Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8862076" data-attributes="member: 29398">Of course, and it makes sense.You're not paying someone to train you in what you already know, you're paying someone to train you in the theory of what you don't yet know, which you then take out into the field and put into practice.With the amount of treasure 1e modules tended to give out, characters not having enough money for training was rarely if ever an issue.The real mistake was Gygax's dumb "rating" rules that were used to set the cost of training; not the training itself nor that it came at a cost.Exactly - you teach them that which they don't yet know how to do.  You've got it backwards; I think because you're ignoring that the cycle doesn't start with 1st-level adventuring, it starts with pre-1st-level training (which we never play through, we just assume it's already happened).A fighter learns a new series of moves during training (mechanical impact: an uptick in BAB to use the 3e term) then puts that training to use during the next tour of adventuring.Yes, but advancing without training takes much longer than the average adventurer wants to spend.  1e had some guidelines for self-training, and it's trivially easy to invent something as a houserule.They work together seamlessly.Take real-world sailing courses.  You spend the first half of each lesson in a classroom learning the theory of what you're about to do.  Then you get out on the water and put what you just learned into practice, gaining experience in whatever it is you were just told about in the classroom.  Next day it's something different, building on what was learned yesterday, and so it goes.It's the same principle with character training, only over a longer time.  The character spends a few weeks in a "classroom" (which might be a training yard, a temple, a lab, a back alley, etc. dependent on class) then goes out in the field and puts what was just learned into practice.Adventurers are mercenaries.I've never used xp-for-gp but still have training and still give out lots of treasure (and destroy lots too - easy come, easy go). <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />It's a not-bad abstraction of the moment - which happens to all of us at some point - when in whatever field or class or whatever you suddenly realize "I know this stuff!", when it all fits together.Very similar to 1e only without the DM character-rating garbage.  I have mechanisms in place to handle characters who cannot or will not train, mostly revolving around their advancing at half rate.  If a character gets enough xp to bump while still in the field, xp gain doesn't stop dead like Gygax has it, but if you get too far into the new level before training a penalty system kicks in to slow advancement down (flip side: training gets cheaper if this happens).I also have mechanisms in place to handle the (very slow!) advancement of "stay-at-home" temple clerics, lab mages, career soldiers, etc., in order to explain how non-adventurers can occasionally get to high level in a class.The one big beneficial element you conveniently left out of your discourse here is that having to stop and train up now and then forces characters to take some downtime, allowing more opportunity to engage with parts of the setting not directly connected to or part of an adventure.  It also sometimes forces some very realistic, if not always pleasant, choices on parties*: whether to turn back and train up and in so doing give the enemy more time, or keep going untrained; and I like that.* - more relevant if-when not everyone bumps at the same time.</blockquote>

Verification