About level grinding and finding stronger opponents

[Samael Morgenst]

BESIDE being frowned upon due repetition and lack of roleplay, level grinding is inherently limited by the difficulty of finding CR appropriate challenges.

Now, assuming rules for non lethal fighting are incorporated (from Complete Warriors).

What forbids a group of likeminded individuals to gather together and fight each other non lethally in an environment of friendly competition, slowly leveling up together?

[Crake]

BESIDE being frowned upon due repetition and lack of roleplay, level grinding is inherently limited by the difficulty of finding CR appropriate challenges.

Now, assuming rules for non lethal fighting are incorporated (from Complete Warriors).

What forbids a group of likeminded individuals to gather together and fight each other non lethally in an environment of friendly competition, slowly leveling up together?

A lot of this ground was covered in the previous thread on this matter, and probably could have just been discussed over there, as its basically the same topic, but to reiterate: xp is granted for overcoming challenges. A regular sparring session isnt a challenge, its an exercise routine.

[Samael Morgenst]

The concept I wanted to discuss was specifically "improving along with the sparring partners". About the thing on challenges, I refer to the Complete Warrior rules about non lethal fights.

[Inevitability]

It seems relevant that the CWar rules end with:

If your D&D game relies heavily on nonlethal sporting events, you might want to develop your own rules for advancing in level. In most campaigns, characters shouldn't be able to attain levels simply by winning archery contests at the viscounts estate.

Aka, this exact thing is what you're not supposed to be doing here.


But sure, let's go with the premise for a second. Bob and Bill the level 1 clerics find some blackjacks and start nonlethally beating the snot out of each other, then heal up and do it again the next day. The first day, Bob wins and gets 300 XP, the next day Bill wins and gets 300 XP, and within slightly more than a week they're both level 2. This pace holds, and it takes about four months for both of them to hit level 20.

Do you want to play in a setting where things work that way? Do the people at your table? Then go for it! But know that if things work that way, the world's history can't possibly look like a normal D&D world's history; it's nonsensical for thousands of years to pass without someone figuring out that nonlethal sparring makes you incredibly powerful real quick. Or you can declare that things work that way but only for special individuals (the PCs), but at that point you might as well cut out the middle man and start a campaign where you and your friends are level 20 in an E6 world.

That said, this post feels like a deliberate misunderstanding of the rules and what they're for. If the PCs participate in a gladiatorial match and the DM decides to give them XP for that, it's meant to be an abstraction for the opaque and ill-understood process of characters increasing in skill (because everyone wants to play a game where characters get stronger over time, but not everyone has the exact same ideas about what that means). That doesn't mean that such a match is now 'supposed' to grant XP, and that replicating it over and over will keep giving the same reward. The rules have XP and CR systems to give the DM and PCs a somewhat non-arbitrary measure of advancement, but the rules are a lens for interpreting a story: they are not real, they do not exist in the game world the way that dragons do or that gravity does. If everyone at the table wants to tell a story where the PCs go through a gladiatorial match and come out stronger, but don't want to tell a story where that same match is endlessly repeated to achieve ultimate power, then just stop taking the XP system so literally.

[Samael Morgenst]

My greatest problem is that no one ever designed a canon, official system to define advancement through training.
Because dojos , monasteries and academies do exist, indeed.

Or the level discrepancies. In Sword and Fist a tipical monastery sensei is level 6, in the Book of Vile Darkness a boorish thug defined as "lazy and primitive" is level 6 too. They should have followed some kind of common thread.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

My greatest problem is that no one ever designed a canon, official system to define advancement through training.
Because dojos , monasteries and academies do exist, indeed.

They did, it's called character creation.

The game of d&d is often played as being about going from a starting adventurer of any age and background to a really powerful über adventurer within a few short-ish adventures. That fantasy only works in a weird world where you can be a blacksmith, forest guardian or even soldier for 20 years without becoming very powerful while being an adventurer for a very short time does make you very powerful. So no XP for being a blacksmith, forest guardian or soldier. Training at a monastery for most of your adult life makes you a level 1 monk or cleric. Unless you're already a level 14 monk and the next adventure starts at level 16, then focusing on your training for a year gives 2 extra levels.

(Of course, this is a gamist view of things, I understand it's unsatisfactory from a simulationist point of view.)

[Inevitability]

Or the level discrepancies. In Sword and Fist a tipical monastery sensei is level 6, in the Book of Vile Darkness a boorish thug defined as "lazy and primitive" is level 6 too. They should have followed some kind of common thread.

So to clarify: the BoVD thing you take issue with is one specific thug on page 15, right? Like yeah, it's weird to describe that guy as "not even particularly skilled at fighting" when he clearly is, but also, is it really that big of a deal? A monastery sensei living a sheltered and safe life can be level 6, a lazy thug with lots of experience bashing heads can also be level 6, that's exactly what you'd expect given how D&D handles levels.

Sure, there's a tiny bit of tension there, maybe, if you squint, but having that contradiction in the game is miles better than having a table somewhere that explicitly says "Monastery sensei are always at least level 11, boorish thugs are level 5 or lower, or level 3 if they are lazy". That sounds awful! There are already tons of rougher, foggier guidelines (Eberron for one makes pretty clear how common certain levels of NPCs are), which are plenty to help a DM along: trying to actually codify level maximums or minimums for given social roles is needlessly restrictive.

[NichG]

Alright, here you go: 8 hours of practicing a career associated with your classes gets you 1xp. Specifically focusing on training and testing your limits multiplies that by 8 (adventuring generally counts). Personal instruction by someone of a higher level in appropriately related classes (ignoring energy drain, etc) doubles it again for a maximum total possible 2xp an hour. A character can benefit from at most the best 8 hours each day of such experiences they have. A day without at least 2 hours of practice of your abilities leads to forgetting 1xp per two character levels, which can't de-level you or take you below the minimum for your current level.

Lifespans above 100 years halve both gains and losses. Lifespans above 400 years halve them again.

Moments of unique insight might grant bonus XP, but it's case by case and inherently unrepeatable and unreliable. Someone getting to read a Nether Scroll, inventing their first new spell, witnessing a deity spar, etc might get breakthrough XP the first time, but not when repeating it. These gains are unaffected by lifespan multipliers.

A 50 year old soldier who has had daily sparring with equals since they were 10 will have 40*7*8*52 xp ~= 116000 xp, which puts them at Lv15. If they were consistently trained by someone higher level than them, they can hit 20. Someone who just works as a soldier but doesn't particularly push themselves will end up at level 5 or so this way, and stagnate there forever if they take two days off each week.

[Samael Morgenst]

So to clarify: the BoVD thing you take issue with is one specific thug on page 15, right?

Yeah, that one. Trendan Resh.

(Eberron for one makes pretty clear how common certain levels of NPCs are)

I kinda like that concept... where can I find it?

[Unoriginal]

BESIDE being frowned upon due repetition and lack of roleplay, level grinding is inherently limited by the difficulty of finding CR appropriate challenges.

Now, assuming rules for non lethal fighting are incorporated (from Complete Warriors).

What forbids a group of likeminded individuals to gather together and fight each other non lethally in an environment of friendly competition, slowly leveling up together?

You earn XPs at the rate your DM tells you you do. That's the long and short of it.

You can't earn XPs by grinding unless the DM says so. You can't earn XPs by sparring unless the DM says so. And you find as many challenges able to get you XPs as the DM decides.

As for the "Dojo's sensei and lazy inept thug are both level 6" issue, you have to remember that the books were written months to years appart, by different people, with literally zero effort being put in coordinating the different teams or making sure the content of different books matched or worked together.

Also the 3.X books' writers generally didn't go the extra mile when building NPCs.

[Lord Torath]

My greatest problem is that no one ever designed a canon, official system to define advancement through training.

May I refer you to 1E AD&D? In that system, after gaining enough xp for your next level, you then had to find a trainer and spend several weeks to several months training before you actually gained the benefits of your new level. You had to train to advance. Advancement through training as requested.

The main problem I have with your idea is that training is boring. I did not sign up for D&D to play hours and hours of practicing my kicking and punching forms, planking, and running twelve miles a day. I signed up to fight princesses and rescue dragons. Grand adventure, not endless repetition. But that's me.

What role do you see these training academies playing in your game? Do you want to be able to have your PC check in to the academy, pay your tuition, then check out 9 months later with 3 levels of Your Favorite Class under your belt? Do you want to roleplay out your daily interactions with the teachers and other students? Do you want to gain a particular feat or two from the training? Something else?

[rel]

BESIDE being frowned upon due repetition and lack of roleplay, level grinding is inherently limited by the difficulty of finding CR appropriate challenges.

Now, assuming rules for non lethal fighting are incorporated (from Complete Warriors).

What forbids a group of likeminded individuals to gather together and fight each other non lethally in an environment of friendly competition, slowly leveling up together?

Nothing?

D&D isn't competitive sport. If you and your gaming group want to make a campaign based around that idea, no one is going to send the gaming police to your house to force you to use the Wizards approved XP calculator.

I'm not clear on why this is a thread?

[Biggus]

Alright, here you go: 8 hours of practicing a career associated with your classes gets you 1xp. Specifically focusing on training and testing your limits multiplies that by 8 (adventuring generally counts). Personal instruction by someone of a higher level in appropriately related classes (ignoring energy drain, etc) doubles it again for a maximum total possible 2xp an hour. A character can benefit from at most the best 8 hours each day of such experiences they have. A day without at least 2 hours of practice of your abilities leads to forgetting 1xp per two character levels, which can't de-level you or take you below the minimum for your current level.

Lifespans above 100 years halve both gains and losses. Lifespans above 400 years halve them again.

Moments of unique insight might grant bonus XP, but it's case by case and inherently unrepeatable and unreliable. Someone getting to read a Nether Scroll, inventing their first new spell, witnessing a deity spar, etc might get breakthrough XP the first time, but not when repeating it. These gains are unaffected by lifespan multipliers.

A 50 year old soldier who has had daily sparring with equals since they were 10 will have 40*7*8*52 xp ~= 116000 xp, which puts them at Lv15. If they were consistently trained by someone higher level than them, they can hit 20. Someone who just works as a soldier but doesn't particularly push themselves will end up at level 5 or so this way, and stagnate there forever if they take two days off each week.

This is more or less how I think of it: things like sparring and training can get you some XP, but it's much, much slower than life-or-death combat. It says in the DMG (p107) that most commoners never get past 2nd or 3rd level in their life. Also in the DMG (p40) it talks about XP for non-combat encounters, such as difficult negotations or attaining personal goals:

A roleplaying encounter should only be considered a challenge at all if there’s some risk involved and success or failure really matters

Remember: A goal that’s easy to accomplish is worth little or no award.

Based on this, I think it's fairly clear that doing things which are difficult - overcoming challenges - does get you XP even if it's not literally life-or-death. A monk who trains hard their whole life should reach a significantly higher level than somebody who just takes it easy, although personally I don't see them getting close to level 20 without ever testing their skills in the field.

[icefractal]

Sure, there's a tiny bit of tension there, maybe, if you squint, but having that contradiction in the game is miles better than having a table somewhere that explicitly says "Monastery sensei are always at least level 11, boorish thugs are level 5 or lower, or level 3 if they are lazy". That sounds awful!

I don't think I agree. Not as absolute limits, sure, but I think it's a good thing if levels have some kind of meaning in the world. When you have stuff like: "At 3rd level, you had to fight past 1st level royal guards to defeat the 5th level evil king ... and now at 15th level, you have to fight past 13th level royal guards to defeat the 17th level evil king!" then it makes levels pretty pointless - in which case why are we spending so much paperwork on it? If I wanted to play a system where characters never outgrew certain types of challenge, I'd play Savage Worlds, which is faster and easier (and in fact I do play Savage Worlds, it's a good system - just not for the same campaign premises I'd use D&D for).


Incidentally, the system I sometimes use as a guideline when GMing (albeit it's based on rarity / significance in the world more so than amount of time training) is:
* Common (1st-4th): The significant majority of people in the world fall into this range.
* Uncommon (5th-8th): There's a lot less people in this range, but still enough to be a normal part of society. In RL terms, think of a surgeon - there's not that many, but if you met one you wouldn't be shocked. This is the highest level that you can reliably hire, so if someone who's quite rich but not well connected hires an assassin, they'll probably be 8th level.
* Rare (9th-12th): Rare enough that each individual may well be famous - think sports stars, famous actors, etc. Although not if they're keeping a low profile, obviously. People at this level are often in positions of authority, or if they're working for someone else it's for more than money. Still, there are enough that if you're connected and do some searching, you can probably get in contact with one who has the skills you need.
* Legendary (13th-16th): There aren't many people of this level in the world, and even getting an audience with one is going to be difficult. At this level, the total population is small enough that there's no guarantee an individual with a specific skill-set will even exist. Only the very knowledgeable even know what this level of skill is capable of. For example, few people know that 7th+ level spells are possible, much less exactly what they can do.
* Mythic (17th-20th): So rare that even most sages doubt their existence, and stories of their deeds are often considered impossible. "Wish? Yeah, that's a special power that some genies and a few demons have, it's not a thing you can do with mortal magic. Alkaseltzer the Red? Look, if that guy was even real, which he probably wasn't, then he must have been a god in disguise or something, because like half his stories are way beyond what spells can actually achieve."

[Chronos]

You only get XP for a challenge if there are significant consequences for failure. If you're out in the woods fighting a pack of savage, hungry wolves, the consequence of failure is that you get killed and eaten, so if you beat the wolves, you get XP. If you're in the dojo sparring with your friend, the consequence of failure is just that you get some bruises and need to rest for a day, and are no worse off tomorrow, so you don't get XP.

Significant consequences aren't necessarily just death, but they should be things that are difficult to recover from (not necessarily impossible: even death isn't impossible to recover from). Maybe a major blow to your reputation, or the loss of a lot of money, or getting expelled from your position in some organization. Non-adventurers can sometimes face the risk of those consequences, and so can also earn XP. But most professions don't face the risk of dire consequences nearly as often as adventurers do, and so adventurers usually end up getting much more XP.

[Buufreak]

What role do you see these training academies playing in your game?

I am envisioning the pokemon daycare. Just drop off the party rogue for 6 weeks of irl session time (so possibly years worth of gaming, assuming 3-5 hours a week for session, needing ~1000, this would take at least 200 weeks) then go back and see all the levels they gained, along with terrible build decisions (attributing the daycare deleting oldest moves known to learn new ones by level).

[Prime32]

My greatest problem is that no one ever designed a canon, official system to define advancement through training.
Because dojos , monasteries and academies do exist, indeed.

DMG2 has the Apprenticeship system, where a lv1 character trains with a lv5+ one for at least one day each week, and levels up alongside them until hitting lv5. It requires both parties to take a feat, which has some added benefits depending on the type of apprenticeship.