Gloing through the XP development here and I noticed something.

You can train someone in an Ability, and the recipient would receive the Master's score in that Ability + 3 in XP, that is the source quality, and the recipient can learn up to their Master's Ability level.

Then you can teach someone or a few students. The Souce Quality becomes the Teacher's Communication + Teaching Ability + 3 + Bonus (+6 for a single student, +3 for 2 students, 0 for more than 2).

That's a decent difference. Now there are certain requisites. A teacher needs to have a 2 in the Ability or a 5 in the Arts taught, and they have to speak a common language. A trainer doesn't. A teacher doesn't need the Teaching Ability though, it just means the source quality is lower (but still higher than training), and he can teach only one student at a time.

When is it considered teaching and when is it considered training? Is it only when the trainer's Ability is a 1? Why would anyone train rather than teach? Even with a low Communication and no teaching ability, you still win out in source quality. Is there a specific time or reason that someone would train rather than the more equitable teaching? Do you train basically when the Master's Abilities or Arts are too low and/or they don't speak the language, or are there other reasons?

I think the difference between the two is simply physical versus mental. I believe this is the case for a few reasons.

First, a trainer needs to have at least a 2 in the trained Ability, but does not need a common language with the trainee. Only physical skills can really be taught by repetition and mimicking the master without him giving an explanation. Second, the description of training uses the terms "master" and "apprentice," which in a traditional sense was used for craft-type professions. Third, the book states, "the master may work at earning a living while training an apprentice." One can’t really earn a living doing most “intellectual” skills in a medieval setting.

First, teaching also requires at least a 2 in the taught Ability, but the teacher and student must share a common language, which implies the teacher is lecturing the student during the instruction. Second, a teacher may teach multiple students. Lecturing lends itself to teaching multiple people mental Abilities rather than physical ones, which require more hands-on instruction. Third, the teacher gets to add his Communication skill to the Source Quality, which also implies lecturing is taking place. You can lecture someone all day about how to swing a sword or blow glass, but until they actually practice it, they won't ever be any good at it.

Edited 1/24/2005 11:49 pm ET by JackdeMolay

Typical example of training magic theory:

A magus wants construct a new lab, and has his apprentice help him do so. He explains why the different things need to be placed where they are, and so trains his apprentice...

I was thinking of the physical/mental aspect as well. However, the book says any Abilities can be taught or trained, they even give in the example that someone can be trained in a Language, basically forced exposure. And I think martial skills can be taught. Certainly in the military there will often be one trainer to several students, and certainly there will be (if it's a good trainer) a methodology or curriculum for such military style training.

I think then the main difference is the level of skill and whether or not there's a common language, plus of course the number of students.

<<Typical example of training magic theory: A magus wants construct a new lab, and has his apprentice help him do so. He explains why the different things need to be placed where they are, and so trains his apprentice...>>

The problem with your example is that the Magus and apprentice would have to share a common language for the apprentice to get anything out of the experience. Training does not require that a common language be shared between master and apprentice, only teaching does.

The apprentice who didn't know Latin might be able to get some exposure to magic theory, but I don't think he could be trained in it.

(snip)
> they even give in the example that someone can be trained in a
> Language, basically forced exposure.
Actually, that comes under Practice rules.

>And I think martial skills can be taught. Certainly in the military
>there will often be one trainer to several students, and certainly
>there will be (if it's a good trainer) a methodology or curriculum
>for such military style training.

>I think then the main difference is the level of skill and whether
>or not there's a common language, plus of course the number of
>students

I would say that the main purpose of Training is to allow craftsmen to train apprentices without having to close down the shop.

The difference between Teaching and Training is not very clear from the text, I know.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't allow Training for any abilities that in 4th edition came under Knowledges/Talents.

Also, I agree there should be a rule allowing more than one person to be trained at the same time, with accompanying drawbacks for greater number of trainees.

Jurica