Training to Level

[BSF]

That's not what he said, or at least not what it sounded like to me. It sounded like he wanted all HP to be to be training related. Of course, I might be wrong for a change.

I believe the statement was that barring differing con scores, a guy with 1 hp looks no different than a guy with 6 hp. Though diaglo worded it slightly differently.

It has the added benefit that I can set the pace of the adventure. If I want them to do nothing for 6 months in-game time, I can do that. If I want them to hustle for the next 8 sessions, with hardly a break in the action, I can do that, too, without forcing players to stop chasing the foes to spend a couple of days training so they're better prepared to beat that foe and whatever he wants to sic on them.

That is a playstyle difference. I can set up a game so that *I* don't plan for anything to happen in the next 6 months. But that doesn't mean my players won't decide to followup on any number of rumors they are aware of and go seeking an adventure before that 6 months would be up. Of course, they might also decide to hole up in a town for the winter, planning to have downtime, unaware that I had planned to have that town overrun by winter wolves in the middle of the season.

And one day, they won't find anyone to train them, and then they're screwed.

You are assuming the PCs need to find somebody to train them. Self-training works too and is often a good option for my players.

 

[loki44]

To take a midline example, how many baseball players improve from being a guy that can hit the ball sometimes to the best batter in history over the course of 2-3 months?

Albert Pujols circa 2001? Even if it's true he's an exception, not the rule. Really liked your baseball analogy though. Spot on in terms of justfying training to level.

 

[loki44]

XP don't make you better. You don't make an XP roll against your enemy. You don't get an XP bonus. The better attack bonus, more HP, and all that stuff, they make you better. And with training, you don't get those without training.

Technically speaking, and in terms of game mechanics, no, xp do not in themselves provide bonuses. However, without xp you cannot advance, with or without a system that requires training. In that sense xp do make you better. I don't think there's any arguing that point whether you favour training to level or not.

Your actual age has increased by another 365.x days and you get a birth day. Suddenly, you're allowed to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order).

Your "aging up" analogy is spot on as a rationale for not including a training component in your game. Again, I don't think there's a right or wrong here, it's just a matter of preference. You also mention a corresponding increase in difficulty regarding finding a suitable and qualified trainor as levels increase. I think Howandwhy99 addressed that well by putting forth the idea that seeking a trainor can be a fulfilling and worthwhile adventure in and of itself. Again, just a matter of preference.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Self-training works too and is often a good option for my players.

"I won't find a teacher. I'm training myself! I'll go down into that dungeon there and train a bit killing critters. And rescue the princess that happens to be trapped in there"

 

[BSF]

"I won't find a teacher. I'm training myself! I'll go down into that dungeon there and train a bit killing critters. And rescue the princess that happens to be trapped in there"

*laugh*

No reason why that can't work.

But for the campaigns I tend to run, I like to have lots of downtime. I want the players to be vested in the campaign world. Providing downtime excuses helps to drive that forward. And then when the PCs make choices to keep pressing onward through an adventure to save some small town they care about, it makes them seem all the more heroic. They knew they might not be at their strongest, but the deed needed to be done and they did it.

Sure it is possible to have other methods of downtime. But each group has to work within their own dynamic. By creating a mechanical reason to have downtime, I also allow an excuse for the players to feel like they can take advantage of RP opportunities downtime provides. Without that excuse, they start to feel like it has to be all about the combat. And then they are a little disappointed because it feels like *something* is missing.

With a different mix of players, I might have different options. It's not better or worse than other play styles. And perhaps my group is an oddity in that regard. But hey, they are good folks and they are my group so this is one way we handle it.

 

[diaglo]

I believe the statement was that barring differing con scores, a guy with 1 hp looks no different than a guy with 6 hp. Though diaglo worded it slightly differently.

isn't that what i said?

You are assuming the PCs need to find somebody to train them. Self-training works too and is often a good option for my players.

i think i said this too.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

>> 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.<<

I think special forces guys would disagree with you. I remember reading that those guys train and train and train and train and train and train and then? They train some more.

As someone who up until very recently trained in a boxing gym, I can tell you that training in a controlled enviornment especially learning a new skill makes a difference. Boxers actually train between fights to keep their skills sharp and to build new skill sets. The same thing with Mixed martial artists. So all of this talk of people basically saying that actually doing it is all of the training they need are missing a vital point.

That point is this: it takes a proper combination of both experience and training to be effective in anything that you do. Experience will give you insight to certain things while youre "in the moment" that no amount of training will give you. On the other hand there's something to be said for drills and repititon honing your skills, especially martial ones. There's nothing like learning in a controlled enviornment the actual MECHANICS of what you need to do and drilling on that mechanic over and over. Seeing what works, seeing what doesnt work, adjusting for your own personal style or quirks, knowing what's comfortable for you and what isnt and in a controlled enviornment learning all of this is fine.

Learning this stuff in the field will more than likely result in you making a mistake that will cost you, especially in a fight.

So I'm for training in my games, but not as a prereqisite for leveling. but for new skills and feats. Find someone who knows what you want to learn convince them to teach you, learn. Then you put what you learned into practice in the feild.

I make allowances for players who want to teach themselves but they dont learn nearly as thouroughly as someone who is being instructed. That player usually has to make an ability check for at least a few sessions to use said feat, but after that they can use it as normal.

That's just me. I value imparted knowledge and see the value in it.

 

[Slife]

for those who don't train or never did.

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

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.

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).

So, why do curing spells of the same level cure less of the wounds on the more trained people? The guy with 1 hp takes 1 hp damage and it's a blow on the chest and he's severely injured. A Cure Minor Wounds instantly restores him to full health. The guy with 6 hp takes twice as much hp damage, and gets, say, a rather nasty scractch. A Cure Minor Wounds only heals half of it. I could do a more extreme example between 20th level characters and 1st level ones, but I think I've made the point.

 

[Goblyns Hoard]

So long as the players are taking levels of classes they already have, taking skill points in things they've been using in game (or have been saying they're working on in the downtime between games, around the campfire, etc.) then I don't require any downtime or training to level. I've been in games where training was required, and can see why some like it, but generally speaking I'll go with the idea that doing it long enough (to earn all the relevant xp) is training enough.

However taking a new class, particularly a prestige class, or picking skills that you've never used before (and not indicated over the past session or two that you were 'trying out') then you need training. In my current game that's only happened once and I didn't require the character to pay for it (but then I'm not giving out as much treasure as I 'should' so I'm balancing factors there), but I also wasn't going to just allow the character to suddenly develop the abilities of another class... http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0126.html

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Put me in the "no need for training"* camp. (I was briefly a player in this campaign, and for the record also told the DM I wasn't in favor of the training rule -- but since I was leaving I chose not to make an issue of it). XP, levels, hp, BAB ... they are all metagame items that describe how much real-world experience a character has. So if "Level" is a metagame concept, why require a character to get formal training in-game? Why penalize a character in game for a metagame concept? If you're doing your bit during an adventure -- swinging a sword, disabling traps, whatever -- aren't you improving your craft? I'm also, as a DM, willing to assume that during "down time" -- whether around the campfire at night, or during the days/weeks/months between adventures -- characters are exercising, studying, sharpening swords, whatever to improve their skills. So further "training" time is unnecessary. And if you aren't giving out treasure like 1E treasure charts, you probably don't need the gold sink, either.

But different styles for different DMs -- this by itself wouldn't keep me from joining a campaign.

*Most of the time. I can see a case where formal in-game training could be required for certain narrow circumstances. Specifically, when a character wants to develop a skill or ability that he/she couldn't possibly have "figured out" on his own, or developed during down time. For example, the fighter who decides to multi-class into wizard, when there is no wizard in the party to learn from during "off-screen" down time. He might be able to figure out how to Whirlwind attack on his own, or he might be especially devout and eventually gain clerical abilities on his own, but suddenly learning to read magic probably isn't going to happen. But then, I'd expect that players whose were really into playing their characters would work these sorts of skill developments into their roleplaying.