deadreckoner |
Hi, and consider,
It occured to me on the subject of individual class philosophies that a bigger underlying issue exists if you look close enough-beyond alignment, creed ethos or outlook of differing classes
being: a first level character in a given class is "assumed" to have spent years if not decades learning the basics of thier class, and barbarians are a "cultural" class, not a proffesional class, so raised from childhood that way eg. so when a barbarian wanders into a monastery and yells out" I've found god and self control, lemme know your Kung-fu!" does he walk out tommorrow with 6 years of monky initiate experience (1st level) or does your player put away the character sheet for half a years gaming to simulate the learning required to "achieve" a second class??, gimme your thoughts
deadreckoner |
hi Shar, and i would concur, as you say, back in UA it was a true
cultural class, and the current can be considered more a berserker,i
may have worded that a bit better. Im glad you bought up 1st Ed, cos the training time convention that existed in earlier versions of the game is related to the string topic, your thoughts on multi-classing?
Madak |
Hi, and consider,
It occured to me on the subject of individual class philosophies that a bigger underlying issue exists if you look close enough-beyond alignment, creed ethos or outlook of differing classes
being: a first level character in a given class is "assumed" to have spent years if not decades learning the basics of thier class, and barbarians are a "cultural" class, not a proffesional class, so raised from childhood that way eg. so when a barbarian wanders into a monastery and yells out" I've found god and self control, lemme know your Kung-fu!" does he walk out tommorrow with 6 years of monky initiate experience (1st level) or does your player put away the character sheet for half a years gaming to simulate the learning required to "achieve" a second class??, gimme your thoughts
I can see your point in how it's a little far fetched that as characters level they can just decide to take a level in a different class when typically they would have needed to spend years training.
However, I think that some "cross-training" exists while a character is leveling in a class. For instance a Fighter is a capable warrior, all that sets him apart from a Paladin, Barbarian, or Ranger is the connection to Religion, Rage, or Nature. Likewise for Sorcerers, Wizards, Druids, and Monks--they all train their mind, so I don't see multi-classing between these as a unrealistic.
Even for a spellcaster, the first few levels they are going to be doing a significant amount of melee/ranged combat since they will run out of spells quickly because they have so few. Therefore, I think taking a few levels in a martial class isn't unrealistic either--they'll definitely have some real combat experience to back it up.
I could go on and on, but I think it all comes down to roleplaying. Any class combination can make sense if you consider D&D a bit like Elderscrolls (if you've played those games) in that you get "good" at what you actually do. And I think that this is actually Pathfinder's opinion too since you can now put skill ranks in non-class skills. So if you wanted a Wizard who was a champion swimmer, you can have one.
Anyway, sorry for that wall of text :)
deadreckoner |
good points madak,
having played elder scrolls i know where your coming from there, though i would consider it more a skill based system than levels, and yes cross-over of skills would make it easier /less time consuming.
training time is something that hase gone the wayside since about 2nd edition(and training cost imo), i have considered introducing a houserule system similar in principle to old-style dual classing to make multiclassing a little less desireable, but still possible for the dedicated(only requiring a couple lvls advancement without previous classes abilities to represent the instiling of new ways etc then full access after that
any thoughts?
Fallen_Mage |
Here is another way it could work in RP. Have the PC's training each other between levels.
Example:
Party Rogue wants to improve his fight capability (take a level in Fighter). So he walks up to the Fighter and says, "Can you teach me how to fight better?"
This is done in movies all the time. One example I can think of right off the top of my head is The Forbidden Kingdom. Where Jason spends months (pay attention to his hair as time progresses) learning kung fu from Lu Yan and the Silent Monk, there by becoming a basic martial artist who can handle himself in a fight against 'low level' combatants.
The_Minstrel_Wyrm |
Here is another way it could work in RP. Have the PC's training each other between levels.
Example:
Party Rogue wants to improve his fight capability (take a level in Fighter). So he walks up to the Fighter and says, "Can you teach me how to fight better?"
This is done in movies all the time. One example I can think of right off the top of my head is The Forbidden Kingdom. Where Jason spends months (pay attention to his hair as time progresses) learning kung fu from Lu Yan and the Silent Monk, there by becoming a basic martial artist who can handle himself in a fight against 'low level' combatants.
Oooohhh... points for mentioning one of my favorite "newer" movies. :)
I remember the training costs from 2e... I think I used them earlier on... but dumped them when it just stopped working for our group. (and by that I mean, I used them during the time I ran a 2e FR game, not "now" or recently used).
I think training time would be a cool RP moment (much like the example above my post... party Rogue asks the party Fighter to "teach him" and so on). I guess it all boils down to individual DMs/GMs and the players, as to what works or doesn't work for their game.
However, having said all that, I think it could be an interesting part of leveling to receive training (to earn your leveling) but may introduce complications that some would rather avoid.
As you can see, I'm really on the proverbial fence with this.
Sorry I didn't add anything to the discussion.
Dean (TMW)
Shar Tahl |
I really don't see it as years of training to be level 1. If you look at what they know at level 1 for each class, they have just brushed the surface of what the class is. I see first level as maybe a month or two of hard training. In the monk example, they are essentially a white belt. They know the basic stuff, but they haven't learned anything really powerful. I guess it really depends on the class too. If you look at the starting ages, you see the representation of time. Some classes take a little more devotion of time and energy. The whole multiclassing things requires a bit of stepping away from ultra realism and accepting the characters is taking another path. Realistically, a character taking a level of wizards would have to step away from adventuring for a couple months.
TriOmegaZero |
I treat levels as very abstract things. A 50-year old man can be a 1st level character, while a farm boy could already be on his way to 5th. It's more a measure of how well you can survive the challenges of the story than how experienced you are. (And yes, I have dropped the concept of experience points from my game.)
Nazard |
For me, classes that traditionally involve a certain amount of formal schooling (wizard, cleric) require game time devoted to studying before you can take that first level. Conversely, other classes don't need that study time (like sorcerer, where the magical ability just starts to manifest itself in various fluff ways in the game days or weeks leading up to the gaining of the new level). The more martial classes are easier to back door in, or pick up the training from other party members.
Another way it sometimes works in games I play in is if I know I'm going to have a dual-class character, I write the training for the second class into the back story, and just don't use the class abilities for that class until my PC gains level 2. I recall a cleric/wizard I had once who didn't have the wizard level yet, but kept trying to use his wizard spells anyway. They would always fizzle from the stress of the combat encounters, making him more and more frustrated. Of course, it's a risk having a character take an action in combat that you know will fail purely for role-playing reasons.
RaistusObskura |
My approach is similar to Nazard in that I try to roleplay it. Either with backstory when the intent is to multiclass early and take the one that would seem hardest to explain developing spontaneously (e.g. Wizard) first.
This did mean that on one occasion when I took Wizard second that I was without a bonded item for quite a while in addition to wearing some armour. Extremely non optimal perhaps, but great for roleplaying towards my ultimate aim of being a armourclad mage with a fondeness for still spell.
When I GM, it tends to get handwaved, although some of the players do make a similar effort to myself it doesn't tend to be the rule. One player in particular though has a habit of taking the classes according to the needs of the party, which has led to the odd interesting build and is an organic, if not quite roleplayed character development.
GodzFirefly |
Another way it sometimes works in games I play in is if I know I'm going to have a dual-class character, I write the training for the second class into the back story, and just don't use the class abilities for that class until my PC gains level 2. I recall a cleric/wizard I had once who didn't have the wizard level yet, but kept trying to use his wizard spells anyway. They would always fizzle from the stress of the combat encounters, making him more and more frustrated. Of course, it's a risk having a character take an action in combat that you know will fail purely for role-playing reasons.
That reminds me of a character my brother played that was a Gnome Psion whom he inteded to become a Cerebremancer. The gnome grew up persecuted for his psionic abilities, so studied arcane magic to know enough about it to pretend that his manifestations were really spells. That study was intended to also cover the justification for knowing how to cast spells once he took a level of wizard.
Great way to manage it when you have a DM that insists on strong role playing and character backgrounds.
Madak |
Demetri Martin spent years in Law School, then one day dropped out and almost immediately became a successful comedian.
This is exactly what I mean by "cross-training" in my above post: a good lawyer is probably going to be pretty charismatic, so becoming a stand-up comedian isn't that mind-blowing. He's not the only stand-up comedian who I've heard went to law school either.
Abraham spalding |
You know when I 'build' a character I don't write the class down. I write his name down. That is his class. I don't say "Oh you can't have this ability which fits your character background and what I want you to be doing because it is in another class" I say "hey this fits the background, the personality, and what I want to be doing with this character so I'll get it."
Basically put I'm a level x "insert name here" not a level x paladin or level x barbarian.
I figure this is the character's life -- he doesn't say "I can't do that because it's a different class" -- he goes out and figures out how it is done and does it himself -- that's why he's training in his down time (the same time he's taking his potty breaks and bathing/changing clothes/whatever else). We don't make too fine of a point going into complete detail of the character's down time -- generally we just let everyone know what he's generally doing during that time, where he can be found and what the character's ambitions are.
The idea that "Oh you can't have that because it isn't your class" is actually more metagamey than just following what the character is no matter what class the abilities come from (a more "organic" approach honestly -- since the character doesn't understand classes/levels and the like).
ProfessorCirno |
ProfessorCirno wrote:Demetri Martin spent years in Law School, then one day dropped out and almost immediately became a successful comedian.This is exactly what I mean by "cross-training" in my above post: a good lawyer is probably going to be pretty charismatic, so becoming a stand-up comedian isn't that mind-blowing. He's not the only stand-up comedian who I've heard went to law school either.
I'm a psychology major who's going to go teach english overseas next year.
I know someone who switched successfully from Computer Science to Japanese studies.
I can keep throwing out examples if you want ;p
GravesScion |
I've had this very discussion with several different groups over the years, mostly about suddenly multiclassing in wizard, and about the idea of having to go through training for leveling and multiclassing. While the concept has some merit and in some cases it has lead to fine roleplaying, I've been opposed to forcing the characters to have to receive training. The main reason is that I've played in a game where the Dungeon Master did require it and it in essence became a way for her to have control over how the characters advanced.
For instance the fighter in the group wanted to learn the Combat Reflexes feat as she was trying to make a Dexterity fighter. The Dungeon Master had a deep dislike of Attacks of Opportunities (through only from the players, enemies used them like they where going out of style)so suddenly no one in the entire world knew or was willing to teach the feat.
It got to the point that the characters went three levels without gaining any class abilities beyond attack bonuses, saves, skills (but only skills that the character where already trained in)and abilities that built on them-selves (such as sneak attack). Even that last one took some convincing to not also require training.
We could have characters teach each other their skills and abilities however...if they had Profession (Teacher/Trainer).
loaba |
I've had this very discussion with several different groups over the years, mostly about suddenly multiclassing in wizard, and about the idea of having to go through training for leveling and multiclassing. While the concept has some merit and in some cases it has lead to fine roleplaying, I've been opposed to forcing the characters to have to receive training. The main reason is that I've played in a game where the Dungeon Master did require it and it in essence became a way for her to have control over how the characters advanced.
For instance the fighter in the group wanted to learn the Combat Reflexes feat as she was trying to make a Dexterity fighter. The Dungeon Master had a deep dislike of Attacks of Opportunities (through only from the players, enemies used them like they where going out of style)so suddenly no one in the entire world knew or was willing to teach the feat.
It got to the point that the characters went three levels without gaining any class abilities beyond attack bonuses, saves, skills (but only skills that the character where already trained in)and abilities that built on them-selves (such as sneak attack). Even that last one took some convincing to not also require training.
We could have characters teach each other their skills and abilities however...if they had Profession (Teacher/Trainer).
That's a DM I wouldn't care to roll (or role even) with. There is nothing in the rules that says you need training to take on a new skill or class. As a player, you make a choice. As a gaming group, you rationalize it in game.
Louis IX |
It has bothered me as well, although it was a while back. Starting age for those spellcasting classes imply that years have to be spent to achieve basic training. But I don't care anymore.
In my interpretation of the rules, when the player decides to multiclass his character, he can always argue that the character has spent most of his free time from the last level(s) training and studying new skills and abilities. When I'm the GM, I could enforce this by asking the players what their character's next couple levels will be before they gain it... but I don't. Mainly because it's not a problem so large that I'd want to break the game's fluidity because of it.
In real life, you can start with a low-level degree and study in your spare time with an online program or something similar. You can also gain a PhD but start to spend your free time at the gym or the local martial arts school, etc.
ProfessorCirno |
Keep in mind, one level of wizard doesn't catapult him to archmage :p. He's just picked up one or two spells and the basics of cantrip usage.
Think of it this way - in the wizard tower, it takes the apprentice a long time to learn the basics because, well, he's very slowly learning from a cranky old man who's probably not that great of a teacher to begin with. Out in the fields, you've got spells flying around you constantly to "learn" from, as well as plenty of life or death situations to "teach" you.
Abraham spalding |
Also:
The more you learn the easier it is to learn. Going into level 1 you have few things to relate what you are learning to. As you gain more levels though you have more life experience, have seen and heard more, and have just been around longer. That makes it easier to compare "new" things to stuff you've already experienced, find a corralation and short cut with what you already know.
GodzFirefly |
As a GM, the way I handled this situation has always been that, if the player wants to multi-class or prestige class, he/she has to inform the GM (me) at least 1 level in advance, so that we can work it into the RP. The same goes for learning new languages or new use-only-while-trained skills.
After all, Pathfinder states that characters who are adventuring get about 4 free hours per day (it says so when discussing magic item creation.) And, if a player is constantly spending every hour of that time for several levels creating items, when did he find the free time to suddenly learn martial arts (monk), learn to commune with nature spirits (druid), or learn to speak Draconic? So, we try to fit 'training' time in there, too. Not enough to interfere with game mechanics (how many characters really do spend all their free time crafting?) But, enough to justify the change in skill-set.
As for the theory of "[t]he more you learn the easier it is to learn," reality has proven that (for humans, at least) it is actually harder to learn new things as you get older. In reality, the more you know the more set in your ways you are and the harder it is the learn something new and different.
Abraham spalding |
As for the theory of "[t]he more you learn the easier it is to learn," reality has proven that (for humans, at least) it is actually harder to learn new things as you get older. In reality, the more you know the more set in your ways you are and the harder it is the learn something new and different.
I never said older now did I?
That is something different all together, and doesn't apply.
I simply said the more you learn the easier it is to learn -- which has been supported by research -- if you take two people of the same age (educational/socio/ecomonic background/etc) and start teaching one of them new things regularly for two months while the other one doesn't learn anything during those same months then try and teach them both something the one that has been learning new things for two months will learn the new thing easier than the one that hasn't.
Lokie |
As a DM myself... I rarely run into this problem as I try to build "extra" off time into the game. When I am running a "serious" campaign I try and account for the seasons and region the party is adventuring in. I attempt to advance time and show time advancing in game.
For example... Say the party is adventuring in a region known to have a "storm season". Large chunks of time are then spent under shelter from the storms. If the party is in a region prone to extreme winters, extra time is built into the game while the characters are "snowed in".
By slipping the adventure or parts of a adventure in between these natural events it helps show the passage of time and includes extra time for the PC's to train.
Another method is to keep track of time spent traveling and space out the adventure between locations with a large amount of travel time between locations. As a DM you do not need to include "random" encounters if you don't want to. Thus you can "gloss over" the the tedium of traveling and allow that the characters filled the time between actually traveling with training or whatever.
Thus when they reach the adventure location and put practice into actual use, they are just having that "EUREKA" moment when practice and actual experience "click" and the character masters the new skill.
loaba |
As a GM, the way I handled this situation has always been that, if the player wants to multi-class or prestige class, he/she has to inform the GM (me) at least 1 level in advance, so that we can work it into the RP. The same goes for learning new languages or new use-only-while-trained skills.
I don't penalize my players for not having the same foresight as their character. For example, in our current campaign, the Cavalier took Elven at 2nd level. It was rationalized that the Elven ranger spent time teaching him. It doesn't have to be a big deal, people.
GodzFirefly |
I don't penalize my players for not having the same foresight as their character. For example, in our current campaign, the Cavalier took Elven at 2nd level. It was rationalized that the Elven ranger spent time teaching him. It doesn't have to be a big deal, people.
My players don't see it as "penalizing" them. Our group simply likes to role play a lot. Even the little things, in some cases. My players honestly enjoy setting up watches every night (annoying to me, but eh) or role playing training for new skills (it's usually only a sentence or two commenting about it as they travel along or whatever.) The 'fighter' characters often go out of their way in large cities to choose the inn with a training salle. The wizards and characters with numerous knowledge skills always know where they nearest library is to help them train in their free time. If these things 'penalize' anyone, it's the GM (me) in that I have to always spend the extra time building these details in the cities I create.
No, it doesn't have to be a big thing. Even in our games it's not really "big." It's just a detail we like to know. And it sometimes fits into the story in interesting ways.
As for your example, what if noone in the group knew Elven when the Cavalier wanted to learn? Or, what if the language was a more "rare" one, like Undercommon or Infernal? Would you have felt the same way?
loaba |
As for your example, what if noone in the group knew Elven when the Cavalier wanted to learn? Or, what if the language was a more "rare" one, like Undercommon or Infernal? Would you have felt the same way?
Excellent point, if no one in the party knew the language, how did he learn it? It becomes harder to rationalize at that point (but not impossible.) You could say he'd had training prior and it just now (at 2nd level) clicked. Certainly that is a less satisfying explanation, but it is at least plausible. Would it have been better if the player had been badly butchering the language in RP situations previously? Sure, you bet.
GodzFirefly |
I never said older now did I?
That is something different all together, and doesn't apply.
I simply said the more you learn the easier it is to learn -- which has been supported by research -- if you take two people of the same age (educational/socio/ecomonic background/etc) and start teaching one of them new things regularly for two months while the other one doesn't learn anything during those same months then try and teach them both something the one that has been learning new things for two months will learn the new thing easier than the one that hasn't.
The research in this area must be less conclusive than either of us thought, because I recently (within the last week) read a study about how it is harder to teach a person new things when they already know a similar other thing, even when you'd assume there would be useful cross-overs. There were two examples given. One related to musical instruments and the challenge of teaching an instrument to two groups, one group which had already learned one instrument and another which had not (age set constant.) The other was languages. (I think the "new" language was English, in this case.)
Perhaps the factor in the research you read was the recent nature of the previous study? Perhaps keeping the brain in practice is the relevant factor?
Either way, I hadn't meant my comment to hang on age being a factor, though I can see how it would be read that way.