* * * Wizards Community Thread * * * -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Thread : gaining levels - training or not? Started at 01-09-05 01:44 AM by Thanatos13 Visit at http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=361191 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 1] Author : Thanatos13 Date : 01-09-05 01:44 AM Thread Title : gaining levels - training or not? Hi everyone - I'm starting up a game that's based mainly on 1e rules, with some of my own ideas and bits of 2e thrown in. Having your PC go through training to gain a level is the rule in 1e, but it's optional in 2e. The idea of training seems more "realistic" to me, in that a PC shouldn't all of a sudden just gain x # of hit points and other skills because he killed some monsters and solved some puzzles. But not having to train is simply one less thing to think about, which is nice. I could go either way on this. I was just wondering if anyone here was passionate about one method or the other. Thanks! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 2] Author : shadowelf Date : 01-09-05 07:25 AM I won't say I'm passionate about it, but my view is generally not to worry too much about it. An argument for is that if you give out a lot of treasure it's a good way of reducing the wealth of PCs, by paying for training. If you don't give much, it can be quite frustrating for players - in our campaign it seems to take forever to go up a level the way our DM has been running it. I've preferred to give plenty of "down-time". "OK it's a week (month ...) later. X has been training, Y has been researching a new spell, anything you wanted to do, Z?" Of course they pay living costs for the week that has just passed. But I don't take great wodges of gps out of their pockets (since I don't put great wodges in). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 3] Author : TheDungeonDelver Date : 01-09-05 11:43 AM Hi everyone - I'm starting up a game that's based mainly on 1e rules, with some of my own ideas and bits of 2e thrown in. Having your PC go through training to gain a level is the rule in 1e, but it's optional in 2e. The idea of training seems more "realistic" to me, in that a PC shouldn't all of a sudden just gain x # of hit points and other skills because he killed some monsters and solved some puzzles. But not having to train is simply one less thing to think about, which is nice. I could go either way on this. I was just wondering if anyone here was passionate about one method or the other. Thanks! I prefer the training system until 9th level (name level) when the PCs effectively "graduate" and can self-train. Then it's just a single day's training (meditation, working out, prayer, etc.) at no cost. Trust me, the training system might seem unwieldy at first but it's actually a very, very good method of keeping the players sharp. They'll definitely keep an eye on finances (nothing I hate more than a group of adventurers saying they have "about" this much gold :( ), and will pay attention to their surroundings (needing to be near at least near a small town to find someone to train 'em). EDIT: I also tend to make it instantaneous unless the party has some agenda while another PC is training. That is, if I calculate a 4-day period of training, then if the rest of the party isn't training, I'll say "Okay, four days pass uneventfully." and move on. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 4] Author : Xx Spider xX Date : 01-09-05 10:49 PM I can see this and use it either way. First, studying under one clearly more skilled than the PC in a chosen field(given the proper amount of time, which depends on aptitude)would see the PC either gain a new skill, or improve an existing one. Secondly, I see a character being self taught through trial and error on the field of battle(martial skills)or within the proper conditions(2e Non-weapon). Clearly "seasoned" soldiers are more valuable to an army than those lacking battlefield experience. The longer a soldier survives conflict, the more dangerous he/she becomes. Training costs coin. And depending on the skill, level and the characters aptitude(time) to learn that skill(int checks w/a reasonable modifier)determines just how much $$ it costs. Its a faster yet more financially costly method of learning/improvement. The latter, battlefield experience. Costs blood, bruises and the loss of companions/friends. IMO the best warriors are those who have learned the lessons of battle first hand, and found improvement. They tend to be more adaptive(thru self teaching), rather than one who has learned only what was taught through lessons. I also enjoy the grit that seems to come w/the latter character. One who carries the lessons battle, pain and loss have taught. The scars found on the exterior...and those that wound ones spirit. The exception in my games would be skills too difficult to be self-taught(In most cases). Examples would be : *Reading/Writing(for one currently unable to do so) *Languages(unless immersed within the proper enviroment for a great deal of time) *Etiquette(see Languages) *Herbalism *Navigation(In most cases) *Musical Instruments(Again, in most cases) I hope this offers something of use.... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 5] Author : diaglo Date : 01-11-05 09:47 AM training was also a means of making the "PLAYER" interested in their character and the campaign those who are playing poorly are given poor ratings. i makes them... take longer to train. and thus costs more coin and time... it also makes the PLAYER realize they need to buckle down more. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 6] Author : Thailfi Date : 01-12-05 11:57 AM I think a lot of it depends on the campaign you are going to run. We have never bothered with training. Say you are running Dragon Lance. Requiring training would insure the death of every one of the characters because they never have time to stop to train, thus they would never advance in level. The Against the Giants and Drow series are designed to be a non-stop adventure away from civilization, so training would not be available. We feel it is an inconvenience and adds nothing to our roleplay experience, so we dumped it. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 7] Author : dndgameupdate1 Date : 01-12-05 06:40 PM Thread Title : Training If the characters are gaining something NEW, then they train, and I have them train during the level before they gain the new proficiency, telling me (the DM) what they are learning and how they are doing that. During a level where all they will gain is more hp or +1 to their THAC0, we don't train per se, it is assumed and stated that regular practice, whether a little or a lot every day, is done and this is how someone gets better at what they know. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 8] Author : failhelm Date : 01-20-05 02:28 PM Hi everyone - I'm starting up a game that's based mainly on 1e rules, with some of my own ideas and bits of 2e thrown in. Having your PC go through training to gain a level is the rule in 1e, but it's optional in 2e. The idea of training seems more "realistic" to me, in that a PC shouldn't all of a sudden just gain x # of hit points and other skills because he killed some monsters and solved some puzzles. But not having to train is simply one less thing to think about, which is nice. I could go either way on this. I was just wondering if anyone here was passionate about one method or the other. Thanks! I am part of the few that is passionate about this. I strongly believe that characters just shouldn't level. However, even I have this vary from material plane to prime material plane. My players prefer a training system. This how I do it; After every gaming session I rate my players on how well they role-played that session, judging four seperate things, and then avg. the rating. When a character is ready to level, they avg. their current ratings and adjust the final cost to raise by this number. So a player that is an excellent role-player and really understands how to play their class well, and is playing their alignment will raise for less $$ then players that are poor gamers. This has served my campaign in numerous positive ways. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [Post 9] Author : Graendahl Date : 01-27-05 11:16 PM Thread Title : Greetings All :) WHen I DM, I hand out XPs at the end of an "excursion", a natural breathing point if you will, so I usually have to keep notes on what situation earned what amount of points (ie, combat, puzzle solving, class skill usage, ect..) so I just kinda expanded the list to also be a rough guidline as to which abilities the PC's used along thier way to leveling up. Then i allowed my players to level up anything that did not require training (HP's, Thaco, things of that nature) on the spot, as life was thier teacher.. As for prof's and other skills that could require training, I allowed them to be self improved IF they had used them during the past level. Otherwise they needed to find someone to become thier instructor and show them the finer points, that they failed to learn through trial and error... And that was and still IS my take on it. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Downloaded from Wizards Community (http://forums.gleemax.com) at 05-10-08 08:19 AM.