Mechanic to Encourage Training

[Mark Causey]

Yeah, I'm horrible at math. My problem is that I have 7 players and adding an NPC trainer for one of them seemed to work out.
To answer your question; no, I didn't think/realize it.

Oh well, this'll probably end up being home rules only then.

Thanks for the advice, guys!

AtR

 

[Bendris Noulg]

If I went with your system of removing XP penalty for multiclassing and had the +1 Skill points per level so long as the classes weren't disparate, what would you say would be appropriate for a reward for receiving training when leveling up?

That I wouldn't know; I don't worry about level "despairity". My group tends to level up as past experiences influence them; For instance, after crossing a continent-sized jungle, most of the PCs took a level of Ranger because the skills/abilities matched what they had experienced, although one contemplated a Level of Shaman because his personal experience in the wilderness involved time dealing with Spirits and a friendly Shaman native to the region. And at this time, no one had any Ranger Levels, nor did any of them have Ranger or Shaman as a Favored Class.

Now, things I like to keep in mind when characters gain a Level:

-What did they do during non-adventuring time. The "adventures" as I write them often take a good amount of game-time to accomplish. I don't do dungeon crawls very often, with adventures often involving travel, exploration, intrigue, and various other elements. This often results in "dead time" that players are encouraged to fill with anything they like. My players have gotten involved in politics, become military commanders, run schools, gotten married and had children, and so forth. In this time, things like training beyond actual in-game events (such as the Rogue learning Sorcery) are openly invited by me from the players.
-Extra Skill Points by Time. If a character has trained beyond what would be required (for instance, if we "dead time" a six month period and a character goes to work in his uncle's forge), I'll grant a Skill Point or two into that specific Skill or related Skills (forgework = Crafts & Profession).
-Extra Skill Points by XP Cost. When giving Experience (which I do at the end of an adventure, not between sessions), a player may deduct a number of Experience Points (500) to gain an extra Skill Point. This Skill Point must be applied with the same consideration as normal Skill Points (i.e., related to actual experience or accounted for via training or study).

Typically, I just wing it, using the above as my guideline; I allow what's fair and reasonable and disallow anything that doesn't have some basis in prior in-game events. My primary concern is that, in trying to balance the game to maintain a degree of control over min-maxing, the designers have forced a choice: If you apply Skill Points to Skills that are mostly for the purpose of adding depth to your character (i.e., Crafts, Knowledges, Professions, and other Skills used in certain ways, like haggling with Diplomacy for those that participate in business and trade), you have to take away from those things that add to your character's potency as an adventurer (Knowledge: Arcana, Spellcraft, Climb, Jump, Concentration, Bluff for feinting, etc.). Thus, I aimed at removing the "sub-optimal" complaint that some individuals like to voice when they see characters that aren't min/maxed to some degree.

That, to me, would be the main concern with Training Rules that permit additional Skill Points or (more drastically) Feats; any system that permits the characters to become more potent than they normally would be will likely have a major impact in the outcome of adventures and encounters and should be scrutinized heavily before using. On the other hand, any system that adds more depth to the character, more non-combat/adventuring options for the characters, RP-centric hooks for PCs to pursue, and forces some degree of burden on the players to help maintain verisimilitude and plausibility, is a good system.

 

[DarkMaster]

That I wouldn't know; I don't worry about level "despairity". My group tends to level up as past experiences influence them; For instance, after crossing a continent-sized jungle, most of the PCs took a level of Ranger because the skills/abilities matched what they had experienced, although one contemplated a Level of Shaman because his personal experience in the wilderness involved time dealing with Spirits and a friendly Shaman native to the region. And at this time, no one had any Ranger Levels, nor did any of them have Ranger or Shaman as a Favored Class.

This can only works for low-magic campaign and non-casting PC. I don't like to force my players in one direction. In the example mentionned above I would allow to consider survival as a class skill but not force them to take a level of ranger. I could also tell the sorcerer he has access to new wild or jungle spell, or the fighter a new exotic feat he could have learned with one of the local tribe or allowing track as a bonus feat. I prefer adding possibility than removing them, player usually like it better. I think each character can be affected by his long stay in the jungle, but they don't all pick up the same thing. For any given experience each character learn from it differently. Take a normal combat. The fighter will improve his fighting technique, the mage is casting ability, the rogue his combat ability to a lesser extend than the fighter and his sneak attack. Same event, different experience, leading to different character.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

In the example mentionned above I would allow to consider survival as a class skill but not force them to take a level of ranger.

And what, pray tell, gives you the impression that anything was forced?

 

[Mark Causey]

...most of the PCs took a level of Ranger because the skills/abilities matched what they had experienced, although one contemplated a Level of Shaman because his personal experience in the wilderness involved time dealing with Spirits and a friendly Shaman native to the region. And at this time, no one had any Ranger Levels, nor did any of them have Ranger or Shaman as a Favored Class.

So, when they were ready to level up, and they trained with the Shaman, or some of the guides they might have met that were Rangers, and you had wanted to reward them for having an extra reason for adding this level other than their environment and the fact that they had the XP necessary, how do you think you would reward them to encourage it in the future?

AtR

 

[DarkMaster]

And what, pray tell, gives you the impression that anything was forced?

So what's the point of taking a ranger level, unless you want tracking and enemy? especially if you are a caster type or don't want XP penality

 

[DarkMaster]

That I wouldn't know; I don't worry about level "despairity". My group tends to level up as past experiences influence them; For instance, after crossing a continent-sized jungle, most of the PCs took a level of Ranger because the skills/abilities matched what they had experienced, although one contemplated a Level of Shaman because his personal experience in the wilderness involved time dealing with Spirits and a friendly Shaman native to the region. And at this time, no one had any Ranger Levels, nor did any of them have Ranger or Shaman as a Favored Class.

Now, things I like to keep in mind when characters gain a Level:

-What did they do during non-adventuring time. The "adventures" as I write them often take a good amount of game-time to accomplish. I don't do dungeon crawls very often, with adventures often involving travel, exploration, intrigue, and various other elements. This often results in "dead time" that players are encouraged to fill with anything they like. My players have gotten involved in politics, become military commanders, run schools, gotten married and had children, and so forth. In this time, things like training beyond actual in-game events (such as the Rogue learning Sorcery) are openly invited by me from the players.
-Extra Skill Points by Time. If a character has trained beyond what would be required (for instance, if we "dead time" a six month period and a character goes to work in his uncle's forge), I'll grant a Skill Point or two into that specific Skill or related Skills (forgework = Crafts & Profession).
-Extra Skill Points by XP Cost. When giving Experience (which I do at the end of an adventure, not between sessions), a player may deduct a number of Experience Points (500) to gain an extra Skill Point. This Skill Point must be applied with the same consideration as normal Skill Points (i.e., related to actual experience or accounted for via training or study).

Typically, I just wing it, using the above as my guideline; I allow what's fair and reasonable and disallow anything that doesn't have some basis in prior in-game events. My primary concern is that, in trying to balance the game to maintain a degree of control over min-maxing, the designers have forced a choice: If you apply Skill Points to Skills that are mostly for the purpose of adding depth to your character (i.e., Crafts, Knowledges, Professions, and other Skills used in certain ways, like haggling with Diplomacy for those that participate in business and trade), you have to take away from those things that add to your character's potency as an adventurer (Knowledge: Arcana, Spellcraft, Climb, Jump, Concentration, Bluff for feinting, etc.). Thus, I aimed at removing the "sub-optimal" complaint that some individuals like to voice when they see characters that aren't min/maxed to some degree.

That, to me, would be the main concern with Training Rules that permit additional Skill Points or (more drastically) Feats; any system that permits the characters to become more potent than they normally would be will likely have a major impact in the outcome of adventures and encounters and should be scrutinized heavily before using. On the other hand, any system that adds more depth to the character, more non-combat/adventuring options for the characters, RP-centric hooks for PCs to pursue, and forces some degree of burden on the players to help maintain verisimilitude and plausibility, is a good system.

Sorry to disagree with you again, but isn't the whole purpose of improving the character capacity directly translated in gaining level. I don't know what is the problem in giving experience point to a PC that spend a year training at a school academy, depending on the quality of the school I provide the player with a certain amount of XP, that he can spend on class that are given at the academy then the leveling system will give skills and feats to reflect that training (obviously if you train at the school of wizardry I doubt you could take weapon focus Greatsword as your feat. Every academy can teach you so much so. after a certain time depending on the source of training the XP reward per month of training quickly goes down.

Also if the fighter train exclusively as an armorsmith without practicing his fighting skill than he will have to take an expert level with appropriate skills, otherwise he can level up as a fighter with less skill since he spent a lot of time also practicing his fighting skills.

Why change a system that works?
EDIT
Experience is like money: The greater the risk the greater the gain, I could also say that time is experience. If a 10 level fighter is willing to spend 1-2 years of his short life to gain 1 level when he could probably do the same in a few months of adventure then what's the problem?

 

[doghead]

So what's the point of taking a ranger level, unless you want tracking and enemy? especially if you are a caster type or don't want XP penality

Because it made narrative sense. The experience gained - the things learnt and the skills developed by through that experience - were best reflected by a level in ranger. (I would have been inclined to do the same.) And perhaps the players thought that a level in ranger (or more accurately, the skills and abilities gained) might be useful.

If any two of your multiclass character's classes are two or more levels apart, the strain of developing and maintaining different skills at different levels takes its toll.

Er, whatever. I'm quite good at sailing, and lousy at rollerblading. I do both however. I don't find it a 'strain' 'maintaining different skills at different levels'. In fact, I am not 'maintaining my skills at different levels' at all - I am (when I can) trying to improve both sets of skills.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

So what's the point of taking a ranger level, unless you want tracking and enemy? especially if you are a caster type or don't want XP penality

Well, there's also Favored Terrain, Favored Beast, and Favored Region, but you wouldn't have known that. However, you seemed to have overlooked the fact that I don't use the 20% Experience penalty. (See my first post in this thread.)

As for taking Ranger instead of something else, most of them took Ranger because they felt it was most fitting. See, my groups like that. They don't worry about Caster Levels or things like that. Rather, they are focused on in-game experiences, plausibility, and story-based justification.

Sorry to disagree with you again, but isn't the whole purpose of improving the character capacity directly translated in gaining level. I don't know what is the problem in giving experience point to a PC that spend a year training at a school academy, depending on the quality of the school I provide the player with a certain amount of XP, that he can spend on class that are given at the academy then the leveling system will give skills and feats to reflect that training (obviously if you train at the school of wizardry I doubt you could take weapon focus Greatsword as your feat. Every academy can teach you so much so. after a certain time depending on the source of training the XP reward per month of training quickly goes down.

That might work to a degree. At the same time, what's wrong with going to the academy after gaining a Character Level but before gaining the benefits of a Class Level? The end result would be the same, would it not? And that doesn't require giving the PC anything he hasn't directly gained through adventuring.

Also if the fighter train exclusively as an armorsmith without practicing his fighting skill than he will have to take an expert level with appropriate skills, otherwise he can level up as a fighter with less skill since he spent a lot of time also practicing his fighting skills.

Define "less skill". Also, wouldn't this be dictating what Class Level to take (Expert), which is exactly what you thought I was doing earlier when my players opted for Ranger Levels?

Why change a system that works?

Because it doesn't work. At least, it doesn't work for me and my group. (See earlier comments about the results of balancing min/max and powergaming by the designers in the post you quoted.)

Experience is like money: The greater the risk the greater the gain, I could also say that time is experience. If a 10 level fighter is willing to spend 1-2 years of his short life to gain 1 level when he could probably do the same in a few months of adventure then what's the problem?

If a PC spends years doing something, then sometimes Expert is the ideal result. However, having PCs in my game heavily involved in politics, government administration, and politics, Courtier (Rokugan, or Swashbuckling Adventures, both by AEG) is also a viable Class in many instances. It really depends on the end result you are after and maintaining some semblence of balance within the game (be it Core balance or your own take). For me, I like to keep some things within a certain range for the sake of combat/adventuring balance between PCs while allowing a degree of flexibility for things that are more role-play in nature (such as professional vocations, politics, governing, leading armies, administrating temples, etc.) and thus outside the standard bounds of the rules.

To go from doghead's example to my own, I can relate that I'm a former US Navy sailor (E4), and I used to be the manager of a pizzaria in Chicago, yet having these at despondant levels (I was a competant manager and an average sailor) does not seem to at-all effect my ability to work as a Facilities Design and Logistics Coordinator within the private sector. Indeed, the basics of both of the former (working under extreme pressure + deal with large volume production) were exceptionally helpful in preparing me for the later (dealing with Fortune 500 companies, their clients, and their suppliers). So while on a technical level, the 20% penalty is good for the purpose of keeping min/max to a tolerable level, it's also in the way of (to use doghead's expression) narative sensibility when that narative is more important to the group than min/maxing is (to which I'll add, if I didn't on occassion suggest some things to my players, they probably wouldn't be min/maxed at all!).

Going back to the characters that took Ranger levels, this same group was composed of various Class Levels (and one ECL4 + Classes) at the earlier levels. Later on in the campaign (around 8th Level), they signed up with a Mercenary Company. From that point on, they started gaining Levels in the Soldier Class (Legionaire from Mercenaries, AEG) because, within the context of the campaign, it was the sensible thing to do. Would it be fair to penalize the PCs for having made a completely logical choice based on in-game events? I'd argue that the 20% penalty does not, in any way, shape, or form, take such things into consideration.

 

[DarkMaster]

Well, there's also Favored Terrain, Favored Beast, and Favored Region, but you wouldn't have known that. However, you seemed to have overlooked the fact that I don't use the 20% Experience penalty. (See my first post in this thread.)

As for taking Ranger instead of something else, most of them took Ranger because they felt it was most fitting. See, my groups like that. They don't worry about Caster Levels or things like that. Rather, they are focused on in-game experiences, plausibility, and story-based justification.

maybe but the whole system is based on the idea that every character class can be developed from all type of experience and settings. So a wizard in the wild will learn a different way than a ranger or a fighter.

That might work to a degree. At the same time, what's wrong with going to the academy after gaining a Character Level but before gaining the benefits of a Class Level? The end result would be the same, would it not? And that doesn't require giving the PC anything he hasn't directly gained through adventuring.

The training after is from earlier edition, that is why it doesn't work, seriously, how do you explain then that the shopkeeper might be an expert 10 and he never went in adventure once in his life? There is nothing wrong for a hero to improve outside adventuring, to me it is just a slower process.

Define "less skill". Also, wouldn't this be dictating what Class Level to take (Expert), which is exactly what you thought I was doing earlier when my players opted for Ranger Levels?

I meant skill points, I don't force them, they know before starting their training what the results would be. they then decide how they want to improve.

My son (1 1/2) is coming around so I will finish my answer later, but I just want to give you my opinion on your system, I hope you take it as constructive criticism