Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shadowlore" data-source="post: 2650750" data-attributes="member: 9509">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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Cheers</blockquote>

Verification