|
Post by Scott on Jan 9, 2005 10:17:17 GMT -5
I’m looking for some opinions on the training rules. I've used them by-the-book, and house ruled them. I've been thinking about how I am going to handle them when I start my campaign again. My house rule has been that the players don't need to stop adventuring to train as long as they have spent the amount of time at a particular level that the character would be required to train. For example, upon achieving enough experience points to advance to 3rd level, the character would have to have spent at least a week at 2nd level. No back to back excursions into the dungeon resulting in a level a day advancement due to finding several wealthy caches of treasure. I use the costs as is. I consider it an abstraction of the money the character spends to maintain and improve his or her skills over time, not a lump sum payment made upon gaining a level. I ran the ToEE once using the training rules as stated in the DMG, and the recruitment rules for the Temple as presented in the module. With the frequent week, or longer, stops the party was making to train, the Temple had a huge hoard of forces at their disposal. So, any merit to using the training rules by-the-book? Scott
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Jan 9, 2005 11:33:32 GMT -5
My advice is to use the rules as written as a base line, and then fudge every now and then when the situation calls for it.
I myself have lowered the training costs just a bit, but I still require 1 - 4 weeks to be spent in training. However, every now and then I might just let the PCs gain a level without needing to train if they are advancing slowly or if I find that I haven't been giving out enough monetary treasure.
Don't forget that variable training time is a way to reward/penalize good/bad game play. If training time is removed then another form of reward/punishmen needs to be included.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 9, 2005 11:53:23 GMT -5
I still use the variable training times and costs. If a players performance has been poor, I would still require a minimum of 4 weeks to be spent on a level, and charge 1,500 gp per week per level. The money is still punishment, and the time too at lower levels, but it's usually not an issue once the level requirements increase. I just hate the way the training rules as written tend to disrupt the flow of the game so frequently. Scott
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Jan 9, 2005 13:12:39 GMT -5
I think you already know my opinion on the training rules. They address a problem that was rampant in the old days: PC's getting too much treasure, and perhaps going up in levels too quickly.
I think a better solution is to simply give out less treasure.
Still, it may be interesting to incorporate the idea of training into certain aspects of a campaign. For example, in a campaign that does not normally allow weapon specialization, a fighter may find that rare someone who DOES have it. And the specialist might possibly be convinced to teach what he knows -- for the right price.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Jan 9, 2005 17:56:04 GMT -5
I still use the variable training times and costs. If a players performance has been poor, I would still require a minimum of 4 weeks to be spent on a level, and charge 1,500 gp per week per level. The money is still punishment, and the time too at lower levels, but it's usually not an issue once the level requirements increase. I just hate the way the training rules as written tend to disrupt the flow of the game so frequently. Scott Is that game time spent actually adventuring, or is it just a certain number of weeks of any kind of activity (or lack thereof)? In other words, do you require that the PC actively adventures for a few weeks at his current level, or can the PC just sit around town and get drunk at the tavern every night for a few weeks and then gain a level? Maybe it is just me, but a character spending only a few weeks at a particular level seems like an awfully short amount of time to go up in levels. Especially when one considers the large amount of down time required to heal or take care of other business (mundane travel, seeing to land/property, etc.). IMO it should take a PC several game months to acquire enough x.p. to gain a level (except possibly at 1st or 2nd level), plus an additional amount of time training.
|
|
|
Post by Axe Mental on Jan 9, 2005 19:37:44 GMT -5
Interesting house rule Scotty. We attempted to go by the book within the last year but reverted back to the way we have always done it: 1 gp = 1ep always, cost= 1 gp per ep always, time required is 1 wk a level with a max of 2 months. At name level the PC can train themselves but still must pay eap amount in gold.
These house rules seem to prevent the game from bogging down, either in time for eap accumulation or time training. Also, it is the most effective way to keep PCs broke, or at least not filthy rich.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 9, 2005 20:34:37 GMT -5
Is that game time spent actually adventuring, or is it just a certain number of weeks of any kind of activity (or lack thereof)? In other words, do you require that the PC actively adventures for a few weeks at his current level, or can the PC just sit around town and get drunk at the tavern every night for a few weeks and then gain a level? Maybe it is just me, but a character spending only a few weeks at a particular level seems like an awfully short amount of time to go up in levels. Especially when one considers the large amount of down time required to heal or take care of other business (mundane travel, seeing to land/property, etc.). IMO it should take a PC several game months to acquire enough x.p. to gain a level (except possibly at 1st or 2nd level), plus an additional amount of time training. Time isnt the measure of gaining levels, experience is. Whether it takes a day or six months to gain the required experience doesn't matter. It depends on the campaign. If your party is wandering from place to place undertaking small adventures, then a character could easily spend months at a level. If you are playing in a large dungeon setting, like a Greyhawk Castle, or Temple of Elemental Evil, then there will be situations where the party could gain enough experience to level in a few days with no need for travel time, etc. due to the occasional windfall of treasure the party finds. Once a cleric gains access to death's door, it's even easier to spend little time on a level. This doesn't usually happen after the character reaches around 6th level, but up to that point, it's not uncommon. The time spent is days, period. It is always assumed that a character will spend time each day training in some fashion. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Jan 10, 2005 1:57:39 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself very clear.
[Retracted question as at first I didn't notice that you answered it above already.]
My previous point that I tried to make was that it should be rather uncommon (IMO) for a PC to get enough x.p. to gain a new level within only a few game weeks, especially when one considers the amount of time spent healing or other down time. If a PC gains enough x.p. to gain a new level in less than a few weeks then I believe that it is usually because either the DM gave out too much treasure, or he did not adjust the amount of x.p./g.p. as indicated on page 85 of the DMG (e.g. if a group of 1st level characters beat a band of 10 orcs and got away with 10,000 g.p., they should not recieve 10,000 x.p.).
If a PC did happen to get enough x.p. to gain a level in a very short amount of time, then the training rules as they are encourage PCs to stay at their current level for a while longer due to high cost and required time off from adventuring. IME most PCs who earn x.p. that fast won't gain a level right away simply because they haven't had time to gain enough cash since the last time they paid for training, and/or they want to finish some almost-complete goal before taking time off from adventuring. Thus a 3rd level PC might spend only a few days gaining x.p. to get to 4th level, and then spend several more weeks trying to get enough cash to train or trying to tie some loose ends together before spending another couple of weeks in training, thus the overall time spent at turd level (including training or down time) would likely be several weeks anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Jan 10, 2005 2:13:14 GMT -5
The time spent is days, period. It is always assumed that a character will spend time each day training in some fashion. Scott The main problem with I can find with this is that a PC confined to bed rest for healing, spending all day managing his lands/property, etc. will have that time counted as "in training." If you go with the required amount of time at a level instead of time spent specifically in training, then I would suggest requiring a certain amount of actual adventure time. For example, say a 3rd level PC gains enough x.p. to get to 4th level in only a few days after gaining 3rd. His rating indicates that he must only spend a week in training. Instead of taking a week off from adventuring, require the PC to spend at least seven 8-hour days of actual adventuring (with no x.p. of course) before he can get to 4th level. The actual game time spent at 3rd level will likely be greater than a week due to down time, but the PC doesn't have to take additional time off from adventuring so I think it is an even trade. Another question, is there a distinction made in the time required depending whether the PC has access to a trainer or not?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Jan 10, 2005 2:15:03 GMT -5
Heh, just noticed that "3-rd" is automatically changed to "turd".
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 10, 2005 6:26:10 GMT -5
Another question, is there a distinction made in the time required depending whether the PC has access to a trainer or not? I take this into consideration when determining the minimum amount of time a PC needs to spend at the current level. It a PC is in a setting where access to a trainer is unlikely, then two weeks would be the minimum. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 10, 2005 6:27:11 GMT -5
Heh, just noticed that "3-rd" is automatically changed to "turd". Yeah, that's some kind of proboards glich. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 16, 2005 11:12:13 GMT -5
I was planning on taking some time off from AD&D to start a Mythus game, but my players have been nagging me to start another campaign, and run the ToEE. I was really considering running the training rules as written, I can see they offer much in the way of role playing opportunities, but this adventure is a perfect example of how training can really bog down a campaign. Having to have a PC take a week or two off to train anytime a level is gained would just destroy the flow of this adventure, and if you are using the recruitment rules, the Temple will have an army ready for conquest before the party makes any serious progress. Also, how would you handle a character needing to train in the middle of the mountains in the Tsojcanth adventure, or miles underground in the middle of the D series? I just don't know if it's worth it. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Axe Mental on Jan 16, 2005 11:33:18 GMT -5
Well, sometimes it's fun to change the rules to mix it up, but... One reason to keep the training rules as is (having to leave and train with another to advance in levels) is that it keeps the focus of the game on pure adventuring rather then counting eaps during game play. Sure, if a group has enough loot and eaps to go up they can choose to leave the dungeon, but then they never get to find out whats behind door #2, but hell thats the choice they have to make...play it safe or investigate to get something better (or worse and die). This is such an integral part of the feel of the game I don't think I'd mess with it.
Another point to make is that advancing inside a dungeon would alter the balance of the game. Suddenly the group could possibly over power the game. For instance, an MU just gaining third level and getting fire ball would really screw things up. And then, at the end of the game, what the hell is the group going to do with all the gold they just collected? Sure they could use it to train to go up a level, but if they just went up a level within the dungeon without spending loot........I don't know, IMO that seems like it would be a bit anti-climatic.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 16, 2005 11:41:59 GMT -5
This is such an integral part of the feel of the game I don't think I'd mess with it. I have to disagree with this. It's a nice option to consider, but most people don't use the training rules. Gygax never used the training rules. I've played with and without the training rules, and with my own house rule variant, and the impact on the campaign was minimal. I think a desire to play close to by-the-book is the only reason I still considr using tham. Scott
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Jan 16, 2005 13:09:16 GMT -5
I honestly used or ignored them in order to moderate the game speed and get rid of excess wealth. My players didn't mind as long as good adventures kept coming (such as the G-D-Q or S-series...) and the flow was maintained. ^__^
|
|
|
Post by Axe Mental on Jan 16, 2005 14:00:53 GMT -5
Scotty: "Gygax never used the training rules" Yeah, I remember reading that a long while back. Honestly, when your playing with experianced players (year after year), I suppose it might speed things along and keep the epic thing going. After all, you never saw the halflings in the LOTR stop to train, they just got better. So, in that way I suppose your way non-training way makes just as much since as anything. Still though, what would be the big drive to collect wealth if you don't need to spend it to train. I think if I were running a game with new players I would stick by the book, but might try the method you mentioned with those who already are familiar with the game. I might also keep the record keeping of eaps myself so the players don't get distracted.
|
|