|
You already DID earn it. You overcame obstacles and leveled up.you know when you earn something you appreciate it more.
no you didnt, all you earned by leveling is bab, saves, hp and skills (although sometimes i require role-play for skills as well) points. feats, spells, and weapon/armor proficiencies are earned through role play.
you know why? because im the gm and i say so :P
but in seriousness having the better saves hp and bab represents the natural progression of your character, feats and spell (also skills on an individual basis) are an example of specialized training your character achieves through practice, or by being taught over time. i wouldnt allow someone to just wake up with the knowledge of how to lob fireballs, or whirlwind attack people. these actions require fine tuning, and trial and error, not something an intelligent person would do mid fight.
even WoW dropped it, because they saw it wasn't a good idea for their game. in fact, there are only 5 things class trainers still do on WoW
1. Teach Dual Specialization
2. Sell Respecialization Services
3. Teach Higher Weapon or Armor Proficiency Categories to certain classes
4. Offer Class Specific Quests that often lead you to entering Dungeons to Farm Mats for a Fancy Stick that gets you a New Weapon
5. Teach Weapon and Armor Specialization Passive Skillsbut things class trainers used to do in the old age of WoW...
not to digress the thread into a WOW debate but the actual reason why this was done away with wasnt because it was a bad mechanic, it was because they altered leveling speed for 1-70 and then 70-85, basically if they didnt change it you would be traveling back and forth to the main city so often that you would do that more then actual leveling until you hit the current content.
So I've allowed training in my games before.
Here's what training could do for you:
You could train a new feat from a specific list (weapon proficiency, armor proficiency, toughness, skill focus, iron will, lightning reflexes, great fortitude, improved initiative, dodge, and crafting feats for a couple examples). Training a feat in this way could be done 1 time + 1 time every 5 levels and cost feats trained this way squared times 5,000gp. Typically took about a month.
You could train for experience. You have down time want to get ahead a bit you could find someone better than you to teach you. Typically took a week for 10 experience points and cost about 25gp a week.
You could also train skill points. I forget the exact method I used, but it was a circumstance bonus to the skill that would diminish if you didn't keep up the training each +1 cost about a week, you could have a maximum bonus equal to your stat bonus for the skill and I forget what the cost was.
This way you had a reason to go training, but it wasn't to get things you should have gotten already.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like training for bonus stuff, especially if it's an infrequent or costly event. It feels more like you're getting something special than the GM is trying to create obstacles.
I played in one game where we ran into a hermit who could teach proficiency in any exotic weapon. If you trained with the hermit for one week, you got EWP as a bonus feat.
In another, certain training opportunities gave you "training points" which you could then trade in at a set rate for bonus skills or feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This ~can~ work out well. You could run it so they get stuff like HD, Skill Ranks, BAB, and Caster Level, but require returning to a trainer and training to access Feats, Class Abilities, and increasing or gaining anything from spell levels.
That said there are classes that simply don't need to ever go to the trainer. Sorcerers literally get more powerful and figure out new spells on their own as they are adventuring. Druids, Clerics, and Paladins, if they are not feat intensive, get their class abilities from their gods.
What you can do is decide what classes do NOT have to go to a trainer, and add a small XP penalty to those classes. This can be an actual XP penalty, or a "it takes you 3 cr (your level) extra encounters to level up."
If...
feats take one day
Class abilities take one day
Increasing Spell Level and gaining spells from leveling takes one day
Then
These characters using their days that the others are training to help lower level characters fight monsters to gain experience of 1 cr (character level) then it balances out.
Jill spends three days training with the trainer to realize all of her class abilities, feats, and spell levels.
Bob spends one day helping lowbies to get his level, and then two days training with the trainer to realize all of his class abilities, feats, and spell levels.
Jakob spends two days helping lowbies to get his level, and then one days training with the trainer to realize all of his class abilities, feats, and spell levels.
Billybob spends three days helping lowbies to get his level, and then zero days training with the trainer because trainers are for n00bz.
Billybob is also an elitist because his micro is 1337, and he kills monsters LIKE A BOSS.
Training between levels never works. There is a good reason no system uses training rules anymore... they ruin the fun. Why? Because you constantly have to either break away from an adventure and lose XP while everyone else levels or even worse you can't level at all till you travel 500 miles to some rare hard to reach mountain top guru because you outgrew all the low level trainers (or you are trying to get a PrC and the mean GM decided to make that trainer part of some quest so you can't level at all till the group wants to head off to do that side quest.) There are even GMs out there who use this as a form of favoritism or control over your character. Hmmm Pete is the GMs buddy and his trainer is always nearby and eager to help out while Fred's on the outs with the GM and his trainer is some BBEG living on a remote pocket dimension of evil. So quickly Pete out levels Fred because of access not XP.
There are even GMs out there who use this as a form of favoritism or control over your character. Hmmm Pete is the GMs buddy and his trainer is always nearby and eager to help out while Fred's on the outs with the GM and his trainer is some BBEG living on a remote pocket dimension of evil. So quickly Pete out levels Fred because of access not XP.
Lol I wouldn't show favoritism like that if anything Fred's trainer might be a bbeg in evil demiplane because he is a necromancer and looking to raise dead, some powerful ability harder to get.
While Pete's trainer is a 2handed fighter that's in everytown cause who wouldn't be a fighter or a ex paladin that's now the deacon of a church or cleric. Yada....
*snip*
LIKE A BOSS!
I like this idea lol and I've known many 'billybobs'
And one trainer no one thought of...
He has hooves and 2small horns and is a raging alchoholic (if I remember correctly) his name is..... Phil.....
And one trainer no one thought of...
He has hooves and 2small horns and is a raging alchoholic (if I remember correctly) his name is..... Phil.....
Is he a..... Doctor?
I think if trainers are too common... then by the time the players hit level 5-6, then 1st level characters should start seeking THEM for training...
That would be kind of oool :)
Lets look at the differences between EQ and Wow and EQ and EQ2, and then see how these may apply to Pathfinder.
Lets define EQ, in terms of trainers, first. For simplicity sake I'm going to use my experience and knowledge from when these FIRST CAME OUT, I.E. the original GOLD VERSION when they only had what they had designed and tested in beta.
EVERQUEST 1
The leveling system is very slow. Dying at any level, results in 25% experience loss, meaning that you cold DING to level 2, go to the trainer, get your new spells, go out, die immediately, get kicked back to level 1 and have to rememorize your level 1 spells. However, when you reDINGed level 2 you already had the skills to use your spells so you didn't have to go back to the trainer.
From the above we can see that leveling was typically a fight unless you A) Knew what you were doing
B) Playing a solo class (Necromancer, Druid (Post Spirit of the Wolf), Ranger (Post Spirit of the Wolf), Wizard (Post 29 or when you got your mass root), and bard (Extremely skill and carpal tunnel inducing)
or
C) Are in a group playing a group class (Fighter [tank], Cleric [healer], Rogue [dps], and Enchanter [Crowd Control], and many others.
It would take you roughly 12 hours to reach level 16 if you knew what you were doing, had spawn camps camped (You kill them off quickly, then they spawn 1 by 1 and you can kill them 1 by 1 easily), and didn't have to travel far to get reliable kills.
Note: 12 HOURS = 16 levels. That is a level, starting at level 1, every 45 minutes on average if you could just kill things quickly and return to town to train, sell crap, and then get back out there.
Training costed money, but wasn't a big deal. Almost everything dropped crap that merchants would buy, so you usually had enough money to buy your spells, but in a clutch you could just buy the spells that were important.
1 thing is that monsters were not give immunity to you if they were higher level than you. In efficient groups it was normal to kill monsters 5 - 10 levels above the party that considered as RED. They did more damage, they were extremely dangerous to such a party, but gave a great deal of experience. High RISK = High REWARD.
Since the majority of experience would come from Grinding monsters it was difficult to "powerlevel" outside using quests, but even then SKILLS were more important than level in some cases. If you Evocation skill wasn't high enough your evocation spells would fizzle, and if your 2h sword skill wasn't high enough you would never hit anything.
EQ1's leveling system was built off of grinding for the majority of your experience. Quests were there as well, which would give large amounts of experience, but there were not !s over the heads of quest givers so you had to go and talk to EVERYONE to find quests. Furthermore there were no quest logs, so you had to actually write all of this stuff down.
In other words the Meta-game was important, and it emphasized you, the player, being the character. If you forgot about something important then tough luck. You had to walk back to the quest giver and go through his dialogue trees. Trainers are typically helpful, and very useful, and typically help to direct you towards your "epic" quest.
WORLD OF WARCRAFT
The leveling system is Fast, but is much faster than EQ1. Every class could solo effectively since the power of trash mobs is limited, and most of the time people died from being overwhelmed instead of just killed in duels by enemies. However, even with a large group killing a higher level monster was impossible if it was a RED con.
The first 10 levels of each character was in a noob zone that was highly focused to get through the first 10 levels in no time. Perhaps 1 - 6 hours. Most of the Experience comes from Questing, to grouping up to do quests was also a valid option. Because you revived near your corpse it was possible to complete quests by running to the quest location, dying, and then getting the objective you need before escaping or dying and reviving at the graveyard.
NO PENALTY FOR DEATH. This is probably the core of WOW's success. There is no penalty for failure, but at the same time this is why there are a lot of people who are horrible at the game at the level cap. Sure, your gear takes durability damage, but money practically rains from the sky.
Trainers were needed, but because they were in every single town it was easy to learn new skills. You didn't ~need~ to go to the trainer each time you leveled, and you could just go back after a few levels to get all of the skills and abilities in backlog.
EVERQUEST 2
The leveling system is Painfully slow. There was no Experience LOSS, but instead Experience DEBT. When you died you took 25% of your level in Experience DEBT, and your party--the people who let you die--took half of that debt as well. Worse it was IMPOSSIBLE TO SOLO. The monsters were very strong, and grouping was a requirement. Even the "solo" classes had problems soloing.
No one liked this system, and it is why EQ2 underwent a total revamp to make it more like EQ1 and change experience debt from 25% debt to 2.5% debt (half for party members) which would be "worked off" when you killed anything for the most part.
You could no longer lose your level, but instead the debt was a 1/2 and 1/2 ratio. When you gained 2 experience 1 went to debt and 1 went to your experience. Dying was built into the game for the most party--it was expected. It was so expected "priests" could summon an item into the party's inventories that let them revive the "priest" if any of them survived the fight after the healer died.
Coming back to trainers was less often than EQ1 trainers, and far less often than WOW trainers. On the bright side this meant that you typically were able to fully explore dungeons, and dungeons had multiple areas of varying difficulties. It was likely that you'd have quests for a dungeon for 5 levels.
EQ1 VS WOW
"Medium" leveling system VS "Fast" leveling system.
Experience loss on death VS No real consequences for death.
"Solo" classes and "Group" classes, some can do both VS Everyone is a solo class, and everyone can group.
Level is a struggle since the system is built to emulate reality VS Leveling is easy since the entire system is built to help you level up.
You MUST eat and drink to survive VS you eat and drink to heal and regenerate mana.
Healing without a healer class is extremely slow and at a "natural" rate VS Healing is as easy as stuffing your morbidly obese face.
Each group needs at least a TANK and a HEALER to survive, but the DPS of these is limited to auto-attacks and kicks/shield bashes. The better group has a TANK, a HEALER, and a DPS class, but this group will be slaughtered by masses amounts of enemies, hence you NEED a TANK, a HEALER, a DPS, and a CROWD CONTROLLER to survive without issue VS All you need is a Tank and a Healer and you can destroy everything so long as it doesn't come in a big group. Crowd Control is mostly focused on disables and the Rogue (the marry sue) class.
EQ1 VS EQ2
"Medium" leveling system VS Extremely Slow leveling system.
Experience loss on death VS Experience debt that slowly goes away over time of being offline.
"Solo" classes and "Group" classes, some can do both VS No viable solo classes at launch, everyone is a "group" class, and if you try to solo you hit the "hell" levels very quickly.
Level is a struggle since the system is built to emulate reality VS Is less of a struggle because skills tend to increase over time, but at the same time is more of a struggle because of dependency on other people who might such and die randomly or pull far too many enemies to defeat.
You MUST eat and drink to survive VS You must eat and drink to survive.
Healing without a healer class is extremely slow and at a "natural" rate VS Healing without a healer class is extremely slow and at a "natural" rate.
Each group needs at least a TANK and a HEALER to survive, but the DPS of these is limited to auto-attacks and kicks/shield bashes. The better group has a TANK, a HEALER, and a DPS class, but this group will be slaughtered by masses amounts of enemies, hence you NEED a TANK, a HEALER, a DPS, and a CROWD CONTROLLER to survive without issue VS The same is true, but you REALLY want that DPS class because mana recovery is not extremely fast.
If you use trainers in your game then you should use the SLOW progression system. It lends itself to coming back to town after a long adventure. With MEDIUM your adventures will have to be short, literally three scenarios (Getting there, The big bad guys, getting back) or 1 module (The big bad guys in the sewer!) Requiring trainers just turns into a pain where everyone wants to leave the dungeon to go to the trainer, but now they have roughly 1/3 to 3/4 a level ahead of them before they even get there, and then by the time they get back to the dungeon they might have leveled up again!
THE INHUMANITY!
Training makes more sense in MMOs because it's something you can do while playing solo. In tabletop RPGs, the game is best when you're in a situation where the entire group can participate. If my oracle has to find an oracle trainer and persuade her to somehow train me in oracularism, and I then spend time training with her, the rest of the players are likely to get bored. Even if there's some way they can contribute, it's still entirely about me, not the campaign plot or their own character goals.
|
I like the training idea, but I really think that it ends up taking more away from the game than it gives.
We started a new Pathfinder campaign a few months ago and I wanted to use training for everything except those skills or abilities that the character already had (those could be increased without extra training). After a number of play sessions, it became apparent that there was more logistics involved than I expected. If a character wanted a specific class ability or feat, I had to figure out where they would go to get it. I also had to keep track of each of these places. Then, if a character with a particular archetype went up in level, they would also have to find a trainer of their archetype in order to gain their ability. It was just not worth it to me or my players.
At this point, I decided that when characters have enough XP to level up, they gain the new level after the next good sleep. The things they need to find trainers for are skills they did not previously have ranks in, new languages, and new classes (including prestige). The only other change to gaining levels is that arcane spell casters do not automatically gain new spells when they level. They have to acquire them via a spell book or scroll.
We are also using a form of retraining rules (not from the campaign book), so they do have to find a training if the new skills/abilities/class/archetype is different from what they currently have.
even WoW dropped it, because they saw it wasn't a good idea for their game. in fact, there are only 5 things class trainers still do on WoW
1. Teach Dual Specialization
2. Sell Respecialization Services
3. Teach Higher Weapon or Armor Proficiency Categories to certain classes
4. Offer Class Specific Quests that often lead you to entering Dungeons to Farm Mats for a Fancy Stick that gets you a New Weapon
5. Teach Weapon and Armor Specialization Passive Skillsbut things class trainers used to do in the old age of WoW...
not to digress the thread into a WOW debate but the actual reason why this was done away with wasnt because it was a bad mechanic, it was because they altered leveling speed for 1-70 and then 70-85, basically if they didnt change it you would be traveling back and forth to the main city so often that you would do that more then actual leveling until you hit the current content.
that is definitely the reason they considered it a bad mechanic. because you had to keep going to stormwind/orgrimaar or whatever captial your class trainer was in to recieve class training
for Druids, they had to Go to Darnassius/Thunder Bluff
horde paladins and alliance shamans were similarly screws
I generally think using trainers to increase in normal levels is a bad idea. Your entire game pace and campaign flow would have to be constructed around the fact that every level the PCs have to go visit their mentor. I like certain elements of realism it brings but ultimately think it detracts from the game more than it adds.
I do, however, generally tie most of the PrCs in my campaigns to organizations and guilds. So, I ask my players right at the start if they intend to PrC and I continue to periodically ask them what they intend to do with their next levels. If a player says they have a PrC goal then it becomes my job to implant members of organizations and guilds that use that PrC in the character's path. I make it part of the storyline for that character. In the event a player doesn't want their character to have any ties to guilds I will put a guild NPC in their path who wants to train someone outside of the organization for various reasons (needing something done off the books). The point is I have a lot of open conversation with my players to see what exactly they want their character to become and I build side stories around those goals that flow with my main campaign. Many times these side stories include tests. I build the tests around the flavor of the PrC and any actual PrC prerequisites. This may include rituals, small side quests, combats that make them think I'm trying to kill them, or a combination of these and more. This does result in several difficulties on my part as a DM. Obviously there is the additional planning and NPC creation. Also there are additional play time requirements because I try to do these tests in one on one sessions to avoid eating up group game time. The biggest issue is timing my campaign and the PC's level increase with having access to what they need. My players have loved it. I think the keys are communication, planning, and making sure you facilitate the process rather than making the players resent it.
If I were to use a training mechanic it would be for additional bonuses not for normal leveling up. Characters would have trainers available that could get them additional XP toward their next level, skill points in skills they don't have maxed out, or bonus feats. Of course there would have to be some limits to keep things from getting out of control but I have wanted to introduce something like this for a while.
|
I like the concept of training, but after reading the posts in this thread, I'm swayed by the idea of rewarding those who train (with bonus skills, spells, XP, maybe even a feat, etc.) rather than penalizing those who do not.
But I have always loved the idea of - at least narratively - of declaring what skills you were going to be working on this level before throwing ranks into them next level, so it'd feel like you'd been working on them and the rank was the culmination of that work. Maybe not every skill, no need to do this to differentiate 5 ranks Acrobatics form 6, but certainly if it's a new skill you're suddenly going to know how to do. Unskilled to 5 ranks in UMD is just jarring. Same with a character who can suddenly use spells or bardsong after killing an orc.
Requiring a trainer of higher level is a faulty premise to begin with.
If to advance to level 2, you needed a level 2+ teacher... how did the first guy to level 2 ever get there?
This means that the highest level guy around is incapable of leveling up. (and fails to explain how he ever got to that level). He can only level up if someone else gets to a higher level than him and agrees to teach him? Well, how pray tell is anyone going to get higher level than him if they too need someone to teach them???
The whole concept is lunacy.
If you want to incorporate some sort of training into the game, the most fluid way to do it is have the players pick ahead of time what they're 'working on' improving in advance.
But keep it purely in the narrative, and not in the mechanics. There are already mechanics for leveling up, it is the xp system.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, my Dad fought in WWI- decorated, disabled, Combat Infantry badge. He went thru extensive training. But one you got into combat, what you needed was combat experience, which could not be taught. No amount of training would have made him any better at combat or make it any easier to survive. Sure, once in a while some new weapon or tech stuff would arrive, and they’d train on that.
But honestly, the “training” in D&D is going from a farmboy to a 1st level PC. Then, it’s over.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i require anyone wishing to multiclass to seek out a 5ith or higher character of their wanted class and train with them for two months, the training itself is usually done in down time but the trainer must be found in active play. once a character reaches level 1 in a class though they no longer need any outside training.
i require anyone wishing to multiclass to seek out a 5ith or higher character of their wanted class and train with them for two months, the training itself is usually done in down time but the trainer must be found in active play. once a character reaches level 1 in a class though they no longer need any outside training.
I'd say "good bye". Lose two months, and a quest to earn what you have already earned?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i require anyone wishing to multiclass to seek out a 5ith or higher character of their wanted class and train with them for two months, the training itself is usually done in down time but the trainer must be found in active play. once a character reaches level 1 in a class though they no longer need any outside training.I'd say "good bye". Lose two months, and a quest to earn what you have already earned?
Once upon a time in the old days of AD&D, our DM had us roll to see if we had psionics; this may have been from the books, but my memory is hazy and I don't want to drag out boxes. In any case, he also had us do that about magic as well, to see if you were a minor talent, good enough to actually be a wizard or a null. This was, of course, once game play had begun in case anyone was thinking of multi-classing.
Somewhat like Kekkres, I require my players to do some sort of training if the class is outside of what they might pick up along the way. If you can train with the party wizard along the way then sure, you might pick up magic if you are a wizard and so forth. If no one in the group has the abilities you require, then you have some work to do.
Similarly, I don't just let people pick up Prestige Classes without some legwork to find the groups and so forth. And my players are OK with this sort of thing, and they understand the whys of the rulings. It isn't that big of a deal for them to plan ahead for that class dip or life change if that is what they are going for, and we are usually not so hard pressed that taking time off is a big deal.
For DMs seriously considering this, I just noticed that my post upriver have been favorited no less than twelve times! And, it's not that great a post, really:
"Wow. I hated this with a white hot hatred. Every. Single. Time. it was used, it was from a DM that wanted to hyper-control the Pc's.
You'd get the eps, but not the time or money to level. Then you'd have to go adventuring- being a level short and not earning any eps, since you couldn't level twice.
if you took the time anyway, the DM would pull crud to make sure you knew who was boss."
So, there's a LOT of players who join me in REALLY hating this. Maybe even walk out of the game hate.
Don't do it.
As a homebrew mechanic training can work brilliantly and add a lot of story to the process of storytelling. Or it can suck really hard.
As with any other significant change to a system like this, it requires a DM who can design a mechanical system that s/he is capable of breathing life into, and players who enjoy the story the DM is telling them.
Homebrew rules of any kind are impossible to implement without flexible people around the table, and the flexibility required scales with the degree of the change.
Prior bad experiences with training systems don't mean the concept is unworkable, only that the personalities and mechanical implementation just didn't click.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's consider that the XP Leveling system goes way back to before video games. It's antiquated. Gamers have matured. Expectations have matured. We now demand a little more verisimilitude in our gaming worlds, and many of us would like tabletop rpgs to have a bit of realism that video MMO's lack.
Yep. I've pondered and read people's ideas on training. I don't think it works mechanically. Still, it's strange that level 1 characters can blow into a town, and within a few weeks, they're more powerful than the captain of the guard. What gives?
Scheduled leveling is the answer, I believe. Level the characters at certain points in the story.
- Level them every two or three adventures.
- Track experience, and award bonuses to the party for achieving certain goals
- If the players are playing badly or recklessly, let them know that there are "rewards waiting for those that achieve their goals and show aptitude".
- If a character is killed, they return at one level behind the lowest party member, or at the same level as the lowest party member.
The GM can then work downtime into the storyline that reflects meeting one's peers for counsel and training.
Let's consider that the XP Leveling system goes way back to before video games. It's antiquated. Gamers have matured. Expectations have matured. We now demand a little more verisimilitude in our gaming worlds, and many of us would like tabletop rpgs to have a bit of realism that video MMO's lack.
Yep. I've pondered and read people's ideas on training. I don't think it works mechanically. Still, it's strange that level 1 characters can blow into a town, and within a few weeks, they're more powerful than the captain of the guard. What gives?
Frankly that is the problem with a game being 'level based'. Training can be interesting... everyone enjoys playing the farmboy out on his first adventure/origin story once in a while...
But not EVERYONE...
I'm having a hard time thinking of a movie where EVERYONE was a noob who needed to find better people to make them better...
Luke had to find Obi Wan and Yoda... but Han started awesome and stayed there. Chewie, Leia, the droids... nothing on their end.
LoTR... four know-nothing Hobbits set out... and 2-3 of them got some sword training... but only once, and they dismissed it immediately.
Willow didn't know anything... and got some training from squirell-girl, but Madmartigan never found a trainer...
I can think of lots of moments in those stories that would be 'level up' moments... but they aren't matching up with the 'hunting down trainers'
Scheduled leveling is the answer, I believe. Level the characters at certain points in the story.- Level them every two or three adventures.
- Track experience, and award bonuses to the party for achieving certain goals
- If the players are playing badly or recklessly, let them know that there are "rewards waiting for those that achieve their goals and show aptitude".
- If a character is killed, they return at one level behind the lowest party member, or at the same level as the lowest party member.
I don't have an 'issue' with planned leveling... but I don't see where it solves the issue here. If I killed 100 goblins, and got the xp to level and was told I needed to now LEARN how to kill goblins... I'd be no less annoyed if I killed 100 goblins and then told I leveled and needed to train.
It's the same thing. Whether there was actual 'points' involved or not... the character has been adventuring in real life situations and that should count more then training in a safe environment...
The GM can then work downtime into the storyline that reflects meeting one's peers for counsel and training.
Frankly THIS is the most important part. If as you say gamers demand a little more verisimilitude in our gaming worlds... then don't tell us that we have to put our quests on hold to do 'downtime' stuff. If the quest is important... then they need to do it.
Most of the time I find forced training to break verisimilitude a LOT more then just 'hey the sword's a bit easier to swing now... I had an idea for a new trick I wanted to try... lets see if it works'
What we've done in the last two big campaigns is spend the winter doing stuff like that. It's cold... it's snowy... It's frankly lousy adventuring time, so if we don't have a mission, we find a nice little town and winter there.
You can spend 3 months practicing, studying, and experimenting... Then when the DM says you leveled in mid-may.... something clicks.
I don't have an issue with making the world a more happening place with established npcs and such... but I don't want to stop the adventure for 4 people to find 4 trainers and the hostages get killed why we wait.
I never saw training requirements as DM Hyper Control but more of an added level of realism. Different classes though need different training. The Race Guide breaks classes down into; Intuitive, Self-Taught and Trained
so I figured that was a good guide for how difficult each class was for training. Rogue (an Intuitive class) levels up pretty much when he has the XP for it while a Fighter (Self-Taught Class) might need to spend an hour each morning practicing with his weapons, if he keeps it up in game he levels when he has the XP if he didn't then he needs a few days of hard practice to "catch up on his workout" before he levels. The Wizard (A trained class) on the other hand has to hit the books for a while once the group has some downtime before he can level.
For DMs seriously considering this, I just noticed that my post upriver have been favorited no less than twelve times! And, it's not that great a post, really:
"Wow. I hated this with a white hot hatred. Every. Single. Time. it was used, it was from a DM that wanted to hyper-control the Pc's.
You'd get the eps, but not the time or money to level. Then you'd have to go adventuring- being a level short and not earning any eps, since you couldn't level twice.
if you took the time anyway, the DM would pull crud to make sure you knew who was boss."
So, there's a LOT of players who join me in REALLY hating this. Maybe even walk out of the game hate.
Don't do it.
*shrug* Not every player and every GM will match seamlessly. That doesn't make either wrong. Although I would have my doubts about gaming with anyone expressing themselves that extravagantly, mind.
The thing I hate about this, besides pinning down the players, is that it mandates a high level world. I like the idea of a world where virtually all the NPCs are level 2 or under, with the rare exceptions in the 3-4 range. Everything beyond that is for the PC's to learn and discover on their own.
Sure there are higher level people 'out there' but trying to find them would be an entire adventure unto itself... for each PC...and by the time you hit level 9 or so you've pretty much completely tapped out anybody who can be found without pissing them off.
Agreed.
While I never subscribed to it... a lot of the forgotten realms complaints was that the Npcs are too powerful and the pcs weren't really needed.
This kind of mentality only guarantees that everywhere you go, whateever mission you're on... there is SOMEONE else in town who can do everything you can... only better.
I found it easy to say 'Elminster is dealing with his own stuff on another plane right now... this is on you!' However if there is another wizard that you are learning from... how do you justify him NOT wanting to protect the village from the dragon?
I never saw training requirements as DM Hyper Control but more of an added level of realism.
Training is subtracting realism, not adding it. PC's are experts/veterans/one in a million types. They train by doing.
Kind of depends on the campaign really.
A Time sensitive game where you know Players are going to be running from A to B to C with little or no gaps, you probably want to avoid training.
But in a campaign where you know you are going to have lots of downtime between adventures training and retraining can be a useful tool.
Serpent Skull for example - No way would I use training rules for that one
Kingmaker on the other hand, depending on how I ran it they might fit in fairly well.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you really want to implement a system like this, here's a suggestion on how to do it.
Use a fairly low point-buy, but let the players know that there may be opportunities to get additional bonuses to their stats over the course of the campaign.
Then, as the story plays out, let the PCs encounter other parties of adventurers. They may be on the same quest or on a different one, they may be higher level or not, and they may be retired from "the lifestyle". There may be a short side-quest to track this party down, or it may simply be a chance encounter.
At which point, the PCs have the option to "compare notes"-- each PC sits down and talks shop with his counterpart, and learns a few extra tricks of the trade from it. The fighter gets a new combat feat (out of the ones that the NPC fighter knows), the wizard gets a new spell out of the NPC wizard's spellbook, the rogue learns one of the NPC rogue's rogue talents, etc.
This approach solves quite a few issues with the "WoW model".
1.It's not mandatory. You still level up as normal; this is just a bonus and if the PCs don't want to take the time out, they don't have to. Maybe the NPCs need to be persuaded to stop and compare notes?
2.It solves the "first adventurers" problem. You don't have to be higher level than somebody to teach them something, you just have to know DIFFERENT things than them. If Boris the Brave is a level 5 fighter, and Ned the NPC is a level 4 fighter, but Ned knows Catch Off-Guard and Boris doesn't, then Boris could learn it from Ned. Two wizards with different spells in their books don't quibble about who's the higher level or who has the higher INT, they know they each can learn something from the other. Which brings me to the next point...
3.It explains the trainers' motives. These NPCs aren't just volunteering to tutor you because you're the protagonists, they're doing it because (presumably) they're learning a few tricks from you as well. And they're not just solving your problems for you because A: they're not that much better at this game than you are, and B: they've got their own quests to pursue. The GM could even present this as standard professional courtesy among the setting's Adventurers' Guild. It isn't hard to imagine two groups of Pathfinders sitting down and telling each other a few tales of daring deeds, and how you might handle it if it's ever you in that situation.
This could actually be sort of fun, now that I think of it...
|
I always considered it to be finally mastering what they have been doing the whole time they worked towards that level. You got to four by killing things with your sword, congrats on being a little better with that. Or your continued devote service to your God is recognized and rewarded by the higher powers. If you could go to a trainer or, worse, if you had to go to a trainer to get better it takes away from being a hero. It constantly reminds the players that they are not top dog and need to get the services of their betters to advance. Plus why even bother killing monsters, just spend the whole campaign under apprenticeship to the level 20 that teaches you everything. Do you have to find a fighter with weapon specialization falchion to learn it for yourself? I don't like the precedent it sets much at all. In fact if I was going to do trainers I would go the opposite route, you can train to level three and beyond that you must figure it out on your own. Players should be the kind of people who write magical texts or have fighting styles named after them, not searching out NPCs like that constantly.
As far as the apprenticeship goes, this is Exactly how I explain games in which the PCs start at higher levels. The Wizard was a student under a greater master who went into the field one day and never returned. The fighter was a soldier in the defense of a larger city and was constantly taught by his squad captain until he earned his own rank, etc.
|
|
The only one that worked was in a campaign that only required you to visit a trainer up to level 5. After that level you were considered able to train yourself via real world experience. But that campaign was written that each character had a 'mentor' they learned their class from and was plotted to have them leave their 'home' area at level 5. That game also did not charge for training and training took about 1 day per level to be gained, I.E. gaining 4 level took 4 days of training.
This is how I have handled home games, as I prefer sort of a Diablo-esque dungeon crawl (not Diablo II, not Diablo III. Diablo, the first game). This is also how I explain starting home campaigns at higher than 1st level. These mentors (who you can keep contact with, usually to get advice on situations or spiritual matters in-character) are how you got to this level.