The above is part of the explanation as to why training rules really aren't needed in 4E -- you don't need an XP buffer for any of the things listed above. Plus, unlike in 3E, in 4E you always gain levels in your current class -- so "training" is nothing more than taking a break (an extended or overnight rest) and thinking about what you learned in your most recent adventures.
Cost and Time for Training?
- Thread starter ReeboKesh
- Start date
The above is part of the explanation as to why training rules really aren't needed in 4E -- you don't need an XP buffer for any of the things listed above. Plus, unlike in 3E, in 4E you always gain levels in your current class -- so "training" is nothing more than taking a break (an extended or overnight rest) and thinking about what you learned in your most recent adventures.
amysrevenge
First Post
This is one of those issues where it's hard for me to bite my tongue.
Obviously a considerable number of people like the notion of training to gain levels - people have been doing it for decades. Me? Enormous dislike would be an appropriate description.
For me, the issue would be a game-breaker. If a DM insists on NPC training (or even self-training requiring time/resources), and can't be talked out of it, then the time has arrived for us to part ways.
Heh. I just had a funny thought about DING. I'd actually prefer, over training, to stop and do the paperwork of an increase in level during my turn in combat, between swings, if the first swing was a kill for enough XP to gain a level.
I tend to look at most discrete game pieces as abstractions of what would really be more continuous. Your PC's skill with a weapon does not make regular 5% jumps in effectiveness, that is just an error introduced into the system by quantization. The 5% jumps are an approximation. Similarly, I don't reckon that a PC actually learns all of the things gained in a new level all of a sudden in that instantaneous transition between levels, even though within the context of the rules he does. Again, it's an abstraction already.
It's a problem in a system where for some skills/abilities you have these discrete but at least relatively gradual increases in the amount of skill/ability, while for other skills/abilities you transition from unable to perform the skill/ability at all to perfectly able to perform the skill/ability at will in a single instant. I could at least intellectually understand the desire for some sort of formal training system for the second type of skill/ability where you pick up a new skill/ability whole cloth (even though I'd still have zero interest in adding such a sub-game to versions of D&D without training rules). However, adding in formal training rules to coincide with the gradual improvement of things like THAC0/BAB/1/2level or saving throws/defenses seems arbitrary.
Obviously a considerable number of people like the notion of training to gain levels - people have been doing it for decades. Me? Enormous dislike would be an appropriate description.
For me, the issue would be a game-breaker. If a DM insists on NPC training (or even self-training requiring time/resources), and can't be talked out of it, then the time has arrived for us to part ways.
Heh. I just had a funny thought about DING. I'd actually prefer, over training, to stop and do the paperwork of an increase in level during my turn in combat, between swings, if the first swing was a kill for enough XP to gain a level.
I tend to look at most discrete game pieces as abstractions of what would really be more continuous. Your PC's skill with a weapon does not make regular 5% jumps in effectiveness, that is just an error introduced into the system by quantization. The 5% jumps are an approximation. Similarly, I don't reckon that a PC actually learns all of the things gained in a new level all of a sudden in that instantaneous transition between levels, even though within the context of the rules he does. Again, it's an abstraction already.
It's a problem in a system where for some skills/abilities you have these discrete but at least relatively gradual increases in the amount of skill/ability, while for other skills/abilities you transition from unable to perform the skill/ability at all to perfectly able to perform the skill/ability at will in a single instant. I could at least intellectually understand the desire for some sort of formal training system for the second type of skill/ability where you pick up a new skill/ability whole cloth (even though I'd still have zero interest in adding such a sub-game to versions of D&D without training rules). However, adding in formal training rules to coincide with the gradual improvement of things like THAC0/BAB/1/2level or saving throws/defenses seems arbitrary.
Last edited:
Wepwawet
Explorer
Add me to the crowd against those training rules.
You can do "realistic" training without all those interruptions and gp spending, through mere roleplaying. This is actually what I always try to do with my characters (when I DM I encourage players to do it also): the new skills, powers or ability scores should have something to do with what has happened to the charater in game.
For example, take a Firesoul Genasi Swordmage, who's adventuring on a mountain region, fighting a lot of air elementals and ice archons. He has a lot of contact with ice and wind and gets to understand those elements better, so at the next level he can develop an extra manifestation (he gets the feat to manifest windsoul) or he can find out how to cast ice spells.
There's a justification in game for it, he already got to learn those skills, there's no need to find his guru and spend 2 months to do that.
On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that skills that have absolutely nothing to do with what he has done should be harder to get.
You can do "realistic" training without all those interruptions and gp spending, through mere roleplaying. This is actually what I always try to do with my characters (when I DM I encourage players to do it also): the new skills, powers or ability scores should have something to do with what has happened to the charater in game.
For example, take a Firesoul Genasi Swordmage, who's adventuring on a mountain region, fighting a lot of air elementals and ice archons. He has a lot of contact with ice and wind and gets to understand those elements better, so at the next level he can develop an extra manifestation (he gets the feat to manifest windsoul) or he can find out how to cast ice spells.
There's a justification in game for it, he already got to learn those skills, there's no need to find his guru and spend 2 months to do that.
On the other hand, it makes perfect sense that skills that have absolutely nothing to do with what he has done should be harder to get.
Last edited:
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Absolutely. The problem is, the game (all editions) doesn't really quantify what you're learning; only what you're already good at. 3e was bad for this: when you gained a level you could stick it into any class you wanted (assuming you qualified for it) regardless of any other considerations; even if such was a class you'd never touched before. A simple core rule saying you had to state such a choice when advancing into the *previous* level would have served to mitigate the reality-disconnect a little, but there was no such thing that I'm aware of.
Lanefan
Wepwawet
Explorer
There's no need to quantify it, and there is always a way of explaining things in-game (if nothing else, "a wizard did it" always works
)For example, if there is a Druid in the party, there is enough justification to multiclass into anything Primal (or nature-y, for earlier editions). The character spent some time with the druid learning about that stuff, talking at night by the camp fire ... Classes are not professions, they're just ways of acting and manifesting yourself, based on a general training (i.e. the "power source")
But yeah, in 4E it's easier, because multiclassing is just dabbling
Last edited:
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
Why should it be jarring? It's ACCURATE.
The original explantion Gary provided in the DMG was essentially to say that if you want to be a very good fighter then you don't go wander in the wilderness for 3 weeks, have 3 or 4 fights, and drag back a sack of gold - what you do is to TRAIN. You spend 3 weeks in excercise, study, practice, under the tutelage of someone who already understands more than you do about what you're trying to get better at. If you're a warrior, then in the absence of live combat on a daily basis you want PRACTICE at combat on a daily basis. This applies whether you're actually trying to be a better sword-swinger, archer, spellcaster, or whatever.
The training rules then can serve a couple of purposes. For one, it provides a certain amount of mandated downtime for everyone. It generally gets the PC's back to civilization. This is then a time when the DM can sow the seeds for new adventures and allows for a change of pace from dungeoneering to city adventures. It provides a nudge away from the PC's being mere professional tomb-raiders to opportunities to experience other aspects of the DM's campaign world (if any).
Secondly, in 1E Gygax (whether intending to or not) designed a system where with one hand he handed out heaps of treasure - but with the other he systematically and unashamedly bled it away. Taxes, spell components, cost-of-living fees, etc. And of course, training costs. All these drains on the money being gained by the PC's served as motivation to continue to seek new adventures and thereby gain more treasure. More than once Gary phrased the suggested costs of something as, "It should be just slightly more than the PC can currently afford..." He wasn't trying to suggest that DMs should be a jerk to their players and suck the fun out of the game, but the exact opposite. He wanted to keep the game moving forward - even if the only reason would be to get enough to pay for "x". Of course, once "x" is paid for the player will then find that if he wants "y" he has to go get still more loot.
Thirdly, though it's not stated I believe that training time and costs serves to ground the PC's lives just a bit more in reality. It's not just party all the time, money for nothing and your chicks for free. He was trying to structure something of the Conan-esque where PC's earn AND THEN SPEND treasure, not just earn more and more and more until they're not adventurers, just rich guys with guns. You win bags of gold, spend some and find that it's not enough to buy your PC what you need and want, then go win more, spend some of that and again find you need more. Adventuring is supposed to be a job description reserved for the PC's and they seem to have been intended to find themselves trapped into continuing to adventure to support themselves in the lifestyle to which they become accustomed.
It also makes the passing of time a significant factor in how and why the PC's carry out their planning as a group. In AD&D PC's advance at different rates. They can earn xp at different rates for different activities. PC's will level up at unpredictable times and it is NOT expected that they ALWAYS do EVERYTHING together. This can come with a certain amount of frustration but it also serves to to highlight the fact that (whether you care for the analogy or not) they are NOT characters in a video game, but that the world marches on around them and while they might adventure for a living they also deal with more mundane issues of life - like trying to finish training so they can commence the next adventure. If you look at the AD&D DMG p.37-38 he's talking about the need to track time in the campaign and the example being given has PC's going in all different directions pursuing all manner of aims, but obviously they need to eventually get BACK TOGETHER. These PC's don't live narrow, computer-programming-limited lives of ENDLESS adventure. Adventuring is simply what they do to support EVERYTHING ELSE in their lives.
Of course, at this point I probably have to say what should go without saying. Just because there's a rule on a page (or even if it's a house rule and not even written down) doesn't mean the DM should feel obligated to blindly obey it to the detriment of the players enjoyment of the game and the well-being of his ongoing campaign. If the player just wants to level up quickly and move on, and YOU as the DM would prefer to just move the game along then DO IT. Determine what you want to use training time/costs for. Make your players aware of your reasoning right from the start. By all means APPLY the rules but don't forget why you're ALL sitting at that table.
Merlin the Tuna
First Post
How is it accurate to have my ability to do adventurous things be unrelated to the frequency with which I do adventurous things? Why should running across wet balance beams in the Temple of the Great Tide while dodging swipes from water archons provide me with less valuable experience than running across balance beams at Barry's Balance Beam Bonanza? (Doubly so since I am ostensibly earning experience points from the former and not from the latter. And, again, I likely spent a lot more time and energy adventuring than training, given the rules we've seen for training in the past.)
Putting in training rules doesn't get rid of the *DING! NEW LEVEL!* effect, it just draws attention to it by changing what causes the *DING* to something that's a little bit more of a hassle to the players, and it's still not accurate because you still get sudden jumps in the PCs' abilities because you're going up a whole level all of the sudden.
If you want to minimize the *DING* effect, you don't do it by changing the trigger, you do it by breaking down the levels into even smaller chunks than they already are -- after a couple of fights, you get the HP that you would have from being one level higher than you are, and after a few more you get the skill bonus you would have, etc. If you want to tie this in with training, what you really need to do is say "You need to spend a month training with Mr. Miyagi in his dojo," then have ninjas attack the dojo one week later before they can finish training so that the party again finds themselves partway between levels. If you don't, then it just becomes a game of replacing the DM's saying "You gain a level" with "You train for a month. You gain a level."
Training rules as D&D has historically used them don't really add much on their own, especially if they just become a way of saying "You gain 100,000 gold! Except you really don't because you're going to spend 90,000 of it to level up, because seriously, it's not like you're going to retire."
Last edited:
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Exactly. Have a few benefits kick in when the actual ExP value ticks over, and the rest not kick in untuil training. We have it that on ExP tick-over you roll your new h.p. and gain half; and you also have one more level to feed to the undead. You don't gain any new skills, spells, etc. until you train.
Or, the DM says "You train for a month. During that month, rumours reach you that Dr. Evil has moved his main base of operations from Mount Erupto (where you just came from) into one of the glaciers in the North Range; nobody is sure exactly which one. This move seems to have been prompted by continued interruptions from a group of mercenaries (i.e. you lot) intent on thwarting his plans. In other news, the lizardfolk invasion you turned away from in order to get to Dr. Evil appears to have been mostly dealt with by another company of mercenaries from the west, but reports indicate this mercenary group is becoming troublesome in its own right and might have to be faced down at some point. [etc. etc. etc. for several minutes...] And by the way, you've gained a level."
The world does not stop while the PCs train, and this forces them to make choices - train and become more powerful and give the enemy time to do their thing, or forego training and get after 'em now even though without training they might not be quite up to the task.
Lanefan
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
As I was explaining, what training rules are attempting to do is draw attention to other aspects of the ongoing game and character development. It assumes that it is a GOOD THING to actually interrupt the otherwise ceaseless, swift progression to higher levels. Getting better at walking balance beams rightfully isn't done by spending an hour in the Temple of the Great Tide in combat. It's logically done by spending days and weeks in training at Barrys Beam Bonanza. No, that's NOT adventurous and exciting - but it's ACCURATE. Training rules aren't detailed or extensive. They are a TOKEN nod to that accuracy and simultaneously present the opportunity for insertion of other viable gaming goals. If that token nod annoys you just ignore it. Many, perhaps even most people who played AD&D did. The game won't break if you do. But training rules are not an offense to the gaming gods. They served, and still serve, useful purposes.
Yeah, actually most times it IS just a matter of, "You train for a month. You spend x gold. You gain a level." Generally, it's been my experience as a player that NOTHING happens when you train. As a DM I've frequently gone out of my way to fit MY game-event timeline around PC training to minimize disruption. But how much of a disruption IS IT? All you're doing at that point is just advancing the calendar. What's the difference? The difference is that marking off the time spent in training IS more sensible than clearing a dungeon room, DING! You level up. Then you kick in the next door along the corridor having just increased in hit points, combat ability, spells, skills, class abilities, etc. while walking the last twenty feet. It's not MUCH more accurate to say that those gains require only a week or two of intensive training and some gold expenditures - but it is SOMEWHAT more accurate.
But as I noted they DO add something on their own. The fact they don't add something you want doesn't make them useless. And yes they certainly can be handled mindlessly and hamfistedly as you're suggesting and so become a detriment to a game, but that's a DM problem, not an issue with training rules as a game concept in and of themselves.
ReeboKesh
First Post
Hey guys I completely forgot about this post so I thought I'd better reply. I have to agree with the Man in the Funny Hat.
My main interest in doing this was from reading Sagiro's Story Hour about Abernathy's Company. He didn't use mentors but there was downtime during training. This allowed events in his world to continue and not only occur when the PCs were active. I want to do that with my new campaign. My players will be given a lot of choice to what they want to do and certain events will occur whether they tackle them or not.
Also I'll be able to add plot hooks, divest the PCs of excess money and force them to make important decisions in their PCs lives e.g. do they let some members train or march on to the Dungeon of Doom etc
I've spoken with the players and they're cool with it I just need an idea what to charge/time spent etc.
Thanks to everyone for your feedback
Reebo
Similar Threads
