Teaching - GM necessity and Level teachable to

[Hviti]

Here's a suggestion for a possible system as outlined in the previous post. The skill levels are pulled from a discussion in the Skills/Spells/Trades Forum.

For mages
Max skill = 25 - Level---Skill level to teach | Can teach to: Skill level - 5
Level 1: 24 (Master)----17 (Adept)------------------min. 12 max. 19
Level 2: 23 (Master)----18 (Adept)------------------min. 13 max. 18
Level 3: 22 (Master)----19 (Expert)------------------min. 14 max. 17
Level 4: 21 (Expert)----20 (Expert)------------------min. 15 max. 16
Level 5: 20 (Expert)----21 specialist cap hits
Level 6: 19 (Expert)----------no mage can teach
Level 7: 18 (Adept)-----------spells above 4th level
Level 8: 17 (Adept)
Level 9: 16 (Adept)

For specialists, spells out of guilds
Max skill = 20 - Level | Skill level to teach | Can teach out of guild spells to: Skill level - 5
Level 1: 19 (Expert)-------17 (Adept)----------min. 12 max. 14
Level 2: 18 (Adept)--------18 (Adept)----------min. 13 max. 13
Level 3: 17 (Adept)--------21 specialist cap hits
Level 4: 16 (Adept)------------no specialist can teach
Level 5: 15 (Journeyman)-----spells above 2nd level
Level 6: 14 (Journeyman)
Level 7: 13 (Journeyman)
Level 8: 12 (Apprentice)
Level 9: 11 (Apprentice)

For specialists, spells in guild
Max skill = 25 -GM | Skill level to teach | Can teach to: Skill level - 5
Level 1: 19 (Expert)-------17 (Adept)-------min. 12 max. 20
Level 2: 18 (Adept)--------18 (Adept)-------min. 13 max. 20
Level 3: 17 (Adept)--------19 (Expert)------min. 14 max. 20
Level 4: 16 (Adept)--------20 (Expert)------min. 15 max. 20
Level 5: 15 (Journeyman)-21 (Expert)------min. 16 max. 20
Level 6: 14 (Journeyman)-22 (Master)------min. 17 max. 20
Level 7: 13 (Journeyman)-23 (Master)------min. 18 max. 20
Level 8: 12 (Apprentice)---24 (Master)------min. 19 max. 20
Level 9: 11 (Apprentice)---25 (GM)----------min. 20 max. 20
It can be seen that in this system, mages would be able to teach at least two or three levels of lower level spells that specialists couldn't because their non specialist caps are much higher. Therefore, I'd support Dalvyn's idea of increasing the specialist caps:

Those seem actually quite low ... I would think it might be better to use 25 - Level (just like mages): after all, specialists already get penalized by being totally unable (= skill level restricted to 0) to learn spells from their opposed schools.

I would also support setting a cap on how high specialists can train higher level spells, since otherwise they could train every specialist spell to expert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this were so, then the mage training abilities would still look like:
For mages (all spells)
Max skill = 25 - Level---Skill level to teach | Can teach to: Skill level - 5
Level 1: 24 (Master)----17 (Adept)------------------min. 12 max. 19
Level 2: 23 (Master)----18 (Adept)------------------min. 13 max. 18
Level 3: 22 (Master)----19 (Expert)------------------min. 14 max. 17
Level 4: 21 (Expert)----20 (Expert)------------------min. 15 max. 16
Level 5: 20 (Expert)----21 specialist cap hits
Level 6: 19 (Expert)----------no mage can teach
Level 7: 18 (Adept)-----------spells above 4th level
Level 8: 17 (Adept)
Level 9: 16 (Adept)

Specialist training abilities would look like:

For specialists, spells out of guilds
Max skill = 25 - Level---Skill level to teach | Can teach to: Skill level - 5
Level 1: 24 (Master)----17 (Adept)------------------min. 12 max. 19
Level 2: 23 (Master)----18 (Adept)------------------min. 13 max. 18
Level 3: 22 (Master)----19 (Expert)------------------min. 14 max. 17
Level 4: 21 (Expert)----20 (Expert)------------------min. 15 max. 16
Level 5: 20 (Expert)----21 specialist cap hits
Level 6: 19 (Expert)----------no specialist can teach
Level 7: 18 (Adept)-----------non guild spells above 4th level
Level 8: 17 (Adept)
Level 9: 16 (Adept)

For specialists, spells in guild
Max skill = 25 -GM | Skill level to teach | Can teach to: (capped for balance)
Level 1: 19 (Expert)-------17 (Adept)--------min. 12 max. 20
Level 2: 18 (Adept)--------18 (Adept)--------min. 13 max. 19
Level 3: 17 (Adept)--------19 (Expert)-------min. 14 max. 18
Level 4: 16 (Adept)--------20 (Expert)-------min. 15 max. 17
Level 5: 15 (Journeyman)-21 (Expert)-------min. 16 max. 16
Level 6: 14 (Journeyman)-22 (Master)-------min. 17 max.14
Level 7: 13 (Journeyman)-23 (Master)-------min. 18 max. 12
Level 8: 12 (Apprentice)---24 (Master)-------min. 19 max. 10
Level 9: 11 (Apprentice)---25 (GM)-----------min. 20 max. 8

Thus, a specialist can teach his guild spells earlier than nonguild spells and (potentially) to a higher level. He can teach his specialist spells at all levels, though for the higher level spells he needs to expend significantly more effort to do so (as befits higher level spells which should be rarer). Mages can teach all spells from levels 1-4 regardless of guild, but are unable to teach above level 4 because they do not have the specialists' knack for those spells.

[Aegir]

I don't care for the idea of adding that much complexity to the system. It makes sense that a specialist would be able to train his specialty better then other spells, but adding that much complexity to the system simply because someone can take a spell they learn one step in and run with it, is overkill.

Logging for patterns isn't just to see if people train a certain PC more than one step, its to see if that PC shows a consistent pattern of training people he shouldn't train. If this hypothetical Mystran trains the Cyricist once... sure, he can run with that one step, but the trainer isn't necessarily at fault.

But, if the next day he trains a Talosian in the same manner, or if he trains the same Cyricist one step in another spell... thats a pattern. Making the system simple and having it log trainings is more than enough to accomplish what the system should: adding complexity only adds more places where things can bug and break.

[Hviti]

I don't care for the idea of adding that much complexity to the system. It makes sense that a specialist would be able to train his specialty better then other spells, but adding that much complexity to the system simply because someone can take a spell they learn one step in and run with it, is overkill.

Logging for patterns isn't just to see if people train a certain PC more than one step, its to see if that PC shows a consistent pattern of training people he shouldn't train. If this hypothetical Mystran trains the Cyricist once... sure, he can run with that one step, but the trainer isn't necessarily at fault.

It is based around a few premises:
1. Everyone should be able to teach spells below a certain level.
2. Higher level spells should be harder to teach and be only teachable to a lower level.
3. Specialists should be able to teach all their guild spells and to a higher level than non specialists.
4. Specialists or quest-given scrolls should be the only way to learn specialist spells above a certain level

Any system will have to have tables like that, giving numbers which each spell can be trained to - imo it really isn't very complex.

But, if the next day he trains a Talosian in the same manner, or if he trains the same Cyricist one step in another spell... thats a pattern. Making the system simple and having it log trainings is more than enough to accomplish what the system should: adding complexity only adds more places where things can bug and break.

Making things too simple (e.g. everyone can teach all spells to 20) doesn't satisfy a variety of parameters such as specialists and spell levels - imo anything dealing with as many variables as teaching does has to have some degree of complexity.

What kind of teaching system would you prefer?

----------
The Mystran teaching a Cyricist (or Tempite teaching a Sunite, etc.) is another matter, one to which I do not see a good solution because it is heavily favored toward the Cyricist/Sunite. Favor loss after 1 teach of the spell/skill doesn't prevent their gains, because ff they by "trickery" or whatever IC justification gain 1 train of the spell, the other PC may know what's going on - but 1 train of a spell is still = to the possibility of training the spell as high as desired. If a Cyricist teaches a Mystran Undeath to Death and is smote by Cyric, the Mystran still has Undeath to Death and can train it as far as he/she wants.

My proposed system is a completely separate topic. In fact, it doesn't solve the above problem. It is intended to provide an alternative to the current system, where:
a) no mage can teach
b) specialists can only teach GMed spells
c) GMed spells can only be taught to novice (at best)

[Dalvyn]

Isn't it sufficient to base the restriction on how high you can teach a spell on how well you know it?

Specialists already are the only ones who can GM their spells. Non-specialists will therefore be limited in skill level for those spells, and thus, naturally be limited in their teaching.

What I mean is... if we use the restrictions presented in this graphics for example (which was actually part of one of the suggested systems), where the colored lines indicate the max level you can teach your apprentices (the master's skill level is on the horizontal axis)



then, non-specialists will automatically be limited in how high they can teach specialists' spells, by the fact that they can't GM them (or, in some case master them, or even become experts).

(Btw, the green, red, and blue lines were respectively for characters without the teacher feat, charaters with one teacher feat, and character with two ranks in the teacher feat; and the idea was that the second rank in the teacher feat could only be obtained with an application accepted by the imms, who would require you to actually rp being a master with apprentices).

[Selveem]

How about this:

Teaching is granted a lag - just like mining and the like. During that lag, the one being teached has gained nothing - if they disconnected during this teaching, they fail to learn. If they idle out - same because they're no longer in the room to learn it. The actual acquisition of the spell/skill/trade/whatever does not take place until the full length of the teaching session has been completed. During that time, an Imm would get a warning message about what is occuring with the ability to interact and stop the teaching. After the teaching is done, a log is generated of who taught who what spell.

Before the teaching is finished, if a Mystran is teaching a Cyricist a spell, they may automatically lose favor. This loss of favor can be responded to ICly and the teacher can 'stop' (just like to stop casting a spell) and cancel the recipient's gain of the spell/skill/trade/etc.

[Tobias]

I was curious but is there anyone way give parrots from pirate isles common so one could rp them mimicing phrases like.. Polly wants a cracker! squawk! You poo poo head! etc.. these are only random things I have heard from parrots..not to mention the bad ones!

[Glim]

Erm, Tobias, that probably goes in a seperate thread. I suppose unless you want to be able to teach your parrot common...

Sorry, it just seemed very out of place.

[Aegir]

What I mean is... if we use the restrictions presented in this graphics for example (which was actually part of one of the suggested systems), where the colored lines indicate the max level you can teach your apprentices (the master's skill level is on the horizontal axis)

That scale looks like it'd work fine. If you wanted to add a level for specialists, just have it that a specialist functions as one "step" higher when teaching his specialty. So, an Illusionist with the first Teacher feat could train illusion spells as if he had the second teacher feat.

Add the ability to train feats to the Lv 2 of teacher, and we're golden. Really no need to more complexity then that.

[Leohand]

Loving Dalvyn's graphic, hehe. One of my characters wants to be a teacher, you know, and anyway, there is the small matter of what is to be done with the teacher feats. I like the idea of reducing the experience used to teach. And I'll add to my faith teacher feat idea.

So as I said, that would be a feat automatically given to inner circle and faith managers, adding to the teacher bonuses to reduce the required experience. Also, Guilded wizards could gain a free feat, like Specialty trainer, so that they get a reduced experience requirement when teaching spells of their specialty school. This feat would be given at the IMs disgression, and available by no other means. Like a reward for good wizard role-play.

[Kregor]

The only problem is that once that Mystran teaches the Cyricist once, the Cyricist knows the spell and can train it up to GM if so desired. Even if they're warned by a favor dock, it's too late - the spell/skill has already been given up.

No more so, however, than if said opposing faith teacher scribed a scroll and handed it over, which can already be done with no loss in favor or consequence whatsoever unless you're caught.

The point of the log would be to prevent repeat offense, as well as, not just getting the one tick that you could spend eternity practicing to GM, It would be to keep it from being a situation of

teach
teach
teach
teach
teach
teach
teach
teach

And instant apprentice or higher given to someone you really shouldn't. There's other ways to get one tick, if all you want is one tick. Even the current teaching system with a GM teacher could give you that.

[Leohand]

I don't want to rush it or anything, but is there any timeline for when the new teach system is input? One of my characters longs to be a teacher, and to learn to scribe and brew, lol

[Hviti]

No more so, however, than if said opposing faith teacher scribed a scroll and handed it over, which can already be done with no loss in favor or consequence whatsoever unless you're caught.
...
And instant apprentice or higher given to someone you really shouldn't. There's other ways to get one tick, if all you want is one tick. Even the current teaching system with a GM teacher could give you that.

I agree; it's a problem now, so I would like to see a way to counteract that possibility incorporated into the new teaching system.

I think Selveem's idea would be a good way to solve it - make "teach" a command that doesn't go into effect instantly. It makes more sense that way, too; when a PC teaches another PC, they should be showing them how to build a fire/cast a spell over time, not as a one-off shot.

Re Dalvyn: my main question is whether there would be spells that only specialists can teach. If not, then as far as teaching goes it would seem slightly pointless to be a specialist, since a mage could teach all spells (albiet to a somewhat lower level). If so, I'd definitely agree with that.

[Aegir]

Re Dalvyn: my main question is whether there would be spells that only specialists can teach. If not, then as far as teaching goes it would seem slightly pointless to be a specialist, since a mage could teach all spells (albiet to a somewhat lower level). If so, I'd definitely agree with that.

You mean, except for the fact that every specialist has opposed schools they can't even cast, let alone teach? I'd like to see specialists get a bump in their selected field, but its a small, piddling thing compared to wanting to see this system come in at all.

[Glim]

I think the teaching systems proposed above is fine. Being a specialist isn't pointless. You can get many more spells to higher skill levels than mages, you get 9 more spell slots than mages do (as I have said before, that's better than any item), and also you can teach to a higher level than mages.

Since spells have a cap with them, any mages spells will be taught at a very low level. And as I know and I am sure many others do, having a spell at inept is almost as bad as not knowing it.

Specialists on the other hand, will be able to teach their specialized school spells and teach them much higher. Though I do think that the specialists caps for out of school spells should be as high or higher than mage's caps.

Edited: to remove some content that was completely wrong and add a bit of stuff.

[Leohand]

We could also get out the old epic handbook and add some level 10 spells for priests and for specialists wizards, and say that mages get all spells level 9 and lower, but not the level tens. It's a thought.

[Lathander]

If imms could completely erase a spell/skill that was learned, that might work. That way, if we discover an abuser, we can remove what they learned. As it stands, we can only set it to zero.

Of course, we can always force the player to completely recreate and start all spells from scractch, thereby erasing the new one. Harsh, but it would be a good deterrant.

[Leohand]

Lathander has a good point there. If a player teaches, even the basics of a spell, to someone they don't want to have it, they can just erase the spell from the person that had learned it. Though, erasing all their spells would be harsh. After all, pretending to be good is a very big part of some evil roleplays

[Hviti]

I think the teaching systems proposed above is fine. Being a specialist isn't pointless. You can get many more spells to higher skill levels than mages, you get 9 more spell slots than mages do (as I have said before, that's better than any item), and also you can teach to a higher level than mages.

Specialists on the other hand, will be able to teach their specialized school spells and teach them much higher.

Specialists can teach their guild spells (1 or 2 per level, generally) higher, if they train them a a great deal. In a potential future system based on max. spell level, all nonguild spells could potentially be taught to higher levels by a mage since mages have higher overall caps. There are a lot more nonguild spells than guild spells, so imo mages get the better deal since they can teach far more spells than the specialist, with only one or two at each level that they can't teach to quite as high a level.

Since spells have a cap with them, any mages spells will be taught at a very low level. And as I know and I am sure many others do, having a spell at inept is almost as bad as not knowing it.

In a new system in which GM were not a necessity to teach, mages would be able to teach quite a few spells from master or expert - this would allow them to teach more spells to higher levels than their specialist counterparts. Having a spell at inept ultimately gives the possibility of training it, so it's far better than not having the spell at all. Otherwise, scrolls wouldn't work for quest rewards and exchange of spells in the current system would be pretty much impossible. Wizards in particular are supposed to have high intelligence (partly to balance having so many more spells to practice), so starting a spell at inept is slightly less of a chore for them - though it is still generally a long process.

Though I do think that the specialists caps for out of school spells should be as high or higher than mage's caps.

Increasing the specialist caps would remove some of this disparity.

[Glim]

Having a spell at inept ultimately gives the possibility of training it, so it's far better than not having the spell at all. Otherwise, scrolls wouldn't work for quest rewards and exchange of spells in the current system would be pretty much impossible.

For certain spells, yes, like travel spells or some such that don't need a high skill level to be effective. But the possibility of training needs to be weighed with the difficulty of training. Spells at inept have lower duration, much lower damage, and are (I think. Someone elses verification one this would be helpful) easier to resist. Training an attack spell when even a low level mob will kill you before you can cast the 30 odd spells to kill it, is difficult. Also, some spells take more castings than others (many more, in my experience).

I remember trying to train fireball and lightning bolt from inept on my drow. It was painful.

Of course, some spells are easy to train from inept and up. Some aren't.
In either case, it's still looong.

I agree that at least there is the possibility there, but it isn't much of an advantage in either case, nor should it be. If a wizard want's to really learn a spell, they should seek out a specialist in it. It would lead to better roleplay.

[Leohand]

just pointing out that some spells that are easy to train up from inept use a lot more components. For Bless Water, as an example, at apprentice I used one sprinkling of silver for about every four I blessed. Now that I am adept at it the last time I enchanted a batch of 71, it only required 5 silver sprinklings in total. I can't say it for certain, but I imagine it's probably the same with other spells.