Mechanic to Encourage Training

[DarkMaster]

I've been considering implementing the following rules:

For characters suffering from multi-classing XP penalty: If the character can convince some PC or NPC that has at least one more level of the class than they have that is causing the multi-class penalty to adventure with them and spend time teaching them, removing the 20% penalty for that class. (As for an NPC, whether hired or a cohort, would obviously reduce the total XP, but I thought that for some characters, that would easily outweigh the 20% loss.)

Taking it in the other direction, for those without a penalty on their XP, could there be a mechanics benefit for bringing along a trainer?

AtR

Create a feat that remove the 20%. The feat would allow you to make another class a prefered class.

 

[Mark Causey]

Create a feat that remove the 20%. The feat would allow you to make another class a prefered class.

Unearthed Arcana, p. 100 has that as a House Rule feat, already written out.

Good idea

AtR

 

[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.

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.

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?

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.)

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.

I disagree about the 20% penality not taking any form, it is not true that you can keep your ability at their top in different fields if you don't spend some times on them. I would not like to see my PCs look like christmas tree. I see a lot of people on this board that create character that looks like class1 x/class2 y/class3 z/prC1 a/prC2 b/prC3 c. What does such a character represent? RPG wise it is a mess, the guy is a knight of a sacred order and forest protector and archmage.

I personally make it very hard for any player to multi-class. There has to be a very good reason. In my campaing I allowed the barbarian to multi-class with ranger for background reason. His tribe was practicing both arts so he was familiar with them both. I would also have allowed him to take druid level. Any other class would have been refused unless there is a in game opportunity. Same for the street rogue who took urban ranger level.
I prefer to see the character develop various skills within his class. If you want your character with a lot of skills give them rogue level and take one of the variant rogue class without sneak attack.

I feel that spending XP to gain skills or feat goes against the core engine of the D20 mechanic. I guess other RPG would be better suited to you. Where each PC improves his various skills and ability as he see fits. And why would someone who train actually loses experience, I already have a problem with wizard that lose XP when creating magic items. I mean if you spend so much effort creating a magic object you should learn and grow from it not the opposite, same for training. Also why would I spend 500 xp when by getting another 500 Xp I level up and gain more skills points, a HD, better save, BAB and more abilities? This thing should be scaled by level and by the existing level of competence, it is harder to gain one rank when you are already at 14 and what about Max Rank, can they bust them. In my eyes the D20 system fall apart when introducing such an house rule. I find that tuning this is too much complication and if you were able to do it, it would have fall down to leveling up because that the foundation of the system.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

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.

Is it? Book and page number, please?

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.

So the experience I gain as a Fighter swinging a sword automatically produces a Level of Wizard?

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.

And this is different from what I do how?

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

I don't... As your next post indicates, your view of the d20 system is skewed, and you contridict yourself several times...

I disagree about the 20% penality not taking any form, it is not true that you can keep your ability at their top in different fields if you don't spend some times on them.

So you don't believe that a Fighter/Rogue/Wizard that checks for traps, uses his Sneak Attack, uses a sword, and casts spells, isn't spending time on his various fields?

Remember, we aren't discussing a mechanic that lowers your competance in a less-often used ability, but a mechanic that slows down advancement (and the gain of other abilities) regardless of which abilities you use or how often you use them.

I would not like to see my PCs look like christmas tree. I see a lot of people on this board that create character that looks like class1 x/class2 y/class3 z/prC1 a/prC2 b/prC3 c. What does such a character represent?

If the player is worth having as a player, than whatever classes he has, and at whatever levels they are at, is representative of the previous experiences that led him to where he is now.

Much like a real person.

RPG wise it is a mess, the guy is a knight of a sacred order and forest protector and archmage.

Fighter with various weapon and mounted combat Feats that's spent all of his time on a ship exploring desert isles on foot is equally a mess, and he's only got a single class.

As is, though, what you are naming are Prestige Classes, of which I only use the ones I write myself. I might assume, from the names of them, that two of them (Forest Protector and Knight of the Sacred Order) are associated to duties and roles within the campaign setting, to which in-game responsibilities would be far more restrictive than any multiclassing rule. If, however, two or more Prestige Classes aren't contradicting each other, or even make sense togethor (like, say, Cleric/Wizard/Mystic Theurge/Archmage/Heirophant), than why not? Granted, such a combo would require lots of in-game commitments (well, it would at my table), so GMs that allow it for no other reason than the player wanting it would be the real problem.

I personally make it very hard for any player to multi-class. There has to be a very good reason. In my campaing I allowed the barbarian to multi-class with ranger for background reason.

Then again, whatever a character did during Levels 1 and 2 is part of his background at Level 3.

His tribe was practicing both arts so he was familiar with them both.

Is this to say that a PC can't grow beyond his pre-Level 1 background?

How... Limiting.

Any other class would have been refused unless there is a in game opportunity.

Which, funny enough, is exactly what I'm talking about. Go ahead, re-read my posts. You'll see I am.

In fact, what I'm doing, in addition to allowing PCs to take advantage of such opportunities, is allowing them to create their own opportunities. Not doing so would be to not allow a PC to pursue what he wants to pursue, restricting him to only what I want him to or what I feel is justified.

How can plausibility and opportunity be antithesis to the d20 system?

I prefer to see the character develop various skills within his class. If you want your character with a lot of skills give them rogue level and take one of the variant rogue class without sneak attack.

So you view classes in d20 the way they were presented in 1E and 2E, being careers that may or may not represent what the character has experienced since his initial creation?

I feel that spending XP to gain skills or feat goes against the core engine of the D20 mechanic.

Using XP to gain boons is a common occurance in the d20 engine. Check things like Spells, Magic Items, and Character Levels.

Consequently, the "core" of the d20 mechanic is d20 + modifiers. Everything else is bells and whistles.

I guess other RPG would be better suited to you.

Nope. I will say that I don't play Dungeons & Dragons anymore, but it's definately a d20 Fantasy RPG.

Where each PC improves his various skills and ability as he see fits. And why would someone who train actually loses experience, I already have a problem with wizard that lose XP when creating magic items.

Y'know, your post is almost funny. You tell me that buying Skill Points is against the "core engine", and then complain about aspects of that engine.

Are you sure you're playing the right game?

I mean if you spend so much effort creating a magic object you should learn and grow from it not the opposite, same for training.

I can see that point of view, having played 1E and 2E where that was the case. However, the aspect as described in d20 (the caster infusing the item with part of his essence in the form of XP) also makes sense.

Also why would I spend 500 xp when by getting another 500 Xp I level up and gain more skills points, a HD, better save, BAB and more abilities? This thing should be scaled by level and by the existing level of competence, it is harder to gain one rank when you are already at 14 and what about Max Rank, can they bust them.

Max rank? No. As for purchasing Skill Points, if a PC gains 2000 XP more than he needed for Level 11 (at which time 14 is Max Rank), than why not allow him to cash in 500-2000 for 1-4 extra Skill Points? Certainly not going to break the system, as my own game has proven.

In my eyes the D20 system fall apart when introducing such an house rule.

Of course, your post also shows that how you see d20 is already at odds with what d20 is. You...

-View Classes as careers that PCs should stick to.
-Dislike expenditure of XP for boons.
-View the character's pre-Level 1 background as a straightjacket that limits any and all future choices.

I find that tuning this is too much complication and if you were able to do it, it would have fall down to leveling up because that the foundation of the system.

Nope, it's not "too much complication". My group runs on this standard and has been since d20 hit the market. No problems, no over-powered PCs, and no complaints. Generally, the purchasing of extra Skill Points is 2-3 at most until around 8th Level or higher. After that, extra Skill Points do appear more often. For instance, the ECL 4/Fighter 4/Ranger 1/Rogue 2/Soldier 3/Mah'Don Legionnaire 2 (Favored Fighter) in one of the games I GM doesn't break the system if he ends up with 2 or 3 extra Ranks of Craft: Siege Engine, 2 or 3 extra Ranks of Profession: Soldier, and 2 or 3 extra Ranks of Profession: Soldier, as none of these have any effect outside of Role-Play (working as a soldier) and Mass Combat. Granted, it might if he ends up with 20 or more extra Ranks in Jump, Climb, Ride, or other "adventuring Skills", but I already indicated that the rule isn't used for that purpose, as I'm sure you noticed when you read my earlier post that stated so.

 

[DarkMaster]

First Sorry if I piss you off that wasn't the intend.
Although I don't like the rules that uses XP to create magic items and cast spell I uses them, because I am too lazy and don't have enough time to develop an alternative that would be balanced and within the core mechanism of the game.

I allow someone to multi-class to anything they want as long as it is possible. A barbarian could not come to me and say,"Oh I will take a wizard level", the poor man doesn't even know how to read. In my world you need around 5 years study to become a 1st level wizard if you have 15 Int, so unless the barbarian is willing to stop for more or less 5 years, he won't be able to take a wizard level. He won't be able to take a fighter level unless he can spend maybe around 6 months learning the basis on how to improve in the art of combat and so on. Like me I spend years learning Computer engineering, I am now shifting to a managerial position, I think it will take me at least one year before I can become effective (and gain my first level manager). Last project on which I worked, was very good and I learned from it. I could not say OK I take this experience and I am a level 1 manager right away, no I think I gained another level as a designer and now I need to build up experience to gain a level as a manager.

As for the penality I have my own reserve but I think it is a good way to go against the power gamer. I will take a level of barbarian to get rage, fast movement, 2 level of ranger for the bonus feat and the tracking, 1 level of rogue for a sneak and trap finding, and so on. I allow to gain one prefered class at the cost of a feat so yes, you can be a man of multiple talent but it has a cost.

My player also like to have their define role in the group, The barbarian/ranger would be frustrated if everybody was able to rage and fast movement, the rogue/urban ranger like to be the smooth talker of the group, cleric the fighter healer and so on.

Having everybody focusing on their class makes the group much more powerful and I like that, Player quickly becomes fed up of fighting gobelin, orcs and troglodite. I prefer to have a one sorcerer 8 then four sorcerer 3/whatever x. Everytime politics and such is involved the sorcerer and the URanger/Rogue get involved the other three taking a side role there. Again my UR/R has high skill in Diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, and she is more effective than if she was a Rogue/fighter/wizard in all those skills.

My point his as a whole the group can handle much greater challenges than if they were christmas tree.

When I say that spending XP goes against the core D20, I mean that in order to improve the capabilities of a PC there is already a set rule, leveling up. Now that other things drain your experience to create something is different.

Character improves because they gain experience, that experience is expressed in a certain amount of level, which is subject to be affected by energy drain, magical item creation and such. By buying skill points and feat you basically reduce the effectiveness of such attack or penality. That is why I feel the system you propose must be seriously revised. If you look at the rules skill points, feats, BAB, HD, saves special ability are all tied to level. anything that allow you to gain any of those without leveling up is in my view broken.

Hope that it clarify my opinion.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

First Sorry if I piss you off that wasn't the intend.

Nah, you didn't. Sometimes my bluntness comes across that way, which, of course, is not my intent either.

(And I will admit that, sometimes, my bluntness causes people to reply in ways that do piss me off, but that's another topic entirely... )

Although I don't like the rules that uses XP to create magic items and cast spell I uses them, because I am too lazy and don't have enough time to develop an alternative that would be balanced and within the core mechanism of the game.

Might I suggest Power Components. My own take is along the lines of:

-Magic Item requires the finger bone of a CR5 monster.
-PC finds and slays monster, acquiring the finger bone.
-Finger bone absorbs part or all of the XP cost, equivelant to a CR5 creature.
-Balance Tip: Don't have the component have a value that exceed the XP cost.

This doesn't often eliminate the XP cost, but it can be used to reduce it and it provides plenty of adventuring and RP hooks. By scaling the value of the component to the CR of the creature, you ensure that the boon is equivelant to the risk involved in obtaining it.

Don't forget that sometimes the "Adventure CR" is more suitable. For instance, if you need the pollen from a particularly rare flower (CR0, heh) but reaching the flower requires getting past or defeating a CR20 Dragon, than the flower's pollen should be considered a CR20 Power Component.

I allow someone to multi-class to anything they want as long as it is possible. A barbarian could not come to me and say,"Oh I will take a wizard level", the poor man doesn't even know how to read. In my world you need around 5 years study to become a 1st level wizard if you have 15 Int, so unless the barbarian is willing to stop for more or less 5 years, he won't be able to take a wizard level.

My own system (for Wizards) is 12 years - (PC's Int modifier + tutor's Cha modifier). Sorcerers cut that in half.

He won't be able to take a fighter level unless he can spend maybe around 6 months learning the basis on how to improve in the art of combat and so on.

Now this is the opposite to my own, being that it is, in my opinion, far too long. For instance, having BAB and good Fort already, all the level of Fighter would bring is a Feat. Generally, I have (non-Item Creation/Metamagic) Feats going at 2 Weeks + 1 Week per Prereq Feat + 1 Week per Skill requirement (not Ranks, just individual Skills). Having a Tutor can reduce this (-1 Week x Charisma modifier). And, of course, my times assume 4 Hours per day. Learning on the road (2 Hours per day) or focusing on this exclusively during down-time (8 hours per day) can effect the time involved. And, of course, other factors may apply, but those are usually a case-by-case basis.

Like me I spend years learning Computer engineering, I am now shifting to a managerial position, I think it will take me at least one year before I can become effective (and gain my first level manager). Last project on which I worked, was very good and I learned from it. I could not say OK I take this experience and I am a level 1 manager right away, no I think I gained another level as a designer and now I need to build up experience to gain a level as a manager.

Which, to a degree, is the sort of "reality" I'm attempting to add to the situation. However, this isn't always possible. For instance, you're going to gain the Level of Manager by managing. On the other hand, a Barbarian isn't gaining a Level of Wizard by casting spells. Thus, it becomes a balancing act: If the PC can attempt to do something prior to Level gain, then he's invited to do so, but if he can't, he should be provided some degree of opportunity to pursue it after gaining a Level. The quest for plausibility is to find suitable means of opportunity that make sense within the context of the role-playing environment; it shouldn't form the basis of un-movable roadblocks that a PC can never hope to overcome, although it may cause a delay (measured in game time and, sometimes, Character Levels).

As for the penality I have my own reserve but I think it is a good way to go against the power gamer.

Agreed. However, when the power gamer isn't an issue (i.e., I don't have any in my group), but it penalizes someone for making sensible choices (e.g., taking a Level in Ranger after a long wilderness trek), then it's true worth needs to be re-evaluated. And, having evaluated it, I've found it more of a deterant to reasonable choices than anything else.

I will take a level of barbarian to get rage, fast movement, 2 level of ranger for the bonus feat and the tracking, 1 level of rogue for a sneak and trap finding, and so on. I allow to gain one prefered class at the cost of a feat so yes, you can be a man of multiple talent but it has a cost.

Now, see, you've done something similar. Granted, it's not how I would have done it, but is that such a big deal? What works at one table isn't going to automatically work at another table. If that wasn't the case, then the Core Rules would work right for everyone and no one would need house rules.

My player also like to have their define role in the group, The barbarian/ranger would be frustrated if everybody was able to rage and fast movement, the rogue/urban ranger like to be the smooth talker of the group, cleric the fighter healer and so on.

Now this, this isn't so important to me. At the same time, I've run groups with 3 PCs where everyone was a Fighter. I've run a game we called the "Mage's Group", consisting of 2 Wizards and a Bard. I've played in a game called "Rogue's Group" where the PCs were a Rogue, a Rogue/Fighter, and a Bard/Fighter.

I guess I see classes as a means of defining abilities, with Class Level scaling those abilities, and Character Level scaling how many abilities are available. None of this, however, defines a character's "role" within a group; Rather, the specific choices themselves, including how those abilities are used, do that. For instance, someone with high Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, and Sense Motive isn't necessarily a diplomat and a con-artist, he's just good at those Skills. How he's played determines if he's one, the other, or possibly both.

Having everybody focusing on their class makes the group much more powerful and I like that, Player quickly becomes fed up of fighting gobelin, orcs and troglodite. I prefer to have a one sorcerer 8 then four sorcerer 3/whatever x. Everytime politics and such is involved the sorcerer and the URanger/Rogue get involved the other three taking a side role there. Again my UR/R has high skill in Diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, and she is more effective than if she was a Rogue/fighter/wizard in all those skills.

Then you are mis-using the Diplomacy Skill. Diplomacy is intended to shift NPC attitudes, not ensure successful negotiating. Also, the skill itself does not take the individual prejudices and preferences of the NPC into account; for instance, a high ranking member of a Mage's Guild may not have any respect for the UR/R and is only willing to negotiate with the Wizard (as he sees the Wizard as the only PC worth respecting).

There's a thread on General about this. Very informative. I'll dig up the link later unless someone else beats me to it.

My point his as a whole the group can handle much greater challenges than if they were christmas tree.

At the same time, there's no reason to assume that the party will always be together. I've found that side-treks, solo-quests, split parties, and the like, suffer from the assumption that they will always be together to synergize from one another.

When I say that spending XP goes against the core D20, I mean that in order to improve the capabilities of a PC there is already a set rule, leveling up. Now that other things drain your experience to create something is different.

Oh, I agree. But again, this mechanic is designed to be balanced with the concept of adventuring. If your game is strictly adventure->adventure->adventure, then the mechanic is fine. However, the more relevant non-adventure gaming becomes (i.e., social lives, raising families, owning/managing businesses and empires, etc.), the less effective the system becomes.

One thing you may consider is reading the difference between Kick-in-the-Door and Deep Immersive in the DMG (loaned mine out last night, so I can't quote it specifically, but it's in the first chapter). The closer a game is to Kick-in-the-Door, the more unbalanced my rules would be. I admit this completely. However, the closer to Deep Immersive a game is, the more my rules become an effective means of increasing a PCs viability outside of the dungeon without sacrificing the character's ability within it.

(As a point of reference, if you view KitD and DI in the form of a gas guage, you'd find my game about half-way between "the middle" and Deep Immersion; not quite free-form, but definately balanced differently.)

Character improves because they gain experience, that experience is expressed in a certain amount of level, which is subject to be affected by energy drain, magical item creation and such. By buying skill points and feat you basically reduce the effectiveness of such attack or penality. That is why I feel the system you propose must be seriously revised.

Actually, there is no reduction in effectiveness. Attacks don't drop; penalties don't increase. It does slow down advancement, which may or may not be a problem to the individual group.

Also note: I do not support the idea of purchasing Feats because Feats are more closely tied to character potency. Feats are also, to use the general description given to them, "neat ways to break the rules" (although I think a closer definition is to "change the rules in certain situations").

If you look at the rules skill points, feats, BAB, HD, saves special ability are all tied to level. anything that allow you to gain any of those without leveling up is in my view broken.

Well, keeping this conversation in the realm of Skill Points, which is the only thing I'd allow being purchased outside of Item Creation and casting spells, I partially agree. That is, the Class Level mechanic, Skill Points, Max Rank, etc., are all tied to adhering to a balance meant to keep min/max and powergaming under some degree of control (that it fails, as seen on the WotC Min/Max Board, is besides the point). However, this same mechanic gets in the way of other considerations. Like my example earlier, how does getting a few ranks in Craft: Siege Engine adversely effect balance within an adventuring scenario? Fact is, it doesn't. However, it does allow the PC to perform particular actions that are more based on his "role" in the world, and it does so without increasing or decreasing his potency as an adventuring PC, which, to me, is the ideal result.

Hope that it clarify my opinion.

A bit, yes, so allow me to clarify my own to a degree. See, "back in the day", Non-Weapon Proficiencies had a number of drawbacks. First, the number PCs got was attrociously low. Second, the method of improving a NWP was horrid (sacrifice one of your precious NWP slots for a meager +1). As such, I had devised a means of permitting gains (bonus NWPs, improving NPWs) within the context of the game (i.e., derived from in-game events). Even if the player just says, "I'm practicing this 2 hours every evening", it was enough (i.e., so long as I knew when you where doing it, I knew what your PC was doing if something happened during that time). After a suitable amount of time (varied by goal), I would inform the player that his PC gains whatever would be suitable.

d20, by far, does a much better job with Skills then 1E or 2E ever did. However, the safe-guards against over-zealous power-boosting of PCs and monsters, especially the low number of Skill Points gained by most Classes followed by the high price of Cross-Class Skills, cuts into other elements of the game that the game's default balance doesn't presume to be occuring. This is not to say that the game prevents these elements from being in place, it's just that for the Core Rules to presume both opens the game up to abuse by those that only focus on one (regardless of which one that happens to be). This was, by and far, the biggest problem with 2E's Kits; RP-based hindrances were only suitable hindrances if the hindrance actually effected gameplay. If it didn't, you ended up with an over-powered PC.

By that standard, I know what will work in my group, in a game GM'd by me, with the game focused on both of these elements. I also know that these same rules, adopted by a group that would only use it to increase character power, would result in a sudden power gain that would effect balance (whether that is good or bad would be based on the GM's ability to account for it in his scenario/encounter design). So, all I can really do is indicate what I do or suggest what I would do in a given situation; it's for the individual GM to determine if my post is one that would work well or not with his group, not comparisons to the Core Game itself.