Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ComradeGnull" data-source="post: 5976716" data-attributes="member: 6685694">Came here to say this- Ars was neat in that it gave both wizards and non-magical characters a way to progress without going out and killing things.  You could focus on improving a Grog's combat skills, let a Companion get better at their particular specialty, or even have the combat characters train together in order to get better at fighting in a group.I do think if you make the system close to a 'training' one where characters can't do anything but study for a while in order to make certain types of progress or gain certain features/abilities, you need to structure the game around running multiple characters, or else it all becomes a bit pointless.  If all the PC's are not adventuring at the same time, it gets handwaved as 'time passes'; if one PC has to stay in the tower doing his homework while his companions slay dragons and loot things, that player is going to be bored.Note that Ars also had an aging and old age system that came into play a lot in the off-season.  It served as a way to limit how much downtime research a character could do- you couldn't just say 'I'm going to study until I reach level 18, and then start adventuring' or level a skill up to the moon between adventures.  How much training, and of what type, you could fit into a single season together with aging rules helped keep things sane.The 3e non-adventuring classes (Adept, Warrior, Specialist) fit this model very well in terms of an at-creation choice.  They generally had inferior abilities to their adventuring counterparts.  I don't think WotC gave advancement rules for these classes; they just said 'if you're thinking about running one of these classes as a PC, pick something else'.I think it would be reasonable to establish a slow rate of XP growth for characters that are practicing their trade but not adventuring.I also like the idea of letting non-adventurers grow in breadth rather than getting more powerful.  A Wizard who doesn't adventure might never go above 5th level, but they would have the opportunity to learn nearly every spell of level 0-3 that they could get their hands on.  Likewise, a Fighter who didn't adventure might learn a base level of competence with a lot of weapons by drilling, but wouldn't get much more effective as a fighter because of the lack of real-world practice- so he can take Weapon Focus with several different weapons, but his BAB and attack bonuses never rise above a level-based ceiling.Honestly, non-adventuring characters are one spot where the D&D class/level system shows its seams a bit.  A character like a sage or master craftsman should be much better at Knowledge and Craft checks than a level 1 Fighter, but shouldn't be harder to kill than a level 1 Fighter.  Unfortunately, given the skill cap limits being the best cobbler in Faerun means that you can also be stabbed five or six times more than the average cobbler in Faerun.  Maybe taking a non-adventuring class should remove skill/level caps altogether, and instead of gaining XP and levels, you gain skill points and feats.  So a master craftsman is still mechanically a level 1 Specialist, but he has way more skill ranks in Craft: Birdhouse than a level 1 Rogue can have.</blockquote>

Verification