DM wants to have trainers

[Blu]

So, at my new table the DM said that leveling was going to be different. That it was not going to be automatic and that the characters would need to find a trainer for the class and train under them, putting time and money in to it(Some rule on DMG p. 198).
So besides the obvious MMO feel to it, it sounds pretty bad having to put a lot of time and even money on to leveling. Has someone used this kinda of leveling before and could share some opinion on it?

[Knaight]

As much as I dislike this from a thematic perspective, on a practical side it usually doesn't make that much of a difference.

[Blu]

Thematically it sounds really bad, like, what's the point of the character have any background if he needs to train anyway or in the case of multiclass with a cleric or wizard for example, how the hell does the character learn to make magic out of nowhere. Pratically it also sounds pretty bad since we are starting at level 1 :smallfrown:

[Red Fel]

As much as I dislike this from a thematic perspective, on a practical side it usually doesn't make that much of a difference.

Well, yes and no.

On the one hand, I've been in campaigns where leveling occurred between arcs, as opposed to immediately upon hitting the xp threshold. In theory, depending on xp gain, this meant that you might gain several levels at once, but only once we hit a downtime period. And I'll agree that in that sense, it doesn't make that much of a difference.

On the other hand, there is one thing that makes a pretty big difference. Two things, actually. First, that you have to find a trainer, and second, that you have to pay. With respect to the first, that's entirely within the DM's control, and puts further restrictions on your ability to level. Now, if you have a home base with a guaranteed trainer, that's fine; just go back home between adventures, train and level up, easy. But it does stretch credulity once your characters exceed level 15; at that point, they're basically among the most powerful beings on the planet, so who exactly is going to be strong enough to train them, yet not motivated to get out there and save the world himself?

With respect to the second, WBL is a thing. It's also entirely within the DM's control, but basically, if he does not increase your WBL accordingly, he is handicapping the PCs. Adventuring assumes a certain level of wealth, to be spent on gear and consumables, and if you don't have that kind of wealth, you're going to have a hard time. If you have to dip into your WBL to level, you're going to either be under-leveled for your adventures, or under-geared, and neither is appealing.

Both of these, mind you, are only potential problems. If the DM handles them adroitly - by ensuring the availability of (and explanation for) trainers, and guaranteeing sufficient wealth to gear up and train up, there's no problem. The only problem arises if he implements this system and then doesn't account for these issues.

[Tiri]

As much as I dislike this from a thematic perspective, on a practical side it usually doesn't make that much of a difference.

Well, it might make a difference if the PCs happened to be stranded away from any place where they could realistically find trainers. Given that they are PCs, they are likely to get into some outlandish places.

I'm personally opposed to rules of this nature because they don't really add much to the game except for another thing you have to spend money on, unless you want to role-play out all the training scenes. It also loses any veneer of additional realism it might add after a while because you can't realistically have that many NPCs that are higher enough level than the PCs to be able to train them after the PCs cross a certain level threshold.

[Blu]

With respect to the second, WBL is a thing. It's also entirely within the DM's control, but basically, if he does not increase your WBL accordingly, he is handicapping the PCs. Adventuring assumes a certain level of wealth, to be spent on gear and consumables, and if you don't have that kind of wealth, you're going to have a hard time. If you have to dip into your WBL to level, you're going to either be under-leveled for your adventures, or under-geared, and neither is appealing.

The WBL problem is really concerning me, and the DM has a history of not respecting WBL or outright saying that having gear raises CR... so might have a problem there.



I'm personally opposed to rules of this nature because they don't really add much to the game except for another thing you have to spend money on, unless you want to role-play out all the training scenes. It also loses any veneer of additional realism it might add after a while because you can't realistically have that many NPCs that are higher enough level than the PCs to be able to train them after the PCs cross a certain level threshold.

It sounds very boring also. The first times it might be fresh and fun, but has time passes it might add to just "fast time" on the tabble.

[Rhyltran]

Well, yes and no.

On the one hand, I've been in campaigns where leveling occurred between arcs, as opposed to immediately upon hitting the xp threshold. In theory, depending on xp gain, this meant that you might gain several levels at once, but only once we hit a downtime period. And I'll agree that in that sense, it doesn't make that much of a difference.

On the other hand, there is one thing that makes a pretty big difference. Two things, actually. First, that you have to find a trainer, and second, that you have to pay. With respect to the first, that's entirely within the DM's control, and puts further restrictions on your ability to level. Now, if you have a home base with a guaranteed trainer, that's fine; just go back home between adventures, train and level up, easy. But it does stretch credulity once your characters exceed level 15; at that point, they're basically among the most powerful beings on the planet, so who exactly is going to be strong enough to train them, yet not motivated to get out there and save the world himself?

With respect to the second, WBL is a thing. It's also entirely within the DM's control, but basically, if he does not increase your WBL accordingly, he is handicapping the PCs. Adventuring assumes a certain level of wealth, to be spent on gear and consumables, and if you don't have that kind of wealth, you're going to have a hard time. If you have to dip into your WBL to level, you're going to either be under-leveled for your adventures, or under-geared, and neither is appealing.

Both of these, mind you, are only potential problems. If the DM handles them adroitly - by ensuring the availability of (and explanation for) trainers, and guaranteeing sufficient wealth to gear up and train up, there's no problem. The only problem arises if he implements this system and then doesn't account for these issues.

The "After story arc" idea is pretty cool but the idea listed above I think would take me out of immersion. Much for the same reasons you mention (like trying to find someone above level 15 to train you) but there's another problem too. I've never had a problem with leveling via experience gain. I mean, let's take a real world perspective (yeah, I know it's a game but immersion has to exist) experience matters more than any level of serious training. You can practice forms all day but if you've never been in a fight, never applied it, and have never been in a spar it's very possible that street fighter who has been in scraps all his life is going to hand your behind to you. I mean, appropriately, why are you going to seek out some instructor when you're a man who has slain ogres, fought minotaurs, and destroyed Dragons?

Now in our campaigns we've had a certain level a mixture but nothing this serious. Example, you want to cross class? Unless it's something like Sorcerer you need to at least get a basic run down from someone who knows a thing or two about magic and certain prestige classes need to at least been inducted into it but aside from that? Free reign. That being said, I don't mind what other people do in their campaigns but you seem to have a problem with it so there's three options.

Option 1) Voice your dislike about the system and the concerns/
Option 2) Find another group to play with
Option 3) Do your best to tolerate it and try to find some enjoyment out of the campaign.

I mean, there's not much more to it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Blu
Thematically it sounds really bad, like, what's the point of the character have any background if he needs to train anyway or in the case of multiclass with a cleric or wizard for example, how the hell does the character learn to make magic out of nowhere.

I’m not sure I follow your concern here. The multiclassing example in particular doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.

My first 3.5 character was a druid who initially avoided arcane magic, then became intrigued and eventually multiclassed into wizard. My DM ruled, not unreasonably, that to learn a foreign magical tradition my druid would have to study with an arcane spellcaster.

Fortunately we had one in the party, so we roleplayed that over several sessions until my druid had learned enough to take his first wizard level. It made perfect sense for the character and the storyline, and it didn’t present the slightest problem to me as a player.


Originally Posted by Red Fel
…these, mind you, are only potential problems. If the DM handles them adroitly - by ensuring the availability of (and explanation for) trainers, and guaranteeing sufficient wealth to gear up and train up, there's no problem.

This is worth keeping in mind. It sounds like you haven’t actually started playing yet, so I would suggest giving your DM the benefit of the doubt. It’s a different approach to leveling than you’re used to, but that doesn’t automatically mean you won’t enjoy it once the game begins.


Originally Posted by Red Fel
…so who exactly is going to be strong enough to train them, yet not motivated to get out there and save the world himself?

At higher levels this is certainly a point, but even so, the best coaches aren’t always champion players. The best teachers don’t always make cutting-edge discoveries.

As for motivation, “I’m getting too old for this sort of thing” is a valid concern, as well as, “When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good you will not.” Teachers are almost always older than their students, and I could easily see even a higher-level wizard seeking out a three-thousand-year-old elven sage, unsteady of hand but clear of mind, for careful instruction in the intricacies of esoteric magical theory.

And really, once you get to that level, you’d probably want some careful guidance from someone who’s already a past master at what you’re only beginning to learn. Otherwise your first attempt at Iron Body might be the beginning of a long career as a ship’s anchor.

[EldritchWeaver]

But it does stretch credulity once your characters exceed level 15; at that point, they're basically among the most powerful beings on the planet, so who exactly is going to be strong enough to train them, yet not motivated to get out there and save the world himself?

If I could, I would upvote your entire post. :smallsmile: Still, you missed one point: If NPCs are beholden to the same rules, the need to find trainers too. But at some point, there are no trainers, namely when there is no character having a certain class. So how did the first NPC of a class level up in the first place? Or attain the previously non-existing class? It would require some kind of mentorship to get the first level of any class under these rules.

[Deophaun]

Both of these, mind you, are only potential problems. If the DM handles them adroitly - by ensuring the availability of (and explanation for) trainers, and guaranteeing sufficient wealth to gear up and train up, there's no problem.
The problem is the system doesn't solve anything, so it must exist for the purpose of introducing problems. Handling those problems adroitly just means that there is no point to it.

[Telok]

One thing such a rule does (and it's an old rule from previous editions) is to stop people from levelling up in the middle of a dungeon. If you left off last week in room #37 and when you enter room #38 this week the wizard suddenly has two new spells, a new spell level, a new feat, and a new PrC... well, it's silly.

[tiercel]

In my experience:

Tried running a campaign where there were downtimes/resources available for leveling-training... and found that mostly it didn't really add much to the game, honestly. Wound up mostly phasing it out (with the handwave "now that you're higher level it's a lot less about learning entirely new things from masters and more about discovering things for yourselves" etc etc.)

Compromise: if a character was going to take a level in a new class or especially PrC, some kind of RP for it; not necessarily "training" per se, but at least some kind of in-world explanation for where that dip in Cloistered Cleric is coming from, especially if the character wasn't just, say, actually cloistered in backstory. Also I like giving PrCs a little bit of "prestige," with an induction or at least rare tome or relevant Rare Item of Magic/Lore that can be a Campaign Moment of "yeah you aren't a bog-standard wizard anymore."

Not a hard and fast rule - not all PrCs are amenable to being organization/ceremony based, and concept builds that are more about the underlying concept than the (possibly several) PrCs which make it up would probably more mark significant concept milestones than "so I entered another class, yay?"

[Deophaun]

One thing such a rule does (and it's an old rule from previous editions) is to stop people from levelling up in the middle of a dungeon.
And a cannon can be used to kill a fly. Of course, if the point was to just kill the fly, you wouldn't have thought to use a cannon.

[Darth Ultron]

Has someone used this kinda of leveling before and could share some opinion on it?

Often. It prevents the ''sudden leveling'' and adds a bit of role play to the game and gives the players something they ''have'' to use money and resources to do.

Player Characters can easily get piles of money and valuables and then, especially in 3.5, just go to the magic shop and buy anything they want. And PC's don't have much ''living costs'' so they won't spend any money except on combat adventure items.

But all players want their PC's to go up a level, and will...amazingly pay the cost. It's one of the few things a PC can be ''forced'' to buy and spend money on.

[Dagroth]

One thing such a rule does (and it's an old rule from previous editions) is to stop people from levelling up in the middle of a dungeon. If you left off last week in room #37 and when you enter room #38 this week the wizard suddenly has two new spells, a new spell level, a new feat, and a new PrC... well, it's silly.

It's actually part of the fluff for most PrCs that you have to find someone to induct/train/what-have-you in to the PrC before you can take levels in it.

Of course, if you really hate the idea, you could always play a Warmage. By RAW, they get all their training before level 1.

[ArgentumRegio]

This is just old school and there is nothing wrong with it. AD&D (1e to you youngsters) was like that, it became an optional rule later but it is still there. :D

DMs have to implement money sinks else you all get too rich. It works.

[Crake]

This is just old school and there is nothing wrong with it. AD&D (1e to you youngsters) was like that, it became an optional rule later but it is still there. :D

DMs have to implement money sinks else you all get too rich. It works.

Unlike with an MMO, a GM is in complete control of the wealth that goes into the player's hands. They would only need to implement money sinks if they gave the players too much wealth, but there are plenty of other, more interesting ways to take care of that. Have the players be stolen from, giving them a fun hook to go in search of their stolen gear, by the time they find it, they've leveled up and are now WBL appropriate, or enemies can sunder their weapons, various monsters destroy armor and weapons as well, oozes, delvers, rust monsters.

An "money sink" is an MMO term where income is unregulated, and can be endlessly farmed, so the economy needs a way for the money to be (pretty much pointlessly) spent to prevent excessive inflation. They don't exist in real life because in real life money doesn't spontaneously get created out of nowhere.

Regarding the topic on hand though, we had a DM try to pull this on us while simultaneously trying to create tension in a practically 1-20 non-stop adventure path. He gave up around level 5 when we all made it completely clear that it was a tedious and worthless part of the game.

[Telok]

It's actually part of the fluff for most PrCs that you have to find someone to induct/train/what-have-you in to the PrC before you can take levels in it.

And people will cry at you about ruining the player's fun for making them find someone to learn the secret handshake from or just ignore it because it's fluff. I mean, I have pretty simple written guidelines that if a player wants a character to enter a mentor/organization PrC in a game I'm running, then you just tell me and we'll make it happen. Yet I still get some whining from people at times.

The rule's not a hardship unless the DM's a jerk. If the DM's a jerk then not having the rule won't make things better.

Edit:
An "money sink" is an MMO term where income is unregulated, and can be endlessly farmed, so the economy needs a way for the money to be (pretty much pointlessly) spent to prevent excessive inflation. They don't exist in real life because...

Own a house.

[Corsair14]

I use it my campaigns only for multi-classing into a class they dont have. Even then its kind of abbreviated. 1 week and 500gp per character level to train into a new class. I dont bother if its a class they already have. I discourage multi-classing so to me this is a good compromise. The other guys can go and do crafting projects.

[Stealth Marmot]

I have played with and without trainers and to be perfectly honest, I never found trainers (especially ones you have to pay which hits your WPL real hard) to add anything to the game. In early levels they might be useful for showing off your characters growth, but after 5th level or so it starts to become increasingly silly to have to track down increasingly high level characters to train with.

What when you're 19th level you have to find the ONLY 20th level fighter in the world?

[Deophaun]

What when you're 19th level you have to find the ONLY 20th level fighter in the world?
Encourage multiclassing. What's easier? Finding a 15th level Druid, or finding a Planar Shepherd 1? Wizard 13, or Incantatrix 1?

[Stealth Marmot]

In my opinion, it would actually be better if players only had trainers for the first 6 or 7 levels. After that, they should be considered "graduated" and high enough to justify self teaching. Training need to have a trainer after all, they might just have to spend time practicing with the proper equipment.