when it comes to druids.

5ekyu · Nov 1, 2018

Saelorn said:
If that was true, then many settings would collapse under the weight of their community-service druids, and the world would cease to resemble the sort of fantasy adventure setting that the books describe.

So, that being the case, we know that it doesn't work for some reason. The world doesn't look like that, so something we believe must be false. In this case, it's probably that divine favor is more important than training time when it comes to druids.

Well, the first and most obvious part thats different in those settings you describe from the books is that training is not an advancement blocker. Advancement comes from a variety of sources but "training" cannot advance most of your abilities and spells - its the "field experience" and such that leads to the acquisition. So there would be no "training" induced advancement collapse that you allude to but do not clarify in those settings.

But as you pointed out, obviously the rules for any given setting homebrew could be whatever they wanted to be and make as much or as little sense as the table can tolerate. So, for settings with training as an advancement blocker - all bets are off other than table tolerance.