D&D 5E Professions in 5e

[WayOfTheFourElements]

This is one reason to use a ruling for the table in question. I look at 250 days, and think that's incredibly short for that kind of effort. In the real world, it takes three years to get through law school, and more to get on the job experience to fully fill out what I'd call "professional level proficiency." And, I'd have to ask - if it takes less than a year, why doesn't just about everyone of any wealth have it? But that's me, not Jester.

But D&D 5e proficiency isn't "professional level proficiency." It's merely 10%-30% better than the average roll. Expertise is only 20%-60% better. I'm sure the average law school graduate is much more than 60% better at law than I am. After 250 days's training, it seems reasonable someone would be 10% better than the average person.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

In 20 years of playing 3rd edition, I don't think that I have summed up 1 rank in any profession skill over all characters I played.

In 5E, I didn't even know it was missing.

It was one of the dumbest "skills" in 3E by design alone.

I think a large part of that depends on the setting. I had one player who tried to solve every problem with his Profession (Beer Drinker) skill. It was a blast. He walked around challenging monster to drinking contests and would only fight as a last resort. Another player had Profession (Gambler) and would always bet money his companion would lose. So, either way, I least one of them would win. Evertually, they were both eaten by a beholder. Everyone had a good time.

I also remember someone having Craft (eunuch) and Profession (renowned collector of unsavory sights). But we probably shouldn't talk about that.

 

[Parmandur]

But D&D 5e proficiency isn't "professional level proficiency." It's merely 10%-30% better than the average roll. Expertise is only 20%-60% better. I'm sure the average law school graduate is much more than 60% better at law than I am. After 250 days's training, it seems reasonable someone would be 10% better than the average person.

That assume that untrained rolls are possible, which isn't always the case. The core books suggest, and the published Adventures are chock-a-block full of examples of this, giving opportunities to roll only with Trained Skills. So if the Paladin is the only PC with Religion, he might be the only one who can roll at all to interpret the mural at the entrance to the Tomb of Annihilation, say. Not every character can roll each time.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

But D&D 5e proficiency isn't "professional level proficiency." It's merely 10%-30% better than the average roll. Expertise is only 20%-60% better. I'm sure the average law school graduate is much more than 60% better at law than I am. After 250 days's training, it seems reasonable someone would be 10% better than the average person.

I know what you are saying, but there is another element missing in this simplified math equation. It ignores the "If you are proficient in it you succeed automatically, otherwise roll X" option of using proficiencies when GMing, which very common....at least at my table.

 

[Parmandur]

Okay, as I'm trying to learn 5e, and coming from a 2e and 3e heritage, I'm seeing a HUGE gap as I read through the Player's Handbook.

Are there no skills/proficiencies at all for a character to know a profession?

There is the short list of very broad skills for characters, and craft skills (and many thieving skills) seem to fall under proficiency with the tools of that trade. . but what about professions that aren't centered around a toolkit?

For example. . .

If a player or DM wanted a PC or NPC to be proficient with soldiering, to know how to function as a professional soldier, to know drill and ceremony, military procedure and bureaucracy, they had options in previous editions.

In 1st and 2nd edition, they could have a Soldiering Non-Weapon Proficiency or a Soldier Secondary Skill.

In 3rd/3.5 edition, that would fall under the Profession (Soldier) skill.

4th edition didn't have Profession skills because WotC infamously said they "weren't fun" and that any games using them weren't fun. That sort of attitude was on the long list of reasons I ignored 4e.

. . .but I'm looking at 5e and trying to see how this would have any sort of profession related skill. 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. There's the training option for languages and tools, but that wouldn't cover a profession.

It seems like a gaping hole in the skills system. So, is there an option I'm overlooking? Is there some rule I'm missing?

It's pretty odd to move from the 3.x approach here, certainly. One part of the DMG I would recommend to understand the RAI, is to read the rules for alternate Skill systems near the back of the book. One of the suggestions is to drop all Skills, and make all uses of Proficiency a matter of channeling Background to make the case it applies to the DM on an Ad Box basis.

 

[prabe]

I like to gate some things behind proficiencies (though rarely just one), and I like to let people with proficiency auto-succeed while people without roll. I think 5E works well with both of those options.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

That assume that untrained rolls are possible, which isn't always the case. The core books suggest, and the published Adventures are chock-a-block full of examples of this, giving opportunities to roll only with Trained Skills. So if the Paladin is the only PC with Religion, he might be the only one who can roll at all to interpret the mural at the entrance to the Tomb of Annihilation, say. Not every character can roll each time.

You wouldn't let a character defend himself in court without law training?

 

[Parmandur]

You wouldn't let a character defend himself in court without law training?

That doesn't come up too often in game, in my experience, but that would not be a good idea if tried, no. The Bard might be able to swing it, or another character with an appropriate Background. Gating checks is an important concept in 5E.

 

[prabe]

You wouldn't let a character defend himself in court without law training?

Not speaking for @Parmandur here, but I might let the character lacking a relevant proficiency roll something, but I'd then let a character with the proficiency autosucceed (to the extent possible).

Edit: And ... ninja'd.

 

[Parmandur]

Not speaking for @Parmandur here, but I might let the character lacking a relevant proficiency roll something, but I'd then let a character with the proficiency autosucceed (to the extent possible).

Edit: And ... ninja'd.

Depends on the gravity of the charges, and the evidence at hand, too. Highly specific example, honestly,more data needed.