Level Up (A5E) Fast learner heritage feature and armor proficiency.

[Micah Sweet]

I agree with this. I am hesitant to give out features "for free" that are inherent in other classes.
Downtime + gold is "for free" in my books because there isn't a sacrifice being made by the player.

Time and money are sufficient sacrifices in real life. I see no reason why they wouldn't be in a game.

 

[Distracted DM]

By that argument, wizards should also not be able to learn weapons, tools, languages, or skills, since these are also "mundane aspects of the world".

IMO it's just a question of game design, simulationist vs gameist- I think I straddle the line, trying to balance what the system accounts for vs. verisimilitude and the world's "rules."

The best way I can rationalize such cognitive dissonance is to come at it from the angle of: your character sheet and the game system itself are the methods through which you interact with the world- they don't guide the mechanisms of the world itself; then it becomes easier to justify such limitations, while maintaining verisimilitude. It also helps answer questions like "why do NPCs have things that the characters can't have?"

After all, you can (I do) run different systems in the same setting- so the "these rules are how your character/this particular campaign is being guided" thing makes sense.

By that argument, wizards should also not be able to learn weapons, tools, languages, or skills, since these are also "mundane aspects of the world".

Well afaik you can't learn skills in downtime, that's another feature restricted by class/xp; I have to reason that armor and skill proficiencies are judged to be more valuable from a game design standpoint by the designers than the rest; a wizard with a sword still only gets one attack with it, whereas a wizard with plate armor now has ratcheted up their AC drastically which will come into play frequently. I've had the "artificer1/wizard## with 10 strength riding around with plate armor" before and I wouldn't like to encourage that further

especially since the character wouldn't be able to invest into spellcrafting research at the same time (which in A5E is an extremely valuable option IMO)

That's the best reason I've seen
Learning a weapon (or armor if you allow it) takes months, spellcrafting takes weeks.
Although learning a weapon (or armor) is much cheaper

 

[Micah Sweet]

IMO it's just a question of game design, simulationist vs gameist- I think I straddle the line, trying to balance what the system accounts for vs. verisimilitude and the world's "rules."

The best way I can rationalize such cognitive dissonance is to come at it from the angle of: your character sheet and the game system itself are the methods through which you interact with the world- they don't guide the mechanisms of the world itself; then it becomes easier to justify such limitations, while maintaining verisimilitude. It also helps answer questions like "why do NPCs have things that the characters can't have?"

After all, you can (I do) run different systems in the same setting- so the "these rules are how your character/this particular campaign is being guided" thing makes sense.


Well afaik you can't learn skills in downtime, that's another feature restricted by class/xp; I have to reason that armor and skill proficiencies are judged to be more valuable from a game design standpoint by the designers than the rest; a wizard with a sword still only gets one attack with it, whereas a wizard with plate armor now has ratcheted up their AC drastically which will come into play frequently. I've had the "artificer1/wizard## with 10 strength riding around with plate armor" before and I wouldn't like to encourage that further


That's the best reason I've seen
Learning a weapon (or armor if you allow it) takes months, spellcrafting takes weeks.
Although learning a weapon (or armor) is much cheaper

You do you, but I'm never going to agree with an argument that rests entirely on gamist or "balance" conceits. I am a simulationist, and what makes sense in the setting is always my first consideration (though of course I make use of abstraction, and other occasional compromises for practicality).

 

[Anonymous3]

By that argument, wizards should also not be able to learn weapons, tools, languages, or skills, since these are also "mundane aspects of the world".

@Distracted DM covered this better than I was going to.

Time and money are sufficient sacrifices in real life. I see no reason why they wouldn't be in a game.

That's fair - I am sure there ways to achieve this in a game. I do think that games allow players more opportunities to wave away these sacrifices than real life does.

 

[Micah Sweet]

@Distracted DM covered this better than I was going to.


That's fair - I am sure there ways to achieve this in a game. I do think that games allow players more opportunities to wave away these sacrifices than real life does.

Fair enough, but I generally don't want to wave away sacrifices, unless there's an in-setting explanation for doing so. Hurts my immersion.

 

[Distracted DM]

Fair enough, but I generally don't want to wave away sacrifices, unless there's an in-setting explanation for doing so. Hurts my immersion.

IMO the pittance of gold required here is a much smaller sacrifice for a player character to make than a feat or multiclassed level investment representing their training in martial pursuits.

To explain my thinking further, by making gold a way to purchase potent character features like armor, skills, spells, etc. you're effectively throwing out the feats and multiclass requirements that would otherwise be the way that those gains are represented in the system. Why lose a level in wizard, or one of your few feats, when you can spend 250gp training to get the same effect?

I will say though, time in this case is definitely a more impactful investment if you're sticking to the book's rules for training- if it takes 6 months to train in a single weapon, I'd assume the same for armor. That time could be spent on Spellcraft instead, as @lichmaster said

 

[Micah Sweet]

IMO the pittance of gold required here is a much smaller sacrifice for a player character to make than a feat or multiclassed level investment representing their training in martial pursuits.

To explain my thinking further, by making gold a way to purchase potent character features like armor, skills, spells, etc. you're effectively throwing out the feats and multiclass requirements that would otherwise be the way that those gains are represented in the system. Why lose a level in wizard, or one of your few feats, when you can spend 250gp training to get the same effect?

I will say though, time in this case is definitely a more impactful investment if you're sticking to the book's rules for training- if it takes 6 months to train in a single weapon, I'd assume the same for armor. That time could be spent on Spellcraft instead, as @lichmaster said

Yup. Money and time together, not one or the other. How valuable the thing learned is in tactical combat shouldn't, IMO, enter into it.

 

[lichmaster]

IMO the pittance of gold required here is a much smaller sacrifice for a player character to make than a feat or multiclassed level investment representing their training in martial pursuits.

In a way or another, the other clear example where gold and wealth in general give characters other means to acquire features similar or identical to class features or skills is through magic items. You could "rationalize" a wizard learning to wear an armor as if he acquired a magic item infusing him with the knowledge and ability to do so

To explain my thinking further, by making gold a way to purchase potent character features like armor, skills, spells, etc. you're effectively throwing out the feats and multiclass requirements that would otherwise be the way that those gains are represented in the system. Why lose a level in wizard, or one of your few feats, when you can spend 250gp training to get the same effect?

To be fair, in A5e you can spend gold to buy and improve strongholds, gaining ASIs and features that are nothing but feats in disguise

I personally love the idea that wealthy characters can spend their wealth to invest it not only in magic items but also in training, gaining feats and ASIs. In some other games and old school CRPGs you had to spend money to pay a trainer to level you up, after you gained the experience required.

 

[Toan Li]

I think one thing is being overlooked for all of this, the Strength requirement. The -10 speed is arguably worth the trade for a spellcaster, but just restricting the training unless the character meets the requirement avoids the afore mentioned 10 STR Wizard from training in Plate.

I also haven't seen any mention of the fact that the training should only give you one proficiency (ex. scale or plate) not a category (ex. medium or heavy).

I think I would personally require that armor training be gradual. You can't train in a heavy armor unless you have proficiency in a medium armor. Making the wizard go through training three times to get that plate proficiency. (18 months and 900 gold, or 24 months and 1200 for shields too. 2 earth years of martial training is a big deal for a wizard.

 

[Anonymous3]

Perhaps I am just lost in a very specific "fantasy" paradigm or I have misunderstood something but this just breaks my verisimilitude.
If these things are possible, which they definitely appear to be, then why isn't every epic level spellcaster donned in full plate, with weapon and shield? Being able to break/redefine the limits of time means that they have near infinite amounts of time to acquire every skill required to be "the everything".

Are the liches your players facing full armored? They should be.
Is your near ageless high elf wizard npc fully armored? They should be.

This is what I meant by "waving away" time and gold to acquire skills. Without stricter rules in place to define classes then classes become meaningless.