training

[Gansk]

I am getting ready to end my current campaign, and start another, and one of the changes I'm making is to add rules for training time between levels. In my current campaign, which ran for three years of RL time and actually far less than that in game time, the players all managed to reach 18-19th level. They have become powerhouses practically overnight, and the world around them has not evolved much with them. This became especially problematic over the past year or so, when they became high enough level that they could get places without having to put in a lot of travel time.

-rg

This is the main reason why training or some sort of downtime is so important. IMC we play every other week and the campaign has progressed equally in both game time and real time. After about 18 months, the PC's are at levels 6-7. If training was eliminated, they would have spent maybe three months of game time getting to that level. The campaign world would essentially stand still in that case. There would be no way to introduce changes in the weather, for example. Training is also great to introduce RP with NPC mentors and contacts.

It is important to incorporate training rules for long wilderness journeys so civilization is not necessarily required. I just allow the PC's to train themselves at double the time it would take with a mentor. So far they have always used a mentor, but that option will be less available to them as they get to higher levels.

Training also introduces some strategic choices for PC development. The PC could spend a long time training and let the villains reinforce themselves, or spend ranks in untrained skills (which do not take time IMC) and get back to the dungeon quickly. You can also introduce a future timeline of large scale events in your campaign world, but allow the PC's to alter events if they find out about them beforehand. Now they may have to make sacrifices to their character development in order to save the world.

 

[StalkingBlue]

I don't use training requirements for levelling up. Tried it but dropped it for the reason some poseters already mentioned: it interferes with timing missions.

I do require off-camera downtime for some things, especially for gaining access to a Prestige Class, or for multiclassing in a direction that leads the PC onto a completely new path. I try to leave chunks of downtime between scenarios wherever plausible, both to advance the timeline and to accommodate PC development wishes. I'm finding this more flexible than a training-based time-management system, which works better for me because it gives me more control over pacing my game.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I used to require 1 week of training time plus a gp cost. Then I decided to make the gp cost scale upwards along with the level. Then I realized that all this meant was I had to give out more treasure to make up for it.

The week of downtime was annoying, too. It inhibited my ability to make time-is-of-the-essence campaigns.

Now they level up between playing sessions, instantly, no matter where they are. It lacks a certain level of realism, but I decided I could do without this particular aspect of realism.

 

[random user]

Hrm, now you all have me reconsidering training. I have a very short period of training at the moment -- 1 day per level you were (ie training to get to level 4 takes 3 days) if you are in a city or otherwise can find a mentor up to a maximum of 1 week, or double the time (up to 2 weeks) if you are in the wilderness and are self-training.

This represents the time for you to codify all your skills and mentally confirm to yourself that you have advanced.

So far my players haven't had a problem with it but they are only level 3 at the moment.

 

[MerricB]

The thing about training is that it works fine... until the DM wants to run a particular type of adventure.

I like requiring training. I like the feeling of reality it brings to the campaign.

However, then I wander into an epic quest plot, and it just gets in the way. (Try sending your players to another plane of existence and then try requiring training, it just doesn't work).

Of course, with the advancement speed built into 3E, you really notice how training interrupts the flow of an adventure, but even with the slower advancement speed of 1E and 2E, it still can affect the game adversely.

Cheers!

 

[ph0rk]

so how do pc's go up a level in your game? the players handbook i have (enter number here) xp, i'm level X now! do you make the players fork over some hard earned loot? how much do you charge? i've read the section in the dmg, seems to be just a bunch of ideas that could be put into use if you like them or not as per dm choice, but i'm curious what people actually use. how much time does it take?

i ask this because i'm in two campaigns right now, one as a player, one as a dm and myself and the other dm seem to have extremely varrying opinions on the matter. one using xp + few days reflection on life's nuances = level, the other having had the party adventure for 3 weeks and train for about 18 weeks at level 3.

I've never been a huge fan of training or reflection for base classes because they don't do a good job of representing anything remotely like reality (granted dnd isn't much for realism). If you swing a sword a few times, kill a few orcs, get smacked in the face with a club, you're either gonna be dead, or better at swinging that sword (+BAB) and better at dodging that club (+hit points). You don't need to go sit and think about it - you're learning through experience. (on the job training as it were)

It makes little sense to me to go get 6 hours of training and ding! you gain a level. Obviously you can't just train all the way to 20, you need some expereince - are the PCs so incompetant they can't figure out how to apply what they've learned while still in the field? pfah!

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I use a system that is somewhat like the old Call of Cthulhu. Every time the players make a successful skill roll they put a little check mark next to that skill. When they level up they can freely spend skill points on that skill. Any without the check mark they must wait. They can keep their skill points for later so that they can spend skill points in mid session to reflect reading a tome or immediately leveling up a skill that they successfully used. Simply telling me that they are training on something during downtime is enough to get a checkmark by a skill that they don't even make a roll on.

It works well and it keeps them from just out of the blue leveling up a Knowledge: Planar skill that they have absolutely no reason to level up. My players actually like it.

 

[Maldur]

I dont use training, but the players have to convince me that the class (or Prc) they want to level in, is "logical".

So no increasing in arcane archer, if they never use a bow etc.

 

[AGGEMAM]

So no increasing in arcane archer, if they never use a bow etc.

Except if they train of course, right?

 

[Deadguy]

Thinking about this more, I realise that in one campaign I do use a sort of pre-training for Prestige Classes. It wasn't actually intended that way, but it has worked out so. Originally I created rules so that a character could spend money to earn a little XP in formal training in downtime. It added the opportunity to include schools and academies of various kinds that had a practical use after characters attain level 1.

So far only one character has wanted a Prestige Class (a Fighter / Rogue who became a Devoted Defender for the party Wizard). To achieve this he spent some of the time that the Wizard was studying (this was 3.0 days!) at a private school run to train bodyguards. So it explained his advancement into Devoted Defender nicely. The thing was this was two levels before he took a Devoted Defender level! Neither me nor any players had a problem with this, so it sort of become the expectation now for how you acquire Prestige Classes (and Cleric or Wizard levels for the first time).

So perhaps training can work out okay if you aren't too pernickity about the timing!