Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Zhure" data-source="post: 791134" data-attributes="member: 308">- I strongly advise against using the training rules and am glad they're optional rules in 3.0. Starting in 1e, at least it was clear training costs were intended to relieve the PC's of excess cash, but that distinction had been forgotten by 2e. Frankly, I think the game has grown enough that such a transparent mechanic has disappeared.My primary objection to training: it's boring. Sure, one sees training sequences in movies and books, but they're either action scenes, where we watch the hero practice new techniques or they're glossed over and the plot progresses rapidly. So if you're running a cinematic campaign, you opt for a brief action sequence. If you're running a novella game, you gloss over the training.If you implement training rules, the game bogs down, as not all the PC's will level at the same time in most cases. The 'casters will level at odd times, because of magic item manufacture. Newer characters will level more often if they're started at a lower level. It can create a bookkeeping nightmare as time gets staggered for different blocks of PC's, some who are training and some who are not. It's unfair for the non-training PC's to have to sit bored in town doing nothing while their comrades train, and it's unfair for the non-training PC's go out adventuring because they'll gain more experience and have fun.Training isn't fun for anyone.- Wizards aren't &quot;unfamiliar&quot; with longswords and martial weapons; they are just &quot;unproficient.&quot; A wizard can wield a longsword at a -4. If he takes a fighter level, he gets that penalty negated. The same is true for all martial weapons.I've seen characters wield weapons with which they are non-proficient and roleplay their eventual mastery of that weapon, something that was impossible to do in earlier editions.Greg</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Zhure, post: 791134, member: 308"] - I strongly advise against using the training rules and am glad they're optional rules in 3.0. Starting in 1e, at least it was clear training costs were intended to relieve the PC's of excess cash, but that distinction had been forgotten by 2e. Frankly, I think the game has grown enough that such a transparent mechanic has disappeared. My primary objection to training: it's boring. Sure, one sees training sequences in movies and books, but they're either action scenes, where we watch the hero practice new techniques or they're glossed over and the plot progresses rapidly. So if you're running a cinematic campaign, you opt for a brief action sequence. If you're running a novella game, you gloss over the training. If you implement training rules, the game bogs down, as not all the PC's will level at the same time in most cases. The 'casters will level at odd times, because of magic item manufacture. Newer characters will level more often if they're started at a lower level. It can create a bookkeeping nightmare as time gets staggered for different blocks of PC's, some who are training and some who are not. It's unfair for the non-training PC's to have to sit bored in town doing nothing while their comrades train, and it's unfair for the non-training PC's go out adventuring because they'll gain more experience and have fun. Training isn't fun for anyone. - Wizards aren't "unfamiliar" with longswords and martial weapons; they are just "unproficient." A wizard can wield a longsword at a -4. If he takes a fighter level, he gets that penalty negated. The same is true for all martial weapons. I've seen characters wield weapons with which they are non-proficient and roleplay their eventual mastery of that weapon, something that was impossible to do in earlier editions. Greg [/QUOTE]

Verification