D&D 3E/3.5 Danger Shy Students, Researchers, Inventors, and etc. Would DnD 3.5 support them or their Profession?

[a-d]

Question​
Does a person in DnD generally only gain levels through life and death combat? Can they not gain ranks in skills or abilities by studying in a library, doing research, or sparring against others on a training field?

If this is the case, then I'm curious if DnD's classes have any abilities which could be used for out of combat self-improvement. If it does...not sure how to put this...

Ah! I got it now. If I was to make a story of a solo wandering...student? researcher? inventor? etc? who rarely found themselves, or actively avoided dangerous situations, could DnD 3.5 support it? And would they be any good at their intended purpose?

Gaining Experience could probably be handled simply by giving them some whenever they've done enough studying or spent time on the practice field, but would any abilities gained from leveling make them better at their jobs?
Are there any classes which would be useful for a character who spends most of their time studying books or the combat techniques of others?

 

[Savage Wombat]

Half the people on this board think you should give players a level whenever the DM "feels it's appropriate".

D&D is built on overcoming obstacles and completing stories, so study XP doesn't come into it. Now if your scholar heroically solves dilemmas using his brain, he'd get XP that way.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Experts d20 has explicit guidelines on this.

I would say that doing just about anything merits some slow advancement over time.

Are there any classes which would be useful for a character who spends most of their time studying books or the combat techniques of others?

Well, there's bard, bardic sage especially, and then there's loremaster. As far as published stuff, it's not as well-supported of a niche as it probably should be. I know I'm not the only one to have homebrewed in that direction though.

 

[Umbran]

Question​
Does a person in DnD generally only gain levels through life and death combat? Can they not gain ranks in skills or abilities by studying in a library, doing research, or sparring against others on a training field?

In general, in D&D you get XP for overcoming challenges. The more difficult the challenge, the more risk involved, the more XP you gain. You don't have to overcome the challenge by combat - if you can trick the ogre into leaving its guard post rather than fight it, you can still get the XP.

I would say that normal practice sparring isn't really much in the way of a challenge, as compared to the risky adventuring stuff. However, going to the King's Tournament to joust against the best knights in the land, even though non-lethal, may be a way to get XP. Reading books in and of itself won't gain you hit dice, but doing some research as one step in solving a riddle that will open the puzzle box the Mage's Guild figures contains a minor artifact before your rival does (basically, beating the other guy in a protracted skill challenge) might get yo some XP. You won't gain new spell slots for having tea and a chat with the Duke, but you will for charming, cajoling, and bribing your way through a complex political situation at the Duke's Court to avert an assassination.

Basically, to gain XP, you have to engage with the world, not just practice to do so.

 

[Sunseeker]

Half the people on this board think you should give players a level whenever the DM "feels it's appropriate".

Yes, because in 3.5, your second assertion doesn't happen. 3.5 does not award XP for "skill checks" and "solving problems". 4e was the edition that developed the "encounter" based experience wherein you gain XP for overcoming a particular challenge, be it combat or non-combat or both.

D&D is built on overcoming obstacles and completing stories, so study XP doesn't come into it. Now if your scholar heroically solves dilemmas using his brain, he'd get XP that way.

Not in 3.5.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, because in 3.5, your second assertion doesn't happen. 3.5 does not award XP for "skill checks" and "solving problems".

You're half-right there.

4e was the edition that developed the "encounter" based experience wherein you gain XP for overcoming a particular challenge, be it combat or non-combat or both.

I'm sorry, but now you're just incorrect. Perhaps it has been a while since you went over how XP was awarded in 3e?

3e DMG, page 100, begins the section on "Encounters"

"As interesting as it is to talk about adventures (and the stories behind them) the game is really composed of encounters." It then goes on to discuss encounters challenge ratings - remember that 3e doesn't give flat XP per monster, but gives a varying amount depending on the composite challenge rating of the encounter compared to the character's level...

On Page 103, they go into "Rewards and Behavior", where they suggest encounters of different types: Combat, Negotiation, Environmental, Problem-Solving, Judgement Calls, and Investigation.

On Page 165, begins the full Chapter Seven, on Rewards -

"In order to give PCs experience points, you need to break the game down into encounters..."

And a bit later on the very first page of the chapter they discuss how sneaking over a sleeping minotaur, rather than fighting it, can still get them the XP for the encounter.

Page 168 addresses giving Challenge Ratings for Noncombat Encounters.

While ultimately what earned XP was up to the GM, encounters were central to XP in 3e, and the idea of giving XP for them even if there was no fighting solidly existed in 3e.

 

[Ragmon]

Its been mentioned here but let me repeat. The DM gives XP as he pleases for what ever he thinks merits XP.

Study character: That is what you have skills for.

Combat characters: Those who only spar and train should have limited XP gain since most of the real life combat happens outside of a training hall.


Now my personal opinion on your situation: D&D can be anything, your only limit is your imagination, so do what ever when ever, the rules are only guidelines to help you create you own play style.

 

[MichaelSomething]

While you can gain exp through non combat encounters, people generally operate on the assumption that combat is the only way to gain exp. I don't think the DMG emphasizes it enough and adventures don't give enough examples of non combat exp.

Once you understand you can give exp for non combat stuff, it shouldn't be too hard to develop CRs for those things that suit your personal style.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I recall an old 3.0 article involving a "gladiator circuit" where PCs fought one on one battles. They got fractional XP because the battles weren't "real".

I think you can train to get XP, it just gives less XP than actually doing it.

You can get XP for non-combat solutions. It's been that way since 1e, and even though you don't get XP for treasure anymore, you should still get XP for solving the problem (eg beating or tricking the monsters and then getting your hands on the loot).

I'd be leery of a danger shy student PC though. You don't have to be a "combat first and only" sort of PC, but a PC who can't fight or is too terrified to fight doesn't belong in a standard D&D campaign. Indiana Jones was a smart guy who rarely used "full round attack with a whip" to solve problems... but if the excrement hit the cooling device, he could certainly do it.

 

[delericho]

Question​
Does a person in DnD generally only gain levels through life and death combat?

Mostly but not exclusively. Per the letter of the 3.5e rules, XP is awarded for defeating 'challenges', which may or may not mean combat. See the DMG for guidelines on non-combat awards.

Ah! I got it now. If I was to make a story of a solo wandering...student? researcher? inventor? etc? who rarely found themselves, or actively avoided dangerous situations, could DnD 3.5 support it? And would they be any good at their intended purpose?

Yes, it can do it, but it's really not a great fit of character to system. "Killing things and taking their stuff" is not the entirety of D&D, but it's also not a bad shorthand - a huge chunk of the rules is dedicated to that topic. So, a character who activeky avoids such things isn't excluded as such, but he's not particularly well supported either.