AD&D1 training rules

[Raven Crowking]

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

I think your analysis answers your question.

(I also think it points to a weakness in Q's analysis.)



RC

 

[TheYeti1775]

Here's what we used.
Base -
Flat rate of 1500gp X current level = Training Cost
Took (current level) weeks.

From that base we were allowed to double the time and half the costs for 'self-training', or shorten the time by spending more gold. i.e. 3000 x current level would be 1/2 current level in weeks.

Far as advancing at different rates, there was never a large issue in that. As you also had all the other factors of advancement. 10% bonus for high prime abilities, xp for picking locks, xp for casting spells, etc. Plus there tended me a higher morality factor for characters in 1E (IMHO), so it wasn't unusually to have varying levels within the party.

The training rules forced you to put thought into saving your gold as much as you could. So I kinda liked them both as a DM and as a Player. That and the 'Service' option, allowed for future plot hooks to get intwined to it.

 

[Bullgrit]

I think I didn't ask clearly in the OP.

Am I right in thinking that the different xp needed for leveling between classes -- 1,250 for thieves, 2,500 for magic-users -- was a balancing mechanism?

Why have different xp needed for leveling between the classes -- 1,250 for thieves, 2,500 for magic-users -- and then have training rules that regularly set up situations where the lower xp character (thieves, for example) couldn't level up sooner than the higher xp character (m-us, for example)? Is there some logical reason I'm just not understanding?

Why equate xp with gp, then require so much xp (and therefore gp) to level up, and then make a rule to drain all that gp to level up?

Why set up a system that requires thousands to hundreds of thousands of points to level up, and tie treasure to that number such that adventurers must acquire thousands to hundreds of thousands of gold pieces to level up, such that then there has to be a system to drain away all that gold? And even if the drainage system is necessary, why design it in such a way that the drain doesn't match (at least close) the gold accumulation?

It seems that the back end of the system (the training cost) throws the front end of the system (xp needed for level up) completely out of whack. The low xp needed classes don't get any real benefit from their balance feature.

If a thief can't level up faster than the magic-user (or a barbarian), why have the drastically different xp needed?

Is this a case of making a system without thinking through how it actually will affect other systems? Since Gygax didn't use this system in his own games, did he just put it out of mind and assume that everyone else would ignore it too?

Was this convoluted system daisy chain a mistake? Or is there some logical reason for it?

Bullgrit

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think I didn't ask clearly in the OP.

Am I right in thinking that the different xp needed for leveling between classes -- 1,250 for thieves, 2,500 for magic-users -- was a balancing mechanism?

Why have different xp needed for leveling between the classes -- 1,250 for thieves, 2,500 for magic-users -- and then have training rules that regularly set up situations where the lower xp character (thieves, for example) couldn't level up sooner than the higher xp character (m-us, for example)? Is there some logical reason I'm just not understanding?

Players with multiple PCs could have some adventure while others trained.

When I was running 1e, players with more than one PC, each taking turns on the stage (sometimes more than one at a time) were the norm. Indeed, this seems to be the norm for Gygax, too (given his Bigby, Rigby, Huey, Deuey, Louie editorial in Dragon).


RC

 

[billd91]

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

There is a caveat to this though. You can't take an item you've had a while, sell it, and get the XPs for the cash. The DMG states that any magical treasure sold before XP is awarded for the adventure counts as treasure for the gold piece value XPs.
This does lead to questions of timing. Is the DM only supposed to award XPs once the PCs are back in town and have had a chance to sell some stuff? Does he do it as soon as the PCs leave the dungeon's entrance?

 

[Storm Raven]

I think I didn't ask clearly in the OP.

Am I right in thinking that the different xp needed for leveling between classes -- 1,250 for thieves, 2,500 for magic-users -- was a balancing mechanism?

Why have different xp needed for leveling between the classes -- 1,250 for thieves, 2,500 for magic-users -- and then have training rules that regularly set up situations where the lower xp character (thieves, for example) couldn't level up sooner than the higher xp character (m-us, for example)? Is there some logical reason I'm just not understanding?

No, there probably isn't. I think that this, like the incredibly opaque 1e initiative system, the unarmed combat system, and several other things, is an artifact of the haphazard development of the original AD&D game. Game elements seem to have often been introduced that were cumbersome and didn't account for other game elements either because the person designing them didn't think about the impact of the thing they added, or because the person desinging them didn't know about the other game elements.

There are multiple rules that Gygax has stated that he was convinced to include something in the books and regretted it. Often times, this admission was accompanied by a simpler system to replace the one that conflicts with other rules and is overly complicated, or simply a recommendation to drop the rule altogether. Gygax has stated explicitly that he never played with the training rules. I interpret the design of the modules he wrote (and which were approved under his tenure at the helm of TSR, and which thuerefore set the tone for all subsequent 1e modules) to have been made with this understanding.

Is this a case of making a system without thinking through how it actually will affect other systems? Since Gygax didn't use this system in his own games, did he just put it out of mind and assume that everyone else would ignore it too?

I think the answer to these questions is: yes and yes.

Which is why I think RCs objections to Q's module analysis on the grounds that training is not accounted for are simply not particularly convincing. Gygax didn't use the training rules. Almost nobody appears to have used them, and many of those that did appear to have seriously modified them to make the onerous requirements much less onerous.

 

[Obryn]

Was this convoluted system daisy chain a mistake? Or is there some logical reason for it?

AD&D was an organic development that took place over the years, and it isn't consistent with itself in many places. One goal of the training system was to drain gold away from PCs, true. But I would be shocked if the math was actually done that far in advance.

I love AD&D, and I play it fairly regularly. But I don't think there was much actual mathematical analysis used in the development of D&D until 3e.

There is a caveat to this though. You can't take an item you've had a while, sell it, and get the XPs for the cash. The DMG states that any magical treasure sold before XP is awarded for the adventure counts as treasure for the gold piece value XPs.
This does lead to questions of timing. Is the DM only supposed to award XPs once the PCs are back in town and have had a chance to sell some stuff? Does he do it as soon as the PCs leave the dungeon's entrance?

True!

In my AD&D game, I let them "cash in" their treasure for XP as soon as they reach a relatively safe location, and after they've had a chance to sell anything they want to sell. I don't want to get too overly bogged down in math, though, so I award XP for the actual value of the treasure, not the gp obtained for selling the treasure. (So if a jeweled scabbard is worth 200gp, it's also 200 xp, even if it's only sold for 150 gp.)

It's still rough to track everything, though. By the end of an 8-hour all-day gaming session, my scratch paper is full of notations about how much XP the PCs are getting.

-O

 

[rkwoodard]

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


Bullgrit

We never used the rules as written, but I think you are right, it counteracts the Balance By Level mechanic.

Off Topic. Holy Crap, it just hit me that you could make a fortune by slogging up to level 3, then retire and train new people going from level 1 to level 2.

That is some nice pocket money.

RK

 

[ExploderWizard]

This does lead to questions of timing. Is the DM only supposed to award XPs once the PCs are back in town and have had a chance to sell some stuff? Does he do it as soon as the PCs leave the dungeon's entrance?

According to the DMG, XP for treasure is gained only when said treasure is within the PC's stronghold or base of operations (city, town or village). This means that calculations for module treasure not only assume that the players will find every copper, but that they will haul it all back safely to thier home without any losses. What kind of RBDM would let that happen.

Consider a module such as C1 Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. The PC's are in the middle of a jungle and become trapped in a tomb from which they must escape. Are the PC's likely to waste time searching every corner for cash while trying to escape. If they find all the loot, how do they get it all back to thier home base. Large quantities of low value coin and bulky/heavy valuable art objects will probably be left behind and thus not count toward XP awards.

As far as treasure division and XP are concerned, the rules state that players may divide treasure in whatever manner that they wish but the XP award from such treasure is decided by the DM.

 

[Riley]

We still use training rules, but we've houseruled the hell out of 'em...

1. No ExP for treasure, leading to
1a. Somewhat faster advancement tables after the first few levels (but still way slower than RAW in any edition)
2. You can gain ExP after bumping (we interpreted the original rule to mean you stopped completely at 1 point into the new level, hardly satisfactory) but if you go too far into the new level without training your ExP gain starts to slow down and eventually almost grind to a halt, based on a formula.
3. Training cost is roughly [1000 g.p. per level being trained into], with slight variance for class and a bit of a randomizer built in. Someone else has to train you, until about name level at which point you can mostly train yourself and the training system changes sharply.
4. Training usually takes between about 7-14 days, unless you are a Bard in which case it's about triple that. For some less-common classes at mid-high levels, a bigger time-sink can be the travel required to *find* a trainer.
5. If you cannot or will not pay for training you can advance at half speed and "self-train" (this, for example, explains how a Ranger who never sees anyone else can still gain levels over time). We've never really used the servitude option, mostly because nobody wants to retire their character for long enough to make it worthwhile and they've usually got lots of money anyway.
6. You roll your new level's h.p. as soon as you bump, and gain half of them right then. The rest, along with all other abilities given by the new level, have to wait until you train.

Lanefan

Boy, #'s 1, 3, 4, and 5 sound almost exactly like our old AD&D campaign's houserules. Rather than slowing down XP awards, though, we allowed people to gain XP right up to 1 point short of the next level, after which no more XP could be gained. If you wanted to gain a level without training, you then simply subtracted out a level's worth of XP.

Translated:
A 1st level thief gets to 2,499 xp without training for 2nd level. He can gain no more XP. He could then choose to bump his XP down to 1,250, gain 2nd level, and keep adventuring. Or he could go off and get trained ASAP.

We called it 'the school of hard knocks.' (Real original, I know, but it got the point across.) It only really came up with long adventures and discrepant character levels - usually related to dual classing.