Training to Level

[TerraDave]

Like the cat and shark I have used training in the past to encourage downtime. Training I can leave or take (as an aside their are plenty of things in life you can learn on your own, and plenty that some formal training can help with). But I do like downtime, in part because I also don't like the 19 year old epic charecter. And there are many ways to encourage downtime, either through mechanics or just in the way the game is run.

I generally use mechanics. Right now, like plane sailing, I let PCs get XP for spending a certain amount of time and money. Its flexible, encourages downtime, and keeps the PCs cash hungry.

I do also require some minimal training to level. I do not allow leveling in the "dungeon". Again, this encourages downtime and the PCs having some life outside adventuring. And in fact my PCs are stuck somewhere right now, with enough XP for the next level. But they need to get out if they want the benefits.

 

[blargney the second]

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?!"

"Yep, that's why all you're getting is +1 BAB."

(I couldn't resist.. Fighter level 5 is such an empty, soulless thing.)
-blarg

 

[haakon1]

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.

I agree with the idea of using training to break up the time line. It's nice to have seasons pass and give time for NPC interaction, spending loot, and creating items back in town.

My training rules are that it takes 1 week for level 2 and level 3, and 2 weeks thereafter. Up to 5th level, it takes twice as long if you don't have a trainer. After 5th level, you never need a trainer. Trainers must be in the class you are adding or a related class (Fighter-types, Arcane-casters, Divine-casters, or specialists like rogues and monks; anybody can train a bard). Trainers officially charge 100 gp a week, but after 2nd level, this is almost always done in trade (for services rendered or traded loot) or by a friendly contact, rather than in cash.

PirateCat said:
<<I've done one week of training per 2 levels, and I have no doubt that my plots and pacing has been better as a result. Even so, I've 'broken' my rule many times by providing occasional "you don't need to spend the actual time training" items or situations>>

Yes, I'm very very similar. As an example of an exception to the rule, I just nixed the training rules for my party going from 4th to 5th (usually the last level that needs a trainer) as they are staying in a frontier village for month, helping train the locals and rebuild things. Plenty of time in that month for a training montage, so it's all good.

I got these ideas and explain them to my players based on the movie Conan the Barbarian. I say he was 1st level when he first went in the pits, 5th level when the masters of the east were done leveling him up, and he trained himself for 7th level after he was nearly killed in the desert. Lots and lots of training sequences in that movie, and in lots of kung fu movies and not a few Westerns . . . best played out with a quick montage (I salute "Team America" for explaining that!).

 

[haakon1]

I had a GM who briefly introduced training costs/time/requirements at the beginning of the campaign. It lasted until about level 5 or 6.

Nod. In my experience, training fits the storyline and makes sense until about 4-6th level. After that, the PC's are too good and too important to need training.

"Your training complete it is. No more can I teach you that you cannot teach yourself."

Enforced downtime before you level up works for me at any level, though.

 

[Mean Eyed Cat]

I require training. However, we have House Ruled and changed it a bit:

"Advancing as a Group - Sometimes, characters don't have enough down time between adventures for training (especially when there is an ongoing story arc). In this situation, it is okay for characters to advance to the next level before they have attained the proper training. However, they will have to make up that training at some point (when the group can do it collectively and when they have the time). In addition, they can't advance again until both the previous and current training periods (thus stacking) are completed."

"The cost of training varies and is at the GM's discretion. However, it will never exceed 1000 gp a week per character."

While this is a House Rule, lately, I haven't been too strict about the whole stacking portion. So, basically training happens when the entire group has advanced a level and when they have down time. So far, these have coincided pretty well.

As far as cost goes, I tend to be kinda stingy with treasure. Therefore, I've always had to adjust the cost depending on how much the party has.

We also use the training times as outlined in the DMG.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I require downtime. Not extended downtime or training, just the PCs being in a situation where they can relax and reflect. A period, maybe a day, when their lives aren't in danger, they don't have to manipulate court intrigue, they don't have a tanar'ri breathing down their necks for that soul they promised him; they just have a day off. They can sleep in, relax, eat a late brunch, put their feet up, and the next day, they're leveled.

 

[diaglo]

Nod. In my experience, training fits the storyline and makes sense until about 4-6th level. After that, the PC's are too good and too important to need training.

"Your training complete it is. No more can I teach you that you cannot teach yourself."

Enforced downtime before you level up works for me at any level, though.

i still require training at higher levels.

it is the rut you get out of...

i swing, i cast, i heal, i steal...

but much like throwing a dart at a board or bowling a ball at pins... eventually you fall into a routine. to get better.. you must have an epiphany of sorts. (gain insight ... experience) and thus train or use that new insight...

sure. train yourself. but to improve/escape the rut you must practice, practice, practice

 

[Kae'Yoss]

for those who don't train or never did.

have you ever asked what lvls and hit points are? or experience for that matter?

Levels, hit points and experience, like every other stat, are abstractions.

i have always required training.

hit points weren't health points. so a guy with 6 hps looks no different than a guy with 1 hp if they have the same Con.

hit points are your training. your ability to turn aside at the last second and only take a glancing blow versus a more fatal one.

the d00d with 1 hp is a guy that just doesn't get it. he steps with the wrong foot and takes a blow in the chest vs a scratch on the arm.

with more training he improves his ability to survive a battle. if he survives enough to make it to train.

So the guy with a higher constitution isn't more tough, he's less trained? Come on! You can't completely attribute HP to training.

experience... is well... that time after the battle when you reflect back and say i shoulda, coulda, woulda... and then you take those ideas, insights, and suggestions and improve on them over the course of training them. some are good and improve you. others are not. and you discard... (you didn't gain enough exp to level).

I don't see how that whole month of grueling fights doesn't actually make you fight better, but hitting a training dummy for a couple of hours in an adrenaline-less excercise will suddenly double all your abilities.

Adventuring is like driving. You train, and then you actually start driving. That's when you actually get good at it. Actually doing it, not training in a controlled environment.

I don't think all those soldiers return from war and only get actually better at soldiering only after the drill instructor has a nother go at them.

It does, actually, serve a purpose other than to screw players. It does wonderful things for a campaign in which time needs to periodically pass; I've done one week of training per 2 levels, and I have no doubt that my plots and pacing has been better as a result.

That only works in campaigns when the party doesn't have a larger goal with a certain urgency. Take City of the Spider Queen for example: The characters have to stop Irae within a certain time frame, or the dales are doomed. In a campaign like this, the heroes can't really say: "Well, We have to hit the gym for a week, that drow priestess has to wait a bit."

 

[BSF]

I use training for downtime. And generally the only justification I use is that I want that downtime in the campaign. My players are generally cool with that.

I award experience, that experience piles up. The players end up making choices to push onward or step back and practice so they really are better. The players seem to like those agonizing choices.

 

[loki44]

Levels, hit points and experience, like every other stat, are abstractions.

I think that's what diaglo was hinting at.

So the guy with a higher constitution isn't more tough, he's less trained? Come on! You can't completely attribute HP to training.

Maybe not initial hp, but I think you can rationalize an increase in hp as being attributable to training, apart from the CON bonus.

I don't see how that whole month of grueling fights doesn't actually make you fight better, but hitting a training dummy for a couple of hours in an adrenaline-less excercise will suddenly double all your abilities.

The whole month of grueling fights does make you better. It gives you xp which allows you to level (an abstraction). Once you've gained enough xp via actual battle experience then you take that knowledge and hone it through training. In the "you must train in order to level" philosophy the actual adventuring complements the training in order to achieve character advancement. In starting this thread I specifically did not want it to devolve into a debate of the merits of a training based leveling system vs. a purely experiential based leveling system. There are merits to both styles of play and it just depends on your preference. In starting the thread I was simply curious about how various DMs handle the concept of leveling within their own games.

I think it's interesting that many people who say they require training to level in their games seem to require a static amount of training no matter how high the level is. (i.e. 1 week training per level regardless of which level it is) In our games the amount of training required increases with each level. This makes sense to me since the skills/spells/etc. become exponentially difficult.