Post/Author/DateTime	Post
blackjackg 11-07-06, 10:20 PM	Hey all, this is a houserule I've come up with. It's certainly not an original thought, and it's probably not the first of its kind posted on this board. But if you have the patience, P.E.A.C.H. (Emphasis on P!). Thanks, Training By this houserule, a character who has gained enough experience to reach a new level must take time between adventures to hone their skills. The amount of time it takes to reach a new level is determined by the class being improved and by the Target Level (TL). Target Level is the level being reached and is based on Class Level, not Character Level. So if a 4th-level Fighter/2nd Level Rogue attempted to increase his Fighter level, his TL=5, whereas if he increased his Rogue level, his TL=3. Training times are listed below. TL x 1d4 days - Barbarian, Sorcerer TL x 1d6 days - Druid, Fighter, Ranger TL x 1d8 days - Bard, Cleric, Paladin, Rogue TL x 1d10 days - Monk, Wizard At the DM's option, gaining the first level in a new class may take more time. These times can be reduced by studying with a qualified Trainer. A Trainer is a character of the same class with a level equal to or greater than the TL. With the assistance of a Trainer, a character gains levels as if he were one category higher (thus, a Wizard who studies with a Trainer gains levels at TL x 1d8 days, rather than 1d10). Example: Rothgar, a 1st-level fighter, has recently cleaned out a goblin warren near town. Considering that his skills are not what they might be, he seeks out Marven, the town's blacksmith, whom he had heard was once a mercenary. Marven, a 3rd-level fighter, agrees to take Rothgar on as a student. They train together for a week, then Rothgar heads off on another whirlwind adventure. When he returns to town, he trains with Marven again, until the old campaigner wheezingly declares that there's nothing more he can teach. Rothgar had better find a new trainer if he wants to improve his skills efficiently. Training times can not be reduced below TL x 1d4 days. Therefore Sorcerers and Barbarians do not benefit from studying with a trainer. (Even more) Optional Rules: Clerics and Paladins may study under one another, as long as the Trainer still meets the level requirement. They must either worship the same god, or their alignments must be within one step of each other. (For example, a Lawful Good Cleric of Wee Jas might train with a Paladin who worships St. Cuthbert, a Neutral Good Cleric of Pelor or even a Lawful Evil Cleric of Wee Jas). To reflect their versatility, Fighters can train under any character whose BAB is equal to or greater than their Target Level's. Naturally, the number of optional rules and minute tweaks is darn near endless. Pros & Cons: Pro: This quantifies that nebulous rule in the PHB that Players are expected to spend time training and practicing. Pro: Better simulates real life (I know, real life and D&D don't exactly go hand-in-hand, but you can't blame a guy for trying). Pro: May add flavour to character development. "Ha! Let me show you the move I learned from Master Roshi in the Iron Mountains." Pro: Prevents that dizzying "It only took you two months to reach level 12!?" Feeling. Pro: Helps to distinguish between adventures, rather than making it one big blur. Pro: Gives characters a reason to seek out communities and other people. Also, prevents your evil characters from torching the town (at least until after they're done gaining a level). Con: Makes it tough to gain levels mid-adventure. Con: Cruel DMs could prevent characters from gaining levels by not allowing them the chance to train. Con: Overly complicated.
Fargren 11-07-06, 10:31 PM	You should at least be able to reduce the time if you train during the level, before you have enough exp to gain a anew one. I do't like the idea, because it's overly conplicated andunnecesary, but I'll try to help anyways.
roll8dn 11-08-06, 10:11 AM	A thought to consider is what the characters gain in the meantime. While the artificial "hold" put on level advancement in the middle of a dungeon makes said dungeon easier to design (you don't have to worry about when the adventurers are going to advance in your challenge ratings), it also causes the PCs to feel a little cheated. In order to give the PCs something when they've advanced a level, perhaps the training only applies to new spells, skills in which the character has no ranks (or has not used for the previous level?), new feats, and new class abilities. BAB, hit dice, saves, and skills that the character already has ranks in (or has actually used over the past level?) would go up automatically. You might even want to reduce it to just BAB, hit dice, and saves. These, to me, are a function of simply being able to survive; they go up as your survival rate goes up. Let's go with that idea as the standard, for the present. Let's take Joe the Paladin and Lucas the Wizard for examples. Joe has just gained his third level inside the dungeon. He already had a Constitution bonus of +1 and 17 hit points. He rolls his d10 and gets a 4; with his Constitution bonus, this gives him a new hit point total of 22. He gains this total immediately. His Base Attack Bonus goes up to +3. He gains this abilitiy immediately as well. His base Reflex and Will saves go up to +1 at this level as well. He gains these immediately. Now, Joe doesn't gain the feat that he'd normally get at this level until he trains, nor his class features of Aura of Courage or Divine Health until he trains either. Lucas has just gained his fifth level as a Wizard out in the wilderness. He already had a hit point total of 11, with no Constitution bonus. He rolls his d4 and gets a result of 4; this gives him a new hit point total of 15. He gains this immediately. His Base Attack Bonus does not go up, so he gains nothing from that. His base saves do not change either. He does gain a new spell slot per day, but Lucas has not had time to study any new spells. Therefore, Lucas gains an additional spell per day, but not his normal 2 spells per level until he trains. This would only work with single-classed characters; anyone wanting to multiclass would have to find someone to train with before they could gain any benefits of leveling up. While that does hurt multiclass characters unfairly, it is the only way I can see to keep some realism in the game. Perhaps someone out there has a better idea?
MerlintheTuna 11-08-06, 02:03 PM	Pro: Better simulates real life (I know, real life and D&D don't exactly go hand-in-hand, but you can't blame a guy for trying). I disagree here. My current DM uses the system that I think is proposed in the DMG (don't rightly recall offhand)-- 1 day of training per "target level," as you put it. So if you're 5th level going on 6, you need 6 days of training. In short, I feel that this is idiotic. I'm playing a Rogue/Thief-Acrobat. I can only wonder why somehow, spending 6 days jumping off of rooftops in the city provides a more meaningful learning experiences than doing exactly the same thing but with a specific purpose in mind. When I jump around and pick locks in my free time I can level up, but when I'm doing it to accomplish a mission, I'm not? What the hell kind of sense does that make? Jumping is jumping. Picking locks is picking locks. Gaining skills only when I'm not thinking about them doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. And it's not as if it really changes the immersiveness anyway. If the party is intent on adventuring (as ours is), the characters go through long bursts of adventuring, only to suddenly realize that it's time for them to train for one more day than they did last time. And it doesn't take any time. If you say "You must enroll at Paladin State University and spend three weeks to get your PhD in Smite Evil!" the player's response is likely to be "Uh... okay. I do that. Next adventure, please." Training is something that probably shouldn't be ignored. But it's such a diversion, such a campaign/player-specific concept that actually formulating a "rule" for it is utterly ineffective at accomplishing anything, and in some cases nothing more than a mildly frustration for the player. So I'll stick with "When you wake up the next morning, you feel markedly more competent." Levels are an abstraction, and drawing attention to them, in my eyes, only makes the transition that much more awkward. Best to wave the hand and move on.
Nathreet 11-08-06, 03:01 PM	Yeah, not worth paying attention too. Our DM lets it happen during the flat week between adventures. Alternatively, training could be for getting the first rank in a skill that cannot be used untrained, new wizards spells known, feats or special abilities that involve a declared (non-automatic) action, but not for upgrades of those feats/abilities. Training would be on a per-ability basis, perhaps 1 day each.
blackjackg 11-08-06, 08:01 PM	Good compromises. Thanks for the input and suggestions.
Adolph_Kheebler 11-11-06, 11:53 PM	This is all overly complicated. My dm cut through it all and just said it is always a week to train. You also needed to have a "significant encounter" at some point during that previous level.
Krusk 11-12-06, 01:52 PM	We just totally ignore the training rule, seems a little redundant to us. "I've been out in that cave hitting stuff with this sword, now I'm going to go back into town, and ask John to show me how to not get hit with a sword befor i learn how to get out of the way of someone elses" -Fighter who just leveled up and wanted to take the dodge feat. Seems to us you should have been picking those things up in the field. We interpreted the rule as meaning you have to spend time between level ups training, which we decided did not have to be with someone who actually trains you, but could be actual field training. If a dm were to use your rule I would say make it optional, giving a bonus to the players who seek out a master, their level +5. they have the option to level up right then in that cave, or they can hold off until they get back to town and can meet with Master Swordsman who will show them his special technique for dodging. Which gives them a +2 instead of +1, or +1 to 2 opponents. where as the guy who taught himself will have the general idea and be able to use the feat, but will not be as good as the guy who had training. This way when they come back from adventures where they gained a level, and leveled in the field, but then gained another level defeating bandits on the way back to town, the master can notice their improvements ect. " Youve grown much in the time since i last saw you" Id also say if you hold off on your levels you still gain xp as your new level would be. Another idea would be to say you can level up in the field but you only get 1/2 your new bonuses. Dont quite know how that would work though.
trapspringer 11-13-06, 02:49 PM	Ya' know, personally I don't enforce this rule, either. You hit the exp total and you level. Bam! But in real life, I dunno' fo sure. I mean, I wrestled in high school, and I always saw the most growth after a long break. It was pretty trippy to show up and suddenly have everything make sense. I've seen this in other combat-oriented hobbies, too.