Learning... independant of level...

[Umbran]

I'm going to hold to the traditional line - there already is training going on, you just don't really see it reflected in mechanics until the moment of leveling. The stepwise nature of learning is an artifact of the system, but it really isn't too hard to gloss over, such that it looks like a smooth continuum.

For example, I'm playing in a Star Wars Saga Edition game right now, and my Scout is about to pick up a level of Jedi, along with several other characters in the party. Technically speaking, he's going to pick up a Force-related talent and three powers overnight - we all are, and if you take that too literally, it'll be kind of weird. In-game, though, the characters have been training for this for two levels, and we're not having them all step up and announce all of his abilities to the rest of the party at once. For myself, I'm treating it more like an emerging process - he finally "gets it", and comes into some of his powers over the course of the next couple of sessions, as situations in which his powers are useful arise.

Voilà! The gain in power now looks like the result of a longer learning process, without ugly discontinuity.

 

[Mallus]

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

I like this, but with one modification.

I think all skills should be independent of level -- with the caveat the traditional thief skills should go back to be class abilities, like in AD&D (or consider them like 3e's EX abilities). I no longer see a good reason to make reading, singing or pottery-throwing a function of your adventuring class level.

I'd also like to see the elimination of skill lists at the base complexity level. Resolve skills with ability checks, modified by circumstance, player input, and how closely the task at hand matches the PCs background/concept (thus the text description of your PC forms their basic skill set).

 

[Nagol]

The other option is use level as a descriptor of power and not the source of power.

Tunnels and Trolls uses this approach now. Experience is used to buy stats. The sum of your stats determines your level.

This way, a high stat-array at the beginning of a character's life just means he is closer to levelling than his less fortunate peers.

Learning something would present an increase via directed experience. When the character improves sufficiently whether from training or "hard knocks", it goes up a level.

 

[howandwhy99]

In our OD&D game training by PCs is required to gain a level. It takes time and treasure to do so, but advancement through the levels is slow enough that pre-training can be done quite easily. This gives the players something else to account for when they are adventuring outside of a specific red-hot area and back in town. Plus, they can gain funds by training others, train themselves, or shorten training time by getting a trainer. This doesn't even get into how NPCs train for their levels when they don't go adventuring for new and informative experiences.

One thing that training is useful for is when certain abilities are siphoned off from class abilities. How are languages learned in game when they aren't tied to a class? We might have a starting limit by INT, but that can change too. Training offers costs to those acquisitions. This makes sense with multi-classing too, and anything else outside of one's class. I think the difference lies in their not being a skill system in the older games, but feel free to disagree.

EDIT: Time and money and other costs on an adventuring scale isn't necessarily a bad thing either. It was already talked about how manufacture of magic items could take significantly longer than a 1 round spell to balance PCs ability to craft them. Spell book transcribing too.