Training to Level

[loki44]

In our current 3.5 Greyhawk campaign the DM ruled before we started play that PCs must train, ala OD&D, in order to level. One of the players is a little bit hacked off about this since he has enough XP to level but is stuck in a crypt and can't train. I think he assumes it will be easier to escape the crypt if he can level and the DM should give him a fighting chance. The DM isn't budging on the training stipulation.

I'm neutral and I'm not asking for a judgement on our situation. What I want to know is, how many of you require PCs to train in order to level and, if so, how do you handle it?

 

[Allandaros]

I don't require training because as the DM, I know I'd forget about it. Otherwise, I can see the benefit of having training rules in place (hey, you're forced to actually *interact* with NPCs!). It's also a way to burn off extra income you gave the PCs.

 

[kibbitz]

Don't like "training". I can see the mechanical benefits, but the use of it makes me feel that you can't learn anything without someone else teaching you. And when you trace it all the way back, who taught the first guys how to do all those stuff then?

 

[Crothian]

I only do it when it actually adds something positive to the game. And that is rare.

 

[Woas]

I don't think the thought of adding something like 'training' has ever crossed my mind as a requirement to leveling up for characters.


The way I see it is: the character being out in the field, taking the hits, dishing them out, solving hte puzzles. Thats hands-on training enough and it's better quality than reading any number of books on the subject or listening to some old hack talking about proper sword swing techniques.

 

[Bagpuss]

I only require training if they level in a new class, you can progress in one you already have without training, that's just improvement through practice.

 

[Mortis]

Pretty much what Bagpuss said, plus if they want to learn a speak a new language and such.

Regards
Mortis

 

[Hammerhead]

I instituted a training rule in my game...it didn't require any other NPCs, nor any money, but it did take time. I felt that this 'enforced downtime' was very valuable to the campaign. Otherwise, players have little reason to ever stop. Their characers go from first to twentieth in under a year.

 

[diaglo]

we can actually self-train in this campaign too. it just takes twice as long.



the rogue is upset b/c he wants to learn some skills he doesn't have ranks currently in...

edit: i'm a playa in this campaign aussi

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

In our current 3.5 Greyhawk campaign the DM ruled before we started play that PCs must train, ala OD&D, in order to level. One of the players is a little bit hacked off about this since he has enough XP to level but is stuck in a crypt and can't train. I think he assumes it will be easier to escape the crypt if he can level and the DM should give him a fighting chance. The DM isn't budging on the training stipulation.

I'm neutral and I'm not asking for a judgement on our situation. What I want to know is, how many of you require PCs to train in order to level and, if so, how do you handle it?

Bad idea, IMO. I'll give an example.

Fighter 4 about to become Fighter 5. He has the XP.

"Last few weeks [last level], I fought twelve new species, faced four different fighting styles, took part in three duels and won two of them, and personally killed fifteen gnollls. You're telling me during that time I learned nothing?!"

Adventuring is training and practical experience too.

IMO, training should only be used for skills that you didn't get to practice while adventuring. For instance, if last level, the bard never once swung a sword, then maybe he should ask the party fighter-type for some tips (eg training), or maybe get schooled by a higher level fighter.