D&D 5E Professions in 5e

[Umbran]

Sounds like a monumental U-turn in game design

Well, yes. 15 years and two editions after 3e, the design changed. This should not be a surprise.

...compared to actually having a skill system that could handle things players wanted to do, instead of relying on arbitrary DM fiat for everything. I thought D&D had evolved beyond that.

Do note that 5e was designed with the largest public playtesting ever done in role playing games. Thousands (probably tens of thousands, but I don't have a source for the number) of players took part.

Think about that before you declare knowledge of what the players of the game want the skill system to do.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

As for when rolling for a Soldiering profession could make sense. . .

For how well someone could perform drill and ceremony maneuvers. From my own time in the Army, I know some Soldiers could barely do D&C, while others could do sharp, snappy, well timed moves that would look impressive. Or it could be for maneuvering through bureaucracy and paperwork, or knowing how to best address and deal with a superior, or how to maneuver armies on a large scale (do we really expect players to know army-scale strategy?) or recognizing rank insignia and symbols/heraldry of other armies.

Most of those sound like different skills, and not something you could cover with a single one.

May also be worth pointing out that a lot of the societies in D&D worlds have much less formal militaries than the relatively modern army you seem to be thinking of. It was close to the advent of firearms that the model of more feudal nobles bringing their retainers and raising militia mostly ended.

 

[billd91]

As for when rolling for a Soldiering profession could make sense. . .

For how well someone could perform drill and ceremony maneuvers. From my own time in the Army, I know some Soldiers could barely do D&C, while others could do sharp, snappy, well timed moves that would look impressive. Or it could be for maneuvering through bureaucracy and paperwork, or knowing how to best address and deal with a superior, or how to maneuver armies on a large scale (do we really expect players to know army-scale strategy?) or recognizing rank insignia and symbols/heraldry of other armies.

I like the fiddly bits, the fiddly bits are the heart of the game as far as I'm concerned. D&D has always been about fiddly bits to me, from when I started playing in a 2e game that heavily used the Skills and Powers books to other 2e games that used kits, skills & powers, and a boatload of complex house rules and tables, to 3e and 3.5. A simplified D&D to me isn't a return to anything, it's just. . .D&D Minus.

I'm trying to learn this game, I'm trying to keep an open mind, I've bought the core 3 books and I'm trying to read through them, but this entire rules-light mindset is outright alien to me after 22 years of D&D.

It's absolutely nothing like any D&D I've ever seen before, except maybe the one game of Rules Cyclopedia Basic D&D I played circa 1999. . ..because one guy in our gaming group liked it from when he was a kid and we decided to play a one-shot of it to humor him. . .then the rest of us decided it was way too simple for any long-term campaign or serious gaming and we didn't play it anymore. It honestly reminds me of the rush on here a decade ago towards rules-light retroclones. . .which were a niche thing that some people liked but others found too lacking.

Let's go over these points a bit.

Drill and ceremony maneuvers - were you thinking each and every soldier in the formation needed to perform a Profession: Soldier check for the unit to make the move successfully? Does that make sense given the swing of a d20? Or would it be a check by the unit commander barking out the instructions indicating his command and control? If the latter, nothing wrong with a Charisma check in 5e, perhaps even with the proficiency mod added because of the commander's soldier background.
The rest, knowing rank and insignia, is probably best covered by the DM deciding whether or not it's a gimmie or use another check - again, potentially modified by the PC's proficiency modifier if the DM believes their background would indicate they should be better at it than if they had a different background.

Ultimately, it's not really that different from 3e/PF. The Profession skill was pretty loosey-goosey on what it covered. If the task seemed appropriate for the profession, you could roll the profession rather than worry about having a more specific skill. Now, the proficiency modifier can fill the same roll if the DM feels it seems appropriate or the player can make a good case for it.

The important thing to consider about 5e is that if a check seems appropriate, the DM picks the most appropriate stat, if a trained skill applies, add the PC's proficiency modifier. And a PC's background can be a source of other good reasons the proficiency modifier might apply.

 

[wingsandsword]

Again, that's fair. I think if you try 5e as is, and keep in mind that you can allow pcs to use their proficiency bonus whenever you feel it's appropriate, you'll find a degree of 'emergent complexity' that exceeds what you see on paper. But if you don't like its simplified nature, it is- again- pretty easy to tweak to fit your tastes. I've certainly made adjustments to suit my own playstyle preferences (good bye to all the "full recovery of everything on a long rest", for example).

I'm just trying to wrap my mind around a very different mindset of D&D.

So, for example, if it's someone's background, letting them add their proficiency bonus to related tasks/knowledge from their background (that aren't already covered by other skills/proficiencies)?

Maybe letting players learn a profession (equivalent ability to being able to doing the checks with their background) with the same time/training rules for learning a language or a proficiency in a set of tools?

Like with my soldiering example, if it wasn't their background, but if during the campaign if someone spends 250 days in a regular army, let them gain essentially "proficiency" with soldiering and be able to use their proficiency bonus on appropriate checks?

 

[prabe]

I'm just trying to wrap my mind around a very different mindset of D&D.

So, for example, if it's someone's background, letting them add their proficiency bonus to related tasks/knowledge from their background (that aren't already covered by other skills/proficiencies)?

Maybe letting players learn a profession (equivalent ability to being able to doing the checks with their background) with the same time/training rules for learning a language or a proficiency in a set of tools?

Like with my soldiering example, if it wasn't their background, but if during the campaign if someone spends 250 days in a regular army, let them gain essentially "proficiency" with soldiering and be able to use their proficiency bonus on appropriate checks?

That wouldn't be an unreasonable houserule. You could apply it to someone who spent a similar amount of time at the King's Court, to give them a similar proficiency in recognizing nobles (or whatever), as an example of broadening the application.

 

[commandercrud]

Just like with tools, you are free to create your own skills/proficiencies and give those to a PC that "earns" it, however you see fit.

If you tell a player to make a check, and the player makes a case why they should apply proficiency to it, you are free to allow it or not. Just be consistent. See the DMG variant about getting rid of skills altogether.

 

[wingsandsword]

Most of those sound like different skills, and not something you could cover with a single one.

May also be worth pointing out that a lot of the societies in D&D worlds have much less formal militaries than the relatively modern army you seem to be thinking of. It was close to the advent of firearms that the model of more feudal nobles bringing their retainers and raising militia mostly ended.

The 5e skills as-is are very broad and encompass things that would be other skills.

The Investigation skill covers criminology, research, searching, and engineering.

The Athletics skill covers jumping, climbing and swimming.

The Stealth skill covers both hiding and moving silently.

The Arcana skill covers knowing both magic and planes of existence (which in prior editions were completely separate skills)

The Thieves Tools proficiency covers both picking locks and disarming traps.

One thing I have picked up on is that the skills and proficiencies in 5e seem pretty broad and encompassing, not narrow skills. Things that would be 2 or 3 or 4 related skills or NWP's in other editions are folded into one skill or proficiency.

Also, as for standing armies in D&D, historically there have been a lot of formal armies (the Roman legions come to mind, the Ottoman Empire had a standing army with their Jannisaries, France and Hungary had standing armies as far back as the 15th century), within published D&D worlds Eberron certainly has/had a lot of formal armies, Cormyr in the Forgotten Realms definitely has a conventional standing army with the Purple Dragons, not to mention the Harmonium in Planescape which served as a military-style police force. The idea of a purely feudal conscript army is certainly not the entire body of either historic or D&D lore.

 

[BluejayJunior]

As I think others have mentioned before, don't think of actions as skill checks.
The players say want they are trying to accomplish.
The DM decides if a check is necessary. This should be based on whether or not there is a meaningful consequence of failure, what they are trying to accomplish, how they are doing that, and if there is a time limit to the task.
The DM then decides what to roll is necessary. Start with one of the 6 abilities and decide which of those is most suited to the check. Then decide if there is a corresponding skill for that. If not, decide if the character's background would allow for adding their proficiency bonus.

I definitely get that is seems very abstract compared to the complexity of editions like 3rd/Pathfinder. And that can make it seem like there isn't enough there. But I would recommend actually playing it to see how it plays out for you before deciding whether it has enough fiddly bits for you. Once you get into the game, it could be that you don't really miss those fiddly bits like you thought you would and that those missing skills don't really come up. Or maybe you realize that all those bits are important for your group and this edition doesn't quite fit for you. Either way is fine. But I've found that actual play is best for determining how well you like something.

 

[jasper]

I don't even think I read Skills and Powers. But why don't you use the book and covert to 5E. I quit playing during 3.5 and had trouble accepting the less skill checks.

 

[Flamestrike]

The closest I can see for my example is the Soldier background, but that doesn't give any special proficiency on any skills related to soldiering, and there's no way to gain anything like this after beginning the game.

I dont know about you, but I just assume a PC with a background of Soldier or whatever knows how to be a Soldier, recognise ranks, pack stuff properly, march, salute, set watches, small unit tactics and so forth.

What does the game gain by having an epic hero of the realms have to roll a dice for that naughty word?