Removed From Thread

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[genshou]

First off, thank you for responding! One of the really nice things about EnWorld is the sort of feedback that you can get.

Second, allow me to repeat: the training rules are intended as a single ribbon on the maypole of "things to do during downtime."

Finally, after reading comments and talking to players, I have considered the following:

1) You could train, as described above. Gansk, part of the reason for using rolls is to include the idea that Discount Bob isn't always the best person to train with. Of course, I might include a feat called Apt Pupil, which allows you to succeed even if your trainer is a washout.....

2) You can spend 1/4 of the XP needed to get to the next level (after some talk, and some of the commentary above, I agree that 1/2 is probably too much).

3) When you get the XP required for the level after the one you have not yet attained, you automatically attain the one level, and can then train if desired to gain the other level.

How does this sound?

RC

1) If your trainer is a washout, you're better off teaching yourself. I don't think there's an additional feat choice needed for this, as it is too heavy of a restriction. You could instead pick up a feat that would be useful in actual play, such as Quick Draw, Run, or [_]83l2 1337//355 . Note that the third is not a real feat, as uber leetness is something no PC deserves. But feel free to replace it with something appropriate such as Power Attack.

2) 1/4 sound a bit more decent. I'd probably go with 1/5 myself, but to each his own.

3) I don't like this one. The convention in normal D&D is that you earn XP at the end of a set period of time (it's recommended to be done at the end of an adventure or when the PCs break off an adventure to "level up" or in other words train), and you can never earn more XP than one point short of advancing two levels before you actually advance in level. If you haven't trained by this point, then you need to take a break for a while as you really can't learn any more without improving your skills. That's the best way to make sure characters have to take breaks; put a limit on how much XP they can have before advancing a level. That way they do actually stop for a breath between adventures. Best of all, this convention is supported by the RAW.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Gansk]

Gansk, part of the reason for using rolls is to include the idea that Discount Bob isn't always the best person to train with.

At the rates you are charging (10 gp per level), the players are going to sacrifice a little extra money to guarantee less time and ease of use. Once they find a high-level trainer that they can depend on, they are going to lock on to him or her. An extra 100 gp per level is not going to change that, let alone 10 gp per level. You already penalize cheaper choices by adding extra time if the trainer is not very good.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Shadowlore]

-Finally, the practice conflicted with the notion of gaining your experience through adventuring. In other words, adventuring functions as a type of on-the-job training. It just seems that characters gain more experience in the field thwarting foes than they can in a training session.

-sorry if this sounds like a rant, it's a touchy subject to me-

I'm with you, Was. On the first quoted note above, I'll vouch for this in the field. From personal experience, a week in combat is worth far more than months in training in terms of what you learn.

On the whole training to level thing. I'm opposed to any risk of not levelling after earning the XP, or any XP cost. XP represent *experience*. You can not trade experience for training, they are not interchangable. No dice rolls, no chance of failure.

I've been in such a wide array of game systems that it still makes me shudder to think of how many of them are truly horrible. I've been in systems that did very much like what is being described. I too found it horrible, as did everyone else. Eventually including the DM! IMO it is just wrong to add more chance of failure after a hard won fight to get to next level. After leterally risking life and limb, it's just too much to ask, IMO.

IMO going with a training requirement is an attempt to bring realism into it. But often this ignores a few key factors.

PCs are not normal. By definition they are above average, often way above average. According to RAW, stats above ten are heroic, as are skill ranks. Yes, sometimes normal rules don't apply to heroic people.

Second, the attempt to quantify experience into real life experience followed by further training belies how these types of things work in the real world. This is where bringing realism into it fails. This is especially true of combat oriented things, and for non-low level PCs. Adventuring is strikingly like being in a war. The amount of "downtime" is staggering.

Sure, you are still in a dangerous area camping ut for a day or two, but it is still what gamers refer to as downtime. Guess what we did during that time? A signfiicant part of it was going over what we'd just been through. Whether it was the official AAR (After Action Review) you did as a unit, or just sitting down and thinking about it.

That is what "seperates the men from the boys", the PCs from the NPCs. You could always tell in short order in combat and as much after combat who was going to make it, and who was bailing first chance they got. You knew who would be good to be with and who you wanted to avoid. You knew it by what they did in between combat events. No training by someone else after the war will ever even come close to equalling what you learned during the war. I can't fully explain it, and I don't expect many to simply trust me on that. Indeed much of the training is just to get you to survive enough to figure it out and leanr the really important things from the actual combat.

I see adventuring as the same basic thing.

Of the ways of mandating training as part of the game, the most effective method I've seen is to do away with levels entirely. Instead you can assign feats, skills, class abilities XP costs. Then XP points become not an ever accumulating pool, but something you trade for abilities. You track *spent* XP for some idea of power level, but let the characters spend the XP not on a chance to level up, but on a direct purchase of something.

A seasoned fighter, for example, can generally piece together a fighting technique (feat) he's heard of. More so if he's seen it. And even more so again if it was used on him in lethal combat and survived.

You can still limit it to class by simply not allowing purchase to non-class class abilities. Or you can blur class lines by making the PC have a favored class, and non-favored class abilities have a higher cost. Much like skills are in 3.x.

That general type of system is the only one I've ever played under that even came close to working out with any appreciable degree of what could be called "success".


Well, there are oe man's thoughts on the subject. I understand what you are trying to do, RC, but I think the manner you've detailed here is just ... well no offense intended, horrid and I too would not play under it. But I'm not one of your players.

One key problem I see is the XP handling. Making XP something you must accumulate AND spend to get levels is just way too much, unless (and this is only a maybe type unless) you significantly increase XP awards.

Other massive problems I see is the continual increas in training. Levelling in 3.x is gaining specific class features/abilities, skills points, and feats, and also ability points and in some cases spells.

If you do the whole pay for your level (again) thing, I'd heartily recommend NOT training for feats/skills/spells/etc. on top of that. It is "double taxation". You pay to level, but what does that get you? Hit points, BAB and saves. Then you have to train for the feats, skills, spells, etc.. It is unclear if your system would require training for class features, so I left that out not wanting to assume either way.

Keeping in mind that XP was paid for with blood, sweat, tears, fallen comrades, wealth, time, and for some, previously earned XP, it is IMO rude to then take back that XP to actually gain from it. Combine that with a chance that your time, money, or XP is wasted is just ... unethical to me. But I probably said as much already. It really grates on me, can you tell?

Monte Cook has a limit to feats in AU/AE. There are ceremonial feats. These require a ceremony, you can't just up and get them (with rare exceptions). I like this. You level, but you can keep the feat slot open until you get to participate in the ceremony. I could see specific feats requiring minimal game training. But many of the feats really IMO an not be taught. They are a natural result of a chosen lifestyle and resulting experience. I've personally seen what many would classify as Uncanny Dodge. It is spooky and no way will anyone convince me it can be taught by anyone. Those who have it don't even understand it. Yeah I know it's not a feat but it gives you the idea.

Well, I've been up all night, time to get some shuteye. Please remmeber I mean no offense.

Cheers

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[genshou]

I did a revision of the training rules in the first post.

RC

Revision looks good, Raven Crowking. I'm actually willing to retract my former statement about one of the options:

3) I don't like this one. The convention in normal D&D is that you earn XP at the end of a set period of time (it's recommended to be done at the end of an adventure or when the PCs break off an adventure to "level up" or in other words train), and you can never earn more XP than one point short of advancing two levels before you actually advance in level. If you haven't trained by this point, then you need to take a break for a while as you really can't learn any more without improving your skills. That's the best way to make sure characters have to take breaks; put a limit on how much XP they can have before advancing a level. That way they do actually stop for a breath between adventures. Best of all, this convention is supported by the RAW.

You've actually sold me on that idea, now. I didn't see it from the right perspective before and now recognize it as an option I might sometimes consider taking (mostly at the higher levels) if I didn't have time to train and didn't want to spend any XP to go up a level.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed