Learning... independant of level...

[UngeheuerLich]

One of the biggest shortcomings of 4e IMHO is the impossibility to learn new powers by training. I am not speaking of grandmaster training (which I see as a patch actually), but the aquisition of new wizards spells or new exploits during a level.

One of the most rewarding things of earlier editions was improving your character over the standard for a level. A wizard gains 2 spells per level through his own studies, but if he was lucky, he could find a spellbook and learn another spell.
In our ADnD games, we allowed fighters to train in additional weapons when he found them. I could easily imagine a system where a fighter can learn new tricks.

The framework of 4e is not bad. But I would have liked it, if it was possible, that you can learn additional powers of a given level, but in a fight you may only be able to use one of them... or even better, male a system that allows for exploits a certain number of times and you may chose which of those exploits you use.

Power attack and power attack enhancing feats of mordekainens emporiom are not unlike the system I envision... but I really don´t like the idea that broadening your characters abilities should cost a limited resource... IMHO roleplaying and the effort to gain those abilities should decide how many you get... not the number of feats spent.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Not keen on extra powers gained through training. Easy to abuse. "Every night my player trains with his new battle axe". This is a good quote and I like it, BUT I would not grant extra abilities. Instead, why don't you require this PRIOR to their next 'advancement'.

We had some great RPing moments in our 4E campaigns where players justified 'in-game' and/or did something about attaining their powers before they actually got them.

 

[molepunch]

Hmm I think maybe this is best left to the dial instead of being the base rule. I definitely find that it deepens the RP but like what Connor said it can be abused easily and it may get in the way of fun for those who are just looking for a beer-pretzel-dice evening.

I myself would put wind this dial "in" for sure though

 

[Li Shenron]

Training is a huge issue. I don't see how the problem can be solved in D&D.

Fundamentally, D&D uses levels to represent that you have in fact learned something. Everything you get at next level can be seen as the result of your training during the time spent at previous level(s).

But at the same time, levels are the result of XP which is gained by going adventuring (and mostly by killing stuff).

The problem is unsolvable, unless you break the relationship killing = XP = abilities. OTOH, this relationship is what has make D&D after all very playable.

Wizard learning spells from scrolls is an exception, and IIRC the sole one in 3ed. The reason is just that it is a legacy of the past editions. Personally, I've always enjoyed this exception, but I wouldn't mind if they removed it for the sake of consistency with everything else.

At the same time, I wouldn't mind if more similar options were given to other classes. BUT they have to be put a limiting factor. Wizard scrolls are limited by their availability. It's quite vague, because in magic-mart campaign this means simply the money to buy whatever scroll you want. Ultimately, the DM should just have the guts to say no if the thing is going too far.

If you want a rule system that lifts this burden from the DM, then a clearer limiting factor should be used. Time is the most obvious one: a minimum time requirement for example spent in uninterrupted training (outside adventures, of course) for each additional ability a PC wants to learn, the better the ability the bigger the time. At least this way you will have all PCs on equal grounds. The downside is that as soon as you have such system, every PC will use it, because otherwise they would feel they're not getting as much as those who use it all the time.

 

[Bluenose]

I have to say that the only way I can see to do this which would be remotely practical would be to drop levels. Have people spend experience points directly to learn new abilities. Want to learn to use a different type of weapon, spend 25xp. Want to add a new spell to your spellbook, 20xp/spell level. Want to be better at attacking people, +1BAB costs you 200xp. (I'm not saying these have to be the values).

This might not satisfy a goal of being like previous editions of D&D.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

"I swing my axe every evening indeed does not qualify" This is just the normal level up prcess.

"Abuse" is a word that should not happen in a game, where the DM is the final arbiter. Of course, you could now say, that he can play favourites etc.
And I also believe, it may not be in the base rules...

but wizards learning more spells is so iconic and one thing I really enjoyed when I played ADnD and 3.x.
And I beieve it is fair if you give other characters the same chance.

And look at 4e. There is grandmaster training. Why not use it and make it just give a new power (although admittedly, possibly there are no powers at all in 5e)

You could also look at my approach this way:

You can do stunts (page 42.) A rogue could pick up sand and throw it in the eyes. A nice trick. First time he does so he is untrained. If he succeds some times, it could become an iconic power he can use once per encounter... Of course, not every monster is succeptable to thrown sand, not every attlefield has sand. But under the right conditions, the trick can be successfully used.

The Idea that you learn tricks during play has the advantage, that the character building not happens only on the whiteboard, but in game. Another advantage is, that not every power needs to be useful all the time. If you can chose between differetn powers, it is much easier for a DM to say, no: there is no way you can blind the gelatineous cube with sand. (Admittedly, it has the bind descriptor, so even in 4e it does not work.)

edit: and no, dropping class and levels is a bad idea IMHO... Maybe you can have a sidepool of xp though, which can be accessed through roleplaying...

 

[Hassassin]

This is something rather easily house ruled.

A 5th level fighter used to use a longsword, but trains with his new +3 battle axe: either allow him to retrain his WF (longsword) to battle axe, or let him take his 6th level feat a bit early. Likewise, letting a player choose (some) next level skill points early is fine. Neither will unbalance the game.

If you want to reward training, tack an XP bonus on the above. If you don't want to "break down" the level, give a conditional bonus: 100 XP if you choose WF (battle axe) as your next feat.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like to have it as an option in 5e. Not a house rule. I can do it with the houserule button in 4e easily.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I would sometimes like to decouple training from levelling.

The basic idea is: Levelling increases your character's "raw" power. Training expands his horizon, increasing versatility. (Make no mistake: More versatility is also power, but it's more limited).

Things that I think should not be part of levelling, or at least not just limited to levelling:

• Languages.
• Crafting/Profession/Perform type skills.
• Spells

What I would like to see is giving "downtime" more space in the rules and more meaning for the game.


I think it's explainable that you get better at adventuring skills as you roam through trap-infested dungeons, slay orcs and giants, navigate the wilderness and all the stuff adventures do.


But some things don't quite fit into that.


So, let's have "Downtime" mean something.

• You want to train a new skill - spend a month in town with a trainer.
• You want to craft a magical item - spend a month in your alchemy lab crafting it.
• You want to learn a new language - spend a month in a foreign city.
• You want to learn a new spell - study in a arcane library for a week.
• You want to learn a new combat technique (exploit in 4e) - spend a month with a trainer.

(regarding spells and combat techniques - I presume that you still have to prepare/slot spells, and that you may have a similar limitation for combat techniques.)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Well, technically if you wanted this in the traditional D&D structure, "training" wouldn't give you concrete things, but XP. Then when you level, you can spend your skill points or feat or whatever on that thing you've been working on. Keeping that traditioanl structure and adding concrete benefits from training is like keeping traditional hit points and layering called shots to the head on top of them. You can kludge it, and if clever even make it work most of the time, but there are definitely going to be major holes somewhere in that design.

That said, I agree with Mustrum. A design that allowed this would let you hit raw power via level in all kinds of things, and then train out from there to expand what it can do. You learn the raw "fireball", it works as described. You can train to change the shape, delay the blast, etc. You learn the raw "cleave", it works as described. You can train to include more movement while using it or with a wider range of weapons, etc.

Actually, I kind of like that idea for the "specialization" problem. A character spends too much character resources specializing, they are sometimes inordinately hit when they lose the required tools. In reality, once you get that kind of advantage with something, you've also learned something about related things. If the specialization bonuses are small enough, you can write off the general stuff to increasing BAB or +1/2 level bonus or other parts of the system. But that can make the specialization seem chintzy in its effects. It is a tough tightrope to stay on precisely.

Whereas, if a fighter can specialize in "longsword" and get a major piece of his level-based power from that, then spread out to other weapons as his character find the time and inclination to do so, it becomes a characterization issue. He may not learn "halberd" because his character was too proud, or didn't have time, or picked other weapons, etc. But you don't have this "great with longsword, starkly lousy with everything else" dynamic.