AD&D1 training rules

[Bullgrit]

(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.

You are thinking of the Basic D&D rules. The Advanced D&D rules say xp gain stops at the minimum for 2nd level. So the thief would stop at 1,251.

(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.

The 30/70% monster xp to treasure xp is not a written rule, but that seems to be the average break down judging from what came of a series of core AD&D1 adventure modules. And no one has argued against that ratio.

Bullgrit

 

[Bullgrit]

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.

So why design the xp and level gain rules this way. If slow advancement and low money was the goal, why write the rules so complicated? Why set things up so that xps were often wasted by the truckload? Why set the xp goals so high (in the thousands), and so different, then tie gp to xp, then charge so much for level advancement, and then set it up so tons of xp get wasted?

This almost sounds like a government tax code. To me, this is all so extremely, over the top, complicated and contradictory.

Honestly, this looks like the design of a madman

Bullgrit

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The 30/70% monster xp to treasure xp is not a written rule, but that seems to be the average break down judging from what came of a series of core AD&D1 adventure modules. And no one has argued against that ratio.

My (OD&D) games tend to come in around 20/80 (see my Creating a "Mythic Underworld" Dungeon" musing), but I think 30/70 is a reasonable split, too.

 

[ggroy]

Whenever I had the players do training to level up in 1E AD&D, the gold amounts typically paid were reflective of things like joining a guild and whatever amounts paid for room + board, along with the "fees" of the trainers.

In order to not be short of gold, sometimes I just gave them slightly more gold to find than usual during their adventures.

 

[thedungeondelver]

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.

These two things are the most convenient way of dealing with the matter. I've had players return the most insignificant looking objects from dungeons and gotten a whole level's worth of training out of it (hey, who knows why the thieves' guild wants that iron candelabra? get it for 'em already!)

And adventurers in my group have pooled their resources; they've reasoned that' it's better to have that thief at the next highest level than not.

(snipped the rest of your...your...HERESY!. Honestly, turn in your AD&D members card at the next meeting, and prepare to have your ID tattoo sanded off!)

 

[Storm Raven]

In my experience (granted, it is only anecdotal) among the most common house rules were abolishing the training rules (or at least using the "Only Train When You Gain" system outlined in The Dragon), and eliminating the GP = XP equation.

But, if you used the training rules, I note that while you could sell a magic item for a lot of money, you would only get a lesser amount of experience points from doing so. The general assumption most people I knew played with was that PCs would sell minor magic items to get the needed cash to train.

I also note that the expectation embedded in the DMG seems to be that the PCs would end up with piles of cash as there is significant time spent advising how to seperate PCs from their loot. The spell trading rules, the "PC upkeep rules", the stronghold building rules, and so on and so forth.

 

[Obryn]

Yep, I ignored them when I was a kid, and as an adult have continued to do so! They slow things down unnecessarily and create more hurdles than benefits, IMO.

As far as I saw it, all that stuff they did in the dungeon was their training.

-O

 

[Obryn]

But, if you used the training rules, I note that while you could sell a magic item for a lot of money, you would only get a lesser amount of experience points from doing so. The general assumption most people I knew played with was that PCs would sell minor magic items to get the needed cash to train.

That's backwards, actually. Most items have a significantly higher sale value than XP value. You get more XP from selling them, assuming you can find a buyer.

-O

 

[Storm Raven]

That's backwards, actually. Most items have a significantly higher sale value than XP value. You get more XP from selling them, assuming you can find a buyer.

You're right. I misremembered. That just makes the problem worse. We almost never played with the training rules anyway.

In addition to the annoyance of getting money and halting XP gain and finding a mentor and so on, we always thought it somewhat creepy that the DM would be grading the players.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

(snipped the rest of your...your...HERESY!. Honestly, turn in your AD&D members card at the next meeting, and prepare to have your ID tattoo sanded off!)

Heh. I have this mental picture of you reading my post and nodding, then hitting the part where I mention tinkering with Arneson's "spend/xp" system and spewing coffee all over the place.

FWIW, I think the training rules work fine when the service option is liberally exercised. My lack of 100% comfort is rooted in the cost of training; it threatens verisimilitude, for me. But I don't consider it a big deal, either way.