Training Costs to Level Up

[Lanefan]

One of the solutions I imply, is that you don't pay the training cost when you have the XP, you pay it over time, just as a matter of course.

adjusting and applying that idea to time being another component, you make accruing time, money, and XP be something you do BEFORE you can level up.

so to level up from level 1 to level 2, you must spend at least 1 week as a level 1, earn 1000 XP, and spend 100GP on upkeep(supplies, maintenance, trainiers).

This is an interesting idea...very interesting, in fact...and this is coming from someone who has had training in his games since about the last ice age. In fact, even without changing anythng else this might provide a half-decent rationale for lump-sum training costs: you do all the accounting at once but you've actually been spending the gold in bits and pieces as you've gone along.

That said, please allow me to poke holes in your idea; I'd like to see how robust it is.

I'm going to assume the time frame is malleable to suit each campaign - you suggest 1 week at 1st, some campaigns might want a month, others maybe only a day; the principle remains the same.

First, unless the g.p. expenditure is done all at once tracking it would be a pain. If I as PC spend 25 g.p. in one village and 32 g.p. in another and 46 g.p. in a third except most of the 46 g.p. wasn't related to training or upkeep at all (I spent it all on ale) then spent 22 g.p. in a fourth village...you see the problem here?

Second, what happens if someone gains a bunch of ExP in a hurry and doesn't have time to spend the cash e.g. goes on a significantly tough but very short adventure and survives - are those ExP lost?

Third, do all the benefits of levelling up occur right at 1001 ExP, or is there a gradated series of benefits, or ... ?

Now, on to something different:

[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] - in your posrep comment (thanks, by the way) you ask about how to vary ExP rates - or at least I think you do. Simplest way is to give 'em out the same way you normally do but put a multiplier on the bump points. Thus, if a given encounter is listed as being worth 150 ExP then it's still worth 150 ExP (no change, give 'em out as normal) but if a PC would normally bump to 2nd-level at 1000 ExP they're now not going to bump until 1500 (a 1.5x multipler) or 2000, or whatever you set; with all the other bump points going up by the same factor.

As for training, I'm a hardcore fan of individual ExP awards; never mind that I'm running 1e where different classes bump at different ExP numbers. Thus, I'm fully familiar with the concept of there always being someone in the party who needs to train. In 1e it's not too much of a problem if you houserule out the idea of stopping ExP gain entirely if you have bumped but not trained; the levels are far enough apart to give time for training even if you plow your way through some of the next level before doing so. But in 3e-4e where it's not only possible but in many cases expected that a PC will bump 2 or 3 or even 4 times in a single adventure, this all pretty much goes out the window (Keep on the Shadowfell even tells you where to level 'em up) and training becomes fairly unworkable unless you either a) really slow down the bump rates or b) really reduce the number of levels, or c) preferably both.

Lan-"when a member of one class trains a member of another class that's called cross-training, right?"-efan

 

[Janx]

I just don't see where the payment part plays into it and NOT show the metagame as you train as you go, as well as pay as you go for that training in some fashion.

Still going with the OP and concept of the idea is to train, and remove coinage, from the players, to go into this "town", or just remove the coinage somehow to account for that trainings costs.

Who are they paying to train when doing it as they level but before the DING, which we both agree is there in any method; and how are they paying for it, and how is the metagame not showing through as they do it?​

beats me. it's another reason I thought level training was stupid...

but seriously, I'd approach it as the PC has to pay lifestyle expenses on a monthly basis and training/upkeep expenses to maintain their gear and further improve their skill. Presumably the money got paid to various parties (landlord, weapons shop, some guy who knows a few moves...).

so I'm trying to take an idea that i thought was stupid, and see how to adapt it and make it work for me...

In civilized region, I'd suspect PCs could find trainers, especially to support higher level training.

Out in the wilds (and I have played campaignss past the border of civilized lands), its quite a bit harder to explain where fancy gear came from, let alone, a 12th level fighter to train you.

Another side effect to level training is that PCs are going to justify running a business training NPCs so THEY can level up.

As to Lanefan's testing of my idea, we should think of leveling up as requiring certain criteria.
by the RAW, the 1st is that the PC must earn 1,000 x current level worth of XP
the jester's idea added that he must spend 1 week per level in "training" or at least time passing by since the last level
The OP is adding that $ times level in gold must also be spent in training costs

I'm positing that, just as the XP requirement isn't nesserarily met in 1 big dump, neither is the time or money requirement.

As Lanefan points out, for book-keeping it may be expedient to pay it at DING time. If so, I'm recommending that you explain it as the PC had already spent the time and money in their "off" time. Rather than jerking the boat so he can go find a trainer and not earn any more XP.

the jury's still out if the PC doesn't earn any more XP. I think I'd recommend that he's "earned it" just as he's earning the money and spending the time, but that he can't raise his PC level and thus get more HP, SP, etc, until he has met all the requirements for the DING to go off.

That way, when he HAS met the requirements, the DING goes off, he gets more HP, etc, and he's on his way to the next level already (just as he earns more money than he needs at the moment).

I would think that would be less mean to the player, as he's already being delayed to level up, why add more injury of not getting XP for all the work he's doing to get the money or find a trainer.

 

[shadzar]

Another side effect to level training is that PCs are going to justify running a business training NPCs so THEY can level up.

Do they also carry around a sack of rats with which to level-up?

Again guild fees are too high for PCs to train NPCs, they don't have proper permission from local authorities, the deity of choice has to be willing to grant more to their cleric, etc etc etc.

The PCs might as well set up shop as furriers and hunters and trappers, since they would be able to do it better than most normal people of a town in the wilderness, rather than set up shop training NPCs.

I would think that would be less mean to the player, as he's already being delayed to level up, why add more injury of not getting XP for all the work he's doing to get the money or find a trainer.

I think herein lies the problem. You see it as something mean to do to the players, or some sort of punishment, while the OP and their players may actually be looking forward to this as something exciting.

(Gets a stick and beats you as requested.)

Though I get your ideas now for applying training over time and how the payment over time would work for you as opposed to doing them both lump sum. Hopefully our interchange thus far can help the OP.

 

[Lanefan]

As to Lanefan's testing of my idea, we should think of leveling up as requiring certain criteria.
by the RAW, the 1st is that the PC must earn 1,000 x current level worth of XP
the jester's idea added that he must spend 1 week per level in "training" or at least time passing by since the last level
The OP is adding that $ times level in gold must also be spent in training costs

1 week per level in training could get rather tedious once your level's in the 20's. Why not just make it a somewhat random number of days at every level plus half the level's worth - say, training for any level 'L' takes {L/2 + 3d4} days and leave it at that. You could throw other variables in if you like: competence of trainer, whether trainer likes the PC or not, racial likes-dislikes, and so forth.

If you don't think this will chew up enough game-world time, keep in mind the PCs will also have to spend time travelling to where they can find either a trainer or - if self-training - a suitable location with the required resources; and then spend time again travelling back to the dungeon. In my game, the travel can often take longer than the training.

As Lanefan points out, for book-keeping it may be expedient to pay it at DING time. If so, I'm recommending that you explain it as the PC had already spent the time and money in their "off" time.

This works as long as you don't have a player who wants to keep track of every penny at all times...or as long as your PCs don't find themselves flat broke at some point. Once either of these occurs, you have a headache.

the jury's still out if the PC doesn't earn any more XP. I think I'd recommend that he's "earned it" just as he's earning the money and spending the time, but that he can't raise his PC level and thus get more HP, SP, etc, until he has met all the requirements for the DING to go off.

That way, when he HAS met the requirements, the DING goes off, he gets more HP, etc, and he's on his way to the next level already (just as he earns more money than he needs at the moment).

I would think that would be less mean to the player, as he's already being delayed to level up, why add more injury of not getting XP for all the work he's doing to get the money or find a trainer.

What I do, in case anyone cares, is this:

- When you bump you immediately roll your new h.p. die. You get half of it now (or when next you rest overnight) and the other half when you train. Otherwise, until you can train you continue to function exactly as before.

- If, by necessity or choice, you continue adventuring without training, you earn ExP as normal until you're 1/3 of the way through the new level, at which point you start taking a penalty on further ExP received. This penalty gets worse until you either train or grind your way all the way through the new level. (if you then choose to forego training from there on, there's a whole different set of advancement rules that kick in - the intent is that adventuring PCs never do this but instead stay on the fast track; the other way is designed to give non-adventuring types e.g. stay-at-home Clerics, guild Wizards, lone Rangers etc. a way of slowly gaining levels as they do what they do in their lives)

- If you're in ExP penalty due to having advanced too far into the new level, training costs are (usually) somewhat lower as you've already learned some of it the hard way on your own.

- When you train you get all the other benefits of bumping - spells, skills, abilities, etc.

- If you're untrained in a new level and you meet a level drainer, the untrained level gets drained first.

Lanefan

 

[Crazy Jerome]

As a semi-tangent to the Janx, shadzar, Lanefan discussion:

A more abstract way to do some of the same things they are discussing is to let gold buy XP. Then adjust the leveling rate to compensate. Probably the easiest way would be to reduce the amount of XP gained via normal means, expecting the PCs to supplement with training. (You could also adjust the XP leveling charts upwards, and leave the granted XP the same.)

It would certainly be different than RAW. Say 4E with half XP granted for encounters and quests. (Or maybe only halving for encounters, if you want to emphasize the quests.) Then gold can be spent for XP, via training--anytime the character can come up with a plausible way to do so. Going down to the tavern, getting plastered, and starting a brawl? Might be plausible enough for some characters.

This might also be a way around the tendency of players to view the training as a hump to get over, as opposed to an option they can exercise. Also, Lost Soul, didn't you have an issue so far with your house rules where it was a little more deadly than you were hoping? Getting XP via training might mitigate that some.

 

[Janx]

the buying XP idea has some merit.

Let's say it takes 1 day per 100 XP to train, and costs 1 GP per XP.

To flat out "buy" 2nd level, it would take 10 days of training and cost 1,000GP


A risk would be, if the GM doesn't have tight control over the XP given and gold supply, a PC could escalate their level advancement beyond what the GM is comfortable with.


I like the buying XP to cover the player argument of "you made 3 years go by, why couldn't my PC have been training to improve himself".

Sticking to 2e's rule of no more than 1 level advancement per adventure (session?) would provide some simple throttling. though that rule also never answered the "what happens to the excess if I do earn XP to advanve multiple levels"

Personally, since I view adventuring AS training and thus you learn by doing, buying XP when a large time span has passed can simulate "regular" training and justifies giving the PC a bump when you make time pass.

though i thinkt he OP is looking for training to be a requirement to level up.

Shadazar mentioned the kinds of people who get paid to level up. In my games, I've never had a fighters guild. There's no organization managing adventurers, not legal papers, etc.

Though historically, there is precedent for fighting schools (fencing schools in Europe, martial arts schools in asia). Gangs for thieves. Universities and "societies" could be applied to wizards. The church and its ranks for priests.

But who does my half-orc barbarian pay? Up in the arctic? Where he's carved out an empire in the snow with hordes of orcs now living peacefully with a trading city? In that campaign (where' he's now 20th or so level), I don't see fitting in training. The PCs ran around, did stuff, and up until they rescued the city, hadn't set foot in anything larger than an encampment.

If nothing else, either method works. had our game required level training, than I'd expect the world to have a means for us to do so that fit within the arctic wilderness theme. Perhaps I would have had to spend weeks training with my tribe in order to be recognized as rising in "rank".

I've done something similar to that for monks in another campaign. They got XP, they leveled up like normal. But they were expected to keep their belt rank up to date in order to retain their honor. So the monk PC would regularly visit the dojo to test and rank up. it was more of a role-playing mechanic and incorporation of modern karate school practice.

 

[LostSoul]

I posted my first draft of the training rules I'm planning to use in the 4E House Rules Forum: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/299993-training-costs-level-up.html

Continue on with the discussion! Some really good stuff.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

A risk would be, if the GM doesn't have tight control over the XP given and gold supply, a PC could escalate their level advancement beyond what the GM is comfortable with.

I'd go with a variation I've seen in several games, most recently the Mongoose Runequest II rules, where you can only get training ever other advancement in a skill. With D&D levels being so broad in their scope, I'd merely limit the percentage of a level one can get via training.

For my current 4E game, I'd probably go with something like 50% XP gained from encounters, 100% from quests, and allowed to buy up to 50% of a given level. Over the course of a given, planned level run, that would translate to roughly 80% of the level gained from encounters and quests, with the PCs expected to spend at least enough gold to get that last 20%. If they want to spend more, up to 50% of the level, they can, assuming opportunity presents itself (or they make it happen), but this eats into their cash flow for other purposes.

Ultimately, though, as long as you look at the cash flow and set the numbers to get something you and the players are comfortable with, it doesn't matter exactly how you set those numbers.

Edit: Definitely should be a time cost, not just gold. I rather like this as a way to handle the justification for characters who miss an adventure, but still manage to keep up reasonably well with the power level. They are training with that time, which means they are in the ballpark in power level, but are poor. It fits more with the way I like to run. Large groups of players always have some that can't make it as frequently as others. I want them roughly the same power level, but want the ones that come more often to have benefits. Being more flexible in their cash flow and time is a real benefit in the kind of game I run.

 

[Lanefan]

As a semi-tangent to the Janx, shadzar, Lanefan discussion:

A more abstract way to do some of the same things they are discussing is to let gold buy XP. Then adjust the leveling rate to compensate. Probably the easiest way would be to reduce the amount of XP gained via normal means, expecting the PCs to supplement with training. (You could also adjust the XP leveling charts upwards, and leave the granted XP the same.)

In other words, right back to the 1e system except the players can choose - to some extent - how much gold they can convert into ExP, and it's an actual cost.

(in 1e RAW, ExP were earned for treasure found as well as for combat)

The one severe problem with this idea is this: how does the party divide their treasure? If for whatever reason they don't divide it evenly, you've got a potentially insurmountable party balance issue that will only get worse over time. Currently, uneven treasure division can be overcome to some extent in a number of ways; but if it becomes potentially hard-wired into ExP as well then the rich are just gonna get richer.

Another question: how do magic items figure in? If I've got a magic dagger worth 500 g.p. can I sacrifice it to get 500 ExP?

Lan-"just give me all the treasure, it's easier that way"-efan

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In other words, right back to the 1e system except the players can choose - to some extent - how much gold they can convert into ExP, and it's an actual cost.

(in 1e RAW, ExP were earned for treasure found as well as for combat)

The one severe problem with this idea is this: how does the party divide their treasure? If for whatever reason they don't divide it evenly, you've got a potentially insurmountable party balance issue that will only get worse over time. Currently, uneven treasure division can be overcome to some extent in a number of ways; but if it becomes potentially hard-wired into ExP as well then the rich are just gonna get richer.

Another question: how do magic items figure in? If I've got a magic dagger worth 500 g.p. can I sacrifice it to get 500 ExP?

Lan-"just give me all the treasure, it's easier that way"-efan

I thought about 1E when I wrote that, but that choice given to the players does change it somewhat. Also, see my later followup on restricting the percentage of a level that can be bought this way.

But the larger abuse issues I think relate back to what you are trying to achieve:

1. I'm running a cut-throat, resource counting game? Then all those problems you listed are now benefits. Money is just another lever that clever players can manipulate. I find in that kind of game, the best way to prevent dominance is to provide many levers.

2. I'm running something more traditionally cooperative? Then all "training costs" do is provide a money sink and a simulation gloss for why that money sink occurs, perhaps with a side of resource manipulation, but at the party level. That is, if this is what is going on, then the best way for the party to maximize their potential is to see that everyone gets plenty of gold. In those cases, none of those abuses will ever arise. In other words, in this case, it's mostly level pacing, with that side of resource manipulation. Set the rules on the pacing part to whatever works. OTOH, to the extent that you want resource manipulation, expect the players to manipulate the resources given to them.

And in fact, if I use this idea, the biggest issue I could have is that the players will be tempted to donate gold from their character to another players' character, in order to help the party. That's the biggest reason I would have the percentage of a level restriction.

As for magic items, this is another difference between this suggestion and 1E. It's not totally abstract, and not mandatory for every gold piece. So include magic items or not, in the gold economy. Your call. Me, I'm already making it difficult and not very rewarding to sell magic. So if the players manage to do that and score some extra gold, then put it into training, no biggie. That's the advantage of having them actually spend the gold to get the training to get the XP, no matter how thin the rationalization: You've still got that ever so thin rationalization, and can overrule the too thin ones as needed--except now you have two places to do so, what gets sold for how much, and where and when training can be bought, for how much.

But personally, I find the prospect of someone trading a bag of tricks for a few druid points rather amusing.