Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8254884" data-attributes="member: 82106">[USER=45197]@pming[/USER] I always thought of the training thing as more reflecting an incremental process. The idea of gold producing experience really makes no sense. I mean it is literally nonsensical in a realistic sense. The idea that you would need to spend that gold to pay someone to teach you, makes a lot more sense! Then the XP you get from monsters looks like &quot;I practiced my skills, that helped and now I'm ready to advance.&quot; Of course levels are an abstraction, so also the training rules are a bit of an abstraction. More realistically you train constantly, paying for lessons as you go, and slowly improving. But it is after all a game, so...Personally, had I designed this system, I would have reduced the XP requirements a LOT (or increased the XP awards from monsters). Gold would then simply be there to pay for training, but XP would be related only to performance. In a delve setting this would pretty much be a wash, so it should work for most of the play 1e was designed for, including basic hex crawling. You could then do what 2e did and add in XP awards for &quot;doing your class thing&quot; and that would replace the 'RP Rating' number. You could also include quest XP like 4e does.I think in terms of 5e, it already is basically pretty close, since it doesn't have XP for GP, just require training and payment for training, and maybe make quest XP and such more explicit (I haven't read the 5e DMG too thoroughly, maybe it is already in there). I don't think it would be too hard to add in 1e-style stronghold and follower rules either. I don't think 5e really talks about henchmen much, but doing those in a 1e-like style shouldn't really bork up the game much, though combat might slow down too much.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8254884, member: 82106"] [USER=45197]@pming[/USER] I always thought of the training thing as more reflecting an incremental process. The idea of gold producing experience really makes no sense. I mean it is literally nonsensical in a realistic sense. The idea that you would need to spend that gold to pay someone to teach you, makes a lot more sense! Then the XP you get from monsters looks like "I practiced my skills, that helped and now I'm ready to advance." Of course levels are an abstraction, so also the training rules are a bit of an abstraction. More realistically you train constantly, paying for lessons as you go, and slowly improving. But it is after all a game, so... Personally, had I designed this system, I would have reduced the XP requirements a LOT (or increased the XP awards from monsters). Gold would then simply be there to pay for training, but XP would be related only to performance. In a delve setting this would pretty much be a wash, so it should work for most of the play 1e was designed for, including basic hex crawling. You could then do what 2e did and add in XP awards for "doing your class thing" and that would replace the 'RP Rating' number. You could also include quest XP like 4e does. I think in terms of 5e, it already is basically pretty close, since it doesn't have XP for GP, just require training and payment for training, and maybe make quest XP and such more explicit (I haven't read the 5e DMG too thoroughly, maybe it is already in there). I don't think it would be too hard to add in 1e-style stronghold and follower rules either. I don't think 5e really talks about henchmen much, but doing those in a 1e-like style shouldn't really bork up the game much, though combat might slow down too much. [/QUOTE]

Verification