Post/Author/DateTime	Post
GreyLord 05-21-05, 11:53 PM	I've been thinking about the experience rules recently...and come to the conclusion that they don't make any sense...even if one stretches reality greatly. If you take two people...one which is near genius level and shows a great ability to learn and ease at learning...and I who haven't done much...why in the world would it consistently mean that the person who knows and is able to do much...take 20 times longer to learn something such as...let's say martial arts...then I? Let's say that there was a Fighter trained in the arts of weaponry...and I was a commoner trained in farming. I've spent my entire time farming and haven't done much at all. The fighter has seen spells cast at him, seen those who cast them, spent time in a party with a wizard AND a sorcerer...and knows a great deal about magic in general. I haven't ever seen a spell book. The Fighter even has an Intelligence of 16 compared to my intelligence of 11. Does it make any sense then that I would learn to be a wizard in 1/20th of the time as that of the Fighter. But that's how the system currently works. I as a commoner would get to be 1st or 2nd level much faster than a 20th level fighter trying to get to be a Wizard first level. Does that make any sense at all? If you have two people of equal age...one who excels and gains a great deal of learning and experience and shows a natural knack for it...does it make any sense for someone who might not even know how to read and has NO education, no real ambition, and done nothing, to learn it that much more quickly than the person who is just the opposite? In fact, it seems characters get STUPIDER as they get more experience in D&D. To learn the basics of another class takes them so much longer than someone with no experience, it seems rather absurd. I know it's fantasy...but it's so disconnected from reality...that once I started thinking about this just recently...I can't even figure out what type of sense it makes. Yes, there are exceptions...such as naturally talented individuals...but in D&D, it's the RULE...not the exception. ANY experienced person...even of the same age, even if they have better stats in every single ability then the inexperienced...will be stupider. It just takes the so much longer to pick up the basics of a new class it's incredible!!! Just something I started thinking about. I haven't been able to reconcile it. It seems absurdly stupid once I started pondering it. I know the did it because of 'balance' but once thought of, this is one balance item that now seems so stupid in practicality, that even fantasy characters should be able to not get...stupider...as they learn more. Take languages for example, normally someone who learns a second language will have an even easier time with a third language. It's not like it suddenly gets harder for them. In fact the person who is learning a second language for the first time, compared to someone who has learned 7 languages, will seem like the village idiot compared to the individual who knows 7 languages when they learn the next one (second for the first timer, 8th for the 7 languager). The experience rules are a flaw in the face of even simple reason! So with that out, any houserules on how to change the XP rules that have been used in groups and actually worked.
The Captain 05-22-05, 12:24 AM	Like you said, balance is the mian reason for this, but not the only one. To me it seems to come down to the same reason you suffer EXP penalties for multi-classing. A level 20 fighter still has to spend a lot of time devoted to practicing his skills to maintain them at their optimum level (like a +20 BAB), while the commoner can devote his time entirely to learning how to cast spells to gain the same effect (+1 level of wizard). The farmer dedicated to learning how to cast spells as a wizard (or better yet, a druid) isn't too woried about keeping his profession(farmer) skill maxed out, while the level 20 fighter has relied on his longsword for so long that he isn't about let his greater weapon specialization get out of practice, or any of his other feats. You do make good points, but, as with many other cases, the game must stay balanced to stay fun.
Nom 05-22-05, 02:12 AM	The D&D "realism" fallacy: (1) Take a rules model whose goals are balance and playability. (2) Make a bunch of assumptions about how that model maps to the "real world". (3) When this turns out ridiculous, assume that the fault lies with #1 rather than #2. In this case, part of the problem is that HD first and foremost measure heroism and plot significance. The survivability of a creature is directly related to its plot significance, not necessarily to any other real life measure. XP measures and controls the advancement of PCs (and pseudo-PCs, like cohorts) in terms of heroism. They are not necessarily relevant to non-PC characters. Further, a level 1 character and a level 19 character both require exactly the same thing to advance a level: 13.33 level-equivalent challenges. It's a bit like trying to measure a computer game by kilobytes of data rather than "playable hours" or "replay value" - they may be related, but they may be totally unrelated.
High Octane 05-22-05, 03:55 AM	Gygax himself has stated that the game is not meant to be realistic. Its tied to realism, but it is not meant to be realistic. Balance first, playability second, realism third.
Vaelan 05-22-05, 05:21 AM	Let's say that there was a Fighter trained in the arts of weaponry...and I was a commoner trained in farming. I've spent my entire time farming and haven't done much at all. The fighter has seen spells cast at him, seen those who cast them, spent time in a party with a wizard AND a sorcerer...and knows a great deal about magic in general. I haven't ever seen a spell book. The Fighter even has an Intelligence of 16 compared to my intelligence of 11. The Fighter has to learn how to cast spells while also maintaining his martial prowess. Maintaining a high degree of skill in any serious field is trying, and attempting to learn a completely unrelated skill at the same time certainly doesn't help.
GreyLord 05-22-05, 09:53 AM	Hmm, let's take a professor of Medicine who's taking Chinese, it's the fourth language he's learning. Chinese is supposed to be the hardest language on earth. Comparatively to all the other students...he's learning it about 4 times as fast. According to what's stated in this thread, because he has to worry about maintaining his Medical knowledge...it should in fact take him several times longer than the rest of those who are learning their second language...or a new language for the first time. That seems rather absurd. It seems to me those that are learning constantly, soon become better learners and studiers than those that are new to learning or haven't done it much. Wouldn't it be simpler if the two were in the same class, or adventure, getting the same XP (hence no difference in XP awards) that it should take the same XP to get to the next level...aka the same learning? I think I can buy the Number of encounters to the number of encounters idea...as that works...but what happens when they party together? If the new character was a fighter compared to a fighter who was remainng a grizzled fighter, I could buy the idea that the new fighter would learn more in a short span due to being introduced to the trade and learning it...but if they were both becoming wizards??? That doesn't seem to make as much sense at all. I use in the same party, though such extremes would be odd...because then they would be getting the same amount of XP to compare learning ability... and the rate of a 1st level character to a 20th level character learning first level in the same class...frankley doesn't make much sense. You're telling me that to upkeep a 20th level characters skill (which isn't really reflected in the real world from what i see) they are going to have to take 20 times as long as a new character in the same party learning the same stuff from the same teacher?
mrshupizdumaterinu 05-22-05, 10:26 AM	*sight* As you can see, not many people lost any sleep over those issues, showing how disruptive they are for the game...
fallabel 05-22-05, 10:30 AM	I agree that this isn't an issue that's worth arguing, but think about it this way. In the real world, with some DnD terminology: There are two people. One is a 20th level Engineering professor. He work 50-60 hours per week teaching, preparing lessons, and doing research. The other is an 18 year old college freshman. (1st level student) Both want to get a Bachelor's Degree in Music. Sure, if the professor dedicated all of his time to studying music, he'd probably pick it up much faster/better than the kid. However, since he's got his responsibilities as a professor, he CAN'T dedicate all of his time to music. If he did that, he'd stop being an engineering professor, and his skills in that field would degrade. If he doesn't think about engineering for a long time, he'll start to forget things. Compare that with the college student. He can spend all of his time studying music. He has no other responsibilities besides studying music. So, it might be tougher for him to learn, but he can focus on it entirely. In short, it'll take you longer to earn a degree by taking night classes than it would if you're a fulltime student. So, if you want to houserule a way to work in "reality", here's a suggestion. Your 20th level fighter can take one level of Wizard at the XP for a first level character, provided that he sacrifices one fighter level for every Wizard level gained. Sound good to you? It sounds realistic to me. It's also pretty balanced (since it'll really underpower your character).
Moon-Lancer 05-22-05, 10:51 AM	it takes 6 mounths to get from white belt to black belt. It takes the rest of your life to make it to varying degrees of black belt.
fallabel 05-22-05, 11:32 AM	it takes 6 mounths to get from white belt to black belt. It takes the rest of your life to make it to varying degrees of black belt. Ha, 6 months from white to black? Not in any real style of karate. Try 10 years for that progression.
Arkidisey 05-22-05, 11:57 AM	Ha, 6 months from white to black? Not in any real style of karate. Try 10 years for that progression. yes, 6 months is if you could sum up an hour in a minute, so no thats outrageous! 10 years is right
The Man from Uncle 05-22-05, 12:22 PM	I do see a small flaw in your point Greylord. While it may take some 20 times more experience POINTS for a fighter of some high level to get 1 level as a wizard, it does not take more work. A low level surf from the farm, when encountering (and defeating) an orc will have been given a much greater comparative lifetime experience than if a 16th level fighter does. To gain a level as a wizard does not just require a number of experience points, it requires a certain level of life experience. While an orc or two makes no difference to the life experience of a high level fighter, it makes the world of difference to your average Joe. During that change in his life (massive as it would be) he may be inspired by something new. A fighter on the other hand would find the situation mundane and it would have no effect on him. Well, thats one way to look at it. As for getting a black belt in anything in less than 7-8 years......why bother? (Martial arts as sports are a different matter, but then again they are ****ing useless). If you want a black belt that quick I think it takes about 6 months worth of tokens for Wheaty Flakes to get a black belt and with Wheaty flakes you don't even have to train.
GreyLord 05-22-05, 02:01 PM	Of course if you trained are a professor already (20th level) since it's going to take 20 times the experience, make that 70 or 80 years for anyone who's experienced. Hope that highlights how ridiculous it is to think more experience makes it harder and longer to learn something... :rolleyes: It just seems to ruin the game after I realized it in some ways. I know it's for balance...but there HAS to be a better way than the way they have it currently. I know they have Gestalt options from UA...and that covers knowing more than one profession and learning at the same rate...but it doesn't really cover those who learn something later...who should also progress at relatively the same rate as others. In the analogy of the Professor...he better dang learn as quick as the rest of the students in the class in college, if he doesn't, he's going to flunk.
Pain The Unbeliever 05-22-05, 02:06 PM	Come on! Im so sick of these "d&d isnt real enough" bull****. Its a game that supposes people can use magic, and talk to dragons. is there anything more to be said about it?
fallabel 05-22-05, 02:16 PM	You completely missed the point, but I won't dwell on that. How's this for realism? A fighter can swing his sword and kill things for XP, gaining 20 levels of experience. He then swings his sword and kills things for some more XP, which qualifies him to be a wizard, and imbues him with magical ability. Why does that make sense? The point is that realism isn't all that important when you have folks casting magical spells at dragons. This is a game, remember that.
The Man from Uncle 05-22-05, 02:27 PM	Greylord - 'Hope that highlights how ridiculous it is to think more experience makes it harder and longer to learn something...' It doesn't make it harder. It just means more experiance points have to be accumulated....which is easy for him.....because he is so buff. Its as easy for a fighter of level 20 to get a level as a wizard as it is for average joe. Its all about comparison. They, in effect, will learn the new skill at the same speed. It doesn't take the experienced one any longer.
snowlynx 05-22-05, 02:36 PM	How's this for realism? A fighter can swing his sword and kill things for XP, gaining 20 levels of experience. He then swings his sword and kills things for some more XP, which qualifies him to be a wizard, and imbues him with magical ability. Why does that make sense? My other favorite is that the level 20 fighter might actually be better then the blacksmith at making horseshoes, even if he has spent no time since his childhood smithing....the D&D game doesn't make sense. It's okay though; I forgive it because all the systems I've seen that try to use realism are horribly complicated, unbalanced, confusing, and get in the way of the DM trying to run the game, and that's just silly.
fallabel 05-22-05, 02:49 PM	Oh, I'm not complaining, I'm just trying to demonstrate the hypocrisy involved in being bothered by one specific instance of unrealism, while fully accepting all the others.
VirgilCaine 05-22-05, 04:44 PM	Does it make any sense then that I would learn to be a wizard in 1/20th of the time as that of the Fighter. But that's how the system currently works. I as a commoner would get to be 1st or 2nd level much faster than a 20th level fighter trying to get to be a Wizard first level. What? If you go by the starting ages of wizards vs. fighters, it takes five years or more to become a wizard, the fighter can multiclass and take as little time as the DM wants.
Templetroll 05-22-05, 05:07 PM	It just seems to ruin the game after I realized it in some ways. I know it's for balance...but there HAS to be a better way than the way they have it currently. . First, I have no problem with the lack of realism in D&D; I like the way it presents its 'reality'. :) In response to your question, have you ever seen RuneQuest? (this is from memory of a looonng time ago, correct me if I go astray, but be polite please :D ) That game your hits stayed the same. A RuneLord (Epic level character, sorta kinda) could die just like a farmboy IF the damage got through. This added a nice bit of tension. The players skills increased to allow them to hit more often and be hit less often. Also, armor stopped damage; you could get some damage through great armor but it had to be great damage. The way to raise a skill was to use it and then, at the end of an adventure, you were allowed to roll a percentile to get the amount you had not achieved. Newbs learned things fairly quickly, the moderately skilled could learn things at a reasonable rate and the masters had to experience things truely odd to have a chance to gain in their favored skills (at 100% or greater skill you had a 1% chance to gain; having above 100% in a skill allowed you to use it easily under difficult circumstances, e.g., walking quietly across rice paper.) I don't know if you can port the technique to your D&D game.
Lord Gwydion 05-22-05, 08:12 PM	Of course if you trained are a professor already (20th level) since it's going to take 20 times the experience, make that 70 or 80 years for anyone who's experienced. Hope that highlights how ridiculous it is to think more experience makes it harder and longer to learn something... :rolleyes: It just seems to ruin the game after I realized it in some ways. I know it's for balance...but there HAS to be a better way than the way they have it currently. I know they have Gestalt options from UA...and that covers knowing more than one profession and learning at the same rate...but it doesn't really cover those who learn something later...who should also progress at relatively the same rate as others. In the analogy of the Professor...he better dang learn as quick as the rest of the students in the class in college, if he doesn't, he's going to flunk. One thing I think you're overlooking here. Others have tried to point it out to you, but you keep overlooking their posts. How does a Commoner 1 gain experience? Sure, they might get attacked by a kobold and survive and get some XP. If they're lucky. Mostly, NPC class characters would get XP from some important challenge related to their profession. So a Commoner 1 farmer/serf might have a CR1 challenge in bringing in the harvest each year. Assuming his "party" of his family or neighbors helped with this, he'd split that 300xp between the group, and have to wait several months until it's time to plant next year's crop (another CR1 challenge for a Commoner). Meanwhile, Mr. L20 Fighter is off battling dragons, pit fiends, half fiend/half troll sorcerers, and whatnot and, even after splitting the XP earned with the L20 Rogue, Cleric and Wizard in his party, is still getting THOUSANDS of XP per encounter, and can have maybe 4-5 per DAY!!! Also, as for the L20 Fighter and the L1 Commoner adventuring together, one of them isn't going to get any XP, and the other is going to end up dead. L20 characters gain no XP from low CR encounters anymore, and anything that might challenge the L20 Fighter would either outright kill the commoner, or the commoner would be so ineffective in the battle as to not gain any XP. A Commoner who has 13-14 level appropriate challenges (if he's farming, maybe he'll have 2-3 per year) can then gain a level of Wizard. A L20 Fighter who has 13-14 level appropriate challenges (if he's an adventurer, expect him to have a lot more than 2-3 per year) can gain a level of Wizard. Looks to me like the L20 character is faster.
badger3k 05-22-05, 09:11 PM	DMG 3.5, p197 Learning a skill or feat: Training Time: One week per rank gained in a skill, or two weeks for a feat. p198: Gaining Class Benefits: "You can mandate that to gain any of the newfound class-based benefits earned by advancing a level, a character needs to perform some overall training. This training requires one week per every two levels, rounded up." - I assume this makes to gain the benefits of 10th level would require 5 weeks under this rule. Read that way, it would take the 20th level fighter 10 weeks (or 20 if he had no trainer) while it would take the 1st level commoner 1 (or 2) weeks to learn magic. Granted, the experience points gained should be relative (or proportional might be better), so the time taken to get the experience should be the same (assuming the farmer has adventurer-style encounter chances).
GreyLord 05-22-05, 11:10 PM	First, I have no problem with the lack of realism in D&D; I like the way it presents its 'reality'. :) In response to your question, have you ever seen RuneQuest? (this is from memory of a looonng time ago, correct me if I go astray, but be polite please :D ) That game your hits stayed the same. A RuneLord (Epic level character, sorta kinda) could die just like a farmboy IF the damage got through. This added a nice bit of tension. The players skills increased to allow them to hit more often and be hit less often. Also, armor stopped damage; you could get some damage through great armor but it had to be great damage. The way to raise a skill was to use it and then, at the end of an adventure, you were allowed to roll a percentile to get the amount you had not achieved. Newbs learned things fairly quickly, the moderately skilled could learn things at a reasonable rate and the masters had to experience things truely odd to have a chance to gain in their favored skills (at 100% or greater skill you had a 1% chance to gain; having above 100% in a skill allowed you to use it easily under difficult circumstances, e.g., walking quietly across rice paper.) I don't know if you can port the technique to your D&D game. I have to admit I never got around to playing Runequest...but that sounds more like what I'd have in mind.
Bloodtide_the_Red 05-22-05, 11:34 PM	1.Does it make any sense then that I would learn to be a wizard in 1/20th of the time as that of the Fighter. -Sure does to me. I see it like this. The Fighter has two big roadblocks. One, has has to unlearn everything he knows about fighting. He has to stop learning how to think like a fighter and think lke a wizard. And, two he is filled with a huge amount of general vague misinformation. Sure, he has seen magic, but that's not always a helpping hand(what do you mean my spell can't do that, i saw a mage do it monday). Our commoner has a nice black slate. 2.If you have two people of equal age...one who excels and gains a great deal of learning and experience and shows a natural knack for it...does it make any sense for someone who might not even know how to read and has NO education, no real ambition, and done nothing, to learn it that much more quickly than the person who is just the opposite? -Guess I can point out that young children can quite easly learn mulitpule languages, though older folk have a hard time. 3.Take languages for example, normally someone who learns a second language will have an even easier time with a third language. It's not like it suddenly gets harder for them. -I'm not so sure this is true. It's realy going to depend on the language. It's much easyer to learn a language without clutter from another language. Take a gender language for example, like French(each genders words are diffrent). When this guy learns American, he has to remember very time that american is gender netural with most of it's words. And it gets worse with pop culture and slang. More languages make this much harder. Ever notice how multiple language speakers have a big problem with the tense of words? Take anyone with a huge amount of experence in just one complex area and see how hard it is for them to change to another. A great example here...try some non-Euclid math....I garentee your life time of Euclid math will get in the way of your learning. BT
Nom 05-23-05, 02:18 AM	That seems rather absurd. It seems to me those that are learning constantly, soon become better learners and studiers than those that are new to learning or haven't done it much.What is absurd is that you are still trying to do the equivalent of measure playability by Mb. You need to throw out any idea that XP measures anything other than mechanical advancement / heroism. The calculation is that "Having done all this heroic stuff, your character is now more impressive, and we'll represent that by granting a level of X". I've played boardgames where a tiny frigate and a massive battleship were both represented by a counter about 1cm square, but no-one complained that a battleship would be significantly larger than a frigate - such details were completely irrelevant to what we were trying to simulate. Similarly, when my hockey coach represents players by little ink dots on a whiteboard, no-one complains about their lack of facial features or that the scale is wrong. The other important aspect being missed is that D&D is PC-centric. Commoners don't adventure, gain levels, or whatever - they are simply granted appropriate levels and skills to fulfil their role. Detail is needed for PCs; for everyone else, if it looks sorta like a duck then it's close enough to being a duck. Some DMs even do this for PCs, but most find it helpful to use XP as a gauge as to how fast their PCs should be developing mechanically. Which is not to say that the multiclassing rules don't have problems. The most notable is that of "non-associated levels" - taking balanced levels in two non-synergistic classes often results in a character that can't do either well, and the D&D system tends to reward specialisation - a party of characters who each do a few things well is far more potent than a party who can all do a middling job at everything.
Thoronmir 05-23-05, 11:53 AM	See my sig.
weasel fierce 05-23-05, 01:58 PM	I've been thinking about the experience rules recently...and come to the conclusion that they don't make any sense...even if one stretches reality greatly. Nothing in D&D was ever written to be realistic. In fact, the original author considers such an effort to be absurd at best. For different, more realistic systems, I'd recommend something like Call of Cthulhu / Runequest, where you only improve the skills you actually use or train. Alternatively, you can simply award xp only for things that relate to the characters class. In the end though, D&D assumes that the best way to learn something new, is to kill people.
prettyripples 05-23-05, 03:42 PM	There's one thing that most of you have missed, trying to mix realism and rules lawyering. D&D actually has two play systems! Now, in one of these systems, learning your Wizard lvl1 takes 1000xp for a farmer, and 20000xp for a fighter. Which takes... as long as you want it to. But in the other system - some of us refer to it as roleplaying - you have to go back to the city and find a wizard to study under. Head into the woods and learn which herbs go into your spells. Qualify for entry to the mage college (treat it as a prestige class. Requirements: Int sufficient to pass exam. Aquire your own wand.) In my game, I may have to put off my first level of bard because I'm half-way through a dungeon and about to level up. Oh well, let's just wait till I'm in a city and learn there. I can hone my skills telling the patrons of my local about the dungeon run.
prettyripples 05-23-05, 03:58 PM	Oh, and one more thing: Lots have people have tried to compare D&D levels to the university system, or, say, a linguist. That's flawed, because academic subjects are all so similar. It's only in the last 100, 200 years or so that we've stopped getting polymaths - the world's greatest everything (Descartes was an epic mathematician, physicist and philospher. Leonardo was an artist, mathematician, mechanic, astronomer, biologist, ...). Most people in a university could also be at university for something else, if they felt like it. The heroic classes in D&D are more like arts than anything else. Now, a lvl1 musician in real life (1-3 years of experience, typically) barely needs to practice - unless he wants to improve, anyway. A lvl6 musician (4-8 years) needs to spend several hours a week practicing. A virtuoso (off the scale in levels, usually at least 16 years experience) has to spend 7or 8 hours a day to stand still, and improving is almost impossible. Don't try that "but a second instrument is easier" argument on me, either. A second instrument is like a bard retaking first level. A second D&D class would be like taking up karate (similarly rigorous, at competitive level), writing (a good writer usually writes at least 1000 words a day, day in, day out), computer game designing (staying abreast of new consoles, new operating system releases, the latest 'in' programming language, and a mind atrophied by coffee gets time-consuming really quickly), or - as suggested - a new language for the first time. To anyone who says that knowing French isn't time-consuming, find me someone who knows French as a second language, hasn't used it much in the last three years, and can still speak it fluently. Note: I'm not trying to say that D&D is amazingly realistic, or anything. What I do believe, however, is that the rules are fluid enough that you can fill the gap yourself. Interpretation is the key - otherwise, the 'Tumble' skill would let you pass a hulking barbarian by tripping and falling flat at his feet, instead of gracefully pirouetting past or vaulting over.
darkness ninja of light 05-23-05, 04:05 PM	I really don't see how a Level 1 person and a Level 20 person have a time difference with getting a new level. Let's say a DM has three sessions, filled with roleplay, fighting and downtime of equal amounts. The level 1 party fights orcs, stops an impending riot in the tavern with diplomacy skills, and, when nothing happens, they train for their next level in various ways. The level 20 party fights tarrasques and pit fiends and other somesuch. They bring peace between two kingdoms at war. In their downtime, they train for their next level (in various ways). Both parties took 3 sessions to do all this. In their downtime, they did the exact same thing. In their adventuring time, they did tasks that took equal amounts of time since they were at their level of skill. Also to note, an intelligent person who is able to quickly learn things...gains skills quicker than other people. Also also to note, two wizards can have the same level and learn at the same time, but one wizard can be better than the other and learn quicker than the other due to a higher intelligence. This thread has some fuzzy logic, I think.
eudas 05-23-05, 04:06 PM	Je sais la langue de la belle france; je peux demander, "où est la W.C.?" et autres phrases simples, mais en conversation, ma vocabulaire est pauvre et je ne peux pas parler très vite. eudas
boredgremlin 05-23-05, 05:10 PM	Usually i am a big proponent of realism in D&D. All the high, near unbelievable fantasy annoys the hell out of me. But you just cant do it with experiance points. Real world experiance has way too many variables involved in how well you learn to be represented accurately in a game. If you start asking questions like this you have to ask how a fighter dueling some orcs tought him what he needed to know to throw around magic missiles. Or how that magic missile tossing wizard really learned how to wield a sword or channel divine energy from doing that. Lol not to mention skills. Your character was in a dungeon for the last two weeks fighting, but he leveled up and learned how to be a better carpenter or horseback rider? How the hell did that happen? If you want experiance to be more realistic you have to adopt the rules from a different game system. Which is gonna change all kinds of stuff in the game. Its a big job to adapt, and your probably gonna screw it up the first couple of times. You could try it, but its not gonna be easy.
darkness ninja of light 05-23-05, 10:39 PM	Frankly, if your character has been in a dungeon for the past two weeks.....and has had NO WAY possible to learn how to be a better carpenter. Then the player or the DM should realize that putting ranks in Profession: Carpenter is stupid and unrealistic (and disallow it). They even give an example in one of the books (I assume it was the PHB or DMG) if Jozan is in the middle of a desert city, the DM will never allow him to suddenly pick up Profession: Sailor. This isn't experience being unrealistic....it is the player and his DM. However, I think it's fairly reasonable to assume the character has been training during downtime for their next class level. It's more believable if it's the same class they are training for, but even cross class is possible. Of course, the most realistic way is if the character had someone training them. The experience from fighting monsters and roleplaying situations is more of a basic time system. On online campaigns, many people use set real-world time to determine when they level up (since it could take a month just to get up to and finish one large battle). In D&D, in about the time it takes the party "this many" encounters (of various types), they've had a chance to hone their skills and become stronger as they are as well as finish their training.
Lord of the Underdark 05-23-05, 11:08 PM	Three words: Learn them, love them, live them.... "Supension of Disbelief" If you can do it for a Star Wars movie, you can probably do it for the sake of a game...because it is a game after all....right??!!?!?!?
The Man from Uncle 05-24-05, 01:10 AM	I think prettyripples probably puts it the best. Classes in DnD are very different skills. I'd say though that it'd take your average virtuoso just as long to pick up French as it would your average Joe. This is why the xp system actually works. An experienced character needs more exp than a non-experienced one, but he gets more too. In terms of time to pick up a new class, they are about on equal footing. I think though that the polymaths are not a dead breed. They have existed everywhere in history and are just so rare that it's hard to think of recent ones. The only recent one I can think of probably won't be recognised much in the west for the next for another half century at least, but (read at your own discretion, this name may offend people) Mao Zedong, like him or loath him, was a genius not only as a philosopher, military leader and politician, but also as a poet, writer and calligrapher/artist too. The earliest I can think of is probably Aristotle, he was the foremost scientist (general science), biologist and philosopher in the known world.