Question about class training.

[Liam Warner]

Another thread had a throw away comment which got me thinking about this. Assuming you had training rules how close would the classes need to be to train someone. To put it another way which of the following makes the most sense to you for cross class training?

None: You can only train your class e.g a fighter can train a fighter.

Relational: You can train similar classes or variants e.g. A fighter can train a warrior or a samurai.

Limited: You can train classes with similar nature's e.g. A fighter can train a rogue or ranger but not a magus or sorcerer as the former don't have magic to start with. They couldn't train a ranger after they start casting though.

Full: Any class can train any other class.

Other: please explain.

[Ciaran Barnes]

By the rules. All you have to do is level up and choose a class. In game, handle it any way you like. I suggest you do something that is enjoyable or minimally invasive for the players. Don't make it a chore for them.

[Liam Warner]

Ciaran Barnes wrote:

By the rules. All you have to do is level up and choose a class. In game, handle it any way you like. I suggest you do something that is enjoyable or minimally invasive for the players. Don't make it a chore for them.

Oh I've tried and abandoned training rules before I'm just wondering what people think thematically works.

[Da'ath]

I agree with Ciaran.

However, if I were to use such rules, I'd allow paladins to get 1 part training from a cleric and 1 part fighter if a paladin wasn't available; another example would be magus - 1 part fighter, 1 part wizard. Hope that helps.