I'm thinking of implementing a training requirement for new Feats, Skills, and Spells. (kind of a throw back to my 1st ed roots). I want my players to begin to think outside the box on develpment of the Char
The first one I'm working on is Spells.
If the wizard or sorcerer wants a new spell they have to either find a scroll, and cast it into themsleves (sorcerer) or inscribe it into their spell book (wizards). If they see another caster cast the spell, and get the correct spellcraft check to gain knowledge of the spell, then they can train the spell with an amount of time spent perfecting it. Or find another wizard/sorcerer to train them, for a nominal fee of course. (the inverse is that they can make an income training up and coming Wizards/Sorcerers themselves)
For divine spells it's about communing with your element(god) for a specific amount of time/understanding, or again finding a superior, or sucessfully noticing a spell cast for the party.
Has anyone else done/tried this? If so how'd it work out?
When ever I have played a Wizard I have always roleplayed the gaining of new spells. I will have my alchemical lab, complete with stuffed crocodile :) and spend several sessions "memorising" the spell and practice casting. My DM has got used to this (even if it isn't by the book) and has allowed me to "cast" the spell when my PC is a few xps from really using it.
I don't mean a full-blown spell but a very partial success, eg if I wanted Invisibility and Knock as my new second level spells going to third my Wizard may unlock a single enclosure or just his top half becomes invisible.
I think it adds to the fun but thats the only reason it happens. I would never expect a practice Fireball to do anything but perhaps launch that bit of bat guano or my Wall of Iron to be paper thin. Its not about gaining an advantage but roleplay.
1) Does this extend to the spells wizards gain automatically upon gaining a level?
2) Potential problem: how do you train when you're out in the wilderness? Are trainers required? Are other resources needed? Do you really want spellcasters to have problems learning spells while trying to get to Mordor?
1) Does this extend to the spells wizards gain automatically upon gaining a level?
2) Potential problem: how do you train when you're out in the wilderness? Are trainers required? Are other resources needed? Do you really want spellcasters to have problems learning spells while trying to get to Mordor?
I've never seen it as "training" but practice.
You've trained to be a surgeon, you know what to do but you need the practice to get it right. Hopefully first time!
I think I need to be more specific.
Wizards gain 2 spells every level, for free, per RAW. Do these need to found on scrolls now, or otherwise obtained?
Also, how do you handle this when your party is off in the jungle and has been fighting dinosaurs, undead, and whatnot for weeks when they level? I ask because this kind of thing happens in games. I was in a campaign where we spent a month or two in the jungle. I was the party monk and didn't exactly see a lot of other people during that period. How do spellcasters handle this? What about if they're in a massive military campaign? The Underdark? Finding resources (scrolls, trainers, etc.) can be difficult sometimes. And you may not be fighting spellcasters regularly so you may not find yourself running across new spells....
I think I need to be more specific.
Wizards gain 2 spells every level, for free, per RAW. Do these need to found on scrolls now, or otherwise obtained?
Also, how do you handle this when your party is off in the jungle and has been fighting dinosaurs, undead, and whatnot for weeks when they level? I ask because this kind of thing happens in games. I was in a campaign where we spent a month or two in the jungle. I was the party monk and didn't exactly see a lot of other people during that period. How do spellcasters handle this? What about if they're in a massive military campaign? The Underdark? Finding resources (scrolls, trainers, etc.) can be difficult sometimes. And you may not be fighting spellcasters regularly so you may not find yourself running across new spells....
I can't answer this. All I can say is that my wizard knows pretty much in advance what he is going to get when he levels up and starts working on his little formula for those spells ASAP hence my practice comments.
As for other spells you are left to the tender hands of the DM to leave sacttered scrolls/spellbooks for the party to find.
1) Does this extend to the spells wizards gain automatically upon gaining a level?
2) Potential problem: how do you train when you're out in the wilderness? Are trainers required? Are other resources needed? Do you really want spellcasters to have problems learning spells while trying to get to Mordor?
1) Yes, they would have to earn those spells. (I had a first ed MU that had the same spells for three levels because the DM ran a low magic campaign and I couldn't fin any new ones.)
2) Trainers make it easier. It's a matter of knowledge of the spells the user has seen cast, or scrolls in possesion. A party with two caster would be able to teach each other spells. But to gain access to higher level spells they need to find the magical knowledge. (Or in terms of a feat the technical knowledge.)
Now this is still a work in possible progress so the ideas reflected may change. But the same will work for a warrior. They want to move from Cleave to Great Cleave (that's a simple tranistion of applied knowledge) fine. They want to take Cleave and then Dodge (They're going to have to practice it, get someone to teach them etc.)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Lathiira is implying that this change will inconvenience the party, and he's right. The question is: do you buy enough character development with this to make it worth that inconvenience?
I think that depends on your local group. My home campaign using training (anywhere up to a week if your character is gaining her first level in a new class), but then, my home campaign is an E6-style modification of D&D 3.5, rather than Pathfinder. So, I'm not one to speak about how a Pathfinder campaign ought to feel.
1) Does this extend to the spells wizards gain automatically upon gaining a level?
2) Potential problem: how do you train when you're out in the wilderness? Are trainers required? Are other resources needed? Do you really want spellcasters to have problems learning spells while trying to get to Mordor?
1) Yes, they would have to earn those spells. (I had a first ed MU that had the same spells for three levels because the DM ran a low magic campaign and I couldn't fin any new ones.)
2) Trainers make it easier. It's a matter of knowledge of the spells the user has seen cast, or scrolls in possesion. A party with two caster would be able to teach each other spells. But to gain access to higher level spells they need to find the magical knowledge. (Or in terms of a feat the technical knowledge.)
Now this is still a work in possible progress so the ideas reflected may change. But the same will work for a warrior. They want to move from Cleave to Great Cleave (that's a simple tranistion of applied knowledge) fine. They want to take Cleave and then Dodge (They're going to have to practice it, get someone to teach them etc.)
Again I think its down to practice. If my PC wants to learn a feat then before he gains it (thanks to level gain) they practice it. If he wants to up his Rope Use skill he will practice tying knots, etc. I think this is because as a DM it bugs me that a player will dump all his skill points in Profession(Sailor) in a desert campaign without even trying to justify it in a Roleplaying way.
Fighter wants to learn dodge and the rogue weapon finesse so they both spar together.
To me, 'training' always seems cool in theory but never adds anything to the game. It is another one of those realism vs. fun questions. Sure, it is realistic, but is it fun?
Most games assume the price of character advancement is participation in the campaign.
So my question really is, how does training make the game more fun? If it does not, what is the purpose of training. Maybe there is a better method to accomplish that goal. For instance, if the purpose is to slow down advancement, then simply slow down advancement.
They want to move from Cleave to Great Cleave (that's a simple tranistion of applied knowledge) fine. They want to take Cleave and then Dodge (They're going to have to practice it, get someone to teach them etc.)
So you want to encourage characters to increase depth over increasing breadth?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So my question really is, how does training make the game more fun?
I can only speak for myself, but training (a) provides a little more verisimilitude, and (b) gives the party a reason for interacting with the larger world around them. ("You want to learn how to maneuver, and then strike your opponent, and then duck back away from him before he can strike you back? That sounds like one of those wild tricks Yasha is always pulling, but I don't think any of the Captain's Guards knows how to do anything like that!")
The 4th Edition D&D game has a terrific book entitled, I think, Dungeon Delves. It's a collection of 30 little bits, each with two or three linked combat encounters, without very much context. If that's what you like to do, you probably wouldn't like our campaign. We'll spend an entire session talking to townsfolks, trying to unravel a tapestry with a warp of hidden agendas and a weft of cross purposes.
And training is an avenue through which we can gain purchase on that tapestry. If we were interested in nothing more than moving on to the next dungeon combat, training would indeed be more inconvenience than anything else.
My experience with training times is as follows:
-As a GM, you must be much more careful to allow sufficient time and opportunities for training, otherwise you'll throw off the power balance between characters who need training and characters who don't. Even if you don't throw off the inter-party balance, you also have to watch that the power level of the party as a whole doesn't dip too far behind the expected.
-Certain types of players (the kind who enjoy coming up with character ideas, in my experience the majority of players) will become significantly less interested in the game and will probably drop out.
-The ones that don't drop out will derail your plot by actively seeking out situations that allow them to play the character they want to play.
-Conversely, the types of players who don't care about designing their own characters will become more involved.
-If done for its own sake to add to realism and immersion, it can work in some situations. As outlined above, it depends on your players.
-If done as a means to an end, there are usually simpler and less risky ways to accomplish that end. You said you wanted your players to think more outside of the box on character development, which in my experience is better achieved by telling them that outright and then providing more options, rather than limiting their options.
Before I implement anything I'm going to get a feel from my players on how they would like this.
If it's not something we can agree on then I'll scrap it.
For the record, I'm not worried about "inconvenience" per se. I'm worried about how this affects the balance of power of various classes in-game. There were comments about one of the Adventure Paths (I think it was Savage Tide) that it was hard for a wizard at one point because there were no wizards and no scrolls available when the party got stuck on an island for a couple levels. If I understand the OP, his idea would apply for feat training, spells, and a variety of other things. So to me, this would be even worse. If I understand correctly, you'd get HD, BAB, skill points, and save bonus. What of other class abilities? Does the paladin have to train with another paladin to learn a new mercy? Does the monk have to race with other monks to increase their movement rate? And so on.
…but training (a) provides a little more verisimilitude…
Do your players provide you with detailed backgrounds for their characters?
…gives the party a reason for interacting with the larger world around them.
I would agree. How do you handle separating the party while each character seeks out their respective trainer?
The 4th Edition D&D game has a terrific book entitled, I think, Dungeon Delves.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Or are you implying that since I disagree with you I must be a damn, dirty 4e lover?
|
I usually presume that the extra eight hours of downtime an adventuring party usually has (after 8 hours of travel, 8 hours of rest) is spent practicing their craft. I also use this to allow the characters to reasonably know each-others specialties (unless a character makes an effort to hide some ability).
If the party advances too fast (such as gaining 2 levels inside a week, or even a day) then I require a week of practice time to "catch up" and reflect on what they've learned.
I don't require the wizard to find a scroll or tome to learn their free spells and assume its part of their learning process that they know them seemingly out of nowhere. I also don't require anyone to seek out a "trainer" for anything unless its for a prestige class, for which I like to have background (but don't require it if no-one's interested in that kind of story-lining).
They don't have to train with another of the class per se. That just helps the transition (i.e. makes it easier.) They can train themselves, or each other.
The mage would still gain the ability to memorize/cast more spells per day, as his capacity to handle such magics go, but I'm not in love with idea of BAM "I can suddenly cast this complicated spell I've never seen/used/been taught before".
As far as other class abilities it's a case by case basis, I used casting as the example because I have the basic idea.
The question becomes What is the ability? Is it an improvement on a previous ability? A monk gaining faster speeds is just getting better at something he already can do. But the slow fall ability? (don't have a book in front of me but IIRC it comes at higher than first level) Would be something shown by an elder, or practiced... done over time.
Mainly it's for learning of something "New" or "Foreign". "Suddenly I know how to do ________ when I've never tried/seen/etc before" is something I'm trying to work with.
I'm also working on a trial and error "Training" mechanic.
I'm about to start a Rise of the Runelords game, and the modules itself allow for time for this type of system to work. I can allow for them to try this idea. So far the concept has sat well with my players , but they are fans of Roleplaying not the "Roll"playing aspects. I'm not trying to to convince anyone this is the WAY TO PLAY the game. I just wanted opinions on anyone who's tried htis.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Do your players provide you with detailed backgrounds for their characters?
We work together on one, yes.
How do you handle separating the party while each character seeks out their respective trainer?
It hasn't turned out to be an issue. Party members understand that they're going to be conducting business for a week or so. some characters will train, others will try to find someone in town willing to buy items the party wishes to sell, or vice versa, wizards might spend a couple of days learning spells and tranfering them to their spellbooks. A character might be involved in some intrigue or a track down a lead for an upcoming adventure. I try to make sure there's plenty to do.
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Or are you implying that since I disagree with you I must be a damn, dirty 4e lover?
I honestly can't imagine how you could have inferred that, let alone determined my opinion of people who play 4th Edition, but you have my apologies for being unclear. Let me try again.
The 2nd Edition AD&D game has a set of pretty good books entitled, I recall, "Book of Lairs" and "Book of Lairs II". They are collections of about 15 mapped lairs per book, each with two or three linked combat encounters, without very much context. If that kind of product appeals to you, you probably wouldn't like our campaign. We'll spend an entire session talking to townsfolks, trying to unravel a tapestry with a warp of hidden agendas and a weft of cross purposes.
Now Chris,
Do allow for the self-discovery type training too?
And then the inverse, as the PCs gain knowledge/fame do you have NPCs seek them out for training?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Depends; as you say, if it's a new level with some new skill ranks and a die of hit points, then yes.
And yes, if they develop a good reputation and stick around in one area.
(I've also had one higher-level NPC decide that the party's wizard would make an ideal cohort, and wouldn't take 'no' for an answer.)
I must say that one thing that bugged me in 1ed was the party thief gaining another 5% in Read Languages when the only thing that he actually read was the menu in a bar.
In my game I like for my players to give me some idea of what skills/feats they are working towards so I can weave that into the description of the campaign world. That way everyone gets that little bit of belief that the halfling now has 3 skill points in ride because for the last few sessions he has been described as falling off his pony or whatever.
I don't force it upon my players but they buy into it.
We work together on one, yes.
Cool. That has not been my experience with D&D groups and that is why I asked. I have seen too many Class A 3 / Class B 2 / Prestige Class C 5 without the least thought of a coherent story behind any of it.
Classes themselves break verisimilitude for me. So I have a hard time wrapping my head around needing training for verisimilitude when so many other elements trample all over it.
It hasn't turned out to be an issue.
Do you run these scenes at the table or are they just summarized?
I honestly can't imagine how you could have inferred that, let alone determined my opinion of people who play 4th Edition, but you have my apologies for being unclear.
I obviously misread you and I apologize. Actually, it sounds like our campaigns are far more similar than dissimilar. I am not a fan of dungeon crawls.
In a way I disliked the concept of training rules, especially those that make the assumtion that it must be done before the character os allowed to gain a new level. It assumes there is no growth in skill between level X to Y. I know that is partbof the leveling system abstraction. In contrast any kind of incremental point buy system can have characters advancing at a much smoother rate.
How to accout for that? Personally I'd take a leaf from the revised item crafting rules and allow PCs to put pre-time into training while adventuring and traveling. Give them 'credit' toward new class abilities, spell research, and so on. Thar way it feels far more organic.
Who does training ruled hurt? Spell casters for the most part, and definatly heavy item crafters. Anything that would use down times to create resources is now limited by training times.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Who does training ruled hurt? Spell casters for the most part, and definatly heavy item crafters. Anything that would use down times to create resources is now limited by training times.
Dorje, could you explain this position?
If a non-training campaign requires three weeks for the crafter character to make a widget of magic, during which time the rest of the party waits; then the corresponding training campaign would require the crafter to spend one week training, and three weeks making the widget of magic. The other characters spend one week training, and wait three weeks.
Am I misunderstanding you?
Now Dorje, for the way I'm doing it, I assume that with practice the crafter will get better over time (allowing for no training to skill up an existing skill0, but if the Weaponsmith wants to break into alchemy, they need to train that.
I'm also working on "trial by fire" learning. Example... In comabt the wizard has an unknown higher level spell cast on him (He's never seen this spell cast). His spellcraft check will give him some insight into the spell, meaning once he gets to a level he can master that spell, he can recreate it through a small self-training/trial and error session(or work on it until he grasps the concept at the time of that next level).
The lvl 1 fighterw/power attack is in melee with another melee type with dodge. He makes a perception check and notices that by paying attention to him more than the others his opponent can more easily parry, and make him miss more often. (thus by gaining the ability to learn dodge by practicing this form of active combat awareness)
I seem to recall there was a system where whenever you failed a roll, your skill increased by one. The roll had to be something with consequences, you could not just run around trying to be stealthy all the time to improve your stealth. It was a percentile system, so one 'bump' was 1%. The problem is, only combat abilities every got better.
Other skills just were not used enough to increase noticeably.
Another thing I dislike about training is that it distracts from the plot. If I am running a sandbox campaign, then training is fine. In fact, I think it works perfectly for that type of campaign. If I am actually running a plot though, I have to wait until everyone trains up before advancing my plot.
Another thing I dislike about training is that it distracts from the plot. If I am running a sandbox campaign, then training is fine. In fact, I think it works perfectly for that type of campaign. If I am actually running a plot though, I have to wait until everyone trains up before advancing my plot.
But if you're creating the game knowing the training is going to be there means you get to allow for opportunites where they have to make a hard choice train, or save the damsel, is yours to play with. Now you can't do that every level otherwise the Players may revolt, but every so often would add a great dramatic effect.
In my opinion, that is really only an issue for the more narratavist inclined. The gamist is not going to care much about the damsel, and focus on 'leveling up'. So once again, the person playing their character like a living, breathing being gets put into an unsound tactical (a.k.a. stupid) position.
And heaven help if you half your group wants to go train and the other half wants to rescue the damsel. Personally, I hate splitting the party up. I assume people come to the table to play, not watch other people play.
If I am running the game, I want the players to rescue the damsel not spend the next couple of hours playing a handful of relatively unimportant NPCs that I do not even have drawn up.
|
I just roleplay training now.
In older editions, there was so much $$$ to be spent (since creation of magic items was completely obscure) that we had training costs.
For example, a player took "Improved Initiative." We roleplayed this out. While tending to a farm, he spent time chasing loose chickens to improve his general reflexes and speed.
Like others, we play through a new spell, carefully dipping an owl feather into squid ink...
If we're mid adventure and it's not practical, we might work out a summary of what they had been working on and finally started getting right (you had penned that spell, but you were not sure until recently that you had the inflections much less reserves inside you to attempt it successfully...)
You can do as much or as little as you like, but it really helps develop an attachment and story behind the story of your character.