Hello all,
Q1: Simple question, my rogue would like to teach an other PC a "trained skill only" which he doesn't have. How long do my rogue have to teach this PC for him to learn the new skill (or at least have the potential of adding this skill once he will level)?
(Example: the rogue teaches "disable device" to a bard), how many hours would this take?
Q2: In a same flavor... can my rogue, who has knowledge dungeoneering, teach it to an other PC... how long does he has to teach him?
Q3: Same goes for a profession, my rogue wants to learn "profession sailor", how long does she have to be sailing and trained before she can actually add this new profession to her sheet?
Thanks in advance for your answers
I'm afraid you won't find any hard-and-fast rules about this- it's all completely up to the DM. When you add a skill or feat or even a level of a new class upon level up, I think the assumption is that you've been working on this all along and only now has it had a mechanical effect- but that's all fluff, and the crunch is completely silent on the issue.
So in short, ask your DM. There's nothing in the rules about it at all.
Err... if you want to do this, when you level up, put a point into the skill you want.
This is "training". If you are "untrained" you have no ranks of that skill. Any class can put a rank into any skill.
Oh, I think I missed the point. Yes, Stynkk got it right on the nose. When a skill is "trained only", it means you can only use it if you have at least one rank in it (as opposed to something like perception or bluff, which anybody can use whether they've put ranks in them or not).
Oh, I think I missed the point. Yes, Stynkk got it right on the nose. When a skill is "trained only", it means you can only use it if you have at least one rank in it (as opposed to something like perception or bluff, which anybody can use whether they've put ranks in them or not).
Thanks for the follow up. Good explaination.
This is way off in the Uncharted Territroy: If your DM/GM wants to simulate that real life training, he can have your "pupil" act as if they have 1 or more ranks in a certain skill until level up, then they can assign their skill points accordingly, giving a rich Roleplaying context for how and why the character is evolving.
Way back in 3.0/3.5, there is a paragraph in the DMG about training, which suggests 1 week to train a skill (costing about 50 gp for a professional trainer) or 2 weeks for a feat (100 gp cost), or double that (2 weeks for a skill, a month for a feat) if you train yourself. (Page 197, 3.5 DMG)
Hehe, I am the DM.
I guess I still have in mind the old fashion weapon specialization of version 2, where one had to find a master, and then go train for 3 months at a price of 100 gp.
I have a hard time accepting that a PC just puts a point in a new skill when he levels up without having some kind of training during his previous level (or received some kind of teaching), especially for “trained only” skills.
The same goes for professions, how long do I have to be trained to become a professional?
With all the books that are available for Pathfinder (and any other version for that matter), I am very surprised that I find no rules concerning these “trainings”.
Thanks Jeff1964, I will go check that reference once at home next week (I am on vacation at the moment and only have my Pathfinder stuff on me).
Hehe, I am the DM.
I guess I still have in mind the old fashion weapon specialization of version 2, where one had to find a master, and then go train for 3 months at a price of 100 gp.
I have a hard time accepting that a PC just puts a point in a new skill when he levels up without having some kind of training during his previous level (or received some kind of teaching), especially for “trained only” skills.
The same goes for professions, how long do I have to be trained to become a professional?
With all the books that are available for Pathfinder (and any other version for that matter), I am very surprised that I find no rules concerning these “trainings”.Thanks Jeff1964, I will go check that reference once at home next week (I am on vacation at the moment and only have my Pathfinder stuff on me).
The best assumption is again, that the PC has been working on the benefits he's gaining as he levels for the previous level.
Its not that he spontaneously is gaining benefits when he levels; those are the net rewards of the work he's been putting in along the way.
I tend to ask players to mantain coherency. So if someone wants to learn a new language via putting a rank in linguistics, he should roleplay that. Do the same to skills who the player don't have already or feats that don't seem to be obvious, in some cases make them search for masters.
But it all are up to you as DM, i'm afraid.
The best assumption is again, that the PC has been working on the benefits he's gaining as he levels for the previous level.
Its not that he spontaneously is gaining benefits when he levels; those are the net rewards of the work he's been putting in along the way.
That's it. The game's conceit is that the PCs are assumed to be training during their off hours. They rest 8 hours to avoid fatigue, can travel 8 hours before entering forced march: the other 8 hours, if they're not adventuring, or praying, or preparing spells, or crafting, or partying, or making camp, or breaking camp, or shopping.. they're training. Learning from their exeriences and studying, and practicing what they've learned.
"Leveling" is the arbitrary point when all their hard work and experience over the course of the last level finally coalesces into a measurable increase in ability.
It's a little unrealistic that it all happens all at once, but the alternative would be to ration out the benefits of their next level incrementally along the course of the current one (which may well be an awesome house rule if you want a more realistic campaign!)
If you have a problem that a character can go from completely unable to disable devices to being able to do it in just a week (assuming that's how long it will take the characters to advance a level to get the points to put in, which is quite possible), what about characters going from apprentices to the world's most powerful in their class in a few months? Because that is totally possible. If they make a normal job out of adventuring, with 5 days of the week adventuring, with a relatively full schedule (3-4 appropriate encounters per day, or something equivalent), they can get level up every week or two. That's less than a year from 1 to 20.
If I were the worrying type, that would worry me far more than someone going from 0 to amateur cook in a week.
As the GM, you can always require that character advancement is reasonable, and that the players must actually state that they do some training when they acquire new skills.
Of course, it's also quite reasonable to let a lot of things happen off-screen, and that training to get new skills, and feats, and the like are among these things.
|
This sort of thing is why I almost always plan out my skill progression, leaving a bit of leeway for skills that turn out to be needed later in the campaign.
I make sure, at the beginning of the campaign and periodically during games sessions, to remind the GM that my character is training in his off-time. How the heck did I "spontaneously" pick up Ancient Osiriani? Well, I've been going over those old scrolls every night before bed. Why did I pick up Disable Device at level 5? I've been fiddling with this lock that I bought, and I think I figured out how it works. We're stopping in town for a few days? Cool, I want to hit up the nearest apothecary and pick up a few pointers on Craft: Alchemy. Now I've got Skill Focus: Alchemy.
Generally, as long as a player puts some small effort into justifying a new skill or feat, it can be safely assumed that they've been working on it all along, like most of the other posters have said. As a GM, I've only really made one exception to this "rule," and that's because I felt sorry for the scatterbrained player; he totaled up his skill points incorrectly, and forgot that he had 3 left midway through the 3rd adventure. I went ahead and let him apply the points, one at a time over the course of a game week, to his chosen skill. He was still pretty bad at playing the flute, but he did say he was practicing!
If you have a problem that a character can go from completely unable to disable devices to being able to do it in just a week (assuming that's how long it will take the characters to advance a level to get the points to put in, which is quite possible), what about characters going from apprentices to the world's most powerful in their class in a few months? Because that is totally possible. If they make a normal job out of adventuring, with 5 days of the week adventuring, with a relatively full schedule (3-4 appropriate encounters per day, or something equivalent), they can get level up every week or two. That's less than a year from 1 to 20.
Regarding the exps, as DM, I only give half the exps during an adventure to my players as I feel the leveling is a little too easy now (say compared to version 2.0). Nonetheless they do get a nice bonus at end of adventures (20% of made exps during that adventure). They can use this as they like. I call those “exps in bank”. They can keep them aside to use those exps to create an item, or a resurrection, basically anything that demands exps as a cost. They can even exchange or give these among PC, I see this as a teaching. My players do this when they are in situations of “I am missing 500 exps to level”, it brings them somewhat closer, as exps is the most precious thing for any PC, and sharing some knowledge like that shows generosity among them and enhances the players bond. These exps in bank can be used on self also, just like they can never be used and a PC can accumulate them through multiple levels.
I hear you all, and agree that I only allow some skills to get improved at level up, depending on the previous use of skills made. If the character spent all his level in a desert with no water, I wont allow him to improve his swim skill, if he never used it.
My question is still more axed towards “time”. Is spending 3 days with a sailor at sea showing me the basics of navigation enough for my character to become a professional sailor? Or should it be more like 100 hours experience… or even a 1000?
My question is still more axed towards “time”. Is spending 3 days with a sailor at sea showing me the basics of navigation enough for my character to become a professional sailor? Or should it be more like 100 hours experience… or even a 1000?
If you want an actual time frame in which someone could reasonably become a professional sailor (surviving and navigating the seas on their own with limited assistance) that would probably be in the years category.
I would think they would need a mentor and some kind of manual for all the knots and etc.
But, we're way off the beaten path here and I personally think a lot of this could be handwaved through roleplaying and adventure downtime.
Regarding the exps, as DM, I only give half the exps during an adventure to my players as I feel the leveling is a little too easy now
What XP progression are you running?
I know that I'd violently rise up against a GM who cuts XP in half on slow. Slow is already quite slow (medium is bearable), but if you then go "super-slow" by cutting XP in half on top of that, getting a new level would take forever.
Especially since the days when we get to play once per week or more often are over. Most campaigns we play once every two weeks, not counting the regular cancellations because too many people have other plans.
I draw the line when I have to re-learn the rules for advancing a level each time I actually get one because it has been so long I forgot them - and especially since the rules are different now since it's a new edition.
(say compared to version 2.0). Nonetheless they do get a nice bonus at end of adventures (20% of made exps during that adventure). They can use this as they like.
Couldn't work, since I use Pathfinder, which thankfully did away with XP as a currency. One of the best changes the system made.
I hear you all, and agree that I only allow some skills to get improved at level up, depending on the previous use of skills made. If the character spent all his level in a desert with no water, I wont allow him to improve his swim skill, if he never used it.
I would, actually. It's common practise in our games to specialise in a number of skills which are getting maxed.
Of course, if a player wants to start with a new skill, I'd require it to be reasonable. Not a problem, usually.
My question is still more axed towards “time”. Is spending 3 days with a sailor at sea showing me the basics of navigation enough for my character to become a professional sailor? Or should it be more like 100 hours experience… or even a 1000?
Define "professional". 1 skill rank? 10? Level 20 character with maxed-out skill and Skill Focus.
What XP progression are you running?I know that I'd violently rise up against a GM who cuts XP in half on slow. Slow is already quite slow (medium is bearable), but if you then go "super-slow" by cutting XP in half on top of that, getting a new level would take forever.
Especially since the days when we get to play once per week or more often are over. Most campaigns we play once every two weeks, not counting the regular cancellations because too many people have other plans.
I draw the line when I have to re-learn the rules for advancing a level each time I actually get one because it has been so long I forgot them - and especially since the rules are different now since it's a new edition.
I use the Medium one.
Couldn't work, since I use Pathfinder, which thankfully did away with XP as a currency. One of the best changes the system made.
I use Pathfinder too, like I posted above, I noticed these extra exps that can be shared, brought the players closer together, and they enjoy that bonus very much (What they don't know is that I only give them 50% of the normal exps), but I am generous in rounding up exps for good ideas, or plans of attacks, or the use of spells as a tool (and not as it obvious function) and such.
Define "professional". 1 skill rank? 10?...
1 skill rank. Professional = have a profession (1 rank in it).
I use Pathfinder too, like I posted above, I noticed these extra exps that can be shared, brought the players closer together, and they enjoy that bonus very much
That isn't a concern for me - even before I did away with XP altogether (which is easier now as they're no longer a currency), I used synchronised XP. They work as a team, they get XP as a team.
I didn't give out "roleplaying XP", either. If they want to roleplay, they can do so, and it will be its own reward. Plus, running your mouth off won't make you better at swinging a sword or hurling around spells ;-).
I did award "story XP", though. I.e. XP for reaching a significant goal.
(What they don't know is that I only give them 50% of the normal exps)
You have very trusting (and clueless) players. In our games, someone would be bound to notice if the characters progressed at a snail's pace.
Plus, we're usually running APs (the times where we had the time and inclination to write our own adventures are gone - and since the PFAPs are so good, it's not even a big loss), so if you slow down the progression, you need to either add a lot of extra challenges or end up killing the party when they're advancing too slowly and end up fighting enemies they can't beat. Or add lots and lots of other XP to effectively be back to 100%
1 skill rank. Professional = have a profession (1 rank in it).
In that case, I don't think it should take very long. I personally consider someone with a single rank to be a lay person, apprentice, or at best uninspired and mediocre practitioner of that profession. So he's either only just learning or not very enthusiastic and thus barely adequate.
Someone who goes at it with enthusiasm will quickly rise to that level, and beyond.
A professional as in expert has 2 or more likely 3 ranks, or maybe Skill Focus in said skill. Someone common mortals refer to as masters in a profession are probably around 6 ranks plus Skill Focus, and a decent key ability score to boot.
But characters start out as something more than a common mortal, rather quickly surpass the abilities of most mortals, and end up in levels only few will ever reach, and that will be considered superhuman by most.
'Training' is a frustrating concept. I find it's more trouble than it's worth.
YES in an actual real-world logic... you would not immediately learn how to use these feats or skills instantly... You couldn't multiclass to Wizard and instantly know spells...
However, In a real-world logical world... our heroes have people to save and things to do... we don't HAVE 2 weeks of down time between when the damsal is kidnapped and when we need to rescue her.
We pushed for training in one campaign... and I felt it was a disaster.
'Training' is a frustrating concept. I find it's more trouble than it's worth.
YES in an actual real-world logic... you would not immediately learn how to use these feats or skills instantly... You couldn't multiclass to Wizard and instantly know spells...
However, In a real-world logical world... our heroes have people to save and things to do... we don't HAVE 2 weeks of down time between when the damsal is kidnapped and when we need to rescue her.
We pushed for training in one campaign... and I felt it was a disaster.
Actually, I give my players an unlimited downtime in between adventures. This is played in one D&D seance (instead of adventuring). During this time usually:
the casters do some research at the wizard school for new spells;the clerics go to the nearby temple and helps the local clerics give food to the poor;
the thieves take this time to gather information and bargain to sell off unwanted loot,
the bards compose new songs from their recent adventure and try them out in inns for an ale and a warm meal;
the rangers find the closest forests and go re-energize themselves with the power of the Green, often accompanied by barbarians and druids (at least untill the forest range);
those with skills such as weaponsmith or armorsmith, find the closest blacksmith around and go train/work there for days/weeks.
Often we end up playing the equivalent of a 2-3 months time in one shot, then next meeting, we are ready to start a new adventure. This downtime allows the players gather new tools, or perfect the ones they have outside adventures, it gives the PC more depths in characters.
Actually, I give my players an unlimited downtime in between adventures.
That is a solution. However, it makes campaigns with overarching stories where the world isn't just waiting for the characters to get off their backsides and decide to do a bit of adventuring all but impossible.
And a lot of campaigns (including pre-made ones like APs) are like that: It often starts with the heroes stumbling into things either by accident or getting into something that is far bigger than they thought, and over the course of many adventures, they keep learning more an more about the big enemy that is actually behind everything they encounter, someone whose plans they need to cross time and again until they can confront him personally.
Or they need to find a number of things to accomplish something, and the enemy knows that and races them.
Or, or, or.
While not every adventure should be like that (right now, I'm running pathfinder, and the party usually has a year or so between each story element where they develop their kingdom and do all kinds of stuff.), it is a very interesting and compelling kind.
And that's why infinite (or even abundant) down-time is not something that is viable every single time. At least not for our groups.
Actually, I give my players an unlimited downtime in between adventures.That is a solution. However, it makes campaigns with overarching stories where the world isn't just waiting for the characters to get off their backsides and decide to do a bit of adventuring all but impossible.
This.
The one we tried training with was a pre-fab. The overarching storyhook was a kidnapping/disappearance. Then other random sandboxy things would pop up... but the rescue was the main goal... at least for LG priests and paladins.
it's VERY hard to justify sitting on your butts for 6 days gaining that new level when you CHARACTER would be rushing off to save people.
We played one game with a 5 year break in it... and that was AWESOME. It was fun to actually DO some 'big goals/research' stuff without the implied... 'everytime you stop the horse you run into monsters' coincidences... but most games aren't designed with that kind of downtime.
Well do understand me, when I say between adventures it means between "modules" if you like.
One of our last adventure was an Epic one (go up 4-5 levels, and do keep in mind I give half exps, which was also recommended for that module). It took us a year and a half (real time) to complete it, playing once per week. At the end, they had to explore a 4 layer dungeon, but there was no rush (no action was needed towards beating the clock). So they would often come back to town (like once a week in game) just to unload their loot. Since this story was exceptionally long, and there was no need to beat the clock, a few times the players took two in game weeks to research spells and such, which was fine with me. It only give them more tools.
Actually during the time the wizard was studying, the barbarian started lurking the slums of the city at night and "clean them up" of unwanted thugs/thieves with the help of his disguise hat. This brought a whole other flavor to the game as this barbarian PC became a kind of "batman" without the other players ever knowing, or anyone in the city recognizing him: he came to have a secret identity.
He became associated with a gang of good halfling "pick pocketers", and now has a good access to any information (or almost) if he needs.
The players brought so much loot from the dungeons that they could afford to put a stand in the bazaar to sell off their unwanted treasures, and hire people for that little shop.
They even took the time to eliminate an old family of evil characters (shy vampires) that were living in a mansion in the city. They had the rogue forge "mansion property papers" and all the PCs moved in the house, having now their own HQ in that city.
The irony is that the wizard died against the "final boss" of the adventure 0.o
The bard made such great performances in the region that he is now renowned in the city and region. Which can make things hard when he tries to go about incognito. But it does helps him when he wants to charm a few females in the audience with his voice ^^
This just shows that you can add new depths in the life of the PCs, when the adventure allows it of course and if your players goes for that kind of stuff too. Instead of only "fighting the monsters and having no side life/story". Now they "have a life" lol
Now they left for other adventures while their shop is selling, and the maid is taking care of their mansion hehe